Many urban schools are lacking transitional programs to aid students exiting the juvenile justice system and re-entering the school setting;

1. Determining the Influence of
Transition or Community-
Based Interventions on
Recidivism
LaKeisha S. Weber
Research Methodology
Xavier University of Louisiana
May 5, 2014

2. Introduction
 Recidivism can be defined as the
repetition of a certain behavior,
which is usually negative in nature.
 Many urban schools are lacking
transitional programs to aid
students exiting the juvenile justice
system and re-entering the school
setting;
 increase in recidivism.
 Transition can be summarized as;
transition of a juvenile offender from
the community to the correctional
facility or from a correctional facility
to post-release activities

3. o Introduction
o Over 1.6 million juveniles
were arrested in the United
States. United States
Department of Juvenile
Justice (2012)
o Most offenses fell into
category of property crimes
o larceny-thefts,
o Burglary
o Drug abuse violations were
the second highest

4. Introduction: Transition
 Environmental and parental behaviors oftentimes influence
the possibility that a child will succumb to a life of crime
 Transition programs that includes family and community
members can be more effective at reducing recidivism
 Remember: The presence of transitional programs alone is
not enough to reduce recidivism
 Transition planning is a student-centered process
 Yet, the family and the community are needed for complete
success

5. My Research
 Problem: Many urban schools are lacking transitional programs to
aid students exiting the juvenile justice system and reentering the
school setting; which is cause for an increase in recidivism
 A causal-comparative study that attempts to establish a
relationship between two variables: recidivism and
transition services.
 Hypothesis asks…
 Is a difference in recidivism rates of urban students in
southeastern United States leaving the juvenile justice
systems who receive transition or community-based
interventions versus those not receiving interventions?
 Null Hypothesis
 That the presence of transition services or lack of
transition services has no effect on the recidivism rates of
juvenile offenders in urban schools.

6. Literature Review
Juvenile delinquency, recidivism, and the causes and effects of
both have been discussed heavily by researchers for the past 20
years.
 A family’s history of violent offenses does not have a direct effect on
juvenile delinquency or recidivism, but there is a link between family
drug history and drug offenses and recidivism - Grunwald,
Lockwood, Harris, and Mennis (2010)
 Youth who commit violent crimes, such as murder, are highly likely to
recidivate when associating with other delinquents; suggesting that
even violent offenders are affected by environmental factors - Vries
and Liem (2011)
 Individuals who attended court mediated family-centered mediation
sessions were more successful at not recidivating- Contreras,
Molina, and del Carmen Cano (2011)

7. Methodology
This Causal-comparative study will determine how the independent variable, transition
or community-based programs, affects the dependent variable, student recidivism
 Sample: 34 person sample of male and female
students ranging between the ages of 15-22 years of
age
 all have re-entered the school setting after release from the
juvenile justice system
 School is in an area where crime is prevalent among school-
aged individuals
 A convenience sample of participants was chosen from the
population of current and former students.
 The uniformity in the race of the participants, as well as the
sample type, may limit the generalizations I will be able to
make on the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of transitional
services. (See Table 1)

8. Methodology
 Table 1
Table 1
Demographics
Characteristics of Sample Group
Count(N) Percentage
Gender
Male 23 67.6
Female 11 32.4
SES
Free lunch 34 100
Reduced lunch 0 0
Full price lunch 0 0
Ethnicity
African American 34 100
Caucasian 0 0
Asian 0 0

9. Methodology
 Instrumentation: review of the student’s
school records, criminal records, and
questionnaires
 cumulative folders gave a snapshot of the student’s
educational and attendance history, and any documented
behavioral infractions
 For students with disabilities, the Individualized Education
Program (IEP) showed whether they are currently affiliated
with a transition agency prior to and/or after their release
 The city’s online inmate docket master search detailed the
arrest history of the participants who are 17 years of age
and older
 Students currently enrolled answered questions regarding
their experience with transitional services

10. Methodology
Threats to Internal Validity
 History is one uncontrollable threat
 Many of the subjects were displaced due to natural disaster during their
adolescent years, which may have resulted in an onset of negative
behaviors.
 Selection may also be a threat, due to the age range, gender and
upbringing of the subjects

11. Results
Pearson Chi-square test of independence
(X2) was used to determine whether there
is a relationship between the variables
My Expectations
Reject the null hypothesis with an asymptotic
significance of p≤ 0.05 and infer that the
percentage of individuals receiving transition
services have lesser recidivism rates than
those not receiving these services

12. Results
Family-centered interventions and Returned to crime Crossbreak Table
Returned to crime Total
20
20.0
100.0%
58.8%
YES
8
8.2
40.0%
23.5%
NO
12
11.8
60.0%
35.3%
Family-centered
interventions
YES Count
Expected Count
% within Family-
centered
interventions
% of Total
NO Count
Expected Count
% within Family-
centered
interventions
% of Total
6
5.8
42.9%
17.6%
8
8.2
57.1%
23.5%
14
14.0
100.0%
41.2%
Total Count
Expected Count
% within Family-
centered
interventions
% of Total
14
14.0
41.2%
41.2%
20
20.0
58.8%
58.8%
34
34.0
100.0%
100.0%
Table 2

13. Results
Table 3
Chi-Square Tests
Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Exact Sig. (2-
sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-
Square
.028a 1 .868
Continuity
Correctionb
.000 1 1.000
Likelihood Ratio .028 1 .868
Fisher's Exact
Test
1.000 .573
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.027 1 .870
N of Valid Cases 34
• 2-sided asymptotic significance. This value determines whether there is a significant relationship between
the two variables, recidivism and family-centered transition programs.
• Because the value is .868, greater than 0.05, I fail to reject my null hypothesis and conclude that there is no
significant relationship between family-centered transition programs and recidivism rates.

14. Results
Table 4
Symmetric Measures
Value
Asymp. Std.
Errora Approx. Tb Approx. Sig.
Nominal by
Nominal
Contingency
Coefficient
.029 .868
Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.029 .172 -.162 .873c
Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman
Correlation
-.029 .172 -.162 .873c
N of Valid Cases 34
o Contingency coefficient- this number should not exceed 1
• reveals the degree of association between the two variables.
• An amount of 0.029 is exceedingly less than 1,
• Weak association between the two variables
• Supports my null hypothesis.

15. Discussion
 Study revealed that there is no a
relationship between the
recidivism rates juvenile
offenders who receive family-
centered transition services when
exiting the juvenile justice system
and those who do not
 Despite the results, a vast
amount of studies that have
indeed found the relationship
between the variables to be
significant and support my
hypothesis.
 Figure 1 illustrates the large
advantage family-centered
transition supports have over no
exposure to the supports.

16. Discussion
Limitations
 Sample Type
 Sample Size
 2-year window for
recidivating
Future Directions
 ways to identify family-
centered transition
organizations
 Whether or not gender and
ethnicity affect the
effectiveness of transition
 Likelihood that a student will
return to a life of crime when
they are exposed to siblings
who recidivate.

17. References
 Calley, N. G., & Richardson, E. M. (2011). Clinical prediction making: Examining influential factors
related to clinician predictions of recidivism among juvenile offenders. Journal of Addictions &
Offender Counseling, 32(1/2), 2-15.
 Contreras, L., Molina, V., & del Carmen Cano, M. (2011). In search of psychosocial variables linked
to the recidivism in young offenders. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 3(1),
77-88.
 Esperian, J. H. (2010). The effect of prison education programs on recidivism. Journal of
Correctional Education, 61(4), 316-334.
 Garfinkel, Lili. (2010). Improving family involvement for juvenile offenders with
emotional/behavioral disorders and related disabilities. Behavior Disorders, 36(1), 52-60.
 Greenwood, P. & Turner, S. (2009). An overview of prevention and intervention programs for juvenile
offenders. Victims and Offenders, 4, 365-374.
 Grunwald, H., Lockwood, B., Harris, P., & Mennis, J. (2010). Influences of neighborhood context,
individual history and parenting behavior on recidivism among juvenile offenders. Journal
of Youth & Adolescence, 39(9), 1067-1079.
 Hogan, K., Bullock, L., Fritsch, E. (2010). Meeting the transition needs of incarcerated youth with
disabilities. The Journal of Correctional Education, 61(2), 133-141.
 Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Programs. (2012). Juvenile arrests 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/default.asp
 Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile
offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124-147.
 Office of Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Programs. (2012). Juvenile arrests 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/default.asp