Differential Association - A Tool

• NCJ Number: 87079
• Journal: Juvenile and Family Court Journal Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Dated: (November 1982) Pages: 43-48
• Author(s): F Sullivan; R Chapin; R G Whittemore
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 6 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article describes a program that develops interactions between individual juvenile delinquents, a probation officer, and an inmate consultant to help the delinquents become aware of the potential consequences of their delinquent behavior, and program evaluation methodology and results are reported.

Abstract

The greatest number of juveniles in the program came through the intensive supervision unit, which deals with multiple offenders and the juvenile who needs a degree of supervision not commonly found in regular probation caseloads. Background information on the juvenile or personal discussion by the probation officer about the juvenile is made available to the inmate consultant, who, with the probation officer, can then make a tentative decision about the approach to be used in the session with the juvenile. The approach may be communication, confrontation, or a combination of both. The communication approach uses the acceptance, understanding, and communication mode of Tyler. The confrontation approach is basically a forceful explanation of what prison is like, the mistakes the consultant has made, and the parallels in the juvenile's current behavior. The juvenile and consultant are introduced by the probation officer, who may stay for the first session. After the session, all consultants and probation officers in the program meet for a discussion session. The need for and the content of future sessions with the juvenile are considered. The participant group was compared with Group I (juveniles referred during the same period as the participant group but not seen by the consultants) and with Group II (other juveniles in the master list of youth referred any time since 1970, when the current recordkeeping was adopted). Findings showed that referrals for property and person offenses were lower for participants in the first and second years after participation. The consultants also benefited from the program. Tabular data are provided.