• Uncategorized

New Direction Program Evaluation

38

NewDirection Program Evaluation

NewDirection Program Evaluation

Recidivismhas been a big problem among juvenile offenders in the USA. In a bidto reduce the recidivism among the juvenile offenders, the CountyJuvenile Court and Department of Corrections over the past few yearshave implemented a “New Directions” program. This program wasdeveloped to serve juveniles between the age of thirteen years andseventeen years. The New Directions program is a one-day program,which involves only selected inmates who undergo screening andtraining. Despite its success, some people have questioned itseffectiveness. This necessitated a study to be conducted to evaluatethe effectiveness of the “New Directions” program in reducing therate of recidivism among the juvenile offenders. A further analysiswas also conducted to determine if the effectiveness of the programdiffered across races, the different ages, and the type of offencethe juvenile committed.

ResearchMethodology

Simplerandom sampling was used to select the juveniles who were toparticipate in the study. A sample of 300 juveniles who had appearedbefore court and placed on probation in 2012 was used, with onehundred and fifty of them participating in the New Directions programwhile the other one hundred and fifty did not. The juveniles who didnot participate in the program acted as the control group in thisexperiment.

The300 juvenile offenders were then observed for between two months toeight months after they were placed on probation to see if they didor did not recidivate back into the criminal justice system.

Definitionof variables

  1. Program

Thisis whether the juvenile offender in the sample participated in theNew Directions program

  1. Offense

Thisis the type of offense that the juvenile committed to be put inprobation. The participants in this study include those who committedfelonies, status offences and misdemeanors.

  1. Recidivate

Thisis whether juvenile in the study recidivated back into the criminaljustice system while on probation.

  1. Age

Thisis the age of each juvenile offender in the study.

  1. Race

Thisis the race of the juvenile offenders who participated in the study.It is classified into the black race and the white race.

Results

Fromthe analyses that were conducted this were the results

Achi-square test of independence was conducted to determine therelationship between participating in the New Directions program andwhether a juvenile offender recidivated or not. From the analysis,there exists a statistically significant relationship between the twovariables, X2(1, N=300) =18.551, P&lt0. 000. Since the Cramer’s V=0.249, thisshows that the relationship is moderate.

Forthe juveniles who committed a felony offense, there was nosignificant relationship between participating in the offence andrecidivating,X2(1, N=149) =2.799, P=0. 094. For the juveniles who committed amisdemeanor offense, there was a significant relationship betweenparticipating in the program and recidivating,X2(1, N=126) =15.974, P&lt0. 000. This relationship is very strong(Cramer’s V=0.356). For the juveniles who committed a statusoffense, there was a significant relationship between participatingin the program and recidivating,X2(1, N=25) =6.250, P=0. 012. The relationship is extremely strong(Cramer’s V=0.500).

Interms of age, for the juvenile offenders who were 13 years old, therewas no significant relationship between participating in the programand whether recidivating,X2(1, N=64) =3.801, P=0.051. For the juvenile offenders who were 14years old, there was a significant relationship between participatingin the program and recidivating,X2(1, N=62) =10.152, P=0. 001. This relationship is very strong(Cramer’s v=0.405). For the juvenile offenders who were 15 yearsold, there was a significant relationship between participating inthe program and recidivating,X2(1, N=74) =7.466, P=0.006. This relationship is strong (Cramer’sv=0.318). For the juvenile offenders who were 16 years old, there wasa significant relationship between participating in the program andrecidivating,X2(1, N=74) =9.615, P=0.002. This relationship is very strong (Cramer’sv=0.360). For the juvenile offenders who were 17 years old, therewas no significant relationship between participating in the programand recidivating,X2(1, N=26) =1.354, P=0.245.

Interms of race, for the white juvenile offenders, there was nosignificant relationship between participating in the program andrecidivating,X2(1, N=163) =1.125, P=0.289. For the black juvenile offenders, therewas a significant relationship between participating in the programand recidivating,X2(1, N=137) =22.062, P&lt0. 000. This relationship is very strong(Cramer’s V=0.401).

Conclusions

Fromthe results above several conclusions can be reached. First,participating in the New Directions program results in lowerrecidivism rates. When we consider the type of offense the juvenilecommitted, participating in the new directions program was noteffective in reducing the recidivism rates. Participating in the NewDirections program was very effective in reducing recidivism rates injuveniles who committed misdemeanor and status offenses, but it ismore effective for the juveniles who committed status offenses.

Interms of age participating in the New Directions program was noteffective in reducing the recidivism rates among juveniles who wereaged 13 and 17. The New Directions program was effective in reducingthe recidivism rates among juveniles who were aged 14, 15 and 16 withit being more effective for the juveniles aged 14 years and leasteffective for juveniles aged 15 years.

Whenrace of the individuals was considered, the New Directions programwas not effective in reducing the recidivism rates for whitejuveniles, but it was very effective for the black juveniles.

Limitationsof the Research

Thisresearch study had one weakness. The sample size was quite small uponconsidering the number of juvenile offenders in the state. Havingthis kind of sample size might not be adequate to make conclusiveresults.

Appendix

Crosstabs

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM * PROGRAM ATTENDANCE Crosstabulation

PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

Total

ATTENDED PROGRAM

DID NOT ATTEND PROGR

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

103

66

169

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

68.7%

44.0%

56.3%

RECIDIVATED

Count

47

84

131

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

31.3%

56.0%

43.7%

Total

Count

150

150

300

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

18.551a

1

.000

Continuity Correctionb

17.562

1

.000

Likelihood Ratio

18.761

1

.000

Fisher`s Exact Test

.000

.000

Linear-by-Linear Association

18.489

1

.000

N of Valid Cases

300

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 65.50.

b. Computed only for a 2×2 table

Symmetric Measures

Value

Approx. Sig.

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.249

.000

Cramer`s V

.249

.000

N of Valid Cases

300

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Crosstabs

Chi-Square Tests

TYPE OF OFFENSE BEFORE PROBATION

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (1-sided)

FELONY

Pearson Chi-Square

2.799c

1

.094

Continuity Correctionb

2.274

1

.132

Likelihood Ratio

2.806

1

.094

Fisher`s Exact Test

.102

.066

Linear-by-Linear Association

2.780

1

.095

N of Valid Cases

149

MISDEMEANOR

Pearson Chi-Square

15.974d

1

.000

Continuity Correctionb

14.518

1

.000

Likelihood Ratio

16.709

1

.000

Fisher`s Exact Test

.000

.000

Linear-by-Linear Association

15.847

1

.000

N of Valid Cases

126

STATUS OFFENSE

Pearson Chi-Square

6.250e

1

.012

Continuity Correctionb

4.340

1

.037

Likelihood Ratio

6.421

1

.011

Fisher`s Exact Test

.034

.018

Linear-by-Linear Association

6.000

1

.014

N of Valid Cases

25

Total

Pearson Chi-Square

18.551a

1

.000

Continuity Correctionb

17.562

1

.000

Likelihood Ratio

18.761

1

.000

Fisher`s Exact Test

.000

.000

Linear-by-Linear Association

18.489

1

.000

N of Valid Cases

300

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 65.50.

b. Computed only for a 2×2 table

c. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 31.93.

d. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 20.71.

e. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.00.

Symmetric Measures

TYPE OF OFFENSE BEFORE PROBATION

Value

Approx. Sig.

FELONY

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.137

.094

Cramer`s V

.137

.094

N of Valid Cases

149

MISDEMEANOR

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.356

.000

Cramer`s V

.356

.000

N of Valid Cases

126

STATUS OFFENSE

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.500

.012

Cramer`s V

.500

.012

N of Valid Cases

25

Total

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.249

.000

Cramer`s V

.249

.000

N of Valid Cases

300

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Crosstabs

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM * PROGRAM ATTENDANCE * AGE OF JUVENILE ON PROBATION Crosstabulation

AGE OF JUVENILE ON PROBATION

PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

Total

ATTENDED PROGRAM

DID NOT ATTEND PROGR

13

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

20

24

44

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

83.3%

60.0%

68.8%

RECIDIVATED

Count

4

16

20

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

16.7%

40.0%

31.2%

Total

Count

24

40

64

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

14

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

20

18

38

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

87.0%

46.2%

61.3%

RECIDIVATED

Count

3

21

24

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

13.0%

53.8%

38.7%

Total

Count

23

39

62

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

15

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

38

19

57

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

88.4%

61.3%

77.0%

RECIDIVATED

Count

5

12

17

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

11.6%

38.7%

23.0%

Total

Count

43

31

74

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

16

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

23

5

28

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

52.3%

16.7%

37.8%

RECIDIVATED

Count

21

25

46

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

47.7%

83.3%

62.2%

Total

Count

44

30

74

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

17

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

2

0

2

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

12.5%

0.0%

7.7%

RECIDIVATED

Count

14

10

24

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

87.5%

100.0%

92.3%

Total

Count

16

10

26

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Total

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

103

66

169

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

68.7%

44.0%

56.3%

RECIDIVATED

Count

47

84

131

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

31.3%

56.0%

43.7%

Total

Count

150

150

300

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

AGE OF JUVENILE ON PROBATION

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (1-sided)

13

Pearson Chi-Square

3.801c

1

.051

Continuity Correctionb

2.793

1

.095

Likelihood Ratio

4.031

1

.045

Fisher`s Exact Test

.058

.045

Linear-by-Linear Association

3.742

1

.053

N of Valid Cases

64

14

Pearson Chi-Square

10.152d

1

.001

Continuity Correctionb

8.505

1

.004

Likelihood Ratio

11.115

1

.001

Fisher`s Exact Test

.003

.001

Linear-by-Linear Association

9.989

1

.002

N of Valid Cases

62

15

Pearson Chi-Square

7.466e

1

.006

Continuity Correctionb

6.014

1

.014

Likelihood Ratio

7.471

1

.006

Fisher`s Exact Test

.011

.007

Linear-by-Linear Association

7.365

1

.007

N of Valid Cases

74

16

Pearson Chi-Square

9.615f

1

.002

Continuity Correctionb

8.161

1

.004

Likelihood Ratio

10.223

1

.001

Fisher`s Exact Test

.003

.002

Linear-by-Linear Association

9.485

1

.002

N of Valid Cases

74

17

Pearson Chi-Square

1.354g

1

.245

Continuity Correctionb

.166

1

.684

Likelihood Ratio

2.045

1

.153

Fisher`s Exact Test

.508

.369

Linear-by-Linear Association

1.302

1

.254

N of Valid Cases

26

Total

Pearson Chi-Square

18.551a

1

.000

Continuity Correctionb

17.562

1

.000

Likelihood Ratio

18.761

1

.000

Fisher`s Exact Test

.000

.000

Linear-by-Linear Association

18.489

1

.000

N of Valid Cases

300

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 65.50.

b. Computed only for a 2×2 table

c. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.50.

d. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.90.

e. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.12.

f. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.35.

g. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .77.

Symmetric Measures

AGE OF JUVENILE ON PROBATION

Value

Approx. Sig.

13

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.244

.051

Cramer`s V

.244

.051

N of Valid Cases

64

14

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.405

.001

Cramer`s V

.405

.001

N of Valid Cases

62

15

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.318

.006

Cramer`s V

.318

.006

N of Valid Cases

74

16

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.360

.002

Cramer`s V

.360

.002

N of Valid Cases

74

17

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.228

.245

Cramer`s V

.228

.245

N of Valid Cases

26

Total

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.249

.000

Cramer`s V

.249

.000

N of Valid Cases

300

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.

Crosstabs

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM * PROGRAM ATTENDANCE * RACE OF JUVENILE Crosstabulation

RACE OF JUVENILE

PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

Total

ATTENDED PROGRAM

DID NOT ATTEND PROGR

WHITE

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

62

41

103

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

66.7%

58.6%

63.2%

RECIDIVATED

Count

31

29

60

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

33.3%

41.4%

36.8%

Total

Count

93

70

163

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

BLACK

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

41

25

66

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

71.9%

31.2%

48.2%

RECIDIVATED

Count

16

55

71

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

28.1%

68.8%

51.8%

Total

Count

57

80

137

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Total

NEW OFFENSE – RECIDIVISM

NONRECIDIVATED

Count

103

66

169

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

68.7%

44.0%

56.3%

RECIDIVATED

Count

47

84

131

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

31.3%

56.0%

43.7%

Total

Count

150

150

300

% within PROGRAM ATTENDANCE

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

RACE OF JUVENILE

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (2-sided)

Exact Sig. (1-sided)

WHITE

Pearson Chi-Square

1.125c

1

.289

Continuity Correctionb

.804

1

.370

Likelihood Ratio

1.122

1

.289

Fisher`s Exact Test

.327

.185

Linear-by-Linear Association

1.118

1

.290

N of Valid Cases

163

BLACK

Pearson Chi-Square

22.062d

1

.000

Continuity Correctionb

20.463

1

.000

Likelihood Ratio

22.694

1

.000

Fisher`s Exact Test

.000

.000

Linear-by-Linear Association

21.901

1

.000

N of Valid Cases

137

Total

Pearson Chi-Square

18.551a

1

.000

Continuity Correctionb

17.562

1

.000

Likelihood Ratio

18.761

1

.000

Fisher`s Exact Test

.000

.000

Linear-by-Linear Association

18.489

1

.000

N of Valid Cases

300

a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 65.50.

b. Computed only for a 2×2 table

c. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 25.77.

d. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 27.46.

Symmetric Measures

RACE OF JUVENILE

Value

Approx. Sig.

WHITE

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.083

.289

Cramer`s V

.083

.289

N of Valid Cases

163

BLACK

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.401

.000

Cramer`s V

.401

.000

N of Valid Cases

137

Total

Nominal by Nominal

Phi

.249

.000

Cramer`s V

.249

.000

N of Valid Cases

300

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.