Journal of Educational and Psychological

This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Santa Barbara] On: 17 December 2010 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 918976320] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation

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

A Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, and Interpersonal Relationships: Implications for Research Directions and Preventionist Approaches Janay B. Sandera; Jill D. Sharkeyb; Roger Olivarria; Diane A. Tanigawab; Tory Mausetha a The University of Texas at Austin, b University of California, Santa Barbara Online publication date: 15 December 2010

To cite this Article Sander, Janay B. , Sharkey, Jill D. , Olivarri, Roger , Tanigawa, Diane A. and Mauseth, Tory(2010) 'A

Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, and Interpersonal Relationships: Implications for Research Directions and Preventionist Approaches', Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20: 4, 288 — 315 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2010.522878 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2010.522878

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE 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 or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should 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 directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20:288–315, 2010 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1047-4412 print/1532-768X online DOI: 10.1080/10474412.2010.522878

Downloaded By: [University of California, Santa Barbara] At: 22:40 17 December 2010

CONSULTATION IN SOCIETAL CONTEXT

A Qualitative Study of Juvenile Offenders, Student Engagement, and Interpersonal Relationships: Implications for Research Directions and Preventionist Approaches JANAY B. SANDER The University of Texas at Austin

JILL D. SHARKEY University of California, Santa Barbara

ROGER OLIVARRI The University of Texas at Austin

DIANE A. TANIGAWA University of California, Santa Barbara

TORY MAUSETH The University of Texas at Austin

Background factors that correlate with juvenile delinquency are consistent across the interdisciplinary literature base. Yet, information about the process of how risks relate to outcomes, especially within school settings, is limited. Researchers used qualitative methods to examine school and interpersonal experiences from the perspective of juvenile offenders and their families. Sixteen families were recruited from juvenile probation facilities in 2 different geographic regions. Consensual Qualitative Research methods 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

Delinquency and School Experiences

289


flexibility in discipline policies, classroom experiences that shaped outcomes, and the importance of nonjudgmental social support for the adolescents and their parents. The findings and recommendations for school consultants are presented from a preventionist standpoint, and self-determination theory is discussed in relation to future juvenile delinquency research.

Juvenile delinquency and crime is a problem on many societal levels. Although precise statistics are not available, approximately 1 million youths have contact with court systems in the United States. Nearly 14% of those youths end up in out-of-home placements, including detention centers (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2010). The vast majority return to their communities, where juvenile probation services handle their cases. Most adolescents on probation attend public schools via regular education, special education classes, and alternative education placements. Although the factors associated with juvenile delinquency include family, community, and individual traits, negative school experiences are particularly salient predictors of delinquency in the literature. Juvenile offenders experience high rates of academic failure and low interest in school (Farrington, 2005; Foley, 2001). The background factors and school-related risks are important yet difficult to disentangle in terms of facilitating factors, causality, and practical solutions. In light of the large volume of existing research on background factors that predict delinquency, a better understanding of facilitating factors (Agnew, 2005) and information about how to connect juvenile offenders to school and facilitate academic success is needed.

DELINQUENCY AND THE SCHOOL EXPERIENCE School-related factors associated with adolescent delinquency include presence of specific learning difficulties, low verbal intelligence, low school achievement, and low engagement in school (Farrington, 2005). Adolescents involved in juvenile justice systems participate in special education at a rate of 37% (Zabel & Nigro, 1999), which is in stark contrast to the national rate of only around 8% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002). Additional factors that predict delinquency include dropping out of school, multiple school transitions, school suspension and expulsion, and low academic tracking (Hawkins et al., 2000; Valois, MacDonald, Bretous, Fischer, & Drane, 2002). Knowledge of these individual factors does not adequately address the school’s role in facilitating delinquency. Given the alarming rates of educational challenges for adolescents involved in juvenile justice systems it is critical to examine educational experiences for this group.

290

J. Sander et al.


School System Influence on Delinquency School factors not only contribute to risk for delinquency but also they may be more significant predictors of delinquency than individual student characteristics. Negative school factors include 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), poor teacher-student relationships (Baker, Grant, & Morlock, 2008; Pianta, 1999), and weak school-community connections (Stormshak & Dishion, 2002). Some professionals might argue that having many students with low academic skills or high levels of disruptive behaviors is what burdens schools to create these other negative school qualities. Other scholars highlight the literature indicating that protective factors associated with resilience apply across settings. After all, resilience is only necessary in the presence of risks (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004). Of all the school-level predictors of juvenile delinquency, salient ones are student engagement, interpersonal relationships, and discipline policies. Student engagement. Theories of social control propose engagement with school provides a reason for refraining from delinquent behavior. Supporting these theories, a sense of belonging and affiliation to school has been found to be associated with less delinquency and violence (Mulvey & Cauffman, 2001). Student engagement is a multidimensional construct measuring observable factors of academic (e.g., test scores) and behavioral (e.g., attendance) engagement and internal factors of cognitive (e.g., thoughts) and psychological engagement (e.g., feelings; Sinclair, Christenson, Lehr, & Anderson, 2003). Student engagement is associated with positive outcomes such as academic performance and negative outcomes such as delinquency and dropout (Shochet, Dadds, Ham, & Montague, 2006). School assets, including caring adults, are related to positive engagement of students from diverse family backgrounds, even after accounting for individual student resilience (Sharkey, You, & Schnoebelen, 2008). Student engagement is often measured by indicators such as completion of homework, participation in school activities, or attendance. The factors that facilitate student engagement are more challenging to quantify yet are crucial to understand in order to foster student engagement. For example, school climate indicators correlate with student engagement (Benner, Graham, & Mistry, 2008). School climate may be also measured by a number of indicators such as student report of school appearance, faculty relationships, quality of student interactions, or perception of school policies. Yet the specific ways these indicators facilitate student engagement are elusive. Too often study designs fail to consider the problem of low engagement from the system level. Most of the existing research focuses on individual risk or background factors such as an individual’s disengagement from school,



291

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 the low student engagement indicators of peer rejection, academic failure, and low school participation as predictors of violent behavior. Although the study did contribute knowledge in terms of individual school and peer risk factors, it was also limited to the student’s individual level of engagement in school. The researchers did not assess the school-level indictors of student engagement, such as relationships with teachers or relevance of school tasks to future goals, which are indicators of this construct at the system level (Appleton et al., 2008). Interpersonal relationships. Although individual student factors are related 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 school is the student-teacher relationship. The quality of the teacher-student relationship is very important for student engagement in elementary school (Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004) and may influence the ultimate path in a developmental trajectory (Pianta, 1999). Positive teacher relationships predict academic success in early grades, yet exactly what a teacher can do to promote positive relationships with students, and especially with middle school and high school-age youths with behavior problems, is not well documented. Descriptive research centering on at-risk youths and their relationships with teachers would help elucidate what interactions exacerbate or reduce behavior problems in schools. Discipline policies. As another example of how school system-level factors are essential to address in studying the problem of juvenile delinquency, the school literature indicates that punitive and exclusionary discipline policies undermine student engagement (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). Schools that rely on involuntary transfer, suspension, expulsion, and other punitive discipline 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 portion of the student body who exhibit problem behaviors respond to punishment with increases, rather than decreases, in the undesired behavior with side effects including counteraggression, habituation to stronger consequences, and reinforcement (Skiba & Knesting, 2001). These same disruptive students also miss instructional time and struggle academically. Clarification of how or why approaches are helpful in serving students may reduce resistance at the system level. Thus, a better understanding of how school policies are exacerbating 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).

292

J. Sander et al.


METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE FIELD OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY The juvenile delinquency literature already contains considerable information on the indicators and outcomes associated with delinquency (Dodge et al., 2008; Farrington, 2005; Foley, 2001). At this point, attention to schooland education-related experiences and process is highly relevant and is called for in the juvenile delinquency literature (Agnew, 2006). In order to provide information on these types of experiences, understanding participants’ perspectives as those closest to the phenomenon, rather than specific hypothesis-testing quantitative designs and large-scale surveys, would be helpful (Carter & Morrow, 2007). Qualitative methods are the preferred choice for questions about process, and there are several additional advantages to this study design. Juvenile offenders and their families are often disempowered and have little social privilege, and their unique perspectives may not have been addressed in large-scale study designs. In prevention, the perspective of the individuals who experience the problem is important (Gullotta, 1987). Also, in order to contribute to the literature in a field that contains a large number of facts, a method that addresses prior findings would not adequately incorporate the established literature. Therefore, a postpositivist approach, one that is informed based on some prior literature, yet open to the new process of discovery and inquiry, is warranted. The phenomenon itself is studied using the subjective experience of the individuals most affected and marginalized by it, incorporating elements of a constructivist approach (Carter & Morrow, 2007).

Study Rationale The main gaps in the current literature relate to complex questions, such as how school failure relates to delinquency and why students themselves perceive schools as negative, not additional documentation of school dropout, low test scores, and poor attendance rates. Details of the social contexts, interpersonal interactions, and cognitive processes that relate specifically to the adolescent-limited delinquent are missing. We sought to help clarify the facilitating factors and interpersonal interactions in schoolrelated settings that subsequently promote or reduce delinquent behaviors and attitudes. Qualitative data allow researchers to focus on how the cultural and institutional context impacts stakeholders (Nastasi & Schensul, 2005). Qualitative research includes attending to rigorous guidelines to yield meaningful and 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


293


constructivist and postpositivist approaches. The idea that the adolescents and their parents would be taken as authorities on their experiences in order to inform researchers’ understanding is a considerable difference from the traditional large-scale positivist approach to research. The CQR approach is also consistent with literature regarding the importance of empowering typically disempowered individuals and being sensitive to cultural, linguistic, and other minority groups (Bursztyn, 2007). CQR is a team approach, allowing for checks and balances to address the salient concerns inherent in qualitative research: to retain objectivity, incorporate multiple perspectives, and apply rigorous procedures to help ensure integrity of the data gleaned from participants’ stories and experiences.

RESEARCH PURPOSE The main purpose of this study is to provide a deeper understanding of the school experiences associated with high risk for juvenile delinquency from the perspective of the juvenile offenders and their parents. This study addresses relationships at school, learning challenges, discipline procedures, and parent-school relationships in order to inform future directions in juvenile delinquency research. Drawing on existing literature summarizing school risks for delinquency, we asked a series of semistructured questions designed to probe the following areas: (a) What were the challenges, such as emotional, learning, or behavioral problems, experienced by adolescents on probation over the course of their lives? (b) How did school systems and parents respond to or address those challenges? (c) Which approaches in schools were particularly helpful from the participants’ perspectives? All findings will be synthesized with existing juvenile delinquency literature with particular attention to preventionist approaches and recommendations for school-based psychological consultation.

METHOD Participants Participants were recruited at two locations through juvenile justice centers in Texas and California. The participants included adolescents on probation and their mothers. The study included analysis of 32 individually administered semistructured interviews, each lasting about 1 hr. Each participant met with researchers 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)


294

J. Sander et al.

who (a) were currently serving probation; (b) had between one and three nonfelony adjudications, the latest at least 1 month prior to study participation; (c) were living with a parent or guardian; and (d) were fluent in English. Offenses included assault, assaulting a police officer, trespassing, graffiti, arson, drug possession, truancy, and auto theft. Seven participants resided in California and 9 resided in Texas. Eight adolescents identified as White (non-Latino), 5 identified as Mexican American, and 2 identified as mixed ethnicity or race: 1 White/Mexican American and 1 Black/Mexican American. All participants have been given pseudonyms to protect their identities. Mothers. Sixteen mothers also volunteered to be in the study. The age range of mothers was 33–55 years (M D 43.73, SD D 5.80). Nine women identified as White/non-Latino, and 7 women identified as Mexican American. 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 the coding process, all of whom were affiliated with school psychology training programs. Five researchers were both interviewers and coders (2 faculty members, 2 doctoral students, and 1 master’s student), 5 team members participated in coding (2 doctoral students and 3 master’s students), and 5 additional team members participated in consensus coding meetings but not the dyad coding or auditing pairs (2 doctoral students, 2 psychology major undergraduates, and 1 bachelor’s degree member). The ages of team members ranged from 21 to 35 years (M D 26.6). Several cultural groups were represented: White (n D 10), Mexican American (n D 2), Japanese American or Asian (n D 2), and Iranian (n D 1). One graduate student was male; 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 members is necessary in order to understand potential areas of researcher bias, interpersonal or social power, and possible influence on the data analysis process. Prior to pursuing a doctorate, one team member had been a police officer in an urban juvenile detention center, another had a master’s degree in criminal justice, and one taught anger management strategies to adolescents on probation in foster homes. The primary investigator in Texas had experience providing behavioral and cognitive interventions to youths with conduct disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in day treatment and residential psychiatric settings, including a juvenile detention center for emotionally disturbed offenders. The primary investigator in California had experience as a participant interviewer about risk factors related to conduct disorder and has consulted with juvenile probation departments regarding risk assessment procedures. In general, the potential bias of the team was that juvenile justice systems and schools have the potential to


295

influence development in positive and negative ways; juvenile offenders are best served when professionals are aware of the culture and developmental needs of the adolescent, emotional concerns, learning difficulties, and environmental 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 parent or guardian, were mailed from probation departments to the adolescents’ home addresses and posted in the juvenile justice center lobby. Participants contacted one of the lead investigators directly to schedule the interview. The fliers stated that eligible participants must be (a) living at home with parent or guardian and (b) fluent in English. These eligibility criteria were based on logistic and ethical reasons. The research team was only able to code 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 participant simultaneously during the same visit, but the conversations were held in separate rooms for privacy. The semistructured interview was based on questions about home, school, and peers and how the adolescent experienced any notable life events or difficulties along with how the other people responded or reacted to those events or situations. For example, ‘‘What is school like for you? Can you give me some examples of that?’’ or ‘‘If you ever 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 of problem, who are the people you ask to help you? How might they help?’’ Parent questions included topics similar to the adolescent interview. A full list of interview prompts is available from the first author. The lead investigator and the graduate student interviewer took turns interviewing the parent and adolescent, alternating with each new participant pair. Twelve parent-adolescent interviews took place in the participants’ home. Two families participated at university offices at the family’s request, and 2 families participated at the probation office at the family’s request. All interviews were conducted at times to accommodate the family’s schedules, usually evening or weekend times. The time required for families was approximately 3 hr. The interviews were audiotaped. All families were given $50 at the conclusion of the visit. The compensation was a specific point of concern as an ethical issue of potential coercion. After some discussion, the researchers, the Institutional Review Boards, and probation departments agreed this amount was appropriate due to the low benefit to participants and the time and effort required by the study.

296

J. Sander et al.


Coding and Analysis Process Interviews followed a semistructured format to follow the content areas documented in the literature as risks for delinquency. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, but all identifying information was disguised and all names were altered to pseudonyms. Coding followed the Consensual Qualitative Research (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 inform multiple perspectives on the interview content; (c) judges reach a consensus to determine the meaning of data content; (d) an auditor checks the work to decrease groupthink; and (e) core concepts and domains arise through cross-analysis from data to team and back to data as a process. This study was coded using a rotating team approach, which is recommended for larger teams (greater than 4 members in CQR) and facilitates coding of a larger number of interviews (more than 12) to minimize coder fatigue (Hill et al., 1997). This team consisted of 13 members and a total of 32 interviews were coded. To begin, 2 families were interviewed and the entire research team coded these first 4 interviews independently. Then the whole group met to reach consensus, resulting in an initial code map of the interview content. The codes represented core ideas, similar to the open coding process in grounded theory research (Hill et al., 1997). The consensus meetings occurred via weekly conference phone meetings after individual coding of transcripts. After whole team consensus with 9 interviews, the research team agreed that the code map was stable. The team remained open to new categories and discussed the possibility of new codes at each meeting, but no new coding categories emerged after the 9th interview. Beginning with the 10th interview the team split into coder and auditor dyads such that 2 coders and 2 different auditors were assigned in rotating order to each transcript to avoid any systematic bias by any given dyad. The rotating dyad approach was used to mitigate groupthink and bias due to power or influence from any one team member (such as an advanced student 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 coded in the category-forming process. After interviews were consensus coded, the content was transferred to spreadsheets and grouped by coding theme categories. The spreadsheets were audited in rotating pair dyads to ensure content was appropriately placed and that any additional coding categories, if appropriate, were noted. Weekly whole group meetings occurred for the duration of the coding and auditing process. After each interview with participants, interviewers debriefed within site teams and also in weekly phone conferences with the other site. Interviewers used summaries of contact notes for initial interviews, but team debriefing



297

and discussion served as a sounding board for ideas in later interviews. The faculty investigator in Texas read all interview transcripts, reviewed all audit coding spreadsheets, and summarized themes. The faculty investigator in California subsequently reviewed the themes and tallied the frequency of each in order to provide objectivity and balance to any conclusions. The frequency 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 and process several times during the study to ensure integrity of the process and serve as a check of the match between coding categories and examples that were within each category. As an additional external check of findings and conclusions, as well as verification that the participants seemed to accurately reflect the population of interest, preliminary summaries of themes were presented to the participating juvenile corrections facilities. Staff at both locations indicated the data seemed representative of their population, and findings appeared reasonable and consistent with their experiences.

RESULTS The following three main themes emerged: (a) the importance and limitations of 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 disappointing to 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 adolescents described positive relationships with parents and teachers (see Table 1). Examples of parent support most frequently include strong child advocacy and provision of concrete type of assistance. These parenting behaviors are somewhat different from a close emotional type of caring but still viewed as helpful to the adolescent. Teacher and school administrator support was usually in the form of individualized concern or attention that was within the role of their job. It is interesting that the relationship did not come in the form of outside school activities or a form of mentorship or outside time spent together in a teacher-child relationship—the everyday teacher relationships were meaningful to the students.

298

J. Sander et al.

TABLE 1 Code Map Themes, Subcategories, and Frequencies


Importance and limitations of interpersonal relationships General Valued relationship with mom as supportive advocate Described specific qualities of favorite teachers, i.e., ‘‘really cared’’ Typical Other adult interest in child is appreciated Extended family/close friend as support/positive role model Positive and supportive relationships between adults in environment Variant Impersonal approach/adult disregard for situation exacerbates problems Desire to move for a fresh start to escape bad reputation Troubled father relationship/Low father involvement General Mention of strained father relationship for child as a negative experience Typical Mom struggles with discipline as single parent, needs a coparent figure Mom has limited social support, which adds to stress in general Variant Father of child in prison Child abused by father Child struggles with stepparent relationship Rare Lack of father involvement in child’s life is emotionally painful for child Domestic abuse involving parents Low student engagement and limited school success General Not engaged in school Intent to complete high school or get General Equivalency Diploma (GED) Typical Intent to complete college Clearly negative relationships between home and school Lectures, workshops, rote learning is boring Received extra help/tutor/counseling Described as ‘‘very smart’’ Variant Mentions other life goals Education-related services needed but difficult to acquire School transitions are key Small teacher-student ratio needed Resort to homeschooling due to frustration Discovery learning ideal to engage the child Child ‘‘not strong student’’ according to child or parent Rare Observed that teachers seem overburdened in public schools Note. Frequencies of themes counted as follows: the topic was mentioned in 1–3 cases D Rare; 4–7 cases D Variant; 8–12 cases D Typical; 13–16 cases D General. One parent and child unit equals one case. Total D 16 cases.


299


Mother support. With parents, a common phrase to describe mothers was ‘‘She is always there for me.’’ Fourteen adolescents said that they had a close relationship with their mother and often mentioned ways she provided support 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 my mom or I can go to both of my parents. Like if I had a serious problem, they’re my parents. Like I feel like I can go to them.’’ Jake explained how his mother provided for him in two ways: She’s there for me like if I need anything, like for probation, stuff like that, like sports and she needs to buy me stuff like that : : : [also] like, when I was just like mad about something. Like, like I wasn’t in the mood, 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 Jake’s mother explains how she took action when her son was caught at school 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, I’m not talking a big switchblade or anything: : : : 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 don’t want him around gangbangers and druggies and all those other kids. Cuz this kid isn’t into that. Now you’re gonna put him into a society of it.’’ : : : So I fought the school, I fought the school district 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].

Tom’s mother advocated for a match with teacher style for her son’s need for 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 he would be entering, and explained who he was and asked for a teacher that she thought would be a good match for him. And we got one and it was a really good year, she was very umm, she had a very structured class. He did really well in that class. And then he had a couple teachers there actually that were outstanding.

Miguel explained his mother’s support of him in this way: I don’t know what she could help me with. I mean, she could help me with like anything really, but I don’t really choose her to help me with it. She would, I mean, if I didn’t reach my goal she’d encourage me,

300

J. Sander et al.

like you did good, to try harder, even if I do bad in like a basketball game, or something, she’ll say you did good. Even if I know I did bad, she’ll say that, she’s just really encouraging, like if I don’t make a goal or something.


Javier described emotional support: I don’t know, she doesn’t get mad at me if she knows I’m like going through something, even though she should be, she won’t [get angry]. Like the whole thing with my ex-girlfriend : : : I was going through a hard time : : : she got mad about [me disobeying my girlfriend’s dad’s rules], but she understood.

Although in most cases strong maternal support was considered a positive example of an emotional need that was met, in some cases it was not sufficient to offset other risks or strains. Some examples did not clearly show how mothers supported adolescents and had little evidence or examples of instrumental support or emotional caring, such as Roxanne. This was atypical. Interviewer: Can you tell me a little about your relationship with your mom? Roxanne: It’s good um, she’s a mom you know, and sometimes you just, mothers, always two different things, you know, and you know it ’cause that’s everybody, every, every, everybody. But nothing really, um she’s a good mom and I’m happy, you know.

It was clear that having parent support, even when it was present, was not sufficient. As Sally Jo’s mother explained it, ‘‘All she has is me. She has no other family members who are really important in her life but me. She solely depends on me.’’ In Sally Jo’s case, her emotional needs, acknowledged by both Sally Jo and her mother in the interviews, exceeded her mother’s capacity 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) described qualities of favorite teachers. The most common positive teacher trait was that he or she provided individual attention or seemed ‘‘to really care’’ about the adolescent. Examples of caring included behaviors such as taking time to explain homework, treating the class fairly, speaking in a pleasant or even tone, and recognizing student effort. The examples the adolescents provided as ways teachers demonstrate caring to students were within the context of a classroom setting as opposed to extracurricular activities or mentorship roles. Javier particularly liked it when teachers ‘‘like they just talk to you, help you, instead of just trying to be in control.’’


301

Joey’s mother elaborated on the relationship with his teacher to maximize motivation for her son at school, including several ways the teacher made learning relevant for Joey:


He had his fifth-grade teacher was actually an engineer for a [major video game company] so he and Joey really connected and Joey stayed after school, he showed him how to do computer programming, I guess he had a brother apparently that had had a lot of the same struggles. So we touched base every week, and he was awesome. Joey really felt good about himself that year, he had a lot of positive experiences at school ya know, and so we requested the next year he taught sixth grade too, so he 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 I’m good at building things, like we’re a lot alike, like he was an engineer and everything before he was a teacher so, he’d always like, he was a really out-of-the-box teacher. Like he’d teach a lot of cool stuff and, but like, he never even, he gave me straight As cuz I like I didn’t, I’d do the work in like a minute and then I’d just sit there and then he’d gimme another paper with the same stuff on it. And then like after a while I’d ask him like ‘‘Why do I have to keep doing the same stuff?’’ so he 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 makes it fun, he jokes around with us for the first five to ten minutes, passes out our homework, if we have questions go through he will help us. But the other teachers they just go on and on and on, talk, talk, last fifteen minutes, they’ll pass out the work, we try to do it. We ask for help. [Those teachers 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 and understanding. She understood that I came from a different culture and she 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 she said all you have to do is this, there’s no big equation, just do this part. She helped me out with that, so she like made it small for me.

302

J. Sander et al.


Social support. Ten participants echoed realizations about a group or small number of specific people who conveyed genuine concern and support to 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 to be a turning point for him toward rehabilitation. As he explained it, I think the one thing they’re [kids are] scared of the most—because they want to be hard—is love. You know they don’t want to be soft, so I say [they need] just like tons of outpouring of [love] : : : ’cause I mean, when I, when I was in detention I started getting letters from a whole bunch of people in the church. I was like dang : : : like people like I didn’t even 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 feed homeless people] with us.

The main idea that participants conveyed related to the ‘‘need for supportive relationships’’ was that the other person was accepting and nonjudgmental of the adolescent as a person in spite of any negative behaviors, and the adolescent appreciated that aspect of the relationship. In Tony’s case, his mother consistently conveyed her support of him as an individual, and a 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 participants valued receiving messages that they as individuals count and that their behavior is separate from their real sense of self or their ‘‘worth’’ as a person. Adolescents wanted to be connected to prosocial peer groups and were unable to form those relationships without some structure to do so, such as when adults allowed them access to activities or programs that included positive peers.

Troubled Father Relationship/Low Father Involvement Mothers in our study shouldered most of the parental responsibilities. All but one of the adolescent participants, regardless of family composition, had problematic relationships with their fathers. Fathers were unavailable due to a variety of circumstances: he was simply absent, in jail, abusive, or present but emotionally unavailable to the adolescent participant. Two adolescents lived with both biological parents, 8 had single-mother households, and 6 were living with their mother and stepfather. Three participants experienced trauma: Jake’s mother shot and killed his father after years of domestic abuse; Tony was the product of rape and no one knows who his father is; and Sally Jo’s father was charged (not convicted) for molest-



303

ing her when she was 18 months old, followed by years of supervised visitation. Several participants rarely saw their fathers, two fathers were in prison for fraud or drug-related crimes, and 3 adolescents directly conveyed ongoing feelings of rejection when fathers remarried and started a second family. Our data highlight father absence or abuse as a facilitating factor rather than a risk by itself. Problematic father relationships affected mothers and children in distinct but different ways. One of the primary ways father absence facilitated delinquency was the related challenge mothers faced with parenting. What is interesting is how mothers turned to police and juvenile justice as a form of a coparenting system to achieve discipline. Several mothers mentioned how probation offices or school administrators helped mothers in their role of disciplinarian. A concrete example of this parenting support interaction during a conflict between Sally Jo and her mother follows: [The police officer] just told her not to talk and she talked [disrespectfully to her mother] and he said, ‘‘Okay that’s enough.’’ He actually took her downstairs, put cuffs on her and sat her in the back of the police car and everything. It got her attention because she was crying when she came back up and everything. He told me he said, ‘‘Whenever you feel like you need to call me again just call me.’’

Sally Jo’s mother never did call the officer, but she told researchers that carrying his business card in her wallet gave her a sense of power that she could use if needed. Tony explained what happened between his mother and a school administrator. This assistant principal took a personal interest in Tony and had been watching Tony develop friendships with other adolescents who had a history of drug involvement. This assistant principal tried to get to know Tony and his mother. Tony’s mother also told us about this administrator and conveyed appreciation for his actions. As Tony explained it, Like, he [the assistant principal] constantly, yeah he called. He found, he got our phone number and like he started talking to [my mom] regularly and like, I started hating him because he, he was like constantly looking for me : : : he was trying to catch me [selling drugs] because he wanted it to be him to catch me instead of somebody that’s gonna lock me up. And I think that was kinda what my mom wanted to do too, but at the same time she knew that the law could do more than she could.

Tony also expressed that the actions this assistant principal took were helpful in eventually getting Tony out of drugs, even though it took a lot of effort on that man’s part.

304

J. Sander et al.

Low Student Engagement and Limited Success in School


Another universal theme (n D 14) was school dissatisfaction or low engagement in school (see Table 1). Overall, student disengagement and a sense of futility were evident regardless of socioeconomic status, parent education, level of parental involvement, or intellectual capacity to master the curriculum. For some adolescents it was related to boredom and disconnect with teachers. As Tom said, ‘‘She didn’t help me with anything so I just stopped doing my work.’’ For others it seemed to reflect a mismatch with learning and instructional style, and for others it was an erosion of selfconfidence in academics. As Tony noted, I think about sixth grade : : : that’s when I lost confidence a lot, ’cause I started failing and stuff cause stuff started getting harder and then I just started 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/junior high, this was often a negative turning point characterized by more frequent transitions and lower quality relationships with adult role models on school campus. Several mothers mentioned this specific transition as problematic, as Malcolm’s mother did: He’s not as nurtured. You know in grades kindergarten through five they have one teacher. He’s always been really really close to his teachers. He’s hugged on them and loved his teacher. And um there’s a separation in sixth grade. There’s no one he can attach himself to.

Half of the participants (n D 8) reported that classes were boring due to 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 don’t learn normal, like normal people. I can’t do repeated work.

John’s mother added, ‘‘He’s been on medication since third grade and umm he’s really really smart. But umm school’s been a disaster for the most part especially high school.’’ Echoing the themes mentioned by other participants, Zachary’s mother explained how important teaching approaches can be: His first-grade teacher accused him of not trying. Not really trying to do 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


305

problems. And they were supposed to do a page a day, thirty problems in the first grade. He was just so overwhelmed with that, like he didn’t, he would just cry: : : : What they didn’t understand, or even make the attempt to understand, is that Zachary’s brain functions differently than a lot of other children. And given the right method, and with math it turns out it was very much a hands-on method, um, whoa, he made like incredible progress.


Miguel discussed consideration for the teacher’s difficult role: Well, I don’t know, she started handing out referrals left and right, so like kids would stop talking, but I mean, that just made the students not like her more. So, but if she was more lenient than kids would like, some kids would take that to an advantage, to talk a lot. So, I really don’t 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 expressed the goal to complete high school or get a General Equivalency Degree (GED). Most even named a specific future career goal, including barber, brewery master, computer game programmer, forensic doctor, NASA employee, pilot, pharmacy technician, marriage counselor, mechanic, and teacher.

Interaction of Factors The following example illustrates how myriad factors are related. It includes the parental role of support and advocacy; the child’s eroded sense of competence; and a transition to high school that ballooned into a serious problem for this girl and her family, which may have been exacerbated when school administrators were insensitive to the child’s needs. It also shows how having an advocate and coparent assist the mother in advocating for the girl was the key that facilitated Angelica’s 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 school in ninth grade. She had no prior history of behavior problems in school but began to cut classes early in the year, earning her detention and an alternative school placement. Her mother had pleaded with the assistant principal to refrain from sending her to alternative placement, in part because the mother knew that Angelica was acting out on purpose to be near her only friend in her new school, a girl with a history of truancy who was also at the alternative education setting. The administration sent Angelica to alternative placement according to the truancy policy. The school’s actions escalated her involvement with negative peer influences by alienating her


306

J. Sander et al.

from positive peers in the new school setting by way of solidifying her reputation as someone who associates with troublemaker girls. Once on probation 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 positive peer groups and integrate her back into the regular school setting. Only after the probation officer stepped in did the school administration alter its approach with Angelica. The school allowed her to return to her regular school. At the time of the interview, about 9 months after her criminal offense of trespassing, Angelica had joined ROTC, was manager of the basketball team, and had made several new friends who were approved of by her mother and probation officer. She is ‘‘the new Angelica,’’ as she described: One teacher was like ‘‘What happened to the old Angelica?’’ I was like ‘‘It’s still here,’’ and they are like ‘‘No it’s not, it’s like gone already, it’s the new Angelica.’’ (Interviewer: How does that make you feel?) I was like ‘‘Whoa’’ it makes me feel good! I’m like, ‘‘Yeah! They say I’m improving!’’ And me, let me just keep it up with it.

DISCUSSION Juvenile offenders and their families are often disempowered, disenfranchised, and stigmatized. They are also the closest to the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency. With those caveats in mind, we adopted CQR methods to study juvenile delinquency. Three main themes, all consistent with prior literature, emerged. Participants discussed the challenges related to limited social support for the family, the frustration of parents in advocating for their child in schools, and the importance of positive teacher-student relationships in terms of student engagement. Yet, each identified theme adds new information from the participants’ perspectives to illuminate how some of these background factors, often cited in existing literature, were connected to delinquency. The participants’ stories illuminate some recommendations for school consultation and are consistent with prior literature but not redundant. These recommendations fit within an existing theory of motivation, selfdetermination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002), and lend a framework to integrate these themes in a parsimonious way. This theory also is consistent with a preventionist perspective.

Self-Determination Theory In taking a look at the three themes, we looked for a theory in the literature that included all three components. Self-determination theory emerged. This theory began as a framework to study human development and personality.



307

It is an organismic theory, meaning it integrates the individual and that person’s environment along with the degree to which the environment supports or hinders the individual’s self-actualization (Deci & Ryan, 2002). There is also emerging empirical support for this theory in educational settings (Reeve, 2002). Briefly, self-determination theory predicts that the individual’s overall healthy integration and growth is related to the level of connection, competence, and autonomy that the individual experiences. Furthermore, an integrated experience along all three dimensions is important as a basic psychological 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 individual’s sense of self-efficacy or using one’s skills and capacities that result in some efficacious outcome. Third, autonomy is the feeling that a person’s actions are a choice, and the actions are consistent and fully integrated with individual interests, values, and sense of self. Autonomy does not mean independence but that even when an outside source is guiding an action, the individual person finds his or her own behavior consistent with that choice, even if there is dependence on another person (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Our findings add to the literature and support 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 is to challenge or at least examine a stereotype that parents of juvenile offenders are uninvolved or unavailable to their children. The other is that families of juvenile offenders are often socially isolated. The third is that juvenile offenders truly appreciated teacher relationships in terms of how teachers helped students learn. First, some parents of juvenile offenders may indeed be uninvolved. Yet, the risk of single mothers and increases in delinquency may be better explained 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 demonstrates that parents of juvenile offenders are lacking in skills (Dodge et al., 2008). However, when interactions are taken into account, data support a transactional relation between disruptive behavior and parenting behavior (Connell, Spencer, & Aber, 1994), acknowledging the complex interactions that influence overall development. Although negative family qualities are associated with families in the juvenile 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


308

J. Sander et al.

to be closely examined for each individual. Juvenile delinquency is a much broader problem than the specific diagnostic category of conduct disorder or antisocial personality disorder of the adult criminal. The stereotype, which is somewhat 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 provide support for their parenting role and as mentors for their child, and the stigma they faced. Our findings echo results from a survey study by Bradshaw, Glaser, Calhoun, and Bates (2006). In that study, parents of juvenile offenders appreciated parent resources and experienced less stress and greater capacity for 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 from a variety of sources. Additional research on family isolation, social support resources, and both instrumental and emotional types of support for the parents as well as the adolescents is needed. Specific research into interpersonal connection is warranted to elaborate on how social connections bolster families whose children are specifically at risk for delinquency. Furthermore, careful attention to distinguish between research on youths with severe conduct disorder and a broader group of youths and families related to the problem of juvenile delinquency is helpful in reducing stereotypes.

Student Engagement Another way our study adds to the literature via self-determination theory is in the area of competence. This is also related to connection, namely, the teacher-student relationship. As prior literature showed, the quality of the teacher-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 high school age. Our adolescent participants conveyed that they wanted teachers to help them with their learning. This input from our participants challenges the stereotype that juvenile offenders are uninterested in school. It is likely these 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 of the investigators, their goals seemed realistic given the general skills and interests of the adolescents. Such reasonable articulation of future aspirations demonstrates a resiliency among these participants to follow dreams and create opportunities for themselves despite significant challenges and obstacles in their school experiences. Such career motivation provides some



309

helpful insight that even though these participants were likely not engaged in school per se, they were looking for ways to obtain meaningful jobs for their own futures, and they did still value education. It is helpful to consider research on expectations and student performance as studies have demonstrated that teacher expectations do influence student performance (McKowan & Weinstein, 2008). Again, returning to self-determination theory, the adolescents expressed a desire to understand the material, a desire to achieve academic competence. They experienced discouragement and became disengaged in school tasks in part due to the negative interactions in school of boring teaching or a strained teacherstudent relationship in which the adolescent did not feel comfortable asking for or receiving academic help. Future research specifically about teacherstudent relationships, teacher expectations of student achievement, and academic competence in secondary education settings is warranted.

Parent Advocacy The role of parent as child advocate is instrumental in getting adolescents appropriate services through schools and is also a source of strain on the family that the parent must take this role. This also fits with the construct of autonomy from self-determination theory. The mothers in this study appeared to have a sense of power, a sense of authority that they could approach schools, disagree with school administrators, make requests, and seek 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 with schools at times. Parents and youth participants illuminated how the simple act of collaboration from school administrators was a huge relief, a powerful reduction in strain, and helpful to their child’s success. School staff and administrators who listen and consider parents’ requests and show respect for 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 jobs to 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 individual and collaborative approach to behavior change, and our findings add depth from the perspective of the youths themselves about how these policies erode connections to school.

Cultural Similarities and Differences in Sample Although fairly representative of ethnic groups of the geographic locations where this study took place, only a few ethnic groups are represented; nearly half the participants were Mexican American and the rest White. The

310

J. Sander et al.


interview did not include specific questions about culture, but participants mentioned ethnicity or culture indirectly. Responses across ethnic groups reflected similar, rather than different, experiences, but this is important to address in future studies. A thread of discrimination as a theme was evident across cultural and economic groups in this study and seemed to be a function of the characteristics of the community and the juvenile crimes, such as assumptions about gang affiliations or the reputation of the student based on past incidents. A closer look at this specific theme is important and is beyond the scope of this study.

Preventionist Framework The data from this study follow some common themes that originated in community psychology, the preventionist perspective. Adopting a preventionist framework, the overall wellness in a large population, rather than a specific negative outcome in an individual, is the focus (Cowan, 2000); school consultants can be mindful to promote strategies that enhance wellness for the community (the school and neighborhood itself) while also reducing the problem of juvenile crime. A preventionist approach is very well suited to the overall problem of delinquency. In fact, many of the school policies, such as suspension, that exacerbate child disengagement and also parent stress are prime examples of the types of interventions that contradict a preventionist approach. Stresses in school disciplinary settings in our study were parallel to those reported by parents of offenders in a survey study of families of detained juvenile offenders (Bradshaw et al., 2006). School suspensions based on policies rather than individual circumstances are a good example of how one intervention may address a piece of the problem but overall make the problem worse. A preventionist approach considers not only the immediate problematic behavior of the child but also how the intervention will impact the other support systems and will incorporate means of reducing the problem that do not undermine other sources of support in the system. As parents and youths in our study indicated, just having 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 recognizes the ability within each of us to help a fellow human being and encourages such indigenous caregiving’’ (Gullotta, 1987, p. 16). Teachers and parents have this capacity, and the youths benefit. As consultants, it is also important to keep in mind that each member of the system may need to both provide and receive the help from others, teachers, administrators, parents, and students. As part of systemic change, the preventionist consultant can take action to enhance competency, provide support, and encourage change in the school and community by facilitation, not doing something to or for the specific individuals (Gullotta, 1987). Participants in our study did not


311

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


Consultation and Juvenile Offenders Integrating the preventionist approach, the primary needs expressed by our participants, including a desire for individual academic help from teachers, collaboration between parents and school administrators, and the prior literature on the school-to-prison pipeline, we offer several recommendations for consultation. These recommendations are also consistent with a social justice approach and highlight advocacy on the part of the mental health professional as consultant. First, as supported in the consultee-centered consultation literature in particular (Lambert, Hylander & Sandoval, 2004), it is essential to examine consultee and consultant assumptions in relation to juvenile offenders and their families. This applies to faulty assumptions and stereotypes that (a) the adolescent does not care about school, (b) the parents do not care about the adolescent, and (c) parents are not trying hard to raise their children. Next, as recommended by our participants and supported by social justice literature, the simple task of asking what the parents or juvenile offender need to be successful and listening to their responses both empowers an underprivileged group and builds social connections. Finally, taking into account the preventionist approach, it is important to recognize the greatest resource to make positive changes is the human resource. Each teacher, administrator, consultant, or parent has the potential to make some difference. As consultants, fostering both individual and systemic changes is recommended. Specifically, seek to facilitate and enhance social connections, academic focus, and autonomy for parents, teachers, and students in the school community as a whole. In administrative consultation, simply addressing the assumptions of school administrators in disciplinary interactions is a key point for potential positive change.

Limitations This study illuminates perspectives on 32 participants from two urban settings, one in California and one in Texas. Although probation departments did indicate that the adolescents seemed typical of their populations, this sample may be atypical in some ways, such as mothers who were notably proactive or high functioning, even though they represented a range of educational and economic levels. Further research that may specifically seek to include participants who might be less proactive in research, such as not requiring parents to seek researchers based on a flier and facilitating easier access to participation in the research itself, would

312

J. Sander et al.

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


CONCLUSION This study illuminates the potentially important roles of schools, teachers, administrators, and parents in their individual and collaborative response efforts for any given adolescent, highlighting their interdependence. In all cases, participants provided numerous examples of how a single adult could either serve to alleviate or exacerbate a form of strain. Youths benefited from adults who took the time to attend to individual needs rather than prejudge, stereotype, or apply standard interventions and punishments. It is clear from these data that adults all had their own forms of strain, and it was through collaboration with mutual respect that interventions were most helpful in alleviating strain on the adults as well as the adolescents. In most cases it was clear how helpful the actions and kindness of a single teacher or administrator were in terms of reducing strain on the adolescent and family. Consultants in schools may need to work with school professionals on their own stereotypes and biases about youths on probation and their families in order to build the empathy needed to form positive, supportive, nurturing relationships needed to promote student engagement and intervention success. Additional research in the area of self-determination theory with juvenile offenders, qualitative and quantitative, is highly encouraged to further examine these complex relationships, particularly within school settings. Finally, in the words of Tony, professionals and parents should be persistent when working with a juvenile offender: I think like maybe sometimes people take longer to get through to. I guess maybe like, I would say, [when you are trying to help a kid] just don’t quit, no matter what, what results you’re 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, and the assistant principal] thought, ‘‘You know, this isn’t working we have to change our game plan.’’ Like their game plan was working but it was taking longer [to get through to me].

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was funded by a Society for the Study of School Psychology Early Career Grant. The first two authors also wish to thank the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference for facilitating and inspiring our work on this project.


313


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 in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 119–147. Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386. Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 3–15. Benner, A. D., Graham, S., & Mistry, R. S. (2008). Discerning direct and mediated effects of ecological structures and processes on adolescents’ educational outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 44, 840–854. Bradshaw, C., Glaser, B., Calhoun, G., & Bates, J. (2006). Beliefs and practices of the parents of violent and oppositional adolescents: An ecological perspective. Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 245–263. Bursztyn, A. (2007). Directions for future research: A research agenda for multicultural issues in education, assessment, and intervention. In G. B. Esquivel, E. C. Lopez, & S. G. Nahari (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural school psychology: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 639–658). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Carter, R. T., & Morrow, S. L. (2007). Qualitative research: Current and best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 205–208. 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 American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591, 98–124. Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prison pipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency. Exceptionality, 13(2), 69–88. 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. Child Development, 65, 493–506. Cowan, E. L. (2000). Now that we all know that primary prevention in mental health is great,what is it? Journal of Community Psychology, 28(1), 5–16. 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. Child Development, 79, 1907–1927. Farrington, D. P. (2005). Childhood origins of antisocial behavior. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 12, 177–190. Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional education programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248–259. Gullotta, T. P. (1987). Prevention’s technology. Journal of Primary Prevention, 8(1 & 2), 4–25.


314

J. Sander et al.

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 Justice and 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, 196–205. Hill, C. E., Thompson, B. J., & Williams, E. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572. Lambert, N. M., Hylander, I., & Sandoval, J. H. (2004). Consultee-centered consultation: Improving the quality of professional services in schools and community organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McKowan, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 235–261. Mulvey, E., & Cauffman, E. (2001). The inherent limits of predicting school violence. American Psychologist, 56, 797–802. Nastasi, B. K., & Schensul, S. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 177–195. 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 probation: 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 relationships. 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). Classroom effects on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 365–397. Pianta, R. C., & Stuhlman, M. (2004). Teacher-child relationships and children’s success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33, 444–458. Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183– 204). 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 of Children, 25, 532–551. Sharkey, J. D., You, S., & Schnoebelen, K. J. (2008). The relationship of school assets, individual resilience, and student engagement for youth grouped by level of family functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 402–418. Shochet, I. M., Dadds, M. R., Ham, D., & Montague, R. (2006). School connectedness is an underemphasized parameter in adolescent mental health: Results of a community prediction study. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 170–179. Sinclair, M., Christenson, S., Lehr, C., & Anderson, A. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from check & connect longitudinal studies. California School Psychologist, 8, 29–41.



315

Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. In R. J. Skiba & G. G. Noam (Eds.), Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep school safe? (pp. 17–44). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stormshak, E. A., & Dishion, T. J. (2002). An ecological approach to child and family clinical and counseling psychology. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 197–215. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1999). Discipline and behavioral support: Practices, pitfalls and promises. Effective School Practices, 17, 10–22. 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, 454–464. Zabel, R. H., & Nigro, F. A. (1999). Juvenile offenders with behavioral disorders, learning disabilities, and no disabilities: Self-reports of personal, family, and school characteristics. Behavioral Disorders, 25(1), 22–40. Janay B. Sander, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the School Psychology Doctoral Training Program 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 with these youths, their families, and schools. Jill D. Sharkey, PhD, NCSP, is faculty in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where her research focuses on juvenile 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 of California, Santa Barbara, where she subsequently joined the Center for School-Based Youth Development as a Postdoctoral Scholar, then as an Assistant Researcher, and now as the School Psychology Program Coordinator. Roger Olivarri is a doctoral candidate in the School Psychology program at The University of Texas at Austin. Prior to that he was a police officer and worked in a juvenile detention center. His main research interests are in juvenile justice and Mexican American culture and identity in relation to academic success. Diane A. Tanigawa is a School Psychologist for the Los Angeles Unified School District and a member of the National Association of School Psychologists. She received her doctorate degree in counseling/clinical/school psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 2009. Her research interests are in resilience, bullying, and school-based mental health services. Tory Mauseth is a doctoral student in the School Psychology program at the University of Texas at Austin. Prior to that she was a science teacher (grades 4–8). Her primary research interests 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 affiliated institutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias the opinions, decisions, or work presented in this manuscript. Associate Editor David Shriberg serves as action editor for Consultation in Societal Context manuscripts.