FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 2 Acknowledgements This work would not have been possible without the financial support of the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs and the Army and Air National Guard for allowing me to pursue this Master of Education with the Post 9/11 GI Bill. I am indebted to all of the professors who helped me on this journey: Dr. Penée W. Stewart, Dr. DeeDee Mower, and Dr. Natalie Williams. I am extremely grateful for the time and guidance they provided as I navigated the qualitative process. I would especially like to thank Dr. Mower, who provided me extensive help in understanding NVIVO as well as how to properly code. She also gave me a firm understanding of the case study methodology. I am also grateful to Dr. John DeWitt, who spent countless hours helping me navigate the juvenile justice system and the Internal Review Board for the Department of Human Services. I wouldn’t have been able to pursue this master’s project without Susan Burke, my mentor and the best supervisor for whom I’ve ever had the pleasure of working. I am thankful to all of those with whom I have had the pleasure to work during this and other related projects. Nobody has been more important to me in the pursuit of this project than my family. I would also like to thank my spouse, whose love and guidance is with me in whatever dream and passion I pursue. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 3 Table of Contents NATURE OF THE PROBLEM ....................................................................................... 8 Literature Review ............................................................................................... 9 Theoretical Findings ............................................................................... 10 Social bond theory ......................................................................... 10 General strain theory ...................................................................... 11 Academic Performance of Youth in Custody .......................................... 13 Special Education and Mental Health ..................................................... 15 Propensity for Recidivism: School-to-Prison-Pipeline ........................... 17 Summary ......................................................................................................... 19 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 21 The Researcher’s Background and Potential Bias .............................................. 22 METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 25 Participants ........................................................................................................ 26 Protection of Participants ....................................................................... 28 Right to Privacy and Protection from Harm ............................................ 29 Procedures ......................................................................................................... 30 Data Analysis Procedures................................................................................... 30 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 33 Theme 1: Quality of Services ............................................................................. 33 Theme 2: Respect .............................................................................................. 38 Theme 3: Relationships ...................................................................................... 41 FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 4 Theme 4: Life on the Outside/Transition ............................................................ 44 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 49 Similarities and Connection to Criminology Theories ........................................ 49 Breaking Social Bonds ........................................................................... 49 Restoring Social Bonds .......................................................................... 50 Summary .......................................................................................................... 52 Challenges ........................................................................................................ 53 Validity and Reliability ...................................................................................... 54 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 55 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 57 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 62 Appendix A: Research Approval Letters ........................................................... 62 Appendix B: Informed Consent ......................................................................... 68 Appendix C: Interview Questions to Former Youth in State Custody ................ 72 FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 5 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Key Characteristics of Participants................................................27 FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Conceptual Diagram of the Elements of General strain theory.......................53 FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 7 Abstract Juvenile delinquency is a serious social dilemma that can impact the lives of youth, families and society. Once juveniles are incarcerated, they are at a greater risk for dropping out, court involvement and entry into the adult correctional systems. The purpose of this study was to understand whether academic achievement and positive relationships while incarcerated can lead to successful outcomes after a student has been released from state custody. The researcher explored the experiences of formerly incarcerated juvenile offenders to find out if they attributed their post-secondary status to their successes while incarcerated. Through semi-structured interviews with three young adults who were formerly incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities, the researcher explored the participants’ perception of their educational experience, pre/post-incarceration status, and relationships. Using the voices of these young people, the data indicated that the collective experiences of having high quality school experiences, positive relationships, and resiliency upon transition back into the community seemed to help these young people succeed. This case study makes a strong argument that positive school experience coupled with strong social bonds, such as attachment and commitment, can help deter young people who were incarcerated from future crime, while allowing them to grow and develop personal responsibility. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 8 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM There is a correlation between poor school performance, antisocial behavior and criminal behavior and delinquency. Truancy, drug use, or aggression in the classroom can lead to involvement with the juvenile justice system (Crowell, Bamba, Widom, & McCord, 2000). According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), additional risk factors include: child abuse and neglect, learning disabilities, behavioral issues, negative peer influences, inadequate housing, ineffective parental discipline, and academic failure (OJJDP, 2012). Several studies have found a link between academic failure and delinquency, but the research is scarce and struggles to identify causality (Agnew, 1992, 2006; Hirschi, 1969; Maguin & Loeber, 1996). Throughout the United States, students may be referred to the juvenile justice system for minor delinquent acts, school disruptions, or violation of court orders for status offenses like habitual truancy. This can jeopardize students’ academic progress. Data matches conducted in Utah and Florida show that students who were involved in juvenile justice facilities had lower grade point averages (GPAs) than their peers, were less likely to be proficient in math and reading, and had a higher rate of receiving special education services than the general education population (Forsyth & Dewitt, 2012, Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability [OPPAGA], 2010). According to a report by Holman & Ziedenberg (2007) simply entering the juvenile justice system can have detrimental effects. Once a student is referred by a school system and enters into juvenile justice custody, the propensity for reoffending is high. Holman & Ziedenberg (2007) point out that studies in Arkansas, Oregon, FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 9 California and Wisconsin show that instead of a reduction in crime, the act of incarcerating youth may facilitate increased crime. When juveniles are incarcerated because of school-related problems, a phenomenon known as the School-to-Prison Pipeline (STPP) can cause a downward spiral in their school lives, making it difficult for students to get back on track towards graduation, creating more antisocial behavior and causing students to enter the juvenile and criminal justice systems (Mallett, 2014). These students deserve to have second chances, and it is essential that they are able to get on track academically with strong mentors so they can graduate and transition successfully into adulthood. Literature Review This paper will give an overview of two major criminology theories: social bond and general Strain Theories — both emphasize the correlation between education and delinquency. Antisocial or aggressive behaviors can lead to poor school performance; poor school performance can lead to antisocial behaviors, creating a vicious cycle of delinquency. When students are disengaged, they may become chronically truant or may act out at an early age in the classroom, which can lead to involvement with the juvenile justice system. By the time they have entered juvenile state custody, students are already at an extreme disadvantage compared to their non-custodial peers. For example, they usually have poor GPAs, lower math and literacy rates, higher rates of receiving special education services, and are highly mobile. Students involved with the juvenile justice system are also at a much higher risk of needing mental health services. Once a student is in a long-term secure facility and is state custody, the propensity for reoffending or recidivating is much higher, putting them at a greater risk of entering the adult criminal FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 10 justice system (Office of Legislative Auditor General [OLAG], 2014). All of this emphasizes the importance of ensuring that these students are able to get on track academically, so that they can graduate and transition successfully into a postsecondary or career opportunity. Theoretical Findings Connecting School and Delinquency Antisocial behaviors, such as truancy, aggressive behavior or drug use along with negative school experiences can lead to involvement with the juvenile justice system. Although it is impossible to establish a causal link between delinquency and education, it has been well established that the two are correlated. A meta-analysis of over 100 studies examined the relationship between delinquency and poor academic performance and found overwhelming evidence indicating that negative school achievement is related to the onset, prevalence and seriousness of delinquency (Manguin & Loeber, 1996). There are two main criminology theoretical approaches that have been researched to explain this correlation: social bond theory and general strain theory. Social bond theory. Social bond theory, developed by criminologist Travis Hirschi in 1969, argues that people will engage in delinquent behavior when their “social bond” to society is weakened. It is comprised of four elements: (1) attachment, (2) commitment, (3) involvement and (4) beliefs (Hirschi, 1969). The theory posits that socialization and forming personal bonds are some of the most important aspects of human development and these prevent us from committing criminal acts. Hirschi (1969) suggests that if one is “attached” and “committed” to community institutions, (e.g., school), they are less likely to engage in deliberate acts of deviance since their acts would harm said attachments. If FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 11 the individual has strong family attachments and/or commitments, they are more likely to contemplate those decisions and avoid the behavior. General strain theory. General strain theory was developed by Robert Agnew. The theory argues that when dealing with juveniles there are three main categories of life stressors or “strains” that can increase the likelihood of crime: (1) strain as the threat of or actual failure to achieve positively valued goals, (2) strain as the threat of or actual removal of positively valued stimuli, and (3) strain as the threat of or actual presentation of negative valued stimuli (Agnew, 1992, 2006). General strain theory claims that life strains can contribute to criminal motivation and that delinquency is a by-product of negative emotional stimuli. In other words, juveniles who experience strain adapt to life through crime and delinquency. The theory also suggests a connection between education and delinquency because low grades are negative stimuli, which lead to delinquent/criminal behavior (Agnew, 1992, 2006). A conceptual diagram is provided in Figure 1. Figure 1: Conceptual Diagram of the Elements of General strain theory Several longitudinal studies confirm that early aggressive behaviors in childhood are often predictors of delinquent behavior and substance abuse later in life (Campbell & Ewing, 1990; Harachi et al., 2006; Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992; Loeber & Coie, 2001). These early aggressive behaviors, if present in the classroom, can often lead teachers to respond in a negative way with poor evaluations. This can contribute to Sources of Strain • Failure to achieve goals • Disjunction of expectation & achievements • Removal of positive stimuli • Presentation of negative stimuli Negative Affective States • Anger • Disappointment • Depression • Fear • Frustration Deviant Coping • Delinquency • Dropping out • Drug Abuse • Violence FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 12 students’ low school commitment and consequently cause students to disengage, which can lead students to delinquent behavior. Harachi et al. (2006), found that children who displayed early aggression are more likely to continue involvement in later problem behaviors. The study relied on annual teacher reports from second through eighth grade and consisted of 1,040 students drawn from 10 public schools in the Pacific Northwest. The participants were from the Raising Healthy Children Project and sought to test multi-components of preventative interventions to identify early aggression trajectory groups. The predictor variables included demographic variables, individual domain, family domain, and school and peer domain. In the school and peer domain, all variables measured (e.g., attachment to school, commitment to school, and academic performance) were associated with the trajectory group membership. Children who reported they liked school and whose teachers reported the children tried hard and were succeeding academically were in the lower aggression groups later (Harachi et al., 2006). Sprott conducted a study in Canada involving 1,311 youth throughout the country and found that school attachment is correlated with delinquency (Sprott, 2004). School supports during childhood were often connected to later adolescent violent and non-violent behavior. The study relied on two years of data involving three separate collections from the Canadian National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth and the authors investigated the role of classroom and school climates on the development of early violence and offending. The first instance was collected in 1994-1995 when the participants were approximately 10 and 11 years old; then again in 1996-1997 when they were 12 and 13; and lastly at ages 14 and 15 in 1998-1999. Data from the first cycle only FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 13 had a 50-60% teacher response rate so the researcher only used the second and third cycles of reported data. Overall, the results found that youth who behaved in more violent ways were more likely to be in classrooms which were not emotionally supportive. Emotionally supportive in this study is defined as having strong social interactions or social bonds inside of the classroom. In contrast, participants who reported being in stronger supportive classrooms were less likely to behave violently in adolescence. Sprott (2004) makes a strong argument with this longitudinal study that school support and bonding (e.g., attachment, commitment) do play an important factor in delinquency and that youth who have stronger emotional support will desist from violent behavior to maintain the positive support from school. Academic Performance of Youth in Custody Most students in state juvenile justice custody are academically behind their peers, are more likely to have proficiency deficits, and are more likely to be enrolled in special education services (Forsythe & DeWitt, 2012; OPPAGA, 2010; Krezmien, Mulcahy, & Leone, 2010; Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002). These strains – failure to achieve, being academically behind their peers, coupled with removal of positive stimuli and introduction into the juvenile justice system – can prevent students from achieving academic success. Forsyth and DeWitt (2012) conducted a data match with the Utah State Office of Education and Utah Department of Human Services for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. They found that students involved with the Division of Juvenile Justice Services (DJJS) had lower GPAs than their peers, were highly mobile, were less likely to be proficient on criterion referenced tests and had a higher rate of receiving special FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 14 education services than the general education population. In 2010, DJJS served 8,308 students between ages 10-17, and 7,026 in 2011, and found the following results: A. Nearly half of the students were “highly mobile,” which is a technical term indicating that students had less than 160 days of membership in school. B. GPA: The average GPA for students was nearly an entire point lower than the general education population, (1.85 versus 2.9). C. Criterion Reference Test (CRT) Scores: Between 13% and 15% of students in DJJS were not proficient on their Language CRT, compared to 6% to 8% of the general education population. Between 12% and 24% of students in DJJS were not proficient on their Math CRT compared to 9% to 11.5% of the general education population. D. Special Education: Nearly 23% of students in DJJS custody were receiving special education services, compared to only 12.1% of the general education population. A comparable data match was conducted in Florida with similar results. According to the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA, 2010), delinquent youth placed in residential commitment facilities during 2008-09 school year were significantly behind youth in the general education population. Delinquent youth were more likely to be chronically absent and to perform poorly on criterion referenced tests resulting in a much higher rate of proficiency deficiencies than their general education peers (OPPAGA, 2010). The report found that 74% of incarcerated students were at least one or more years behind academically, compared to just 23% of other students who were not FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 15 incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities. Additionally, the authors reported that a larger percentage of students were chronically absent the prior school year (16% versus 4%). Also, teachers at the juvenile facilities were less experienced and may not have been as qualified as other teachers. For example, many of the teachers had less than five years of experience, were teaching outside of their expertise, or were teaching with a temporary/emergency certification. Special Education and Mental Health Students involved with juvenile justice programs are also at a significantly greater risk of receiving special education services and of having mental health needs. One study documented the academic performance of 555 incarcerated youth, (521 who maintained participation), in a mid-Atlantic state and found that the youth in the sample scored about four years below their peers on standardized tests in both math and reading (Krezmien, et al., 2008). Additionally, nearly half of the youth involved in the sample were enrolled in Special Education (26% with a learning disability, and 17% identified with an Other Health Impairment, a category including ADHD). Furthermore, more than 40% of the sample said they had received mental health therapy prior to their detention/commitment. Of those, more than half were students receiving special education services compared to only one-third of the general education population. Almost 30% of the youth reported using psychotropic medications prior to incarceration. Of those, nearly 40% were special education students compared to approximately 20% who were general education students. Students incarcerated have been documented to have a high level of emotional trauma and behavioral distress, and if left untreated, this might affect academic FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 16 performance (Teplin et al., 2002). Using the Diagnostic Interview Schedule with a sample of more than 1,800 incarcerated youth in juvenile detention, the researchers found two-thirds of the males and three-quarters of the females met diagnostic criteria for one or more psychiatric disorders. The results suggested that a significant number of youth might pose a challenge for the juvenile justice system and for the larger mental health system. Additionally, researchers Leone and Weinberg (2010) found considerable overlap among serious mental health problems, school failure, and special education status or eligibility. Social bond theory provides insight into why students continue to reoffend upon long-term incarceration. Since they no longer have positive social bonds in their schools or in the community, it becomes extremely challenging to create positive attachments as they progress into the “system.” Additionally, social bond theory points out that criminal and delinquent behavior can be explained by stressors and can lead to educational difficulties or even to dropping out. Even more importantly, the additional strains of school failure, mental health, or special educational issues once in the system can create an uphill obstacle for students to excel and to desist delinquent behavior. Youth who are chronically truant or who commit delinquent acts face considerable challenges if they enter into a juvenile justice system. It is imperative that their educational needs are met while in custody or they risk further involvement in the justice system or academic failure. Recent data matches in Utah and Florida have documented that students incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities are educationally behind compared to their general education peers, are less likely to be proficient in math and reading, and are much more likely to be receiving special education services. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 17 Furthermore, the majority of these students suffer from emotional or behavioral distress. The data reported in this paper suggests that delinquent youth who are incarcerated have multiple educational and mental health needs which puts them at a greater risk of failing academically. Propensity for Recidivism: School-to-Prison Pipeline (STPP) Once involved in the juvenile justice system, the propensity for reoffending, or recidivism, is high. Simply by introducing youth into the juvenile justice system, they are more likely to drop out of school, and are more likely to reoffend and enter the criminal justice system as adults (Gatti, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 2009; Huizinga, Schumann, Ehret, & Elliott, 2001). When juveniles are incarcerated because of school-related problems, a phenomenon known as the STPP occurs, which can lead to dropping out of school, and further increases their risk of entering into adult prison systems (Fabello et al., 2011; Church, Springer, & Roberts, 2014). Harsh school discipline begins in elementary school and the overuse of discipline in schools often leads to students dropping out, increasing their risk of entering into the juvenile or adult justice systems (Albers et al., 2014). The report “From Fingerpaint to Fingerprints: The School-to-Prison Pipeline in Utah,” explains that zero tolerance policies begin as early as elementary school (Albers et al., 2014). In 2011-12, in these lower grades, there were approximately 1,200 disciplinary actions, which included referrals to law enforcements, arrests and expulsions. According to the report, several district policies have overly harsh disciplinary policies that allow suspension for such vague offenses like “immoral behavior” or “defiance,” (Albers et al., 2014). Under one discipline policy of Palm Beach County, Florida, public schools are required to respond FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 18 to a wide variety of student conduct with out-of-school suspensions or expulsions. In addition, of the 80 potential infractions listed in the policy, 38 of them must be reported to law enforcement (Advancement Project, 2010). Zero tolerance policies often contribute to the STPP. When a child is suspended for minor infractions, they are more likely to drop out, become disengaged, commit delinquent acts or become habitually truant. These students are often referred to the juvenile court. Simply put, they no longer have a reason to be attached or committed to school, social bonds are removed and strains are introduced, creating a perpetual cycle of delinquency and antisocial behavior. A longitudinal study in Montreal found that youth who received even a minor intervention into the juvenile justice system with limited exposure to other high-risk kids, were still nearly two times as likely to be arrested as adults than youth with the same behavior problems who did not receive a juvenile justice intervention (Gatti et al., 2009). Arrest also has a substantively large impact on dropping out of high school in Chicago’s public school system (Kirk & Sampson, 2013). However, when juvenile offenders have higher academic achievement during incarceration, they are more likely to return to school after release (Blomberg, Bales, Mann, Piquero & Berk, 2011). Students who do return to school and attend regularly are less likely to be rearrested within two years of release. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 19 Summary Negative academic achievement is often coupled with aggressive or antisocial behaviors, which can begin as early as elementary school. Some behaviors, like school aggression, truancy or drug use can lead to referrals to the juvenile justice system. Many correlations exist for criminal behavior and delinquency. Students placed in state juvenile justice custody often have learning disabilities, behavioral issues, poor peer influences, and academic failure (Agnew, 1985a, 1989, 2002; Hirschi, 1969; Maguin & Loeber, 1996). Two theoretical approaches, social bond and strain theories, seek to explain the correlation between school failure and delinquency (Hirischi, 1969; Agnew, 1992). Students are often referred to the juvenile court from school officials for disruption, or have violated court orders for habitual truancy, often leading into entrance into the juvenile justice custody, which can impact academic achievement. According to data matches in Utah and Florida, students who were involved with the juvenile justice system had lower GPAs, lower reading and math scores and were more likely to be receiving special education services than the general education population (Forsyth & Dewitt, 2012; OPPAGA, 2010). Additionally, students who are incarcerated often have much higher levels of emotional trauma and behavioral distress, and if left untreated, this can affect academic performance (Teplin et al., 2002). Once incarcerated in a long-term secure care facility (state custody), the propensity for reoffending is high. After release, offenders have a higher than 50% rate of being re-arrested for a misdemeanor or felony charge within one year (Holman & Ziedenberg, 2007; OLAG, 2014). However, if juvenile offenders have higher academic achievement during incarceration, they are more likely to return to school after release and are less likely to be re-arrested within two years of release (Blomberg, et al., 2011). FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 20 This underlines the importance of higher academic achievement while incarcerated because these students are at a greater risk of reoffending and this author posits that school success, coupled with treatment, and positive relationships while incarcerated can lead to better life outcomes. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 21 PURPOSE Thousands of students are introduced to correctional systems after being arrested for delinquent offenses to include school disruption, habitual truancy or substance use, causing a greater risk for dropping out, court involvement and entry into the adult penal system (Crowell, Bamba & McCord, 2000; Advancement Project, 2010). The research has established that there is a correlation between academic achievement and delinquency. However, there are few qualitative studies that seek to understand how a student can be successful once they have been incarcerated in long-term secure facilities. Youth in these facilities have been adjudicated of delinquency (i.e., a judge has determined they are guilty) of misdemeanors and felonies and are mostly comprised of “high-risk” offenders. A high-risk offender is one, which has a significant amount of criminogenic risk factors, which can increase the likelihood of recidivism. Juveniles who enter state custody are often skill deficient, lack school credits, or are disengaged completely from school due to delinquent behavior. Furthermore, these students have lost their social bonds and have additional strains of being presented with negative stimuli and antisocial peers. Many quantitative studies have examined the correlation between school success and delinquency; however, there have been few qualitative studies which seek to understand the lived experience of formerly adjudicated juvenile offenders and their perception about academic achievement during and after long-term juvenile incarceration. One qualitative study by Donges (2015) explored the personal educational experiences of juvenile offenders prior to involvement with the juvenile justice system; however, their life experience during and post-incarceration were not explored. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 22 The purpose of this study was to understand whether academic achievement and positive relationships while incarcerated can lead to successful outcomes after a student has been released from state custody. The researcher explored the experiences of formerly incarcerated juvenile offenders to find out if they attributed their post-secondary status to their successes while incarcerated. Through semi-structured interviews with three young adults who were formerly incarcerated in juvenile justice facilities, the researcher explored the participants’ perception of their educational experience pre/post-incarceration, as well as their relationships, and explored how social bond and general strain theories fit into the context of delinquency. This study advances the existing body of literature by seeking to understand how former juvenile delinquents view their educational experiences. Of significance is the exploration of the study participants’ educational experience while incarcerated and upon release to the community. Through a qualitative lens, the researcher was able to gain insight into how former juvenile offenders view their own educational experience and subsequent successes, which helps us understand the phenomenon of what it means to be incarcerated and then transition successfully. The Researcher’s Background and Possible Bias As the former Education Liaison for the Department of Human Services and Juvenile Court, and as a current spokesperson in the juvenile justice field, the researcher has always believed that youth and young adults who commit crimes do so because their brains have not matured. People do not have fully developed frontal lobes until around age 25 and therefore do not have the ability to use consequential thinking (Arain, et al., FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 23 2013). Additionally, the researcher has lived experience with her own disengagement and delinquent behavior. When she was in 10th grade, she moved from Redmond, Washington, to North Las Vegas, Nevada. The researcher stopped feeling engaged and excited about school, and became antisocial and angry. In Washington, she had a 4.0 GPA, but was expelled shortly after arriving to Las Vegas for fighting and was moved to one of the most gang-involved schools in North Las Vegas. After two years of disengagement, she graduated with only a 1.9 GPA, removing her chances of a scholarship, which compelled her to join the military to pay for college. It took several years to regain attachments and remove strain. This personal experience in those formative years solidified her belief that every young person, even those who have committed the most egregious of crimes, deserve the right to an education and to not be defined solely by their crimes or past mistakes. She was given a second chance and worked hard to overcome the barriers of academic failure and this personal narrative allowed her to become an education liaison for human services and court-involved youth. Educational outcomes, data and research perpetuated her passion because she realized that once juveniles are in state custody, their propensity to fail increases and their chance of recidivism increases, sparking her interest in this research. The researcher wanted to know if once a student is deeply involved with the juvenile justice system and continues to have an increase in multiple risk factors, if educational and social success is still possible, and what factors contributed to that success. These topics guided her throughout the study. While much research has been done on causal reasons for delinquency, there are relatively few qualitative studies seeking to understand the experience of former adjudicated juvenile delinquents. In fact, the researcher was only able to find one such FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 24 study, written by Donges (2015), which explored the personal educational experiences of formerly adjudicated juvenile delinquents. The researcher looked at the educational experience prior to involvement with the justice system (Donges, 2015). His study compelled the researcher to continue the exploration of formerly incarcerated individuals about their educational experience post-incarceration. It is hoped that through this study, readers can enjoy insights into the perceived successes of young people once released from state custody. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 25 METHOD The research approach used was qualitative. Qualitative research methods are useful to explore the meaning people give to their experiences and is warranted when the research questions require exploration (Stake, 2000). This study followed a case study method, where the cases were multiple in nature. A case study design should be considered when: (a) the focus of the study is to answer “how” and “why” questions; (b) the researcher has little or no control over behavioral events (c) the focus of the study is a contemporary phenomenon (Yin, 2014). According to LeCompte & Preissle, (2003) case study analysis is appropriate for intensive, in-depth examination of one or a few aspects of a given phenomenon. A case study can cover a single case or multiple cases. When a study includes more than a single case that presents a unique phenomenon or event, it is a multiple or comparative case study. In the multiple case study, the researcher studies more than one case to understand the similarities between the cases and then analyzes the data within each situation and across situations (Stake, 2000; Yin, 2014). According to Stake, (2000) in collective or multiple case research, the cases are typically bound by time and activity, and researchers typically collect detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures. Thus, only a small number of participants, 3-5 people, are normally observed when using this approach. When conducing a case study, data collection through semi-structured, in-depth one-to-one interviews is an appropriate approach for this small study, which allows the researcher to engage in deep discourse (Corbin, 2003). Furthermore, this type of interview can provide the opportunity to adjust the interview questions and structure as needed to clarify experiences in the participants’ own words. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 26 Here, the researcher examined three different cases and analyzed the data for common themes. The case was to examine three individuals’ perceptions about their lived educational experiences, but this could not be considered without the context of being incarcerated within the juvenile justice system. Voices of formerly incarcerated juvenile offenders need to be heard and understood. This study was designed to investigate the lived academic experience of former delinquents by qualitative inquiry to explore whether they believe positive academic achievement, positive relationships and school climate can lead to successful outcomes after a student has been released from incarceration. Participants The study relied on purposeful sampling to select the participants. Donges (2015) stated that purposeful sampling is appropriate when the main goal of a study is to describe and understand the lived experience of individuals. Although the design of the study called for between two and eight participants, only three people expressed interest and returned the informed consent to participate. Each participant was also required to be finished with high school, and to have either entered trade school, college, or obtained a job for longer than six months. In order to avoid potential issues related to conducting research with minors and/or prisoners, the study required participants to be over the age of 18 and they could not be, at the time of the study, incarcerated. The participants also were to have remained successfully free of new charges since their release. Mentors from a religious organization selected participants. The religious organization manages a group of community-based mentors who maintain a relationship for up to three years with formerly adjudicated juvenile FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 27 offenders. The mentors relied on purposeful sampling by selecting cases that were most likely to result in the most information or have the greatest impact for the small sample size in this study. The researcher contacted the mentors and provided them with a packet containing the significance of the study, informed consent, and the interview questions. The mentors were asked to pass the packets to potential participants who might be interested in the study. Upon receiving the packet, potential participants were instructed to contact the researcher via email or phone if they were interested in being part of the study. Interested participants either contacted the researcher directly or provided permission to the contact person to pass their information on to the researcher for contact. At the time of the contact, the researcher described the study, answered any question the participants had, and explained the required informed consent to be signed. Table 1 shows the demographics of the three participants. Pseudonyms were also given to protect their confidentiality. Table 1 Summary of Key Characteristics of Participants Participant Age Sex Ethnicity High School Completion College/Trade School Employment Length Casey 19 M Mixed GED Some college One year Kris 22 M White Diploma Three years college One year Luke 20 M White Diploma None One year FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 28 Casey is a 19-year-old male of mixed origin who was enrolled at the local community college after receiving his GED while in custody. He reported that his biological father was Mexican and Nigerian and his biological mother was English and Italian but he was adopted at age 12 from foster care, and raised by a Samoan family. He gave a one-hour interview. Kris is a 22-year-old white male, who aged out of the juvenile justice system and foster care due to coming into foster care as a teenager. He graduated from high school while incarcerated and took three years of college courses but did not graduate. His interview was approximately 45 minutes. Luke is a 20-year-old white male, who graduated six months early from high school while in a group home setting in state custody. He has not attended any college or trade school and he has been employed for more than a year. Luke also talked about foster care but did not talk about his upbringing or background and his interview was the shortest – about 25 minutes long. Protection of participants Prior to beginning the process of selecting participants, documentation was submitted to the University’s Internal Review Board (IRB) and the Department of Human Services’ IRB. The goal of the IRB process is to ensure the safety, privacy and well-being of research participants. Both IRBs reviewed and approved the procedures for the criteria and selection of participants as well as data collection and storage. The researcher’s thesis committee chair and full committee also reviewed the plan. The IRB research approvals can be found in Appendix A. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 29 Participation in this research study was voluntary. Potential participants were informed that they were not required to participate in the study and that participation was strictly voluntary. They were given risks and benefits of taking part of the study and told that they would not receive compensation for participation. Prior to giving consent, participants were given the chance to discuss the literature review and the reason for the study and read the informed consent form. They were given the chance to ask any questions or discuss concerns prior to participation and were told that they could stop the interview at any time if they felt like and could drop out of the study without any consequences. Right to privacy and protection from harm In order to protect the privacy of participants, the researcher told the participants they could select the location of the interviews. Names were recorded on the Informed Consent documents (see Appendix B). Those documents were stored in a locked file cabinet and the interviews did not ask personal identifying information. Semi-structured audio-recorded interviews took place. When identifying information was disclosed during these interviews, the researcher removed from the transcripts and from the live-audio recordings the identifying information after being uploaded into the university’s password protected, encrypted Cloud server. Further, any reports or articles written in relationship to this study were reported as conducted in the "Western United States" to avoid certainty. One interview took place at the participant’s residence; one at a college near the participant’s home; and one took place at the participant’s place of employment. All computer-based data was password protected and only accessible by the researcher. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 30 Procedures These case studies were conducted through semi-structured interviews through qualitative inquiry, which sought to answer participants’ beliefs about academic achievement prior to and during incarceration as well as explore their responses to caring adults while incarcerated. Data collection consisted of face-to-face interviews with each participant at a location chosen by the participant. Each participant was asked to describe in his own words aspects of his educational experience pre-and post-incarceration. Participants were also asked about their relationships with adults and mentors. The interviews were audio recorded and once completed, were transcribed into a text form. In addition to demographic questions, the researcher prepared 21 open-ended questions that focused on educational experiences. The questions were approved by the thesis committee and by a team of experts at the Department of Human Services’ Internal Review Board (IRB). The reviewers commented on each question and the structure of the interview. Each interview lasted between 30-70 minutes to allow the researcher insight into the experience of the participants. The complete version of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix C. Data Analysis Procedures The procedure used for data analysis in this study was thematic analysis, which is an analytic process that entails reading through data, identifying themes in the data, coding those themes, then interpreting the structure and content of the identified themes (Guest, MacQueen & Namey, 2013). The objective of thematic analysis is to find patterns or themes in and across cases. Nowell, Norris, White & Moules (2017) outline six steps meet the trustworthiness criteria of qualitative research: FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 31 1. Familiarizing self with the data 2. Generating initial codes 3. Searching for themes 4. Reviewing themes 5. Defining and naming themes 6. Producing the report For this study, the following steps were followed to analyze the data. The words in bold indicate how the researcher tried to ensure alignment with Nowell, Norris, White & Moules (2017) method: 1. The researcher met with each participant at a location of his choosing. Before the interview, the researcher would explain the study, obtain informed consent and answer any additional questions the participant had about the study. The researcher took field notes during the interview about location, details of participant and surroundings. 2. After each live audio-recorded interview, the researcher transcribed the audio into a text form, stripping the transcription of any identifying information about location and names. Careful attention was paid to the content of the responses and the pace and tone of the conversation so the researcher could become familiarized. 3. Upon transcription, the researcher reached out to the participants for member checking to ensure that the data was reflective of what the participants intended to say. All participants agreed with the transcription and had nothing further to add. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 32 4. The transcripts were printed and carefully reviewed by the researcher to code the responses by hand. 5. The researcher added the transcribed interviews into the NVIVO-12 software. 6. Areas of significance were then coded in NVIVO-12. The transcriptions were coded into 45 themes. Those themes were then reviewed and re-coded into seven broad themes. The researcher continued analyzing the data through NVIVO-12 until there were four emergent themes which were defined: (1) Quality of Services (2) Respect (3) Relationships (4) Life Outside/Transition. Cross-case analysis was performed with all three of the interviews and responses. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 33 RESULTS After careful analysis of the interviews along with analysis done in NVIVO, the following themes emerged: (1) Quality of Services (2) Respect (3) Relationships (4) Life Outside/Transition. The researcher recognizes that these themes are one possible account of the experience of self and educational experiences. They do not cover all aspects of the participants’ experience and were chosen due to the frequency of references they appeared in NVIVO. In presenting the verbatim extracts, there have been slight changes to improve readability. Word repetitions and utterances such as “um” have mostly been removed. Names and places were removed to protect the confidentiality of individuals and are indicated within brackets [e.g., name] and material with extensive pauses are indicated in parenthesis. Dotted lines at the beginning or end of a quote, indicates the participant trailed off or stopped talking. Three dots, or an ellipses, is used when the participant goes from one part of the conversation to another part (i.e., the researcher left out parts of the conversation to improve readability). Finally, alias names have been used to protect the anonymity of participants. The following are single case profiles of the participants followed by the themes which had the most references in NVIVO-12. Theme 1: Quality of Services This theme encapsulates each of the participants’ view of the quality of educational and juvenile justice system services provided while in state custody. It is important to note that educational services are provided by the teachers from local school districts and it is unclear if participants knew this. Instances when they referred to the quality of services provided by juvenile justice staff are also included in this section. All FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 34 three participants made it a point to talk about the education received in residential group home settings. One interesting phrase that both Casey and Kris used when discussing educational quality was the “real world” in referencing life outside of the juvenile justice system. It seemed to the researcher it was as if life inside the juvenile system was altered in some sense because they were incarcerated. They also both commented on being able to learn at their own pace. Casey liked this idea but wanted it to be with his class, and Kris appreciated how his teachers made his homework harder so he would learn more. Casey seemed most concerned about moving around while in the justice system and losing credits from placement to placement. However, he did seem to have a positive view of one of the teachers while incarcerated in a correctional facility. It was interesting that his view of credit recovery and packet work was a positive experience and fell under this theme because to Casey, “quality” was equated with having enough credits to get his GED or graduate. Because he fell behind while transferring to so many juvenile justice placements, having a teacher spend time to get him caught up on credits was helpful because it was geared to help him make it in “the real world.” He also commented on how the juvenile justice system helped rehabilitate him, which also speaks to quality. Casey: One, I lost my credits and two, they didn't put me in those classes when I was in a residential treatment center… because a lot of times what happens, you go to a residential treatment center and then you go to (correctional facility) and then you get put into a regular school…you get put with the classes, or what your class should be in. And it's hard because - they are caught up in stuff. . . It needs to be fair because when you put them back into the real world, you're setting them up for failure. . . So, essentially, one - I am behind in credits and I'm behind in the FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 35 knowledge that I should know. . . Man being locked up, it's changed me and helped me become a great person because of . . . I guess I shouldn't say being locked up. It's not incarceration you know? It was rehabilitation. It taught me to be something great. And especially school was like awesome… I loved going to school in (correctional facility). The reason why is because there was a science teacher there. She is an awesome teacher. She understood that I really really wanted to be caught up. She's like, "You complete these packets and let's get you into the classes that you need to be in. Let's get you ready to be in the real world." And she made me excited and motivated for school. Kris also commented on the number of moves while in state custody, but he seemed to be more concerned about the quality of education provided while in residential group homes. Kris seemed to view school as a punishment rather than as an opportunity for learning, especially in the group home setting. While incarcerated, his view seemed to shift from being punished to being unprepared to make it in the “real world.” Despite those negative experiences of poor quality while in group homes, Kris seemed to appreciate how teachers inside the facility made his homework more difficult for him. Kris: When I was in custody, I think I could probably count on both hands how many people and group homes I went through. And every time it was a privatized room on the group home's campus. . . you'd sit behind a desk for 8-hours a day, you know 5 days a week. Well school was just - you'd just listen to the same person talk over and over. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 36 Interviewer: So you didn’t have a break from school; you just went to school? Kris: Yeah. There was no choice. You couldn't just tell them "I'm going to stay in bed." It was "You go to school or you get punished." Interviewer: How about life skills [in correctional facility]? Kris: Well they taught us you know, like "Oh well this is how you set up a budget" and they made us fill out these worksheets but...So like every time I would do homework it was always this make believe stuff, you know? But the thing is you can do 100 pieces of paper and you could fill out all this paperwork in the lockup facility...when you get out there is nothing that can prepare you. Like for what the real world will hit you with when you're dropped on your butt and they terminate you from state custody. Interviewer: How would you describe your relationship with teachers while in custody? Kris: All my teachers were really hard on me but they also knew that I could go really far. And so when I was in (secure facility), you know all my teachers - they'd give all these other people the same homework, but they'd make mine just a little bit harder and so they'd make me learn a bit more. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 37 Luke reflected on a time while incarcerated that the teachers and staff at the facility thought he was doing so well that they gave him extra responsibility. He seemed to be reflective of his time in the secure facility and seemed to have a positive view of education while in the correctional facility because of the relationship and leadership skills he was taught. Interviewer: Can you think of the people or programs that have helped better your chances in society? Luke: I would definitely have to say (name of correctional facility) was one. Interviewer: Why? Luke: Mainly ‘cause they taught me more on how to talk to people and how to compromise instead of it's my way or the highway. And that's what I've learned through every other program: My way or the highway. Like that's not fair to the child at all. That is not. Since I was a good resident there, they allowed me to be in student council and when I was doing that, it was – I was in a place of leadership – but it taught me how to interact with people. Interviewer: So what would you say to someone in custody about education? Luke: I would say it's very important. I know when I was in secure care, I would sit there and be like "Why are you telling me how to run my life? Like, you're an adult - you don't know FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 38 what's going on exactly.” But I feel like if somebody - from their age would say "Hey this is important," I would suggest you follow through with it. Although it may seem stupid right now, it's going to be worth it in the end. Theme 2: Respect The second, and somewhat surprising theme that came out in the interviews was the theme of “respect.” This theme seemed to converge in the middle of “quality of services” and “relationships” as it tied to both. The theme of respect encompasses the participants’ view of what it means to be respected in the system or by others. All three had some commentary about being bullied. In other words, they were not respected. Additionally, they all seemed to have learned how to be respectful in their own lives, either from what they were taught while incarcerated, or because of their own experiences of being treated poorly in life. Casey talked about being bullied and used this to pivot to how respect should not be something that is necessarily earned, but should be given to everyone until there is not a reason. He also seemed to have learned from his past experience. His response seemed to indicate to the researcher a sense of reflection and self-determination confounded by expectation. Interviewer: What role do you believe school played in your delinquency, if any? Casey: I used to be bullied a lot at school, that's why I got - kind of picked up getting in martial arts, right? A lot of people think you get - people have to give you respect in order to get your respect. It should be opposite. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 39 . . I give somebody my full 100% respect until they give me a reason not to. And that's different than trust. And when I say respect and I say there's a minimum respect - there's a person as a human being, I don't yell at you. I don't hit you, I don't threaten you. I don't call you names, I don't degrade you because you are human and you're going to make mistakes. But, I don't need to do it more than that. . . But if I choose to that's because I want that respect in return. . . It’s the golden rule and it is. Because you're not going to get anywhere. If you treat people like crap, they're going to treat you back like crap. Similar to Casey, Kris also spoke about being bullied during school and similar to Casey attributed some of his behavior to being bullied. He seems to give back not because he wants something in return, but because he sees that other people struggle and genuinely wants to help them out, which is another way of showing respect. Interviewer: What role do you believe school played in your delinquency, if any? Kris: My problem with the world is that people are always mean. That's my problem with it. I hate it. You don't have to be mean to get along in life. And it's the same way with school, everybody was really really mean to me. So, I would always go to the library and I would always just get a book. I was a scrawny little white kid, you know in elementary school and middle school? Like 5' maybe 4' tall. Like I was short, I was scrawny, I was bullied . . . So, like when I'm at a gas station FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 40 and I see a mom who's struggling, and she's like "Oh well here is all this change and here's all these dollars, you know?" (Laughs). I'll just put $20 on the gas pump because I'm like - Oh, you know it's like at the end of the day - yeah, I'm out $20 bucks but I don't care because she probably needed it more than I did. . . And so I'd rather just give my time and my money and help other people. Like my goal one day is to change the world. Luke did mention he was bullied, but was not as open or as reflective about this factoring into delinquency or his school experience. He spoke about respect as it related to relationships and mutual respect and considered this an area of failure rather than success. Interviewer: How would you describe your school experience leading up to custody? Luke: I was kind of - the loner in school. I focused on school and nothing else. Kind of got bullied, but never really - - - Just kids being kids. Like I really didn't take it to my - or to heart because it's not them ruining my self-esteem and ruining me as a person so that they can feel better. The only way I can get back at them is showing that I'm a better person and not letting [it] affect me. Interviewer: Do you have any other failures that you wish to discuss or that you feel comfortable discussing? FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 41 Luke: Relationships. I learned a lot. They gave us a good general outline. Like, be nice to people - respect and all of that. Theme 3: Relationships This theme encapsulates each of the participants’ view of their own relationships; either with adults while in custody or with friends or romantic interests. All participants expressed that they had positive relationships while in state custody and after getting released and they attributed some of their success to these relationships. Although Casey seemed to have a lot of positive role models and mentors, one exchange was particularly insightful. He seemed to have really grown from an experience. When he was incarcerated he pleaded on Facebook to his more than 600 “friends” asking for a letter to be sent to him. He contrasted that experience with one from the American Red Cross, where he gained “lifelong friends,” who responded via social media when he was struggling and homeless. Casey: Not one person sent me a letter. After many many times, and they said "Oh I didn't know, I didn't see it. "Yeah you did, bull crap. How do I know you've seen it? Because I tagged every single one of you" That made me realize who I can take with me and who I can leave behind. Interviewer: Can you think of people or programs that have bettered your chances in society? Casey: I love American Red Cross . . . I made lifelong friends. You know how I know they're lifelong friends? I had a friend - was the middle of the night, I was at the park. . . but I was just FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 42 laying there on the concrete cold because I had nowhere to sleep and I had 5% left on my phone. And, I went on Facebook and I said "I'm here, can somebody please bring me a blanket or a pillow, something - something, please - keep me warm." Well, 35-40 minutes later I hear a bike - the squeaking of a bike and uh one of my friends. I had only seen her in person once [before] and that was when she came and dropped [the blanket] off. Kris had a great relationship with his mentor at the correctional facility, who continued his voluntary mentoring well after he got out of state custody and who continues to maintain a relationship. While he was enrolled in college, his mentor drove every week several hours away from the city to visit him. He also described his experiences with a prior romantic relationship and despite getting married to another person, he learned about love and considered it a “success.” Interviewer: Okay, so can you think of people or programs that have bettered your chance in society? Kris: [Name of mentor]. He's always been there. . .there was a time during one of the summers when he came down because I was struggling . . . And he put 65,000 miles on his Hummer. . .And that's how much he cares. . . Then when I moved up here I had nowhere to stay. . . he said "I want you to look around and I want you to find a job, and I want you to find an apartment." So he pays for the apartment. Pays for the deposit, FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 43 pays the first month's rent. . . And well I'm not good with you know love and stuff. Like I didn't understand how it worked. That's the thing. The reason I broke her heart isn't because I was an egg-butt head, but like it was mostly because I didn't just understand . . . I would say it's a success because her words - she says I taught her more about love than anybody ever could. And she's married now. And I'm happy for her. But, I also didn't realize how much I loved her until she got married. And then my heart like shattered. And I was like, well - yeah this is what it feels like. Luke was the quietest of the three and the researcher found it difficult to get him to open up. However, he did say that he had some key adults that he has considered to help him with success. One is a former foster mother who provides him food and support when he is struggling. He also opened up about his current romantic relationship and discussed the importance of effective communication – a skill which he attributed to previously learning in the correctional facility. Interviewer: How about other programs that might have contributed to your success, or people? Luke: Like a couple of my foster parents have helped me and I still remain in contact with them. One I call grandma and then the other one is a sweet Polynesian lady. I freaking love her. Like whenever I’m like a week out to getting paid and I'm running out of food, like I'll go over to there and she'll be like FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 44 "Oh, do you need food?" Like, I won't even have to say anything. She'll just give me things that I need. Interviewer: Explain that a little bit. Why [communication] is difficult? Luke: And right now I'm in a relationship - um/with a guy. I'm homosexual. And he doesn't respond to texts as much and it gets to me. Where, I am like always responding to people like once when I get the text. Cause I don't want them to feel like "Oh, I'm not that important." And so you have to put in that effort and make sure that there is that line of open communication - but you can't control other people either. You can sit there and talk to them. Theme 4: Life Outside/Transition This theme captures what life was like upon release from being incarcerated and from state custody (i.e., the juvenile justice system). All participants seemed to have issues with the transition period because they did not feel equipped with essential life skills upon exit. Despite these difficulties, all three participants seemed to have some resiliency factor, where they learned, grew, and had become successful from their perspectives. Casey experienced homelessness upon release from the system and struggled with suicidal ideation. He grew from this experience and only in that moment – during his biggest struggle – did he decide that he wanted to become a successful person. The conversation below highlights this exchange and the moment he felt he became “successful.” FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 45 Interviewer: So how would you describe your success after release and how would you describe your failures (if any), after your release? Casey: Well I was homeless, so there was a lot of success and there was a lot of failures - being homeless was one of them. Even now I’m still building that success. You know? Interviewer Tell me a little bit about that. When did you realize that you wanted it? Casey: Well, I’ve always wanted it. I’ve wanted it ever since I left - before I even went to Job Corps, before I was terminated [from correctional facility]. . .I made the mistakes and I ended up being homeless, but the thing is coming back from that mistake. It’s how far you can bounce . . .I feel like I’m a successful person. I’m not the person I was before. And that started when --- (long 5 second pause) - this is actually the first time in my life to tell somebody else but [girlfriend] this story. I was [in custody] just down the road and I was going through a really really hard time. You know? They gave us medications every day. I didn’t take my medications. I stored it - for like a whole 3 months. I had a big old stack of like a thing of medications. And I sat there contemplating whether I wanted to take them all or not. And the reason why is because I didn’t know what to do with my life! And the reason I didn’t know FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 46 what to do with my life is because, I was so stuck on being with all my old friends and living the same lifestyle that I thought that if I changed and I became a better person So, instead of taking those pills, I threw them all away. Kris, who had been out of custody the longest, and had experienced more economical success than the others showed deep metacognition in his responses. Despite getting good grades and having what he initially thought would be an easy transition into college, he was ill-equipped for what life on the outside would be like, nor was he prepared for how difficult it would be. Although he attended three years of college, he didn’t finish his degree due to the difficulties of trying to go to school and work full-time. His idea of success seemed to be one of survival and being able to see the joys in life after being through some of the difficulties. Kris: I mean they [JJS staff] say "Oh this is how it is in the real world and this is how much you have to live on," but the truth is until you're holding the money in your hand and you have to pay for your own bills, you don't understand it, you know? Until the hand that so call feeds you disappears, you don't understand it. Interviewer: Did it make you appreciate the time; or how did it make you feel about the “hand that feeds you”? Kris: I'll be honest, after six months out of state's custody, I think I was like 19 or something and I had just moved out of that group home down in (name of city), I was in an apartment FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 47 and I was trying to learn how to pay all my bills and stuff, and I was working two part-time jobs 'cause it's a small town and you can't get crap for work. . . I just couldn't do college at the same time. It was really hard. And so I'm trying to tread water. Interviewer: In general, what would you say that your best way to success was or that if you were to give advice to somebody else who's been through the system? Kris: You just have to find your place, you know? Everybody has a spot that they will do very well at in life. And - you know sometimes it's still a struggle, you know? But you just have to find the little teeny joys. Luke also did not feel prepared upon leaving state custody. He did not feel that the juvenile justice system prepared him to face the financial costs of being out in the real world. He had an apartment but did not currently have a working car due to the financial struggles. But, like the other two participants, Luke was able to see his successes in relationships and in his current job. Interviewer: How would you describe your successes and your failures (if any) after release? Luke: Well life has hit me hard. I understand life to a new whole - or to a new extent. I went out and bought my first car for $300 bucks. It was a 1987 Chevy Celebrity. The giantest piece of crap you'll ever see. I had it for like 3 months and was able to drive it legally for about 2 weeks and then the fuel pump went out. And I was like, I only bought it for $300 FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 48 bucks, I've already put $150 into it for a tune up. I'm not going to put another $400 bucks and drop (inaudible) the gas tank to replace the fuel pump. It's not worth it at that point. And then I went and bought a 2007 Ford Fusion. I spent $4,000 on it. I'm still paying that off - but I don't have it anymore. Or I can't drive it anymore. It has a cracked transmission. And - and some lady rear-ended me and the insurance agency is insisting that it's not accident related. Interviewer: So, when you say life has hit you hard - has hit you hard financially? Luke: Mainly financially. I feel like I didn't get a lot of education on like how to apply for a loan and what a loan application um includes and all the things that I need. Interviewer: So they didn't teach any of that to you? In any of the programs? Luke: Nope. The only thing that they really taught me about was the generals like budgeting and staying away from debt, but…in this world it's not realistic at all. To go without getting a car loan or um, getting a loan or credit card. It's not realistic at all. There's things that do happen. You're not always going to be able to afford everything that comes up in life. . . My successes? I would say it's going good over all. . . I'm proud of where I'm at. Like - I've came to learn a lot. I've had a lot of experiences that have taught me who I really want to be and not just like - that superficial type person. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 49 DISCUSSION The researcher initially thought that the project would lead to greater understanding of whether academic achievement and positive relationships while incarcerated lead to successful outcomes once released from custody. While the data gathered through interviews did have positive implications for having strong education services while in state custody, the thematic analysis was insightful in other areas of their lives. This was particularly true when connecting the data collected through the interviews to theoretical approaches which explain delinquent behavior. Similarities and Connection to Criminology Theories For example, all three participants in the study had backgrounds that could easily explain their path into delinquency. All three students described their school experience prior to custody as being bullied in school, which intrigued the researcher because it supports General strain theory, which argues that life stressors can increase the likelihood of crime and that the presentation of negative stimuli can lead students to criminality (Agnew, 1992, 2006). Casey and Kris discussed their mobility in school, which removed their attachment due to the continual removal of positive stimuli. Breaking social bonds. All participants also admitted to having strained social bonds. As Travis Hirschi argues, delinquency occurs when a youth’s “social bond” to society is weakened. Furthermore, he posits that students are less likely to engage in deliberate acts of deviance since their acts would harm said attachments (Hirschi, 1969). Each participant’s background and introduction into delinquency is consistent with Social bond theory. In addition to being bullied, as mentioned earlier, all three students had been in foster care as children. Young people who have been in foster care are less able to FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 50 depend on family members for shelter, adult guidance and financial support (Courtney, Dworskey, Lee & Rapp, 2010). Casey lost his social bonds when he learned that his “friends” weren’t really there for him during the hardest time of his life. While Kris mentioned school in group homes as a punishment – forced to sit in a classroom 8-hours a day, 5 days a week, thus reducing his social bond and commitment to school. Hirschi (1969) suggests that if one is “attached” and “committed” to community institutions, (e.g., school), they are less likely to engage in deliberate acts of deviance since their acts would harm said attachments. If the individual has strong family attachments and/or commitments, they are more likely to contemplate those decisions and avoid the behavior. Luke referenced that in every other program prior to his stay in the correctional facility, he had only learned “My way or the highway,” which “was not fair to the child at all.” His bonds were broken in these programs as they emphasized a punitive approach instead of rehabilitative method. Restoring social bonds. In all three of the participant’s case, they seemed to recover from these broken social bonds the deeper they entered the juvenile justice system (while in a correctional facility or on transition out from a facility). Casey was able to recover his bonds by meeting friends through the American Red Cross and through his teacher at the correctional facility who was “awesome.” Kris bonded to his mentor who followed him while in college and helped pay for his apartment once he moved back to the city. Luke also seemed to have successful bonds with one of his foster parents and in his current romantic relationship where he was learning how to communicate because of lessons learned while incarcerated. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 51 Finally, all three participants seemed to have another factor that helped them succeed once released from custody: resiliency. Resiliency is the capacity to overcome adversity despite the challenges they may have previously faced. Benard (2007) notes that various strengths and skills can contribute to a person’s resiliency including social competence, problem solving, self-awareness, independence, self-efficiency, task mastery and an ability to separate oneself from negative situations and beliefs as well as the belief in a positive future. However, Benard (2007) also indicates that for some high-risk youth who are chronically delinquent or violent, increased support and attention to foster resilience is necessary and can have rewarding effects. Research has shown that the majority of people who grow up in challenging environments (i.e., foster care, gang involved, substance use in the home or in poverty) strive to succeed despite their early adverse experiences (Benard, 2007). In a 30-year longitudinal study involving around 200 high-risk people, nearly 75% of the delinquent group did not become adult criminals and one common theme among this successful group was having positive adult mentors who provided them with trust, autonomy, initiative and competence to overcome the odds (Benard, 2007, p. 23). In other words, these mentors fostered resiliency in these delinquent offenders, which allowed for future success. In sum, the data gleaned from these three interviews indicated that positive educational experiences and positive relationships helped the youth become young adults. In addition, the participants’ resiliency was a factor in their perspective of what made them successful. For example, Casey was able to reflect on his growth from when he had previously been suicidal and wanted to become respectful by treating people well. Kris FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 52 was able to look back on his correctional experience and being “punished” and treated harshly as a good thing because he learned from his teachers while incarcerated. He continues to give back to others who need it and his goal is to “change the world.” And Luke learned through school, that becoming respectful is important, but so is making compromises in relationships. All three considered themselves “successful” because they learned from their experiences; they all had jobs and seemed to have gained insight about their difficult transition time once released from custody. That is, despite Casey becoming homeless, and Kris being unable to work full-time and go to college, and Luke struggling with financial issues with his car, they showed resilience, insight and the ability to bounce back. All three of these young adults had been working since they got out, had not ended up in the adult system and had learned about the importance of relationships and school. Summary With this study, the researcher found that the former experiences of juvenile offenders matters. Their stories and voices are important and contribute to the current literature because relatively few, if any, such stories have been published. The collective experiences of having high quality school experiences, positive mentors and relationships, and struggles upon life on the “outside” and on their transition back into the community was what made these youth successful. Their social bonds were strengthened and their strains were reduced after learning how to cope, after having jobs and having positive relationships during and post-incarceration. In conclusion, a strong argument can be made with the study of the three youths in the case studies that positive school experience coupled with strong social bonds, such FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 53 as attachment and commitment, can help deter young people who were incarcerated from future crime, while allowing them to grow and develop personal responsibility. These young adults were considered high risk, had broken bonds and had struggled to be accepted in school and in their families. However, while incarcerated, they were able to develop strong emotional support from mentors and peers, which allowed them to restore social bonds, thus contributing to their successful outcomes. They should not only contribute to society but should also have a positive effect on future lives they touch. Challenges The study, based on students’ lived experiences before, during and after incarceration in a juvenile justice correctional (secure care) facility, is limited because of the small sample size. The iterative process, as well as the semi-structured approach helped to enable these young adults to reflect on their comments and analyze their own remarks through conversation. However, a small number of participants is a specific delimitation of the study and may call into question an overall generalizability of this population. However, it is important to note that this research study is not designed to generalize to a large population who served in correctional facilities, but is focused on understanding lived experiences of individuals and developing a unique body of research to deepen the understanding of how some participants view educational success and whether they believe it helped facilitate success. Furthermore, the study might contribute to a larger body of work because there is a limited body of work highlighting the experiences of formerly incarcerated juvenile offenders. Another potential limitation of the study is to separate the researcher’s background in juvenile justice. As a result, she paid careful attention to monitor her own FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 54 personal feelings and to take field notes of immediate perceptions following the interviews and continued to monitor her own perceptions so as not to insert her personal feelings into the analysis. She also was careful to bracket her thinking throughout each interview to ensure the interviews stood on their own and then analyzed them for consistency. The researcher also had the participants read the transcriptions to ensure that they were an accurate reporting of what was said and meant. In addition to the limitation of sample size, the demographics of this study reveal other limitations. For example, the sample population selected for this study only consisted of male participants. Females were not invited to participate because the sample and solicitation from the religious organization was from an all-male facility. Additionally, the research only consisted of juveniles who had been considered “successful” – or those who had been employed or in school for longer than 6 months and who had graduated from high school or received their GED (refer to Table 1). Thus, the research reflected the perspective of a small subset of the population: males who had graduated or received their GED and had been employed or in school for at least six months. Validity and Reliability Several methods were used to ensure the reliability and credibility of the study. Most importantly, the researcher’s own history was bracketed, helping to ensure that preconceived ideas as part of the study didn’t influence the participants or analysis. All three interviews were recorded and transcribed to guarantee accuracy. In terms of credibility, the researcher should be an instrument in the field (Patton, 2002). The FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 55 researcher here had undergraduate and graduate-level research methods which included classes on qualitative methodology. To further support the validity and quality of the results the researcher met with each participant to review the transcriptions for veracity and accuracy. The researcher did member checking with each participant after transcription to ask if there was anything they wished to clear up or add insight to. Member checking is the process of asking participants to review the transcription of data as well as the interpretation to ensure that what was reported is truly what the research participant intended to say (Creswell, 2007). Additionally, the researcher used field notes. Credibility was established using NVIVO- 12 as a case study database to organize transcribed interviews and field notes. Recommendations This study presented unique insight into the stories and lives of formerly incarcerated juvenile offenders. The limitations discussed offer an opportunity to expand the research from this base to include more participants, including female participants. Concurrent studies should be done to look at formerly incarcerated juveniles who were not considered “successful” - didn’t graduate or have a GED and/or those who made mistakes upon transition into the community to see if social bond and general strain theories can teach us anything about those who recidivate or end up back in the system. Another recommendation for further research would be to do a quantitative study to accompany this qualitative study. It would be helpful to have educational and employment data from a larger sample of students and/or all students who were previously incarcerated in Utah to see what the graduation rates are and what types of jobs the youth were able to obtain upon transition. With recidivism rates so high, over FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 56 50%, it makes sense to do a 2-year data match and then possibly conduct a survey or another qualitative study with some of the people who have successfully remained out of the system. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 57 REFERENCES Advancement Project. (2010, March). Test, punish, and pushout: How zero tolerance and high–stakes testing funnel youth into the school-to-prison pipeline. Retrieved from http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/d05cb2181a4545db07_r2im6caqe.pdf Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1):47-88. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01093.x Agnew, Robert. 2006. Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, California: Roxbury Publishing Company. Albers, J., Sean, B., Downey, T. L., Fisher, J., Luman, V., . . . Walsh, V. (2014). From fingerpaint to fingerprints. Utah Public Policy Clinic. Retrieved from https://app.box.com/s/7ylyziug6ims8ahuwa06 Arain, M., Haque, M., Johal, L., Mathur, P., Nel, W., Rais, A., … Sharma, S. (2013). Maturation of the adolescent brain. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 9, 449-461. Benard, B. (2007). Resiliency in action: Practical ideas for overcoming risks and building strengths in youth, families, and communities. Ojai, CA: Resiliency in Action. Blomberg, T. G., Bales, W., Mann, K., Piquero A. R., & Berk, R. A. (2011). Incarceration, education and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39,(4). Church, W., Springer, D., & Roberts, A. (2014). Juvenile justice sourcebook. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 58 Corbin J., Morse J. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266946266_Qualitative_research_method -interviewing_and_observation Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crowell, N. A., Bamba, M. I., Widom, C. S., & McCord, J. (Eds.). (2000). Education and delinquency: Summary of a workshop. Washington DC: National Academies Press. Courtney, M.E., Dworsky, A., Lee J.S., Raap, M. Midwest evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at Age 22 and 24. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago; 2010. 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 http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol20/iss7/6 Forsythe, N., & DeWitt, J. (2012). Educational outcomes for children in the care of the Department of Human Services and its divisions: Preliminary data match report. State of Utah. Retrieved from https://www.utcourts.gov/courts/juv/cip/summit/2012/docs/Educating%20Youth%2 0in%20State%20Care.pdf Gatti, U., Tremblay, R., & Vitaro, F. (2009). Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 991-998 FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 59 Guest G., MacQueen, K. M, Namey, E. E. Applied thematic analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2012. Harachi, T. W., Fleming, C. B., White, H. R., Ensminger, M. E., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., (2006). Aggressive behavior among girls and boys during middle childhood: Predictors and sequelae of trajectory group membership. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 279-293. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Miller, J. Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance-abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 64-105. Hirschi T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Huizinga, D., Schumann, K., Ehret, B., & Elliott, A. (2001). Effect of juvenile justice system processing on subsequent delinquent and criminal behavior: A cross-national study. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice/NCJRS. Holman, B., Ziedenberg, J. (2007). The Dangers of detention: The impact of incarcerating youth in detention and other secure facilities. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute. Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 36-62. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 60 Krezmien, M. P., Mulcahy, C. A., & Leone, (2008). Detained and committed youth: Examining differences in achievement, mental health needs, and special education status. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(4), 445–64. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu.hal.weber.edu:2200/journals/education_and_treatment_of_child ren/v031/31.4.krezmien.pdf Lampley, J. H., & Johnson, K.C. (2010). Mentoring at-risk youth: Improving academic achievement in middle school students. Nonpartisan Education Review. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ948699.pdf LeCompte M.D., Preissle J. (2003) Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research, (2nd ed.) San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Leone, P., & Weinberg, L. (2010). Addressing the unmet educational needs of children and youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. Loeber, R, & Coie, J. (2001). Continuities and discontinuities of development, with particular emphasis on emotional and cognitive components of disruptive behaviour. Conduct disorder in childhood and early adolescence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Maguin, E., & Loeber, R. (1996). Academic performance and its relationship to delinquency. Crime and Justice: A Review of the Research, 20, 145–264. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16 (1), 1-13. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 61 Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability, an office of the Florida Legislature (2010). Report 10-07. Retrieved from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1007rpt.pdf Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2012). 2012 annual report of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/241584.pdf Office of the Legislative Auditor General, State of Utah (2014). An in-depth budget review of the Department of Human Services. Retrieved from http://le.utah.gov/audit/14_09rpt.pdf Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sprott, J. B. (2004). The development of early delinquency: Can classroom and school climates make a difference? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46(5), 553−572. Stake, R.E. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.435-453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002). Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(12), 1133-1143. Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 62 APPENDIX A Research Approval Letters FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 63 December 12, 2016 Dear Jacqueline Chamberlain, Your project entitled “The Importance of Academic Success while in Juvenile Justice Custody” has been reviewed and is approved as written. The project was reviewed as “expedited” because it involves using face-to-face contact and audio-taped interviews with your participants . All participants in this study are over the age of 18, who are formally adjudicated youth. Please ensure that all participants are no longer incarcerated. Notification of the study and how data will be reported are appropriate. Realize that permission is conditional and becomes permanent with the approval of the Department of Human Services. Dr. Garcia is the chair of the committee who will oversee this study. Anonymity and confidentiality are addressed appropriately, and the type of information gathered could not “reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, or reputation” (Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46, Subpart D.) You may proceed with your study when approval is received from the Department of Human Services. Please remember that any anticipated changes to the project and approved procedures must be submitted to the IRB prior to implementation. Any unanticipated problems that arise during any stage of the project require a written report to the IRB and possible suspension of the project. A final copy of your application will remain on file with the IRB records. If you need further assistance or have any questions, call me at 626-8654 or e-mail me at nataliewilliams1@weber.edu Sincerely, Natalie A. Williams Natalie A. Williams, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board, Education Subcommittee FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 64 Date: 2/22/2017 Primary Investigator: Jacqueline Leedy Chamberlain DHS IRB Number: 0593 Please include this number on all subsequent correspondence Subject: The Importance of Academic Success while in Juvenile Justice Custody DHS IRB Review finding: Final Approval Thank you for your response to our previous letter and the modifications to your protocol. The Department of Human Services’ Institutional Review Board (DHS IRB) has reviewed the modifications and approved the subject protocol. Expiration date: 2/21/2018 You may not conduct any research after this expiration date unless you submit a continuing review resubmission form that is approved by the DHS IRB or one of its representatives. If you suspect that your research will continue beyond the expiration date you must complete the attached ongoing/amendment form along with a status report and resubmit for subsequent review and approval at least one month prior to expiration. If we have not received your resubmission prior to the expiration date, and if the research is ongoing, you will need to resubmit a full protocol application and request IRB approval. Additionally, data collected and/or analyzed during any period of time in which the IRB approval is not in effect, will have to be destroyed or discarded. Approved documents: Document Type Document Name Research Proposal As per final proposal. Informed Consent/Assent Documents As per final proposal. Recruitment As per final proposal. Surveys As per final proposal. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ANN SILVERBERG WILLIAMSON Executive Director LANA STOHL Deputy Director MARK BRASHER Deputy Director State of Utah GARY R. HERBERT Governor SPENCER J. COX Lieutenant Governor FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 65 Amendments: In the event that any further changes are made to the research following this approval (e.g., changes in target population, materials to which subjects are to be exposed, procedures to be employed, etc.), please document these changes on the included amendment form and send it to the DHS IRB. IRB Reviews: During the course of research, the protocol is subject to review by the DHS IRB and/or the DHS Bureau of Internal Review and Audit (BIRA) to ensure consistency and compliance with the IRB approval. This may include observing the assent and consent process and reviewing other elements of the research as approved by the IRB. DHS IRB contact information: If you need further assistance, please contact Dr. John DeWitt, Division of Juvenile Justice Services IRB Representative, at 801-538-4333 or jdewitt@utah.gov. Final Report: Once your research is completed, please send a copy of your final report to the DHS IRB to allow its members and the Department to benefit from your research findings. Thank you for your cooperation during this review process and good luck in your endeavors. Sincerely, Frank M. Rees, Ph.D., Chair Bruce N. Larsen, Co-Chair DHS Institutional Review Board c Dr. John DeWitt 195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Telephone: 801-537-4171 Fax: 801-538-3993 www.hs.utah.gov FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 66 February 23, 2017 Jacqueline Chamberlain 1351 Edvalson St Dept 1304 Teacher Education Ogden, UT 84408 Dear Jacqueline, The addendum letter for the study: IRB # 16-ED- 113. Approval date: 12/12/2016. Status: Expedited You are cleared to include the edited Consent Letter, Interview Questions and Debriefing Statement on the study entitled “The Importance of Academic Success while in Juvenile Justice Custody”. You have one year from the date above to complete the data collection or submit another continuation letter. Respectfully, Natalie A. Williams Natalie A. Williams, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional Review Board, Education Subcommittee FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 67 Memo To: Weber State University IRB Committee From: Jacqueline Leedy Chamberlain and J. Roberto García Subject: IRB Addendum – Rewording questions to make more accessible IRB Protocol Review Number: 16-ED-113 Addendum Approved: On December 12, 2016, we received approval from the Weber State University IRB Committee to conduct a research project entitled “The Importance of Academic Success While in Juvenile Justice Custody”. However during the process, the Department of Human Services which conducts its own IRB asked to add a letter for participants explaining the nature of the study and directly asking them for their consent to participate. Attached to this memo are the revised Informed Consent Letter, Interview Questions and Debriefing Statement which we are requesting be addendum to the original proposal. Please let us know if you have any questions. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 68 APPENDIX B Informed Consent FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 69 My name is Jacqueline Leedy Chamberlain. I am doing a study of people who were in JJS secure care. It is part of a school project at Weber State. I want to know how kids feel about school while in secure care and how they do after being released. Your mentor from Wasatch or Decker Lake said you might be interested. Please read this form and ask questions before deciding if you want to be in the study. I am working with my professor, Dr. J. Roberto Garcia who will be mentoring me through the project. The study will help me earn my Master’s Degree. STUDY PURPOSE: I am running this study because I want to learn about your school experience while you were with JJS. I want to know if you think school at Wasatch or Decker Lake helped you succeed. I also want to know what you thought about school before you came to JJS and what you think did or did not help you. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: The study will have up to eight people. WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO: Being in the study is up to you. If you take part in the study, you will: • Have an interview with me at a place you choose. I will record our conversation. If it works better we can talk on the phone or on Skype. • Answer ten questions about how you did in school. RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: I don’t know of very many risks of this study. You can choose to skip any question and you can stop at any time. Somebody else may find out you were in the study. I will be careful to keep this form and other study information in a locked file cabinet so that doesn’t happen. I will not ask you to tell me personal information. I will remove personal information from the notes I take and from the audio recording. I won’t tell people where the study took place. Reports from the study will only show that it was in the Western United States. There may be other risks associated with the interview that I don’t know about. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: You may like talking about your experiences. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: You can choose not to be in this study. COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY: FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 70 You don’t have to pay to be in this study and you won’t be paid. If you have emotional or physical injuries from being in this study, necessary medical or mental health treatment will be provided to you and billed to you. You must pay costs not covered by your health care insurer. If you need medical or mental health help, it will be your job to find out about your health care coverage. There is no program in place to pay you for any injuries you may receive in this study. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits that you would be entitled to. CONFIDENTIALITY: I won’t ask you to give me personal information that could identify you. And, I will keep this document in a locked file cabinet so no one will know if you were in the study. Any private information you tell me about will be removed from my notes and the audio recording. Also, any reports or articles written about this study will say the study was done in the “Western United States.” Information you give to me in an interview will be stored on an audio recorder that will be kept in a locked cabinet. The recording will be destroyed once entered into a password protected software program at Weber State University. All the information you give me will be destroyed by June, 1, 2018. Other people who may look at information from this study are the review boards that gave me permission to run this study. This includes [1] representatives from the Weber State University Institutional Review Board and [2] representatives from the Utah Department of Human Services Institutional Review Board. They may want to look at the study information to make sure that I am following good research practices. MANDATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: I will do everything I can to keep your personal information private. However, there are some situations where the law makes me share your answers. If you tell me about any abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a child or an adult 65 or older, or an adult who has a mental or physical impairment, which affects that person’s ability to provide for or protect him/herself, I must tell Child Protective Services (CPS), or Adult Protective Services (APS), or the nearest law enforcement agency. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS: If you have questions about the study, you can contact me (Jacqueline Leedy Chamberlain) (phone [(801) 891-4652]; email [Jacqueline.leedy@gmail.com]) or my advisor (Roberto Garcia phone [(801) 920-8223]). If you have questions about your rights in this study or want to talk over problems or concerns about this study, or to obtain information, or to offer input, you can talk to the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu, or a member of the Department of Human Services Institutional Review Board [John DeWitt; phone (801) 538-4333, Member]. FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 71 VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY: This study is voluntary. You can choose not to be in the study. If you start the study, you can leave at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits you would normally get. Your decision to be in the study also will not affect your relations with your mentor or with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. SUBJECT’S CONSENT: I have read this form, I am over the age of 18, and I agree to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this form to keep for my records. Subject’s Printed Name:_________________________________ Subject’s Signature: ____________________________________Date:___________ (must be dated by the subject) Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent:________________________________ FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 72 APPENDIX C Interview Questions to Former Youth in State Custody FORMERLY INCARCERATED JUVENILES 73 Interview Questions Section 1 – Demographic information 1. Please indicate your gender: __Male __Female 2. Please indicate your ethnicity and/or race: 3. Do you have a high school diploma? __Yes __No 4. Have you been to college or a trade school? _Yes __No a. Level of education: __Associate’s Degree ___Certificate __Some Undergraduate Courses __Undergraduate Degree __Other (please describe):________________ 5. Are you currently employed? __Yes __No 6. How long have you been employed? ___ less than 6 months or __6-months to 1- year __more than 1-year. Section 2 – Open-ended Questions 1. How important is education to you? 2. How would you describe your school experience leading up to being in custody? 3. What role did education play during custody? a. How would you describe the grades you received? b. How would you describe yourself as a student? 4. What have you experienced after release? a. How would you describe your successes after release? b. How would you describe your failures (if any) after your release? 5. Can you think of people or programs that have bettered your chances in society? 6. What would you say to someone in custody about education? 7. What would you tell someone in custody about the best way to succeed once released? 8. Has anyone you met in custody affected your success upon release, if so, how did they? a. How would you describe your relationship with your teachers while in custody? b. How would you describe your relationship with other adults while in custody? 9. What role do you believe school played in your delinquency, if any? a. Did you have truancy issues? 1. If so, in general without going into too much detail, how would you describe situations that led to truancy? b. Did you get in trouble at school before coming into custody? 1. If so, in general without going into too much detail, how would you describe your experience getting into trouble at school? 10. To what extent do you believe school or your educational experience has or has not led to success? 11. What do you believe if anything contributed to your success while in custody?