A Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, And

7/31/2019 A Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, And

1/29

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Wollongong]

On: 8 January 2011

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907698330]

Publisher Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-

41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653646

Janay B. Sandera; Jill D. Sharkeyb; Roger Olivarria; Diane A. Tanigawab; Tory Mausethaa The University of Texas at Austin, b University of California, Santa Barbara

Online publication date: 15 December 2010

Sander, Janay B. , Sharkey, Jill D. , Olivarri, Roger , Tanigawa, Diane A. and Mauseth, Tory(2010) 'AQualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, and Interpersonal Relationships: Implications for ResearchDirections and Preventionist Approaches', Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20: 4, 288 315

10.1080/10474412.2010.522878

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2010.522878

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,

actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653646http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2010.522878http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2010.522878http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653646


2/29

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20:288315, 2010

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1047-4412 print/1532-768X online

DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2010.522878

CONSULTATION IN SOCIETAL CONTEXT

A Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders,Student Engagement, and InterpersonalRelationships: Implications for ResearchDirections and Preventionist Approaches

JANAY B. SANDERThe University of Texas at Austin

JILL D. SHARKEYUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

ROGER OLIVARRIThe University of Texas at Austin

DIANE A. TANIGAWAUniversity of California, Santa Barbara

TORY MAUSETHThe University of Texas at Austin

Background factors that correlate with juvenile delinquency areconsistent across the interdisciplinary literature base. Yet, infor-mation about the process of how risks relate to outcomes, espe-

cially within school settings, is limited. Researchers used quali-tative methods to examine school and interpersonal experiencesfrom the perspective of juvenile offenders and their families. Six-teen families were recruited from juvenile probation facilities in2 different geographic regions. Consensual Qualitative Researchmethods yielded consistent themes, including the central role of advocacy to obtain appropriate school services, the importance of

Correspondence should be sent to Janay B. Sander, The University of Texas at Austin,Educational Psychology, 1 University Station D5800, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail: janay.sander@

mail.utexas.edu

288


3/29

Delinquency and School Experiences 289

flexibility in discipline policies, classroom experiences that shapedoutcomes, and the importance of nonjudgmental social support

for the adolescents and their parents. The findings and recommen-dations for school consultants are presented from a preventionist

standpoint, and self-determination theory is discussed in relationto future juvenile delinquency research.

Juvenile delinquency and crime is a problem on many societal levels. Al-though precise statistics are not available, approximately 1 million youthshave contact with court systems in the United States. Nearly 14% of those

youths end up in out-of-home placements, including detention centers (Of-fice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010). The vast major-ity return to their communities, where juvenile probation services handle

their cases. Most adolescents on probation attend public schools via regulareducation, special education classes, and alternative education placements.

Although the factors associated with juvenile delinquency include family,community, and individual traits, negative school experiences are partic-ularly salient predictors of delinquency in the literature. Juvenile offend-ers experience high rates of academic failure and low interest in school(Farrington, 2005; Foley, 2001). The background factors and school-relatedrisks are important yet difficult to disentangle in terms of facilitating factors,causality, and practical solutions. In light of the large volume of existingresearch on background factors that predict delinquency, a better under-

standing of facilitating factors (Agnew, 2005) and information about howto connect juvenile offenders to school and facilitate academic success isneeded.

DELINQUENCY AND THE SCHOOL EXPERIENCE

School-related factors associated with adolescent delinquency include pres-ence of specific learning difficulties, low verbal intelligence, low school

achievement, and low engagement in school (Farrington, 2005). Adoles-cents involved in juvenile justice systems participate in special educationat a rate of 37% (Zabel & Nigro, 1999), which is in stark contrast to thenational rate of only around 8% (National Center for Education Statistics,2002). Additional factors that predict delinquency include dropping out ofschool, multiple school transitions, school suspension and expulsion, andlow academic tracking (Hawkins et al., 2000; Valois, MacDonald, Bretous,Fischer, & Drane, 2002). Knowledge of these individual factors does notadequately address the schools role in facilitating delinquency. Given thealarming rates of educational challenges for adolescents involved in juvenile

justice systems it is critical to examine educational experiences for this group.


4/29

290 J. Sander et al.

School System Influence on Delinquency

School factors not only contribute to risk for delinquency but also theymay be more significant predictors of delinquency than individual studentcharacteristics. Negative school factors include high retention rates, frequent

use of expulsion or suspension in discipline policies, infrequent use ofpositive behavior strategies, ineffective classroom management (Christle, Jo-livette, & Nelson, 2005), poor teacher-student relationships (Baker, Grant,& Morlock, 2008; Pianta, 1999), and weak school-community connections(Stormshak & Dishion, 2002). Some professionals might argue that havingmany students with low academic skills or high levels of disruptive behaviorsis what burdens schools to create these other negative school qualities. Otherscholars highlight the literature indicating that protective factors associated

with resilience apply across settings. After all, resilience is only necessaryin the presence of risks (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins,2004). Of all the school-level predictors of juvenile delinquency, salientones are student engagement, interpersonal relationships, and disciplinepolicies.

Student engagement. Theories of social control propose engagementwith school provides a reason for refraining from delinquent behavior. Sup-porting these theories, a sense of belonging and affiliation to school hasbeen found to be associated with less delinquency and violence (Mulvey &Cauffman, 2001). Student engagement is a multidimensional construct mea-suring observable factors of academic (e.g., test scores) and behavioral (e.g.,

attendance) engagement and internal factors of cognitive (e.g., thoughts) andpsychological engagement (e.g., feelings; Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & An-derson, 2003). Student engagement is associated with positive outcomes suchas academic performance and negative outcomes such as delinquency anddropout (Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006). School assets, includingcaring adults, are related to positive engagement of students from diversefamily backgrounds, even after accounting for individual student resilience(Sharkey, You, & Schnoebelen, 2008).

Student engagement is often measured by indicators such as completionof homework, participation in school activities, or attendance. The factors

that facilitate student engagement are more challenging to quantify yet arecrucial to understand in order to foster student engagement. For example,school climate indicators correlate with student engagement (Benner, Gra-ham, & Mistry, 2008). School climate may be also measured by a number ofindicators such as student report of school appearance, faculty relationships,quality of student interactions, or perception of school policies. Yet thespecific ways these indicators facilitate student engagement are elusive.

Too often study designs fail to consider the problem of low engagementfrom the system level. Most of the existing research focuses on individualriskor background factors such as an individuals disengagement from school,


5/29


including negative emotional reactions, low participation in school activities,and low attendance (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008). For example,Dodge, Greenberg, and Malone (2008) tested a model that included thelow student engagement indicators of peer rejection, academic failure, and

low school participation as predictors of violent behavior. Although thestudy did contribute knowledge in terms of individual school and peer riskfactors, it was also limited to the students individual level of engagement inschool. The researchers did not assess the school-level indictors of studentengagement, such as relationships with teachers or relevance of school tasksto future goals, which are indicators of this construct at the system level(Appleton et al., 2008).

Interpersonal relationships. Although individual student factors are re-lated to violence outcomes, a more comprehensive and informative model

would also address relationships and interactions within schools and how

school factors facilitate academic failure, low participation, and violence(Christle et al., 2005). For example, a key interpersonal relationship in schoolis the student-teacher relationship. The quality of the teacher-student re-lationship is very important for student engagement in elementary school(Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004) and may influence the ultimate path in a de-

velopmental trajectory (Pianta, 1999). Positive teacher relationships predictacademic success in early grades, yet exactly what a teacher can do topromote positive relationships with students, and especially with middleschool and high school-age youths with behavior problems, is not welldocumented. Descriptive research centering on at-risk youths and their re-

lationships with teachers would help elucidate what interactions exacerbateor reduce behavior problems in schools.

Discipline policies. As another example of how school system-level fac-tors are essential to address in studying the problem of juvenile delinquency,the school literature indicates that punitive and exclusionary discipline poli-cies undermine student engagement (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). Schools thatrely on involuntary transfer, suspension, expulsion, and other punitive disci-pline strategies also tend to have the worst rates of behavior problems (Sugai& Horner, 1999). Although most adolescents respond quickly to graduated

levels of discipline in the regular school environment, the smaller portionof the student body who exhibit problem behaviors respond to punishmentwith increases, rather than decreases, in the undesired behavior with sideeffects including counteraggression, habituation to stronger consequences,and reinforcement (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). These same disruptive studentsalso miss instructional time and struggle academically. Clarification of howor why approaches are helpful in serving students may reduce resistance atthe system level. Thus, a better understanding of how school policies areexacerbating the problems for some students, as well as how to correct this,is needed before attempting systemic change in a top-down management

system (Scott et al., 2002).


6/29


METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE FIELDOF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

The juvenile delinquency literature already contains considerable informa-

tion on the indicators and outcomes associated with delinquency (Dodgeet al., 2008; Farrington, 2005; Foley, 2001). At this point, attention to school-and education-related experiences and process is highly relevant and iscalled for in the juvenile delinquency literature (Agnew, 2006). In order toprovide information on these types of experiences, understanding partici-pants perspectives as those closest to the phenomenon, rather than specifichypothesis-testing quantitative designs and large-scale surveys, would behelpful (Carter & Morrow, 2007).

Qualitative methods are the preferred choice for questions about pro-cess, and there are several additional advantages to this study design. Juvenile

offenders and their families are often disempowered and have little socialprivilege, and their unique perspectives may not have been addressed inlarge-scale study designs. In prevention, the perspective of the individuals

who experience the problem is important (Gullotta, 1987). Also, in order tocontribute to the literature in a field that contains a large number of facts,a method that addresses prior findings would not adequately incorporatethe established literature. Therefore, a postpositivist approach, one that isinformed based on some prior literature, yet open to the new process ofdiscovery and inquiry, is warranted. The phenomenon itself is studied usingthe subjective experience of the individuals most affected and marginalizedby it, incorporating elements of a constructivist approach (Carter & Morrow,2007).

Study Rationale

The main gaps in the current literature relate to complex questions, suchas how school failure relates to delinquency and why students themselvesperceive schools as negative, not additional documentation of schooldropout, low test scores, and poor attendance rates. Details of the social

contexts, interpersonal interactions, and cognitive processes that relatespecifically to the adolescent-limited delinquent are missing. We sought tohelp clarify the facilitating factors and interpersonal interactions in school-related settings that subsequently promote or reduce delinquent behaviorsand attitudes.

Qualitative data allow researchers to focus on how the cultural andinstitutional context impacts stakeholders (Nastasi & Schensul, 2005). Quali-tative research includes attending to rigorous guidelines to yield meaningfuland credible data. Consensual Qualitative Research (CQR; Hill et al., 2005)

was selected to address the complexity of relations among the variables

as well as to best account for the multisite research team. It is a blend of


7/29


constructivist and postpositivist approaches. The idea that the adolescentsand their parents would be taken as authorities on their experiences in orderto inform researchers understanding is a considerable difference from thetraditional large-scale positivist approach to research. The CQR approach

is also consistent with literature regarding the importance of empoweringtypically disempowered individuals and being sensitive to cultural, linguis-tic, and other minority groups (Bursztyn, 2007). CQR is a team approach,allowing for checks and balances to address the salient concerns inherent inqualitative research: to retain objectivity, incorporate multiple perspectives,and apply rigorous procedures to help ensure integrity of the data gleanedfrom participants stories and experiences.

RESEARCH PURPOSE

The main purpose of this study is to provide a deeper understanding ofthe school experiences associated with high risk for juvenile delinquencyfrom the perspective of the juvenile offenders and their parents. This studyaddresses relationships at school, learning challenges, discipline procedures,and parent-school relationships in order to inform future directions in ju-

venile delinquency research. Drawing on existing literature summarizingschool risks for delinquency, we asked a series of semistructured questionsdesigned to probe the following areas: (a) What were the challenges, such

as emotional, learning, or behavioral problems, experienced by adolescentson probation over the course of their lives? (b) How did school systemsand parents respond to or address those challenges? (c) Which approachesin schools were particularly helpful from the participants perspectives? Allfindings will be synthesized with existing juvenile delinquency literature withparticular attention to preventionist approaches and recommendations forschool-based psychological consultation.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were recruited at two locations through juvenile justice centers inTexas and California. The participants included adolescents on probation andtheir mothers. The study included analysis of 32 individually administeredsemistructured interviews, each lasting about 1 hr. Each participant met withresearchers only once.

Adolescents. Adolescent participants included a total of 12 males and

4 females between the ages of 13 and 17 years (M D 15.25, SD D 1.18)


8/29


who (a) were currently serving probation; (b) had between one and threenonfelony adjudications, the latest at least 1 month prior to study partici-pation; (c) were living with a parent or guardian; and (d) were fluent inEnglish. Offenses included assault, assaulting a police officer, trespassing,

graffiti, arson, drug possession, truancy, and auto theft. Seven participantsresided in California and 9 resided in Texas. Eight adolescents identified asWhite (non-Latino), 5 identified as Mexican American, and 2 identified asmixed ethnicity or race: 1 White/Mexican American and 1 Black/Mexican

American. All participants have been given pseudonyms to protect theiridentities.

Mothers. Sixteen mothers also volunteered to be in the study. The agerange of mothers was 3355 years (MD 43.73, SDD 5.80). Nine womenidentified as White/non-Latino, and 7 women identified as Mexican Ameri-can. Maternal education levels included the following: less than high school

(n D 1), high school diploma (n D 3), vocational training post high school(n D 7), and college degree or beyond (n D 4).

The research team. A total of 13 research members participated in thecoding process, all of whom were affiliated with school psychology trainingprograms. Five researchers were both interviewers and coders (2 facultymembers, 2 doctoral students, and 1 masters student), 5 team membersparticipated in coding (2 doctoral students and 3 masters students), and5 additional team members participated in consensus coding meetings butnot the dyad coding or auditing pairs (2 doctoral students, 2 psychologymajor undergraduates, and 1 bachelors degree member). The ages of team

members ranged from 21 to 35 years (MD 26.6). Several cultural groupswere represented: White (n D 10), Mexican American (n D 2), JapaneseAmerican or Asian (n D 2), and Iranian (n D 1). One graduate student wasmale; the rest of the team was female.

As is typical in the CQR method of analysis used in this study (Hill,Thompson, & Williams, 1997), a description of the research team membersis necessary in order to understand potential areas of researcher bias, in-terpersonal or social power, and possible influence on the data analysisprocess. Prior to pursuing a doctorate, one team member had been a police

officer in an urban juvenile detention center, another had a masters degreein criminal justice, and one taught anger management strategies to adoles-cents on probation in foster homes. The primary investigator in Texas hadexperience providing behavioral and cognitive interventions to youths withconduct disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in day treatmentand residential psychiatric settings, including a juvenile detention centerfor emotionally disturbed offenders. The primary investigator in Californiahad experience as a participant interviewer about risk factors related toconduct disorder and has consulted with juvenile probation departmentsregarding risk assessment procedures. In general, the potential bias of the

team was that juvenile justice systems and schools have the potential to


9/29


influence development in positive and negative ways; juvenile offenders arebest served when professionals are aware of the culture and developmen-tal needs of the adolescent, emotional concerns, learning difficulties, andenvironmental constraints; and with the right tools and tailored empirically

supported interventions, juvenile offenders could attain positive emotional,behavioral, and academic outcomes.

Procedures

Fliers inviting juveniles on probation, ages 13 to 17 years old, with a parentor guardian, were mailed from probation departments to the adolescentshome addresses and posted in the juvenile justice center lobby. Participantscontacted one of the lead investigators directly to schedule the interview.

The fliers stated that eligible participants must be (a) living at home withparent or guardian and (b) fluent in English. These eligibility criteria werebased on logistic and ethical reasons. The research team was only able tocode in English. Any participant who contacted a researcher and indicated

willingness to participate was included.A research team pair interviewed the mother and the adolescent partic-

ipant simultaneously during the same visit, but the conversations were heldin separate rooms for privacy. The semistructured interview was based onquestions about home, school, and peers and how the adolescent experi-enced any notable life events or difficulties along with how the other peopleresponded or reacted to those events or situations. For example, What isschool like for you? Can you give me some examples of that? or If youever get in trouble at school, how does (each person listed) react? What

would be typical for him/her to do? or If you have a problem, any sort ofproblem, who are the people you ask to help you? How might they help?Parent questions included topics similar to the adolescent interview. A fulllist of interview prompts is available from the first author.

The lead investigator and the graduate student interviewer took turnsinterviewing the parent and adolescent, alternating with each new participant

pair. Twelve parent-adolescent interviews took place in the participantshome. Two families participated at university offices at the familys request,and 2 families participated at the probation office at the familys request. Allinterviews were conducted at times to accommodate the familys schedules,usually evening or weekend times. The time required for families was ap-proximately 3 hr. The interviews were audiotaped. All families were given$50 at the conclusion of the visit. The compensation was a specific pointof concern as an ethical issue of potential coercion. After some discussion,the researchers, the Institutional Review Boards, and probation departmentsagreed this amount was appropriate due to the low benefit to participants

and the time and effort required by the study.


10/29


Coding and Analysis Process

Interviews followed a semistructured format to follow the content areas doc-umented in the literature as risks for delinquency. All interviews were tran-scribed verbatim, but all identifying information was disguised and all names

were altered to pseudonyms. Coding followed the Consensual QualitativeResearch (CQR) method (Hill et al., 1997). Hill and her colleagues (1997)outline the core components of CQR, including (a) open-ended questions

via semistructured format are used; (b) multiple judges are needed to informmultiple perspectives on the interview content; (c) judges reach a consensusto determine the meaning of data content; (d) an auditor checks the workto decrease groupthink; and (e) core concepts and domains arise throughcross-analysis from data to team and back to data as a process.

This study was coded using a rotating team approach, which is recom-mended for larger teams (greater than 4 members in CQR) and facilitatescoding of a larger number of interviews (more than 12) to minimize coderfatigue (Hill et al., 1997). This team consisted of 13 members and a total of32 interviews were coded. To begin, 2 families were interviewed and theentire research team coded these first 4 interviews independently. Then the

whole group met to reach consensus, resulting in an initial code map ofthe interview content. The codes represented core ideas, similar to the opencoding process in grounded theory research (Hill et al., 1997). The consensusmeetings occurred via weekly conference phone meetings after individualcoding of transcripts. After whole team consensus with 9 interviews, the

research team agreed that the code map was stable. The team remainedopen to new categories and discussed the possibility of new codes at eachmeeting, but no new coding categories emerged after the 9th interview.Beginning with the 10th interview the team split into coder and auditordyads such that 2 coders and 2 different auditors were assigned in rotatingorder to each transcript to avoid any systematic bias by any given dyad.The rotating dyad approach was used to mitigate groupthink and bias dueto power or influence from any one team member (such as an advancedstudent or a faculty member paired with a less advanced graduate student).The first 7 interviews were added back into the coding rotation to capture

any code categories that had developed since they were initially codedin the category-forming process. After interviews were consensus coded,the content was transferred to spreadsheets and grouped by coding themecategories. The spreadsheets were audited in rotating pair dyads to ensurecontent was appropriately placed and that any additional coding categories,if appropriate, were noted. Weekly whole group meetings occurred for theduration of the coding and auditing process.

After each interview with participants, interviewers debriefed within siteteams and also in weekly phone conferences with the other site. Interviewersused summaries of contact notes for initial interviews, but team debriefing


11/29


and discussion served as a sounding board for ideas in later interviews. Thefaculty investigator in Texas read all interview transcripts, reviewed all auditcoding spreadsheets, and summarized themes. The faculty investigator inCalifornia subsequently reviewed the themes and tallied the frequency of

each in order to provide objectivity and balance to any conclusions. Thefrequency counts were verified by a doctoral student. An external reviewer,a faculty member who teaches quantitative methods, experimental design,and qualitative research methods courses, reviewed the coding themes andprocess several times during the study to ensure integrity of the processand serve as a check of the match between coding categories and ex-amples that were within each category. As an additional external checkof findings and conclusions, as well as verification that the participantsseemed to accurately reflect the population of interest, preliminary sum-maries of themes were presented to the participating juvenile corrections

facilities. Staff at both locations indicated the data seemed representative oftheir population, and findings appeared reasonable and consistent with theirexperiences.

RESULTS

The following three main themes emerged: (a) the importance and limitationsof supportive relationships, namely, those involving mothers and teachers;

(b) low father involvement and the decline in parenting support for mothers;and (c) low engagement or limited success in school that was disappointingto the adolescents. See Table 1 for a list and frequencies of each theme.Examples of theme content in participants own words are included later.

Importance and Limitations of Supportive Relationships

Participants valued close family and school-based relationships and support,but even when these relationships existed, they were not sufficient to deter

delinquency. There were slight differences in the specific ways adolescentsdescribed positive relationships with parents and teachers (see Table 1).Examples of parent support most frequently include strong child advocacyand provision of concrete type of assistance. These parenting behaviors aresomewhat different from a close emotional type of caring but still viewedas helpful to the adolescent. Teacher and school administrator support wasusually in the form of individualized concern or attention that was within therole of their job. It is interesting that the relationship did not come in the formof outside school activities or a form of mentorship or outside time spenttogether in a teacher-child relationshipthe everyday teacher relationships

were meaningful to the students.


12/29


TABLE 1 Code Map Themes, Subcategories, and Frequencies

Importance and limitations of interpersonal relationships

GeneralValued relationship with mom as supportive advocateDescribed specific qualities of favorite teachers, i.e., really cared

TypicalOther adult interest in child is appreciatedExtended family/close friend as support/positive role modelPositive and supportive relationships between adults in environment

VariantImpersonal approach/adult disregard for situation exacerbates problemsDesire to move for a fresh start to escape bad reputation

Troubled father relationship/Low father involvement

GeneralMention of strained father relationship for child as a negative experience

TypicalMom struggles with discipline as single parent, needs a coparent figureMom has limited social support, which adds to stress in general

VariantFather of child in prisonChild abused by fatherChild struggles with stepparent relationship

RareLack of father involvement in childs life is emotionally painful for childDomestic abuse involving parents

Low student engagement and limited school success

GeneralNot engaged in schoolIntent to complete high school or get General Equivalency Diploma (GED)

TypicalIntent to complete collegeClearly negative relationships between home and schoolLectures, workshops, rote learning is boringReceived extra help/tutor/counselingDescribed as very smart

VariantMentions other life goalsEducation-related services needed but difficult to acquireSchool transitions are keySmall teacher-student ratio neededResort to homeschooling due to frustrationDiscovery learning ideal to engage the childChild not strong student according to child or parent

RareObserved that teachers seem overburdened in public schools

Note. Frequencies of themes counted as follows: the topic was mentioned in 13 cases D Rare; 47

cases D Variant; 812 cases D Typical; 1316 cases D General. One parent and child unit equals one

case. Total D 16 cases.


13/29


Mother support. With parents, a common phrase to describe motherswas She is always there for me. Fourteen adolescents said that they had aclose relationship with their mother and often mentioned ways she providedsupport in emotional and also concrete ways. John said he appreciated his

mother paying for his special classes and paying for his probation expenses.An example Joey provided of his mother and father was, I can go to mymom or I can go to both of my parents. Like if I had a serious problem,theyre my parents. Like I feel like I can go to them. Jake explained howhis mother provided for him in two ways:

Shes there for me like if I need anything, like for probation, stuff likethat, like sports and she needs to buy me stuff like that : : : [also] like,

when I was just like mad about something. Like, like I wasnt in themood, like a good mood, and like she knew it and like she just asked

why and I just told her about it.

Another common example was the parent advocating in school systems.Here Jakes mother explains how she took action when her son was caught atschool with a pocketknife and a small amount of marijuana in his backpack:

So when he got in trouble for the marijuana : : : [the school administrator]made it look like he was this monster child gonna terrorize the school: : : :

And it was just a little pocketknife, Im not talking a big switchblade oranything: : : : And then they were gonna send him to another school,outside, well, to [nearby town known for heavy gang affiliation] and I

said, No: : :

I just dont want him around gangbangers and druggies andall those other kids. Cuz this kid isnt into that. Now youre gonna puthim into a society of it. : : : So I fought the school, I fought the schooldistrict bad. I did everything, so they let him back in [his regular] school.So he got back in school [and did not get into more trouble].

Toms mother advocated for a match with teacher style for her sons needfor structure:

So we were gonna move to another school down the street, so I went

over and talked to the principal before the school year ended, that hewould be entering, and explained who he was and asked for a teacherthat she thought would be a good match for him. And we got one andit was a really good year, she was very umm, she had a very structuredclass. He did really well in that class. And then he had a couple teachersthere actually that were outstanding.

Miguel explained his mothers support of him in this way:

I dont know what she could help me with. I mean, she could help mewith like anything really, but I dont really choose her to help me with

it. She would, I mean, if I didnt reach my goal shed encourage me,


14/29


like you did good, to try harder, even if I do bad in like a basketballgame, or something, shell say you did good. Even if I know I did bad,shell say that, shes just really encouraging, like if I dont make a goalor something.

Javier described emotional support:

I dont know, she doesnt get mad at me if she knows Im like goingthrough something, even though she should be, she wont [get angry].Like the whole thing with my ex-girlfriend : : : I was going through ahard time : : : she got mad about [me disobeying my girlfriends dadsrules], but she understood.

Although in most cases strong maternal support was considered a pos-

itive example of an emotional need that was met, in some cases it was notsufficient to offset other risks or strains. Some examples did not clearly showhow mothers supported adolescents and had little evidence or examplesof instrumental support or emotional caring, such as Roxanne. This wasatypical.

Interviewer: Can you tell me a little about your relationship with yourmom?

Roxanne: Its good um, shes a mom you know, and sometimes you just,mothers, always two different things, you know, and you know it causethats everybody, every, every, everybody. But nothing really, um shesa good mom and Im happy, you know.

It was clear that having parent support, even when it was present, wasnot sufficient. As Sally Jos mother explained it, All she has is me. She has noother family members who are really important in her life but me. She solelydepends on me. In Sally Jos case, her emotional needs, acknowledgedby both Sally Jo and her mother in the interviews, exceeded her motherscapacity to address them, but Sally Jo still viewed her mother as doing the

best she could.Teacher support. Next, most adolescent participants (n D 13) describedqualities of favorite teachers. The most common positive teacher trait wasthat he or she provided individual attention or seemed to really care aboutthe adolescent. Examples of caring included behaviors such as taking timeto explain homework, treating the class fairly, speaking in a pleasant or eventone, and recognizing student effort. The examples the adolescents providedas ways teachers demonstrate caring to students were within the context ofa classroom setting as opposed to extracurricular activities or mentorshiproles. Javier particularly liked it when teachers like they just talk to you,

help you, instead of just trying to be in control.


15/29


Joeys mother elaborated on the relationship with his teacher to max-imize motivation for her son at school, including several ways the teachermade learning relevant for Joey:

He had his fifth-grade teacher was actually an engineer for a [major videogame company] so he and Joey really connected and Joey stayed afterschool, he showed him how to do computer programming, I guess hehad a brother apparently that had had a lot of the same struggles. So wetouched base every week, and he was awesome. Joey really felt goodabout himself that year, he had a lot of positive experiences at school yaknow, and so we requested the next year he taught sixth grade too, sohe was lucky he had that.

In his own separate interview, Joey also mentioned this teacher:

My teacher in fifth and sixth grade. I guess he really liked me, he like,he saw Im good at building things, like were a lot alike, like he was anengineer and everything before he was a teacher so, hed always like,he was a really out-of-the-box teacher. Like hed teach a lot of cool stuffand, but like, he never even, he gave me straight As cuz I like I didnt,Id do the work in like a minute and then Id just sit there and then hedgimme another paper with the same stuff on it. And then like after a

while Id ask him like Why do I have to keep doing the same stuff? sohe started giving me like the sixth-grade stuff.

Malcolm, a smart student who had done well academically according to

his mother, also appreciated having help in classes:

But see in Biology I get my homework done like that, because he makesit fun, he jokes around with us for the first five to ten minutes, passesout our homework, if we have questions go through he will help us. Butthe other teachers they just go on and on and on, talk, talk, last fifteenminutes, theyll pass out the work, we try to do it. We ask for help. [Thoseteachers say] they will help us out once or twice, : : : no more than that.

Zachary, who has dual citizenship in the United States and a European

country, mentioned individual consideration within a cultural context:I liked my first teacher she was very nice : : : She was very kind andunderstanding. She understood that I came from a different culture andshe worked with that and I got better and better.

Roxanne, who her mother described as capable but not a strong student,mentioned getting help from her math teacher:

My math teacher [helped me] and she like simplified it for me and shesaid all you have to do is this, theres no big equation, just do this part.

She helped me out with that, so she like made it small for me.


16/29


Social support. Ten participants echoed realizations about a group orsmall number of specific people who conveyed genuine concern and supportto the adolescent as an individual, which helped them make positive choices.In one case a community organized to convey support for Tony, who

represents one of the most severe cases of delinquency from our sample,and this outpouring of support from adults and peers combined seemed tobe a turning point for him toward rehabilitation. As he explained it,

I think the one thing theyre [kids are] scared of the mostbecause theywant to be hardis love. You know they dont want to be soft, so I say[they need] just like tons of outpouring of [love] : : : cause I mean, whenI, when I was in detention I started getting letters from a whole bunchof people in the church. I was like dang : : : like people like I didnteven know were sending me letters : : : and they were like, you know,

we miss the kid that used to help us out, used to go downtown [to feedhomeless people] with us.

The main idea that participants conveyed related to the need for sup-portive relationships was that the other person was accepting and nonjudg-mental of the adolescent as a person in spite of any negative behaviors, andthe adolescent appreciated that aspect of the relationship. In Tonys case,his mother consistently conveyed her support of him as an individual, anda family friend, a religious leader in their community, also mentored Tony.Many forms of positive social support were appreciated, even when it was

insufficient to offset the mountain of negative feedback. The participantsvalued receiving messages that they as individuals count and that theirbehavior is separate from their real sense of self or their worth as a person.

Adolescents wanted to be connected to prosocial peer groups and wereunable to form those relationships without some structure to do so, suchas when adults allowed them access to activities or programs that includedpositive peers.

Troubled Father Relationship/Low Father Involvement

Mothers in our study shouldered most of the parental responsibilities. Allbut one of the adolescent participants, regardless of family composition,had problematic relationships with their fathers. Fathers were unavailabledue to a variety of circumstances: he was simply absent, in jail, abusive,or present but emotionally unavailable to the adolescent participant. Twoadolescents lived with both biological parents, 8 had single-mother house-holds, and 6 were living with their mother and stepfather. Three participantsexperienced trauma: Jakes mother shot and killed his father after years ofdomestic abuse; Tony was the product of rape and no one knows who

his father is; and Sally Jos father was charged (not convicted) for molest-


17/29


ing her when she was 18 months old, followed by years of supervisedvisitation. Several participants rarely saw their fathers, two fathers were inprison for fraud or drug-related crimes, and 3 adolescents directly conveyedongoing feelings of rejection when fathers remarried and started a second

family.Our data highlight father absence or abuse as a facilitating factor ratherthan a risk by itself. Problematic father relationships affected mothers andchildren in distinct but different ways. One of the primary ways fatherabsence facilitated delinquency was the related challenge mothers faced

with parenting. What is interesting is how mothers turned to police andjuvenile justice as a form of a coparenting system to achieve discipline.Several mothers mentioned how probation offices or school administratorshelped mothers in their role of disciplinarian. A concrete example of thisparenting support interaction during a conflict between Sally Jo and her

mother follows:

[The police officer] just told her not to talk and she talked [disrespectfullyto her mother] and he said, Okay thats enough. He actually took herdownstairs, put cuffs on her and sat her in the back of the police car andeverything. It got her attention because she was crying when she cameback up and everything. He told me he said, Whenever you feel like

you need to call me again just call me.

Sally Jos mother never did call the officer, but she told researchers thatcarrying his business card in her wallet gave her a sense of power that shecould use if needed.

Tony explained what happened between his mother and a school ad-ministrator. This assistant principal took a personal interest in Tony and hadbeen watching Tony develop friendships with other adolescents who hada history of drug involvement. This assistant principal tried to get to knowTony and his mother. Tonys mother also told us about this administratorand conveyed appreciation for his actions. As Tony explained it,

Like, he [the assistant principal] constantly, yeah he called. He found, hegot our phone number and like he started talking to [my mom] regularlyand like, I started hating him because he, he was like constantly lookingfor me : : : he was trying to catch me [selling drugs] because he wantedit to be him to catch me instead of somebody thats gonna lock me up.

And I think that was kinda what my mom wanted to do too, but at thesame time she knew that the law could do more than she could.

Tony also expressed that the actions this assistant principal took were helpfulin eventually getting Tony out of drugs, even though it took a lot of effort

on that mans part.


18/29


Low Student Engagement and Limited Success in School

Another universal theme (n D 14) was school dissatisfaction or low en-gagement in school (see Table 1). Overall, student disengagement and asense of futility were evident regardless of socioeconomic status, parent

education, level of parental involvement, or intellectual capacity to master thecurriculum. For some adolescents it was related to boredom and disconnect

with teachers. As Tom said, She didnt help me with anything so I juststopped doing my work. For others it seemed to reflect a mismatch withlearning and instructional style, and for others it was an erosion of self-confidence in academics. As Tony noted,

I think about sixth grade : : : thats when I lost confidence a lot, cause Istarted failing and stuff cause stuff started getting harder and then I juststarted quitting and then the grades like dropped drastically, everything

went from like Bs to like not even Cs, it was all just failing.

As participants transitioned from elementary to middle school/juniorhigh, this was often a negative turning point characterized by more frequenttransitions and lower quality relationships with adult role models on schoolcampus. Several mothers mentioned this specific transition as problematic,as Malcolms mother did:

Hes not as nurtured. You know in grades kindergarten through five theyhave one teacher. Hes always been really really close to his teachers.

Hes hugged on them and loved his teacher. And um theres a separationin sixth grade. Theres no one he can attach himself to.

Half of the participants (n D 8) reported that classes were boring dueto a lecture or workbook style of teaching and a seemingly rigid curriculum.

As John remarked,

Like in kindergarten I was, they like put me in 1st grade and then like,I never, school just became boring and I just kinda stopped doing it : : :and since I have like learning disabilities, abilities, whatever you wanna

call it, I dont learn normal, like normal people. I cant do repeated work.

Johns mother added, Hes been on medication since third grade andumm hes really really smart. But umm schools been a disaster for the mostpart especially high school.

Echoing the themes mentioned by other participants, Zacharys motherexplained how important teaching approaches can be:

His first-grade teacher accused him of not trying. Not really trying todo his math. Now he had, every night, they gave him a math book

at the beginning of the year, and on every page there were like thirty


19/29


problems. And they were supposed to do a page a day, thirty problemsin the first grade. He was just so overwhelmed with that, like he didnt,he would just cry: : : : What they didnt understand, or even make theattempt to understand, is that Zacharys brain functions differently thana lot of other children. And given the right method, and with math itturns out it was very much a hands-on method, um, whoa, he made likeincredible progress.

Miguel discussed consideration for the teachers difficult role:

Well, I dont know, she started handing out referrals left and right, solike kids would stop talking, but I mean, that just made the students notlike her more. So, but if she was more lenient than kids would like, somekids would take that to an advantage, to talk a lot. So, I really dont know

what teachers could do, except be more strict, but that just would just

like, have a bad image of her from kids.

Despite negative school experiences, all adolescent participants ex-pressed the goal to complete high school or get a General EquivalencyDegree (GED). Most even named a specific future career goal, includingbarber, brewery master, computer game programmer, forensic doctor, NASAemployee, pilot, pharmacy technician, marriage counselor, mechanic, andteacher.

Interaction of FactorsThe following example illustrates how myriad factors are related. It includesthe parental role of support and advocacy; the childs eroded sense ofcompetence; and a transition to high school that ballooned into a seriousproblem for this girl and her family, which may have been exacerbated whenschool administrators were insensitive to the childs needs. It also shows howhaving an advocate and coparent assist the mother in advocating for the girl

was the key that facilitated Angelicas eventual success.Angelica had a history of premature birth, speech difficulties, special

education services for learning challenges in reading, and extreme shyness.She had difficulty making new friends in a transition to a new high schoolin ninth grade. She had no prior history of behavior problems in schoolbut began to cut classes early in the year, earning her detention and analternative school placement. Her mother had pleaded with the assistantprincipal to refrain from sending her to alternative placement, in part becausethe mother knew that Angelica was acting out on purpose to be near heronly friend in her new school, a girl with a history of truancy who wasalso at the alternative education setting. The administration sent Angelica toalternative placement according to the truancy policy. The schools actions

escalated her involvement with negative peer influences by alienating her


20/29


from positive peers in the new school setting by way of solidifying herreputation as someone who associates with troublemaker girls. Once onprobation for trespassing, because she set foot on her regular school campus

while placed at the alternative school, her probation officer joined with her

mother to advocate for steps that would help engage Angelica in positivepeer groups and integrate her back into the regular school setting. Onlyafter the probation officer stepped in did the school administration alterits approach with Angelica. The school allowed her to return to her regularschool. At the time of the interview, about 9 months after her criminal offenseof trespassing, Angelica had joined ROTC, was manager of the basketballteam, and had made several new friends who were approved of by hermother and probation officer. She is the new Angelica, as she described:

One teacher was like What happened to the old Angelica? I was like

Its still here, and they are like No its not, its like gone already, its thenew Angelica. (Interviewer: How does that make you feel?) I was likeWhoa it makes me feel good! Im like, Yeah! They say Im improving!

And me, let me just keep it up with it.

DISCUSSION

Juvenile offenders and their families are often disempowered, disenfran-chised, and stigmatized. They are also the closest to the phenomenon of

juvenile delinquency. With those caveats in mind, we adopted CQR methodsto study juvenile delinquency. Three main themes, all consistent with priorliterature, emerged. Participants discussed the challenges related to limitedsocial support for the family, the frustration of parents in advocating for theirchild in schools, and the importance of positive teacher-student relation-ships in terms of student engagement. Yet, each identified theme adds newinformation from the participants perspectives to illuminate how some ofthese background factors, often cited in existing literature, were connected todelinquency. The participants stories illuminate some recommendations forschool consultation and are consistent with prior literature but not redundant.

These recommendations fit within an existing theory of motivation, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002), and lend a framework to integratethese themes in a parsimonious way. This theory also is consistent with apreventionist perspective.

Self-Determination Theory

In taking a look at the three themes, we looked for a theory in the literaturethat included all three components. Self-determination theory emerged. This

theory began as a framework to study human development and personality.


21/29


It is an organismic theory, meaning it integrates the individual and that per-sons environment along with the degree to which the environment supportsor hinders the individuals self-actualization (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Thereis also emerging empirical support for this theory in educational settings

(Reeve, 2002).Briefly, self-determination theory predicts that the individuals overallhealthy integration and growth is related to the level of connection, com-petence, and autonomy that the individual experiences. Furthermore, anintegrated experience along all three dimensions is important as a basicpsychological need. First, connection or relatedness is a sense of belonging,of being cared for and caring for individuals, or of being accepted by others.Next, competence reflects the individuals sense of self-efficacy or usingones skills and capacities that result in some efficacious outcome. Third,autonomy is the feeling that a persons actions are a choice, and the actions

are consistent and fully integrated with individual interests, values, and senseof self. Autonomy does not mean independence but that even when anoutside source is guiding an action, the individual person finds his or herown behavior consistent with that choice, even if there is dependence onanother person (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Our findings add to the literature andsupport these constructs that self-determination theory addresses.

Importance of Supportive Relationships and Connection

In terms of connection, our study adds to the literature in three ways. One isto challenge or at least examine a stereotype that parents of juvenile offendersare uninvolved or unavailable to their children. The other is that familiesof juvenile offenders are often socially isolated. The third is that juvenileoffenders truly appreciated teacher relationships in terms of how teachershelped students learn.

First, some parents of juvenile offenders may indeed be uninvolved.Yet, the risk of single mothers and increases in delinquency may be betterexplained by the social isolation and high stress they regularly experience.There is considerable literature about families of juvenile offenders and

criminal behavior of high-risk groups. Over and over again, research demon-strates that parents of juvenile offenders are lacking in skills (Dodge et al.,2008). However, when interactions are taken into account, data support atransactional relation between disruptive behavior and parenting behavior(Connell, Spencer, & Aber, 1994), acknowledging the complex interactionsthat influence overall development.

Although negative family qualities are associated with families in thejuvenile justice system and have been proven to predict antisocial behavior,especially severe conduct disordered or antisocial cases (Dodge et al., 2008),not all families of juvenile offenders are so unhealthy. As a whole, the view

of parents as uncaring or uninvolved is a negative stereotype that needs


22/29


to be closely examined for each individual. Juvenile delinquency is a muchbroader problem than the specific diagnostic category of conduct disorder orantisocial personality disorder of the adult criminal. The stereotype, which issomewhat based on studies of select populations, may unfairly blame many

families, leading to further social stigma and perpetuating social isolation,further exacerbating delinquency propensity.Our study highlights the burden the parents faced in terms of feeling

solely responsible for their child, the absence of other adults to providesupport for their parenting role and as mentors for their child, and the stigmathey faced. Our findings echo results from a survey study by Bradshaw,Glaser, Calhoun, and Bates (2006). In that study, parents of juvenile offendersappreciated parent resources and experienced less stress and greater capacityfor the challenges of parenting their child as a result of the parenting support(Bradshaw et al., 2006). All of our adolescent participants reported supportive

maternal relationships, but most families endured considerable stress froma variety of sources. Additional research on family isolation, social supportresources, and both instrumental and emotional types of support for theparents as well as the adolescents is needed. Specific research into interper-sonal connection is warranted to elaborate on how social connections bolster

familieswhose children are specifically at risk for delinquency. Furthermore,careful attention to distinguish between research on youths with severeconduct disorder and a broader group of youths and families related tothe problem of juvenile delinquency is helpful in reducing stereotypes.

Student Engagement

Another way our study adds to the literature via self-determination theory isin the area of competence. This is also related to connection, namely, theteacher-student relationship. As prior literature showed, the quality of theteacher-student relationship is associated with positive academic outcomes(Pianta, Belsky, Vandergrift, Houts, & Morrison, 2008). Our study adds in the

ways that teachers are still important for students of middle school and highschool age. Our adolescent participants conveyed that theywanted teachers

to help them with their learning. This input from our participants challengesthe stereotype that juvenile offenders are uninterested in school. It is likelythese adolescents are unmotivated, but that is not the same as uninterested.

We consider this an important distinction.Interestingly, all adolescents in this sample had future goals; most of

them involved specific training for a career vocation. In the opinion ofthe investigators, their goals seemed realistic given the general skills andinterests of the adolescents. Such reasonable articulation of future aspira-tions demonstrates a resiliency among these participants to follow dreamsand create opportunities for themselves despite significant challenges and

obstacles in their school experiences. Such career motivation provides some


23/29


helpful insight that even though these participants were likely not engagedin school per se, they were looking for ways to obtain meaningful jobs fortheir own futures, and they did still value education.

It is helpful to consider research on expectations and student perfor-

mance as studies have demonstrated that teacher expectations do influencestudent performance (McKowan & Weinstein, 2008). Again, returning toself-determination theory, the adolescents expressed a desire to understandthe material, a desire to achieve academic competence. They experienceddiscouragement and became disengaged in school tasks in part due to thenegative interactions in school of boring teaching or a strained teacher-student relationship in which the adolescent did not feel comfortable askingfor or receiving academic help. Future research specifically about teacher-student relationships, teacher expectations of student achievement, and aca-demic competence in secondary education settings is warranted.

Parent Advocacy

The role of parent as child advocate is instrumental in getting adolescentsappropriate services through schools and is also a source of strain on thefamily that the parent must take this role. This also fits with the constructof autonomy from self-determination theory. The mothers in this study ap-peared to have a sense of power, a sense of authority that they couldapproach schools, disagree with school administrators, make requests, andseek services for their children. They also conveyed how hard it is to do so,describing the stress of taking on the advocate role and being at odds withschools at times. Parents and youth participants illuminated how the simpleact of collaboration from school administrators was a huge relief, a powerfulreduction in strain, and helpful to their childs success. School staff andadministrators who listen and consider parents requests and show respectfor the parent, such as making time to meet before it is a crisis or legal issue,holding meetings at times when parents do not have to jeopardize their jobsto attend, and adjusting policies to meet the individual needs of students

were all ways schools alleviated strain on the child and the family. Failure to

do so only exacerbated strain and further alienated the family from schools.Zero tolerance policies seem the antithesis of this more helpful individualand collaborative approach to behavior change, and our findings add depthfrom the perspective of the youths themselves about how these policieserode connections to school.

Cultural Similarities and Differences in Sample

Although fairly representative of ethnic groups of the geographic locationswhere this study took place, only a few ethnic groups are represented;

nearly half the participants were Mexican American and the rest White. The


24/29


interview did not include specific questions about culture, but participantsmentioned ethnicity or culture indirectly. Responses across ethnic groupsreflected similar, rather than different, experiences, but this is important toaddress in future studies. A thread of discrimination as a theme was evident

across cultural and economic groups in this study and seemed to be afunction of the characteristics of the community and the juvenile crimes,such as assumptions about gang affiliations or the reputation of the studentbased on past incidents. A closer look at this specific theme is important andis beyond the scope of this study.

Preventionist Framework

The data from this study follow some common themes that originated incommunity psychology, the preventionist perspective. Adopting a preven-

tionist framework, the overall wellness in a large population, rather than aspecific negative outcome in an individual, is the focus (Cowan, 2000); schoolconsultants can be mindful to promote strategies that enhance wellness forthe community (the school and neighborhood itself) while also reducing theproblem of juvenile crime. A preventionist approach is very well suited tothe overall problem of delinquency. In fact, many of the school policies,such as suspension, that exacerbate child disengagement and also parentstress are prime examples of the types of interventions that contradict apreventionist approach. Stresses in school disciplinary settings in our study

were parallel to those reported by parents of offenders in a survey studyof families of detained juvenile offenders (Bradshaw et al., 2006). Schoolsuspensions based on policies rather than individual circumstances are agood example of how one intervention may address a piece of the problembut overall make the problem worse. A preventionist approach considersnot only the immediate problematic behavior of the child but also howthe intervention will impact the other support systems and will incorporatemeans of reducing the problem that do not undermine other sources ofsupport in the system. As parents and youths in our study indicated, justhaving support from a nonparental adult and feeling respected rather than

dismissed was influential in making positive changes.From the perspective of community psychology, the preventionist rec-ognizes the ability within each of us to help a fellow human being andencourages such indigenous caregiving (Gullotta, 1987, p. 16). Teachers andparents have this capacity, and the youths benefit. As consultants, it is alsoimportant to keep in mind that each member of the system may need to bothprovide and receive the help from others, teachers, administrators, parents,and students. As part of systemic change, the preventionist consultant cantake action to enhance competency, provide support, and encourage changein the school and community by facilitation, not doing something to or for

the specific individuals (Gullotta, 1987). Participants in our study did not


25/29


use those exact words but are positive examples of what can happen whenthose steps occur and how important the actions of the persons already inthe system were in exacerbating or alleviating problems.

Consultation and Juvenile Offenders

Integrating the preventionist approach, the primary needs expressed by ourparticipants, including a desire for individual academic help from teachers,collaboration between parents and school administrators, and the prior lit-erature on the school-to-prison pipeline, we offer several recommendationsfor consultation. These recommendations are also consistent with a socialjustice approach and highlight advocacy on the part of the mental healthprofessional as consultant.

First, as supported in the consultee-centered consultation literature in

particular (Lambert, Hylander & Sandoval, 2004), it is essential to examineconsultee and consultant assumptions in relation to juvenile offenders andtheir families. This applies to faulty assumptions and stereotypes that (a) theadolescent does not care about school, (b) the parents do not care aboutthe adolescent, and (c) parents are not trying hard to raise their children.Next, as recommended by our participants and supported by social justiceliterature, the simple task of asking what the parents or juvenile offenderneed to be successful and listening to their responses both empowers anunderprivileged group and builds social connections. Finally, taking intoaccount the preventionist approach, it is important to recognize the greatestresource to make positive changes is the human resource. Each teacher,administrator, consultant, or parent has the potential to make some dif-ference. As consultants, fostering both individual and systemic changes isrecommended. Specifically, seek to facilitate and enhance social connections,academic focus, and autonomy for parents, teachers, and students in theschool community as a whole. In administrative consultation, simply ad-dressing the assumptions of school administrators in disciplinary interactionsis a key point for potential positive change.

Limitations

This study illuminates perspectives on 32 participants from two urbansettings, one in California and one in Texas. Although probation departmentsdid indicate that the adolescents seemed typical of their populations,this sample may be atypical in some ways, such as mothers who werenotably proactive or high functioning, even though they represented arange of educational and economic levels. Further research that mayspecifically seek to include participants who might be less proactive inresearch, such as not requiring parents to seek researchers based on a flier

and facilitating easier access to participation in the research itself, would


26/29


help address this limitation. Additional specific cultural questions are alsorecommended for future studies.

CONCLUSION

This study illuminates the potentially important roles of schools, teachers,administrators, and parents in their individual and collaborative responseefforts for any given adolescent, highlighting their interdependence. In allcases, participants provided numerous examples of how a single adult couldeither serve to alleviate or exacerbate a form of strain. Youths benefited fromadults who took the time to attend to individual needs rather than prejudge,stereotype, or apply standard interventions and punishments. It is clear fromthese data that adults all had their own forms of strain, and it was through

collaboration with mutual respect that interventions were most helpful inalleviating strain on the adults as well as the adolescents. In most casesit was clear how helpful the actions and kindness of a single teacher oradministrator were in terms of reducing strain on the adolescent and family.

Consultants in schools may need to work with school professionalson their own stereotypes and biases about youths on probation and theirfamilies in order to build the empathy needed to form positive, supportive,nurturing relationships needed to promote student engagement and inter-

vention success. Additional research in the area of self-determination theorywith juvenile offenders, qualitative and quantitative, is highly encouragedto further examine these complex relationships, particularly within schoolsettings.

Finally, in the words of Tony, professionals and parents should bepersistent when working with a juvenile offender:

I think like maybe sometimes people take longer to get through to. Iguess maybe like, I would say, [when you are trying to help a kid]just dont quit, no matter what, what results youre getting, keep doing[calling, asking questions, checking on him, trying to get to know him]

what you all are doing cause I think maybe [my mom, the pastor, andthe assistant principal] thought, You know, this isnt working we haveto change our game plan. Like their game plan was working but it wastaking longer [to get through to me].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by a Society for the Study of School PsychologyEarly Career Grant. The first two authors also wish to thank the SchoolPsychology Research Collaboration Conference for facilitating and inspiring

our work on this project.


27/29


REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (2005). Juvenile delinquency: Causes and control(2nd ed.). Los Angeles:Roxsbury.

Agnew, R. (2006). Storylines as a neglected cause of crime. Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency, 42, 119147.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagementwith school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct.Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369386.

Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as adevelopmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behaviorproblems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 315.

Benner, A. D., Graham, S., & Mistry, R. S. (2008). Discerning direct and mediatedeffects of ecological structures and processes on adolescents educational out-comes. Developmental Psychology, 44, 840854.

Bradshaw, C., Glaser, B., Calhoun, G., & Bates, J. (2006). Beliefs and practices ofthe parents of violent and oppositional adolescents: An ecological perspective.

Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 245263.Bursztyn, A. (2007). Directions for future research: A research agenda for multicul-

tural issues in education, assessment, and intervention. In G. B. Esquivel, E. C.Lopez, & S. G. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology: Aninterdisciplinary perspective (pp. 639658). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Carter, R. T., & Morrow, S. L. (2007). Qualitative research: Current and best practices.The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 205208.

Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D.(2004). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on

evaluations of positive youth development programs. Annals of the AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science, 591, 98124.

Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prisonpipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency.

Exceptionality, 13(2), 6988.Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience

in African-American youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. ChildDevelopment, 65, 493506.

Cowan, E. L. (2000). Now that we all know that primary prevention in mental healthis great,what is it? Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 516.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002).Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester,NY: University of Rochester Press.Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Malone, P. S. (2008). Testing an idealized dynamic

cascade model of the development of serious violence in adolescence. ChildDevelopment, 79, 19071927.

Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychol-ogy & Psychotherapy, 12, 177190.

Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctionaleducation programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral

Disorders, 9, 248259.Gullotta, T. P. (1987). Preventions technology. Journal of Primary Prevention, 8(1 &

2), 425.


28/29


Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F.,Harachi, T. W., et al. (2000). Predictors of youth violence (NCJ No. 179065).

Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention.

Hill, C. E., Knox, S., Thompson, B. J., Williams, E. N., Hess, S. A., & Ladany, N. (2005).

Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology,52, 196205.

Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conductingconsensual qualitative research. Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517572.

Lambert, N. M., Hylander, I., & Sandoval, J. H. (2004). Consultee-centered consulta-tion: Improving the quality of professional services in schools and communityorganizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McKowan, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context,and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 235261.

Mulvey, E., & Cauffman, E. (2001). The inherent limits of predicting school violence.American Psychologist, 56, 797802.

Nastasi, B. K., & Schensul, S. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to thevalidity of intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 177195.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Digest of education statistics, 2002.Retrieved September 3, 2004, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d02/tables/dt052.asp

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2010). Juveniles on proba-tion: Overview. Retrieved February 4, 2010, from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/probation/overview.html

Pianta, R. C. (1999). How the parts affect the whole: Systems theory in classroom re-lationships. In Enhancing relationships between children and teachers (pp. 23

43). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroomeffects on childrens achievement trajectories in elementary school. American

Educational Research Journal, 45, 365397.Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and childrens

success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444458.Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L.

Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183204). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., Liaupsin, C. J., Jolivette, K., Christle, C. A., & Riney, M.(2002). Addressing the needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth through positive

behavioral support: Effective prevention practices. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 25, 532551.Sharkey, J. D., You, S., & Schnoebelen, K. J. (2008). The relationship of school

assets, individual resilience, and student engagement for youth grouped bylevel of family functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 402418.

Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectednessis an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a com-munity prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,

35, 170179.Sinclair, M., Christenson, S., Lehr, C., & Anderson, A. (2003). Facilitating student

engagement: Lessons learned from check & connect longitudinal studies. Cali-

fornia School Psychologist, 8, 2941.


29/29


Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis ofschool disciplinary practice. In R. J. Skiba & G. G. Noam (Eds.), Zero tolerance:Can suspension and expulsion keep school safe? (pp. 1744). San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2002). An ecological approach to child and fam-

ily clinical and counseling psychology. Clinical Child and Family PsychologyReview, 5, 197215.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Practices, pitfallsand promises. Effective School Practices, 17, 1022.

Valois, R. F., MacDonald, J. M., Bretous, L., Fischer, M. A., & Drane, J. W. (2002).Risk factors and behaviors associated with adolescent violence and aggression.

American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 454464.Zabel, R. H., & Nigro, F. A. (1999). Juvenile offenders with behavioral disorders,

learning disabilities, and no disabilities: Self-reports of personal, family, andschool characteristics. Behavioral Disorders, 25(1), 2240.

Janay B. Sander, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the School Psychology Doctoral TrainingProgram in the Department of Educational Psychology at The University of Texas at Austin,

where her degree was awarded. Current research interests include juvenile delinquency,challenging externalizing behaviors in adolescents, and ecological intervention research withthese youths, their families, and schools.

Jill D. Sharkey, PhD, NCSP, is faculty in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and SchoolPsychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where her research focuses onjuvenile delinquency, student engagement, risk and resilience, and school safety and violence.She earned her PhD in Special Education, Disability, and Risk Studies at the University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, where she subsequently joined the Center for School-Based YouthDevelopment as a Postdoctoral Scholar, then as an Assistant Researcher, and now as theSchool Psychology Program Coordinator.

Roger Olivarri is a doctoral candidate in the School Psychology program at The Universityof Texas at Austin. Prior to that he was a police officer and worked in a juvenile detentioncenter. His main research interests are in juvenile justice and Mexican American culture andidentity in relation to academic success.

Diane A. Tanigawa is a School Psychologist for the Los Angeles Unified School District anda member of the National Association of School Psychologists. She received her doctoratedegree in counseling/clinical/school psychology from the University of California, Santa Bar-

bara in 2009. Her research interests are in resilience, bullying, and school-based mental healthservices.

Tory Mauseth is a doctoral student in the School Psychology program at the University ofTexas at Austin. Prior to that she was a science teacher (grades 48). Her primary researchinterests are in the areas of juvenile delinquency and pediatric psychology.

Note: The authors report that to the best of their knowledge neither they nor their affiliatedinstitutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or biasthe opinions, decisions, or work presented in this manuscript.

Associate Editor David Shriberg serves as action editor for Consultation in Societal Context

manuscripts.

A Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, And

Documents

Transcript of A Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, And