|
Abstract
|
Time to first arrest after termination of Willie M Program services was compared in 2 groups of former clients. All Ss had met program criteria and "aged out" after their 18th birthday, but the two groups differed in duration and extent of intervention received: (a) A short-certification group (n = 21), because they turned 18 near the 1981 program start date, had received Willie M services for a mean of only 26 days (all cases less than 3 months); (b) a long-certification group (n = 147) averaged 896 days in the program (all cases greater than 1 year). The groups did not differ significantly in gender or race; geographic region; IQ; diagnosis according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd ed. (DSM-III, American Psychiatric Association, 1980); or age at earliest antisocial acts. A survival analysis compared the short and long groups on proportion avoiding arrest as a function of time since aging out. The long group showed slightly better arrest survival, but survival curves for the 2 groups did not differ reliably. Thus the program was not found to significantly reduce the risk of young adult arrests.
VoiLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this research by Weisz et al. was to compare arrest data among violent adolescents who had participated in an intervention program for varying durations.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a quasi-experimental cross-sectional design with a non-probability sample of 168 adolescents who had aged out of the Willie M. intervention program in North Carolina between October, 1981 and January, 1986. Of the 794 people who turned 18 whilst in the program, thereby aging out of the intervention, all 23 who participated for fewer than 90 days were included in the sample pool. 200 long-term participants, receiving more than one year of services, were randomly selected for the pool. Of these two groups, 21 subjects were in the final sample of short-term certification, and 147 were in the long-term certification group. The authors began with a comparison of the two groups to evaluate whether they differed on mental health services received in each of seven categories: inpatient therapy, outpatient child therapy, outpatient family therapy, day treatment, supervised group living services, supervised independent living services, and vocational placement. The short- and long-term groups were also compared on demographics and psychological characteristics, using chi-square and t-tests. Measurement of psychological status was conducted using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised, and by examining whether the subject had received a DSM-III psychosis or conduct disorder diagnosis, as evaluated by a psychiatrist or a psychologist, at the time of entrance into the program. The authors also examined the age at which subjects reported their first commission of antisocial activities, including trouble at school, serious fighting, stealing, damaging property and first arrest. Arrest data were collected from the State Bureau of Investigation for the time from September, 1981 through November, 1987, with the dependent variable being time between leaving the Willie M. program and each subject's first arrest. A two year risk period was used, with subjects being observed for two years for initial arrest. Analysis included chi-square, t-tests, Mantel-Cox tests, survival analysis and examination of frequencies.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors found that subjects in the two groups did not differ in race, gender, region of residence, IQ, or diagnosis at time of certification. However, there were significant differences between the short- and the long-term subjects for each of the seven mental health service categories, with long-term participants receiving significantly more of each type of service than did those in the short-term group. Subjects in the short-term group exhibited a higher arrest rate than did their long-term counterparts, although this difference was not significant. By the end of the two year risk period, 33% of the short-term group had been arrested, and 25% of the long-term group had reported their first post-program arrest. The authors then reconstituted the long-term group, using a sample of only those participants who had been deemed to have received appropriate services by the end of their treatment. This classification meant that individuals must have received services that addressed all their treatment and education needs in the least restrictive setting that was feasible. The sample of 102 reconstituted long-term subjects was then compared to the short- term group, and the results were similar to the initial analysis: no differences were found on demographic or psychological characteristics, and the short-term sample showed higher arrest rates, although this difference, whilst greater than in the initial analysis, remained non-significant. By the end of the risk period, 20% of the reconstituted long-term group had been arrested. The authors also examined the effect of length of time in the program upon arrest data for the long-term subjects, and found that time in the program did not have a significant effect upon time of first arrest. Arrests were then divided into two categories: personal crimes, such as assault and armed robbery, and property or victimless crimes, such as burglary and drug offenses. A higher percentage of personal crimes was found in the short-term group (86%) than in the long-term group (54%) for first arrest, although the difference was not significant. The authors concluded that the Willie M. program did not significantly reduce the risk of later arrest for these violent adolescents. However, they acknowledged the possibility that, rather than no effect being present, the two groups both significantly profited by the program, but to an equal extent. Other explanations for the findings included the fact that the study took place while the program was still in its formative years, and thus it might not have yet reached its full effectiveness level, and the fact that the dependent variable was arrest data, rather than self-report data of criminal activity.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors suggested that future research be conducted into the effectiveness of the program once it had been fully refined and had matured into its most effective working state. Experimental additions could be made to the program, such as the use of specific models for treatment and prevention that have been found to be useful in prior research. Specific interventions should be identified that can effectively treat such high-risk adolescents, and that can be applied in multiple settings by multiple mental health workers.
EVALUATION:
The authors present an interesting and informative examination of the effectiveness of the Willie M. program for a group of violent youth. However, the sample size for the short-term group was somewhat small, suggesting that the results be considered with some caution. Despite this, the measures were well defined, the presentation of findings was clear, and the authors provided a number of alternative explanations of their results. The use of secondary analysis with the reconstituted sample added some strength to the findings, although a more thorough discussion of the implications of the findings would have been helpful. Overall, the study represents a valuable addition to the field of youth intervention, and provides a solid base for future research. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
N1 - Call Number: F-179, AB-179
KW - North Carolina
KW - Long-Term
KW - Comparative Analysis
KW - Violence Intervention
KW - Intervention Program
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Program Evaluation
KW - Offender Recidivism
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Arrest Rates
KW - Emotionally Disturbed Juvenile
KW - Offender Arrest
Language: en |