This document summarizes a study that examined characteristics of youth who participated in a court diversion program for family violence offenses to determine what characteristics prevented completion. The study found that delinquency characteristics like prior violent arrests and school truancy significantly impacted completion rates. Specifically, youth with these risk factors were less likely to successfully complete the program. The findings suggest a more tailored intervention approach is needed for high-risk, multi-problem youth to address recidivism.

1. VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS
An Exploratory Study of the Characteristics that Prevent
Youth from Completing a Family Violence Diversion Program
Eva Nowakowski & Karen Mattern
Published online: 15 January 2014
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Youth perpetrated violence against a family mem-
ber has gained the attention of social service workers and law
enforcement, yet professionals working with these youth have
little understanding of the characteristics of the population that
would impede intervention success. This article presents an
exploratory study of youth (N=209; 50 % males and 50 %
females, average age 15.7 years) who participated in a court-
diversion program for first time offenders of family violence
and examined socio-demographic and delinquency character-
istics and the role they play in completing the program.
Findings indicate that delinquency characteristics, specifically
having a prior violent arrest and skipping school, carry signif-
icance in preventing youth from successfully completing the
Family Violence Intervention Program. These findings lend
support to the current literature and address the need for a
more tailored approach to treating and retaining youth in a
family violence intervention program.
Keywords Family violence . Juvenile delinquency . Violence
intervention . Child to parent violence
Estimates of youth perpetrated family violence range from 5

2. to 13 % (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Kennedy et al., 2010;
Kethineni, 2004; Walsh & Krienert, 2007) and these numbers
are growing as this newly identified phenomenon is gaining
more public attention. Youth who are arrested for family
violence are held in juvenile detention. Approximately
71,000 young people are held in juvenile justice facilities
across the United States (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, &
Puzzanchera, 2011) at an average cost of $240.99 per day
per youth (American Correctional Association, 2008).
Confining juveniles is far more expensive than offering
intensive and high quality alternatives to incarceration, like
diversion programming.
In an attempt to address the growing phenomenon of
youth-perpetrated family violence, juvenile family violence
intervention programs seek to interrupt and end the cycle of
violence within family systems. Intervention programs are
designed to allow juvenile offenders and their families an
alternative to the county justice system, while providing case
management and counseling services to improve family func-
tioning, address substance abuse and mental illness, and im-
prove school attendance and academic performance.
Although diversion programming is a cost effective strategy
for dealing with domestically violent juvenile offenders, it is
only effective when working with a low risk offender profile.
Uekert, Sagatun-Edwards, Crowe, Peters, Cheesman, and
Kameda (2006) tested the effectiveness of two court-based
family violence intervention programs in California and found
the most challenging juvenile population to rehabilitate was
domestic/family violence offenders with prior records.
Multiple-problem delinquent youth require complex individ-
ualized intervention, as they are at high risk of termination and
subsequent further justice system involvement. By identifying
youth who do not successfully complete the diversion pro-
gram due to multiple delinquency characteristics, effective

3. intervention strategies can be developed to reduce juvenile
recidivism rates.
Youth Perpetrated Family Violence
Youth perpetrated family violence includes violence perpe-
trated against a family member by an adolescent; most often
the victim is the biological mother (Agnew & Hughley, 1989;
Browne & Hamilton, 1998), but can also include fathers,
siblings, or other family members living in the household.
Given that parents are the most frequentl y reported victims,
E. Nowakowski (*): K. Mattern
Barry University, Miami, FL, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149
DOI 10.1007/s10896-013-9572-3
this phenomenon is often referred to as child-to-parent
violence. Child-to-parent violence is defined as any act of
a child that creates fear in and is intended to hurt parents; it
includes physical, psychological, emotional, and financial
abuse (Cottrell, 2001). Robinson, Davidson, and Drebot
(2004) reported that child-to-parent violence has been rec-
ognized as a family problem since the 1950’s; however,
given the notion that parents need to protect their children
and the lack of clarity about what is acceptable and what is
violent have compounded the slow recognition of adoles-
cent violence against parents (Bobic, 2002). Harbin and
Madden (1979) were among the first to research this type
of family violence and since then, research has focused
mostly on perpetrator characteristics (Browne & Hamilton,
1998; Paulson et al., 1990; Ulman & Straus, 2003;
Kennedy et al., 2010). To date, research has not examined

4. how such characteristics impact diversion treatment
completion.
Characteristics of Youth who Perpetrate Family Violence
Demographics. Youth who perpetrate violence against a fam-
ily member are often white males (Kethineni, 2004; Kennedy
et al., 2010; Paulson et al., 1990; Walsh & Krienert, 2007)
between the ages of 15 and 17 (Cornell & Gelles, 1982;
Kenndey et al., 2010; Paulson et al., 1990), and mothers were
often the targets of violence (Cornell & Gelles, 1982; Ulman
& Straus, 2003). The psychological characteristics of youth
who perpetrate family violence were described as unhappy,
having low-self-esteem, and low self-worth (Harbin &
Madden, 1979; Kennedy et al., 2010; Paulson et al., 1990).
These youth were likely to have a history of psychiatric
hospitalizations, take psychotropic medications, and have a
history of attempted suicides (Charles, 1986; Evans &
Warren-Sohlberg, 1988; Fernandez et al., 2011).
Exposure to family violence. Exposure to family violence has
been linked to negative outcomes for youth. Researchers
found that the rate of youth perpetrated family violence was
directly related to the violence the child had previously expe -
rienced (Cornell & Gelles, 1982), where being a victim of
child maltreatment (Ulman & Straus, 2003) and witnessing
violence between parents was related to child-to-parent vio-
lence (Browne & Hamilton, 1998; McCloskey & Lichter,
2003). Children and adolescents who grew up in homes with
intimate partner violence incorporated the messages about
violence as a way to communicate with, manipulate, and
control others (Jankowski et al., 1999; Kernsmith, 2006;
Way & Urbaniak, 2008).
Parenting. Ineffective parenting among youth who perpetrate
violence against a parent involved being too aggressive in

5. disciplining children or being detached from a child’s life.
Robinson, Wright, and Watson (1994) found that parents of
violent children were often detached, distant, and disengaged
from the lives of their children. Additionally, Cottrell and
Monk (2004) found that parents who were excessively con-
trolling during the younger years of parenting tried and failed
to assert this style of authority with their adolescent. Parents
who were unclear with rules or displayed a lack of authority in
parenting and discipline created insecurity and vulnerability in
their children, which can lead to a reversal in authority with
the child assuming the role of authoritarian, often leading to
aggressive tactics (Agnew & Hughley, 1989; Cottrell &
Monk, 2004). The more dysfunctional the family relation-
ships, the more likely these youth will develop problems and
engage in high-risk behaviors.
When a parent or caregiver uses drugs or alcohol, the
likelihood of parent–child conflict increased. Pelletier and
Coutu (1992) found that child-to-parent violence occurred
more frequently among households where parents abused
drugs or alcohol. Way and Urbaniak (2008) found that female
caregivers of violent youth abused alcohol (20 %) and dr ugs
(19 %) and nearly a fifth had been arrested; male caregivers
had abused alcohol (37 %) and drugs (25 %) with greater
frequency than females and nearly half had been arrested.
Adolescents with a prior history of delinquent behavior are
five and half times more likely to have a female caregiver with
a prior arrest history than those with no delinquency record
(Way & Urbaniak, 2008).
Delinquency characteristics. Youth who participate in delin-
quent behaviors such as having a prior arrest, using sub-
stances, skipping school or being suspended from school are
more likely to see criminal behavior as acceptable and this
belief could explain violence perpetration against a family

6. member. Some studies have found a relationship between
substance use and family violence. Pagani et al. (2004) found
that substance abuse among youth increased the incidence of
verbal aggression toward the mother by 60 %. Walsh and
Krienert (2007) found that abusive males were under the
influence of substances more often than females. Cottrell
and Monk (2004) found that teens who use either drugs or
alcohol displayed a general lack of emotion in their abusive
behavior.
Problems initiated in the home likely migrate to the school
environment. Youth who perpetrated violence against a par ent
were less likely to be interested in attending school and
described it as unimportant (Paulson et al., 1990). A study
by Cornell and Gelles (1982) revealed that when a child was
expelled from school, violence toward a parent was more
probable in the home. Kennedy et al. (2010) found that school
truancy, suspensions, and harassment of teachers were behav-
iors indicative of youth perpetrated family violence. School
behavior is linked with peer influence, which together
144 J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149
contributes toward engagement in violent behavior. Youth
who associate with negative peer influences are more likely
to get disciplinary referrals and skip school. This also rings
true for adolescents who associate with negative peer groups
that approve of delinquency. A study by Evans and Warren-
Sohlberg (1988) found that 66 % of their adolescent sample
had a history of involvement with some law enforcement
agency or social service organization, and affiliated with peers
who approved of delinquent or violent behavior toward par-
ents and others (Cottrell & Monk, 2004). The purpose of this
study is to explore characteristics of youth who perpetrate

7. violence against a family member and how such characteris-
tics relate to program completion among families enrolled in
the Family Violence Intervention Program.
Method
Design
To explore the characteristics of youth who perpetrate vio-
lence against a family member, a content analysis was per-
formed on all case files in the year 2009 for youth arrested for
family violence that were referred to the Family Violence
Intervention Program (FVIP). The FVIP, housed within a
juvenile court system of a large urban southeastern city, offers
offenders and their families an alternative to the county justice
system and provides case management services, counseling,
and conflict management skills in order to reduce incidents of
family violence and improve family functioning.
Participants
Participants were selected from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009
cohort of juvenile violent offenders (N=212) referred to
FVIP. The final sample consisted of 105 males and 104
females (three records were excluded due to more than 90 %
of the case file missing), who ranged in age from 10 to 19
years, the average age being 15.7 years. Of the total sample
129 successfully completed the program and 80 were termi -
nated and did not complete the program.
Measures
Case files included the FVIP standard intake form, police
reports, school records, and case notes. Case files are com-
piled by the FVIP case managers who work with the youth
and their families while they complete the requirements of the

8. program. The standard intake form is a 36 item assessment
that collects information on the youth’s family violence arrest,
family history, youth’s medical history, performance in
school, parent–child relations, and other concerns the parent
may have regarding the youth’s behavior. Police reports detail
the arrest incident. School records include daily attendance
and incident reports. Case notes are written when there is an
interaction with the youth.
Following a training session on content analysis, each case
file was analyzed and coded by the principal investigator and a
graduate assistant for content relevant to the variables under
study. The code book consisted of 68 items, which included
variables taken from the intake form, police reports, school
records, and case notes. The researchers met weekly to resolve
coding issues and maximize interrater reliability. This data
was coded numerically, such that each variable received di-
chotomous coding (i.e., 1=behavior was present, 0=behav-
ior was not present or a blank for missing data). Each variable
was coded as present if noted in the case file. The research
team recognized it could not be determined if the absence of
notation meant an actual lack of presence of a behavior (i.e.,
no prior arrest) or missing data. Every effort was made to
contact the case managers when there was missing notations
in the case files. The code book of variables was separated into
three sections. The first section provided information on
socio-demographic characteristics, the second section provid-
ed information on the child’s delinquency characteristics, and
the third section provided information on the youth’s partici -
pation in the FVIP.
Section one included the youth’s age, gender, race, grade in
school, single or two parent household, and victim. Any
learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and mental health
diagnoses on the part of the youth were included, as was

9. whether the youth had witnessed violence in the home or
conflict between parents; whether family members had previ -
ously been arrested, had a mental health condition, or a history
of substance abuse; any involvement with the Department of
Children and Families (i.e., suspicion of child abuse or ne-
glect); and who in the household disciplines the child.
Section two included the youth’s arrest history, substance
use history, and school performance. School performance
variables consisted of whether the youth had repeated a grade,
the number of disciplinary referrals in the last 6 months,
school suspensions, and how often the child skips school.
Each of the variables in section one and two were self-
reported by parents during the initial intake. Section three
included variables that pertained to the youth’s participation
in the FVIP, including completion or termination from the
program, length of time it took to complete the program, and
recidivism rates.
Procedures
All participants were charged with domestic battery/assault
and offered this diversion program at detention hearings or
juvenile first-appearances. Youth arrested for domestic battery
are offered the diversion program at the State Attorney’s
J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149 145
discretion and must be willing to adhere to FVIP require-
ments, such as no violent contact with anyone, attend and
complete 12 anger management sessions, improve school
attendance and behavior, comply with no substance use, par -
ticipate in random drug screens, and participate in family
counseling. Family members must agree to attend the case
planning meetings, mediation, and adhere to all recommenda-

10. tions as put forth by the FVIP team. Youth must also reside
with their parent(s) or be enrolled in a designated residential
program and provide transportation to all meetings. Any vio-
lation to the above standards is cause for termination from the
program and such cases are then sent back to juvenile courts
for prosecution.
The authors obtained the intake forms with permission
from the director of the FVIP. The required forms were sub-
mitted and granted exempt status through the Institutional
Review Board as the data was presented with no identifiers
available, rendering it completely anonymous. To establish
interrater reliability, five case files were randomly selected and
a second review was done. Of the 68 items in the code book,
37 items were selected for the interrater test. Of these 185
observations (37 variables×5 cases), the raters disagreed in
their ratings only seven times, resulting in an interrater reli-
ability of 96.3 %. When there was a discrepancy, both re-
searchers discussed the discrepancy and came to a mutual
decision regarding the code. Data were entered into the
SPSS statistical software package. Descriptive analyses were
conducted using chi square and two-tailed t-test analyses.
Logistic regression was used to predict the likelihood of
program completion.
Results
Of the 209 study participants, 129 successfully completed and
80 were terminated from the program. On average, the suc-
cessful group completed the program in 6.5 months, with a
range of 3-17 months. The number one reason for termination
was non-compliance with the program requirements. Seven
youth who previously completed the program in 2009 had
been rearrested for violence 2 years post-completion.
Characteristics

11. Males and females perpetrated family violence with equal
frequencies. The youth’s average age was 15.7 years and
ranged from 10 to 19 years. Significantly more white youth
perpetrated violence than other races, x2(4, n=206)=166.67,
p<.001. Mothers were the most common reported victim,
x2(4, n=206)=225.13, p<.001. More than a third of the sam-
ple had witnessed violence between parents in the home and
26 % reported conflict between parents. Thirty-four percent
had a parent who had been arrested, most often the father,
x2(3, n=65)=21.95, p<.001. Twenty-three percent had a fam-
ily member with a substance abuse problem, again most often
the father, x2(3, n=46)=41.83, p<.001. A fifth of youth re-
ported a mental health diagnosis and/or a learning disability,
and 13 % had a parent with a mental health issue, with the
mother and father reported with equal frequencies. The moth-
er alone, followed by both parents, disciplined the child when
he/she misbehaved, x2(3, n=163)=105.74, p<.001.
Descriptive analyses of socio-demographic data are presented
in Table 1.
Of the 209 juveniles, 22 % had been previously arrested,
with violence being cited as the reason half the time. Twenty-
three percent of youth reported a problem with substance use.
Many youth had disciplinary problems in school, with 31 %
having repeated a grade, 34 % being suspended from school,
34 % reported skipping school regularly and 28 % reported
fighting in school. Descriptive analyses of delinquency char-
acteristics are presented in Table 2.
Program Completion
There were significant differences in prior arrest history
among the successful (12 %) and terminated groups (33 %),
x2(1, n=206)=21.89, p<.001. The difference was exemplified

12. by the type of prior arrest in that the successful group had
significantly less prior violent arrests (2 %) than the terminat-
ed group (21 %), x2 (1, n=37)=7.74, p=.005. Almost twice as
many youth (26 %) reported a mental health diagnosis in the
terminated group compared to the successful group (15 %).
There were significant differences found between groups re-
garding substance use, in that the successful group (16 %)
reported less incidence than the terminated group (35 %),
x2(1, n=203)=9.03, p=.003. A significantly greater percent-
age of terminated youth (50 %) skipped school than successful
youth (24 %), x2(1, n=208)=14.55, p<.001.
We conducted an exploratory analysis of the impact of
delinquency history on FVIP completion. Bivariate analyses
were conducted between the criterion variable (successful vs.
unsuccessful completion of FVIP) and delinquency variables.
Only significant delinquency variables were included in lo-
gistic regression analysis. A test of the full model against a
constant only model was statistically significant, indicating
that prior violent arrests, skipping school regularly, and sub-
stance use reliably distinguish between youth who successful -
ly and unsuccessfully complete the FVIP. Table 3 displays the
logistic regression results. The Wald criterion demonstrated
that having a prior arrest, specifically a violent one (p=.01),
and skipping school (p=.01) significant predicted program
failure. Having a substance abuse issue (p=.08) was not a
significant predictor. The explained variance in this model is
26 %. Youth with a violent prior arrest were 8.5 times more
likely to be terminated from the program than those without a
146 J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149
prior violence arrest. Youth who habitually skipped school
were 2.4 times more likely to be terminated from the program

13. than those who did not skip school.
Discussion
The findings of this exploratory study revealed a composite
profile of youth who perpetrate violence against family mem-
bers and ascertained the differences between those youth who
completed the FVIP program and those who were terminated
from the program. The percentage of male versus female
youth offenders is nearly equal in this study, which is support-
ed by the literature (Browne & Hamilton, 1998; Kennedy
et al., 2010; Paulson et al., 1990), as is the finding that the
biological mother prevails as the most reported victim (Agnew
& Huguley, 1989; Cavanaugh & Gelles, 2005; Cottrell &
Monk, 2004; Evans & Warren-Sohlberg, 1988; Paulson
et al., 1990). The fact that mothers are more often abused than
fathers could be explained in part because in daily life,
mothers engage in more limit-setting and supervision, which
makes them more likely targets of adolescent frustration than
fathers (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Ulman & Straus, 2003).
Table 1 Socio-demographic characteristics of youth who
perpetrate
violence
Characteristics Total
(N=209)
Successful
(n=129)
Terminated
(n=80)
pa

14. Ageb 15.7
(SD=1.63)
15.6
(SD=1.74)
15.8
(SD=1.43)
.535
Gender .735
Male 50 % 51 % 49 %
Female 50 % 49 % 51 %
Race .295
Caucasian 51 % 57 % 41 %
African American 25 % 23 % 30 %
Hispanic 19 % 16 % 24 %
Other 5 % 5 % 5 %
Victim Relation .588
Mother 61 % 64 % 56 %
Father 16 % 16 % 15 %
Sibling 10 % 13 % 21 %
Other 13 % 7 % 9 %

15. Single-parent
household
56 % 54 % 60 % .498
Witness to DV 35 % 38 % 31 % .187
Conflict between
parents
26 % 26 % 28 % .994
Family member
arrested
34 % 40 % 33 % .662
Who was arrested .118
Mother 7 % 10 % 8 %
Father 14 % 20 % 9 %
Other family 11 % 10 % 16 %
Family member
substance use
23 % 23 % 21 % .730
Who substance use .696
Mother 4 % 5 % 5 %
Father 13 % 14 % 14 %

16. Sibling/Other 6 % 4 % 2 %
Mental health dx 19 % 15 % 26 % .055
Learning disability 20 % 22 % 16 % .342
Family member
mental health
13 % 12 % 18 % .583
Who mental health .314
Mother 5 % 6 % 5 %
Father 5 % 4 % 8 %
Sibling/Other 3 % 2 % 5 %
DCF involvement 31 % 32 % 29 % .504
Who disciplines .132
Mother 43 % 40 % 48 %
Father 6 % 4 % 10 %
Both 25 % 23 % 28 %
Other 4 % 2 % 9 %
a Chi-square
b t test
Table 2 Delinquency characteristics of youth who perpetrate

17. violence
Characteristics Total
(N=209)
Successful
(n=129)
Terminated
(n=80)
p*
Prior Arrest 22 % 12 % 33 % <.001**
Reason for prior arrest .005**
Violent 10 % 2 % 21 %
Non-violent 8 % 8 % 9 %
Substance use 23 % 16 % 35 % .003**
Repeated a grade 31 % 26 % 39 % .058
School suspensions 34 % 29 % 41 % .067
Skips school 34 % 24 % 50 % <.001**
Fights in school 28 % 25 % 33 % .362
*Chi-square
**Significant at p<.05
Table 3 Logistic regression analysis predicting program

18. completion
B SE Wald Chi
square
df Sig. Exp (B)
odds ratio
Prior arrest 2.194 .708 9.595 1 .002 8.973
Type arrest 9.814 2 .007
Violent 2.142 .875 5.989 1 .014 8.516
Nonviolent -.492 .907 .294 1 .587 .611
Skips school .885 .345 6.589 1 .010 2.424
Substance use .673 .386 3.043 1 .081 1.960
Likelihood ratio model chi square=43.139, df=5, p=<.001, R2
=.26
J Fam Viol (2014) 29:143–149 147
The average age of youth in the current study was 15.7, w hich
aligns with Walsh and Krienert (2007) who found in a sec-
ondary analysis of a national sample that perpetrators were
between the ages of 14-17.
A significant portion of the sample had witnessed violence
between their parents or reported having parents with a con-
flictual relationship. Numerous studies have found relation-
ships between witnessing violence in the home and perpetra-

19. tion of violence in adolescence (Brezina, 1999; Browne &
Hamilton, 1998; Kennedy et al., 2010; McCloskey & Lichter,
2003). Fathers remained the most reported among substance
users and family members with prior arrest histories, but were
the least reported to discipline the child. Future research could
examine how a father’s behavior and the role he plays in his
child’s life have implications for the child’s future behavior.
Growing evidence suggests that fathers’ high-quality involve-
ment is beneficial to children’s well-being and development
(Lamb, 2004).
In our exploratory assessment of delinquency characteris-
tics and the role they play in completion of the FVIP, the
terminated group had significantly more prior arrests and were
twice as likely to skip school compared to the successful
group of youth, which is supported by the delinquency liter-
ature (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Cottrell & Monk, 2004;
Elliott et al., 2011; Kennedy et al., 2010; Kethineni, 2004;
Way & Urbaniak, 2008). In California, an evaluation of two
court diversion programs found that the most challenging
juvenile population to rehabilitate was those with prior records
(Uekert et al., 2006).
The findings of this study should be interpreted in light of
limitations. The study was exploratory and used a small
purposive sample from one diversion program. In addition,
only youth referred by an attorney were considered for partic-
ipation in the FVIP during FY2009, which limits the general-
izability of the findings to all youth who perpetrate violence
against a family member. Due to the nature of such selection,
it is possible that only cases with no violent arrest history or
limited arrest history were considered for participation in the
FVIP. The sample is also limited in that it included only those
arrested for family violence. Many violent acts against family
members go unreported to the police. Certain minority groups
may be less inclined to report violence to the police. Parents of

20. younger children may be less likely to report their child’s
violent behavior and more apt to handle it without police
intervention.
Results are based on cross-sectional data, which preclude
any cause-and-effect determinations among the characteristics
presented and the prediction of future violence perpetration.
The researchers had to rely on pre-existing self-reported data
that could have been impacted by bias such as selective
memory or recall. Although this is less than ideal, the results
produced rich descriptive data and a preliminary multivariate
analysis that captured specific characteristics that influenced
FVIP completion. Interpretation of the composite profile of
youth who perpetrate violence against a family member is
cautioned given the above stated limitations. Future research
that looks to identify perpetrator characteristics should include
all youth who have committed a violent act against a family
member, not just those who have been arrested.
With content analysis, analysis is limited by availability of
material. The use of archived data restricted analyses to var -
iables that were previously collected and limited the scope of
analysis. In addition, incomplete case files, ineligible case
notes, and case workers documenting notes with inconsisten-
cy may have produced results that could be skewed if words
were misinterpreted. Researchers took steps to avoid such
pitfalls, such as independent coding and discussion of such
codes, as well as communication with case workers when
there was question as to the meaning of the data. Given the
nature of the exploratory study, the researchers cannot provide
conclusive answers as to why youth perpetrate violence
against a family member or why such youth successfully
complete or fail to complete a diversion program; however,
we do provide a composite profile of diverted youth who
perpetrated violence against a family member and provide

21. preliminary evidence of variables that may impede successful
FVIP completion.
Implications for Practice
Currently, youth with multiple delinquency characteristics are
at the greatest risk for FVIP termination and remaining in the
juvenile justice system. Juvenile delinquent youth need to be
connected to services that meet their individual needs in order
for diversion to be successful. Terminated youth perpetrators
have a history of more violent arrests, use more substances,
and are more likely to skip school than those who successfully
complete the program. The number one reason for termination
from the program was non-participation in intervention ser-
vices; thus, greater support is needed for those youth with
multiple delinquency characteristics to ensure retention and
successful completion in the FVIP. In having identified spe-
cific characteristics of youth who tend to reoffend in their
communities, narrowly focused intervention is not inclined
to be successful. Effective treatments must address the multi -
ple determinants of delinquent behavior and must do so in “its
naturally occurring contexts” (Henggeler & Borduin, as cited
in Henggeler et al., 1993, p. 286). Therefore, an effective
treatment is one that provides …
Order #238918269 (Status: Writer Assigned) Article Review (5
pages, 0 slides)
· Instructions
· Files (2)
· Messages
Type of service:
Writing from scratch
Work type:
Article review
Deadline:
(27h) Extend deadline

22. Academic level:
College (1-2 years: Freshman, Sophomore)
Subject or Discipline:
Criminal Justice
Title:
Article Review
Number of sources:
2
Provide digital sources used:
No
Paper format:
MLA
# of pages:
5
Spacing:
Double spaced
# of words:
1375
# of slides:
ppt icon 0
# of charts:
0
Paper details:
Paper instructions/rubric has been uploaded
Comments:
Customer local details
02:03 AM, United States of America

23. #
Files
Who Uploaded
1
238918269_Article_6446274072819004.pdf
Article to be used
177 KB
4 Apr, 05:42 AM
Customer
2
238918269_Screen_Sho...5222766266682966.png
Guidelines for writing
45 KB
4 Apr, 05:42 AM
Customer