THE

PREVENTION OF
JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY

un experiment

Walter < . Reckless

Simon Dinitz
 $12.00

THE PREVENTION
OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY:
AN EXPERIMENT

by Walter C. Reckless and SimonDinitz

The disintegration of the social and familial

roles that children see for themselves, and the
alienating effects that are the inevitable ac
companiments of the increased mobility and
fluidity that mark our society, are the major
causes of delinquency and crime in the United
States today. The prevention of juvenile de
linquency must be tied, therefore, to an effort
to overcome this critical lack of a role struc
ture to which young people perceive them
selves as belonging, and to reverse the present
trend toward alienation and revolt.
The present volume reports the results of
a delinquency-prevention program conducted
over a period of three years in the seventh-
grade classes of the inner-city junior high
schools of a large American city. The experi
ment represents the culmination of fifteen
years of systematic and sustained research on
the part of the authors to determine the part
played by the child's concept of himself in the
identification, prevention, and control of ju
venile delinquency. Mindful of the fact that
in urban areas representing a high level of
economic deprivation and social disorganiza
tion as well as a high incidence of delin
quency most boys grow to manhood as
members of the blue-collar, working class
without having been brought to the attention
of police and court officials as a result of
delinquent behavior, Professors Dinitz and
Reckless designed their experiment so as to
investigate the possibility that a boy's notion
of the kind of person he is may be the deter
minant of how he behaves. Thus would a
(Continued on back flap)
 the prevention
of juvenile delinquency
Walter Reckless
Simon Diiiitz
THE
PREVENTION OF
JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY

an experiment

OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS

COLUMBUS 1972

Copyright 1972 by the Ohio State University Press

All Rights Reserved
Manufactured in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Reckless, Walter Cade.
The Prevention of juvenile delinquency.
Chiefly based on a report of the Ohio State University Research
Foundation to the National Institute of Mental Health, May 31,
1970.
1. Juvenile delinquency. I. Dinitz, Simon, joint author. II. Ohio.
State University, Columbus. Research Foundation. III. Title.
HV9069.R413 364.36 72-6750
ISBN 0-8142-0182-2
 Contents

Acknowledgements Xlll

Introduction 3
CHAPTER 1 An Overview of Juvenile Delin
quency 27
CHAPTER 2 Basic Dimensions of Juvenile De
linquency 34
CHAPTER 3 A Review of Delinquency Preven
tion Programs 42
CHAPTER 4 Project Design 54
CHAPTER 5 The Characteristics of the Project
Boys 67
CHAPTER 6 Findings 88
CHAPTER 7 Attitude and Perception
Changes 112
vi : : Contents
CHAPTER 8 An Interview Follow-up 130

CHAPTER 9 Summary and Conclusions 152

Appendixes 165

Index 247

List of Tables

Table 1: Number and Percentage of Experi

mental, Control, and Comparison Boys in the
Three Cohort Years 68
Table 2: Number and Percentage of Assign
ment of Subjects in the First Cohort, According
to Teacher-Principal Nominations, 1963-64 69
Table 3: Number and Percentage of Assign
ments of Subjects in the Second Cohort, Accord
ing to Teacher and Principal Nominations,
1964-65 70
Table 4: Number and Percentage of Assign
ments of Subjects in the Third Cohort, Accord
ing to Teacher and Principal Nominations,
1965-66 72
Table 5: Characteristics of 1,726 Experimental,
Control, and Comparison Boys in the Three Co
horts 74
viii : : List of Tables
Table 6: Number and Percentage of Experi
mentals, Controls, and Comparisons Having
Had Police Contact Prior to Project 80
Table 7: Type of Police Contact of Experimen
tal, Control, and Comparison Subjects, Prior to
Entrance in the Project 81
Table 8: Characteristics of White and Black
Experimental, Control and Comparison Sub
jects, Prior to Entrance into the Project 84
Table 9: Number and Percentage of White and
Black Experimental, Control, and Comparison
Subjects with Police Contact, Prior to Entrance
into the Project, for All Three Cohort Years 86
Table 10: Distribution of Offenses Committed
by White and Black Experimental, Control, and
Comparison Subjects, Prior to Entrance into
the Project, for All Three Cohort Years 87
Table 11: Percentages of Experimental, Con
trol, and Comparison Boys with Police Contact
at Various Times During the Study 90
Table 12: Number and Percentage of Delin
quency Offenses Recorded by the Police, Classi
fied as Serious, Moderate, and Slight 92
Table 13: Percentage of Delinquency Offenses
Recorded by the Police, Classified as Serious,
Moderate, and Slight, by Project Period 93
Table 14: Percentage of White and Black Ex
perimental, Control, and Comparison Boys with
Police Contact at Various Times During the
Study 95
 List of Tables : : ix

Table 15: Number and Percentage of Delin

quency Offenses Recorded by the Police, Classi

fied as Serious, Moderate, and Slight, by Race 96

Table 16: Distribution of Experimental, Con

trol, and Comparison Subjects According to

Category of Police Contact 99

Table 17: Age, Race, and Family Status by

Police-contact Category 102

Table 18: Number of Boys, Number and Per

centage of Recorded Offenses, and Mean Num

ber of Offenses, by Police-contact Category 105

Table 19: School Status of Experimental, Con

trol, and Comparison Subjects at the End of the

Project 106

Table 20: Percentage Distribution of Final

School-clearance Status by Police-contact Cate

gory 107

Table 21: Attendance Ratios of Experimental,

Control, and Comparison Boys from the Sixth

through the Tenth Grade 109

Table 22: Mean Attendance Ratios by School

Grade and Police-contact Category 109

Table 23: Mean Grade-point Averages of Ex

perimental, Control, and Comparison Subjects,

Before, During, and After the Program 110

Table 24: Mean Grade-point Averages by Po

lice-contact Category 111

Table 25: Mean Scores on 15 Items of the So

cialization Scale, Pre- and Post-test, by Sub

groups in the 1963-64 Cohort 115

x : : List of Tables
Table 26: Extent of Change in the Percentage
of Subjects Scoring Favorably on the 15 Sociali
zation Items, Pre- and Post-test, 1963-64 117
Table 27: Mean Scores on the 7 Self-concept
Items, Pre- and Post-test, Experimental and
Control Subjects, 1963-64 116
Table 28: Extent of Change in the Percentage
of Subjects Scoring Favorably on 7 Self-concept
Items, Pre- and Post-test, 1963-64 117
Table 29: Mean Scores on 11 Interpersonal-com
petence Items, Pre- and Post-test, Experimen
tal and Control Subjects, 1963-64 118
Table 30: Extent of Change in the Percentage
of Subjects Scoring Favorably on 11 Interper
sonal-competence Items, Pre and Post-test,
1963-64 119
Table 31: Pre- and Post-test Mean Scores on the
6 Guttman Subscales for the Experimental,
Control, and Comparison Subjects 123
Table 32: Pre- and Post-test Mean Scores on the
9 Guttman Subscales for the Experimental,
Control, and Comparison Subjects 127
Table 33: Improvement in the Experimentals
and Controls Reading Achievement, 1964-65
Cohort 129
Table 34: Percentages of Experimental and
Control Follow-up Boys as Rated by the Inter
viewers on Demeanor 134
 List of Tables : : xi
Table 35: Percentages of Experimental and
Control Follow-up Boys as rated by the Inter
viewers on Future Prospects 135
Table 36: Percentage of Interviewed Experi
mental and Control Subjects Responding to
Structured Questions on School 140
Table 37: Mean Scores of Self-reported Mis
conduct by Experimental and Control Follow-
up Interviewees 144
Table 38: Percentage of Experimentals and
Controls Who Responded Favorably (Never or
Very Often) on 17 Self-reported Items 145
Table 39: Mean Scores of Self-reported Mis
conduct of White and Black Follow-up Inter
viewees 146
Table 40: Percentage of White and Black Ex
perimentals and Controls Who Responded Fa
vorably (Never or Very Often) on 17 Self-
reported Items 147
Acknowledgments

The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency: An Experi

ment has been a fifteen-year odyssey involving not
only the authors, their collaborators, research associ
ates, graduate students and assistants but several
cities, their educational administrators, teachers, and,
not least, several thousand students. This adventure
in delinquency prevention and control has had four
distinct phases:
1. The "good" boy-"bad" boy phase during which
we developed our theory of the self-concept as an insu
lator against delinquency and tested this approach in
a series of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies in
Columbus and Akron, Ohio and in Brooklyn, New
York.
2. The development of a school-based delinquency
prevention program at the sixth-grade level in selected
elementary schools in Columbus.
3. The implementation of this program in all inner
xiv : : Acknowledgments
city junior high schools at the seventh-grade level using
experimental, control, and comparison students.
4. The evaluation of this school-based program
through an annual follow-up of all participating stu
dents and subsequent home interviews with a sample
of experimental group students.
The first phase was supported continuously by the
Ohio State University Office of Research and by sup
plemental grants from the Ohio State University De
velopment Fund. Without these seed monies and, par
ticularly, without the faith of the former vice-president
for research, Dr. Alfred Garrett, this program would
never have been implemented. We are also grateful to
John Fullen, Russell Campbell, and William Heim of
the Development Fund for their moral, no less than
their financial, help.
Three separate research grants from the National
Institute of Mental Helath supported the experimental
and demonstration program and its subsequent evalu
ation. Without these grants, 1-R11 MH 1304 (1963
66), 5 R l l MH 02353 (1966-68) and 5 R 01 MH
14800 (1968-70), this work would certainly have been
impossible to undertake and complete. We are greatly
indebted to NIMH and especially to Mr. Edward Flynn
for this funding.
Although the Brooklyn, New York, and Akron school
systems permitted us the freedom of their classrooms
and the participation of their sixth-grade students and
teachers in 1959 and 1960, nearly all of our work was
done in the Columbus schools. To the members of the
Columbus Board of Education, the former superin
tendent, Dr. Harold Eibling, Mr. W. W. Miller (now
retired) and Mr. L. W. Huber, assistant superintend
ent of instruction as well as to Mr. Herbert Williams
 Acknowledgments : : xv
(retired) and Miss Hortensia Dyer, we owe our deep
est thanks for their cooperation.
We are grateful, too, to the principals and sixth-
grade teachers in at least 44 elementary schools in
Columbus for their candidate nominations and advice
and counsel. It was the initiative of several of the
principals that prompted us to expand the program
from the four elementary schools to the seventh grade
of all inner-city junior high schools. No less helpful
were the personnel in the records office of the Columbus
Public Schools and the officers and staff in the Juvenile
Aid Bureau of the Columbus Police Department.
At the outset, the "good" boy-"bad" boy project was
staffed almost exclusively by our then graduate stu
dents: Ellen Murray, Barbara Kay, Jon Simpson,
Frank Scarpitti, Judson Landis, Edwin Lively, and
the late Ernest Donald.
For the demonstration and later evaluation phases,
we were unusually fortunate in attracting the inno
vative and enormously dedicated research directors of
the program. Dr. Nason P. Hall was the first of our
three directors (1963-66), Dr. Joseph E. Lowe, Jr.
followed in 1966-68, and Craig H. Mosier II helped
direct the completion of this pioneering work in 1968
70. To each of these research directors we owe a very
special debt of gratitude.
The research directors were fortunate in being able
to work with a group of teachers whose interest in the
program, concern for their students, and personal
style was truly remarkable. We can never thank them
sufficiently for their willingness to work in a demon
stration program that asked so much of them and gave
them so relatively little in return. Teachers of the
caliber of Ellsworth R. Foreman, John Hilliard,
xvi : : Acknowledgments
Wayne C. Murphy, Donald L. Pierce, and Norman
Landry make innovation possible and research re
warding.
Two former graduate students, Margaret Zahn and
Gordon Waldo, were competent and conscientious re
search associates and contributed significantly to the
development of our evaluation measures; other gradu
ate students, Harry Allen, Susan Ward, Brenda Rip
per, and Christine Schultz, were involved in the school
and police record clearances, and Harry Allen also
worked diligently on the analysis of the data.
We are grateful to three of our former project teach
ers, John Hillard, Wayne Murphy, and Donald Pierce,
who also served as our experimental group follow-up
interviewers.
Four full-time secretaries were involved in the dem
onstration and evaluation projects: Carma K. Hacken
bracht, Judity A. Wesner, Sue J. Finley, and Patricia
M. Mosure. All rate our thanks for their sincere and
competent efforts. Our part-time secretaries over the
years were Judy E. Gibson, Constance G. Halbe, and
Jean L. Henne.
Finally, and with very special thanks, we acknowl
edge the contribution of Dr. W. Hugh Missildine, who
was consulting psychiatrist on the project during the
years 1963-66. Dr. Missildine contributed to the men
tal health of everyone on the project.
In addition to the large number of articles that have
been published by us on our self-concept and "good"
and "bad" boy studies through the years, and the two
articles by Nason Hall and Gordon Waldo that are
referred to in the book, the project yielded a masters
thesis by Margaret Zahn and a doctoral dissertation
by Gordon Waldo.
 Acknowledgments : : xvii
Our final report, Youth Development Project, was
submitted to the National Institute of Mental Health
on May 31, 1970, by the Ohio State University Re
search Foundation. Most of the material in this volume
is taken from that final report. Another report, Youth
Development Report: Curriculum, Lesson Plans and
Supplementary Materials, was written by Nason Hall
and the project teachers and mimeographed by the Ohio
State Research Foundation in 1964. Again, some of
the descriptions and discussion of the contents of our
intervention program are drawn from this report.
We also gratefully acknowledge the permission of
the University of Delaware to include as the Introduc
tion an expanded and revised version of a paper pre
sented in the series of E. E. Paul du Pont Lectures on
Crime, Delinquency, and Corrections and published in
The Threat of Crime in America in 1969.
 the prevention
of juvenile delinquency
Introduction

Almost all languages in the world now include some

word or phrase to designate juvenile delinquency. A
few even contain a label for the middle-class delin
quent, such as blousons dores (jackets of gold) in
France, to distinguish them from those of lower class
origin, the blousons noirs (black jackets). Israel is
concerned with its B'nei tovim (middle-class delin
quents) , as well as with the more common, lower socio
economic types of delinquentsat either level or both,
a problem historically alien to Jewish life.1 In Holland,
Sweden, Italy, Poland, Russia, England and on other
continents, the ever-present juvenile delinquents are
referred to by various descriptive phrases, ranging
from the tight-jacketed ones to hooligans and include
taipau (Formosa), taiyozuku (Japan), and tapkaro
schi (Yugoslavia).2
This near universality of societal concern with
youthful offenders provides ample testimony that juve
nile delinquency is, if not a specific concomitant, cer
U : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
tainly an important aspect of the increasing urbani
zation, industrialization, modernization, and social
development of nations around the world. The specific
forms and types of delinquency may be as good a meas
ure as we have of the affluence of the country. Vandal
ism and auto theft are particularly appropriate illus
trations of this point. A recent visitor to the United
States from an eastern European country was describ
ing somewhat boastfully the enormous economic strides
being made in his country. As evidence, he commented
that joy riding by juveniles was the fastest growing
crime and that their car theft rates might soon rival
those in the United States.
Although juvenile delinquency is distinctly a phe
nomenon of modern society, history records that every
age and period had its problems in controlling, social
izing, and transmitting the cultural heritage to chil
dren. Mosaic law, for example, contained extreme
punishments for wayward and refractory youngsters.
Roman law was no less strict, endowing the family head
with all manner of disciplines. Medieval usage provided
for severe punishment for juvenile offenders, and the
American colonial period was characterized by the
specification of controls and penalties for evil children.
The principal difference between these earlier periods
and the present is that the youngster, except in the
rarest of instances, was highly integrated into the
family and the community, making the exercise of
these formal sanctions largely unnecessary.
Children were employed at an early age in produc
tive activities usually under the direct supervision and
control of the family head. Responsibility and maturity
came early. Marriage, family responsibilities, religious
traditions, and a lack of mobility that restricted per
 Introduction : : 5
sons from birth to death to a territory having a
fifty-mile radius all mitigated against delinquency.
Intergenerational conflict, by no means absent, was ef
fectively muted. The peer groups consisted of family
members and neighbors; and the youth culture, sub
culture, and contraculture were still to be invented.
Further, there were institutional outlets and safety
valves for the misfits or the deviants of those times.
One could usually enlist, first under the lords or
churchly patrons and, later, as nation-states emerged,
in the armies and navies of nation-states. In America,
until very recently, as elsewhere even now, migration
provided the safety valve. The restless could roam and
explore, fight and pioneer, and achieve status and re
nown in the process. But these institutional pathways
are now largely gone. The Armed Forces are ever more
demanding in their requirements, and the modern ex
plorers are college educated and highly skilled. There
is no place to run, because opportunities are tied not
to geography but to education and socioeconomic sta
tus.
Urban industrial societies, by their very nature, are
increasingly intolerant of deviation. Waywardness,
indolence, eccentricity, and the absence of long-range
goals, to say nothing of vandalism, theft, physical dam
age, and personal injury, are seriously disruptive and
costly. As society becomes more complex, the adolescent
or adult who presents problems to the system is labeled
and tagged and warehoused. There is no room and little
sympathy for the marginal, the disruptive, and the
dependent. Although a mother may love a defective
child, the family protect him, and neighbors tolerate
him, the community can only put him away. This in
creasing intolerance of deviation accounts for the re
6 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
liance upon agencies of social control to deal with any
and all difficult members. Additionally, complex so
cieties need and demand ever higher standards of
competence in their members. School becomes tougher;
the pressures, greater; the choice of a college, more
traumatic; good grades, more imperative. For the ma
jority who can master and exceed these demands, there
is little or no problem except that of self-imposed stress.
For the boy of low socioeconomic status or of lower
IQ and achievement potential, the pressures and legiti
mate prospects may be grim as he perceives and rejects
them.

CRIME AND YOUTH

The most important characteristic of the crime prob

lem in America is the fact that crime is a youthful
preoccupation.
Quite apart from the enormous amount of hidden
delinquency, the number of those officially involved is
staggering. Based on the estimates of a variety of
sourcesthe Uniform Crime Reports, juvenile court
recordsa large number of adolescents aged 10
through 17 are brought to and processed by the juve
nile courts annually. In 1970 the approximate figure
was 1,052,000 cases (907,000 different adolescents),
and these youths represented 2.8 percent of the 10
through 17 age-group in our population.3 In addition,
and based on the rule of thumb that there are four po
lice contacts that are disposed of by the Juvenile Aid
Bureaus in police departments for every case referred
to court, nearly four million adolescents become known
to the police each year for nontraffic offenses.
In 1970, juveniles, defined as those under 18 years
 Introduction : : 7
of age, constituted about 10.5 percent of all the arrests
for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 20.8 per
cent of the arrests for forcible rape, 33.4 percent for
robbery, 50.7 percent for larceny, and 56.1 percent for
auto theft.4
In human rather than in these percentage terms, the
incredible problem of juvenile delinquency is best un
derscored by noting that children aged 10 and younger
constituted nearly 33,000 of the arrests made for the
seven major Crime Index offenses in 1970. At ages 11
and 12 about 64,000 youngsters were arrested. At ages
13 and 14, the total was 160,000. Some 113,000 adoles
cents aged 15 were picked up for major crimes. The
single peak age was 16 in 1970; at age 16, the number
of arrestees was 115,000. A sharp reduction occurred
at age 17, when only 101,000 arrests were made. By
age 18, the number was 89,000. It was 70,000 at age
19, 56,000 at age 20, and 49,000 at age 21.5
The President's Commission on Law Enforcement
and Administration of Justice recently estimated that
by 1975 about 25.1 percent of the boys reaching age
18 will have been arrested for a nontraffic offense, and
6.5 percent of the girls reaching age 18 will probably
have experienced an arrest.

THE JUVENILE COURT CASES

The million or more adolescents placed under the

jurisdiction of juvenile courts in the United States are
of two types. The majority consists of those whose acts
would have been criminal if committed by adults. The
second and smaller group, consisting of about one-
fourth or less of all juvenile court cases, is composed
of adolescents who have not committed any such of
8 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
fenses. Instead, some have violated laws such as tru
ancy and curfew restrictions that apply specifically to
children, and the rest have violated no laws at all but
have been referred to the court as incorrigible, un
governable minors in need of supervision, and as being
beyond control. Surprisingly, the same outcomes, in
cluding institutionalization, sometimes occur in these
latter cases as in the cases of juveniles who have en
gaged in serious criminal violations. This means that
many youngsters are drawn into the correctional sys
tem who should be dealt with in a health and welfare
rather than a criminal context. One reasonable way of
solving this problem and eliminating the stigma cus
tomarily conferred on juvenile violators would be to
limit the jurisdiction of the court to adolescents who
have broken laws applicable to persons at all ages. All
other youngsters could then be referred to other more
appropriate public and private agencies, particularly
mental health clinics and outpatient facilities. If this
were done, over half the girls presently referred to the
court would no longer be subject to its jurisdiction.
Similarly, one fifth of the boys would also be treated
elsewhere.
The Scandinavian countries have led the way in
handling delinquent adolescents under 14 years of age
in a welfare context. In the recent Supreme Court
decision In re Gault, which is a landmark signaling a
change in direction, the Court held that, in addition to
the rights of due process to be accorded juveniles, the
court cannot impose any supervision or sanctions upon
a child unless he has been found guilty of the offense
charged. By extension and implication then, unless a
petition or affidavit alleging delinquency is filed, the
 Introduction : : 9
case should be handled by a noncourt agency. So-called
unofficial cases will have no place in court.

SOCIAL CHANGE AND DELINQUENCY

It is one thing to describe the near universality of

juvenile delinquency in industrial and even in develop
ing societies and to explore its various attributes in
cluding court processing but is quite another to explain
the etiology of juvenile involvement in crime. Various
interpretations are usually offered ranging from those
that focus on moral decay to those on the other end of
the continuum that emphasize biological, psychological,
and psychiatric problems as the basis for maladaptive
conduct. There is, of course, no specific explanation, in
the usual sense of that word, for delinquency. Instead,
it is necessary to view delinquency, and more broadly,
various other forms of deviancy, as inherently a part
of our social system. To prevent and control the prob
lem, substantial alterations in the social structure
would be requiredchanges few of us would be willing
to accept. Delinquency, along with other social patholo
gies, is the stiff price exacted for the modern, affluent,
twentieth-century life style.
This twentieth-century life style is a product of a
series of silent revolutions. These revolutions have
transformed the very fabric of human existence, chal
lenged historic moral and ethical values, induced the
creation of new philosophies such as pragmatism and
existentialism, and more profoundly affected the his
tory and destiny of man than all of the violent revolu
tions ever recorded.6
Without belaboring the issue, these silent revolu
10 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
tions include principally the industrial, the technologi
cal, and the scientific, which have altered man's con
ception of the universe, of truth, of work, and of
himself. They have been coupled with the mobility revo
lutionsboth vertical and horizontalthat changed
our conceptions of place and space and broke down the
traditional social control imposed by family, neighbor
hood, and generation. The urbanization revolution in
turn led to a further breakdown in the social control
mechanisms so effective in the small society. Finally,
together, these revolutions resulted in rising expecta
tions, via the mass media, to the life style of persons
in the most affluent of societies. Never again will peo
ple who have been so exposed settle for less. Evidence
for this is found not only in the slums of America but
in the most remote outposts of mankind.
The net effect of these dramatic changes or silent
revolutions has been to create a condition of cultural
lag in our institutions and of social disorganization in
many segments of our society. The old order is dead or
dying. The new one is yet to emerge. It is not by any
means unfair to assert that, for a very large sector of
the American people, the traditional institutional ar
rangements simply do not operate effectively. Age and
sex roles no longer mean much. Intergenerational con
flict has never been greater. Adolescence and aging
are stages in the life cycle that are, by definition and
expectation, traumatic. The cohesive nuclear family is
becoming an oddity. Many of its functions have passed
to other agencies. The educational system is excellent
for those prepared to learn and grow within it. Its
inadequacies and failures, for those who are not, are
well documented in official reports and studies: in the
dropouts, the truants, the functional illiterates, and
 Introduction : : 11
in the self-defined failures annually produced. The
religious system, once extremely effective in providing
meaning and direction, has been weakened almost be
yond recognition as the central focus of social control.
Without the continual reinforcement of these sanction
ing agencies, "norm erosion" is leaving all too many
adolescents without either strong internal or external
controls to guide them.
If the solution to a problem, as computer experts tell
us, is asking an answerable question, then the preven
tion and control of delinquency depends equally on
sorting out the various elements and focusing on the
significant issues. These variables, alluded to at many
previous points, include the family, the community,
and the value structure.

THE FAMILY AND DELINQUENCY

The family, in one or another form, is a universal

social institution. In every culture and in every time
period, the family has developed a format consonant
with and supportive of other institutions. Various
typologies have described this adaptation of the family
to the changing world. On one continuum the modern
family has moved from an institutional to a compan
ionship model; on another, the trustee, domestic, and
atomistic stages have succeeded one another. Those
with prophetic vision contend that a new, more rele
vant model is emerging because of the sexual revolu
tion occasioned by medical and scientific advance. This
model envisions a two-stage family: first, marriage
based on idealized notions and second, after divorce,
remarriage based on mature considerations of the re
12 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
alities and difficulties of partnership, procreation, so
cialization, and all the rest.
Whatever the fate of this vision and of similar trend
deductions, the modern family is substantially differ
ent from its predecessors. Many of its functionsedu
cation, recreation, even to an extent socialization of
the younghave been transferred to other agencies.
With the passing of the family as an economic unit,
patterns of familism, patriarchalism, and other ele
ments necessary for running the family as an efficient
unit are no longer meaningful. Few structures have
replaced these losses, and this is the reason for the
general breakdown in family functioning.
This breakdown or disorganization is reflected in a
wide variety of ways. First, the divorce rate in the
United States has climbed precipitously since the turn
of the century. In 1900 there were about 8 divorces for
every 100 marriages annually. The percentage at pres
ent is about 25. This means that at least 400,000 mar
riages are terminated each year by divorce and 100,
000 by desertion and other forms of separation. Fully
half of these divorces occur in the first half-dozen years
of marriage. Since 97 percent of those divorced re
marry, the disillusionment is not with marriage as
such but with the specific partner. Again, wholly as an
aside, a divorced woman has a greater probability of
remarrying than does a single woman of marrying for
the first time. With the decline in family size, and the
general exercise of willful control over births, only
two-fifths of the marriages that fail involve children
the one bright element in an otherwise dismal pic
ture.
These trends have prompted many sociologists of the
family to describe modern marriage as a type of sue
 Introduction : : 13
cessive or serial monogamy. Families may often con
sist of three sets of childrenhis, hers, and theirs. The
prevalence of this pattern becomes very apparent when
one tries to do longitudinal follow-up studies of school
children over a five-year period or longer. The name
changes are remarkably frequent. The serial monog
amy type of family is becoming a new version of the
old extended family.
As far as delinquency is involved, the evidence is
convincing that family dissolution and, perhaps even
more important, family breakdown and pathology are
significantly related to juvenile delinquency, particu
larly at the lower-class level.7 The consistent and im
pressive results of the Gluecks and of other researchers
are beyond refutation. It is possible to predict the
future delinquent involvement of lower-class boys in
the first grade with some accuracy using only those
variables that concern the cohesiveness of the family
and the quality of parent-child relationships. In a very
recent study, Craig and Glick of the New York City
Youth Board present 10 years of information on a co
hort of 301 boys entering the first grade. Of the 301,
about 53 percent were rated as behavior problems at
some time during elementary school by their teachers.
Of the total, 257 were nondelinquent, whereas 44 be
came delinquent. Almost 80 percent of the delinquents
and just 27.3 percent of the nondelinquents were rated
as troublesome by the end of the third grade. Using the
Glueck family predictive factors (supervision by
mother, discipline by mother, and cohesiveness of fam
ily) as an adjunct to the teacher classification, the
authors contend they could have predicted the case out
come of 92 percent of the later delinquents.8
A number of other evidences of the relationship of
1U : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
family dissolution and pathology to delinquency might
be cited. One in particular deserves serious thought. In
recent studies, the so-called multiproblem families in
our communities numbering somewhere between 7 and
10 percent of our city populations account for more
than half of the juvenile court cases. Such families are
often served by a dozen different agencies, most with
indifferent effect. This hard-core pathological family
challenges much of our traditional thinking and nearly
all of our present practices of delivering services to
persons and families in need.
The high rates of family dissolution, maladjustment,
and pathology adversely affect the socialization of the
young and create a cadre of adolescents who are freed
of external restraint and, often, of internal control as
well. Any experienced correctional administrator can
attest to the changing composition of the delinquent
and criminal population. Even allowing for the changes
in institutional populations, attributable to the more
frequent use of probation and other treatment meth
ods, the present breed of youthful and adult inmates is
increasingly beyond rehabilitation. Correctional people
speak of this new breed as lacking in feeling, devoid of
shame, anxiety-free, impulse-ridden, and all the rest
of the attributes associated with sociopathy.9 One plau
sible explanation offered for the greater frequency of
these dyysocial and antisocial persons is inadequate
socialization in the family. The unreached and un
reachable ones have never established patterns of
identification with anyone, making it incredibly diffi
cult for them to feel and experience and relate except
on the most primitive level. Depending on the number
and specificity of the criteria, about a fourth of adult
male prisoners might be classified as sociopaths.
 Introduction : : 15

THE EMERGENCE OF THE FEMALE-BASED HOUSEHOLD

Quite aside from the demonstrably serious conse

quences for normal personality development inherent
in family dissolution and pathology, a new style of
family organization is emerging that, less visibly but
nonetheless clearly, is influencing adolescent sociali
zation. This new pattern has been called the female-
based household. The female-based household cuts
across class lines, although the reasons for its existence
at the different class levels vary. In the upper and
upper-middle strata, the stature of the male derives not
from his familial role adequacy but from his instru
mental economic activities. The father is absent from
the home for perfectly legitimate occupational reasons
but he is absent nevertheless. Even his leisure has
become instrumental; social and recreational activity
must be justified in occupational terms. Somehow it is
less than manly to be concerned about home, family,
and children. This pattern of family organization is
rapidly filtering down to the general middle-class pop
ulation with the result that family decision-making has
become a female prerogative. Because of increasing
education and employment in professional and white
collar occupations, the pressures toward the institu
tionalization of the female-based household will surely
grow. Part of the acknowledged increase in middle-
class delinquencyvandalism, drug offenses, gambling
violations and sexual offenseshas been attributed to
this unique family format that has emerged.
In middle-class life even when the father is absent,
or to all intents and purposes a nonparticipant in fam
ily life, at least there is a male present who plays the
16 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
conventional roles. No such redeeming feature exists
in many lower-class families. The one-parent family is
frequently the rule with the woman, her female rela
tives or female neighbors playing all of the relevant
family roles. Children may not know their fathers at
all or may simply view the father role as a useless
appendage in the family. Male life is lived on the street
corner, in the bar, and among other males. A minor
contributor, or none at all, the once powerful patri
archal figure is now a most unimportant person. Psy
chologists, educationalists, and sociologists have fo
cused their attention on the developmental problems,
learning impediments, the lack of stimulation, and
other consequences of this style of family life.
Criminologists have been very concerned with the
lack of a male-role model in the female-based household
and its relationship to the compulsive-masculinity syn
drome that is best illustrated by the adolescent gang.
In fact, Bloch and Niederhoffer suggest that adolescent
insecurity is the key variable in the explanation of the
gang phenomenon in the urban setting. From the early
research of Thrasher to the more recent work of Ya
blonsky, Short and Strodtbeck, Cohen, and others, the
gang is depicted as offering a behavior-role-model sys
tem that is appealing to the adolescent male.10
The compulsive-masculinity theme, as an outgrowth
of the female-based household, can be exemplified in
several major themes in American lifethe preoccu
pation with and emphasis on speed, force, and violence
as major cultural motifs. The mass media have done a
great deal to idealize these values. Still, it is impossible
to idealize that which is not consonant with and reflec
tive of genuine values. From the Hell's Angels, whose
masculinity is tied to their dress, motorcycles, and
 Introduction : : 17
chains, to the youngest tattooed truant on the street
corner, masculinity and physical aggressiveness are
tied together. The "all masculine" male takes his pleas
ures where and when he can. He is so much a male as
to be almost a caricature of the type.
Despite this masculinity crisis that has been identi
fied as etiologic in the formation of juvenile gangs and
as a general cultural motif, it is necessary to recognize
that the majority of youngsterseven those from fe
male-dominated householdsfind adequate and lawful
alternative solutions for their masculine identity diffi
culties. It is the lower-class boy who is most profoundly
affected.

LOWER-CLASS FOCAL CONCERNS

There are certain universals in being lower class the

world over. In addition to grinding poverty, despair,
high mortality rates, poor health, hopelessness, inade
quate housing, large families, underemployment and
unemployment, the absence of occupational skills, and
insufficient education, lower-class life tends also to
feature certain values. These value or focal concerns
are generated in everyday life as the poor and unedu
cated confront the realities of their existence.11 Lower-
class values, so dramatically depicted by Oscar Lewis,
tend to reinforce the compulsive-masculinity emphasis
and are themselves an important element in generating
delinquent behavior by lower-class teenage boys. In the
Caribbean area, for example, the ethos described by
the term machismo (masculinity) is a central focus of
concern to many men. It is perhaps the dominant con
cern of males at the lowest socioeconomic level. For this
reason, a considerably greater proportion of Latin
18 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
American criminals than United States offenders have
been involved in violent crimes: shooting, knifing, beat
ing, and other forms of mayhem. In the United States
a subculture of violence, male and lower class, has been
identified by Wolfgang and by others.12 The pattern of
violenceintra-race and intra-sexis most evident on
weekends and is often triggered by casual and mean
ingless insults and quarrels that might go unanswered
entirely, except for the United States version of ma
chismo, called "being chicken" or cowardly.
Walter Miller has sounded the lower-class focal con
cern theme about as well as anyone. Says he:

There is a substantial segment of present-day Ameri

can society whose way of life, values and characteristic
patterns of behavior are the product of a distinctive
cultural system that may be termed "lower class." Evi
dence indicates that this cultural system is becoming
increasingly distinctive, and that the size of the group
that shares this tradition is increasing. The lower-class
way of life, in common with that of all distinctive cul
tural groups, is characterized by a set of focal concerns
areas or issues that command widespread and per
sistent attention and a high degree of emotional in
volvement.13

The lower-class focal concerns according to Miller

are trouble, toughness, smartness, excitement, fate,
and autonomy. Concern over trouble is a dominant
preoccupation in lower-class life. Getting into or stay
ing out of trouble represent major issues for all cate
gories of lower-class persons; young and old, male and
female. The everyday language of lower-class boys con
tains an inordinate number of references to this con
cept. Under these circumstances, although trouble
(usually with the law, teachers, principals, landlords,
 Introduction : : 19
merchants, bosses, coworkers, and family members)
may not be desired, it is certainly not unexpected.
Toughness is a second focal concern. The concept em
phasizes physical prowess (not toughness and disci
pline of mind that are middle-class virtues), fearless
ness, hardness, unemotionality, and maleness. Miller
invokes a psychoanalytic explanation for the perva
siveness of this concern, but whatever its origin, a few
minutes in a lower-class junior high school is sufficient
to convince even the most skeptical of us that tough
ness is an esteemed social value for the lower-class.
Smartness, as emphasized in lower-class culture, in
volves the ability to con others and be immune to being
conned by others. Although manipulation is not re
stricted to lower-class life, it is not highly valued at the
middle-class level where work is extolled and is thought
superior to manipulation. In addition, excitement and
thrill-seeking are classic values of lower-class life. This
search for novelty is evident in the widespread gam
bling behavior characteristic of all ages and both sexes,
but to a lesser degree for females. Numbers, policy,
lottery, dice, cards, and so forth are commonplace
modes of taking a risk. Speed, as in drag racing on or
off the track, is highly valued. Motorcycle races and ac
tivities and demolition derbies are two very interesting
variations on this theme. The excitement compulsion
extends to risking police detection in criminal offenses,
fist fighting, running away from home and "bumming
it," and to many other activities. Excitement is coun
terbalanced by periods of inactivity and dullness
"Hanging around" connotes the opposite of excitement
This inaction was classically phrased in a recent boo>
as follows: "Where are you going?" "Nowhere/
"What are you doing?" "Nothing."
20 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
Another important focal concern, fate, refers to the
belief that hidden forces dominate and determine fu
ture events and that the person himself can do little to
alter the course of events. This preoccupation is seen
especially in the gambling ethos. Picking a right or
lucky number is a major activity. To a greater or lesser
degree, powerlessness is nearly always translated into
a chance or luck ideology. The nearly universal lower-
class preoccupation with jinxes and luck merely attests
to the realistic assessment of life chances by the dis
enfranchised everywhere.
The last of the major lower-class focal concerns iden
tified by Miller is autonomy. The concept of autonomy
is found in much of the present writing about lower-
class life and its deviancy-generating potential. Some
times referred to as external restraint, the proposition
is that persons at the lower reaches of the stratification
system perceive themselves as, and in fact are, pushed
around by others in the system with greater power.
Authority is rarely seen as legitimate and is imposed
from the outside. Freedom of movement and choice are
perceived as severely restricted. In lower-class termi
nology, "Everyone is on my back." Hence the great
ideological goal is to free oneself from these restraints
and to be able to act independently in vital matters. As
Lipset and others have suggested, the quest for inde
pendence and adulthood, so well expressed by the Ne
gro in his warning to the police, "Don't call me 'boy',"
has its origin in the authoritarianism of lower-class
life. The often heavy-handed treatment accorded
lower-class youngsters at home is often the start of
lifelong disenchantment with every form of authority,
however legitimate.
Given these values, the emergence of the delinquent
 Introduction : : 21
subculture as a life style in slum neighborhoods is a
logical outcome. The delinquent subculture and life
style provide the male adolescent with a means of ex
pressing his maleness, of risk taking, of contesting
with authority, and of creating social groups in which
he can exercise autonomy. Although there are other
patterns and life styles in slum areas that deflect many
youngsters from criminal involvement, such as evan
gelistic religious sects, ethnic enclaves, character-
building groups, and even strong cohesive families, the
delinquency subculture is pervasively attractive to
many slum boys.
To the extent that the lower-class boy feels inade
quate to compete effectively in a middle-class oriented
society, featuring an emphasis on education, propriety,
orderliness, long-range goals, deferred gratification,
and planning, his low self esteem will translate into
inadequate performance and delinquent behavior.14

AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY

Cloward and Ohlin following the Cohen and Miller

tradition seek to explain delinquency in the lower
classes and the existence of pressures that tend to
create delinquency subcultures in terms of (1) the
limited opportunity to find legitimate means to goals,
and (2) the availability of illegitimate means within
modern urban life.15 The first part, limited access to
legitimate means, is a take-over of Merton's revision
of Durkheim's initial formulation. The second part of
the theory, that is, the availability of illegitimate
means to ends, argues for the reliance on criminal pat
terns as alternatives when legitimate avenues to suc
cess goals are closed.
22 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
Cloward and Ohlin contend that the lower-class ur
ban youths experience great disparity between the as
pirations that are culturally generated in adolescents
and the chances of achieving these goals. It is the dis
parity between the two that generates deviant behav
iorbetween the culturally induced aspirations and
the available legitimate means for fulfilling these as
pirations. In their own words, Cloward and Ohlin
maintain that "the disparity between what lower-class
youth are led to want and what is actually available
to them is the source of a major problem of adjust
ment. . . . Faced with limitations on legitimate ave
nues of access to (conventional) goals, and unable to
revise their aspirations downward, they experience
intense frustrations; the exploration of nonconformist
alternatives may be the result."16
The problems of adjustment and frustration of
lower-class youth, resulting from disparity of aspira
tions and their chances of fulfillment, are also referred
to as "position discontent." Cloward and Ohlin feel
that it is very important to recognize that many lower-
class youths develop this position discontent without
being oriented toward the success goals of the middle
class. They can experience position discontent even in
terms of lower-class success goals.
In the United States with its vertical-mobility ethic,
hard-core, multi-problem lower-class people are likely
to experience futility in their attempts to find ways
and means to success. The majority can find no legiti
mate way out of poverty. This view of delinquent be
havior as the result of the disparity between aspira
tions and chances of fulfillment is a more structurally
oriented thesis than is inadequate socialization or con
formity to lower-class values (Miller). The frustra
tion, disparity, position-discontent hypothesis de
 Introduction : : 23
scribes delinquency as the result of pressure toward
deviance. Delinquent subcultures, especially the crimi
nal and conflict-oriented subcultures, provide illegal
paths to success goals; these paths constitute a mode
of adjustment or solution to the frustration dilemma
or position discontent. The retreatist subculture repre
sents an escape from competition in a world where suc
cess is unattainable.
Cloward and Ohlin recognize furthermore that there
are both collective and solitary solutions to the problem
of blockage or limited access to legitimate goals. If in
dividuals attribute their failure to the social structure,
to the lack of opportunities, then they are likely to seek
or develop a collective solution such as a delinquent
subculture. If failure is perceived as a personal failure,
then individuals are likely to develop solitary solutions.
In the extreme case, the attempt to cope with personal
failure can result in mental illness.
The Cloward-Ohlin theory attempts to fuse together
four interrelated components: (1) two differential op
portunity systems (legal and illegal) in American ur
ban society; (2) blocked aspirations (culturally in
duced) within the available legitimate means to ends
(the legitimate structure) that lead to "position dis
content"; (3) the generation of a delinquency subcul
ture as a collective solution by lower-class youth for
overcoming blocked aspirations; and (4) the with
drawal of legitimacy from the conventional and the
attribution of legitimacy to illegal means to achieve
socially acceptable goals.

A NEW FOCUS

Despite the elegance of these and related structural

and, particularly, subcultural themes now dominating
21* : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
the criminological literature, this approach has failed
singularly to account for the obvious fact that most
adolescents, even in the highest delinquency areas,
manage to avoid any involvement with the juvenile
justice system. Thus, it is no longer sufficient or sen
sible for criminologists to call attention only to the
adverse impact of disorganized and disadvantaged
neighborhoods, family tensions and inadequacies, peer
pressures to deviate, street corner societies, and the
structural impediments to the achievement of socially
desirable goals. Who responds to patterns of deviance
and delinquency? Who resists and adopts non-deviant
coping mechanisms?
In a fluid world, the sociological core of criminolo
gists must search for self factors that have a contain
ing potential or a potential to steer the person away
from risks and deviance. For example, a good self-con
cept certainly has the power of appropriate self-direc
tion, steering the individual away from bad associates,
cheating, misappropriation of other persons' money,
drug abuse, overuse of alcohol, and other violations of
moral and legal norms. Likewise, good role models that
have been internalized also have the capacity to direct
the person toward acceptable activities.
The emphasis upon implanting and reinforcing fac
tors of internal containment appears to be the best
rationale for effective child rearing, education, and de
linquency prevention. In fact, it was this containment
emphasis in the study of delinquent behavior that led
the authors to develop the project described in this
volume which is a delinquency prevention program in
the inner city focusing upon boys at the beginning of
adolescence. Not only was it felt that there should be
an experimental test of appropriate preventive pro
 Introduction : : 25
grams but it was felt also that such a preventive effort
should focus upon the buildup of inner strengths in
preadolescent boys of the slums who are also showing
signs of gravitating toward delinquency. This is what
the present volume is all about.

1. Shlomo Shoham and M. Hovav, "B'nei TovimMiddle and

Upper Class Delinquency in Israel," Sociology and Social Research
48 (July 1964) :4.
2. William C. Kvaraceus, "Juvenile Delinquency: A Problem for
the Modern World," Federal Probation 28 (September 1964) :
12-18.
3. Juvenile Court Statistics, 1970 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. De
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare, January 7,1972), p. 2.
4. Uniform Crime Reports, 1970 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. De
partment of Justice, August 31, 1971), table 29, p. 128.
5. Ibid., table 28, pp. 126-27.
6. Russell R. Dynes et al., Social Problems: Dissensus and Devia
tion in an Industrial Society (New York: Oxford University Press,
1964), pp. 18-45.
7. For an excellent review of the research on this subject, see
Hyman Rodman and Paul Grams, "Juvenile Delinquency and the
Family: A Review and Discussion" in Juvenile Delinquency, and
Youth Crime, Task Force on Juvenile Delinquency, The President's
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice,
1967, Appendix L, pp. 188-222.
8. Maude M. Craig and Selma Glick, "School Behavior Related
to Later Delinquency and Non-Delinquency" Criminologica 5
(February 1968) : 17-27.
9. Robert D. Hare, Psychopathy: Theory and Research (New
York: Wiley, 1970).
10. Walter C. Reckless, The Crime Problem, 4th edition (New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967), chapter 19.
11. Walter P. Miller, "Lower Class Culture as a Generating
Milieu of Gang Delinquency," Journal of Social Issues 14 (1958):
5-19.
12. Marvin E. Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti, The Subculture
of Violence (London: Tavistock, 1967); Marvin E. Wolfgang, Pat
terns in Criminal Homicide (Philadelphia; University of Pennsyl
vania Press, 1958).
13. Miller, "Lower Class Culture," p. 7.
26 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
14. Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The Culture of The Gang
(New York: Free Press, 1955).
15. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd E. Ohlin, Delinquency and
Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Groups (New York: Free
Press, 1960).
16. Ibid., p. 86.
CHAPTER ONE

An Overview of
Juvenile Delinquency

Only in the last one hundred and fifty years has mod
ern society developed a special concern for the juvenile
offender. Throughout history, he was treated as a com
mon criminal when his violational behavior was serious
enough to warrant action. History does not record the
number of young people under 14 or 16 years of age
who were burned at the stake, hung from the scaffold,
or lashed with a whip in public. There is no evidence
of the prevalence of young male offenders (they would
now be considered juvenile delinquents) who were
transported in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
to far-off places under the so-called system of transpor
tation, which had been substituted for hanging. Like
wise, no specific indications are given in regard to the
relative number of young as compared with mature
male offenders who were chained on the galley ships of
the Roman Empire.
It is clear that three major trends developed in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries that had great
28 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
bearing on the handling of juvenile offenders and on
the increasing involvement of young people in deviant
behavior. The first trend resulted from a movement to
separate the handling of the juvenile from the handling
of the adult offender. The second trend represented a
growing extension of the period between adolescence
and adulthood, which eventually resulted in the break
down of an unambiguous role structure for youth. The
third trend developed in the wake of increased mobility
and fluidity of the population in modern countries,
causing considerable alienation of youths as well as
adults from their original social bases.

THE MOVEMENT TOWARD SEPARATE HANDLING

In regard to the first trend, there were two or three

early attempts in Europe to establish and operate spe
cially organized institutions for delinquent boys. With
the advent of the nineteenth century, the movement
toward handling delinquents separate from adults be
gan to take hold, not only in the United States but also
in Europe. The initial efforts to separate the two fo
cused on the building of so-called reform schools for
delinquent youths. The state of New York established
a separate institution for committed young male of
fenders in the 1820s. Other states in the United States
soon followed suit. For example, Ohio founded its sepa
rate reform school for delinquent boys in 1856, pat
terned after an institution that had been operating a
few years earlier in France.
Through the intercession of a Boston shoemaker,
John Augustus, judicial clemency was extended by the
court in Boston to young offenders and to alcoholics,
beginning in 1841. John Augustus, a public spirited,
 An Overview of Juvenile Delinquency : : 29
if somewhat impecunious citizen, voluntarily em
barked on a career of bailing out youths, prostitutes,
and drunks from the Boston Municipal Court. He thus
became the court's unofficial probation officer. After
carefully selecting his candidates, he bailed them out,
made them pledge their good conduct, and often pro
vided them with lodging. He proselytized employers for
jobs and physicians for medical care for his "proba
tioners." After his death, the Massachusetts legisla
ture authorized a state visiting agency for the place
ment of juveniles on probation. This allowed the
courts to withhold commitment to an institution and to
permit supervision of the offender by an interested
citizen, family, or agency known to the court. Thus, the
idea of probation as a substitute for commitment be
gan. Shortly after the Civil War, probation laws began
to be passed in the various states legalizing the use of
suspended sentences (probation).
Somewhat later, about 1880, a movement developed
to separate juveniles from adults in jails, founded on
the theory as well as the fact that young offenders were
often contaminated and exploited (sexually) by being
placed in the same cells with adult offenders. This
movement eventually led to the establishment of special
detention homes in the large urban counties for juve
nile delinquents awaiting trial.
The final development in separate handling came
with the movement that established separate court pro
cedure for juvenile delinquents and, in large cities,
separate juvenile courts. The state of Illinois led the
field in this endeavor with the passage of a law in 1899
prescribing a different procedure for processing juve
nile cases and also establishing the first juvenile court
in the United States, located in Cook County (Chi
30 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
cago). Actually, the trend toward separate handling
reflected the growing concern of an enlightened public
about the deleterious effects of the mixture of juvenile
and adults at the police, detention, court, and institu
tional levels. In the last generation, the movement to
ward special treatment reached the police departments
of the large cities, which established juvenile bureaus
to process juvenile cases separately from adult ar
restees.

EXTENDED ADOLESCENCE

The second major trend followed as a sort of after

math to the Industrial Revolution. The preindustrial
ized period of European and American history found
the 14-year-old boy being placed as an apprentice, to
learn a trade and to become a journeyman artisan at
18 years of age. He was encouraged to marry early
a girl was frequently married off by her father at 14
years of age. In other words, the role structure of pre-
industrialized modern society made provisions for the
youth to mature early and to assume economic, social,
religious, marital, and parental responsibilities.
With the passage of time following the Industrial
Revolution, fewer boys went through the apprentice
ship system, and fewer girls were married at 14. And
more and more, youth found difficulty in finding re
warding employment. Assisting the delay in social
maturation, compulsory school attendance laws were
passed in the United States, at first compelling attend
ance until 14 years of age and later until 16 years of
age. With the advancement in compulsory school at
tendance laws, more and more youths continued in high
school until 18 years of age; and more and more youths
 An Overview of Juvenile Delinquency : : 31
in the United States went on to college for still another
4 years. One might say that the "growing-up" period
in American life was definitely extended several years
beyond what it had been in Benjamin Franklin's day.

LACK OF ROLE STRUCTURE AND DELAYED MATURATION

It appears that the social system in the United States

today delays the maturation process and that Ameri
can society has really lost its role structure for youth.
There is nothing for them to do. The labor unions will
not have them. Industry does not want them. The mar
riage laws, except in special instances, prevent them
from marrying under 18 or 21 years of age (although
they are permitted to get a driver's license at 16 or 18).
In most cities and states they are not legally permitted
to buy or to consume intoxicating beverages. Along
with this trend toward delayed social maturation, most
states have extended the age limit of their juvenile
court laws to 18 years of age. One or two still retain 16
as the limit, and one state has a special provision for
handling youths up to 21 years of age.

MOBILITY, FLUIDITY, AND ALIENATION

In addition to lack of a role structure in which youth

under 18 can mature and in addition to the consequent
delay in maturation, American society has been af
fected by all the undermining consequences of the great
mobility of its population and the exaggerated fluidity
of life, including the enormous spread of new patterns
of behavior through the mass media, especially tele
vision. The breakdown of the local neighborhood life
and the dwindling effective control of the family over
32 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
its young members have been both the cause and effect
of this mobility and fluidity. Furthermore, a trend to
ward alienation (detachment) of young people (as
well as adults) from families, schools, organizations,
and religion also has come about, consequent for the
most part to increasing urbanization and technology.
EXPERIMENTATION AND REVOLT AS PATHWAYS

Certainly, the present situation is ripe for all kinds

of experimentation in behavior by young people: sex,
drugs, vandalism, theft, burglary, auto theft, and so
forth. The American scene, especially in urban areas is
ripe also for revolt of young people against lingering
controls of the so-called establishment. Hence, the
breakdown in the role structure for young people
(nothing for them to do to help them grow up) plus
the alienating effects of increased mobility and fluidity
represent the major pathways into delinquency and
crime in the United States today.

THE POTENTIAL OF SEPARATE HANDLING

Can this concern for separate handling of the juve

nile offenderseparate from the adult offender at po
lice, court, and institutional levelsprovide adequate
methods for dealing with youthful offenders today and
for guiding them back to a more conforming course of
life and behavior? The answer is yes, if our society can
develop the effective police work with juveniles under
18 years of age, effective juvenile courts (including
probation service), and effective retraining and prepa
ration for adult life at the institutions for committed
juvenile delinquents. The answer is also yes, if a large
segment of the American public is at the same time
 An Overview of Juvenile Delinquency : : S3
able to overcome its labeling and stigmatizing of juve
nile offenders.
The main potential of separate handling of the ju
venile offender who comes to the attention of the police,
the court, and the institution is in providing him with
an opportunity to assume acceptable behavior patterns
to avoid future involvement in delinquency. Separate
handling is nowhere near as certain a cure for delin
quency as is most of medical treatment for disease. But
it is certainly an opportunity for the young person to
develop internal controls and to settle down.

THE TASK OF PREVENTION

On the other hand, prevention of juvenile delin

quency in modern America must be geared to over
coming the lack of a meaningful role structure for
young people as well as overcoming the trend toward
alienation and revolt. The creation of a more meaning
ful role structure will have to evolve from appropriate
changes in the social system. Supplementary to the
evolution of a better role structure for youth is the
need for young persons themselves to develop inner
controls that are capable of steering them away from
pitfalls. The internalization of inner controls is some
thing that psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers,
teachers, and ministers are trying to facilitate in pre
adolescent and early adolescent youths. Such an effort
is truly preventive of delinquent and deviant behavior,
especially in a fluid world of alienated individuals. The
present project is concerned with the possible inter
nalization of feasible role models as an ingredient of
self-control.
CHAPTER TWO

Basic Dimensions of
Juvenile Delinquency

In order to understand the point at which delinquency

prevention programs have been attempted in the
United States as well as to assess their preventive po
tential, it is important to set forth the basic dimensions
of the juvenile delinquency problem.

SOCIAL AND LEGAL DEFINITIONS

First of all, juvenile delinquency is a socially and a

legally defined behavior problem. As behavior, delin
quency falls in the area of deviancybehavior that is
contrary to the prevailing social norms and that
arouses public as well as individual concern. Support
ing the deviancy aspect of delinquency is the legal as
pectthe definitions of delinquent behavior and the
definitions of the age limits of a juvenile delinquent.
In regard to the latter, the special laws in most states
of the United States define juvenile delinquency as a
violation of any section of the criminal code by a young
 Basic Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency : : 35
person under 18 years of age plus certain violations
that do not apply to adults, such as running away from
home, truancy from school, incorrigibility, and so
forth. One or two states still keep the upper age limit
at 16 years of age, where it was originally set in 1899
by the first juvenile court law in the state of Illinois.
The lower age limit of juvenile delinquency has never
been set by law but has been taken over from the Eng
lish common law, which held that no child under 7
years of age could be held legally responsible.

AGE AND SEX DISTRIBUTION

Actually, very few children under 12 years of age

are reported to the police or referred to the juvenile
courts or to the courts holding juvenile sessions. Evi
dently, preadolescent children do not manifest very
much violational behavior, or the victims and observers
of their behavior do not report it to official sources. Be
ginning with 12 years of age, the age curve of delin
quency begins to rise precipitously, reaching its peak
at 16 or 17 years of age. During adolescence, the child
in America is participating more outside the home and
is being influenced more and more by companions, pre
vailing patterns of youthful behavior, and community
conditions.
Of the total number of arrests in 1970, as reported
by 5,270 police agencies serving about three-quarters
of the population in the United States, 9.2 percent were
under 15 years of age and 25.3 were under 18 years of
age.1 In proportion to adult arrests (18 years and
over), the largest number of juvenile arrests, as
booked by the police, were for the offenses of burglary,
36 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
larceny, arson, vandalism, curfew violations, and run
ning away from home and school.
In 4,222 police agencies, covering about two-thirds
of the population of the United States, 1,182,666
males and 321,736 females under 18 years of age were
arrested in 1970, making a ratio of less than 4 to I.2
The 1969 statistics from 491 juvenile courts in the
country reported a boy-girl ratio of 3 to 1 for the year.3
As of June 30, 1970,4 the ratio of boys to girls was ap
proximately the same for the youths who had been
committed to public institutions for delinquents. One
should note that the ratio of girls to boys at the police,
court, and institutional levels is several times higher
than similar ratios for adult offenders. The adult male
to female ratio is approximately 8 to 1 for all offenses,
and for the major theft offenses 20 to 1 or even 30 to 1.
As for incarceration, the male to female ratio is even
higher. In Ohio, for example, of the 9,200 inmates in all
prisons in early 1972, only 260 were women. Similarly,
while jails and workhouses are desperately over
crowded, the female counterparts or units are virtually
empty by comparison. The county workhouse for fe
males in Franklin County (Columbus) is filled to ap
proximately one-third capacity.
The adolescent girl proportionately enters the delin
quency arena much more than the adult woman enters
the criminal arena, reflecting, among other things,
public concern about girls and the fear that wayward
ness will lead to pregnancy and venereal disease. This
protectiveness continues despite the changes in sexual
standards and the greater freedom now accorded
young persons, including girls. If the United States
had the same public attitude and the same juvenile
justice system as Switzerland, for example, the way
ward girl would not be handled by the police^ the ju
 Basic Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency : : 37
venile courts, or public institutions, but would be left
alone by the official agencies. Then her ratio to male
juvenile offenders would drop considerably; and in
stead of being 4 to 1 or 3 to 1, the ratio might even
become 15 to 1, thus approximating the adult ratio.

REPORTING AND REFERRAL

There are very few crimes or delinquencies that are

seen ("on view") by patrolmen; and hence, there are
very few instances of delinquent behavior that are
acted upon as they take place. Once in a while, foot
patrolmen or squad-car patrolmen might happen upon
a violation as it is taking place. Delinquent behavior,
then, as in the case of criminal behavior, is principally
reported by victims. Sometimes, it is reported by ob
servers or bystanders, but not often. Consequently, de
linquency is a function of the complaining process
the willingness of the victim or observer to call the
police (or, sometimes, to notify the juvenile court di
rectly) .
After the complaint comes to the attention of the
police, an investigation is made. This is followed by a
decision on the part of the investigating officers to hold
or to not hold the delinquent for the juvenile court. If
the youth is not held, he is often warned, and his par
ents are warned by the police about the consequences
of future involvement.

COURT ACTION

If and when an adolescent is held for the juvenile

court, he may be allowed to go home and await further
processing or he may be placed in a detention facility
for delinquents. The juvenile courts in the large cities
38 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
usually have an intake procedure that screens the
cases. If the intake officer of the court feels that the
youth can be allowed to go home without further proc
essing, this finishes the procedure. But if the intake
worker feels that the case should come before the judge
or his referee, then an affadavit must be filed (by the
police or any other complainant). The child and his
parents are notified of what to expect in the court pro
cedure and are told that they have a right to be repre
sented in the proceeding by counsel (in re of the Gault
decision).
The cases that are held for a court hearing may be
placed on probation to the court or may be committed
to a state or private institution. Only seldom are the
cases that are held for a hearing discharged without
some action or without being found "not guilty." One
must realize that the overwhelming majority of coun
ties in the United States merely have a special hearing
in regular courts for juvenile casesperhaps on Fri
days or some other designated time. They do not have
intake screening by an intake officer, and they do not
have referees acting as judges. Nevertheless, the court
procedure represents a hearing, in which the complain
ant can be present or the affadavit is read out in court.
The child and his parents may have the opportunity to
give some particulars of rebuttal. Both in regular
courts and in the specially organized juvenile courts,
there are few instances in which the child is actually
represented by counsel.

UNREPORTED DELINQUENCY

There is no question that the largest volume of de

linquency does not come to the attention of the police or
 Basic Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency : : 39
the courts, for reasons noted above. Victims or observ
ers seldom complain, and because much of it is hidden
from view, the police rarely see it actually taking place.
Sociologists have tried to obtain some gauge of unre
ported and unacted-upon delinquency from sample
studies of so-called self-reporting.5 The indications are
that the amount of involvement is considerable for
youths who do not come to the attention of the police
and the courts as well as for those who dosomewhat
more for the latter than the former.
One of the most recent studies of self-reported de
linquent behavior revealed that most of the "high vio
lators" in the sample of seventh-, eighth-, and ninth-
grade boys in a large city in New York state, did not
appear in the records of the local police department.
Only 19.8 percent of the total sample, including the
high, medium, and low violators on the self-reporting
schedule, was recorded in the police files.6
It seems clear that adequate inference in regard to
the extent of juvenile delinquency in the United States
cannot be made from either police records or juvenile
court records. Hence, persons interested in prevention
of delinquency must operate on the basis that the ma
jority of instances of deviant behavior do not come to
the attention of the social-control agents of society.

WHEN IS AND WHAT IS PREVENTION

In view of the very limited number of cases that do

come to the attention of the authorities, the question
becomes, At what point in the age of a young person
and at what point in unreported involvement should
prevention be inaugurated? Clearly, intervention
needs to occur before too much unreported delinquency
40 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
takes place in the life of a youth. The ideal, of course,
would be to introduce prevention before a child's first
serious delinquent act took place.
The time period in the lives of preadolescent children
when fairly serious deviations take place is also not a
consistent factor. Several authorities in the United
States hold the opinion that it is possible to develop
methods to screen children in order to determine at
what point in time they are likely to turn toward devi
ance. One important piece of research, which compared
a sample of delinquent and officially nondelinquent
boys in Boston, indicated that the boy most likely to
become involved in delinquency characteristically
would be mesomorphic (muscular), aggressive, hostile
and defiant, a direct (discrete) learner, and from a
bad home situation.7 Other authorities, such as Kvara
ceus, developed evidence to show that teachers as well
as other trained workers in contact with youth can
make good prognostications as to which of the boys who
had come to their attention were headed for delin
quency.8 As a matter of fact, one of the most important
early prevention projects had teachers and social work
ers screen boys under 12 years of age for those who
were and were not headed for trouble. This project,
which is mentioned in the next chapter, did intensive
counseling work with a split half (that is, randomly
selected groups of experimentals and controls) of the
youths who were prognosticated as headed for delin
quency.9 In fact, the present project of the authors also
obtained teacher prognostications on sixth-grade boys
in the inner city, as the basis for working with those
who were headed for trouble with the law.
Undoubtedly, the earlier in life youths are reached
for prevention, the better the focuscertainly by 12
 Basic Dimensions of Juvenile Delinquency : : bl
years of age or earlier. In addition, if selection of sub
jects can be made on a feasible basis, so much the bet
ter. But just how much unreported involvement would
have to take place before prevention efforts reach a
selected sample of youths, we cannot know. Probably,
the amount of involvement should not be serious
enough in quantity and quality to bring the youth to
the attention of the police. If an effective decision can
be made as to which youths should be reached and at
what point in their gravitation toward delinquency,
then the next matter to be considered is how and with
what means the program should reach them.

1. "Crime in the United States," Uniform Crime Reports, 1970

(Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Investigation, August 31,
1971), p. 128, table 29.
2. Ibid., p. 130, table 31.
3. Juvenile Court Statistics, 1969 (Washington, D.C: U.S. De
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare), p. 7, table 1.
4. Statistics of Public Institutions for Delinquent Children, 1970
(Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, June 30, 1971), p. 5.
5. See Austin L. Porterfield, Youth in Trouble (Fort Worth,
Tex.: Leo Potisham Foundation, 1946); and F. Ivan Nye and
James F. Short, Jr., "Scaling Delinquent Behavior," American
Sociological Review 22 (June 1957) :326-31.
6. Robert H. Hardt, "Delinquency and Social Class: Studies of
Juvenile Deviations or Police Dispositions," Youth Development
Center, Syracuse University, December 15, 1964, mimeographed,
pp. 2-3, 7. See also Robert H. Hardt and Sandra J. Peterson, "Ar
rests of Self and Friends as Indicators of Delinquency Involve
ment," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 5, no. 1,
(January 1968):44-51.
7. Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, Unravelling Juvenile Delin
quency (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950), pp.
281-82.
8. See William C Kvaraceus, K D Proneness Check List (New
York: World Book Company, 1953).
9. P. S. deQ Cabot, "A Long-Term Study of Children: The Cam
bridge-Somerville Youth Study," Child Development 2, no. 2,
(1950):143-49.
CHAPTER THREE

A Review of Delinquency
Prevention Programs

It would be fair and accurate to say that the United

States has tried harder than any other country in the
world to implement two types of programs for the pre
vention of juvenile delinquency. Both have been well
intentioned but operationally ineffective.
The growth of settlement houses in the slum areas of
large American cities attempted to reach youths as
well as adults; but, until rather recently, these neigh
borhood houses attracted boys and girls who, although
living in the slums, were not so likely to get into trouble
with the law. The local youths who were headed for
trouble were seldom reached by the settlement house or
its programs. In some instances, they were even asked
not to participate. When city parks and playgrounds
were developed in the United States, their programs
attracted the so-called good kids, not the bad ones. The
latter were frequently told to get out and stay away.
Likewise, when the Boy Scouts, the YMCA, and the
 A Review of Prevention Programs : : US
Boys' Clubs developed, prior to World War I, their pro
grams did not attract the delinquent boy. It was the
nondelinquent boy who saw merit in these early pro
grams and was, consequently, attracted to them. Even
as late as the 1920s, Thrasher found from firsthand
research that a boys' club in New York City had dif
ficulty in holding on to its members, that no conscious
attempt was made to reach the potential delinquent,
and that the program had no influence in decreasing
the offenses committed by its members.1
Presumably, the school programs focusing on reduc
tion of truancy, which was conceived to be the first step
toward official delinquency, have had a limited effect
on prevention of delinquency involvement, even when
they substituted the use of "visiting teacher" for tru
ant officer.
With the advent of clinical psychiatry and psychol
ogy, especially after Dr. William Healy's demonstra
tions of the use of clinics for the diagnosis and treat
ment of delinquent and problem children, several child
guidance clinics were developed in the large cities of
the United States. But their treatment options and
modalities were very limited. Not only were they very
costly to operate on a per case basis but they had a very
small and most insignificant intake. Obviously, the
reaching power of the pre-World War II delinquency
prevention programs was very, very limited.
Perhaps the first demonstration that attempted to
get on target was made by Clifford R. Shaw in Chicago
beginning in the early thirties.2 Shaw tried to reach
the boys in the gangs of the high-delinquency areas of
Chicago, and he developed a technique for training an
indigenous young adult male known to, and accepted
UU '. : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

by, the boys to act as group leader to an assigned gang.

The problem here was for the leader to find ways of
diverting behavior of the group from delinquency in
volvement to interesting nondeliquent activities.
The program of the so-called detached worker,3
which was developed by the New York City Youth
Board in the late forties, was an extension of Shaw's
approach. The worker, who could be accepted by the
local boys, was sent to the street corner. It was not ex
pected that the street-corner gang would come to the
playground, the YMCA, the Boys' Club, or the settle
ment house. A more recent (ca. 1961) demonstration
of reaching the gang was made by the Chicago Youth
Development Project, in which three Boys' Clubs of
Chicago attempted to reach the "unreached" by so-
called extension workers.4
In recent years, a limited number of gigantic pre
vention programs were established mainly in high-
delinquency areas of large cities (ca. 1961), funded in
part by President Kennedy's Committee on Juvenile
Delinquency and Youth Crime. These programs were
essentially "community based," and they represented
a herculean effort to get local citizens involved in their
own behalf and in providing services to overcome lim
ited opportunity.
These large community-based programs were de
veloped in the Lower East Side of Manhattan and in
Harlem in New York City; in Boston; in New Haven;
in Syracuse; in Los Angeles, and in Appalachia (Ka
nawah County, West Virginia) .5 All of these programs
were supposed to have a built-in provision for evalua
tion of results, but, because of so many intervening
variables, it is most difficult to assess whether these
programs have had any discernible preventive effect.
 A Review of Prevention Programs : :

A PIONEERING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

One program in particular for prevention of delin
quency had a built-in experimental design and should
be mentioned. It was the Cambridge-Somerville Youth
Study,6 which was established in 1935 in the two con
tiguous communities that make up Greater Boston.
The main objective was to discover whether close con
tact with so-called counselors could keep vulnerable
12-year-old boys from becoming delinquent. The proj
ect ran into difficulties of execution during the war
years and was never completed as planned. Neverthe
less, the experimental design was outstanding.
The Cambridge-Somerville project asked teachers,
social workers, and staff members of the juvenile court
to nominate boys under 12 years of age who could
profit from guidance by counselors. They were asked
to submit names of boys who were "difficult" as well
as boys who were "average" in behavior development.
The names of 1,900 boys were submitted, and out of
this list 325 matched pairs (650 boys) were chosen as
candidates for the project. By random selection, one
boy of a matched pair was placed in the treatment
group (receiving guidance), and the other boy was not
given guidance (only follow-up).
In addition to the experimental design, the Cam
bridge-Somerville project had certain other important
dimensions that should be indicated. It attempted not
only to reach boys showing vulnerability toward delin
quency but also to start with the "treatment" boy in
late childhood or at the threshold of adolescence, when
boys begin gravitating toward peer groups and gangs
where the companionship factor in delinquency is most
visibly operable.
46 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

THE DESIGN OF A RECENT EXPERIMENT

A very recent experimental project, entitled "Ef

fectiveness of Social Work with Acting-Out Youth,"
was developed at the Seattle Atlantic Street Center in
Seattle, Washington. Actually, this inner-city settle
ment house, after fifty years of operation, decided in
1959 to specialize in working with maladjusted youth.
In 1962, the Center generated an experimental pro
gram to test the effectiveness of intensive social-work
contact with "acting-out" boys. Approximately the
first two and one-half years were devoted to prepara
tion and pretesting. During the next two years the so-
called experimental group of high-risk boys received
the intensive casework treatment. An evaluation of the
boys was made during the last six months of the fifth
year. The sixth and seventh years were devoted en
tirely to follow-up evaluation.
One hundred and twenty-seven boys from the sev
enth grades of two inner-city junior high schools were
selected by various measures as being boys of high risk
for delinquency from among the total number of sev
enth-grade boys in these two schools. Fifty-four of the
127 were randomly chosen as subjects for the project
(the experimental boys) ; 18, as stand-by experimen
tals in the event of dropout; and 44, as control subjects
(not entered in the intensive-casework program). One
of the original sample was eliminated because of an er
ror in the selection process.
The 54 experimental boys (finally reduced to 51 in
the course of time) were assigned to three profession
ally trained male social workers; hence, each social
worker had a case load of approximately 18 experi
 A Review of Prevention Programs : : J>7

mental boys. All of the 54 experimentals volunteered

to participate in the program. A major part of the
program consisted of weekly group sessions at the Cen
ter, involving recreation, discussion, and refreshments.
The social workers maintained close contact with each
boy at home, in his neighborhood, and at school, and
also with the boy's family, teachers, and peer-group
associates. The intensive service of the social worker
was guided by five generalized goals: (1) confronta
tion (forcing the client and his family to recognize
their problems) ; (2) support (bolstering the ego, in
tervention in behalf of the client, and so forth) ; (3)
reality orientation (unwinding the denial and defense
mechanisms); (4) social-psychological development
(better understanding of relationships and of the mo
tivations in back of behavior), and (5) ego identity
(the development of a positive identity).7

EVOLUTION OF THE PRESENT PROJECT

The present demonstration project in delinquency

prevention, located in the seventh grade of eight junior
high schools of the inner city in Columbus, Ohio,
evolved out of research that we had been doing for
several years. Beginning in 1955,8 we attempted to
make soundings in the high-delinquency areas of Co
lumbus relative to differences between sixth-grade
boys (threshold age for ordinary delinquency) who
were apparently headed toward and not headed toward
delinquency- The sixth-grade teachers in sample ele
mentary schools of the high-delinquency areas were
asked to nominate the boys in their classes who, in their
judgment, were likely to stay out of trouble with the
law and likely also to finish high school. The investiga
48 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
tors started with the nominated "good boys."
Two interviewers were sent to the home of each
nominated "good boy" to contact the boy and his
mother simultaneously (in separate rooms of their
home). The interview was structured by use of a sched
ule that attempted to get at the boy's own view of him
self and his outlook on life. The mother's schedule
attempted to reveal the way she thought her son looked
upon life and himself.
The following year (1956), the investigators re
turned to the same sixth-grade rooms and asked the
teachers to nominate the boys in their classes who, in
their judgment, were likely to get into trouble with the
law (become delinquent) and were likely not to finish
school. The same interview contacts were made with
these boys and their mothers.
The investigators at the time were impressed with
the difference between the so-called good boys and the
so-called bad boys in regard to their outlook. The in
vestigators called this outlook the self-concept. The
nominated good boys seemingly had a favorable self-
concept, whereas the nominated bad boys had an un
favorable one. The investigators at the time were also
impressed with the possibility that a good self-concept
might represent a sort of social-psychological vaccina
tion against delinquency, whereas a poor self-concept
might represent vulnerability toward delinquency.
Furthermore, it appeared to the researchers that the
good boy had, among other things working in his favor,
an inner containment,9 which helped him to steer him
self in a nondelinquent direction in neighborhoods of
high delinquency. The boys with a poor self-concept
lacked an inner containing factor and were thus more
susceptible to the pressures and pulls of life in the
 A Review of Prevention Programs : : li>9

inner city. The investigators felt they were on the

track of an important self factor10 that might help to
explain why some boysprobably the large majority
are able to steer away from delinquency involvement
and some gravitate toward involvement. Subsequent
research in Columbus, in Akron, and in Brooklyn gave
considerable validation to the reality of a differential
self-concept.
The Columbus school system's assistant superintend
ent in charge of instruction, who had been very coop
erative in helping the investigators to expedite their
initial research on the differential self-concept of the
inner-city's nominated good and bad sixth-grade (12
year-old) boys, suggested that an actual application be
made. The investigators designed a pilot project for
the vulnerable sixth-grade boys in two classes of one
elementary school in a high-delinquency area. The boys
were selected by teacher nomination and were also
screened for directionality toward delinquency by their
responses to self-concept items and to the Socialization
Scale of the California Psychological Inventory. In the
first demonstration during the second semester of the
1959-60 school year, 12 sixth-grade boys in one ele
mentary school were taken during the last hour of the
school day into a special meeting place in the school
and placed under the supervision of a graduate assist
ant who had been trained to present to the boys appro
priate insights into life situations and appropriate
"role models."
The pilot project was continued at the same school
during the school year 1960-61. It was expanded in
1961-62 to four elementary schools in high-delinquency
areas of Columbus. The results of this attempt to "beef
up" the self by presentation of appropriate role models
50 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
and by internalization of better self-concepts were en
couraging, and the question arose whether it was pos
sible to extend the project throughout the greater part
of Columbus's inner city.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT

We finally decided that the best place in the Colum

bus school system to implement a demonstration-evalu
ation project was in the seventh grades of eight junior
high schools that serve children in the high-delinquency
areas. At this time, the seventh grades in the junior
high schools of Columbus were operating so-called self-
contained classes, in which pupils had the same teacher
for three consecutive class periods of 40 minutes each
(120 minutes) every school day during the entire year.
The principal subjects usually covered in the self-con
tained classes were social studies, world geography,
and English. Social studies consisted primarily of the
study of Ohio history (required by law) as well as of
state and local government.
The self-contained classes afforded the opportunity
to infuse materials that could present models of be
havior (principally role models) along with the re
quired material. One self-contained class in each of the
eight junior high schools was designated as the experi
mental class, in which role models would supplement
the regular educational material. This designated class
became an "all-boy" class, composed of randomly se
lected boys nominated as headed for trouble and not
likely to finish school by their sixth-grade teachers and
by the principals of the 44 feeder elementary schools.
The project designated these boys as the "bad-boy ex
perimentals." The remainder of the nominated so
 A Review of Prevention Programs : : 51
called bad boys were assigned to the regular self-con
tained classes in the seventh grade, which included
girls as well as the so-called good boys (designated by
the teachers and principals as unlikely to get into
trouble and likely to finish school). The regular self-
contained seventh-grade classes did not receive the
role-model and other supplementation, which was the
medicine administered to "beef up" the self and thus
to guide the youth away from delinquency involvement.
It will become apparent from the details in the next
chapter that the project attempted to follow an experi
mental design: random assignment of the bad boys to
the so-called treatment group and to the control group
(not receiving the role-model medicine but only the
regular diet), plus the assignment of the so-called good
boys to a regular seventh-grade self-contained class
room. Thus, the project attempted to have an experi
mental group and a control group of boys headed to
ward delinquency plus a comparison group composed
of boys supposedly moving in the positive direction of
social adjustment.
At this juncture, if the characteristics of the Colum
bus delinquency prevention program need to be sum
marized, the following points can be noted.
1. The project operated in high-delinquency areas.
2. The attempt was made to reach the boys headed
for delinquency involvement.
3. The boys were still at threshold age for delin
quency (13 years of age and in the seventh
grade).
4. The classroom and the teacher were the educa
tional vehicles of the program.
5. The guiding principle of the program was the
52 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
presentation of an educational supplement to a
treatment group that attempted to get the youth
to internalize better models of behavior and thus
strengthen the steering power of his self.
6. The program presented one academic year's ex
posure of the treatment group in an all-boy class
to the role model supplement infused into the
regular school fare.
7. The project utilized an experimental design to
facilitate the testing of outcome.

1. Frederick M. Thrasher, "The Boys' Club and Juvenile Delin

quency," American Journal of Sociology 42 (July 1936) :67-68.
2. Solomon Kobrin, "The Chicago Area ProjectA 25-Year As
sessment," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 32 (March 1959) :22-28.
3. Ralph W. Whelan, "New York City Serves Its Youth: A Re
port on the Work of the Youth Board," mimeographed (New York:
New York City Youth Board, 1956). See also Walter B. Miller,
"Preventive Work with Street-Corner Groups: Boston Delinquency
Project," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 32 (March 1959) : 98-106.
4. Hans W. Mattick and Nathan S. Caplan, "The Chicago Youth
Development Project," mimeographed (Chicago: Chicago Boys'
Club, 304 W. Randolph Street, April 1,1962), pp. 1, 2,10,11,18-20,
22, 25, 26, 29-39.
5. President's Committee on Delinquency and Youth Crime,
"Counter-Attack on Delinquency," mimeographed (Washington,
1965).
6. Edwin Powers and Helen Witmer, An Experiment in Preven
tion of Delinquency: The Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study (New
York: Columbia University Press, 1951), pp. 324-36. Joan and
William McCord, "A Follow-Up Report on the Cambridge-Somer
ville Youth Study," Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 32 (March 1959): 96.
7. James R. Seaberg, "An Example of Social Work Intervention
with Acting-Out Youth," (Seattle, Wash.: Seattle Atlantic Street
Center, 2103 S. Atlantic Street, 98144).
8. Walter C. Reckless, Simon Dinitz, and Ellen Murray, "The
'Good' Boy in a High Delinquency Area," Journal of Criminal Law,
 A Review of Prevention Programs : : 53
Criminology and Police Science 48 (August 1957): 17-25. Walter C.
Reckless, Simon Dinitz, and Ellen Murray, "Self Component as an
Insulator Against Delinquency," American Sociological Review 21
(December 1956) :221-23. Walter C. Reckless, Simon Dinitz, and
Barbara Kay, "The Self Component in Potential Delinquency,"
American Sociological Review 22 (October 1957) :566-70. Simon
Dinitz and Barbara Kay, "Group Gradients in Delinquency Poten
tial and Achievement Scores of Sixth Graders," Journal of Ortho
psychiatry 28 (July 1958) -.598-606. Simon Dinitz, Frank R. Scar
pitti, and Walter C. Reckless, "Delinquency Vulnerability: A Cross
Group and Longitudinal Analysis," American Sociological Review
27, no. 4 (August 1962) :517. Ernest P. Donald, "Self Concept of
Sixth-Grade Boys: A Study of Delinquency Proneness" (Ph.D.
diss., Ohio State University, 1963). See also Ernest P. Donald and
Simon Dinitz, "Self Concept and Delinquency Proneness," in Inter
disciplinary Problems in Criminology: Papers of the American
Society of Criminology, 1964, ed. Walter C. Reckless and Charles L.
Newman (Columbus: Ohio State University, College of Commerce
and Administration, 1965), pp. 49-59.
9. Walter C. Reckless, The Crime Problem, 4th ed. (New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967), pp. 475-78.
10. Ibid., pp. 444, 467-68.
CHAPTER FOUR

Project Design

The project attempted to follow an experimental de

sign to determine whether potentially delinquent and
potentially drop-out boys who are given a year's inter
vention in the seventh grade will have a lower rate of
delinquency incidence in a four-year follow-up period
than the untreated group of potential delinquents and
potential drop-outs.

SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE

As has been indicated briefly, the investigators asked

teachers and principals in 44 elementary schools in the
inner city in Columbus, Ohio, to evaluate all of their
male sixth-grade students as candidates for delin
quency status using three categories: (a) unlikely, (b)
possible, and (c) likely. "Good" boys obviously consti
tuted the first category, "vulnerable" or "bad" boys the
last two.
 Project Design : : 55
Teachers and principals were also asked to indicate
the likelihood of each sixth-grade boy's finishing high
school. The previous experience of the investigators
with sixth-grade-teacher ratings indicated that such
ratings were quite realistic. In other words, the sixth-
grade teacher, who had the boy in class the whole school
day for the entire school year, had become well ac
quainted with his development and was, therefore,
likely to be a fair prognosticator of his outcome.
The sixth-grade teacher's rating list was reviewed
by the principal in each elementary school. He usually
confirmed the rating, not just as a procedural confir
mation but as an actual one based on his knowledge of
the boy. Differences between the ratings of principal
and teacher appeared in only a very few instances (see
table 3, chapter 5).
Beginning with the second cohort, the investigators
asked the sixth-grade teachers to indicate those boys
on their class lists with IQ test results lower than 70 as
well as the boys who showed obvious emotional distur
bances and serious physical handicaps. These boys were
eliminated from the samples in the second and third
cohort years.
The rating lists of the sixth-grade teachers were
turned over to the staff of the project. The co-principal
investigator and the project director made random as
signments of the vulnerable boys who were to be placed
in the all-boy experimental self-contained seventh-
grade classes, of the vulnerable boys who were to be
placed in the regular self-contained seventh-grade
classes, and of the good boys (not headed for trouble)
who were to be assigned to the regular self-contained
classes and followed as a special comparison group.
These random assignments were made from cards
56 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
with name identification, obtained from the sixth-grade
teachers. However, because of class sizes of the ele
mentary schools that fed the junior high schools and the
requirement in the eight junior high schools to assign
as close to 35 boys as possible to the experimental
classes, it was necessary to assign randomly almost
two-thirds of the vulnerable boys to the experimental
classes. It was only possible to approximate a 50-50
split of the bad boys (likely or possible to become in
volved in law-violating activity) in the third cohort
year (1965-66).

PROJECT TEACHERS AND STAFF

It was decided to select the project teachers for the

experimental self-contained classes from the male
teachers who ordinarily taught self-contained classes
in the seventh grade. The assistant superintendent in
charge of instruction of the Columbus public schools
suggested several male seventh-grade teachers who
might well qualify for the task. The principal investi
gator, after looking over the credentials and after a
personal interview with each prospect, made the selec
tion of the four male teachers who became the project
teachers.
The four selectees were gathered in a training semi
nar at the Ohio State University with the principal in
vestigator for a two-week period during July 1963.
Discussion was held on topics pertinent to the project
and pertinent to the understanding of the particular
boys on whom the experimental classes would focus.
Suggestions for effective topics and methods of presen
tation as well as approaches to the behavior problems
of the boys and their level of comprehension were dis
 Project Design : : 57
cussed. One of the main results of the daily seminar
was the development of a close identificationa sort of
"in-group feeling." The selected project teachers were
paid a modest salary for the overtime spent in the
training seminar during the vacation season. The di
rector of the project joined the staff in late August
1963. The secretary and the research assistant of the
project were also selected and integrated at this time.
The consulting psychiatrist also held a preliminary
session with the four project teachers and the director.
When school opened, the project was ready to go.

ASSIGNMENT OF CASES

Arrangements were made with the principals of each

of the eight junior high schools to place the incoming
seventh-grade boys according to assignments decided
upon by the project staff. Case folders were prepared
for each boy assigned to the experimental class, to a
regular class, and also for the sample of the good-boy
comparisons who also received the regular seventh-
grade self-contained class curriculum.
The same assignment procedure was followed in Sep
tember of three consecutive school years beginning in
1963, 1964, and 1965. Consequently, the project had
three yearly cohorts and three subgroups in each yearly
cohort: the randomly selected bad boys who were as
signed to the all-boy experimental self-contained class ;
the bad boys who were assigned to the control group,
receiving the regular material of the self-contained
class; and a randomly selected sample (about 15 per
cent) of the good boys who were also assigned to a
regular self-contained class.
58 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

INTERPRETATION OP THE EXPERIMENTAL CLASS

It was agreed between the project teachers, the staff,
and the principals that inquiries from boys as to why
they were assigned to the experimental class would be
answered by the following statement: "Mr. Jones
wanted to have an all-boy class, and he picked you."
This seemed to allay the suspicions of the experimental
boys and certainly answered the questions, "Why are
we here? Are we 'hoods'?"
During the first part of the demonstration, the proj
ect director visited each junior high school at a teach
ers' assembly or meeting and presented a statement of
the design and purpose of the project and the experi
mental class. This did much to improve understanding
and to further cooperation.

ASSIGNMENT OF PROJECT TEACHERS

By arrangement with the Columbus school authori

ties, including the principals of the junior high schools,
each of the four project teachers was assigned to handle
the experimental all-boy self-contained class in two
junior high schools. He handled the all-boy experimen
tal class in one junior high school in the morning and in
another in the afternoon. The staff made certain that
each project teacher was able to identify with each of
his two junior high schools, so as not to be considered a
part-time outsider. The morning assignment consisted
of conducting the all-boy experimental self-contained
class for three class periods (120 minutes) plus other
teaching duties that were assigned at that particular
junior high school. The afternoon assignment in a dif
ferent school duplicated the morning assignment.
 Project Design : : 59

DAILY AFTER-SCHOOL SESSIONS

The four project teachers reported each school-day

afternoon to the project director for an approximate
two-hour discussion session. The project teachers re
ceived an overtime stipend for this after-school-hours
assignment. At these daily sessions, difficulties were
presented and problems solved. Proposals for presen
tation of role-model and related materials were dis
cussed, and agreements were reached on what content
to present and in what form. In other words, lesson
plans were produced. Agreement was also reached as to
when (on what day) a particular lesson plan was to be
offered in each experimental self-contained class. The
supplemental curriculum content consisting of the role-
model lesson plans was a product of these daily after-
school sessions, particularly in the first year of the
project.
DISCUSSIONS SESSIONS WITH THE STAFF PSYCHIATRIST

Each Saturday, excluding holidays, was devoted to

a two-hour morning session with the project's consult
ing psychiatrist attended by the project director and
the four project teachers. Discussions were focused on
the behavioral problems that arose in the experimental
self-contained classes, and suggestions were developed
as to how to handle these problems in the classroom and
how to approach the special problems of individual
boys.
CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE

In particular, a plan of classroom conduct regulation

was developed in the initial Saturday session. This was
60 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
called, in the words of the consulting psychiatrist, "re
specting the rights of others."1 According to this plan,
a boy in any of the eight experimental classes whose
behavior was disturbing or rule-violating was asked to
leave the group and to sit in front of the classroom door
until he felt he was ready to join the class again and to
"respect the rights of others." Under this plan, no boy
was sent to the principal's office for misconduct. The
project teachers and the staff of the project were con
vinced that the "mutual respect" approach to class
room discipline worked very successfully, that it en
hanced learning on the part of the pupils, and that it
increased the effectiveness of the teachers.

SECOND AND THIRD YEARS

Most of the decisions on the content and the form of

presentation of models of behavior (lesson plans) were
made the first year by the project teachers and the staff
of the project. However, the lesson plans were improved
in content and presentation during the second year in
the daily after-school sessions. During the third year,
the afternoons of the project teachers were in large
part devoted to home calls on the families of the indi
vidual boys in the project classes. This was looked upon
as adding an extra reinforcement to the content of the
role-model supplement of the self-contained classes.

REMEDIAL READING

Very early in the first year of the project, the teach

ers and the staff became increasingly concerned with
the fact that the experimental boys were behind in
reading ability. They averaged 1.05 years below grade
 Project Design : : 61
level. At the end of the sixth-grade, they ranged in
reading achievement level all the way from 2.6 to 10.1
grade level. (The IQ averaged 93.96 and ranged from
65 to 140.)2 During the first year, the project pur
chased an ample supply of paperback novels, biogra
phies, and histories, which were placed in the classroom
library and made readily available to the boys in the
experimental class. The two most popular books were
found to be H. G. Wells's The Time Machine and
Don K. Stanford's The Red Car. These two books were
adopted as texts, and exercises were developed cover
ing various pages.3
After examining many workbooks, the staff dis
covered that the Turner-Livingston Reading Series
dealt with topics closely paralleling the project's five
curriculum topics for role-model building, and the
series was adopted. The staff also used a third set of
remedial reading materials from the Reader's Digest
Reading Skill Builder Series.4
A series of "shotgun" exercises that focused on
nearly every type of reading problem was developed
during the second year of the project. Each project
teacher was given a set of exercises and a handbook
with instructions on how to teach the particular prin
ciple involved. When he discovered a commonly shared
reading difficulty in his class, he pulled the appropriate
exercise from the file and did remedial work then and
there.5 The experimental classes, beginning in the sec
ond cohort year (1964-65) devoted four 40-minute
periods per week to this remedial reading program.
One final resource was used: the experimental classes
received copies of the morning newspaper twice a week.
The pupils read orally or silently news items of interest
to them and then discussed the contents.
62 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

CONTENT OF THE ROLE-MODEL SUPPLEMENT

In addition to the project teacher's approximating

the role of a "significant other" in the lives of the ex
perimental boys, the interaction of an all-boy class, the
measures taken to improve reading, and the develop
ment of a special classroom discipline system (respect
ing the rights of others), the main thrust of the
experimental program consisted of the presentation of
role-model material to the pupils. This material became
a supplement to the normally taught English, world
geography, and social studies in the self-contained
classes of the Columbus public school system's seventh
grades.
The director of the project and the project teachers
agreed on the general topics to be contained in the role-
model supplement. There were five main topics: (1)
The World of Work; (2) The School and You; (3) The
House We Live In (a presentation of government serv
ices) ; (4) Getting Along with Others; and (5) The
Family. The lesson plans that were generated under
each topic were presented in this sequence during the
school year.6
Appendix A presents the Curriculum Calendar for
each of the five main topics. It should be noted that ad
justments for rotation of films and other presentations
had to be made among the four project teachers, so that
Mr. A would show the film to his two experimental
classes on one day; Mr. B., the next day; Mr. C, next;
and Mr. D., next. A sample lesson plan for each of the
five topics is duplicated in Appendix B. In reading the
sample lesson plans, particular attention should be
paid to the implications for communicating role models
 Project Design : : 63
without "preaching" to the boys about the do's and the
don'ts of American society.

UNIFORM DELAYED INTRODUCTION OF THE LESSON PLANS

It was definitely agreed by the staff and the project

teachers that the lesson plans in the experimental all-
boy seventh-grade self-contained class in each of the
eight junior high schools would not be introduced until
the fourth week of the new fall term. The reason for
the delay in each cohort year was to prevent any initial
suspicions, on the part of the experimental boys as well
as the boys and girls in the regular self-contained
classes, that the all-boy class was something special,
unusual, or off-beat. The delay also gave the project
teacher time to legitimize and justify the all-boy class
before comparisons and criticisms could be made rela
tive to the curriculum offerings in the regular self-
contained classes. The uniqueness of the all-boy class
had time to diminish before the special lesson plans
were introduced.

DATA INPUT AND EVALUATION

A case folder was kept on each vulnerable boy as

signed to the experimental class as well as on each
vulnerable boy assigned to the regular self-contained
classes (constituting the control group) and on each
so-called good-boy comparison also assigned to the reg
ular self-contained classes in the eight junior high
schools. Information obtained on each boy, beginning
with the ratings by the sixth-grade teachers, was kept
andfiledin his folder. Subsequent school clearances re
garding attendance information, conduct reports, and
64> : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

school performance were obtained in June of each year.

The police clearance, indicating which boys had been
referred to, or arrested by, the police, was made in
August of each year. The clearances, of course, were
made by name for each member of the 1963,1964, and
1965 cohorts, but were classified by case-folder infor
mation as experimentals, bad-boy controls, and good-
boy comparisons.
In addition to the initial case information and the
school and police clearances, the staff administered cer
tain pre- and post-tests. The first cohort of boys was
administered a battery of tests while still in the sixth-
grade, which included selected items from the Sociali
zation Scale of the California Psychological Inventory,
from the significant self-concept items developed pre
viously by the investigators, and from Rothstein's in
terpersonal-competence items. In May, toward the end
of the first cohort year, the same battery of tests was
administered to the boys.
It was found that the battery of tests used the first
year was not satisfactory for measuring possible
change in direction of behavior or in outlook.7 Conse
quently, the staff developed a different battery of tests
that would be more sensitive to the kinds of changes
the project was trying to produce in the experimental
boys. These tests were to be administered at the begin
ning and at the end of the school year (referred to here
after as pre-test and post-test). An instrument was de
veloped and pretested that, according to Guttman's
method of scaling, had 6 subscales dealing with the
boy's outlook on school and teachers8 and 9 subscales
dealing with the boy's outlook on the law, the courts,
the police, and probation officers.9 These two sets of
Guttman subscales were used for the last two cohorts
 Project Design : : 65
(1964-65 and 1965-66) as pre-tests at the beginning
of the school year and as post-tests at the end of the
school year. In addition, the second and third cohorts
were also administered (at the beginning and end of
the school year) a value orientation instrument10 that
attempted to measure the extent to which a youth sub
scribed to certain social values.
As a special input into the data bank of the project,
the investigators and the director decided to make a
follow-up study of the experimental and the bad-boy
controls in the second cohort (1964-65) in the spring
of 1967, which was two years after the school year that
contained the role-model supplement for the boys as
signed to the experimental all-boy self-contained class.
This particular follow-up information consisted of a
structured interview of the boy by the former project
teacher and of an inventory of self-reporting items
(filled out by the boy) relative to how often he had done
certain things. The results of this special study form a
special section of this report (see chapter 8).

1. W. Hugh Missildine, "The Mutual Respect Approach to Child

Guidance: A Report of 97 Cases from Private Practice," American
Journal of Diseases of Children 104 (August 1962) : 116-21.
2. Nason E. Hall and Gordon P. Waldo, "Remedial Reading for
the Disadvantaged," Journal of Reading 11, no. 2 (November
1967):81.
3. Ibid., p. 82.
4. Ibid., p. 83.
5. Ibid.
6. Nason E. Hall et al, Youth Development Project: Curriculum
Guide, Lesson Plans, and Supplementary Materials (Columbus:
Ohio State University Research Foundation, 1964).
7. Margaret Ann Zahn, "An Evaluation of an Experimental
Delinquency Prevention Program" (Masters thesis, Ohio State
University, 1964), pp. 45, 46, 65-69.
66 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
8. Nason E. Hall and Gordon P. Waldo, "School Identification
and Delinquency Proneness," Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 4, no. 2 (July 1967) :234-35.
9. Gordon P. Waldo, "Boys' Perceptions of Outer Containment
and Delinquency Potential," (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University,
1967), pp. 46-48, 81-106, 124-25, 154-71.
10. Judson R. Landis and Frank R. Scarpitti, "Delinquent and
Non-Delinquent Value Orientation and Opportunity Awareness,"
in Interdisciplinary Problems in Criminology: Papers of the Ameri
can Society of Criminology, 196b, ed. Walter C. Reckless and
Charles L. Newman (Columbus: Ohio State University, College of
Commerce and Administration, 1965), pp. 67-68 (value-orientation
items).
CHAPTER FIVE

The Characteristics
of the Project Boys

In the three years of the demonstration project, 1,726

boys were studied507 the first year, 544 the second
year, and 675 the third year. Table 1 indicates the dis
tribution of these pupils in the three cohort years.
There was, it will be noted, a considerable increase
in the number of boys taken into the program in the
last year of the demonstration. This increase occurred
chiefly in the pool of boys nominated by their teachers
as potentially delinquent (that is, nominated as likely
or possible candidates) and assigned to the control
group. In explaining this addition of over 100 boys in
the third year, two factors need to be mentioned. First,
and clearly foremost, the project staff worked dili
gently to obtain a complete set of teacher nominations.
At least two team members visited each of the 44 ele
mentary feeder schools in an effort to reduce the loss of
unnominated cases. The effects of these continuing pub
lic-relations efforts were clearly evident as the number
of experimental and control boys increased in the sec
68 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
ond and especially in the third years. In addition, a
ninth inner-city junior high school opened just prior to
the third year of the demonstration. Nominated boys
who normally would have gone to other schools were
now sent here, making them eligible as controls. This
new inner-city school alone added an additional 43 boys
to the project.
Overall, experimental subjects constituted 36.6% of
all subjects, and 39.6%, 40.3%, and 31.4%, respec
tively, of the pupils in the three years. The controls ac
counted for 26.8% of all subjects and 22.7%, 22.6%,
and 33.2% of the boys in the 1963, 1964, and 1965 co
horts, respectively. Good-boy comparisons constituted
36.6% of all 1,726 boys and 37.7%, 37.1%, and 35.4%,
respectively, of the total number of pupils in each of
the three years (see table 1).
TABLE 1
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL,

AND COMPARISON BOYS IN THE T H R E E COHORT YEARS

1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 TOTAL

N % N % N % N %

Experimental. 201 39.6 219 40.3 212 31.4 632 36.6

Controls 115 22.7 123 22.6 224 33.2 462 26.8
Comparisons ... 191 37.7 202 37.1 239 35.4 632 36.6
Total .. . 507 100.0 544 100.0 675 100.0 1,726 100.0

TEACHER NOMINATIONS

In the initial cohort selected in 1963-64, as noted

previously, teachers and principals jointly evaluated
all of their male sixth-grade students as (a) likely to
get into difficulty with the law, (b) possible, and (c)
unlikely to get into trouble. Of the 316 boys who even
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 69
tually were randomly assigned to the experimental or
control groups, 83 were nominated for the likely group;
the teachers and principals placed the remaining 233
boys in the possible category (see table 2).
TABLE 2
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF ASSIGNMENT OF SUBJECTS IN THE FIRST
COHORT, ACCORDING TO TEACHER-PRINCIPAL NOMINATION, 1963-64

UNLIKELY POSE SIBLE LIKELY TOTAL

ASSIGNMENT
N % N % N % N %
Experimentals 152 75.6 49 24.4 201 39.6
Controls.... 81 70.4 34 29.6 115 22.7
Comparisons 191 100.0 191 37.7
Total 191 37.6 233 45.9 83 16.5 507 100.0

In the second year of student intake into the pro

gram, the nominating procedure was somewhat re
fined, so that teachers and principals independently of
each other evaluated all the boys. Of the 342 experi
mental and control boys, 46 (13.5%) were nominated
as unlikely by their teachers but as possible or likely by
the principals; 16 more (4.7%) were listed as possible
by the teachers but as unlikely by the principals. The
majority, 204 (59.6%) were listed as possible by the
teachers and as either possible or likely by the princi
pals. One boy, on the other hand, was thought likely by
his teacher but not by the principal; and 75 (21.9%)
were rated as likely by their teachers and as likely or
possible by the principals (see table 3).
Very much the same distribution of nominations oc
curred for the third cohort (1965-66). Of the 436 ex
perimentals and controls, 46 (10.6%) were nominated
as unlikely by the teachers but not by the principals;
37 (8.5%) as possible by the teachers but as unlikely
 ooo ooo ooo

III III III I

r-J
o : : : : : : : : t>
O CO
y-i

-co t>T-j<N ' O o o <o

CO CO ^ 3 t* , ^-O ^ ^ OJ
CO ^ CO T^ d CO O l

IC t>O>t- "CNCOlcO

M t>o
iid
too

OH
COOJOO q q t >
COTjJfNI OU5U3
10^10 ot-to

OJO5O5 iH
CO Or-I
fe 5 H
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 71
by the principals; 237 (54.4%) as possible by the teach
ers and as possible or likely by the principals. Only two
boys (0.5%) were classified as likely by the teachers
and not by the principals, and 114 (26.1%) were rated
as likely by the teachers and as likely or possible by
the principals (see table 4).
It should be noted that in the two years 1964-65 and
1965-66, during which teachers and principals inde
pendently of one another rated their students, there
were only 6 cases in which the teacher nominated boys
as unlikely and the principals as likely. Conversely,
there were only 3 boys in the two cohort years who
were nominated as likely by the teachers and as uru
likely by the principals.
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

Age
The age distribution of the experimental, control,
and comparison subjects in each of the three cohort
years is displayed in summary table 5. It is evident
from this table that, at intake to the study, the nomi
nated bad boys, whether experimental or control, were
about a half-year older on the average than the good-
boy comparisons. The overall mean age of the experi
mentals was 13.25; of the controls 13.27; and of the
good-boy comparisons, 12.76 years. This age differen
tial reflects the generally poorer achievement of the
nominated potential delinquents, which resulted in
their being held back in school more often.
Race
The data indicate that about half of the experimental
and control subjects were white, whereas a signifi
ooo ooo qoo o

ooo ooo ooo o

ooo ooo ooo o

O "<*
o *o
O CO
II

Oi Id
CO CO
CO |(M

NO IOIOIO OlO^f M
|IHO "^co'io o'coooco
OX CO

HOT O t - t > (MO-^I-*

(M (MOrH H r f (N

O O O

' O O O

O<N t-COO -COt>|<M

g
111
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 78
cantly greater percentageover three-fifths of the
good-boy comparisons were white (see table 5). There
was only minor fluctuation in these percentages in the
three intake years. (It should be noted that the race of
the pupil was not on the cards from which students
were randomly designated as either experimental or
control subjects.)
The much higher percentage of blacks among the
bad-boy nominees is hardly surprising. The difference
has been attributed to the black-white disparities in in
come, occupation, life style, family disorganization, as
well as in teacher sensitivity, expectations, and bias.
In earlier research on teacher nominations of prede
linquent boys, it was discovered that teacher evalua
tions are largely based on four clusters of variables:
knowledge of the family situation of the boy, academic
performance, personality attributes, and the degree of
"acting out" in school that presented discipline prob
lems.1 On at least three of these variables, black boys are
likely to fare more poorly than white boys. In addition,
teachers are likely to expect greater delinquency poten
tial in black boys. Likewise, the previous work of the
investigators suggests that women teachers consist
ently nominate a higher percentage of boys as prede
linquents than do male teachers. This occurs despite
the policy of placing the more difficult boys in classes
taught by males.

Family Status
As with age and race, the family status of the 1,726
pupils varied markedly by type of nomination. As seen
in the section on family composition in table 5, 54.8%
of the experimental boys, 56.1% of the controls, and
 rH to OS
wqooq

100.
t>odcOrH co CO
COrHrH

,94
CO rJJ rH 00 OS <N1 CO OS
COO COCo'cOCO d id id CO
HlO IOCN rH OS

COOS 00 CO OSrH co CO CO OS
coo ^b-CO"^
lOCOrH

rHU3
lOrHCOOO OS IG t> IO
(M OS 00 t r - C O O CO* CO CD CO
COrHrH
t-00

,94
coco t - CO rH OS o CO

90.
lOCOCOrH id id CO
IOC0 rH

.94
co^ COOOrH co t- CO

92.
COOO-^rH id id CO
2S
IT5C0 rH

.96
t-os# NMOW OS CO IO
'OOT

co t~ CO

CO t - o IT3
93.

CO CO CO

OS 00 00 oo co CO
CO id CD co
as
,96

os oq t 00 Tjj i H o U5 t>
96.

j t>^ <N CO CO
,93

t - o q co co o oq o CO
id t^rH>d oo id co CO

lOCOrH
os o oq co
Ii3 coo
os co cd co
rH^ CO OS OS O

8
:
-2 -i
III fill.
t*l t
lag
.35
^TS-as-g
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 75
67.2% of the good-boy comparisons came from intact
families (both biological parents or both adoptive par
ents being present). Approximately 27% of nominated
experimental and controls as against 18% of the nomi
nated good-boy comparisons were from female-based
households (mother, grandmother, or aunt, alone, or in
some combination of the three). Surrogate family ar
rangements (aunt and uncle, foster parents, and so
forth) were found in about 13% of all three subgroups
of boys (experimental, control, and comparison).
The family composition of the boys varied only
slightly with year of intake into the program, but more
boys came from female-based households in the second
year of intake than in either the first or third years.
Such random variation is to be anticipated and pre
sents no special problems.

Social Class
All of the boys in the demonstration program were
chosen from inner-city elementary schools. These 44
schools are located in the lowest socioeconomic quartile
as measured by such standard census characteristics
as median family income, median rental, median edu
cational attainment, occupational distribution, ade
quacy of housing, and the average number of persons
per room. Using the Albert Reiss socioeconomic classi
fication system,2 which is based on occupational rank
ings, the median class index score of the families of the
experimentals and the controls was 19 in each case, and
the index for the families of the good-boy comparisons
stood at 21. Since most professionals and white-collar
workers are ranked in the 70s, 80s, and 90s according
to the Reiss system and since even the skilled workers
76 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
are ranked in the 40s and 50s, it is apparent that the
occupational index of the subjects' families reflects un
skilled, service, and other low-prestige jobs.
It was originally assumed that the large number of
female-based households, in which a woman was the
breadwinner, accounted for these low socioeconomic in
dex scores. For this reason, two analyses were run:
one for the families with a male breadwinner present
and the other for the families with no male bread
winner. The net result was that the median score was
no higher regardless of whether the breadwinner was
male or female. The explanation for this is, of course,
that at the lower reaches of socioeconomic class the
nature of the jobsjanitors, laundry workers, manual
laborersconfer low prestige as well as low income.
The female domestic and the male manual laborer are
rated equally low in prestige in the inner city.

SCHOOL DATA

The nominated predelinquents were not only older,

proportionately more often black, more frequently
from one-parent homes, and of lower socioeconomic
status but, as expected, their school functioning was
also considerably poorer than the good-boy compari
sons. This is reflected in IQ scores (in the sixth grade),
test achievement scores, average grades received, and
school attendence (see table 5).
IQ Scores
Although IQ scores do not necessarily measure what
they are presumed to measure, particularly with de
prived students, nevertheless they are certainly useful
as a clue to performance. With regard to the 1,726
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 77
project subjects, the IQ scores obtained in the sixth
grade were consistent for the three cohort years, but
varied by nomination. Overall, the 632 experimental
bad boys had an average IQ score of 91.6; the 462 bad-
boy controls, 90.3; and the good-boy comparisons,
100.4. This 10-point superiority for the good-boy com
parisons was consistent for each of the three cohort
years. Thus, in 1963-64 the bad boys, both experimen
tal and control, averaged 89.4 and 88.0, respectively,
and the comparison subjects averaged 96.7. The follow
ing year the average IQ scores increased in each of the
groups and were, in order, 92.8, 93.1, and 100.9. In the
last year of intake the average scores were 92.4, 90.0,
and 102.9, respectively (see table 5).

Reading Achievement
Achievement tests in reading and arithmetic, as well
as IQ tests, were routinely administered to all sixth-
grade students in the spring. The average reading
achievement scores are shown in table 5. The 632 ex
perimentals had an average reading grade level of 5.7,
and it varied in the three cohort years from 5.3 to 6.0.
The 462 controls had a mean grade level in reading of
5.5 and ranged by cohort year from 5.2 to 6.0. The 632
good-boy comparisons were over a year more advanced
in reading grade level, namely 6.7 and varied from 6.5
to 7.1 in the three cohort years.

Arithmetic Achievement
As with reading and IQ test scores, but not quite so
markedly, the nominated predelinquents were well be
low the nominated good boys in arithmetic grade-level
achievement. The averages are shown in table 5. The
78 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
experimental subjects had an average arithmetic
achievement grade level of 6.3; the controls, 5.9; and
the good-boy comparisons, 7.1. The variations within
the three groups, by year of intake, appeared to be ran
dom. The range for the experimentals was from 5.7 to
6.8; the controls, from 5.4 to 6.5; and the comparisons,
from 6.7 to 7.5. This intragroup variation, by year,
was much greater on the arithmetic grade level than in
the reading scores (see table 5).

Average Grade
Counting an A as 1 and an F as 5, the sixth-grade
point average of each student in the study was com
puted. The experimentals and controls fell at 3.3 and
3.4 respectively (that is, C), whereas the good-boy
comparisons stood at exactly 2.5 (that is, B). In
short, the nominated bad boys averaged a letter grade
poorer than the good boys. There was minimal varia
tion by cohort year (see table 5).

School Attendance
The last indicator of school performance was in the
regularity of attendance. To arrive at this index, a ra
tio between the number of school days present and the
total number of school days was computed. This index
was used instead of a simpler measure, such as the
number of days absent, because it was a more stable
figure and was recommended as such by Columbus
school authorities. It avoids the problem of excused and
unexcused absences.
On the basis of this ratio, both the 632 experimental
subjects and the 462 controls attended classes 94% of
the time, and the good boys were present 96% of the
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 79
time. Here again, there were only minimal variations
by year of intake into the demonstration program (see
table 5).
POLICE CONTACTS
After obtaining the nominations and ratings by the
sixth-grade teachers and the principals and the back
ground data and school performance scores from the
permanent record cards, the names of all 1,726 boys
were routinely cleared for previous police contact with
the Juvenile Bureau of the Columbus Police Depart
ment. The adequacy of such clearances, of course, is
always subject to doubt, for the complaining and re
porting processes are anything but uniform. Yet, other
than self-reports, which are also subject to gross under-
or over-reporting, police clearances are all that is avail
able to researchers at this time. There is, however, a
positive correlation between official reports and self-
reports, particularly for the more serious offenses.
Of the total of 1,726 boys, 245 (14.2%) were known
to the police by the time they entered the seventh
grade. Both in the experimental and control groups,
over 19% had experienced police contact. In contrast,
only about 5% of the good-boy comparisons were
known to the police prior to their entry into the project.
These data are given in table 6.
The 125 experimental boys known to the police had
experienced a total of 227 contacts, or approximately
an average of 1.8 contacts. Of these 227 separate re
corded events, 52 were relatively serious and 119 were
moderately serious. Together, these offenses constitute
the felonies and high misdemeanors. The remaining 56
contacts of the experimentals involved violations of city
ordinances or of laws pertaining to minors in need of
80 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

TABLE 6
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF EXPERIMENTALS, CONTROLS, AND
COMPARISONS HAVING H A D POLICE CONTACT PRIOR TO PROJECT

EXPERI- CONTROLS COM TOTAL

MENTALS PARISONS
N % N % N % N %
Known to police. . . 125 19.8 88 19.1 32 5.1 245 14.2
Not known to police.. . 507 80.2 374 80.9 600 94.9 1,481 85.8
Total 632 100.0 462 100.0 632 100.0 1,726 100.0

supervision. The known contacts of the 88 control boys

prior to the seventh grade included 137 events (1.6 per
boy), of which 30 were of the serious kind, 78 were in
the moderate category, and 29 in the minor offense
group. In contrast, the 32 comparison boys with prior
contact were known for 39 offenses (1.2 per boy), 10
major, 18 moderate, and 11 minor (see table 7).
As noted in table 7, most of the serious offenses com
mitted by all three groups of boys prior to the project
involved property rather than persons. Of the 92 re
corded serious events, burglary and larceny predomi
nated, although 18 of these 92 events had a person as
victim. Similarly, of the 215 events classified as mod
erate, over half were for petit larceny alone, and about
one-fifth were for vandalism involving destruction of
property valued at less than $50.00.
The minor violations as officially recorded on police
records included 14 different offenses: curfew viola
tion, discharging a BB gun in the city, disorderly con
duct, filing a false fire alarm or police report, fighting,
using improper language, incorrigibility, making men
acing threats, throwing missiles, trespassing, home
and school truancy, general delinquency, and riding
double on a bicycle. Naturally, truancy, incorrigibility,
trespassing, and curfew violations predominated.
 TABLE 7
TYPE OF POLICE CONTACT OF EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL, AND COMPARISON
SUBJECTS, PRIOR TO ENTRANCE INTO THE PROJECT
CONTROL
OFFENSE TYPE SENTAL OM"

Serious
Aggravated assault 1 .. 1
Arson 1 1 .. 2
Assault and battery 2 1 1 4
Assault with a deadly weapon 4 ... .. 4
Auto theft 2 4 6
Breaking and entering 6 4 1 11
Burglary 14 8 4 26
Grand larceny 3 1 .. 4
Housebreaking 10 4 2 16
Molesting 3 ... .. 3
Receiving and concealing stolen
property 2 3 .. 5
Theft from the mail 1 .. 1
Unarmed robbery 4 1 .. 5
Vandalism; over $50 damage 1 1 1 3
Sodomy _^^ L^J 1 1
Total 52 30 10 92
Moderate
Serious offense attempted or
investigated 24 20 4 48
Carrying a concealed weapon 1 1
Malicious destruction of property
under $50 damage 24 14 5 43
Petit larcen 66 41 7 114
Shopliftin 2 1 3
Careless fire 1 1
Illicit sex with consent i
1

Car tampering or stripping "2 "i

1 4

Total 119 78 18 215

Slight
Curfew violation 5 4 9

Discharging firearms in cit

limits (BB gun 1 1 2

Disorderly conduct 3 '2 5

False fire alarm, false report 3 "2 1 6

Fighting
2 2 4

Improper language
1 1

Incorrigibilit
11 "5 16

Menancing threats
1 1

Throwing missiles 1
i
2
Trespassing 2 "5 4
11
Truancy from home 19 6 1 26
Truancy from school 4 2 1 7
Delinquency 2 3 5
Riding double on bicycle 1 1
Total 56 29 11 96
Grand total 227 137 39 403
82 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
This analysis of the study population yielded two
principal results. First, the experimental and control
subjects were, in fact, quite similar with regard to the
demographic, school, and police data. As a group, the
nominated bad boys, whether experimental or control,
were different from the good-boy comparison subjects.
The formerthe nominated bad boyswere at least
half a year older on the average, more often black, less
frequently from intact families, and of lower socio
economic status. The school-data variables reveal that
the bad boys, in relation to the good-boy comparisons,
had nearly a 10-point IQ deficit on the average, were a
year behind in reading grade level, were over half a
year behind in arithmetic achievement, were a letter
grade lower (C versus B-) in average point-hour
scores, and had poorer school-attendance records. With
regard to police contacts prior to the seventh grade,
the nominated bad boys were known proportionately
about four times more often than the nominated good
boys for both serious and minor offenses.
Second, although there was some variation in the
demographic, school, and police data by year of intake
into the program, this was mostly random in character.
Thus, the 507 boys in the first year of the demonstra
tion program were very much like the 544 in the second
year and the 675 in the last year. As a result, the find
ings to be presented in the following chapters will be
based on the total number of experimental, control, and
comparison subjects without regard to year of intake.

PATTERNS IN BLACK AND WHITE

Not only were there significant differences in the

demographic characteristics, school variables, and ser
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 83
ious- and minor-police contacts between the nominated
good and bad boys, but there were also patterns in black
and white that emerged within these groups. First, as
already noted, 51% of the experimentals and just over
50% of the controls were white. By contrast, of the ran
domly selected sample of good boys, 62% were white.
For whatever reasons, and these can be readily enum
erated, teachers and principals in the inner-city schools
considered black students to be far more vulnerable to
delinquent involvement.
The black and white nominees in each group were
very different in many important respects. Some of
these differences are presented in table 8. At the same
time, color differences were frequently less significant
than were the nominations as predelinquent or non-
predelinquent.
Good boys, black and white alike, were about half a
year younger than the experimental and control blacks
and whites. On the other hand, family intactness was
far greater for the white nominees in each group.
Thus, 63.4%, 65.2%, and 72.4%, respectively, of the
white experimental, control, and comparison subjects
came from two-parent families in contrast to 46.1%,
46.7%, and 58.8% of the respective black students. By
the same token, female-based households and surrogate
family arrangements were more characteristic of the
black boys in all three groups. For example, approxi
mately 13% more black than white experimentals and
controls and over 9% more black than white good boys
were from female-based homes.
The intactness of the family was not related to its
median socioeconomic status index score. In general,
and as previously noted, both male and female lower-
class unskilled and service jobs carry so little social
 >o cso

O
(NJ r-i -^H IO Oi

is s

oo
lOOl

00 OOOO O500
r-i HWNW iH I H

1!
II
I
ti
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 85
prestige that whether the breadwinner is male or fe
male is of little moment in this regard.
In school achievement, color was of some conse
quence. In all three groupsexperimental, control, and
good-boy comparisonwhite boys tested about five or
more points higher on IQ. They were also uniformly
higher in reading and arithmetic achievement-score
averages. On the other hand, there were no real differ
ences in average grade-point scores. The black boys in
all three study groups also had better attendance rec
ords than their white counterparts.
Although these patterns by color have been consist
ently documented in the past, there is one aspect of our
data that requires special notice. The black boys nomi
nated as good by both their teachers and principals
were consistently better on school measures than the
white boys nominated as bad. They had higher IQ
scores and were nearly a year ahead in both reading
and arithmetic. Their grade point (B) was one letter
grade higher than that of the white predelinquents,
and their class attendance record (97%) was greater
than that of any other subgroup, black or white (see
table 8).
Police clearances revealed no substantial racial dif
ferences in the percentages of experimental, control,
and comparison boys previously known to the police,
although the minor differences that did exist favored
the white boys (see table 9).
The 64 white experimental subjects were recorded
by the police for 106 separate delinquency events, of
which over two-thirds were serious and moderate in
character; the 61 black experimental subjects were
known to the police for 121 separate events of which
nearly 80% were serious and moderate. The 37 white
 CO t >

OirH

id ^
TH 00

THCTS

W
 Characteristics of Project Boys : : 87
controls were known for 196 delinquent acts and the
51 black controls for 178 such acts. In both cases, over
two-thirds of the events were serious and moderate.
Finally, the 21 white and 11 black comparison subjects
had committed 25 and 14 offenses respectively, most of
which were designated as serious and moderate (see
table 10).
TABLE 10
DISTRIBUTION OF OFFENSES COMMITTED BY WHITE AND BLACK
EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL, AND COMPARISON SUBJECTS, PRIOR
TO ENTRANCE INTO THE PROJECT, FOR ALL THREE COHORT
YEARS (1963-64,1964-65,1965-66)

EXPEHIMENTALS CONTROLS COMPARISONS

OFFENSE TYPE
White Black White Black White Black

Serious 22 30 9 21 6 4
Moderate ... 51 68 25 53 11 7
Slight 33 23 14 15 8 3
Total 106 121 48 89 25 14

1. Walter C. Reckless, Simon Dinitz, and Ellen Murray, "Teacher

Nominations and Evaluations of 'Good' Boys in High Delinquency
Areas," Elementary School Journal 57 (1957) :221.
2. Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Occupations and Social Status (New
York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), Appendix B, p. 263.
CHAPTER SIX

Findings

The project design called for four yearly clearances of

each boy through the files of the Juvenile Division of
the Columbus Police Department and the files of the
Columbus school system. The clearances were made
once a year (in August) for four consecutive years.
The three subgroupsexperimentals, controls, and
good-boy comparisonsof the 1963-64 cohort were
cleared by name of each boy for any recorded delin
quency, complaint, or arrest up to August 1964 and
thereafter in each succeeding August through 1967.
The three subgroups of the 1964-65 and 1965-66 co
horts were successively cleared following the same pat
tern.
Actually, cognizance was taken of any recorded com
plaints or arrests on each boy prior to entrance into the
seventh grade (September) and for four consecutive
years thereafter (each August). In the tables that fol
low, the time period called "during-program" means
clearances during the period of the seventh grade (Sep
tember until the middle of August), and the time pe
riod called "post-program" includes approximately
three years of additional clearances.
 Findings : : 89
For the purposes of this project, it had been decided
that the most realistic criterion of official delinquency
involvement would be a delinquency complaint or ar
rest registered in thefilesof the police, and that the use
of police data for purposes of indicating outcome would
be more satisfactory (less screened by subsequent de
cision-making) than the use of complaints referred by
police and others to the juvenile court.
Other technical matters also need to be understood
before presenting the clearance data. The tables that
follow will be presented in terms of both the number of
recorded events (complaints or arrests) and in terms
of individual boys. It should be understood that the
boys in the three subgroups (experimentals, controls,
and comparisons) include all those on whom clearances
could be made for each particular time period. The
project was not able to follow up completely the cases
of boys who were originally included in the three sub
groups at the beginning of the seventh grade but who
moved away from Columbus or who, for some other
reason, became untraceable.

POLICE CONTACTS: EXPERIMENTALS, CONTROLS, AND

COMPARISONS

Systematic monitoring of police records revealed

that of the 632 experimental subjects, nearly 20% were
known to the police prior to the program, 12% during
the demonstration project, and nearly 38% became
known during the three-year period following the pro
gram (see table 11). In all, nearly 48% had a record
at some timeeither at the close of our follow-up or
by the time they were about 16 years of age. For the
controls, 462 in all, the percentages were nearly identi
90 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
cal: 19% before, 11% during, 36% subsequent to the
project, and 46% overall. Even the 632 good-boy com
parisons fared rather poorly: 5%, 2%, 14%, and 18%
respectively had contact with the police at some time
during the years covered by the project.
TABLE 11
PERCENTAGES OF EXPERIMENT, CONTROL, AND COMPARISON BOYS
WITH POLICE CONTACT AT VARIOUS TIMES DURING THE STUDY

EXPERI
MENTALS CONTROLS COMPARISONS

*(632) (462) (632)

Pre-program 19.8 19.0 5.1
During program 12.3 10.8 1.9
Post-program 37.7 36.4 14.2
Overall 47.8 46.3 18.4
Denotes total number of subjects.

It must be noted that these contacts represent the

minimal involvement of 1,726 boys in delinquent and
criminal activities. This is so for three reasons. First,
every study, particularly those on the self-reporting of
deviant conduct, shows that the amount of involvement
exceeds, by far, its official recording. The invisibility
of much of the behavior and the unwillingness to report
overt misconduct are well known. In addition, the
modus operandi of the police and other agents in the
juvenile justice system clearly serve to minimize the
recording of juvenile offenders. Second, a considerable
number of subjects had moved, and their delinquencies,
if any, were recorded in other jurisdictions. Police-
contact status covering all three time periods (pre-,
during-, and post-program) could be assessed for 1,450,
or 84%, of the original 1,726 boys. Of the 276 students
who were lost through attrition (96 experimentals, 83
controls, and 97 good-boy comparisons), nearly 16%
 Findings : : 91
had been known to the police prior to their loss from
the study. Third, and a sad commentary on our system,
is the pettiness of the offenses committed by many of
the 1,726 subjects that led to their listing in the police
files. To be stigmatized with a police record in adoles
cence may or may not have any serious consequences
for lower-class youth; but to be stigmatized with such
a record for the most minor of violations is, however,
quite a different matter and grossly complicates the
functioning of the juvenile justice system.
The original 1,726 subjects, including the 1,450 (536
experimentals, 379 controls, and 535 comparisons) for
whom police-contact status could be assessed, were
known to the police for 1,822 specific events. As table
12 reveals, nearly 30% of all recorded events were seri
ous; 33.7% were classified as moderate; and 36.9%, as
slight. Most of these criminal and delinquent acts,
naturally enough, were committed in the post-project
phase during the years of greatest vulnerability of
adolescents to delinquency, namely 14-16 years of age.
See Appendix C. Whether experimental, control, or
comparison boys, most of the delinquent events re
corded by the police occurred after the seventh grade
(post-program) (see table 13).
The table presented in Appendix C lists all of the
recorded offenses for which the original 1,726 boys
were known. The single most often recorded offense
was petit larceny, with 270 such entries. The next most
frequent offense involved 199 violations in which a
serious offense was either attempted or investigated.
The third most numerous offense was auto theft (177
notations), followed by incorrigibility (167), curfew
violation (157), and truancy from home (111). No
other delinquencies exceeded 100 entries in number.
92 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
Using the Part 1 offense category of the Crime In
dex of the Uniform Crime Reports, there were: 2 mur
ders (one by an experimental and the other by a good-
boy comparison); no forcible rapes; 3 armed and 23
unarmed robberies; 13 aggravated assaults (and 50
assault and battery entries) ; 146 burglaries and/or
breaking and entering events (and 35 house-break
ings) ; 26 grand larcenies; and, as noted above, 177
auto thefts (see Appendix C).
In contrast, the 672 slight offenses involved not only
incorrigibility, home truancy, and curfew violations
but also disorderly conduct (28), intoxication (25),
trespassing (40), and one violation each of shooting
pool, riding double on a bike, unlawful assembly, and
misrepresentation of minor status (see table 12 and
Appendix C).
TABLE 12
NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF DELINQUENCY OFFENSES RECORDED

BY THE POLICE, CLASSIFIED AS SERIOUS, MODERATE, AND SLIGHT*

EXPERIMENTAL^ CONTROLS COMPARISONS TOTAL

N % N % N % N %
Serious . 275 28.8 199 30.6 62 28.7 536 29.4
Moderate. . . . 337 35.3 209 32.1 68 31.5 614 33.7
Slight . . 343 35.9 243 37.3 86 39.8 672 36.9
Total.... .. 955 100.0 651 100.0 216 100.0 1,822 100.0
* Based on the tabulations for the specific offenses presented in Appendix C.

The data on the serious, moderate, and slight events

mirror fairly accurately the juvenile crime problem in
the United States. They present no surprises, unless
the overexpected involvement in criminal activities by
the nominated good-boys would be considered a sur
prise. See tables 12, 13, and Appendix C for the re
corded involvement of the good-boy comparisons.
91* : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

POLICE CONTACTS: WHITE AND BLACK

Much has been written concerning the differential

involvement of white and black boys in delinquency.
The generally higher official rates of black adolescents
have been explained in a variety of ways, depending
largely on the perspective and orientation of the in
terpreters. More grinding poverty, more limited le
gitimate opportunities, greater status frustration,
differential patterns of criminal justice, lesser family
cohesion, a paucity of male role-models, and any num
ber of other sociocultural, psychological, and even bio
logical explanations have been suggested.
Approximately half of the experimental and control
students were black, but only 38% of the nominated
good-boy comparisons were black. Prior to the school-
intervention program, the black control boys had a
slightly more frequent involvement with the law than
the white controls, an almost identical frequency in
the experimental group, and a somewhat lesser fre
quency among the good-boy comparisons. The results
show approximately the same pattern of white and
black student delinquency during and after the pro
gram as prior to it in each of the three cohorts (see
table 14).
Although there was no greater representation of
black students by frequency of contact, the number of
the offenses recorded for them was greater and the na
ture of the acts seemed more serious (see table 15).
The black experimental students, constituting about
half of the group, were known for 64.4% of the serious
offenses. In the control group, in which the black boys
comprised about half of the subjects, they accounted
 Findings : : 95

TABLE 14

PERCENTAGES OP WHITE AND BLACK EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL,

AND COMPARISON BOYS WITH POLICE CONTACT AT

VARIOUS TIMES DURING THE STUDY

EXPERIMENTALS CONTROLS COMPARISONS

White Black White Black White Black

Pre-program . 19.9 19.7 15.9 22.3 5.4 4.6

During program.. . 8.4 16.5 6.0 15.7 1.3 2.9
Post-program . . . 32.3 43.2 28.8 44.1 13.0 16.3
Overall 44.1 51.6 39.0 53.7 16.8 20.8

for 73.9% of the serious offenses. In the comparison

group, in which black representation was 38%, exactly
half of the serious offenses were recorded for the black
boys. Much the same pattern prevailed for the moder
ate offenses: black experimentals accounted for two-
thirds of them; black controls, for 70%; and the black
good boys for roughly 45%. On the other hand, the
pattern with regard to the minor offenses is inconsist
ent. Black experimentals committed fewer slight of
fenses than expected, black controls were again over
represented ; and the black good-boy comparisons were,
like the experimentals, underrepresented.
On the Crime Index basis, the two reported murders
were committed by a white experimental and a white
good-boy comparison. Although there were no forcible
rapes, 23 of the 28 armed and unarmed robberies were
recorded for the black students. The aggravated, felo
nious, and deadly weapon assaults were evenly divided
between blacks and whites; but the assault and battery
events, which are not part of the FBI Crime Index,
were heavily concentrated among the blacks. Burgla
ries, breaking and entering, and housebreaking of
fenses were very heavily registered against the blacks,
rj3
(M<
 Findings : : 97
but the grand larcenies were undifferentiated by color.
Auto thefts, surprisingly, were very much more con
centrated among the blacks (see Appendix D).
In the moderate-offense group, black students were
recorded about two-and-a-half times more often for
the so-called Any serious offense attempted or investi
gated than their proportion in the study would demand
by chance alone. The blacks were also disproportion
ately overrepresented for petit larceny and even more
disproportionately for carrying a concealed weapon.
The total numbers in the remainder of the moderate-
offense category were too small to evaluate except to
say that the black-white differences were small (see
Appendix D).
In the minor-offense category, black-white differ
ences were generally proportionate to the relative
number of black and white subjects in the total study.
Except for truancy from home, in which the white boys
were greatly overrepresented in the experimental co
hort, color was without significance for all other re
corded delinquent activities. Incorrigibility, school
truancies, and intoxication offenses are cases in point
(see Appendix D).

POLICE-CONTACT CATEGORIES: TEACHER NOMINATIONS

In examining the delinquency involvement of the

experimental, control, and comparison boys, regardless
of race, several interesting subgroups emerged. These
subcategories, which hereafter will be called police-
contact categories, demonstrated again that predic
tions of law-violational behavior and of non-law-vio
lational conduct, even by teachers who know their
students well, can be hazardous. On the basis of known
98 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
police contacts only, teacher nominations of boys likely
or possible to get into later trouble with the law were
gross overestimates (Type I error). Less frequent but
still constituting a very substantial proportion of the
nominees were boys nominated by their sixth-grade
teachers as unlikely who did, in fact, experience police
contact (Type II error).
These errors raise anew the unresolved issue of why
it is that, despite every manner of social and economic
adversity, the largest percentage of adolescent boys
remain free from official legal involvement. The data
that follow also pinpoint the dilemma of labeling ado
lescents as pre- or nondelinquent and of intervening on
behalf of the former. Certainly, the arguments about
the consequences of stigmatization raised by the "label
ing school" of sociologists, including Goffman, Becker,
Garfinkel, Szasz, Scheff, Kitsuse, Cicourel, and others,
are pertinent to these data.
Simply stated, and as shown in table 16, 10 sub
categories of experimental, control, and comparison
subjects emerged: Category 1 consisted of boys wholly
free from recorded delinquencies; Category 2, free
from contact before and during the project but became
known to the police in the post-project years; Category
3, free from contact before and after the project; Cate
gory 4, contact during and after the program but not
before; Category 5, contact only before the program;
Category 6, contact both before and after but not dur
ing the demonstration year; Category 7, contact before
and during the program but not afterward; Category
8, contact in all three time periodsbefore, during,
and after (really a hard-core group) ; Category 9, no
contact before the program and only incomplete data
available on them during and/or after the program;
 Findings : : 99
and Category 10, contact before the program and in
complete data on them during and/or after the project.
TABLE 16
DISTRIBUTION OF EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL, AND COMPARISON

SUBJECTS ACCORDING TO CATEGORY OF POLICE CONTACT

EXPBRIMBNTALS CONTROLS COMPARISONS

CATEGORY*
N % N % N %

1 256 40.5 180 39.0 426 67.4

2 140 22.2 99 21.4 75 11.9
3 13 2.1 10 2.2 5 0.8
4 24 3.8 17 3.7 4 0.6
5 27 4.3 18 3.9 13 2.1
6 35 5.5 32 6.9 9 1.4
7 2 0.3 3 0.6 1 0.2
8 39 6.2 20 4.3 2 0.3
9 74 11.7 68 14.7 90 14.2
10 22 3.5 15 3.2 7 1.1
Total 632 100.0 462 100.0 632 100.0
* See above, p. 98.

SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POLICE-CONTACT

CATEGORIES

The age, color, class, and family-status distributions

of the 632 experimental, 462 control, and 632 good-boy
comparison subjects have been described in the pre
ceding chapter. The purpose of this analysis is to indi
cate that the demographic characteristics of the offense
categories varied significantly, with the exception of
social classsince all subjects resided in the inner city.

Age
At the time of intake into the Youth Development
Project, the mean age of the experimentals and con
trols was approximately 13.25 years, and that of the
comparisons was 12.76. With regard to the police
100 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
contact category, however, the no-contact boys were
12.97 years at the start of the study and the hard-core
delinquents (with police contact before, during, and
after the project) averaged 13.69 years of age (see
table 17). Within the no-contact category, the experi
mentals, controls, and comparison boys were 13.20,
13.23, and 12.73 years of age on the average. In the
hard-core group, the experimental, controls, and the
good-boy comparisons were 13.56, 13.95, and 13.50
years of age respectively.
In short, the more serious the police contact gener
ally, the higher the mean age of the boys at the time of
entry into the Youth Development Project. Further,
within each contact category, the nominated predelin
quents were older than the nominated good boys. The
only exceptions occurred in those categories in which
the number of cases was very small.
Whether the higher age of the more serious delin
quents (police-contact cases) was the cause or the ef
fect is, of course, subject to conjecture. There is no
question, however, that the more serious police-contact
cases were having a more difficult time in schooleven
in grade school.

Race
The patterns of police contact (delinquency involve
ment) according to race of the boy have been discussed
previously. It should suffice, at this point, to suggest
that there was a slightly greater proportion of whites
in the no-contact group and a much greater proportion
of black students in the hard-core delinquent category.
The respective percentages, namely 54.6 and 31.7, indi
cate the gradient of color by offense category (see table
 Findings : : 101
17, column 2). Although far from perfect as a gradi
ent, the evidence is reasonably compelling that a
greater proportion of the black subjects fell into the
more-persistent-offender categories.

Family Status
The evidence on family status indicates that the no-
contact subjects, whether experimental, control, or
comparison, were derived more often from intact fam
ily constellations than were boys in all other groups.
To illustrate the point, it is only necessary to compare
again the two extreme groupsthe no-contact (Cate
gory 1) group with the persistent-police-contact group
(Category 8). In the former, 65.1% of all the students
came from intact family settings and only 21.3% from
female-based households. In the latter group, only half
came from intact homes, and 35.0% lived in female-
based households. Here again, however, it should be
noted that in nearly every contact category a higher
percentage of nominated good boys lived in intact
households (see table 17, columns 3, 4, and 5).

SPECIFIC RECORDED OFFENSES

Of the 1,726 subjects in the project, 862 students

(40.5% of the experimentals, 39.0% of the controls,
and 67.4% of the good-boy comparisons) were wholly
free from police contact (see table 18). These consti
tute the Category 1 boys, about whom more will be
said later. For the present, it need only be pointed out
that the teachers and principals were wrong about 2
in 5 of those whom they nominated as headed for trou
ble with the law or about whom they were uncertain.
102 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

TABLE 17
A G E , R A C E , AND FAMILY STATUS BY POLICE-CONTACT CATEGORY

FAMILY STATUS
P E G H
CATEGORY* MEAN AGE ^JS Female-
Intact based Other

1 12.97 54.6 65.1 21.3 13.6

2 13.02 48.7 57.0 26.7 16.3
3 13.48 25.0 46.4 21.4 32.2
4 13.41 37.8 48.9 24.4 26.7
5 13.27 60.3 53.4 25.9 20.7
6 13.47 43.4 46.1 38.1 15.8
7 12.77 50.0 50.0 16.7 33.3
8 13.69 31.7 50.0 35.0 15.0
9 13.02 76.3 56.9 19.9 23.2
10 13.50 72.7 54.5 31.8 13.7
See above, p. 98.

By the same token, the nominators were in error about

1 in 3 of their good-boy nominees.
The 314 boys in Category 2 included roughly 22%
of the 1,094 nominated predelinquents and 12% of the
632 nominated good boys. These students were free
from contact prior to and during the program but came
to the attention of the police thereafter. As may be
seen in table 18, they were known for 619 offenses, an
average of 1.97 police notations per boy in this group.
Their 10 most frequent offenses, constituting 34% of
all recorded events, were curfew violation (81), auto
theft (80), incorrigibility (59), petit larceny (52),
truancy from home (46), attempted serious offenses
(38), burglary (27), malicious destruction of property
(21), breaking and entering (20), assault and battery
(19), and trespassing (19). Category 3 boys (those
with police contacts during the program only) num
bered 28 and accounted for 2.1% of the nominated
predelinquents and less than 1% of the nominated good
boys. As table 18 indicates, these 28 boys were known
 Findings : : 108
for 36 offenses collectively or 1.29 each. All of their
offenses were recorded during the seventh grade only
and consisted of the following: attempted serious of
fenses and petit larceny (6 each), and incorrigibility
and the malicious destruction of property (5 each).
No other offense was reported more than twice.
Category 4 boys (having contacts during and after
the program) were 45 in number and included about
3.7% of the predelinquent nominees but only 0.6% of
the nominated good boys. They were responsible for
over four violations each (4.27) and appeared headed
for continued trouble. Their records revealed the fol
lowing distribution of recorded offenses: petit larceny
(31), auto theft (20), incorrigibility (19), attempted
serious offense (18), and curfew violation (16). The
only other violation accounting for more than 10 events
was assault and battery (14).
Category 5 subjects (police contacts prior to this
study but not thereafter) numbered 58 and included
4% of the nominated predelinquents and 2.1% of the
nominated good boys. These 58 boys were responsible
for 77 violations (4.2% of the total recorded offenses),
an average of 1.33 notations per boy. Petit larceny
(19) and attempted serious offense (10) were the only
notations exceeding 10 in number and were followed
in order of frequency by burglary, malicious destruc
tion of property, and home truancy.
Category 6 boys (police contacts before and after,
but not during, the program) numbered 76. Their 288
violations (15.8% of the grand total) constituted an
average of 3.79 per boy. About 6% of the nominated
predelinquents (experimentals and controls) and over
1% of the good-boy comparisons were included in this
group. Again, petit larceny (44), attempted offense
10U : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
(34), curfew violations (30), and auto theft (21) led
the list of recorded events.
Category 7 consisted of boys who were known to the
police only before and during the project. These 6
cases accounted for 15 offenses. Category 8 contained
the hard-core delinquents (boys with police contact
before, during, and after the project). These 61 boys,
about 5% of the nominated predelinquents and only
0.3% of the good-boy nominees, committed 499 viola
tions. These recorded events represented 27.4% of all
known offenses, an average of 8.18 recorded offenses
per boy, as may be noted in table 18. These 61 subjects
committed at least one of 43 separate offenses, from
murder to glue-sniffing. Despite this wide range, the
major notations were very much the same as for the
others who had experienced police contact. Petit lar
ceny (93), attempted serious offense (79), incorrigi
bility (56), auto theft (50), and burglary (34) were
the five leading violations in Category 8.
Categories 9 and 10, consisted of 276 boys. Data on
their involvement during and/or after the study are,
by definition, incomplete. Such findings as are known
are presented in table 18.

SCHOOL DATA

Viewed objectively, the experimental subjects, as a

result of exposure to the Youth Development program,
did not display any more favorable school performance
than the boys not exposed (the controls and compari
sons) . In general, the experimental and controls nei
ther gained nor lost ground to the good boys. The data
suggest that the nominated good boys fell considerably
in their performance, just about as much as the nomi
 Findings : : 105

TABLE 18
NUMBER OF BOYS, NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF RECORDED OFFENSES,
AND M E A N NUMBER OF OFFENSES, BY POLICE-CONTACT CATEGORY

OFFENSES

CATEGORY NUMBER OF BOYS _

JN /o

1 862
2 314 619 34.0 1.97
3 28 36 2.0 1.29
4 45 192 10.5 4.27
5 58 77 4.2 1.33
6 76 288 15.8 3.79
7 6 15 0.8 2.50
8 61 499 27.4 8.18
9 232 20 1.1 0.09
10 44 76 4.2 1.73
Total 1,726 1,822 100.0
See above, p. 98.

nated predelinquents, so that the differential between

the two groups of nominees (predelinquent and non
delinquent) remained consistent from the sixth through
the tenth grades.
FINAL SCHOOL-CLEARANCE STATUS

At the conclusion of the follow-up, school clearances

indicated that 56.6% of the experimentals, 51.3% of
the controls, and 77.1% of the good-boy comparisons
were still in school. In contrast, 19.1%, 22.7%, and
6.2% respectively of the experimental, control, and
good-boy subjects were school dropouts by the end of
the tenth grade (see table 19). In this respect, then,
the program may have had a favorable impact in pre
venting a few additional dropouts among the experi
mentals. The difference is so small, however, that
chance alone, to say nothing of those who had moved
away and on whom our data were therefore incomplete,
106 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

TABLE 19
SCHOOL STATUS OF EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL, AND COMPARISON

SUBJECTS AT THE END OF THE PROJECT

SCHOOL STATUS EXPERIMENTAL^ CONTROLS COMPARISONS

*(632) (462) (632)

In school 56.6 51.3 77.1
Dropout 19.1 22.7 6.2
Moved away 18.6 20.8 16.1
In custody 5.7 52 0.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
* Denotes total number of subjects.

could have produced this minor positive result. The

school outcome data are presented above.
A more incisive way of looking at the relationship
between the two principal goals of the project, namely,
the prevention of delinquency and the prevention of
school dropout, is to look at the two simultaneously by
using offense category or type. When this is done, the
contrast, presented in table 20, between the police-
contact and no-police-contact groups is very pro
nounced. Those boys who experienced difficulty with
the law were school dropouts in far greater proportion
than those without contact. Both school dropout and
police contacts seem to derive from the same configu
ration and hence are highly interrelated. The school
dropout gradient for all groups is clearly visible in
table 20.
Concentrating attention on only three of the 10
police-contact categories demonstrates the relationship
between the two dependent variables. Of the boys who
never had any police contact (Category 1), 82.8%,
79.4%, and 95.8% of the 256 experimental, 180 con
trols, and 426 good-boy comparisons were still in school
at the end of the follow-up (three years after the
 O CO

: :

TH 'NHM 'O

OOMOOWMOO

oq t> oq o o o
:S i is :
WTJH003050WO
6

<D CO O O O

IIH<NJTHCO .O5 .
ICO'CSOOT^ -od
108 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
seventh grade). Of the 27 experimental, 18 control,
and 13 good boys who had contact before but not during
or after the program (Category 5), 51.9%, 61.1%, and
84.6% respectively were still in school. In stark con
trast, only 21.1% of the experimentals and 10.0% of
the controls in Category 8 were still in school, as was
1 of the 2 nominated good boys. Thus, 88.5% of the
no-contact boys, 62.1% of those with police contact
before the study only, and 18.3% of those in trouble
during all of the three time periods were attending
school at the close of the follow-up.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

Inevitably, school attendance reflects motivation,

goals, and perceptions of the legitimacy and the signifi
cance of the educational institution. (See chapter 7 for
an analysis of the attitudes of the students toward
various aspects of school.) In examining the hard data
on school truancy and attendance, several findings
were evident. First, the experimental and control sub
jects did not differ from each other before, during, or
after the project (see table 21). Second, at all grade
levels, the good-boy comparisons were less truant than
the nominated predelinquents, whether experimental
or control. Third, and last, in all three groups attend
ance declined with age. As the experimental, control,
and comparison boys moved through the seventh,
eighth, ninth, and tenth grades, truancy increased
markedly. This increase occurred in spite of the in
crease in dropout by grade, which removed the hard-
core school truants.
Not at all surprising was the finding that school
attendance varied with offense category. In fact, all
 Findings : : 109
TABLE 21
ATTENDANCE RATIOS OF EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL, AND COMPARISON
BOYS FROM THE SIXTH THROUGH THE T E N T H GRADE

ATTENDANCE RATIO EXPERIMENTAL^ CONTROLS COMPARISONS

Sixth grade 937 .936 .961

Seventh grade 929 .927 .955
Eighth grade 908 .913 .951
Ninth grade 906 .906 .944
Tenth grade 866 .869 .919

three results discussed immediately above applied to

the offenses-category analysis as well. In each offense
category, that is, 1 to 10, the experimentals and con
trols had a similar pattern; the nominated good boys
were better school attenders, and attendance ratios de
clined with grade level. In the tenth grade, for ex
ample, the attendance ratio of the no-contact boys
(Category 1) was .915; for the before group only
(Category 5) it was .867; and for the hard-core group
(Category 8), the ratio was only .669. Rather than
present the table in its entirety, the mean attendance
ratios by grade and offense category are presented for
all cohorts combined in table 22 below.
TABLE 22
M E A N ATTENDANCE RATIOS BY SCHOOL GRADE AND
POLICE-CONTACT CATEGORY

PATRrnnv* SIXTH SEVENTH EIGHTH NINTH TENTH

CATEGORY GRADE GRADE GRADE GRADE GRADE

1 958 .953 .945 .939 .915

2 942 .930 .907 .896 .836
3 922 .914 .937 .928 .871
4 917 .910 .879 .868 .738
5 939 .930 .917 .892 .867
6 899 .920 .894 .866 .833
7 960 .929 .970 .953 .879
8 916 .867 .800 .863 .669
9 941 .932 .919 .907
10 912 .902 .853 .916
See above, p. 98.
110 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

SCHOOL GRADES

An evaluation of school grade points (A, B, C, D, E)

reinforces the previous analyses of school dropout and
truancy. As before, the mean grade-point scores did
not differ for the experimentals and controls; the good-
boy nominees did better than the nominated bad boys
throughout; and average grade-point scores fell with
time. These results are presented in table 23.

TABLE 23
MEAN GRADE-POINT AVERAGES OF EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL, AND

COMPARISON SUBJECTS, BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER THE PROGRAM

GRADE AVERAGE* EXPERIMENTALS CONTROLS COMPARISONS

Pre-program (6th grade). . 3.29 3.36 2.54

During program (7th
grade) 3.33 3.48 2.93
Post-program (8th, 9th,
and 10th grades) 3.64 3.55 3.11
A - 1, B - 2, C - 3, D = 4, and F = 5 .

Mean grade-point averages varied consistently, and

in the predicted direction, with the offense category.
The no-contact subjects, whether experimental, con
trol, or comparison, did better in school than the hard-
core (Category 8) delinquents; all other categories
were intermediate between these extremes. For the
no-contact cases, the means were 2.89, 3.05, and 3.23
in the three periods under study (the pre-, during-,
and post-project phases). However, within the no-
police-contact category, the experimentals, controls,
and comparisons averaged 3.20, 3.35, and 2.49 in the
pre-program; 3.19, 3.31, and 2.86 during the project;
and 3.53, 3.38, and 3.03 in the follow-up period. The
 Findings : : 111
grade-point averages by police-contact category are
presented in table 24.
TABLE 24
MEAN GRADE-POINT AVERAGES BY POLICE-CONTACT CATEGORY

CATEGORY* PRE-PROGRAM DURING-PROGRAM POST-PROGRAM

1 2.89 3.05 3.23

2 3.15 3.41 3.76
3 3.16 3.50 3.35
4 3.56 3.74 4.07
5 3.09 3.36 3.52
6 3.42 3.54 3.82
7 3.31 3.42 3.78
8 3.38 3.56 3.88
9 3.02 3.22
10 3.48 3.42
See above, p. 98.

SUMMARY
In summary, the police and school data unfortu
nately failed to sustain the hope that the Youth
Development Project would effectively prevent delin
quency involvement and school dropout among inner-
city boys. Instead, every measure indicated little or
no difference between the treated and untreated nomi
nated predelinquents. Also dismaying was the increas
ing frequency with age of recorded delinquencies
among the nominated good boys, the concomitant de
cline in their school grades and school attendance, and
the accompanying increase in their school dropout
rate.
These results, although negating the intervention
efforts of the project, were most revealing in other
respects. When the subjects were classified by cate
gories of police contact, from no-contact to hard core,
the differences on the demographic and school-clear
ance variables were highly significant in the expected
direction.
CHAPTER SEVEN

Attitude and
Perception Changes

In addition to accumulating systematic police-clear

ance data and school-record information on the prog
ress of each of our 1,726 experimental, control, and
comparison subjects, the project attempted to evaluate
attitudinal and perceptional changes in the boys during
the year of the intervention program.
THE FIRST COHORT, 1 9 6 3 - 6 4 1

In order to test the effects of the first year of inter

vention, a schedule or questionnaire was devised that
included measures of socialization, self-concept, and
interpersonal competence (see schedule in Appendix
E). The schedule contained five sections. Thefirst,en
titled "How I Feel About Things," consisted of 15 of
the original 54 items in the Harrison Gough Sociali
zation Scale, which is a subscale of the California Psy
chological Inventory. These 15 items had been found
to be the most sensitive for measuring the veering to
ward or away from delinquency, based on the previous
 Attitude and Perception Changes : : 113
work of the investigators in the schools. High scorers
on the Socialization Scale (SO) scale are more likely
to be serious, honest, and responsible, whereas low
scorers have been found to be more negative, unde
pendable, and delinquency-prone. There is a large liter
ature on the complete SO scale, indicating the differ
ential response profiles of criteria groups, ranging
from best citizens to institutionalized and seriously
delinquent boys.
For the sake of simplicity and the facilitation of
administration, a short form of the investigators' self-
concept inventory was included as the second section
of the schedule. This section contained 7 items of the
original 56, selected precisely because they had been
found to be the most discriminating in regard to
teacher nominations as well as in differentiating the
high and low scorers on the SO scale.
The third set of items in the schedule administered
to the first cohort was drawn from Edward Rothstein's
attempt to measure interpersonal competence and the
ability of adolescents to interact effectively with others
in social situations. Composed originally of 60 items
in 6 subscales, Rothstein's Q-sort analysis revealed that
11 of these questions differentiated delinquents and
nondelinquents. These 11 items purport to measure
interpersonal competence in the areas of judgment,
intelligence, health, empathy, and creativity.
The schedule also contained the 20 Statements Test,
or "Who Am I?", developed by Manford Kuhn. The
"Who Am I?" test is based on certain assumptions
central to symbolic interaction theory. As with other
protective tests, it was difficult to analyze reliably the
"20 Statements," and this test was abandoned after
the first year (see Appendix E).
Ilk : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
This complete schedulethe SO, the self-concept,
the interpersonal competence, and the "Who Am I?"
itemswas administered to all sixth-grade boys in the
44 feeder schools by their own teachers in the spring
of the school year preceding the intervention program.
To measure the attitudinal and perceptual impact of
the program, the same schedule was readministered
the following spring after the school-demonstration
work was completed. Although all sixth-grade boys in
the 44 feeder schools were tested, only the experimen
tals and controls were retested. The good boys were
not retested because to do so would have revealed to the
school administration their status as comparison sub
jects. In addition, since only a 15% sample of the good-
boy comparisons was taken to begin with, reaching
them for retesting would have impaired the research.
The results of this pre- and post-testing were dis
heartening and resulted in specific modifications in our
curriculum emphasis in the second and third years.
Specifically, the presentations in the lesson plans deal
ing with the worlds of School, Work, and the Family
were strengthened; more attention was given to the
reading program; and greater stress was placed on
the teachers as role models.

THE SO SCALE TEST-RETEST RESULTS

On the 15 items of the Socialization Scale (SO), the

boys who later were randomly selected as experimen
tals and controls scored on an average (mean) 8.51
and 8.63, respectively, whereas the good boys had a
significantly more favorable score of 10.0. (High scores
on the socialization items are in the favorable, low
scores in the unfavorable, direction.) Both the experi
 Attitude and Perception Changes : : 115
mentals and controls showed higher (better) post-test
mean scores (see table 25). The experimental boys
TABLE 25
MEAN SCORES ON 15 ITEMS OF THE SOCIALIZATION SCALE, PRE- AND

POST-TEST, BY SUBGROUPS IN THE 1963-64 COHORT

PBE-TEST POST-TEST P*

Experimental 8.51 8.97 NS

Controls 8.63 9.26 NS
Comparisons 10.00 f
* P denotes level of statistical significance,
f Not administered.

(195) who took the pre- and post-tests moved up to a

mean of 8.97; the control boys (100), to 9.26. Neither
increase, although in the expected direction, was sta
tistically significant. However, the controls unexpect
edly did better than the experimentals on the retest.
These differences could be explained by chance alone,
and the improvement by test-retest learning and
greater sophistication.
An item analysis revealed that there was no single
item among the 15 socialization items on which both
experimentals and controls improved significantly in
the post-test. However, on items 4 and 7 the experi
mentals showed significant improvement (see table
26). These two items are:
4. I seem to do things that I regret more often than
other people do.
7. I go out of my way to try to meet trouble rather
than escape it.
The controls had significantly higher mean post-test
scores on the following items (see table 26) :
2. I used to give the teachers lots of trouble.
116 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
TABLE 26
EXTENT OP CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECTS SCORING

FAVORABLY ON THE 15 SOCIALIZATION ITEMS,

PRE- AND POST-TEST, 1963-64

EXPEBIMENTALS CONTROLS
ITEM
NUMBER Pre-test Post-test % Change Pre-test Post-test % Change

*(206) (195) (108) (100)

1 82.0 88.7 + 6.7 82.4 83.8 + 1.4
2J 35.9 36.9 +1.0 36.4 49.0 +12.6
3 79.2 78.2 - 1.0 83.2 73.7 - 9.5
4f 45.1 56.4 +11.3 51.9 47.5 - 4.4
5 65.9 74.9 - 9.0 63.0 69.7 + 6.7
6 48.1 47.2 - .9 44.4 45.5 + 1.1
7f 59.6 78.9 +19.3 71.0 76.5 +5.5
8J 20.4 20.5 + .1 32.4 15.3 -17.1
9 34.5 26.7 -7.8 30.6 38.4 +7.8
10J 33.5 37.1 +3.6 34.6 50.0 +15.4
11 83.5 83.9 + .4 86.1 87.9 +1.8
12 90.2 88.7 - 1.5 88.0 92.9 +4.9
13 J 35.1 43.8 +8.7 31.8 51.5 +19.7
14 64.9 72.2 +7.3 63.0 71.7 +8.7
15J 59.7 61.9 +2.2 56.5 70.7 +14.2
* Denotes number of subjects.
t Change in experimental group at .05 or better.
j Change in control group at .05 or better.
8. When I meet a stranger, I often think he is bet
ter than I am.
10. I keep out of trouble at all costs.
13. People often talk about me behind my back.
15. I never cared much for school.
Further analysis also showed that the experimentals
did more poorly on items 7 and 8 on the pre-test than
did the controls. In the post-test situation, however,
the experimentals did significantly more poorly on
items 2 and 10 and on item 9 ("I was sometimes sent
to the principal for cutting up") (see table 26).
SELF-CONCEPT-SCALE RESULTS
It was expected that the impact of the project would
be reflected in the pre- and post-test scores of the ex
 Attitude and Perception Changes : : 117
perimental and control subjects on the self-concept in
ventory, consisting of 7 items. There appeared, how
ever, to be no significant improvement in the mean
scores of either group at the end of the school year.
TABLE 27
MEAN SCORES ON THE 7 SELF-CONCEPT ITEMS,

PRE- AND POST-TEST, EXPERIMENTAL AND

CONTROL SUBJECTS, 1963-64

PBE-TBST POST-TEST P*

Experimentals 9.38 9.61 NS

Controls 9.54 9.45 NS
P* NS NS
* P denotes level of statistical significance.

There was also no significant difference in mean scores

between the two groups either before or after the pro
gram. The mean scores on these 7 self-concept items
are shown in table 27.
Analysis of each of the 7 self-concept items revealed
no significant changes within the experimental and
control groups over the one-year period. Analysis also
TABLE 28
EXTENT OF CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECTS

SCORING FAVORABLY ON 7 SELF-CONCEPT ITEMS,

PRE- AND POST-TEST, 1963-64

EXPERIMENTAL^ CONTROLS
ITEM NUMBER
Pre-test Post-test % Change Pre-test Post-test % Change

*(206) (195) (108) (100)

1 85.9 81.0 -4.9 89.7 85.9 -3.8
2 92.7 95.9 +3.2 90.7 96.0 +5.3
3 69.1 67.2 -1.9 70.1 63.6 -6.5
4 67.5 69.6 +2.1 68.5 75.8 +7.3
5 90.3 89.2 -1.1 86.1 88.8 +2.7
6 71.2 76.0 +4.8 72.2 76.5 +4.3
7 91.7 89.7 -2.0 88.0 88.9 + .9
* Denotes total number of subjects.
118 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
failed to establish any differences between the two
groups at either the beginning or the end of the study
with regard to the self-concept items. An individual-
items analysis is presented in table 28.
INTERPERSONAL-COMPETENCE SCALE

Pre- and post-test scores on Rothstein's interper

sonal-competence scale (11 items) were also compared
for both experimental and control subjects. The find
ings indicated that, although there was no significant
difference in mean scores between the two groups at
the beginning and at the end of the school year, both
groups showed slight but significant improvement (see
table 29).
TABLE 29
MEAN SCORES ON 11 INTERPERSONAL-COMPETENCE ITEMS,

PRE- AND POST-TEST, EXPERIMENTAL AND

CONTROL SUBJECTS, 1963-64

PBE-TEST POST-TEST P*

Experimental 6.00 6.56 .05

Controls 5.88 6.45 .05
P NS NS
* Denotes level of statistical significance.

Although the mean scores revealed significant im

provement within the experimental and control cohorts
at the end of the school year, a more detailed item
analysis proved largely negative. The most pronounced
improvement within the experimental group occurred
on item 7 ("I trust the judgment of my friends more
often than I do my own judgment") (see table 30).
The only other significant difference from pre- to post-
test for the experimental group occurred on item 6 in
 Attitude and Perception Changes : : 119
the set of 11 interpersonal-competence items ("Even
when somebody doesn't agree with me, I can usually
understand his reasons for not agreeing with me").
Within the control groups, the only significant im
provement occurred in the response to item 10 ("I
often get into hot water because I speak or act without
thinking") (see table 30).
TABLE 30
EXTENT OP CHANGE IN THE PERCENTAGE OF SUBJECTS SCORING

FAVORABLY ON 11 INTERPERSONAL-COMPETENCE ITEMS,

PRE- AND POST-TEST, 1963-64

EXPERIMENTAL^ CONTROLS

NUMBER Pre-test Post-test % Change Pre-test Post-test % Change

*(206) (195) (108) (100)

1 74.8 82.0 + 7.2 72.2 72.4 + .2
2 62.6 59.5 - 3.1 60.2 66.7 + 6.5
3 67.5 72.8 + 5.3 65.4 72.7 + 7.3
4 71.4 72.3 + .9 69.4 71.7 + 2.3
5 29.1 34.4 + 5.3 30.6 35.4 + 4.8
6f 61.2 72.3 +11.1 55.1 64.6 + 9.5
7f 60.2 81.2 +21.0 62.0 73.7 + 11.7
8 46.1 51.3 + 5.2 43.5 46.9 + 3.4
9 31.1 35.6 + 4.5 28.7 35.7 + 7.0
10J 32.7 39.5 + 6.8 38.0 51.5 +13.5
11 52.4 54.4 + 2.0 50.9 52.5 + 1.6
Denotes total number of subjects.
t Change in experimental group at .05 or better.
j Change in control group at .05 or better.

ATTITUDES TOWARD SCHOOL

The insensitivity of the abbreviated socialization,

self-concept, and interpersonal-competence scales led
the project's research staff to develop new scales to
measure the several dimensions of school attitudes.2
The improvement of school attitudes was clearly one of
the major goals of the demonstration project. On the
basis of pilot research with 148 seventh-grade boys,
plus "sympathetic introspection" arid a review of the
120 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
literature, the research staff identified 6 theoretically
separate variables, jointly comprising a generalized
attitude toward school. These variables were labeled:
(1) capacity to learn; (2) value of education; (3)
legitimacy (of the manifest functions of the school);
(4) teachersgeneral (interpersonal relations be
tween teachers and pupils) ; (5) teacherspersonal
(respondent's concrete experiences with teachers) ;
and (6) teachersacademic (the competency and com
mitment of teachers to their work) (see schedules in
Appendixes F and G).
In order to measure these dimensions, a large num
ber of questions were assembled and eventually re
duced to a total of 89 items. These were then pretested
on 97 seventh-grade boys, and the responses were sub
jected to Guttman scale analysis and the Scale Value
Difference methods. The final schedule, after removal
of the non-scalable and low SVD (scale value differ
ence) items, contained a total of 48 items in the above
6 subscales. Using four groups of respondents, accord
ing to teacher nomination and police contact, the co
efficients of reproducibility and the minimal marginal
reproducibility varied only slightly. All except one of
the 24 coefficients of reproducibility reached .90,
which is the generally accepted cutting point. In this
one instance, the coefficient at .89 was close enough to
be deemed acceptable.
Before presenting the pre-test-post-test data on the
experimental, control, and comparison subjects, some
additional work deserves brief discussion. In evalu
ating these 6 dimensions of attitudes toward school,
the staff used all the subjects assigned to the experi
mental, control, and comparison groups in the second
cohort year, 1964-65. These boys were divided into the
 Attitude and Perception Changes : : 121
four teacher-nomination and police-contact categories
as follows: known delinquents; high delinquency po
tential (nominated bad boys but without known police
contact) ; moderate delinquency potential (nominated
as possible and without known police contact) ; and low
delinquency potential (nominated good boysthat is,
as unlikely to get into trouble).
As expected, the greatest differences in attitudes
toward school on each of the 6 dimensions were found
between the known delinquents and the low-delin
quency-potential group. Thus, the known delinquents
were more negative on each of the subscales but very
much so on 4 of the 6 of them, specifically, capacity to
learn, legitimacy of school, teachersgeneral, and
teacherspersonal. Ironically, the subscales concerned
with the value of education and with teachersaca
demic, failed to differentiate the known delinquents
from the good boys. The two middle groups (those with
high and with moderate delinquency potential) varied
little on any of the subscales, although they responded
more like the known delinquents than the nondelin
quents. Nevertheless, the staff concluded: "Data show
that the individual's perception of his capacity to learn,
as well as other dimensions of attitude toward school,
associates highly with delinquency."3
Attitude schedules based on the 6 Guttman subscales
were administered at the beginning (pre-test) and
again at the close (post-test) of the seventh-grade year
on a routine basis to the 1964-65 and 1965-66 co
horts, comprising for the two years a total of 431
experimental, 347 control, and 441 good-boy compari
sons. The project anticipated that the experimental
students would show significantly more favorable atti
tudes than the controls on a pre-test-post-test basis.
122 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
This expectation that the demonstration project
would be effective in modifying the generally negative
attitudes of treated seventh-grade boys failed to ma
terialize. Indeed, except on one dimension only, the
431 experimental boys were significantly more nega
tive toward school after the program. Generally speak
ing, this was also the case with the controls, who were
significantly less favorable on 3 of the dimensions and
less favorable, though not statistically so, on 2 of the
other 3 subscales. The 441 good-boy comparisons
(nominated as unlikely to get into trouble) started and
ended more favorably disposed toward school on all 6
dimensions than the bad boys (nominated by their
teachers and principals as likely or possible). On 3 of
the subscales, there was little pre-test-post-test change,
but its direction was favorable. On another subscale
there was a slight negative change. On the remaining
2 subscales, the good boys were less positive at the end.
In more specific terms, all three groupsexperimen
tals, controls, and comparisonswere far less favor
able (P < .05) on the 3 subscales concerning their
relationships with their teachersgeneral, academic,
and personalon the post- than on the pre-test. On
the teachersacademic subscale, however, only the
experimentals and the controls were significantly less
well disposed on the post-test. On 2 of the dimensions,
value of education and legitimacy of the school, the
experimental subjects were significantly less positive,
the controls slightly less favorable, and the good boys
minimally improved at the point of post-test.
Only on one dimension, the capacity to learn, was
there across-the-board improvement in all three
groups. For the experimentals, the improvement was
statistically significant (P < .05). For the controls,
 Attitude and Perception Changes : : 123
TABLE 31
PRE- AND POST-TEST MEAN SCORES ON THE 6 GUTTMAN SUBSCALES

FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL, AND COMPARISON SUBJECTS

SCHOOL DIMENSION* EXPERIMENTAL^ CONTROLS COMPARISONS

Capacity to learn
Pre-test 3.47 3.55 2.95
Post-test 3.07 3.43 2.89
Pf 05 NS NS
Value of Education
Pre-test 2.87 2.94 2.63
Post-test 3.18 2.99 2.62
Pf 05 NS NS
Legitimacy of School
Pre-test 2.48 2.22 1.91
Post-test 2.73 2.29 1.78
Pf 05 NS NS
TeachersGeneral
Pre-test 3.92 3.85 3.55
Post-test 4.20 4.21 3.83
Pf 05 .05 .05
TeachersPersonal
Pre-test 2.44 2.35 1.84
Post-test 2.69 2.88 2.10
Pf 05 .05 .05
TeachersAcademic
Pre-test 3.01 3.02 2.93
Post-test 3.36 3.22 3.04
Pt 05 .05 NS
* The higher the score, the less favorable the attitude,
t P denotes level of statistical significance.

there was some but not a significant gain. The smallest

gain was shown by the good boys. In the post-test
period, the 431 experimental boys were closer to the
good boys in their perceptions of their capacity to learn
than they were to the controls. These results are shown
in table 31.
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE LAW

The second and most obvious objective of the project

was to prevent vulnerable boys from becoming arrest
 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
statistics, from engaging in violational activities, and
from earning the stigmatizing label of juvenile delin
quent. Naturally, it was the hope of the program that
the perceptions of inner-city boys toward the legal in
stitutions and their agents would change from nega
tive to positive, thereby preventing future involvement
in law-violating activities.
The senior research associate on the project, at
tempted to develop sensitive, reliable, and valid scales
to measure these perceptions.4 The procedures, with
only minor modifications, were identical to those used
earlier to develop the 6 subscales dealing with attitudes
toward school. Drawing on a variety of sourcesex
perience, delinquency literature, available instruments
148 boys in 6 Youth Development (experimental)
classes were asked to indicate things that they liked
or disliked concerning the law, police, and courts.
From their responses, 9 dimensions appeared to
emerge: (1) policemenrelationship with kids; (2)
policemenlegitimacy; (3) policemenpersonal
characteristics; (4) probation officersrelationship
with kids; (5) probation officerslegitimacy; (6) ju
venile courtsrelationship with kids; (7) juvenile
courtslegitimacy; (8) lawsrelationship with kids;
and (9) lawslegitimacy (see schedules in appendixes
F and G).
From a pool of items, presumably tapping each of
these aspects, 63 were finally chosen and administered
to 102 experimental boys in the first cohort, 1963-64,
toward the end of that school year. These items were
balanced between favorable and unfavorable percep
tions, in order to reduce systematic bias. The pilot re
sults, incredible as it may appear, indicated that each
of the items fitted the Guttman scale for which it was
 Attitude and Perception Changes : : 125
designed. The 9 Guttman subscales contained 5 to 9
items each, and the coefficient of reproducibility was
well above the acceptable figure of .90 on every sub-
scale. The minimal marginal reproducibility was also
highly acceptable on the subscales.
In addition to the Guttman technique, every item
was correlated with the total score on all 9 dimensions.
No negative values were found, and only 4 individual
items had low correlations, that is, +.25 or less. All
items were therefore retained in the total scale. Fi
nally, on the Scale Value Difference (SVD) technique,
which seeks to evaluate each item in relation to the
others, only 5 items failed to differentiate the high
from the low scores at a statistically significant level.
Again these items were retained principally because
they had scaled well using the Guttman method.
As with the school attitude scale, the 1963-64 cohort
of boys was divided for scale development purposes into
four groups, consisting of a total of 626 boys to whom
the law schedule was given. These four groups were:
known delinquents, high delinquency potential, mod
erate delinquency potential, and low delinquency po
tential. An analysis of the median scores of the four
groups of boys on the pre-test of the 9 subscales meas
uring attitudes toward the law revealed an extreme
difference between the known delinquents and the good
boys on every dimensionalways favorable, as ex
pected, to the good boys. Two middle groupsthe high-
and moderate-delinquency-potential boyswere found
to be very close to one another in median scores, but
closer to the known delinquents than to the good boys
in median scores. The white boys in each of the four
subgroups were found to be more favorable than the
black boys on all 9 scales of perceptions toward the law.
126 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
The 9 subscales measuring attitudes toward the law
were administered to the 1964-65 and 1965-66 ex
perimental, control, and comparison subjects at the
beginning and again at the close of the academic year,
along with the 6 school dimensions discussed previ
ously. Even more so than on the school subscales, the
results on the law, police, court, and probation dimen
sions failed to show greater improvement for the ex
perimentals than for the controls. These findings are
presented in table 32.
On each of the law-attitude dimensions, the experi
mental boys were less favorable on the pre-test (high
mean scores) than the control boys, and both groups of
nominated potential delinquents were very much more
negative than the good-boy comparisons. The identical
pattern pertained on all 9 dimensions on the post-test
(see table 32). However, on the post-test, the difference
in mean scores between the 431 experimental and the
347 control subjects decreased whereas the differences
in mean scores between the nominated bad and good
boys remained approximately the same as in the pre
test. Most critical in terms of the demonstration proj
ect, the attitudes of the experimental boys toward the
several aspects of the legal system did not improve at
all. Instead, their attitudes either remained basically
unchanged or, in fact, became more negative, and sig
nificantly so, on the eight-item "lawlegitimacy"
Guttman subscale.
More specifically, the experimental subjects were
more negative on all but 3 of the 9 dimensions at the
end of the seventh-grade (post-test) year when their
exposure to the Youth Development Program ended
than they had been at the beginning of the school year.
On only 1 of the 9 dimensions, "lawlegitimacy/' was
 TABLE 32
P R E - AND POST-TEST M E A N SCORES ON THE 9 GUTTMAN SUBSCALES

FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL, CONTROL, AND COMPARISON SUBJECTS

DIMENSION* EXPERIMENTALS CONTROLS COMPARISONS

PolicemenRelationship
with kids
Pre-test 4.45
4.05
3.46

Post-test 4.59
4.51
3.78

Pt NS .05
.05

PolicemenLegitimacy
Pre-test 3.85 3.53
3.22

Post-test 4.00 3.61

3.19

Pf NS NS
NS

PolicemenPersonal
characteristics
Pre-test 3.33 3.06
2.85

Post-test 3.31 3.22

2.97

Pt NS NS
NS

Probation officers
Relationship with kids
Pre-test 4.86 4.45
4.32

Post-test 4.80 4.64

4.45

Pt NS NS
NS

Probation officersLegitimacy
Pre-test 4.04 3.81
3.64

Post-test 4.06 3.90

3.71

Pt NS NS
NS

CourtsRelationship with kids

Pre-test 4.70 4.25
3.92

Post-test 4.63 4.39

3.93

Pt NS NS
NS

CourtsLegitimacy
Pre-test 2.95 2.62
2.31

Post-test 3.02 2.70

2.21

Pt NS NS
NS

LawsRelationship with kids

Pre-test 3.54 3.33
3.10

Post-test 3.58 3.45

3.14

Pt NS NS
NS

LawsLegitimacy
Pre-test 4.79 4.39
3.79

Post-test 5.14 4.62

4.10

Pt 05 NS
.05

The higher the score, the less favorable the attitude.

t P denotes level of statistical significance.
128 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
there a statistically significant increase (unfavorable)
in mean scores from pre- to post-test for the experi
mentals. The control boys were less favorable on all 9
of the law subscales at the end of the seventh grade
(post-test) but significantly less so on only one. The
good-boy comparisons had higher mean scores (un
favorable direction) on 7 of the 9 subscales at the post-
test phase, of which only 2 differences between pre- and
post-mean scores were statistically significant.

REMEDIAL-READING-PROGRAM EVALUATION

The Youth Development Project was oriented to

ward improving the self-concepts of the experimental
subjects, removing some of their defeatism, and pro
viding them with acceptable role models. These goals
dictated the character of the program inputs. Never
theless, it soon became evident that one of the major
sources of low self-esteem and poor academic perform
ance was reading deficiencya problem characteristic
of lower-class delinquents in the United States.5 As in
dicated earlier, the experimental subjects entered our
seventh-grade program with a mean reading achieve
ment grade level of 5.7, and the controls averaged 5.5.
In contrast, the good-boy comparisons entered the
seventh grade with a reading achievement mean grade
level of 6.7.
The results of the remedial reading efforts, described
previously in some detail, were promising. The second
cohort (1964-65) experimentals, as a whole, improved
an average of 0.85 reading achievement grade levels,
from the pre- to the post-treatment phase. The 1964-65
controls, who did not receive the remedial reading sup
plement, increased their reading achievement by only
 Attitudes and Perception Changes : : 129
TABLE 33
IMPROVEMENT IN EXPERIMENTALS AND CONTROLS
READING ACHIEVEMENT, 1964-65 COHORT

GRADE LEVEL
IMPROVEMENT P* Nf
6th Grade 7th Grade

Experimentals 5.79 6.64 0.85 .001 186

Controls 6.01 6.41 0.40 NS 73
Improvement +0.45 .001
Source: Summarizes the findings by Nason E. Hall and Gordon P. Waldo, "Remedial
Reading for the Disadvantaged," Journal of Reading 11, no. 2 (November 1967) :87, table 3.
Denotes level of statistical significance,
t Denotes number of subjects.

half as much, namely 0.40 grade levels (see table 33).

This difference was statistically significant at the .001
level of confidence.
Although there is some room for optimism regarding
the positive effect of the remedial reading program on
the experimental boys, the net difference on the post-
test between the treated and untreated subjects was
generally small. In view of the hard data on school
dropout and delinquency involvement, the reading im
provement data offer very little consolation.

1. This discussion and analysis has been taken from a M.A. thesis
evaluating the first year's results. See Margaret Ann Zahn, "An
Evaluation of an Experimental Delinquency Prevention Program"
(Master's thesis, The Ohio State University, 1964), pp. 26-39.
2. Part of this material on attitudes toward school can be found
in greater detail in Nason E. Hall and Gordon P. Waldo, "School
Identification and Delinquency Proneness," Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency (July 1967) :231-42.
3. Ibid., p. 242.
4. Part of this section summarizes the project by Gordon P.
Waldo, "Boys' Perceptions of Outer Containment and Delinquency
Potential" (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1967).
5. This section summarizes the findings by Nason E. Hall and
Gordon P. Waldo, "Remedial Reading for the Disadvantaged,"
Journal of Reading 11, no. 2 (November 1967) :81-92.
CHAPTER EIGHT

An Interview Follow-up

In addition to the assessment of attitude change to

ward law and the schools at the beginning and end of
the demonstration program year, a concerted effort
was also made to interview in depth available and co
operating boys from the experimental and control
groups of the second cohort (1964-65) two years after
the seventh grade. This chapter is concerned with the
results of the interview follow-up.
In May and June of 1967, three of the four original
project teachers interviewed samples of experimentals
and controls from the second (1964-65) cohort year.
At the time of the follow-up interview, most of the
subjects were just finishing the ninth grade. The pur
pose of the follow-up interview was to assess the prog
ress of the boys in each of the two groups, to determine
whether differences existed between them with regard
to such qualities as appearance, demeanor, extracur
ricular interests, and self-reported misbehavior (see
the interview schedule in Appendix H).
 An Interview Follow-up : : 131
Most of the interviews, especially those with the con
trols, were conducted after school at the schools the
boys were attending. A few were conducted in the boys'
homes. The boys were, in all cases, interviewed indi
vidually. All three teachers were working full time
during regular school hours but conducted the inter
views on their own time after school.
Interviews were obtained from 120 out of 219 ex
perimentals (55%) and 42 out of 123 controls (34%)
in the second cohort (1964-65). No attempt was made
to locate and interview all of the experimentals and
controls because such a task would have required much
more time and resources than were available. For the
same reason, no attempt was made to sample any of the
good-boy comparisons. Instead, the three teachers
sought out all the 1964-65 experimentals and controls
they could find in the respective schools in which they
had taught the special seventh-grade project classes.
They also jointly sought out bad boys in the two schools
in which the fourth project teacher (who was not in
volved in the follow-up interviewing) had taught.
The boys who were not contacted and, therefore, not
interviewed included those who had either dropped out
of school, moved out of the Columbus area, been incar
cerated, refused to be interviewed (mostly controls
who did not know the teachers from classroom experi
ence) , or were simply too difficult to locate. Lack of
time was an added limitation, inasmuch as it was nec
essary to have the interviewing completed by the end
of June, 1967. Those who had moved away and those
who could not be located and interviewed within the
allotted time comprised a large proportion of those not
sampled. Since the teachers were paid for each inter
view, they naturally tried to get as many as they could.
132 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
Regrettably, this interviewing procedure was biased
in favor of those in school, those who knew the three
teachers, and probably also those who were positive in
their attitudes toward the Youth Development Pro
gram and toward the post-program interview. To de
termine the extent of this bias, the follow-up experi
mental and control subjects were compared with the
non-interviewed experimental and control boys. The
general unrepresentativeness of both the experimental
and control interview samples, particularly the for
mer, is shown in the comparative data presented in
Appendix I.

INTERVIEW RESULTS

The interview schedule, contained in Appendix H,

consisted of three separate parts. The first section
called for the subjective evaluation of the interviewees'
appearance, demeanor, and future prospects. The sec
ond part of the interview schedule attempted to assess
the boys' perception, feelings, and intentions concern
ing school, after-school activities, and friendships. For
the experimental respondents of the second cohort
(1964-65) only, there were several questions about the
Youth Development Project program, its value to the
boys themselves, and the advisability of extending it to
all seventh-grade pupils. This entire section called for
structured answers, but it also provided the inter
viewee or respondent an opportunity for in-depth dis
cussion. The last part of the schedule contained 33
items of self-reported behavior. Included in this list
were 6 items of the Nye-Short Scale of misconduct, 15
additional questions eliciting self-reported misdeeds,
and, by contrast, 12 items in which positive (good) be
 An Interview Follow-up : : 133
haviors were assessed. The scoring was such that the
lower the total, the more favorable the behavior; the
higher the total, the greater the self-reported miscon
duct.
INTERVIEWER RATINGS

As already noted, the project teacher-interviewers

were asked to evaluate subjectively the contacted ex
perimental and control boys on 10 items in three areas
appearance, demeanor, and future prospects. The
results indicate that the teachers thought the experi
mental were doing considerably better than the con
trols on most of the specific items.

Appearance
There were no significant differences between the
ratings of experimental (treated) and control (un
treated) interviewed boys on 2 of the 3 appearance
items (neatness and cleanliness) (see Appendix H).
In regard to the third appearance item, health, a sig
nificantly greater percentage of the experimentals
than of the controls were rated as being in good health.

Demeanor
The project teacher-interviewers rated each of the
experimental and control follow-up boys on 4 behav
ioral characteristics: cooperativeness, ease and com
fort in the interview setting, honesty in response, and
a general assessment of delinquency potential. Ratings
on all 4 items were significantly more favorable for the
experimentals and overwhelmingly so on the delin
quency assessment (see table 34).
13k : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

TABLE 34
PERCENTAGES OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL FOLLOW-UP BOYS

As RATED BY THE INTERVIEWERS ON DEMEANOR

DEMEANOR EXPEBIMENTALS CONTROLS P*

Cooperative 88.8 57.1 .001

Comfortable 83.4 52.4 .001
Honest 79.3 60.0 .05
Delinquency assessment
Nondeliquent 61.7 22.5
Unsure 24.4 50.0 .001
Delinquent 13.9 27.5
* Denotes level of statistical significance based on chi square analysis.

It is interesting to compare these follow-up assess

ments, made at the end of the ninth grade, with the
actual outcome of the same boys at the end of the tenth
grade. By this time, despite the teacher-interviewer
ratings above, the percentages of the interviewed boys
with police contacts in the post-program period was
greater for the experimentals, but only very slightly.
Similarly, the known violations committed by the in
terviewed boys at any time in their lives, were only
slightly greater for the experimentals. According to
the teacher-interviewers, 61.7% of their former proj
ect student respondents were nondelinquent (see table
34). This was almost precisely the official situation for
these boys by the end of the tenth grade. On the other
hand, the teachers, knowing the controls only inci
dentally, if at all, hedged their predictions on them.
Fully half were labeled as possible by the teacher-
interviewers. Most of these boys, as it turned out, re
mained free from police contact throughout. If nothing
else, then, knowing the boys well resulted in accurate
prediction; lack of familiarity, in hedging in favor of
delinquency.
 An Interview Follow-up : : 135

Future Prediction
The former project teacher-interviewers also rated
the interviewees in terms of likelihood of their com
pleting high school, getting into trouble with the police,
and making a good family adjustment. On thefirsttwo
variables, the experimentals were rated superior to the
controls. On the family variable, no difference was
found (see table 35).
TABLE 35
PERCENTAGES OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL FOLLOW-UP BOYS
As RATED BY THE INTERVIEWERS ON FUTURE PROSPECTS

FUTURE PREDICTIONS EXPERIMENTALS CONTROLS P*

High school
Finish 52.9 33.3
Unsure 37.0 45.2 .05
Dropout 10.1 21.4
Police involvement
No trouble 58.5 26.2
Unsure 29.7 45.2 .001
Trouble 11.9 28.6
Family adjustment
Good 54.9 40.6
Fair 33.6 40.6 NS
Poor 11.5 18.8

* Denotes level of statistical significance based on chi square analysis.

Here again, the teacher-interviewers tended more

frequently to rate the contacted experimentals favor
able whereas their evaluations of the contacted controls
were more frequently listed as unsure. The teacher-
interviewers ratings were, in fact, quite correct on the
experimentals. For example, only 11.7% had dropped
out of school by the end of the tenth grade. The teacher-
interviewers, not knowing the contacted controls as
136 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
well, underrated their potential for finishing school
and overrated their "goodness." It is the opinion of the
investigators that because the teacher-interviewers did
not maintain the same close contact with the families
as with many of the boys themselves, they tended to
even out their ratings of the cohesiveness of the fami
lies of the contacted experimental and control boys (see
table 35).

BOYS' PERCEPTIONS

During the course of the interview, the follow-up

boys were questioned in some detail about various as
pects of school, parental relationships, and after-school
and summer work. However, this intensive interview
ing yielded no major differences between the experi
mental and control interviewees.
School Assessment
As will be noticed in Appendix H, 9 items concerning
school were included in the schedule. In addition to
questioning on a yes-no, like-dislike, or similar basis,
the teacher-interviewers tried to probe for more de
tail. Most of the responses obtained were conventional
and not rewarding with regard to permitting a better
understanding of the interviewees' views of the world.
The responses suggest resignation with regard to all
aspects of school rather than either positive affirmation
or outright rejection. To the question, "How do you like
school?", about half of all respondents replied, "It's
okay." About 38% liked it, and the remainder ex
pressed genuine dislike. Of those who were positive to
ward school, most of the respondents (experimentals
as well as controls) saw it as necessary and valuable
 An Interview Follow-up : : 187
for the future and also as a chance to learn. For a few,
school was fun; and for another small minority of the
respondents, school provided the opportunity to par
ticipate in sports. For one studentperhaps an honest
reflection of our turbulent timesschool was a place
where kids are equal. No differences were observed be
tween the experimentals and controls regarding their
assessment of school.
Three questions in the schedule (see Appendix H)
dealt with the rating of English, mathematics, and all
other teachers, as easy or hard to get along with. On
none of these ratings was there any significant differ
ence between the two follow-up groups (experimentals
and controls). About 83% of all the boys interviewed
rated their English teachers (eighth grade) as easy to
get along with; a slightly higher percentage thought
the mathematics teachers were easy to relate to; and a
similar percentage was found with regard to all other
teachers considered together. Apart from answering
whether a teacher was easy or hard to interact with,
only about 30 respondents gave reasons for their an
swers. But from these, it appeared obvious that a
teacher was rated "easy" if he or she presented no
special problems to the boy or was somewhat helpful.
Teachers were rated as hard to get along with when the
student felt interpersonal distance or when the teacher
was seen as too strict.
That our follow-up interviewees were at times trou
blesome in school is evident from their responses to the
next two questions. To our question, "Have you been
sent to the office since the beginning of the new school
semester in February (our interviewing was done in
May and June) because of being in trouble?", 67.2%
of the experimentals and 63.4% of the controls replied
188 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
in the affirmative. The reasons for this action, as stated
by the boys, were as follows: cutting class, messing
around, fighting, threatening or talking back to a
teacher, talking in class, acting up in class, nonpar
ticipation, arguing and swearing in class, poor ap
pearance, smoking, chewing gum, carrying a weapon,
fooling around with girls, drinking, general obstreper
ousness, loitering, theft, and other activities ranging
from the incidental and mischievous to the serious and
harmful (fighting with a knife). One wonders, after
examining these replies, how the junior high schools
in which these boys were students were able to function
and to provide an atmosphere conducive to learning.
Are these difficult and disruptive boys merely biding
their time until age 16 when they can legally leave
school, or is it the school that produces this discontent;
or is it both? Since these were the positively self-
selected of our original treated and nontreated groups,
how much more serious are the problems presented by
those not interviewed? How much more disruptive
could they be?
Although nearly two-thirds of the follow-up boys re
ported being sent to the principal's office for the vari
ous infractions noted above, only about a third ad
mitted absenting themselves from school during the
second semester of the eighth grade. As to what they
did on the days they were truant, the responses indi
cated that most simply stayed in and around home and
"messed around," played cards, or went for a ride (one
boy in a car he stole for the occasion). There were no
differences between the experimentals and controls in
the percentage who truanted or, from what we could
gather from their accounts, in their activities while
truant.
 An Interview Follow-up : : 139
The last school item concerned plans and prospects
for going to high school. Seven possibilities were of
fered the interviewees: going to high school with a very-
good chance of finishing; going with a fair chance of
finishing; going with a poor chance of finishing; not
going but getting a job; not going but "messing
around"; not going but with indefinite plans; and not
going but with no specification as to future plans. The
results of the analysis of responses to these 7 choices
vary with the nature of the combination of responses.
Thus, about 90% said that they will go on to high school
and will have, by their own estimates, a very good or
fair chance of finishing. Less than half, however,
thought their chances of finishing high school were
very good (49.2% of the experimentals and 34.2% of
the controls). See table 36 for a tabulation of the above
findings.

After-School Involvement
Three items in the schedule (see Appendix H) per
tained to after-school involvement with the law during
the semester then nearly ended. Without going into ex
cessive detail, 11.9% and 19.1% of the experimentals
and controls, respectively, indicated that they had ex
perienced trouble with the law after school. This is
really a very high incidence rate for less than half a
year, although the nature of the involvement was very
often, but not always, minor, with such offenses as
fighting, auto theft (joy riding), shoplifting, and cur
few violations predominating.
Nearly all of the interviewed boys reported that they
went out after supper and, indeed, most of their police
contacts occurred in the evening. Again, the experi
 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
TABLE 36
PERCENTAGE OF INTERVIEWED EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS
RESPONDING TO STRUCTURED QUESTIONS ON SCHOOL

SCHOOL VARIABLES EXPEBIMENTALS CONTROLS P

General attitude toward school

Like it 37.3 42.9
It's OK 54.2 50.0 NS
Dislike it 8.5 7.1
English teacher
Easy to get along with 83.8 83.3
Hard to get along with 16.2 16.7 NS
Mathematics teacher
Easy to get along with 89.1 83.3 NS
Hard to get along with 10.9 16.7
Other teachers
Easy to get along with 87.6 78.4 NS
Hard to get along with 12.4 21.6
Been sent to the principal's office
Yes 67.2 63.4 NS
No 32.8 36.6
Been truant
Yes 28.6 39.0 NS
No 71.4 61.0
Intend to go to high school
Yes, and very good chance to
finish 49.2 34.2
Yes, and fair chance to
finish 43.2 51.2 NS
No 7.6 14.6
Denotes level of statistical significance based on chi square analysis.

mentals and controls differed little in their responses

to these items.

Jobs
Two items on the schedule pertained to job status,
full- or part-time, during the summers following both
the seventh and eighth grades. Of the followed-up ex
perimental subjects, 51.3% reported a job of some sort
during the summer following the seventh grade; 59.0%
 An Interview Follow-up : :
reported employment during the last previous summer,
following the eighth grade. The respective percentages
for the controls were 57.1 and 51.2. These minor dif
ferences were neither statistically significant nor es
pecially revealing. The reported jobs were mostly of
the unskilled variety and included newspaper delivery
boy, lawnmowing work, store clerk, manual labor in
construction, and service jobs of various types.
The most impressive aspect of these questions was in
pointing up the paucity of meaningful and remunera
tive employment opportunities available to inner-city
boys in junior high school. Certainly any program de
signed to provide summer employment would have met
with the approval of our interviewees. Regrettably,
modern industrial organization is especially hard on
the young, the unskilled, and the inexperienced; and
our interviewees met all these criteria. That so many
inner-city boys are idle each summer is hardly of bene
fit to anyone, least of all to the police.

Clubs, Teams, and Honors

One item in the follow-up schedule pertained to
membership and participation in clubs or on teams,
plus the receipt of honors. Interestingly, it was one of
the few questions that differentiated the experimentals
and controls at a statistically significant level of con
fidence. Some 47.5% of the experimental interviewees
and 26.8% of the controls were involved in some school
or after-school activities.
The range of involvement was surprisingly wide.
For both groups, the largest participation was in
sports. Two experimental boys received awards for
sports, and several others were members of a sports
club. Hi-Y membership was second in importance, nu
 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
merically at least, and a surprising number of the ex
perimental boys reported being members of the Sea
Cadets, Boy Scouts, church clubs, boys' clubs, recrea
tion centers, and other clubs. Most impressive was the
academic participation of the experimentals. There
were honor-roll members (2) ; citizenship-awards re
cipients (7) ; student-council members (3) ; student-
newspaper workers (2) ; chess, speech, dramatics,
French, science, and model-builders' club members;
band, orchestra, and choir members; and audio-visual
aides, hall monitors, bookroom helpers, and guidance-
officer helpers. One student received an award for his
art work. This panoply of activities is most encourag
ing and does much to account for the noncontact boys
among the followed-up experimentals and controls.
In contrast, the interviewees who said they were not
involved in clubs or teams specified the following major
reasons for their nonparticipation: disinterest, no
time, dislike activities, too old, friends won't partici
pate, hate school, and not smart enough (a most pa
thetic self-image). A few disliked the school coach or
the club leader, and some others had tried but failed to
make a team.

Interpersonal Relations
A comparison of four items in the follow-up with the
same four presented in the seventh-grade interview
revealed that in the areas of interpersonal relation
ships with parents or parent surrogates, siblings, other
adults in the family, and young relatives, there was no
greater improvement or deterioration in the interac
tional patterns of the experimentals than of the con
trols. These items posed a problem because a large
 An Interview Follow-up : :
number of the follow-up boys came from non-intact
families. For example, only 81 (67.5%) experimental
boys responded with regard to their fathers whereas
118 (98.3%) answered about their relationships with
their mothers. Out of the 42 controls, 28 (66.7%) re
sponded about their fathers, and all 42 (100%) about
their mothers. In general, relationships with the fa
thers appeared to have improved markedly in the in
terim since the seventh grade in both groups of re
spondents.
The follow-up subjects were much more laudatory
about their mothers than their fathers. Most of the re
spondents said they got along well with their mothers,
felt that they were understood by them, and felt
trusted by them. With regard to their relationships
with their siblings, the responding experimentals and
controls indicated they were now generally more fa
vorable to their brothers and their sisters than when
they were in the seventh grade (two years earlier).
The same attitude also prevailed toward other adults,
such as grandparents, aunts and uncles, and guard
ians.
SELF-REPORTED BEHAVIOR

Thirty-three questions were included in a special

follow-up interview schedule, administered at the same
time as the schedule in Appendix H, to elicit self-
reported misconduct (see Appendix J ) . These 33 ques
tions covered 19 items taken from Nye-Short, 6 of
which (designated below as N-S items) are items that
have been found to form a Guttman scale. The remain
der were drawn from other self-report instruments
and varied in directionality. The "bad" items indicated
a negative activity; the "good" items, a positive or
 i : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
counterdelinquent activity. The starred items were the
ones found to correlate most highly with the total score.
These 17 starred, or significant, items were derived
using the arbitrary criterion that an item would be
included if it correlated with the total score at +.40 or
higher and conjointly had a Fisher t coefficient of at
least 6.0. In looking at these items (see Appendix J),
it might be helpful to note that the item with the high
est correlation was question 22 (+.65) followed by
numbers 25 (+.60), 17 (+.58), 28 (+.55), 3 (+.54),
12 (+.54), 16 (+.54), 15 (+.52), 20 (+.49), 10
(+.46), 13 (+.45), 23 (+.45), 26 (+.45), 1 (+.44),
27 (+.43), and 30 (+.43). The item with the lowest
correlation was 21 (+.01). Eight others correlated in
the +.20 to +.29 range and the remainder in the +.30
to +.40 range.
The results of the analysis of this self-reporting in
strument are most interesting. There are three general
findings. First, using mean scores to analyze all 33
itemsthe bad items, the good items, and the Nye-
Short-scaled itemsthe experimental and control fol
low-up interviewees did not differ significantly from
each other. In terms of direction, however, the experi
mentals scored more favorably (less self-reported mis
conduct) on all four measures (see table 37).
TABLE 37
MEAN SCORES OF SELF-REPORTED MISCONDUCT BY EXPERIMENTAL
AND CONTROL FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWEES

SELF-REPORT* EXPEBIMENTALS CONTROLS Pf

All items 29.15 31.02 NS

"Bad" items 13.93 15.67 NS
"Good" items 15.22 15.36 NS
Nye-Short scaled items 4.57 5.55 NS
* The lower the score the less the self-reported misconduct.

t Denotes level of statistical significance; based on critical ratio of the difference between

 An Interview Follow-up : : H5
As an indication of the extent of participation in il
legal or deviant activities, the most significant items
(17 in number) were examined individually. On each
of the 17, fewer experimentals than controls admitted
misconduct (P = .OO1, using a sign test) (see table
38). Whether these self-reports reflect the reality or
merely the greater sophistication of the treated re
spondents (for which our program may itself have
been responsible) is a provocative issue.
The percentages in table 38 always indicate the fa-
TABLE 38
PERCENTAGE OF EXPERIMENTALS AND CONTROLS WHO RESPONDED

FAVORABLY (NEVER OR VERY OFTEN) ON 17

SELF-REPORTED ITEMS

EXPERIMENTALS CONTROLS

Driving a car without a license or

permit* 40.8 35.7
Truanted from school* 47.5 40.4
Refused to smokef 37.5 30.9
Been placed on school probation or
suspended* 58.3 52.4
Defied parental authority* 59.2 54.7
Driven a car recklessly* 74.2 73.8
Taken little things (worth less
than $2)* 41.7 26.2
Taken things of medium value
(between $2 and $50)* 78.3 66.7
Taken things of large value (over $50)*. . 85.9 83.3
Taken part in gang fights* 63.3 57.2
Taken a car without the owner's
knowledge* 75.8 64.3
Beat up innocent kids* 80.8 71.4
Bought or drunk beer, wine, or liquor
(include at home)* 41.7 35.7
Inflicted pain on someone just to see
him squirm* 75.8 66.7
Studied really hard for schoolf 26.6 19.0
Purposely damaged or destroyed public
or private property* 58.3 52.4
Been really nice to one of your
teachersf 25.00 21.4
* Indicates a response of never.
t Indicates a response of very often.
H6 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
vorable response. On 14 of the 17 items, the favorable
response is "never." On the other 3 items (refused to
smoke, studied really hard, and been really nice to one
of the teachers) the response of "very often" is the
positive or favorable one.
Followed-up white boys, whether experimental or
control, reported significantly more previous miscon
duct than the followed-up black respondents (see table
39). This pattern was consistent for the mean scores
TABLE 39

MEAN SCORES OF SELF-REPORTED MISCONDUCT OF

WHITE AND BLACK FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWEES

SELF-REPORT* WHITE BLACK Pf

All items 33.46 27.07 .001

"Bad" items 16.74 12.80 .01
"Good" items 16.72 14.27 .01
Nye-Short scaled items 5.97 4.05 .001

* The lower the score, the less the self-reported misconduct.

f Denotes level of statistical significance; based on critical ratio of the difference between
means.

on all 33 self-reported items as well as on the good, bad,

and Nye-Short-scaled items.
The self-reporting behavior of the followed-up boys
stands in sharp contrast to their official records of po
lice contact. As noted earlier, the black boys in the total
study (all three cohorts) had significantly greater of
ficial contact than the white boys. The reversal at the
point of follow-up interview with the second cohort
may be interpreted in several ways: whites, in fact,
were more involved but were less often complained
about, reported, and recorded for their violations;
black boys appeared more suspicious and consequently
underreported on their own misconduct on the self-
administered checklist; certain of the activities on the
 An Interview Follow-up : : lli>7

self-report instrument (defied parental authority, for

example) were less applicable to black students; and
finally, the white students tended to respond dichoto
mously (never or very often), whereas the black stu
dents were more likely to choose a response intermedi
ate between these extremes. There are, of course, still
other alternative explanations but little concrete sup
port for any of them.
As shown in table 40, the black interviewees re-
TABLE 40
PERCENTAGE OP WHITE AND BLACK EXPERIMENTALS AND CONTROLS

WHO RESPONDED FAVORABLY (NEVER OR VERY OFTEN)

ON 17 SELF-REPORTED ITEMS

EXPERIMENTALS CONTROLS

White Black White Black

Driven a car without a license or

permit* 38.3 42.5 27.8 41.7
Truanted from school* 38.3 53.4 27.8 50.0
Refused to smokef 31.9 41.1 16.7 41.7
Been placed on school probation or
suspended* 55.3 60.3 55.6 50.0
Defied parental authority* 42.6 69.9 11.1 87.5
Driven a car recklessly* 61.7 82.2 61.1 83.3
Taken little things (worth less
than $2)* 31.9 47.9 16.7 33.3
Taken things of medium value
(between $2 and $50)* 72.3 82.2 38.9 87.5
Taken things of large value
(over $50)* 83.0 87.7 66.7 95.8
Taken part in gang fights* 55.3 68.5 50.0 62.5
Taken a car without the owner's
knowledge* 70.2 79.5 50.0 75.0
Beat up on innocent kids* 78.7 82.2 77.8 66.7
Bought or drunk beer, wine, or
liquor (include at home)* 29.8 49.3 5.6 58.3
Inflicted pain on someone just to
see him squirm* 74.5 76.7 61.1 70.8
Studied really hard for schoolf 23.4 28.8 11.1 25.0
Purposely damaged or destroyed
public or private property* 48.9 64.4 33.3 66.7
Been really nice to one of your
teachersf 19.1 28.8 11.1 29.2
* Indicates a response of never.
t Indicates a response of very often.
H8 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
ported less misbehavior on every comparison in the ex
perimental group and on 15 of the 17 comparisons in
the control group. Some of the percentage differences
were enormous. For example, on the question concern
ing the use of alcohol, 29.8% of the white experimen
tals and 5.6% of the white controls said "never," com
pared with 49.3% and 58.3% respectively of the black
experimentals and controls. On the question that dealt
with defying parental authority, 42.6% of the white
experimentals and 11.1% of the white controls said
"never," contrasted with 69.9% of the black experi
mentals and 87.5% of the black controls. Less spectacu
lar differences, all in the same direction however, were
the characteristic of the white-black responses to the
remaining 15 self-reported items.
To summarize table 40, white controls admitted
more deviant, disruptive, or violational behavior than
white experimentals; black controls and experimentals
did not differ in their self-reports; blacks were less
likely to admit violations than whites; and experimen
tals indicated less involvement than the controls. Con
versely, in terms of self-reported noninvolvement in
misconduct, the gradient was as follows: control
blacks, experimental blacks, experimental whites, and
control whites.

BOYS' PERCEPTIONS OF THE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT

It is particularly fitting to conclude this chapter

with the interviewed experimental boys' own evalua
tions of the merits and weaknesses of the Youth De
 An Interview Follow-up :
velopment Project during the seventh grade. Four
questions were asked the experimental subjects con
cerning the program. These were:
1. Are you glad you had this different kind of sev
enth-grade class?
2. Do you feel that any of the fellows you hang
around with could have benefited from this kind of
class?
3. Do you feel this kind of class would be good for
all seventh-grade boys?
4. Would you recommend it for seventh-grade boys
and girls together?
The response to the first question was overwhelm
ingly favorable. Nearly 97% of the boys who answered
(111 of 115) were glad they had been part of our
seventh-grade project class. Their subjective evalua
tions included the following comments: liked the cur
riculum materials (28); liked the field trips (28) ; the
class was fun (25) ; learned more than other seventh-
graders (23); liked the all-boy class (16) ; came to
understand people better (13) ; learned about people
and the world (9) ; liked the boys in the class (9) ; the
class was easy (9), interesting (7), helped me (7), and
did more for me than other classes (7) ; was made dif
ferent (better) than other classes (7) ; was the best
class was fun (25) ; learned more than other seventh
teacher, liked him and received attention from him
(5). There were other and less frequent answers.
Of the 4 boys who expressed negative feelings about
the class, 2 disliked some of their classmates, 1 disliked
the teacher, and 1 saw the self-contained classroom as
being too much like elementary school. Finally, 5 of the
150 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
f ollowed-up experimentals were unwilling to make any
judgments, positive or negative, regarding the Youth
Development Program.
As to whether their present friends might have bene
fited from a seventh-grade program such as ours, 109
experimentals responded, and of these over 85% an
swered in the affirmative. Their reasons were much the
same as those given in response to the preceding ques
tion. The benefits of the program were again enu
merated in some detail, including responses such as the
following: their friends would have learned to adjust
better, to behave better, to understand people, to think
more clearly, and to learn some useful and important
things. The 16 boys who felt their friends would not
have gained anything from such a class were also quite
perceptive. Nine of the 16 said that by the time they
reached seventh grade their friends were already bad,
and, clearly, the seventh-grade Youth Development
Program would have been too late for them. Two said
their friends were good boys and did not need the pro
gram. The rest expressed a variety of negative views.
With regard to the extension of the project to include
all seventh-grade boys, 92 (81.4%) of the 113 fol
lowed-up experimental boys thought the idea had
merit. Their answers again indicated respect for the
program and approval of the curriculum, project
teachers, and classroom decorum and functioning.
Those objecting to its extension focused their responses
around the theme that most seventh-grade boys did not
require such a program.
Finally, over three-quarters of the interviewed for
mer-experimental subjects indicated that they would
be opposed to the inclusion of coeds in the self-con
tained project classes. Their disapproval was expressed
 An Interview Follow-up : : 151
in these terms: having girls in the class would make it
harder to express oneself freely and openly (44) ; girls
like different things (12) ; the boys would mess around
more (7) ; girls have different problems, act silly, and
don't need the specialized curriculum; and the teacher
would favor the girls.
Measured, then, by the retrospective evaluation of
the former experimental boys themselves, as well as the
teachers appraisals discussed earlier in this chapter,
the Youth Development Project had a positive impact.
Unfortunately, this favorable impact could not be
documented by the hard data obtained from police and
school records.
CHAPTER NINE

Summary and Conclusions

The present monograph presents an assessment of an

experimental in-school delinquency prevention pro
gram. The experimental program was conducted in the
seventh grade of all inner-city junior high schools in
Columbus, Ohio, during three school years. The experi
mental and control subjects (boys) had been nomi
nated by their sixth-grade teachers and their elemen
tary school principals as headed for trouble with the
law; the good-boy comparisons, as not headed for trou
ble. In all, 1,726 boysexperimental, control, and
comparisonwere followed for four consecutive
yearly periodsat the end of the seventh, eighth,
ninth, and tenth gradesto assess the outcome of the
prevention program.
In a broader context, this monograph represents the
culmination of fifteen years of systematic research on
the role of the self-concept in the identification, preven
tion, and control of juvenile delinquency. The investi
 Summary and Conclusions : : 158
gators began with the knowledge that even in the most
highly delinquent, economically deprived, and socially
disorganized areas of our major cities, most boys grow
to manhood and to blue collar, working-class status
without significant officially acted-upon delinquency
involvement.
A varied and seemingly inexhaustible supply of data
was accumulated on each of the 1,726 subjects of the
study. This information included three time periods:
before the seventh grade, during the seventh grade,
and three years after the seventh grade. When these
data were reduced, rotated, and analyzed the following
results became evident:
1. On none of the outcome variables were the experi
mental subjects significantly different from the con
trols. This was especially and most painfully evident
in the school-performance and police-contact data.
There were no significant differences in the number of
boys who experienced contact with the police, the fre
quency of such contact, or the seriousness of the un
reported behavior. In regard to the school data, the
dropout rate, attendance, grades, and school-achieve
ment levels of all three groups of boys were very much
alike.
2. The police involvement of both the experimentals
and controls increased with age as did the seriousness
of the offenses. By the end of the tenth grade approxi
mately 47% of all nominated bad boys (experimentals
as well as controls) had become known to the police;
mostly, however, for relatively minor violations of mu
nicipal ordinances or commonplace misdemeanors.
3. The school performance of the experimentals and
controls deteriorated with age. This was evident in at
tendance, dropout, and school grades.
154 :: The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
4. Racial differences were highly significant in the
areas of criminal-involvement and school-performance
variables. On both counts, the white subjects in the ex
perimental and control groups fared better than their
black counterparts.
5. Although the same trends toward greater delin
quency involvement and poorer school performance
with age characterized the good-boy comparison group,
these boys continued to maintain their superiority on
these measures in every time period: before the sev
enth grade, during the seventh grade, and three years
thereafter. This finding provides additional confirma
tion for our general thesis concerning the relative in
sulation of good boys in high-delinquency areas.
6. The findings on the attitudinal dimensions paral
leled those on the behavioral data. In the first cohort
(1963-64), no significant attitude change was ob
served at the end of the seventh grade when compared
with the end of the sixth-grade. When improvement
did occur on the tests (the Socialization and self-con
cept scales) used on the first cohort (1963-64), it was
no greater for the experimental than for the control
subjects. The improvement could be attributed, in most
part, to the test-retest learning situation rather than
to genuine alterations in self-perceptions and other
perceptions.
7. Similarly, despite the rigorousness of the methods
used in developing 9 Guttman-type subscales on per
ceptions of law, police, and courts and 6 Guttman sub-
scales on school, teacher, and educational dimensions,
no marked differences were found between the pre- and
post-program responses of the experimental and con
trol subjects tested in the second (1964-65) and the
third (1965-66) cohorts.
 Summary and Conclusions : : 155
8. Personal interviews were conducted, whenever
possible, with former experimental and control sub
jects of the 1964-65 cohort in the spring of 1967. Ac
cording to the teacher-interviewers, the experimental
boys were doing very much better than their control
counterparts. This was particularly evident in the sec
tion on demeanor, which included cooperativeness, ease
of interaction, honesty, and delinquency assessment.
In all these respects, the teachers were more impressed
with the followed-up experimental boys than with the
followed-up control boys. The teacher-interviewers also
were confident that fewer of the followed-up experi
mentals than control interviewees would become school
dropouts or "police blotter" statistics. In short, and not
at all unexpectedly or unwelcome, the three project
teacher-interviewers were impressed by the positive
gains made by their former charges in comparison with
the controls. Unfortunately, the hard data do not re
flect this improvement or optimism. The attitude re
sponses noted above and the answers to the specific
interview questions covering progress in school, after-
school activities, interpersonal relationships, and self-
reported misconduct likewise do not reflect the
optimism of the project teachers concerning the
greater improvement of the experimental boys. In
general, however, the experimental boys did respond
slightly more favorably, but certainly not to the point
of statistical significance.
9. Last, when questioned about their reactions to
the Youth Development program in the seventh grade,
the interviewed experimental subjects were over
whelmingly favorable to the program. They were
pleased to have been in this special type of class and
thought that many of their friends could have benefited
156 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
from it and that it merited extension to include all
seventh-grade boys in the school. This enthusiasm for
the program, like that of the teachers, was impressive.
Still, it would have been more impressive if this indica
tion of favorable impact could have been translated
into behavioral terms, such as better school perform
ance and fewer police contacts.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS FOR FAILURE

In judging the failure of the project from the stand

point of recorded police contacts and school-perform
ance data, one could justifiably contend that the "medi
cine" (the feed-in to the experimental predelinquents)
was not strong enough. As will be remembered, the
preventive "medicine" of the project consisted of the
following ingredients:
1. An all-boy seventh-grade class of 25 to 30 boys
meeting for three class hours in succession with
the same teacher, called a self-contained class.
(All seventh-grade classes in Columbus, Ohio,
schools at the time of the project operated self-
contained classes.)
2. Interspersed with the required classroom diet of
world geography, social studies, and Ohio history
was the role-model supplement, activating inter
actional discussion.
3. The role-model lesson plans that were developed
for this program were organized around five
themes: the world of work, the world of school,
the world of government, the world of the family,
and getting along with others.
4. The project teachers, who were specially pre
 Summary and Conclusions : : 157
pared and instructed by daily after-school semi
nars, made as uniform a presentation of material
and handled the classes in as uniform a manner
as was possible to achieve.
5. The project teachers were trained to play the role
of the "significant other" to the boys of their self-
contained classes.
6. Classroom discipline was based on an agreed-
upon method, which was called "respecting the
rights of others." According to this approach, no
boy was sent to the principal's office for discipline
matters. He was nodded to, left the room, and sat
in front of the classroom door until he felt ready
to return and respect the rights of others.
7. If any boy in the project class raised the question
as to why he was selected for this class, he was
told the teacher wanted him.
The theory behind the approach of the project was
that the inner-city boy at the threshold of adolescence
needed to internalize models of behavior and percep
tions of self that could build up some inner self-control,
which in turn could withstand the "happenstances" of
his family, neighborhood, and companions.
The project also assumed that the sixth-grade teach
ers in the schools that fed the junior high schools had
a good sense of the way their boys were headedthat
they could predict those headed for trouble and those
not headed for trouble, just as the country doctor or the
family physician years ago could sense directionality
of growth in children of his patients.
It appears that the sixth-grade teachers were not as
good prognosticators of directionality of sixth-grade
boys as the principal and coprincipal investigators of
158 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
the project had assumed. There is some likelihood that
the results of the project might have been somewhat
more positive in determining less police contacts and
better school performance if the boys selected for the
experimental project had been more definitely prede
linquent subjects. If and when a similar project in the
future needs to determine more accurately who is
headed and not headed for delinquency at the threshold
of adolescence, a valid pencil-and-paper test of direc
tionality might be available.
There is reason to suspect that the exposure to role-
model internalization was not intensive enough (that
is, did not reach the inner self). Maybe, the interaction
generated by the discussion of role-model lesson plans
was not dramatic or pervasive enough to get inside the
youth. Perhaps the exposure to role models that the
project presented to the experimental boys was not ex
tensive enough. More time devoted to such presentation
in self-contained classes might have had a more decisive
impact. As it was, the project teachers had tofindways
to infuse the role-model material into classroom presen
tation by speeding up the presentation of the required
coverage (that is, world geography, Ohio history, and
social studies).
The role-model lesson plans could have lacked signi
ficance for 13-year-old inner-city boys. The lesson plans
may have been off target, and more effective models,
capable of being internalized and vaccinating the self
against deviance, might have been used. Maybe the
project should have experimented with the kinds of
models inner-city boys can readily internalize. Perhaps
the project's models were too middle class to be con
vincing to inner-city boys, although the staff tried to
 Summary and Conclusions : : 159
overcome a middle-class stance. For example, in one
lesson plan, the boys were asked to find out about the
best worker on their city block; talk to others about this
person and talk to him personally; then, come to class
and be ready to put his characteristics on the black
board. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly difficult to pre
sent role models to inner-city youths of America with
out exuding a bias of middle-class values.
The above comments are concerned with the probable
shortcomings of the program, both in content and in
presentation. There are undoubtedly basic shortcom
ings, independent of the limitations of content and its
delivery, that are related to measurement of outcome,
directionality of behavior, and behavioral change over
time. One should remember that the latter set of limi
tations plagues the entire field of measurement of out
come and behavioral change. What takes place during
"treatment," institutionalization, or participation in a
program designed or assumed to bring about positive
changes in approach to life, in attitudes, in life style,
in self-perceptions, and so forth?
Unfortunately, in thefieldof crime and delinquency,
the most available criterion for outcomesuccess or
failureof any program for handling offenders or for
preventing delinquency has been the recorded official
involvement of the "clients" with the caretakers of so
ciety (truant officers, police, court officers, probation
officers, parole officers, and victims and observers who
complain to the police). For example, the criterion of
success or failure of probation has been whether, dur
ing the period of official supervision, the probationer
has been cited to appear before the court for violating
the rules of probation or whether the probationer has
160 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency
been arrested by the police for another offense. In the
instance of parole, success or failure is judged by
whether the parolee is returned to prison for violating
the rules of parole or is arrested for a new offense. In
some studies, outcome of probation or of parole is
judged by whether the former "client" has or has not
been arrested or convicted of another offense one year
after the termination of his probation or his parole.
It has become increasingly evident to researchers in
the field that failure, as judged by reported violations
of rules by a caretaker officer or by arrest for a new
offense, depends on the decision of the caretaker (pro
bation or parole officer) or of the police officer to take
action. In the instance of arrests, there is often a pre
liminary decision on the part of the victim or observer
of the offense to complain to the police. In other words,
the outcome as judged by reported violations of rules
or by reported arrests is almost an unmanageable vari
able as a measure of outcome.
This is less true in instances of school truancy, which
is recorded as truancy and acted upon by attendance
officers or by visiting teachers. The number of absences
is not the matter of decision on the part of the care
taker, but taking action on so many unexcused absences
is a matter of decision. Even grades in school are not
really objective criteria of performance and are likely
to represent decisions or judgments on the part of the
teachers.
Unfortunately, follow-up studies of "treatment" and
"prevention" have had very little alternative besides
using the so-called hard data of records of action taken
in individual cases, which largely represent the varia
tions in the decision-making process of the caretakers
to take action or not to take action.
 Summary and Conclusions : : 161

THE NEED FOR NEW MEASURING DEVICES

It should be possible in the not-too-distant future to

discover appropriate measures of the impact of a treat
ment or prevention program on the person or to dis
cover appropriate measures of the behavioral changes
that have taken place in the person by virtue of his par
ticipation in a program. One way of doing this would
be to develop certain "before and after" tests, which
are valid gauges of the amount and direction of be
havior change. The tests might indicate change in the
individual's attitudes, his self-perceptions, his insights,
his self-controls, and so forth.
On the other hand, it might be feasible to develop
standardized rating scales for the staff member who
has had most contact with the client to rate the degree
and direction of changes in the client, as he sees them.
A valid standardized rating scale of this sort should be
able to obviate a large part of the prejudicial judg
ments that enter into the decision to report or not to re
port violational behavior, to act or not to act. It might
even be possible to develop behavioral rating scales,
showing directionality over time, by other clients in the
same program as the client being rated. (See footnote
1, at the end of this chapter, for a statement on several
research efforts that have attempted to measure impact
of correctional institutions as perceived by the inmates
themselves.)
At any rate, the effort to develop postprogram meas
ures of outcome and directionality must be increased,
and the attempt to design and implement workable pre
ventive as well as therapeutic programs must proceed,
in spite of failures such as the present project.
162 : : The Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency

CONCLUSIONS

The lessons learned from this study reveal the need

for: (1) developing more discriminating evaluations
of these who are tending toward and not tending to
ward delinquency; (2) developing more effective role
models; (3) intensifying and extending the presenta
tion of these role models, in order to insure their in
ternalization; (4) training more effective role-model
discussion leaders (project teachers) ;and (5) develop
ing valid instruments to measure behavioral change of
the clients at the termination of the program or one or
more years after termination.

1. Over a period of years, the principal investigator of this proj

ect has tried, through his Ph.D. students, to generate studies of the
impact of correctional institutions as the inmate saw it, at the point
of his release.
The first study of impact was done by Edward J. Galway under
the title of "A Measurement of the Effectiveness of a Reformatory
Program," (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1948). Other theses
and dissertations bearing on the same subject and directed by the
principal investigator include the following: David Eugene Bright,
"A Study of Institutional Impact upon Adult Male Prisoners"
(Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1951); M. S. Sabnis, "A Meas
urement of Impact of Institutional Experience on Inmates of a
Training School" (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1951); Harry
Zibners, "The Influence of Short-Term Institutionalization upon
Emotionally Disturbed and Delinquent Children" (Master's thesis,
Ohio State University, 1954); Mark R. Moran, "Inmate Concept of
Self" (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1954); Jon E. Simpson,
"Selected Aspects of Institutionalization as Perceived by the Ju
venile Offender" (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1961).
The latter study was part of a larger project undertaken in 1960
by Professor Walter C. Reckless and his colleague Dr. Thomas G.
Eynon. A summary of the research approach and major findings of
the first five studies mentioned above was made in an article by the
principal investigator entitled "The Impact of Correctional Pro
grammes on Inmates," British Journal of Delinquency 6 (Septem
 Summary and Conclusions : : 163
ber 1955): 138-47. A summary of the Simpson study mentioned
above may be found in the following two articles: Jon E. Simpson,
Thomas G. Eynon, and Walter C. Reckless, "Institutionalization as
Perceived by the Juvenile Offender," Sociology and Social Research
48, no. 1 (October 1963) : 13-23; Thomas G. Eynon and Jon E.
Simpson, "The Boy's Perception of Himself in a State Training
School for Delinquents," Social Service Review 39, no. 1 (March
1965) : 31-37. The reader should also consult the attempt to study
the impact of two Borstal institutions (for committed youthful
offenders over 16 years of age) and one Approved School (for com
mitted juvenile offenders under 16 years of age) in England during
1958. See Walter C. Reckless and P. P. Shervington "Gauging the
Impact of the Institution on the Delinquent Youth," British Journal
of Criminology, July 1963, pp. 7-23.
Beginning in 1964, the principal investigator and his colleague,
Dr. Thomas G. Eynon, undertook to study the impact of a small
correctional institution for difficult committed juvenile delinquents
(average capacity of 200), called Training Institution Central Ohio,
by a behavioral-change rating schedule filled out by the staff mem
ber of the institution who knew the released subject the best and
by a schedule of perceived impact of the institution as seen through
the eyes of the releasee just before his departure. See Thomas G.
Eynon, Harry E. Allen and Walter C. Reckless, "Measuring Im
pact of a Juvenile Correctional Institution by Perceptions of In
mates and Staff," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
8, no. 1 (January, 1971): 93-107.
Still more recently, we designed a study of behavior change in
boys of 15 years of age, considered by the committing juvenile
court and the state's diagnostic center to be very difficult youths.
These lads are sent to a well-developed training school for delin
quent boys. The project called for before-and-after tests based on
self-concept and immaturity-level instruments and for ratings at
the point of release from the institution by each individual boy's
counselor and dormitory leaders. One year after release from the
institution each boy would be rated by his after-care (parole) of
ficer. The records of violational behavior and rearrests would be
kept on each lad for a period of one year after release from the
training school. The design of this project, therefore, would en
able the researcher to make an assessment of before-and-after
changes on two different tests, a rating of each boy by his (after
noon-evening) cottage leader, by his institutional counselor, and by
his parole officer, and the different measures of behavioral change
could then be correlated with the recorded post-release (one year)
involvement or lack of involvement in violations and delinquency.
Appendixes

 APPENDIX A

CURRICULUM CALENDAR FOR PRESENTATION OF FIVE

SETS OF LESSON PLANS*

CURRICULUM CALENDAR: THE WORLD OF WORK

Lesson Number
Date and Title Activity
Sept. 27 1. What Is Work? Film: "You Can
Go a Long
Way"
28 2. Why Do People Budget Work-
Work? sheet
29 3. Skill Level and Discussion
Job Oppor
tunity
30 4. How Do People Reading
Work? worksheet
discussion
Oct. 1 5. Work in Other Film: "Life in a
Countries Hot Rain
Forest"
4 6. Famous Per- Reading
sons and discussion
Their Work
* Taken from Youth Development Project: Curriculum Lesson
Plans and Supplementary Materials, by Nason E. Hall, Ellsworth
E. Foreman, John F. Hilliard, Wayne C. Murphy, Donald L. Pierce,
Judith A. Wesner, and Walter C. Reckless (Columbus: Ohio State
University Research Foundation, 1964), pp. 1, 33, 62, 95, and 113.
Note that the dates are for the school year 1964-65. Reprinted by
permission of the Ohio State University Research Foundation.
168 Appendixes
5 7. Work as a Part Film: "Ant
of Survival City"
6 8. Problems of Stimulus Stor
Idleness ies
7 9. Work and the Stimulus Story
Automobile discussion
map
8 10. Interdepend Speaker: Air
ence on the Force
Job
11 11. QUIZ
12 12. Society's Inter Speaker: Social
est in the Security
Good Worker
13 13. Skills and Apti Interest inven
tudes in torydis
Work, I cussion
14 14. Skills and Apti
tudes in
Work, II
15 15. Interests and Worksheet
Skills in Dif discussion
ferent Jobs
18 16. Obtainable Speaker: School
Work Goals Counsellor
19 17. Qualities Es Tapediscus
sential to sion
Success
20 18. The Best Work Discussion
er I know, I
 Appendixes : : 169
21 19. Helping People Speaker: Bu
to Help reau of Em-
Themselves ployment
Services
25 20. What Do Em Worksheet
ployers Look
for in a
Worker?
26 21. Getting a Job Film: "I Want
a Job"
27 22. The Best Work Oral Reports
er I Know, II
28 23. EXAMINATION
ON UNIT
170 : : Appendixes

CURRICULUM CALENDAR: THE SCHOOL AND YOU

Lesson Number
Date and Title Activity
Nov. 15 1. The Principal's Speaker: Prin
Job and You cipal
16 2. Education in
Film: "The
Our City
School Story"
17 3. The Function Discussion
of School
Rules
18 4. An Alternative Speaker: Neigh
Choice for borhood
School Youth Corps
19 5. Preparation for Discussion
Trip to Cen slides
tral H.S.
22 6. Vocational Field trip: Cen
School Trip tral High
School
23 7. Organizing Our Speaker: School
Time athlete
24 8. Factors Lead Stimulus story
ing to a Neg discussion
ative Alter
native :
Drop-out
29 9. Overcoming
Speaker: Alco
Adversity
holics Anony
mouswork
30 10. Review sheet
 Appendixes : : 171

1 11. Lessons Film: "The

Learned by Quitters"
the Drop-Out
2 12. Trip to School Discussion
for the Blind Field Trip
3 13. Alternative Ca Worksheet
reers and In
dividual
Choice
6 14. Where Do I Discussion
Stand? evaluation
sheet
7 15. Play Rehearsal
8 16. Sacrificing for Speaker: college
Education student
9 17. Presentation of
Play
10 18. EXAMINATION
ON UNIT
172 : : Appendixes

CURRICULUM CALENDAR: THE HOUSE WE LIVE IN

Lesson Number

Date and Title

Activity
Jan. 10 1. The Police and Tape recording:
Young Peo Captain, Po
ple lice Juvenile
Bureau
11 2. Police Selection Lecturequiz
and Training
12 3. The Policeman Speaker: Juve
as a Person nile Officer
13 4. You and the Reading
Law
14 5. Duties and Re Speaker: Proba
wards of tion Officer
Probation
Officer's Job
17 6. Purposes and Speaker: Ohio
Operation of Youth Com
the Ohio mission
Youth Com quiz
mission
18 7. Ohio State Film: "The Fly
Highway Pa ing Wheels-
trol Speaker:
Highway
Patrolman
19 8. The Federal Film: "The
Bureau of F.B.I."
Investiga
tion
 Appendixes : : 173

20 9. Review
21 10. Your Health Speaker: Ohio
Department Health Dept.
24 11. Welfare Serv Speaker: Social
ices worker
worksheet
25 12. Helping Chil Film: "Suffer
dren Who Little Chil
Can't Help dren"
Themselves
26 13. Caring for the Film: "Out of
Mentally 111 the Shadows"
27 14. Helping Those Speaker: Psy
with Prob chiatrist
lems
31 15. Other State Discussion
Services
Feb. 1 16. Government Film: "A Fire
Services: Called Jere
Forestry miah"
2 17. Government Film: "The
Services: Weather Sta
Weather tion"
3 18. Government Film: "Meat In
Services: spection Serv
Meat Inspec ice"
tion
4 19. Respect for the Film: "Why We
Law Respect the
Law"
17h : : Appendixes
7 20. Case Study Stimulus story
socio
drama
8 21. Consequences Film: "Right or
of Moral De Wrong"
cisions
9 2 2 . EXAMINATION
ON UNIT
 Appendixes : : 175
CURRICULUM CALENDAR: GETTING ALONG WITH OTHERS

Lesson Number
Date and Title Activity
Feb. 28 1. Problems in Film: "The
Getting Trouble
Along with maker"
Others, I
Mar. 1 2. People We Ad Discussion
mire and
People We
Don't Ad
mire
2 3. Problems in Film: "The
Getting Griper"
Along with
Others, II
3 4. "Yes Man" and Readingdis
"No Man" cussion
4 5. What Do Girls Girls' Panel
Look for in a Discussion
Young Man?
7 6. Is Personal Ap Speaker: Vice
pearance Im Principal
portant?
8 7. Practicing Grooming In
Some Com spection
mon Courte Courtesy
sies Demonstra
tions
176 : : Appendixes
9 8. Telephone Eti TeleTrainer
quette Demonstra
tion
10 9. Good Conduct Stimulus stories
on the Job:
Does It Pay
Off?
11 10. Getting Along Film: "The Su
on the Job, I pervisor as a
Leader"
14 11. Getting Along
on the Job, II
15 12. Attitude Is Im Speaker: Tele
portant phone Co.
Community
Relations Su
pervisor
16 1 3 . EXAMINATION
ON UNIT
 Appendixes : : 177
CURRICULUM CALENDAR: THE FAMILY

Lesson Number

Date and Title Activity

April 4 1. Propagation of Slideswork

the Species sheet
5 2. Reproduction: Film: "New
Plants and Life from
Animals Old: Repro
duction"
6 3. Reproduction: Film: "Human
Humans Growth"
7 4. Care of the Field Trip: Co-
Young: Ani- lumbus Zoo
mals
12 5. Care of the Film: "Know
Young: Hu- Your Baby"
mans
13 6. Review
14 7. Functions Per- Film: "Family
formed by Living
Families in around the
Different World: Fam-
Cultures ily Life"
15 8. Interdepend- Worksheet
ence and Mu- discussion
tual Respect
in Families
of Different
Cultures
178 : : Appendixes

18 9. Family Prob Stimulus stor

lems iessocio
drama
19 10. You and Your Speaker: Catho
Family lic Nun
20 11. Review
21 12. Protective Self- Discussion
Identifica board work
tion
22 13. Family Patho Worksheet
gens: Over- stimulus
coercion storydis
cussion
25 14. Family Patho Worksheet
gens : Over- stimulus
submission storydis
cussion
26 15. Family Patho Worksheet
gens: Puni stimulus
tiveness storydis
cussion
27 16. Family Patho Worksheet
gens : Neg stimulus
lect storydis
cussion
28 17. Pathogen Re Reading
view pathogen
worksheet
29 18. Understanding Film: "Who
Parents Should De
cide?"
 Appendixes : : 179
May 2 19. Rights and Re Reading
sponsibilities
of Family
Members
3 20. EXAMINATION
ON UNIT
 APPENDIX B

FIVE SAMPLES OF CURRICULUM LESSON PLANS*

Lesson title: The Best Worker Lesson number: 18

I know, I

Objectives:
1. To provide the student with further exposure to
positive work models.
2. To reinforce previous learning.
Procedures:
1. Discussion leading to development of a guide for
an interview with the best worker whom the stu
dent knows in his neighborhood.
a. How can you tell a good worker?
1. Length of employment at a single firm
2. Consistency of employment
3. Takes advantage of training programs
4. Seldom absent because of sickness, acci
dents, etc.
5. Pride in his work
6. Respected by his fellow workers
2. Discussion: development of interview guide.
Elicit questions to be included from pupils. In
clude items below.
* Taken from Youth Development Project: Curriculum Lesson
Plans and Supplementary Materials, by Nason E. Hall, Ells
worth E. Foreman, John F. Hilliard, Wayne C. Murphy, Donald L.
Pierce, Judith A. Wesner, and Walter C. Reckless, (Columbus:
Ohio State University Research Foundation, 1964), pp. 26, 47, 88,
98, and 122.
 Appendixes : : 181
a. Tell person of your assignment and ask him to
tell you about his jobwhat he actually does.
b. Ask how long he has worked at the job.
c. Ask if he has received salary advances over the
years or if he has moved up to better jobs. If
so, ask him why he thinks he has moved up.
d. Ask what kind of training he had for his job.
e. What special benefits other than salary does he
get from his job?
f. How did he get interested in what he is doing?
g. What does he like about his job?
h. What does he dislike about his job?
i. How does he get along with the boss?
j . Does he think he makes enough money for the
work he does?
k. What are his chances for advancement?
3. Have pupils copy questions selected and assign
interviews. Reports are to be given four days
later.
Materials: none
Vocabulary:
1. interview
2. benefits
3. assignment
4. neighborhood
5. on-the-job training
182 : : Appendixes

Lesson title: Lessons Learned Lesson number: 11

by the Drop-Out

Objectives:
1. To point up the consequences of dropping out of
school and the advantages of completing high
school.
Procedures:
1. "We can often learn from the experiences of
others." Tell how people differ from animals: ex
perience of past generations can be passed on to
future generations. Animals have to learn every
thing anew with each generation.
2. Introduce film: Today's film deals with the true
experience of a young man who quit school before
graduating.
a. Things to look for
1. Consequences of dropping out
2. Reasons for dropping out
b. Things to think about
1. Similarities between his school life and
yours
2. Do you think he will finish night school?
3. Show film.
4. Discussion
a. Why did Bill leave school?
b. Were his reasons good?
c. Why did he go back?
d. Would you have gone back?
e. Would he have had it easier if he hadn't quit?
f. What would have happened if he hadn't gone
back?
 Appendixes : : 183
Materials:
1. Film: "The Quitters," 20 min.
2. Movie projector
Vocabulary:
1. limbo
2. Child Labor Law
18k : : Appendixes

Lesson title: Case Study Lesson number: 20

Objectives:
1. To review the several roles played by agencies in
helping people with problems.
2. To provide insight into the factors underlying be
havior problems.
Procedures:
1. Ask students to name speakers who have come in
to talk during the unit. List names on board.
2. Explain sociodrama-stimulus story exercise:
after reading the story, several pupils will take
the role of speakers and will discuss what they
can do to help the boy with his problems.
3. Read story.
4. Panel sociodrama:
a. Have each role-player address what he can do
for mother, boy.
b. What treatment do they describe?
5. Discussion: Do you think Fred can really be
helped?
Materials:
1. Stimulus story: "Fred Johnson"
Vocabulary: none
 Appendixes : : 185

Lesson title: Problems in Getting Lesson number: 3

Along with Others, II
Objectives:
1. To show how impressions can lead to lasting un
desirable relationships with others.
2. To review process of development of the self-con
cept.
Procedures:
1. Introduce subject of film and ask students to
watch for influences which lead to the boy becom
ing a griper.
2. Show film.
3. Discussion
a. What influences made the boy a griper?
b. How did the other people in the film feel about
the Griper?
c. What is a "show-off"? List characteristics.
d. What do people think about show-offs?
e. What is a bragger?
f. What do people think about braggers?
4. Homework assignment: worksheet. During the
year we have had a good chance to see some
"poor" habits in our class. List these, and rate
them according to the degree to which they bug
you. Do the same with "good" habits which make
you like some members of the class more.
5. Follow-up: tabulate returns and list on board.
Have class vote on two best-liked boys.
Materials:
1. Film: "The Griper," 10 min.
2. Movie projector
3. Worksheet: "Good Habits and Poor Habits"
186 : : Appendixes
Vocabulary:
1. griper
2. show-off
3. troublemaker
4. bully
5. bragger
 Appendixes : : 187
Lesson title: Functions Performed Lesson number:
by Families in 7
Different Cultures

Objectives:
1. To show the purpose of the existence of a family.
2. To show how cultures around the world use the
family to perform certain jobs.
Procedures:
1. Introduction: Motivating questionWhat is the
reason a family exists? (Protection, care of
young, companionship, training of children to
take part in life, control the actions of members,
maintain the human race [hopefully].)
2. Show film.
3. Discuss and list six functions of the family. Bring
out as examples any functions shown in the film.
Tie examples of the functions performed by
French Canadian, Eskimo, Malayan, Indian,
Greek, and Norwegian families into prior ex
amples of animals and examples in American
family life.
Materials:
1. Film: "Family Living around the World: Family
Life," 20 min.
2. Movie projector
Vocabulary: none
 o T* t-ig r-i <N IH s IN irt eo

a- -a

HOOOOfflOOOMOfflT

IO HOOO)010BOOONOHHHHO ^Or-l oo cgoo o s

U5 OOOOOOOlMOOOr-IOOOOOO OHOOOO * HOO o eoo

OOOrlOOH^OOOOONOOOO OOOHHO o 'too o iat

Oi NNOt-Ot-WHNHHOOHOSHNOM IOOTJOOO
t l jiK

OOONOiONiOOOOHOCOOHOO THOOOOO

HHHOO

HBH0lHM OOt>HOH

> ifTHO<COOt-T|IOONt-i-IMHTtlHW t-ONOOrH

CO rH 00 rH C<l rH

O O O N O M t - t - O O O W O OTONOO r-l O r-l O O O

OOHN^NW*OOOOOOMOO NOTIHOO
 I N OOt-rH * t-
us oo oo i eo t - w eo rH o t-i eo eo o> o ^H I H T(< to o r-( r-irtr-ii-ii-i

HHONU5HO IHOOHOO OOO

IOOHOO OOO

ooooooo O O OOOOOr-IOOOOOOOOrHOOOOOOOO OOO

OOOHHOO 00 O H N H O O O O O O O O O O H ^ r l r t O O O O O O OOO

MOHO^MO f< l0 01-*t-ONS>HHOHU30MO)OHWWOOO O H O

OOOOMMO

NOOOOOO O N O O O O i 0 0 O H O 0 O O H N O O O O O O OOO

OS -tf OOCqiNOWOOOOOOOOlOONOOWOOO OOO

IHHOOiMH
t- t> ION CO IO
CO t> iH - * IC
CO Ol

OHHOC-MH Ol O JOiON<COOOT|iOT|iONffi01HWWOOH HOH

rHOOOOOO HHOOO>OrirlOMOOnHN(-NrlOOOOO OOO

HMMNHHOHOOOOOHNft^OONOHO OOO

III j _;is

''% 1 1
 t- C0HNTj*NM05NHOOHINOHM(NOt-HNN

rlOO(OOt-Mt-OOOHOIMOHOONHOO
S
9p
jfS 8

iHHHOOOHHWOMOOOrJiH

go

CO

1
H OH
 t-OO OiONOHHOWOO i( CO r H 11

i-HO OOOWHOHONOO

CO

: :S

S o

;l>g
Jill

S g l S :S

| Si .s^s M *fla-s a 1 6'It

OOfl
lIS
 l TH CO II

Oi OS
CO

fulfill r'-1 J2 ,2: d I t _ eri rJfl J^

 APPENDIX E

1963-1964 SCHEDULE

A. Name
B. What is the name of the school you attended last
spring?
C. What is the name of the school you will attend in
September?
D. What grade will you be in?
E. When were you born? Month day
year
F. Write in the names of your two best friends at the
school you attended last year.

HOW I FEEL ABOUT THINGS

Read each sentence and circle "T" for True and " F "
for False.
T F 1. A person is better off if he doesn't trust any
one.
T F 2. I used to give the teachers lots of trouble.
T F 3. It is very important to me to have enough
friends.
T F 4. I seem to do things that I regret more often
than other people do.
19 U : : Appendixes

T F 5. I would rather go without something than

ask for a favor.
T F 6. I have had more than my share of things to
worry about.
T F 7. I go out of my way to meet trouble rather
than try to escape it.
T F 8. When I meet a stranger, I often think that
he is better than I am.
T F 9. I was sometimes sent to the principal for
cutting up.
T F 10. I keep out of trouble at all costs.
T F 11. Most of the time I feel happy.
T F 12. I played hookey quite often.
T F 13. People often talk about me behind my back.
T F 14. I don't think I'm quite as happy as others
seem to be.
T F 15. I never cared much for school.

THE WAY IT LOOKS TO ME

Read each sentence. Then circle "Y" for Yes and

"N"foriVo.
Y N 1. If you found that a friend was leading you
into trouble, would you continue to run
around with him or her?
Y N 2. Do you plan to finish high school?
Y N 3. Do you think you'll stay out of trouble in the
future?
Y N 4. Are grown-ups usually against you?
Y N 5. If you could get permission to work at 14,
would you quit school?
 Appendixes : : 195
Y N 6. Are you a big shot with your pals?
Y N 7. Do you think if you were to get into trouble
with the law, it would be bad for you in the
future?

IS THIS LIKE YOU OR NOT LIKE YOU?

Read each statement and then put an "X" in front

of the answer that you think is most like you.
1. I can see as good (with glasses, if I wear them)
and I can hear as good as most other people can.
Like me Not like me
2. I often feel tired and "all in" even when I haven't
been working hard.
Like me Not like me
3. If I can't do something the first time, I don't mind
spending a lot of time trying to figure out other
ways to do it.
Like me Not like me
4. I thought that just about every book in school was
too tough for students to understand by themselves.
Like me Not like me
5. I would find things a lot easier if I didn't keep
making the same mistake over and over again.
Like me Not like me
6. Even when somebody doesn't agree with me, I can
usually understand his reasons for not agreeing
with me.
Like me Not like me
7. I trust the judgment of my friends more often than
I do my own judgment.
, Like me Not like me
196 : : Appendixes
8. I often make up my mind after it is too late.

Like me Not like me

9. Too many things just don't turn out the way I

expect them to.
Like me Not like me
10. I often get into hot water because I speak or act
without thinking.
Like me Not like me
11. I often find myself with a lot of time on my hands
with nothing to do.
Like me Not like me

WHO AM I?

In the blanks below write as many answers as you

can to the question "Who am I?" Don't take more than
five minutes.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
 Appendixes : : 197

WHO ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ADULTS IN MY LIFE?

Think about the adults who mean the most to you

and are the most important to you. Do not write their
names only who they are. The most important one of
all comes first. The next important one comes next,
and so forth. It is up to you to put down as many adults
as you think are important. Remember, no kidsjust
adults.
1. (The most important adult to you)
2. (The next most important adult to you)
3. (The next important)
4. (The next important)
5. (The next important)
6. (The next important)
7. (The next important)
8. (The next important)
9. (The next important)
10. (The next important)
 APPENDIX F

1964-66 SCHEDULE

PLEASE PRINT Date

A. Name
Last First Middle
B. Address
Number Street
C. What is the name of your school?
D. When were you born? Month Day
Year
E. Father's name
Last First Middle
F. Mother's name
Last First Middle
G. With whom do you live?
Mother and father
Mother only
Father only
Stepmother and stepfather
Mother and stepfather
Father and stepmother
Other (Explain)
(uncle, aunt, grandmother, grandfather, no
relationship)
H. What kind of work does your father or stepfather
do?
I. Does your mother or stepmother earn money for
the family?
 Appendixes : : 199
If yes, what kind of work does she do?
J. If you live with someone else ("Other" checked in
question G), what kind of work does he or she do?

This is not a test. There are no right and wrong

answers. The reason for asking these questions is to
find out how boys like you really feel about things. We
want your honest answers to these questions.
Read each statement very carefully and circle the
single answer that best tells how you feel about the
statement. Circle STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, UNDECIDED,
DISAGREE, or STRONGLY DISAGREE, whichever you feel
is the closest to your feelings about the statement.
1. I am not smart enough to go to college.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
2. Most teachers never really give a kid a break.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
3. The better our education, the better use we can
make of our time.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
4. Most teachers don't like me.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5. Most teachers like to teach school.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
6. I am proud of my school.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
200 : : Appendixes
7. Most kids don't have as much trouble learning as
I do.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
8. Most teachers try to treat all kids fairly.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
9. Grown-ups don't really think school does any good.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
10. I like most of my teachers.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
11. Most teachers really know the subjects they teach.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
12. Going to school keeps a lot of kids out of trouble.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
13. I am smarter than most of the other kids in the
7th grade.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
14. Most teachers are often unfair.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
15. Education helps you to understand the world
around you.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
16. It is usually the teacher's fault when I get into
trouble at school.
 Appendixes : : 201
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
17. Most teachers do a very good job of helping kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
18. I enjoy going to school.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
19. I am smart enough to become a doctor or lawyer.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
20. Most teachers understand kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
21. School makes you feel like you're important.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
22. Teachers often fuss at me for no reason.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
23. Most teachers have trouble making school work
interesting.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
24. Homework is a waste of time.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
25. I am not really smart enough to do well in school.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
26. Teachers should not correct kids in front of other
kids.
202 : : Appendixes
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
27. Making more money is the main reason for get
ting an education.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
28. My teachers think I am headed for serious trou
ble.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
29. Most teachers don't like to flunk students.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
30. I feel very bad when I don't pass a test.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
31. School makes me feel dumber than most kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
32. Most teachers are too strict with their kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
33. The only advantage in going to school is to get a
better job.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
34. I would like to tell most of my teachers what I
really think of them.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
35. Most teachers try to help kids with their school
work as much as possible.
 Appendixes : : 203
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
36. My parents are interested in my school.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
37. No matter how hard I try, I will never learn some
subjects.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
38. Most teachers like kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
39. Teachers often take advantage of me.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
40. Most teachers are very good at teaching.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
41. I don't think the school rules are fair.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
42. Most school work is too hard for me.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
43. Most teachers enjoy paddling kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
44. I give my teachers lots of trouble.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
45. Kids should be permitted to quit school at any age.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
20k - : Appendixes
46. Most teachers have some kids who are their pets.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
47. School is a place where a kid must obey a lot of
unnecessary rules.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
48. School is a place where a kid can lose his temper
easily.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
49. Most policemen don't care what happens to kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
50. Policemen have no right to tell kids what to do.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
51. It doesn't take very much ability to be a police
man.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
52. Most probation officers don't care what happens
to the kids with whom they work.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
53. Kids would be better off if there were fewer
probation officers.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
54. If a Juvenile Court sends a kid to training school,
it is because it is the best thing for him in the
long run.
 Appendixes : : 205
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
55. We would be better off if we didn't have any
Juvenile Courts.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
56. Laws protect the rights of kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
57. There are too many laws.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
58. Most policemen like to help kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
59. Life would be better if there were not as many
policemen.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
60. Most policemen are poorly trained for their job.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
61. Most probation officers enjoy ordering kids
around.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
62. Probation officers have no right to tell a kid what
to do.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
63. Juvenile Courts are only interested in convicting
a lot of kids.
206 : : Appendixes
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
64. Juvenile Courts are necessary in our way of life.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
65. The law always works against a kid, never for
him.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
66. It is all right to break the law if you don't get
caught.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
67. Most policemen like to pick on kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
68. Policemen have too much authority.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
69. Most policemen are pretty nice guys.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
70. Most probation officers want to help kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
71. Probation is a waste of time.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
72. Juvenile Courts are interested in doing what is
best for a kid.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
73. Juvenile Courts have too much authority.
 Appendixes : : 207
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
74. Laws are only made to give kids a hard time.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
75. Laws are made to be broken.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
76. Most policemen don't understand a kid's prob
lems.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
77. Without policemen it would not be safe to walk
the streets.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
78. Most policemen like to act tough.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
79. Most probation officers try to help kids stay out
of trouble.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
80. We need more probation officers.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
81. Juvenile Courts place kids on probation in order
to help them.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
82. I would like to be a Juvenile Court judge.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
208 : : Appendixes
83. Almost everything that is fun for a kid to do is
against the law.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
84. All laws should be obeyed.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
85. Most policemen don't give kids a chance to ex
plain.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
86. We need more policemen.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
87. Most policemen are honest.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
88. Most probation officers treat kids rough.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
89. I would like to be a probation officer.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
90. Juvenile Courts don't understand a kid's prob
lems.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
91. "Who you know" is what counts in the Juvenile
Court.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
92. Laws are harder on kids than on adults.
 Appendixes : : 209
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
93. Laws should be enforced more strictly.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
94. Once a kid gets into trouble, police keep on hound
ing him.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
95. I would like to be a policeman.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
96. Most probation officers don't really understand a
kid's problems.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
97. A kid is not placed on probation for punishment.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
98. Poor kids don't have a chance in Juvenile Court.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
99. Juvenile Courts have no right to tell kids what
to do.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
100. We would be better off if there were not so many
laws.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
101. Most policemen go out of their way to keep a kid
out of trouble.
210 : : Appendixes
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
102. Policemen should be paid more for their work.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
103. Most probation officers don't give a kid a chance
to explain.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
104. Probation officers have too much authority.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
105. A kid can't get justice in Juvenile Court.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
106. Juvenile Courts have no right to take kids away
from their homes.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
107. We should obey the law even though we criticize
it at times.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
108. Policemen are easier on rich kids than on poor
kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
109. Juvenile Courts never give a kid a break.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
110. Everyone breaks the law from time to time.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
 Appendixes : : 211
111. Most policemen are careful not to arrest innocent
kids.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE

How do you look at these things? Remember, the

right answer for you is the way you look at things.
1. A teen-age boy should always tiptoe around the
house.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
2. Girls should not have hot rods.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
3. People should only keep promises when it is to
their benefit.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
4. Doing a good job makes a person feel good.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
5. Good manners are for sissies.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
6. Finders, keepers: if a person loses something, it
belongs to the guy who finds it.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
7. It's mostly luck if one succeeds or fails.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
8. It's more fun going to a playground than hanging
around the street corner.
212 : : Appendixes
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
9. Don't let anybody your size get by with anything.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
10. It's worth practicing to get good at something.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
11. Money is meant to be spent.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
12. Loafing is a waste of time.
STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE
STRONGLY DISAGREE
 APPENDIX G

SCHOOL AND LAW GUTTMAN SCALES

ORDER AND CUTTING POINTS WITH DIRECTION OF

SCORING FOR ITEMS IN EACH GUTTMAN SCALE*

Item No. on
Questionaire CAPACITY TO LEARN SCALE (CR = .90)
7 Most kids don't have as much trouble
learning as I do.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
1 I am not smart enough to go to col
lege.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
19 I am smart enough to become a doctor
or lawyer.
(+SA,A/U,D,SD-)
13 I am smarter than most of the other
kids in the 7th grade.
(+SA,A,U/D,SD-)
42 Most school work is too hard for me.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)

* Items are ordered in terms of their position in the scale. Plus

(+) equals the direction of favorable score, and minus ( ) equals
the direction of unfavorable score. SA = Strongly Agree, A =
Agree, U = Undecided, D = Disagree, and SD = Strongly Disagree.
The symbol / indicates the cutting point for favorable and un
favorable directions. CR = Coefficient of Reproducibility on first ad
ministration.
21U : : Appendixes
25 I am not really smart enough to do
well in school.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)

VALUE OF EDUCATION SCALE (CR = . )

33 The only advantage in going to school

is to get a better job.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
27 Making more money is the main rea
son for getting an education.
(-SA,A,U/D,SD+)
15 Education helps you to understand
the world around you.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
9 Grown-ups don't really think school
does any good.
(-SA/A,U,D/SD+)
21 School makes you feel like you're im
portant.
(+SA,A,U/D,SD-)

LEGITIMACY OF SCHOOL SCALE (CR = .91)

47 School is a place where a kid must

obey a lot of unnecessary rules.
(-SA,A,U/D,SD+)
30 I feel very bad when I don't pass a
test.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
12 Going to school keeps a lot of kids out
of trouble.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
 Appendixes : : 215
45 Kids should be permitted to quit
school at any age.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
18 I enjoy going to school.
(+SA,A,U, D / S D - )
6 I am proud of my school.
(+SA,A,U/D, S D - )
24 Homework is a waste of time.
(-SA/A,U,D,SD+)
TEACHERSACADEMIC SCALE (CR=.92)

23 Most teachers have trouble making

school work interesting.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
40 Most teachers are very good at teach
ing.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
35 Most teachers try to help kids with
their school work as much as possible.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
11 Most teachers really know the sub
jects they teach.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
5 Most teachers like to teach school.
(+SA,A,U/D, S D - )
TEACHERSGENERAL SCALE (CR = .90)

32 Most teachers are too strict with

their kids.
(-SA,A,U, D/SD+)
14 Most teachers are often unfair.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
216 : : Appendixes
20 Most teachers understand kids.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
8 Most teachers try to treat all kids
fairly.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
2 Most teachers never really give a kid

a break.

( - S A , A / U , D , S D + )

26 Teachers should not correct kids in

front of other kids.
(-SA/A,U,D,SD+)
43 Most teachers enjoy paddling kids.
(-SA/A,U,D,SD+)
38 Most teachers like kids.
(+SA,A,U/D,SD-)
TEACHERSPERSONAL SCALE (CR = .90)

34 I would like to tell most of my teach

ers what I really think of them.
(-SA,A,U/D,SD+)
16 It is usually the teacher's fault when
I get into trouble at school.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
22 Teachers often fuss at me for no rea
son.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
39 Teachers often take advantage of me.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
28 My teachers think I am headed for
serious trouble.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
 Appendixes : : 217
4 Most teachers don't like me.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
10 I like most of my teachers.
(+SA,A/U,D,SD-)
POLICEMENRELATIONSHIP WITH KIDS (CR = .91)
111 Most policemen are careful not to ar
rest innocent kids.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
67 Most policemen like to pick on kids.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
58 Most policemen like to help kids.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
94 Once a kid gets into trouble, police
keep on hounding him.
(-SA,A,U/D,SD+)
76 Most policemen don't understand a
kid's problems.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
101 Most policemen go out of their way to
keep a kid out of trouble.
(+SA,A/U,D,SD-)
85 Most policemen don't give kids a
chance to explain.
(-SA/A,U,D,SD+)
108 Policemen are easier on rich kids
than on poor kids.
(-SA/A,U,D,SD+)
49 Most policemen don't care what hap
pens to kids.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
218 : : Appendixes

POLICEMENLEGITIMACY ( C R = . 9 3 )
95 I would like to be a policeman.

( + S A / A , U , D , S D - )

68
Policemen have too much authority.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
102 Policemen should be paid more for
their work.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
77 Without policemen it would not be
safe to walk the streets.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
86 We need more policemen.

( + S A , A , U / D , S D - )

50 Policemen have no right to tell kids

what to do.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
59 Life would be better if there were not
as many policemen.
(-SA,A,U/D,SD+)

POLICEMENCHARACTERISTICS (CR = .93)

78 Most policemen like to act tough.

( - S A , A , U , D / S D + )

87
Most policemen are honest.

( + S A / A , U , D , S D - )

69
Most policemen are pretty nice guys.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
60 Most policemen are poorly trained
for their job.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
 Appendixes : : 219

51 It doesn't take very much ability to

be a policeman.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)

PROBATION OFFICERSRELATIONSHIP WITH KIDS

(CR = .95)
96 Most probation officers don't really
understand a kid's problems.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
88 Most probation officers treat kids
rough.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
103 Most probation officers don't give a
kid a chance to explain.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
79 Most probation officers try to help
kids stay out of trouble.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
70 Most probation officers want to help
kids.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
61 Most probation officers enjoy order
ing kids around.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
52 Most probation officers don't care
what happens to the kids with whom
they work.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)

PROBATION OFFICERSLEGITIMACY (CR = .87)

104 Probation officers have too much au

thority.

( - S A , A , U , D / S D + )

220 : : Appendixes
80 We need more probation officers.

( + S A / A , U , D , S D - )

89
I would like to be a probation officer.
(+SA,A,U/D,SD-)
62 Probation officers have no right to tell
a kid what to do.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
97 A kid is not placed on probation for
punishment.
(+SA,A,U/D,SD-)
71 Probation is a waste of time.

( - S A , A / U , D , S D + )

53 Kids would be better off if there were

fewer probation officers.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)

COURTSRELATIONSHIP WITH KIDS (CR = .93)

90 Juvenile Courts don't understand a

kid's problems.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
105 A kid can't get justice in Juvenile
Court.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
98 Poor kids don't have a chance in Ju
venile Court.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
63 Juvenile Courts are only interested
in convicting a lot of kids.
(-SA,A,U, D/SD+)
72 Juvenile Courts are interested in do
ing what is best for a kid.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
 Appendixes : : 221
54 If a Juvenile Court sends a kid to
training school, it is because it is the
best thing for him in the long run.
(+SA,A,U/D,SD-)
109 Juvenile Courts never give a kid a
break.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
81 Juvenile Courts place kids on proba
tion in order to help them.
(+SA,A/U,D,SD-)

COURTSLEGITIMACY (CR = .91)

106 Juvenile Courts have no right to take

kids away from their homes.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
91 "Who you know" is what counts in
the Juvenile Court.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
64 Juvenile Courts are necessary in our
way of life.
(+SA,A/U,D,SD-)
82 I would like to be a Juvenile Court
judge.
(+SA,A,U,D/SD-)
73 Juvenile Courts have too much au
thority.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
55 We would be better off if we didn't
have any Juvenile Court.
(-SA,A,U/D,SD+)
99 Juvenile Courts have no right to tell
kids what to do.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
222 : : Appendixes

LAWSRELATIONSHIP WITH KIDS (CR = .93)

92 Laws are harder on kids than on
adults.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
83 Almost everything that is fun for a
kid to do is against the law.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
56 Laws protect the rights of kids.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
74 Laws are only made to give kids a
hard time.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
65 The law always works against a kid,
never for him.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)

LAWSLEGITIMACY (CR = .91)

93 Laws should be enforced more

strictly.
(+SA/A,U,D,SD-)
110 Everyone breaks the law from time
to time.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
100 We would be better off if there were
not so many laws.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
75 Laws are made to be broken.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
66 It is all right to break the law if you
don't get caught.
(-SA,A,U,D/SD+)
 Appendixes : : 223
57 There are too many laws.
(-SA,A/U,D,SD+)
107 We should obey the law even though
we criticize it at times.
(+SA,A/U,D,SD-)
84 All laws should be obeyed.
(+SA,A/U,D,SD-)
 APPENDIX H
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING INTERVIEW

This schedule is slanted toward the experimental

boys. Only two changes, however, are necessary when
interviewing the control boys: (1) reword the intro
ductory remarks, which are suggested, so they will be
appropriate for the controls, and (2) delete section V
from the schedule.
The order of administration will be as follows:
1. Conduct the interview making notes on the sched
ule.
2. Give the check list to the boy to fill out.
3. While he is doing this, you can fill out the bottom
part of this page on the basis of the interview.
4. After the interview, write or record on tape any
thing you can about the boy that may be useful
in writing a report on this follow-up study.

Complete while he is completing the check list

Boy's Name Present School
Interviewer's Name Date
A. Appearance
1. Clothing: Neat Average Dishev
eled
2. Health: Good Fair Poor
 Appendixes : : 225
3. Personal Cleanliness: Clean Average
Dirty
B. Demeanor
1. Cooperative Average Uncoopera
tive
2. Comfortable Average Uncomfort
able
3. Honest Average Dishonest
4. Delinquent Unsure Nondelin
quent
C. Future Prediction
1. Finish high school Unsure Drop
out
2. Trouble with police Unsure No trou
ble with police
3. Family adjustment: Good Fair
Poor

COMMENTS :

YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT-INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

EXPERIMENTAL BOYS

Suggested introductory remarks:

As part of an assignment at the university, I have de
cided to talk with all of the boys who were in my sev
enth-grade class two years ago to find out just how
things are going with them in general. You needn't
worry about my telling anything you tell me. Whatever
we say is just between us.
226 : : Appendixes
I. Let's start talking about school. How do you like
school? 1 I like it. 2 It's OK. 3
I don't like it.
a. Why do you (like it, dislike it, or think it's
OK)?

b. Who do you have for English? Is (he-she)

(1 easy or 2 hard) to get along
with? If/wmZ, why?

c. How about math? Who do you have? Is (he

she) (1 easy or 2 hard) to get
along with? If hard, why?

d. How about the rest of your teachers? Are they

(1 easy or 2 hard) to get along
with? If hard, why?

e. Have you been sent to the office since the be

ginning of the new semester in February be
cause of being in trouble? 1 Yes
2 No If yes, tell me about it. What hap
pened?

f. Have you cut school since the beginning of the

new semester? 1 Yes 2 No If yes,
how many times? What happened? (Got
caught, went to a movie, etc.)

g. Let's see, you graduate pretty soon. Do you in

tend to go on to high school?
1 Yes If yes, then what do you think are
the chances you will finish? 1 Very good
2 Fair 3 Poor
 Appendixes : : 227
2 No If no, what are you going to do?
4 Get a job 5 Mess around 6
1 don't know. 7 Other
II. I'm also interested in what you boys do when
you're not in school. Let's take after school, for
instance. What do you usually do after school?
(Lead pupil through sequence of activities.)
a. Who do you hang around with after school?
What do you do?
Have you gotten in trouble after school since
the beginning of the new semester? 1 Yes
2 No If yes, tell me about it.
b. Do you go out after supper? 1 Yes
2 No When you go out, who do you usu
ally hang around with?
Have you gotten in trouble since the beginning
of the new semester when you went out after
supper? 1 Yes 2 No If yes, tell me
about it.
What time do you usually get home when
you've been out after supper?
c. How about during the summer vacation after
the seventh grade? Did you have a job or do
odd jobs? 1 Yes 2 No If yes, what
was the job?
What else did you do that summer? (Probe:
who he ran around with, what they did, did he
get into trouble?)
228 : : Appendixes
How about last summer? After the eighth
grade did you have a job or do odd jobs?
1 Yes 2 No If yes, what was the
job?

What else did you do last summer? (Probe:

who he ran around with, what they did, did he
get into trouble?)

d. Do you belong to any clubs o r teams or have

you received any honors?
1 Yes If yes, list below.
2 No If no, why?
III. Let's talk about home for a minute. Who lives at
home with you?

a. Have you lived with (this-these) (person

persons) all the time since the seventh-grade?
1 Yes 2 No Who else?
For b through e write the name and relationship
of each person or group of persons (for example
mother, stepfather, grandmother, aunt, cousins,
brothers and sisters) in the space provided and
get their responses. In general, get the parents or
dominant adults' response first, then other persons
living with him.
b. Are you getting along better or worse with
your (relationship) than when
you were in the seventh grade?
1 Better |
2 About the same > because
3 Worse J
 Appendixes : : 229
c. How about your (relationship) ?
Are you getting along better or worse with
(him-her) than when you were in the seventh
grade?
1 Better j
2 About the same > because
3 Worse J

d. How about your (relationship)?

Are you getting along better or worse with
them than when you were in the seventh
grade?
1 Better 1
2 About the same [ because
3 Worse J

e. How about your (relationship) ?

Are you getting along better or worse with
them than when you were in the seventh
grade?
1 Better 1
2 About the same \ because
3 Worse J

IV. Is there anything else I should know about you to

help me know how things are going for you?

V. Now let's talk about the seventh-grade class I

taught. Tell me honestly what you thought about
it. Level with me.
a. Are you glad you had this different kind of
seventh-grade class?
1
2 No/
230 : : Appendixes
b. Think about the fellows you hang around with.
Do you feel that any of these fellows could have
benefited from this kind of class?

2=5:1 ^
c. Do you feel this kind of class would be good for
all seventh-grade boys?

d. Would you recommend it for seventh-grade

boys and girls together?
1 Yes
\ Whv?

y
2 No/ *

VI. Have you done anything since September that the

police could have picked you up for?
 APPENDIX I

In attempting to determine the representativeness of

the followed-up and non-followed-up groups of experi
mental and control subjects, data were obtained on the
following 13 variables: sixth-grade average, eighth-
grade average, sixth-grade reading achievement and
arithmetic achievement scores, sixth-grade attendance
ratio, eighth-grade attendance ratio, sixth-grade po
lice contacts (serious and moderate), sixth-grade po
lice contacts (slight), age, IQ, delinquency nomination,
race, and family status. Variables designated sixth
grade were the most recent measures prior to the time
(seventh grade) when the special classes were held.
Variables designated eighth grade were the most re
cent measures prior to the time (ninth grade) when
the follow-up interviews were made.
Of the 13 variables examined in which mean scores
could be computed, the experimentals interviewed dif
fered significantly from those not interviewed on all
but 3. The latter 3 pertained to pre-program variables
(sixth-grade reading, arithmetic achievement scores,
and age). On each of the 10 statistically significant
measures, the direction of the difference favored the
interviewees. Thus, they had higher sixth- and eighth-
grade school averages, better attendance records, and
fewer police contacts, both serious and moderate, and
slight (see table I I ) .
Perhaps the most striking difference between the
two experimental groupsinterviewees and noninter
vieweeswas in their racial composition. Nonwhites
constituted 61% of the interviewees, 50% of all experi
H H O O H O N O W iH iI iI C<1
<^# <N CN1 O O O
VVAAVVVAV VV VV

Tj< t - O5 (M m Tf TH CO 00 -<tf(M l(
i-H 1-H rH<
(

! O O

< u ^.
 Appendixes : : 283
mentals at intake, and only 37% of the noninter
viewees. In other words, they were significantly over
represented, whereas the whites were significantly
underrepresented among the interviewees. Both whites
and blacks in the respondent group had fewer police
contacts (both serious and moderate, and slight), bet
ter school records on all measures, and better family
backgrounds in contrast to the nonrespondents in the
experimental group.
On the other hand the experimental interviewees
were similar to the nonrespondents in terms of familial
characteristics. About half in each group came from
broken homes.

THE CONTROLS

The control respondents, although constituting only

34% of all the controls in the 1964-65 cohort, were
more similar to the control nonrespondents than were
the interviewed and noninterviewed experimentals. Of
the 13 variables on which mean scores could be com
puted only 1, namely, sixth-grade arithmetic achieve
ment, differentiated the control respondents signifi
cantly from the control nonrespondents. Both control
groups were similar in age, IQ, sixth-grade reading
achievement scores, sixth- and eighth-grade point-hour
ratios, attendance ratios, and police contacts (serious
and moderate, and slight). These data are presented
in table 12.
Again, the most interesting aspect of this compari
son of interviewees and noninterviewees concerned
the racial composition of the two groups. As in the in
stance of the experimentals, the control interviewees
were predominately nonwhite and the noninterviewees,
white. In numerical terms, 57% of the control inter
 oooc^oooooooo
OJO3<NJC<1C<]C<|C<J<N<N<>3<NJ
VAVVAAVAAVAVA

3 i

(OOO(O(OCOOOi-<HN(0VOOOO

 Appendixes : : 235
vie wees were black compared with only 21% of the
control noninterviewees. For the 1964-65 cohort as a
whole, it will be recalled, precisely one-third of the
subjects were black.
This overrepresentation of blacks among the fol
low-up respondents, both experimentals and controls,
indicates the parallel unrepresentativeness of those
interviewed. It also suggests, supported by the direc
tion of the mean scores on the quantitative variables,
that the black student interviewees were indeed a more
highly selected group than the whites interviewees.
This is so because, in general, white students showed to
advantage in each of the three groups (experimental,
control, and comparison) at intake into the study.
Thus, when a higher percentage of black follow-up
subjects scored more favorably, it can only mean that
the black respondents were far superior to the black
student group as a whole.
Finally, and again comparable to the experimentals,
family status did not vary significantly by follow-up
respondent status. Approximately 49% of the coopera
tors and 47% of the noncooperators were from broken
families.
The limitations of the analysis should therefore be
evident. Consciously, or because of their school status,
the teacher-interviewers collected data from the clearly
superior experimentals and the less obviously superior
controls. Both cooperating groups were racially and
otherwise atypical, casting considerable doubt about
the representativeness of the interview data.

THE FOLLOW-UP EXPERIMENTALS AND CONTROLS

The same types of hard datademographic, school,

and police contactwere obtained on the follow-up
236 : : Appendixes
boys as on all the others. These data indicate that al
though the interviewees in each group, experimental
and control, were different from the noninterviewees,
they were not different from each other at intake into
the study in the seventh grade.
Demographic Variables
The 120 experimental and 42 control respondents
were about 13.2 years of age at study intake. Of the
experimentals, 39.2% were white; of the controls,
42.9%. Roughly half in each group50.8% of the ex
perimentals, 52.4% of the controlscame from intact-
family settings.

School Variables
The sixth-grade IQ-test scores, reading and arith
metic achievements, grade-point averages, and attend
ance ratios were very similar for the experimental and
control interviewees. The mean IQ scores for the ex
perimental and control respondents were 93.5 and
92.5; the mean reading achievement grade levels, 5.89
and 6.24; the arithmetic grade levels, 6.42 and 6.90;
the grade-point averages (A = 1 and F = 5), 3.14 and
3.23; and the sixth-grade attendance ratios, .947 and
.935.
The later school data indicate the same trends in
each group. First, the mean grade-point averages
dropped slightly with time. Second, the attendance
ratios also declined, although the control respondents
showed slightly less truancy than the experimental
respondents. Third, the dropout rate was somewhat
greater for the control than for the experimental inter
viewees (see table 13).
 Appendixes : : 237

Police Contacts
The official police records before, during, and after
the program on the experimental and control subjects
in the follow-up study were very similar. Prior to the
seventh grade, 12.5% of the experimental interviewees
and 11.9% of the control respondents had police rec
ords for various infractions. There were no differences
during the year of the experimental project, since
10.8% and 9.5% of the treated and untreated inter
viewees, respectively, experienced police contact. In the
TABLE 13
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE DATA OF THE EXPERIMENTAL
AND CONTROL INTERVIEWEES

EXPERIMENTAL^ CONTROLS
Total White Black Total White Black

Mean IQ Score. . . . 93.53 98.83 90.12 92.45 98.78 87.71

Achievement Level
Reading 5.89 6.42 5.54 6.24 6.91 5.73
Arithmetic 6.42 6.97 6.05 6.90 7.37 6.54
Grade-Point
Average*
6th grade 3.14 3.04 3.19 3.23 3.31 3.18
7th grade 3.21 3.19 3.22 3.54 3.58 3.51
Post p r o g r a m . . . 3.57 3.53 3.60 3.49 3.66 3.33
Attendance Ratio
6th grade 947 .944 .949 .935 .947 .926
7th grade 948 .940 .954 .944 .946 .943
8th grade 936 .933 .939 .923 .936 .913
9th grade 927 .907 .939 .907 .885 .929
10th grade 885 .891 .880 .906 .908 .905
Final School
Clearance
% in school 77.5 74.5 79.5 69.0 77.8 62.5
% dropout 11.7 12.8 11.0 21.4 11.1 29.2
% moved away.. 8.3 10.6 6.8 7.1 5.6 8.3
% in custody... . 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.4 5.6 0.0
A - 1, B - 2, C - 8, D = 4, and F = 5.
238 : : Appendixes
postprogram period of three years, 36.7% and 40.5%
respectively became known to the police. For all peri
ods, there were police notations on 43.3% of the experi
mental (treated) follow-up subjects, and 54.7% of the
control (untreated) follow-up subjects.
The preceding analyses have shown two things.
First, no matter how measured, the interviewees were
self-selected and consequently superior to the noninter
viewees on most measures. Second, the two groups of
interviewees did not differ from each other on the vari
ous demographic, school, and police-contact variables
either before, during, or after the Youth Development
Project year (seventh grade).
 APPENDIX J

SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENT*

(N-S)
1. How often have you driven
(B) a car without a driver's
* license or permit? Do
not include driver training
courses.)
3 = very often
2 = several times
1 = once or twice
0 = never
(G) 2. How often have you tried
to stop a fight?
0 = very often
1 = several times
2 = once or twice
3 = never
(N-S) 3. How often have you skipped
(B) school without a legitimate
* excuse?

0 = never

1 = once or twice

2 = several times
3 = very often
(B) 4. How often have you dis
obeyed your parents?
NOTE: Directionalitylow score favorable, high score unfavor
able. (N-S) =Nye-Short Items. (G) = "Good" items. (B) = "Bad"
items (all "B" items except nos. 4 and 7 are contained in the Nye-
Short self-report instrument). (*) = Significant items.
21*0 : : Appendixes

SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENT (continued)

3 = very often
2 = several times
1 = once or twice
0 = never
(G) 5. How often have your refused
* to smoke?
3 = never
2 = once or twice
1 = several times
0 = very often
(B) 6. How often have you had
a fist fight with another
person?
0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = several times
3 = very often
(B) 7. How often have you told
a lie?
3 = very often
2 = several times
1 = once or twice
0 = never
(G) 8. How often have you gone
out of your way to help
someone?
0 == very often
1 == several times
2 = once or twice
3 = never
(B) 9. How often have you "run
away" from home?
 Appendixes : : 21*1

SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENT (continued)

0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = three or four times
3 = five or more times
(B) 10. How often have you been

placed on school proba

tion or suspended from

school?

0 = never

1 = once or twice

2 = three or four times

3 = five or more times

(G) 11. How often have you refused

to join the boys in destroy

ing or damaging property?

3 = never

2 = once or twice

1 = several times

0 = very often

(N-S) 12. How often have you defied

(B) your parents' authority
* (to their face)?

0 = never

1 = once or twice

2 = several times

3 = very often

(B) 13. How often have you driven

* too fast or recklessly in
an automobile?

3 = very often

2 = several times

2Ji>2 : : Appendixes

SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENT (continued)

1 = once or twice
0 = never
(G) 14. How often have you at
tempted to dress well?
0 = very often
1 = several times
2 once or twice
3 = never
(N-S) 15. How often have you taken
(B) little things (worth less
* than $2) that did not
belong to you?
0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = several times
3 = very often
(B) 16. How often have you taken
* things of medium value
(between $2 and $50)?
3 = very often
2 = several times
1 = once or twice
0 = never
(B) 17. How often have you taken
* things of large value
(over $50)?
0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = several times
3 = very often
(G) 18. How often have you con
 Appendixes
SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENT {continued)

vinced someone to return

stolen property?
3 = never
2 = once or twice
1 = several times
0 = very often
(B) 19. How often have you taken
things that you really
didn't want that did not
belong to you?
0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = several times
3 = very often
(B) 20. How often have you taken
* part in "gang fights"?

0 = never

1 = once or twice
2 = three or four times
3 = five or more times
(G) 21. How often have you had a
date?
0 = very often
1 = several times
2 = once or twice
3 = never
(B) 22. How often have you taken a
car for a ride without the
owner's knowledge?
0 = never
1 = once or twice
' Appendixes
SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENT (continued)

2 = three or four times

3 = five or more times
(B) 23. How often have you "beat up"
* on kids who hadn't done any
thing to you?
3 = very often
2 = several times
1 = once or twice
0 = never
(G) 24. How often have you offered to
help at home or do something
to help your family?
3 = never
2 = once or twice
1 = several times
0 = very often
(N-S) 25. How often have you bought or
(B) drunk beer, wine, or liquor
* (include drinking at home)?
0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = several times
3 = very often
(B) 26. How often have you hurt
* or inflicted pain on

someone else just to see

him squirm?

0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = several times
3 = very often
 Appendixes : :
SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENT (continued)
(G) 27. How often have you
* studied really hard for
school work?
0 = very often
1 = several times
2 = once or twice
3 = never
(N-S) 28. How often have you pur
(B) posely damaged or de
* stroyed public or private

property that did not

belong to you?

3 = very often
2 = several times
1 = once or twice
0 = never
(B) 29. How often have you used
or sold narcotic drugs?
0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = three or more times
3 = five or more times
(G) 30. How often have you been
* really nice to one of

your teachers?

3 = never

2 = once or twice

1 = several times

0 = very often

(G) 31. How often have you convinced

someone not to cheat?

24-6 : : Appendixes

SELF-REPORT INSTRUMENT (continued)

0 = very often
1 = several times
2 = once or twice
3 = never
(B) 32. How often have you gone
hunting or fishing without
a license (or violated other
game laws)?
0 = never
1 = once or twice
2 = several times
3 = very often
(G) 33. How often have you read a book
other than one for school?
0 = very often
1 = several times
2 = once or twice
3 = never
Index

 INDEX

Adolescence, extended period of, Chicago Youth Development

28, 30-31
Project, 44

Adverse socialization of the

Cicourel, Aaron V., 98

young, 14
Classroom discipline

Age of sample, 71, 99-100

development of, 59-60, 157

Alienation of youth, 28, 31

Class size in experimental

All boy self-contained classes,

groups, 55, 56

50, 58, 63,156

Clinics for problem children, 43

Arithmetic achievement of
Cloward, Richard A., 21, 22, 23

sample, 77-78
Cohen, Albert K., 16

Arrest of juveniles
Collective solutions, 23

by age, 7, 35, 36
Comparison boys

number of, 7, 36
and experimental and control

by sex, 7, 36
boys, 82

Assignment of subjects in ex
and followed-up and non-fol

perimental classes, 50, 51,

lowed-up groups, 231-38

57, 67-68
Compulsive masculinity, 16-17

Attitude and perception

Conclusions, 162

changes, 112-29

Attitudes
Control boys, 68

toward the law, measurement

Craig, Maude, 13

of, 123-28
Crime as youthful preoccupa

toward school, measurement

tion, 6

of, 119-23
Criteria of outcome evaluated,

Augustus, John, 28-29

159-60

Auto theft, 4
Cultural lag, 10

Autonomy, as lower-class focal

concern, 20
Data input, 63-65

Average school grades of sam

Delinquency

ple, prior to project, 78

cases of, in juvenile courts,

7-8, 37, 38

Becker, Howard S., 98

as deviance, 34

Bloch, Herbert A., 16

related to family dissolution,

B'nei to vim, 3
12-14, 75

Blousons noirs, 3
Detached worker with groups,

Boys' clubs, 43
Dinitz, Simon, 47-52, passim

Boy Scouts, 42-43

Dyysocial youths, 14

Cambridge-Somerville Youth
Elementary schools

Study, 45
Akron, 49

Case information input, 63-65

Brooklyn, 49

Characteristics of sample, 71
Columbus, Ohio, 47, 49-51, 58

86
Employment of children, 4

250 : : Index
Evaluation of male students
self-reported delinquency, by
evaluated, 157-58
race, 146-48

as headed for delinquency,

summer jobs, 140-41

48, 67-71

as not headed for delinquency,

Garfinkel, Harold, 98

47, 67-71
Gault decision, 8

by sixth-grade teachers, 54

55, 68-71
Glick, Selma, 13

by sixth-grade teachers and

Glueck, Eleanor, 13

principals, 54-55, 68-71

Glueck, Sheldon, 13

Experimental
Goffman, Erving, 98

boys, 68
"Good" boy"bad" boy re

classes, interpretation of, 58

search project, 47-50, 54

design of Columbus project,

proposed follow-up, 65

51

Experimentation by youths, 32
teachers' ratings, 48

Guttman, Louis, 64, 120, 121,

Eynon, Thomas G., 162,163

124, 125, 126, 127, 143, 154

Family
Healy, William, 43

break-up by divorce, 12

disorganization, 12
Illegitimate means, availability
integration, 4
of, 21

status of, in sample, 73-74,

Inner-city schools, 47

101

transfer of functions from,

IQ scores of sample, 76-77, 83

12
84

Female-based household, 15, 16,

Interpersonal-competence in

75,101
ventory

lack of male role in, 15, 16

use of, 113

Fluidity, influence of, 31

results of, 118-19

Intolerance of delinquency in

Follow-up interviews, 130-51

urban societies, 5-6

after-school involvement,

136-39
Juvenile Aid Bureaus

attitudes toward the youth-

referral of cases to, 6

development class, 148-51

Judicial clemency as initiated

honors received, 142

form of probation, 29

interpersonal relationships,

142-45
Juvenile court

interviewer rating of
action on cases, 37-38

appearance, 133
cases, 6-8

demeanor, 133-34
establishment of, 29-30

future prediction, 135-36

intake procedure, 38

involvement with the law, Juvenile delinquency. See also

139
Prevention of delinquency
misconduct by race, 146
and age level in Scandinavia,
participation in clubs or on
8

teams, 141-42
amount of, 6

results of, 132-33

complaints of, 37

schedule of, 224-30

court action, 7-8, 37-38

school assessment, 136-39

elimination of stigma of, 8

self-reported delinquency,
international, 3

143-45
prediction of, by teachers, 40

 Index : : 251

reporting of, 37
Offenses. See also Police con

separate handling of, 7-8, 28

tact

social and legal definitions

according to category, 92

of, 34
committed by experimental,

special concern for, 27

control, and comparison

universal concern for, 3-4

groups before entrance

Juvenile delinquents
into project, 81, 82, 87

age distribution of, 35-36

recorded, 101-4

sex ratio of, 36-37

Ohlin, Lloyd, E., 21, 22

One-parent family, 16

Kennedy, John F., 44

Kitsuse, John I., 98

Pattern of violence, 18

Kuhn, Manford, 113

Pilot project in schools with

Kvarceus, William C, 40
high delinquency, 49

Police clearances

Labeling by society, 5
of experimental, control, and

Lack of role structure, 31

comparison groups, 85-86

Lesson plans
of four years of three co

horts, 88-89

curriculum calendar for, 62,

of three cohorts, 88-89

167-87
Police contact

development of, 59, 60-61

by age of boys in sample, 99

evaluation of, 158-59

100

topics for role-model supple

categories of, 98

mentation, 61, 62,156-57

by family status of boys in

Limited opportunity, 21-23, 30

sample, 99-100

Lewis, Oscar, 17
post-program, 93

Lower-class focal concerns, 17

pre-program, 95

before, during, and after

21
project, 89-93, 95

Machismo, 17-18
by race, 94-95, 96-97,100-101

Measuring devices, need for im

recorded for experimental,

control, and comparison

provements in, 161

subjects, 188-92

Medieval punishment, 4
of sample, prior to project,

Merton, Robert K., 21

79-82, 86

Miller, Walter B., 18,19, 20

by school clearance, 107

Migration as safety valve, 5

specific offenses, 101-4

Mobility, influence of, 31

by teacher nomination, 97-99

Position discontent, 22

Mosaic law, 4
Pre- and post-test findings

Multiproblem families, 14
on interpersonal-competence

scale, 118-19

Niederhoffer, Arthur, 16
on self-concept scale, 116-18

Norm erosion, 11
on socialization, 115-16

Pre- and post-tests, 64-65

Nuclear family, decline of, 10

President Kennedy's Committee

Nye-Short items, self-reported

on Juvenile Delinquency

delinquency, 143-45. See

and Youth Crime, 44

also Nye, F. Ivan

Prevention of delinquency

Nye, F. Ivan, 132, 143, 145,

community-based programs

146, 239
of, 44-46

Prevention of delinquency Scheff, Thomas J., 98

(continued) School

early measures of, 42-44

achievement of experimental,

in preadolescence, 39-40
control, and comparison

school-based programs of, 49

groups, 85

51
attendance by police contact,

task of, 33, 39-41

106-8

in the U.S., 42
attendance of sample

Prevention project of Colum prior to project, 78-79

bus, Ohio
before, during, and after

characteristics of, 50-52

project, 108-9

evolution of, 47-51

drop-outs, 106

explanation of failure of, 156

grades of experimental, con

60
trol, and comparison

focus of, 50
groups, 78, 110-11

shortcomings of, 159

and law scales, 213-23

summary of findings of, 152

performance of experimental,

56
control, and comparison

theory behind, 157-58

boys, 104-5

Project teachers
status of experimental, con

after-school sessions for, 59

trol, and comparison groups

assignment of, 58
at terminal point, 105-7

selection of, 56
Seattle Atlantic Street Center,

sessions with psychiatrist, 59

prevention project, 46-47

training of, 56-57

Selection of sample for project,

Race of sample, 71-73

54-56

distribution of, 82-83, 100

Self-concept

101
and "good" versus "bad" boys,

Random assignment
48-49

of boys in regular self-con

as insulator against delin

tained classes, 51
quency, 24, 48

of boys in experimental self-

Self-concept inventory

contained classes, 55
in follow-up interview, 143-48

Reaching gangs in high-delin results of, 116-18

quency areas, 43-44. See use of, 113

also Prevention of delin Self-contained classes. See All-

quency boy self-contained classes.

Reckless, Walter C, 47-52,

passim
Self-report instrument, 239-49

Remedial reading
Self-reports of delinquent acts,

evaluation of, 128-29

38,39
need for, 60-61
Separate handling
Role models
and establishment of juvenile
internalization, evaluation of,
court, 29-30

49,158
in jails, 29

presentation of, 62-63

of juvenile delinquents, 28-39

evaluation of, 158

potential of, 32-33

Rothstein, Edward, 64, 113, 118

Serious crimes, committed by

juveniles under 18, 6-7

Safety valves for deviants, 5

Schedule used
Shaw, Clifford R., 43

in 1963-64,193-97
Short, James F., 16, 132, 143,

in 1964-66,198-212
145,146, 239

 Index : : 253
Smartness, as a lower-class fo
Three cohorts of boys, 67-68

cal concern, 19
Toughness, as lower-class focal

Social class of sample, 75-76

concern, 19

Social disorganization, 10
Trouble, as a lower-class focal

Socialization Scale, California

concern, 18

Psychological Inventory, 49
Truancy, focus on, 43

Socialization scale items

results of, 114-16

Unreported delinquency, 38-39,

use of, 113-14

146-48

Solitary solutions, 23

Stanford, Don K., 61

Vandalism, 4

Strodtbeck, Fred L., 16

Verticle mobility, 22

Subculture delinquency, 21, 23

Visiting teachers, 43

Summary of police and school

data for subjects, 111

"Who Am I" inventory, 113-14

Szasz, Thomas S., 98

Wolfgang, Marvin E., 18

Third grade, indications of

troublesome children, 13
Yablonsky, Lewis, 16

Thrasher, Frederick M., 16, 43,

52
Zibners, Harry, 162

(Continued from front flap)

"good" self-concept provide a kind of social-
psychological immunization from delinquency
and a "poor" self-concept increase one's sus
ceptibility to it.
The experiment was designed to improve
the concepts of themselves held by selected
schoolboys through the representation to
them of appropriate role models. The boys
who participated in the project were divided
into three groups: (1) an experimental group
made up of boys whose teachers found them
prime candidates for delinquency, and who
were removed from their regular classrooms
to pursue a curriculum augmented by the
special prevention measures; (2) a control
group of boys who were judged to have an
equally high potential for becoming delin
quent but who were not subjected to the en
riched curriculum designed to prevent their
doing so; and (3) a comparison group of boys
who were thought to be well on their way
toward making a positive social adjustment.
The results of this concentrated and sys
tematic study, conducted over afive-yearpe
riod that encompassed the years immediately
preceding and following those devoted to the
experiment itself, and reported with full sta
tistical documentation, will be found of cru
cial importance to all who confront the
persistent, stubborn, and vexing problem of
juvenile crime, either as committed profes
sional or concerned layman.
Walter C. Reckless and Simon Dinitz are
professors of sociology at the Ohio State
University.

Designed by Harold M. Stevens

Other Titles ol Interest

RELIGION, ALTERED STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS, AND SOCIAL CHANGE,

edited by Erika Bourguignon $12.50

DECISION-MAKING: CREATIVITY, JUDGMENT, AND SYSTEMS,

edited by Henry S. Brinkers $10.00

THE PROCESS OF MODEL-BUILDING IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES,

edited by Ralph M. Stogdill $8.00

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION: LEGAL, CLINICAL, AND SELF

CONCEPTS AND MEASUREMENT,
by Saad Z. Nagi $10.00

Ohio State University

2O7O N e i l A v e n u e
C o l u m b u s . Ohio i : t 2 i o