NCJ Number
71111
Date Published
1980
Length
165 pages
Annotation
A review of 10 studies to assess delinquency prevention programs reveals that only one program was effective in preventing delinquency. The studies all used the classic experimental design.
Abstract
The experiments studied were the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study (Massachusetts); the New York City Youth Board Validation Study of the Glueck Prediction Table; the Maximum Benefits Project of Washington, D.C.; the Midcity Project of Boston; the Youth Consultation Service Project of New York; and the Chicago Youth Development Project. Also included were the Seattle Atlantic Street Center Experiment; the Youth Development Program, Columbus, Ohio; the Opportunities for Youth Project, Seattle; and the Wincroft Youth Project, Manchester, England. The programs' theoretical underpinnings varied widely, some adhering to the belief that deviant children lack proper adult role models, some suggesting that delinquents have low self-esteem and poor ego strength, and some basing services on the premise that the juveniles suffer from a disorganized family life or from deprived social circumstances. Others explained delinquent behavior in terms of the juveniles' need to fulfill the expectations of other people significantly in their lives. All of the programs were voluntary, and all had evaluation procedures as part of their operation. The studies showed that the delinquency prevention services provided were no more effective than an absence of services. A common outline is used in presenting each experiment: (1) background -- how and why the experiment was undertaken; (2) theoretical orientations of the service given; (3) the research design; (4) identification of treatment providers; (5) characteristics of the treatment population; (6) specific dimensions of the service given -- amount of contact time, the treatment plan, and the involvement of the experimental subjects; (7) the findings; and (8) recommendations, when made, of the study staff. A final section, following the outline used to analyze each experiment, draws all experiments together in order to discuss the differences, similarities, shortcomings, strengths, and persisting legal and procedural dilemmas which characterize the experiments taken together. For instance, contact with experimental subjects by treatment providers was found to be extremely modest in most experiments (less than three contacts a month). Moreover, a preponderance of all experimental subjects were nonwhite. Footnotes, a table, and references are provided. (Author Abstract Modified)