\ If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. '* IVlF' SAl} National Criminal Justice Reference Service --------.--'-~~----------------------------------~----------.nCJrs \I This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise the squires of control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, thlZ individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. c san· quentin: 2 5 :; 1I111~ 11111 . , 1.0 , I~ 1IIIIll .2 ~ w ~!~ ~ w t III I~ .0 1.1 ...L:I. ----- """. 111111.25 IIIIII.~ 11111 1.6 an evaluation of a ·uvenUe awareitess, J ~ , MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART J ' NATI(lNAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A pro,gram c 'r!;.' Microfilming procedures used to create this fiche comply with the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.~04. o Points of view or opinions stated in this document are If '::: those of the author(s) and do not represent the official 0 position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. , april 1981 4-23-82 : .I! National Institute of Justice Ii ,j ", United States Department of JusticlB '0" Washington, D. C. 20531 ......-;'" - c (),~ (I ,P~~ARTIY'l5NT~OF . tHEYO·UTH AUTHORITY, " _': ~ '>.~ "«"/~\"_,·,i' ",.' .., .. ~I~: ~" '~." ."' :.~,' _'" . _ . :" ,I , c , ·-:::-:r.'!.1\'!"",'.",;,!h,:~:;; .~A"':%;~,~iji';:w"?~!,,~~~~,i1r~j&...~~~RIl.Ifi.. ~.. ~~~~.,.~:.~., ~.'Jjo~m~r' ..:r., ' " ;; I U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This docurr ent has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are ~hose of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this c~ material has been State of California granted by California Yo~th Autho~ty EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Arthur L. German.~ ______ GOVERNOR to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ Youth and Adult Correctional Agency sion of the ~ owner. HOWARD WAY SECRETARY THE SQUIRES OF SAN QUENTIN: AN EVALUATION OF A JUVENILE AWARENESS PROGRAM DepartIlleI"l.t of the' Youth Authority I. i' PEARL S. WEST, , Rov V, lEwIS ... -'"" KEITH S. GRIFFITHS DIRECTOR Chief of Research CHARLES A. KUHL, Carl F. Jesness, Ph.D. CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR Research Manager III ! '\ j '~.,< Ted Palmer, Ph.D. ~ .. :; Q, Research Manager III JAMES C. BARNETT, '" .c,.' ',:1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR * * * * * * * * * * * * PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BRANCH Roy V. Lewis Principal Investigator CHON GUTIERREZ, DEPUTY DIRECTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES BRANCH Karen Deeri ng Office Technician RUTH E. KRANOVICH, DEPARTMENT OF THE YOUTH AUTHOR lTV DEPUTY DIRECTOR l PAROLE SERVICES BRANCH Wayne KlIbo APRIL 1981 Graphic.Artist AL OWYOUNG, DEPUTY DIRECTOR PLANNING, RESEARCH, EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT BRANCH GEORGE R. ROBERTS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR INSTITUTIONS AND CAMPS BRANCH CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • • • P.' • • • • • 0 • • • • • HIGHLIGHTS i . iii CHAPTER 1 Background. 1 CHAPTER 2 The Research Evaluation . 11 CHAPTER 3 Study Group Characteristics . 20 Background Characteristics. 20 Summary . 24 CHAPTER 4 Attitudinal Findings. 25 Youth Participants' Evaluation of the Squires Program ...... 25 Attitudinal Differences Between Experimentals and Controls. 34 Summary of Findings 43 CHAPTER 5 Recidivism. 45 Outcome Measures and Statistical AnalYSis . 46 Results of Behavioral Outcome , , . 48 Summary of Findings . 57 CHAPTER 6 Conclusions 60 REfERENCES • • • • 0 • • . 65 APPENDIX A Evaluation Scales and Questionnaires. 67 ) APPENDIX B "I Differences Between Experimentals and Controls on Background Characteristics, Attitudinal Measures and Behavioral Outcome. ... 76 APPENDIX C Inter-Correlation Matrix Between Items on Youth Evaluation Questionnaire ..... 129 ,\ , . , " :t I ". " CONTENTS (Continued) CONTENTS (Continued) Table APPENDIX D Correlation Matrix Between Items on Youth Evaluation Questionnaire and Major Scales 130 4.7 Participants' Recommendation to Other Youths About the Squires Program . ..... 30 APPENDIX E Correlation Matrix Between Youth Evaluati~n . Questionnaire Items and Youth Character1stlcs ... 132 .. 4.8 Participants' Prediction About Behavioral Impact of Squires Program on Themselves ...•.....•. 31 APPENDIX F Analysis of Frequency Distributions for Skewness and Kurtos is. 133 4.9 Participants' Prediction About Behavioral Impact of Squires Program on Their Friends ......... 32 APPENDIX G Correlation Matrix, Selected IV's With 9 DV's 137 4.10 Par.ticipants' Feelings About Genuineness of APPENDIX H Client and Staff Program Descrlptions •....... 139 the, Program . 32 APPENDIX I Relative Seriousness of Offenses by Offense 4.11 Differences Between Experimentals and Controls on Category ............. 0 • 152 Attitudinal Scales and Semantic Differential Concepts, at Posttest •..........•• 37 APPENDIX J Reliability and Validity of Attitudinal Scales .... 161 4.12 Differences Between Experimentals and Controls on Attitudinal Scales and Semantic Differential Concepts Using Change-Scores ......... 41 LIST OF TABLES 5.1 Differences Between Experimentals and Controls in Table .Page Number of Subsequent Arrests (12 months followup) 49 3.1 Distribution of Experimentals and Controls 5.2 Differences Between Experimentals and Controls in by Age. ~ . ,. 21 Number of Subsequent Charges (12 months followup) . 49 3.2 Distribution of Experimentals and Controls by Ethnicity .....•..•...... 22 3.3 Dist\"ibution of Experimentals and Controls by Prior Arrests. ..•.. 23 4.1 Participants' Feelings About Visit t6 San Quentin 26 4.2 Participants' Feelings About Rap Sessions 27 4.3 Participants' Prediction About Prison .. 28 4.4 Participants' Mo~t Positive Impression of Total Visit/Program •.....••..... 28 'I 4.5 Participants' Feelings About the Squires I nma te s (I) . 29 4.6 Participants' Feelings About the Squires Inmates (II). .......•. 30 r , ", ,.,,, ~'-"--"'-~--""-~'~->~-"f'~ ~ < / INTRODUCTION This report presents an evaluation of the San Quentin Squires Program. \' I I i Operated in California since 1964. it is the oldest juvenile awareness pro- I gram in the United States. As such~ an evaluation of this program could have an important effect on the future of juveni 1e awar'eness programs around the country. The need for this evaluation and others grew out of the tremendous public interest that developed following the televised showing nationwide of the documentary IIScared Straight '" between November 1978 and late spring •. D 1979. Presentation of the film resulted in thousands of favorable letters and phone calls to local news and television stations, political and governmental leaders, and various criminal justice agencies .. \ The documentary depicted a juvenile awarene'ss program at \Rahway State Prisbn in New Jersey. The major objective of the program was \:0 provide j uven 11 e deli nqu~nts wi th a fri ghteni ng exper.i ence--to 1i tera lly II scarell them into leading a "straightll life. Supporters of the program claimed . , it was 80% and 90% effective in detert'ing participating youth fr'om a 1ife of crime. Because of the claims that were made about the program and its hard-line approach, much controversy has resulted. Many persons within the field of corrections fl~lt that IIScar"ed Straightll was not a simple, foolproof cure for what they saw ciS the complex: problem of juveni le dl;!l inquency. They basi cally argued that the IIreal caUSE~S II of juveni 1e de,'l inquency 1ay in underlying soci al and economic probll!!ms--raci sm, .. poverty, un,emp10yment, and disintegrating families. They further viewed IIScared Stru'jght ll as an unrealistic panacea to the problem, criticized the i , , , :r f I. r i i authoritarian approach, and suggested it might even cause psychological harm as well. HIGHLIGHTS Supporters of the program argued just as strongly that knowing the of delinquency does nothing to prevent it and pointed their "re,~l ~ausesll Exper'imentals showed ~ att'itude improvement than controls on finger at the nation's overcrowded prisons, rising juvenile crime rates, .. Attitudes Toward Police, Atti~udes Toward Crime, and on the Major and ~leneral disrespect among young people for the rilghts of others as Scales - Composite Index. evidence of the failure of the field of corrections to do anything about the problem. The major findings of this eva'luation were mixed. It was clear that It is perhaps wishful thinking to suppose that a short-term juvenile the San Quentin Squires Program did not prevent subsequent delinquency awareness program can have a dramatic preventive effect on all delinquents. among previously very delinquent youth. Over'all, no statistically It is also misleading to expect delinquency prevention programs (juvenile significant differences were found between experimentals and f awareness types or others) to categorically fail when i'n fact most delin­ controls at 12 month behavioral followup. quency prevention programs tend to help some youth, have no effect on others, or might possibly in some cases even do harm. Evaluative research can help A secondary finding of this evaluation was that lower risk youth ferret out some of these distinctions, provide generalizations where showed a positive behavioral impa'ct from the program. Those who appropriate, and occasionally provide timely Y'ecommendcltions for management. participated in the program committed