A Community Psychology Approach to Program Development for Female Juvenile Offenders: A Community based Arts Initiative

Abstract

This paper explores the benefits of taking a community psychology approach to designing and implementing a program for female juvenile offenders (FJOs). Despite policy initiatives calling for more gender-specific programming, few gender-specific programs for FJOs are evidenced-based and culturally sensitive, and the juvenile justice system still struggles to apply FJO research findings to FJO program development (Shepherd, 2002). This struggle to bridge research and practice is especially pronounced in community-based juvenile arbitration programs that often lack time and resources to develop research-based programs. This paper expounds on some of the gaps in FJO programming and argues that a community psychology approach is useful in addressing these gaps. It demonstrates the value of a community psychology approach by describing the process of developing a community-based arts intervention for FJOs participating in a community arbitration program. After discussing the process and challenges, the paper concludes with recommendations for the field. Female juvenile offenders (FJOs) are the fastest growing population in juvenile justice systems worldwide (Tracy, Kempf-Leonard, & Abramoske-James, 2009). In the United States, FJOs comprise almost one third of all juvenile justice arrests, and although arrest rates have declined overall for both male and female juvenile offenders, in 2013, FJOs made up 28 percent of arrests compared to only 22 percent in 1986 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013). In response to this trend, the federal government reauthorized the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act in 1992 and again in 2002, calling for gender-specific research on and programs for FJOs. The reauthorization of the JJDP Act has led to increased emphasis on gender-specific programming in the juvenile justice system particularly with regard to research on differences in FJO and male juvenile offender (MJO) delinquency (American Bar Association & National Bar Association, 2001; Chesney-Lind & Sheldon, 1998; Sharp & Simon, 2004). In 2004, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention founded the Girls Study Group (2014), a research group dedicated to “understanding and responding to girls’ delinquency,” and it has made considerable progress toward this goal (Zahn et al., 2008: p. 1). Despite this progress, research has been slow to inform practice, and the juvenile justice system still struggles to apply FJO research findings to FJO program development (Shepherd, 2002). This struggle to bridge research and practice is especially pronounced in community-based juvenile arbitration programs that often lack time and resources to develop research-based programs. This paper expounds on some of the gaps in FJO programming and argues that a community psychology approach is useful in addressing these gaps. It demonstrates the value of a community psychology approach by describing the process of developing a community-based arts intervention for FJOs participating in a community arbitration program. After discussing the process and challenges, the paper concludes with recommendations for the field. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 6, Issue 2 October 2015 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org Page 3 Gaps in FJO Program Development Though the reauthorization of the JJDP Act has led to increased FJO programming (Shepherd, 2002), often these gender-specific programs are not based on best practices or existing FJO research (Foley, 2008). In fact, many FJO programs are actually programs that were originally designed for MJOs and have been applied hastily to FJOs without prior evaluation or consideration of their differential impacts on girls (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006). While these programs claim to be “gender-neutral,” they are largely geared toward MJOs in both design and implementation, and therefore, may not be effective or appropriate for FJOs (ChesneyLind & Pasko, 2004; Foley, 2008; Zahn et al., 2008). Regardless, gender-neutral programming may prove an insufficient approach to female juvenile delinquency because research shows that FJOs do differ significantly from MJOs in terms of pathways to delinquency, the types of crimes committed (Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 1998; Zahn et al., 2008), mental health factors (Zahn et al., 2010), and behavioral traits (Broidy et al., 2003). Therefore, FJOs likely have very different needs than their male counterparts (Chesney-Lind, 2001). Unfortunately, most programs available to FJOs continue to rely on research with MJOs (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2004). Like gender-neutral programs, many genderspecific programs that are designed for FJOs are not empirically based nor are they theorydriven (Foley, 2008). This gap between research and practice is problematic because in addition to proving ineffective, interventions that are not theory-based can also prove harmful. For example, lacking theoretical backing increases the chance that interventions may be based on misguided assumptions (Posovac, 2010). In this case, gender-specific programs for FJOs often assume stereotypical gender roles (Goodkind & Miller, 2006; Belknap & Holsinger, 2006), teaching “feminine” skills, like cooking, parenting, and etiquette or providing career training for low-paying “women’s” careers, such as hairdressing. These types of FJO programs are based on assumptions of femininity – not theory or extant research on female juvenile delinquency. The lack of theoretical and empirical bases for many FJO programs also is critical because this lack may explain why FJO programs often disregard racial and ethnic differences and rely on notions of white femininity, (Goodkind & Miller, 2006), despite the fact that effective programs are those that respect diversity within groups and are culturally appropriate (Chesney-Lind, 2001; ChesneyLind & Pasko, 2004). Attention to culture and diversity within groups of FJOs is especially important given the disproportionate representation of minorities in the criminal justice system and the national call to address this discrepancy at the local level (Solar & Garry, 2009). Having a clear program theory can help assure that interventions are “culturally safe” for FJOs of diverse backgrounds (Sherman, 2005) and can also aid in identifying problematic program assumptions (Posovac, 2010). Effective programs not only are based on sound theory backed by empirical evidence but also are subjected to rigorous evaluation. Program evaluation can help to identify assumptions and systematically measure effectiveness. Additionally, it aids program staff in articulating program goals, monitoring for fidelity, and linking program activities to outcomes (Posovac, 2010). Unfortunately, many existing FJO programs have not been formally evaluated (Foley, 2008; Shepherd, 2002), often because juvenile justice systems lack expertise and resources to conduct scientifically rigorous program evaluations. Another challenge to conducting evaluation is that FJO programs are often provided within short or variable time limits. FJOs may be released before Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 6, Issue 2 October 2015 Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, http://www.gjcpp.org Page 4 program effects can be detected, and this population is difficult to assess upon release from the system. In these cases, a process evaluation that assesses intermediate effects (e.g., attitude changes) may be more appropriate, especially when long-term effects (e.g., recidivism, graduation rates) that require follow-up may not be easily accessible. Unfortunately, juvenile justice systems lack sophisticated methods useful in conducting longitudinal studies and process evaluations, and most of the existing literature on FJO programming focuses primarily on anecdotal evidence and descriptions of program content not outcomes based on social science methodology (Foley, 2008). In addition to relying primarily on anecdotal evidence of effectiveness, most FJO interventions focus on individual-level change only despite the fact that juvenile delinquency can be traced to family, community, and policy level factors (Bloom, Owen, Deschenes, & Rosenbaum, 2002; Chesney-Lind, 2001; Foley, 2008; and Jacobs, 1990). For example, research indicates that family can be both an important risk and protective factor for FJOs (Bloom et al., 2002), suggesting that family-level interventions may prove effective for FJOs. At the policy level, changes in laws, such as the zerotolerance laws in school, and not actual behavioral changes, may have led to the disproportionate increase in FJO arrests (Chesney-Lind, 2001; Strom, Watner, Tichavsky, & Zahn, 2010). In addition to recognizing that multilevel factors contribute to FJO delinquency, researchers also know that programs that focus on higher or multiple levels are more effective at enacting lasting, second-order change (Ellis, 1998; Roesch, 1995; Saegert, Klitzman, Freundenberg, Cooperman-Mroczek, & Nassar, 2007; and Trickett, 2009), while continued focus at only the individual level can lead to victim-blaming and treatments that rely on an individual-deficit model (Roesch, 1995). Individual-deficit models are likely to be ineffective for FJOs because research suggests that FJOs benefit more from strengths-based models (Sherman, 2005). Multilevel interventions can address FJO delinquency in all its complexity and allow for strengths-based and empowermentbased interventions. Despite the benefits of multilevel interventions, the juvenile justice system has been slow to incorporate multilevel interventions into its programming, in part, because multilevel interventions are difficult to implement (Trickett, 2009), especially within a justice system setting that emphasizes individual responsibility and views delinquency as an individual deficit (Roesch, 1995). Additionally, multilevel interventions are also difficult