Transcript Slide 1

Schools and Family Systems: Important Considerations for Delinquency Interventions
ABCT Convention – Orlando, November 2008
Janay B. Sander, Ph.D.
Jill D. Sharkey, Ph.D.
The University of Texas at Austin
University of California at Santa Barbara
Abstract
This poster presents results from a qualitative investigation with adolescents on probation
and their mothers to illuminate emotional, learning, and behavioral needs in general and
how those challenges were addressed. Semi-structured interviews with 32 participants
across two sites were analyzed using Consensual Qualitative Research methods. School
experiences were consistently mentioned in terms of resources or strains. The results
provide clarity and context to explain how certain background factors are frequently
associated with delinquency. Aspects of school experiences that families considered very
helpful or stressful and how those components fit with empirically supported interventions
for delinquency is discussed. Positive relationships with school staff and teachers was
instrumental for success.
Introduction
Adolescents between the ages of 11 and 17 years comprise less than 15% of the
total US population (US Census, 2007), but in 2005 were responsible for 30% of the
total number of violent and property crimes in the United States (Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention; OJJDP, 2007). Adolescents involved in juvenile
justice systems participate in special education at a rate of 37% (Zabel & Nigro,
1999). This is in stark contrast to a national rate of special education services for the
general student population of only around 8% (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2002). Across several research studies, juvenile offenders are very likely
to experience academic failure and low interest in school. There is a critical need to
examine educational experiences for this particular group of vulnerable adolescents
(Wiesner & Windle, 2006; Todis, Bullis, Waintrup, Schultz & D’Ambrosio, 2001; Bullis
& Yovanoff, 2005).
Many school level qualities are highly predictive of adolescent risk for
delinquency. In general, high retention rates, frequent use of expulsion or
suspension in discipline policies, infrequent use of positive behavior strategies,
ineffective classroom management (Christle, Jolivette & Nelson, 2005), and poor
teacher-student relationships (Pianta, 1999; Baker, Grant & Morlock, 2008) are
linked to risk for delinquency. Sugai and Horner (1999) note several factors that
promote disruptive behavior in school, but not in specific relation to juvenile justice,
(a) ineffective instruction, (b) inconsistent and punitive discipline, (c) few
opportunities to learn and practice social skills, (d) unclear rules and expectations,
(e) rules not enforced, and (f) instruction not differentiated by individual needs.
An integrated theoretical perspective on juvenile delinquency, general strain
theory, incorporates the myriad of stress-inducing situations across individual,
community and school experiences (Agnew, 2003). Essentially, “strain” is any set of
circumstances or experiences that create negative emotion. Those negative
emotions may be exacerbated when coping strategies (cognitive, behavioral,
emotional) are not used, are ineffective, or if social support is lacking or inadequate.
Under conditions of increased strain, and if personally determined costs of
delinquency are low and benefits are high, such that the person has “nothing to
lose,” delinquency becomes increasingly likely. Forms of strain can be complex, but
they relate to challenges in achieving social acceptance, success, privileges, or
fulfilling relationships (Agnew, 2003). General strain theory includes three types of
strain related to delinquency. The first is failure to achieve desired outcomes, such
as good grades, status, thrill/excitement, or autonomy. Although that component is a
core strand of strain, there is little in-depth research about how those background
factors relate to the real life experiences and life stories of vulnerable teenagers.
Given the substantial literature base on risks, what is now needed is more
detailed case study to better address the complex interactions across levels of the
ecosystem (Agnew, 2005). Special attention to processes within schools seems
highly relevant, and in-depth study of cases, rather than broad sociological trends,
would provide clarity to the literature (Agnew, 2006).
The current study
Drawing on existing literature summarizing risks and theories of delinquency, with
emphasis on general strain theory (Agnew, 2005) investigators focused on two
research questions for the current study: (a) what were the strains, such as
Author note: This study was funded by the Society for the Study of School Psychology and was initiated in a
work session at the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference. The authors are grateful for both of
these opportunities.
Table 1. School experiences of adolescents on probation and their parents
emotional, learning, or behavioral challenges, experienced by adolescents on
probation, and (b) how did various systems and individuals within those
systems respond to or address those needs, alleviate the strain, or assist in
coping with strains? School experiences and teacher relationships were
included as specific areas of inquiry, but questions addressed home, school,
peer and general experiences. Consensual Qualitative Research (Hill,
Thompson & Williams, 1997) was the procedure used for analyzing the
interviews.
Method
Participants
The study included 16 adolescents and their mothers (32 participants total)
recruited from juvenile probation departments in Texas and California.
Adolescents. A total of 12 males and 4 females between the ages of 13
and 17 years (M = 15.25, SD = 1.18) who were currently serving probation
participated. Eight adolescents identified as white (non-Latino), five identified
as Mexican-American, two identified as mixed ethnicity or race: one
white/Mexican-American, and one as black/Mexican-American.
Mothers. The age range of mothers was 33-55 years (M = 43.73, SD =
5.80). Nine women identified as white/non-Latino, and seven women
identified as Mexican-American. Maternal education levels included the
following: less than high school (n = 1), high school diploma (n = 3),
vocational training post high school (n = 7), or college degree or beyond (n =
4).
The research team. A total of 13 researchers participated in the CQR
coding process, all of whom were affiliated with school psychology training
programs. Five researchers were both interviewers and coders (two faculty
members, two doctoral students and one master’s student); 5 additional team
members participated in coding. The age of team members was 21-35 years,
M = 26.6 years. Several cultural groups were represented (white n = 10;
Mexican-American n = 2; Japanese-American or Asian n = 2; Jewish/Iranian
n = 1). One doctoral student was male, the rest of the team was female.
Procedures
Fliers inviting adolescents and their caregivers to be in the study were mailed
from probation departments to the adolescents’ home addresses or posted in
the juvenile justice center lobby. Participants responded to fliers and
contacted one of the lead investigators to schedule the interview. All parentadolescent interviews were conducted simultaneously, one with the lead
investigator and the other with the graduate student interviewer. Interviewer
pairs alternated roles, switching between parent and adolescent interviews at
both sites. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, but all identifying
information was disguised by the principal investigator during the
proofreading process. Coding followed the CQR method (Hill, et al.1997) via
weekly conference phone meetings across both sites. After reaching
consensus with five more interviews, the research team agreed that the code
map was stable. The team remained open to new categories, but no new
coding categories emerged after the ninth interview consensus. The complete
code map and results are beyond the scope of this paper, but are available
from the first author.
Results
A universal theme was school dissatisfaction or low engagement in school.
Ten of the 16 participants in this sample had a history of documented schoolrelated challenges, including ADHD addressed with a 504 plan, specific
learning disabilities, and severe emotional disturbance served through special
education. Four participants struggled in school, but were never formally
assessed. Two participants had no learning-related challenges of any type,
yet they mentioned overall lack of interest due to “boring” teaching
approaches. A list of school themes, in terms of how helpful or as burdens on
the child or family, are presented in Table 1.
Reduced Strain or Enhanced Engagement
A teacher who ‘really cares.’***
Received extra help/ tutoring/counseling**
Staff or teacher took personal interest in child **
Positive relationships between parent-teacher**
Discovery learning engaged the child *
Staff or teacher accepted the child (not judge child or parent for behavior)*
Child responded well to closer monitoring by parents and schools*
Child appreciated positive reinforcement approaches and responded well*
Contributed to Strain or Facilitated Disengagement
Disengaged in school***
Clearly negative relationships between home-school**
Lectures, workshops, rote learning is boring**
School transitions were particularly difficult**
Felt unfairly judged or stereotyped based on appearance or behavior**
Education-related services were needed but difficult to acquire*
Kids felt lost in school subjects*
Institution/adult disregard for situation exacerbated problems*
Parents resort to home-schooling due to frustration*
Observed that teachers seem overburdened in public schools
Frequency of responses (parent + adolescent = one case): Rare (1-3); *Variant (4-7);
**Typical (8-12); ***General (13-16 )
Discussion
The current study summarized perspectives of parents and adolescents
currently on probation to clarify how certain known background factors are
associated with delinquency. The results illuminate several important
considerations. First, the experience of a positive relationship with teachers was
striking as a resource to buffer other strains for both adolescents and parents.
This is consistent with the principles that Pianta (1999) describes in relation to
elementary students, and appears relevant to older students as well.
Next, school engagement was clearly a problem for these adolescents, and
they conveyed that they wished it were different. Students frequently mentioned
that they felt academically lost, and that they appreciated it when teachers made
the personal effort to help them. This is highly consistent with what Sugai and
Horner (1999) discussed in terms of positive behavior support. This study
clarifies several additional avenues by which students may become disengaged.
They felt judged or stereotyped for past behaviors, and this seemed to
undermine both their sense of connection to school and also their motivation to
change their behaviors. Parents also experienced a sense of discrimination for
their child’s behavior when interacting with school personnel. This discouraged
some parents from working collaboratively, but others were very persistent in
spite of the difficult relationship. Our study suggests that schools may need to
pay more attention to their own bias related to parents of adjudicated
adolescents already want to work closely with schools but then are discouraged
from participation.
What is clear in our study is how immensely powerful it was for these
adolescents to have an experience of a caring adult accept them as a person in
spite of their poor behavior choices. This is consistent with other research on
student motivation (Davis, 2006), with what Dishion and Andrews (1995) initially
articulated about the importance of home-school partnerships and what Furlong
and Christensen (2008) discussed in terms of student engagement. Teachers
who made connections, either with “being nice” to the adolescent or teachers
who appeared committed to helping the student learn academic subjects that
were challenging were both appreciated by the adolescents, even in high school.
These findings highlight the role of individual relationships and collaboration
across home and school as central to the success of behavioral approaches,
discipline strategies, and student engagement.