Mock Research Proposal on Juvenile Delinquency Intervention Programs

The U.  S.  Commerce reported people under the age of eighteen account for over twenty-five percent of the U.S. population and these statistics are rising suggesting a large diversity of issues affecting children, such as the at-risk youth who penetrate the juvenile justice system (Ramirez, 2008).  In 2002, the Federal Bureau of investigations reported 1.5 million children were arrested from minor crimes such as loitering to major crimes including murder with many crimes in between (Ramirez, 2008).  Statistically, the juvenile incarceration rates have dropped from 15% in 2006 to 10.8% in 2012 (Puzzanchera & Kang, 2014), however, the population increase is suspected to attribute to a portion of the decrease.  It is believed that juvenile delinquency is attributed to dysfunctional homes including abuse, domestic violence exposure, addiction in the environment, and a breakdown of the family unit due to forces such as poverty, financial stress, and pressure to accommodate social acceptance (Mann & Reynolds, 2006).  As society continues to diversify, it becomes more complex, mobile, and dysfunctional as youth tend to use harsher experimentation and more violent means to settle issues the justice system has evolved into a dumping ground for these issues (Ramirez, 2008).  Additionally, 60-70% of these youths suffer from some type of mental health issue and lack the resources necessary to deal with the issue (Ramirez, 2008).  Alternatives to detention to teach youth at risk for developing delinquent behavior will prove to be effective in teaching skills to cope in stressful familial environments, acknowledge problem areas, and begin to make more positive decisions leading them to success in lieu of falling into the trap of external family such as gangs and the potential incarceration time.  Community release programs will monitor youth and aid in developing social skills, learning trade, and assisting in education which will direct them toward a more promising future void of becoming a “product of their environment”.  
Several studies have implicated numerous causes that hold potential of early intervention that leads to societal conformity by reducing the negative behavior and promoting the maximum potential of the offender.  Donges, reports that little research implicates the juvenile perception, opinion, and thought on the causes and effects of their behavior (2015).  Specifically, Donges research found a trend of being victim of bullying as a primary negative impact on behavior and education, despite the juveniles proving their educational ability by attaining their diplomas (Donges, 2015).  Another study found the underrepresentation of inner-city minority youth in earlier research conducted on the interpersonal relationships within the family and with society (Madden-Derdich, Leonard & Gunnell, 2002).  Rees and Porgarsky found peers may influence each other’s delinquent behavior and intervening in early adolescent relationships, guiding them to elicit more positive behavior will influence positive behavior and deter delinquent behavior reducing potential future delinquency indicating the need for further research of the causes of juvenile delinquency in the educational environment (2011).  Another study conducted by Schwalbe and Maschi found practiced probation varies across the board, with younger youths receiving more interaction and accountability-based approaches (2009).  Ironically, the study did not implicate a variance in treatment based on characteristics of offense, rather age of individual (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009).  It was inferred this variance was attributed to allowing older offenders deserved freedom of choice and consequence and more youthful offenders necessitating guidance and direction (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009).  Research indicates several causes of juvenile delinquent behavior, of the majority, it appears a disconnect in family union, social ineptness, and educational support are areas of risk.  Developing interventions to promote positive changes in the key areas will create a motivation in the juvenile to modify behavior and conform to the acceptable societal standard. 

Purpose, Question, & Hypothesis

The goal of the research is finding the effect of early intervention on at-risk youth with the purpose of gaining an understanding of the cause and effect relationship between juvenile delinquents and early interventions. The research will yield two results:  the correlation of early intervention programs and the juvenile crime rate as well as the relationship between interventions and the juvenile recidivism rate.  The aim is to prove without intervention, at-risk youth continue the cycle of criminal behavior and violent tendencies, higher rates of recidivism in youth and adulthood, and maintain a higher potential of adulthood incarceration.  Additionally, the research will prove with intervention, negative (criminal and violent) behavior is deterred and modified which decreases recidivism for incarcerated youth and reduces the potential of adulthood incarceration, developing into a positive and active member of society. This study will investigate the question:  Will early intervention of the family unit that is geared toward social development, positively reinforced behavior, family unification, and educational support, reduce the juvenile delinquency rate in at-risk households as opposed to detention?  It is hypothesized that early intervention focused on social development, behavior modification, family unification, and educational support for at-risk youth families will mediate family dysfunction and reduce negative behavior.  Reducing or modifying negative behavior will reflect a decrease in juvenile delinquency, potential adult incarceration, and lower juvenile recidivism rates.  

Theoretical Framework

Delinquency intervention programs have proven most effective when they target modifying behaviors and factors which influence offending drawn from criminological theories (Fagan, 2013).  Several criminological theories implicate parental practices as direct and indirect causes of juvenile delinquency (Fagan, 2013).   Per the social learning theory, learning positive and negative behaviors are learned via social interactions and parents are primary influences on prosocial and anti-social behavior (Fagan, 2013).  Donges also indicated the theoretical educational psychology perspective via Banduras Social Learning Theory as a basis for research (2015).  If Bandura’s theory is correct that learning occurs through observation, the delinquent behavior may have been acquired through exposure to those behaviors (Donges, 2015).  For example, parents who elicit behaviors associated with deviance and incarceration model negative behaviors that the child learns (Fagan, 2013).  Additionally, a parent who fails to correct deviant behavior or support deviant behavior increase potential for a child’s perception of deviant behavior as acceptable (Fagan, 2013).   

Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory proposes values, attitudes, behavior, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior are learned via social interaction with others (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Like Bandura’s social learning theory, Sutherland implicates other influences as potential factors panning into deviant behaviors.  Per Sutherland, in order for deviant behavior to occur, a person learns prerequisite techniques for deviant behavior, a higher definition set for deviant behavior than those unfavorable to the crime, and an objective opportunity to carry out the behavior exists (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Additionally, differential association theory is structured to the broad social organizations including family, neighborhoods, schools, and employment (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).

The general strain theory supports stress including parent-child conflict and maltreatment evoke strong negative feelings that lead the child to engage risky and deviant behaviors including substance use, aggression, or other negative behaviors to subside those negative emotions (Fagan, 2013).  Finally, Fagan explains “integrated and life-course theories of crime assert that the degree to which parents model positive behavior; supervise and effectively discipline children; and establish close, affective bonds with youth are all important in shaping delinquency” (p.  620).    It was found that parent influence wanes on importance as children age and seek independence (Fagan, 2013).  Additionally, life-course theories identify adverse prenatal and early childhood experience as stronger predictors of delinquency in comparison to peer exposure of deviant behavior (Fagan, 2013).  The accumulation of risk factor exposure increase potential for juvenile delinquency that leads into a pattern of adult offending (Fagan, 2013). 

Operational definitions

The dependent variable is family dysfunction and negative behaviors.  Family dysfunction includes homes riddled with poverty or low-income socioeconomic status who have had exposure to violence, abuse of all natures (sexual, physical, verbal, emotional, etc.), lower education levels, and substance abuse exposure.  The sample subjects will be studied through interviews, observation, and incarceration rate statistical analysis over a five-year period with half given intervention before or after the first incarceration.  The second sample will be studied in the same manner, but void of the interventions.  Due to the nature of the sample, randomization would not be sufficient as control would be difficult.  

  The control group, or dependent variable,  will be youth not receiving interventions, and the effect of the intervention of the other group will be compared to the control to establish the actual effect of the intervention methods.   Effectiveness would be tracked every three months over a five-year period.  The tracking would consist of the intervention type, what behavior or aspect of youth risks it targets, and strength of effectiveness.  Effectiveness will be found by tracking percentage of use of the intervention by the youth and parent.

Literature review 

Previous literature implicates early interventions should be imposed early as possible in childhood to maximize the potential effect of the intervention.  As discussed above, several studies emphasize the impact of familial relationships in conjunction with social relationships as setting the acceptable standard for a child.  Literature implicates the parent-child relationship, parenting processes, social influence, and educational needs as primary areas of risk increasing the likelihood of juvenile delinquency.

Donges posits little research has been conducted that allows juveniles a voice due to the lack of insight into the lived experiences of delinquents which may aid in predicting and preventing delinquent behavior (2015).  The educational environment is identified as a possible factor of juvenile delinquency gearing research toward the exploration of the description of such experiences as an attempt to determine the commonalities in the perceptions of experience shared by the sample population (Donges, 2015). Therefore, Donges explored the educational experience as well as the experiences of peer and teacher associations and interactions (2015).  A qualitative study using Yin’s model as a collective case study,  purposeful sampling was used to select samples which were at least eighteen years old and no longer involved in the justice system (Donges, 2015).  Data collection convened through semi-structured interviews on a face-to-face basis using open-ended questions in a location chosen by the interviewed subject (Donges, 2015).  The interview transcripts were reviewed by the participants once written and data analysis was conducted with the thematic analysis approach to identify similarities among the subjects (Donges, 2015).  The research concluded several similarities: The subjects expressed they were all victims of bullying from their peers, hindered social interactions, and disciplinary issues were typical, as well as low self-esteem and low self-efficacy, implicating them as factors attributing to delinquency potential (Donges, 2015).  However, the study revealed all participants earned a diploma or GED, indicating the ability for academic success when placed in an environment that allows them to achieve success without the negative environmental impacts (Donges, 2015).   Donges research elicits the potential that juveniles hold potential for success.  His findings imply negative and hindered social interactions lead to low self-esteem and low self-efficacy supporting the need for interventions aimed at improving social interactions will increase feelings of self-worth and motivate juveniles to choose more positive behaviors.

A qualitative study conducted by Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell explored the interrelationships of multi-ethnic, inner-city delinquent youths, and their parents to gain an understanding of the issues children and parents identify as familial problems, and the contextual factors believed to have contributed to or hindered interventions of the problems (2002).   Via in-depth interviews, researchers interviewed youths involved with the juvenile justice system and their parents to learn the motivations attributed to deviant behavior (Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell, 2002).  Interviews delved into parental conflict, interpersonal peer relationships, and interpersonal parental relationship with the youth(Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell, 2002).  Identification of problem areas, contextual factors leading to delinquency or hindering interventions, and parent perception of parental practice and youth concern were the three domains explored via open-ended questions under the consideration of an ecological framework and previous research on familial interaction processes and delinquency (Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell, 2002).  All interviews were recorded, and data reduction was used to analyze the transcripts of the interviews and identify themes and patterns across all samples, allowing for coding and categorizing of the themes (Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell, 2002).  The data analysis was conducted by a team of three researchers who analyzed parent interviews separate from the youth for a comparison to take place between the two subject samples (Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell, 2002).  The data analysis further validated previous research, but also revealed a conflicting theme:  Youth implicated family interaction as causes of delinquent behavior and the hindrance of positive intervention outcomes, but parents connected the need for the child to modify behavior in both scenarios (Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell, 2002).  This conflict implicated the need for further research and brought to light the possibility that the parent has an active concern for the youths behavior which increased delinquency, or the parent may underestimate their influence on the juveniles behavior due to feelings of lack of empowerment in the parental role (Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell, 2002).  The study identified a crucial factor in childhood deviance:  Opposition between parent role and child perception.  The research necessitates interventions geared to family unification and counseling services to address the opposition causing dysfunction within the parent-child relationship.  

Rees and Pogarsky studied the influence of best friends is dependent on the level of delinquency of the remaining friend group deviating criminal tendencies as necessitating reinforcement from the remaining group as supportive or deterrent of the behavior.  Rees and Pogarsky report a concordance in delinquency among associated individuals (2011).  This association is attributed to “birds of a feather flock together” mentality, but the nature of the association is dependent on the degree of influence (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Exploring the criminological perspectives of selection, influence (differential association theory), and mechanisms of peer influence, a direct correlation of influence was evident (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Using pre-existing research, Rees and Pogarsky conducted a comparison study of the different perspectives but little evidence was found indicating a direct correlation (2011).  Indulging in past research, the researchers aimed to prove the size of the remaining friend group affects the degree of influence over the focal friend (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Delinquent behaviors examined were substance use, smoking, fighting, and generalized delinquency (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Conducting a qualitative study, Rees and Pogarsky tested their theoretical expectations with data from a multi-wave panel of adolescents aged 7-18, in which data was retrieved from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health utilizing the Add Health sample comprising a combination which made up 132 high schools and middle schools (2011).  School selection was stratified ensuring equal representation of size type, urbanization, geographies, and racial composition and methods of data collection included brief questionnaires given in the school setting, more in-depth interviews of the samples at certain intervals of time which included interviews with caretakers (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Questionnaires were used to establish best friends through rankings and allowed for measuring delinquency (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Controls included age, gender, ethnicity, and parental and school attachment (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).   Rees and Pogarsky’s research indicated positive relationships between delinquency and the respondent at the initial interview and second interview consistent across all delinquent behaviors and a comparison of results found consistencies with past delinquent behavior indicative of future delinquent behavior as found in previous studies (2011).  Also found was the influence of the best friend decreased with a larger group of remaining friends indicating best friends and the remaining group were equally influential in delinquent behavior depending on group size consistent with past research as well (Rees & Pogarsky, 2011).  Rees and Pogarsky’s study supports Donge’s study in that both found social interaction as partially responsible for deviant behavior in juveniles.

Another study implicated education as also bearing responsibility for juvenile deviant behaviors.  Sanger, Spilker, Williams, and Belau implicated the suggestions of research that violence within the schools is a great concern to educators especially in areas involving communication, behavior, and learning problems for all grades (2007).  As in both previos studies, it was found that previous research lacked opinions of the youth as well as research lacked the exploration of delinquent student behavior and education learning experiences (Sanger, Spiker, & Williams, 2007).   The goal of the study was to gain insight into the implications that motivate violent behavior in students which will, in turn, assist educators in the planning of intervention programs for students involved in violence (Sanger, Spiker, & Williams, 2007). The initial study was conducted on incarcerated female adolescents, age 15 to 18 via interviews using principles, as disciplinarians, and speech-language pathologists as communication specialists which revealed the implication of a connection between violence and communication (Sanger, Spiker, & Williams, 2007).  The team used a survey divided into parts:  The participants background and educational history, a like-scale explored statements about violence, and open-ended questions about the perception of violence among peers, educational providers knowledge, the understanding of violent behavior motivation, and the relationship of educational providers and students (female youth perception of services for youth involved in violences and positive and negative learning experiences) (Sanger, Spiker, & Williams, 2007).     A mixed-methods design allowed researchers to collect quantitative data and analyze qualitative data gathered from recorded interviews that collected data spoken and observed behaviors.  Data analysis included transcription of interviews and like scale anaylsis which revealed teachers are now more concerned with violence and should be included in developing interventions in the school along with the agreement that schools have a shortage of specialists and programs for youth involved in violence (Sanger, Spiker, & Williams, 2007).  Analysis of qualitative data indicated themes of effective teaching, classroom environment, learning challenges and disabilities, and motivation and uncertainty encompassed the coded ideas that necessitate the need for the development of intervention programs for violence within the schools which implicates the need for educators and schools to understand their role in motivating acceptable behavior void of violence (Sanger, Spiker, & Williams, 2007).  More importantly, female youth agree implementing intervention at the school level could prove beneficial in tackling the juvenile delinquency rate before youth are introduced to the juvenile justice system.

Need For Research

As discussed above, the need for further research is necessary to understand the causes of juvenile delinquency.  However, all previous literature emphasizes implications for future research necessitating the need for early intervention programs that encompass social development, education support, educational interventions for youth involved in violence, and   family counseling which aims to unify the family structure as a safe and supportive environment.  An additional study was conducted on the parole officers tactics when servicing juvenile delinquents within the confines of a jail cell and upon return to the community (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009).  Schwalbe and Maschi indicated the need for varying levels of interventions dependent on the motivations and age of the offender (Schwalbe & Maschi, 2009) solidifying value of juvenile treatment and effectiveness of interventions promoting rehabilitation.  All literature discussed permeates a trending theme:  Juvenile delinquent behavior is learned through familial modeling, social experience, learning experience, and can be adapted with the proper tools including interventions which build social skills and personal value towards an acceptable moral code, family counseling concentrated on preserving and positively strengthening familial foundations, and educational support services that aim to teach the value of education, social acceptance, and elicit feelings of self-worth.


Statistics indicate juvenile delinquency is a problem that needs prompt attention.  Consistencies in the Research discussed above pointed out that research supported and built on the previous literature.  Cross comparisons validate previous empirical findings in addition to identifying varying perceptions of causes of “delinquency” between the parent and child, child and society, and child and the educational system.  This emergence implicates the necessity of family intervention and future direction of research.  Several studies validated the youth perception and opinion and its necessity in treatment intervention which justifies the need for compliance from all parts to gain a full understanding of cause and implement proper interventions that will ellicit positive behavior modification.  Discussed below, one will learn how we can benefit from learning what type and degree of interventions will best fit at-risk youth and reduce the delinquency and recidivism rate.

Quantitative Design via Control Group Time Series Design will be conducted on a large sample that is equal under all criterial categories.  More specifically, invitations for the study should be made to approximate 500 families:  250 incarcerated, 250 for at-risk of incarceration.  The goal is to have a minimum of 75-100 subjects in each set of categories.  Category A are those currently incarcerated and receiving services, category B are those qualifying as at-risk in the community receiving services, and category C, the control group accommodating those incarcerated and those in the community who do not receive services which will be used as the comparison group.

 Initial observation via interview series with follow-up interview observations of the three groups of subjects along with comparison of incarceration violations, new incarcerations, recidivism rates, positive contributions, positive familial occurrences, all pertaining to just the subjects in the study.  Observation series should be made after 30, 120, 210 days and consistently every 90 days over the course of a 2 year and a five-year period.  Consistent and continued observation indicates reliability and validity of earliest results and further defines the effect of intervention over a longer period.


Participant recruitment will occur through the Department of Children Services, the juvenile justice system, schools in poverty stricken neighborhoods, homeless organizations, group homes for non-fostered youth, and teen centers designed to “occupy” empty hours.  Meeting with Chairs of these places, we would discuss the proposition and the desired outcome.  We would then ask the chairs to invite those families that they feel would most benefit or comply.

Recruits should meet the following criteria:  Incarcerated youth, at-risk youth in the community, receiving intervention services and incarcerated youth, at-risk youth in the community not receiving intervention services.  Additionally, the immediate family members (parents and siblings of the incarcerated youth).  Incarcerated youth includes juveniles age 10-17 serving time for crimes of violence, theft, truancy, and substance use or sale.  Those who are not incarcerated should meet at risk youth criteria including youth from broken or dysfunctional homes riddled with poverty or low-income socioeconomic status who have had exposure to violence, abuse of all natures (sexual, physical, verbal, emotional, etc.), lower education levels, gang ties, and substance abuse exposure.  Additionally, a control group will be formed from the chosen sample.  Half of the members of each group will not be given intervention.  This will allow for a comparison to occur after data is gathered.

The use of factorial ANOVA tests allow for the incorporation of more than one independent variable because it allows testing for differences and we can explore the effects of the interactions between the independent variables.  In this case, we would compare the independent variable and the dependent variable to the control group.  Factorial ANOVA testing will allow a visual graph that shows progression, regression, and no effect of treatment.  Additionally, a correlation process would be used to measure the effectiveness of the interventions.  The correlation would measure the behavior modification and its association to a specific intervention.  Using the Pearson’s r as the numerical data (+1, -1,0), we can see the strength of the intervention measured.  Once the relationship is determined, inferential statistics will allow us to determine the probability of proving the null hypothesis.

The Alpha level should be .05 to accept or fail the null hypothesis.  Stating a 95% confidence level would imply the results are not 100%.  When testing in a community, we must make a generalization based on the majority outcome of a small sample.  When using a small sample to prove an entire population, we should consider the possibility of false reporting or inaccurate reporting of participants.  Also, there are so many factors being studied in this proposal, and we are searching for an effectiveness of interventions that may be modified to everyone.


Due to the privacy and confidentiality laws outlined in the APA Code of Ethics, juvenile studies have extra protections which may hinder the research process (American Psychological Association, n.d.).  Previous research and case studies are difficult to find as not many are made public explaining a shortage of interpersonal cases discussed.  Previous esearch indicated limitations with parent-child interviews as the parent and child disconnect from understanding each other (Madden-Derdich, Leonard, & Gunnell, 2002).  This may surface in the proposed study as parents and juveniles may portray feelings outside of their actual in fear of admitting wrong doing.  Answers to questions may be deceptive in regards to effectiveness of interventions as participants may attempt to prove interventions more successful than they actually are.  A possible threat to validity is heightened or exaggerated response to treatment.  Properly recording data and tracking progress appropriately will ensure valid results.  Recording interviews for transcribing and having subjects review the transcript before measurement also takes away a level of threat of misreporting.  Misreporting of changes and use of interventions may also be misreported.  To decrease misreporting it will be necessary to verify youth reporting by comparing all interviews against each other and report consistencies as “true” data. Defining at-risk-youth in terms of environment, social, and economic status may prove difficult or deceptive in the sense that not all youth living in these areas meet the at-risk potentials.  Through careful selection and assessment, deception can be reduced to minimal.  The selection process is also a limitation as the chairs of certain organizations may not want to reveal eligible participants or may choose participants biasly.

Ethical issues

According to the APA Code of Ethics 3.04, psychologists are mandated to take reasonable steps to avoid harm to humans (American Psychological Association, n.d.).  A study incorporating counseling to address past experience holds potential to hurt the psyche.  All participants receiving interventions are at risk of re-hatching past trauma that may cause psychological torment.  Although part of the healing process is to recognize trauma and learn to grow from it, the reprecussions may cause harm to the individual.  However, in this study, dealing with past trauma will prove to rectify causes of delinquent behavior and promote a healing process that will aid in modifying the negative behaviors including violence, aggression, and substance use.

APA Ethics Code 3.10 addresses informed consent which must be written and explained in a language understood by all participants (American Psychological Association, n.d.).  In this study, participants will be as young as ten years old.  A child of this age may not have a full understanding of what the research entails making it necessary for parental permission. Also , the participant holds the right to withdraw from the study at any time with consequence pertaining to the effectiveness of treatment only (code 8.02) (American Psychological Association, n.d.).  It is the psychologists responsibility to ensure the safety of the child participant and that he is actin in the best interest for the welfare of the child (American Psychological Association, n.d.).  Since the data obtained in the study will be used to establish a potential treatment plan for future use, the psychologists must make participants aware that certain information may be exposed to other parties, but the psychologist is obligated under code 4.01 to maintain confidentiality of all clients and if the information is going to be shared 4.02 madates the psychologists to gain permission from participants while withholding any personally identifiable information about the participant (code 4.07) (American Psychological Association, n.d.).  

Additionally, since recording will be taking place in the study, the psychologist is obligted to gain permission from participants with the assurance the interview will not be used outside of the studies intent (code 8.03) (American Psychological Association, n.d.).  To ensure accuracy and of transcription, the participants will receive a copy of the transcription to verify accurate reporting.  The transcription will not be analyzed until a final acceptance from the participant is gained.

Dissemination strategy

Dissemination of research in the mental health field includes utilizing interventions outside of the study, the extent to which the interventions are implemented properly, and identifying possible barriers of the success of the implemented model (  ).  In the proposed research, diffusion into the community should include family preservation organizations and child protective service agencies as they direct their attention toward at-risk families.  Additionally, intervention programs should be diffused into the juvenile correction facilities as part of sentencing and the parole system as part of community supervision obligations.  Implementing interventions at the junctions of the juvenile and the delinquent behavior will prove effective in modifying behavior as a reward for past negative behavior for which punishment has already been completed.  Additionally, channeling services into the school systems will help deter delinquent behavior before the justice system takes control.  The research will prove the earliest intervention to have the best promise for the future.


As juvenile delinquency continues to be of concern, it is no necessarily a doom for the communities.  This research is necessary in learning ways that will prove most beneficial in rehabilitating troubled youth or even stopping youth from deviating down the road of delinquency.  Previous research supports the need for the earliest interventions through the family, community, and educational system.  A quantitative study will reveal positive effects on social deficits, family dysfunction, and educational capacities currently perceived as useless.  A five year study will indicate the best treatment in a generalization to the community as whole to reduce delinquent behavior and reduce recidivism.
American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Ethical principles of psychologists and

           code of conduct including 2010 amendments. Retrieved from http://www.apa.


 Donges, W. E. (2015). A qualitative case study: The lived educational experiences of former juvenile delinquents. The Qualitative Report, 20(7), 1009-1028. Retrieved from https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/1704359939?accountid=34899

Fagan, A.  A. (2013).  Family-focused interventions to prevent juvenile delinquency.  Criminology & Public Policy, 12(4), 617-650.  Doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12029

Madden-Derdich, D., Leonard, S. A., & Gunnell, G. A. (2002). Parents’ and children’s perceptions of family processes in inner-city families with delinquent youths: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(3), 355-69. Retrieved from https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/220945809?accountid=34899

Mann, E. A., & Reynolds, A. J. (2006). Early intervention and juvenile delinquency prevention: Evidence from the chicago longitudinal study. Social Work Research, 30(3), 153-167. Retrieved from https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/212142238?accountid=34899

Puzzanchera, C.  and Kang, W.  (2014).  “Easy Access to FBI Arrest Statistics 1994-2012” Online.  Available:  http://www.ojjdp.org/ojstatbb/exaucr/

Ramirez, F.  (2008, April/May). Juvenile delinquency current issues, best practices, and promising approaches. GPSOLO. Retrieved from http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/gp_solo_magazine_home/gp_solo_magazine_index/juveniledelinquency.html

Rees, C., & Pogarsky, G. (2011). One bad apple may not spoil the whole bunch: Best friends and adolescent delinquency. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,27(2), 197-223. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1007/s10940-010-9103-9

Sanger, D., Spilker, A., Williams, N., & Belau, D. (2007). Opinions of female juvenile delinquents on communication, learning and violence. Journal of Correctional Education, 58(1), 69-92. Retrieved from https://login.libproxy.edmc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/229783105?accountid=34899

Schwalbe, C. S., & Maschi, T. (2009). Investigating probation strategies with juvenile offenders: The influence of officers’ attitudes and youth characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 33(5), 357-67. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.edmc.edu/10.1007/s10979-008-9158-4


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s