Chapter 2 – Review of Related Literatures
At-risk Youth
Majority of today’s youth faces conflicts that they can barely handle in a very young age. Modernization has brought many social changes in the society. Children are being taken for granted, usually by parents who both work and have no time for their children. Another factor is the issue of broken family, peer pressure, and many other issues that would make a youth feel inferior of himself/herself. Youth like these seeks a way to express themselves and unfortunately, this search for self –expression has often lead to deviant practices such as drug addiction, joining gangs, engaging in pre-marital sex, etc. Stephen (1997) wrote that growing numbers of children are being neglected, abused, and ignored. Without change, the dark specter of generational warfare could become all too real. Stephen (1997) further continues that child-care advocates reports that up to 15% of 16-to 19-year-olds are at risk of never reaching their potential and simply becoming lost in society. Children at-risk of any age, if they were at risk of not becoming self-supporting adults, headed for a life in institutions for delinquency, crime, mental illness, addiction, and dependency. We could also describe as "at risk" those teens and preteens who take on child rearing themselves and drop out of school. Thus, one can assume that the youth of today is different from the youth of the past. Stephen (1997) further states that the Gallup Poll reported that 70% of 16- to 24-year-olds believe that the world was a better place when their parents were their age, and 56% said it will be worse for their own children. “A joint Washington Post, Kaiser, and Harvard survey reported that the belief that "most people can be trusted" fell from 54% to 35%, and trust in government dropped from 76% to 25% over a three-decade period ending in 1995. At-risk youth, in particular, say they "live for today" and see no hope for their future (Stephen, 1997)”
Causes of At-risk Behaviors
One of the major factors affected by a youth’s at-risk behavior is his/her study. Delinquency usually leads to low grades and detentions. Kennedy and Morton (1999) cited that at-risk students lacked social values and a sense of responsibility as illustrated by their poor attendance records at school, their lack of preparedness for classroom learning, and their unwillingness to learn. On the other hand, one of the main causes of at-risk behavior is poverty. Garris (1998) states that “the rise in the number of children living in official poverty and the increase in the number of children living in families headed by a single parent have led some to assume that this situation has caused an increase in at-risk behavior by youth.” He continues that there is position held by policy makers that there is a vicious cycle exists between at-risk behavior and poverty. They assume that youth at-risk behavior begets poverty, and poverty begets at-risk behavior. Poverty has a reputation of mutating family structures. The negative effects of poverty lead youths to engage in practices or leisure to forget their conditions in life. Drug abuse and pre-marital sex that results in pregnancy and abortion is often the practices being engaged in by troubled youths.
The number of children living with a single parent has increased dramatically since the 1960s. In the 1985-89 period, there were about 2.2 million premarital births compared to about 700,000 premarital births for the 1960-64 period.... Between 1970 and 1990, the proportion of two-parent family groups has declined for Whites, Blacks and persons of Hispanic origin (who may be of any race) while father-child and mother-child family groups have increased (Lugaila 1992). Premarital childbearing, separation and divorce have caused one-parent family groups to become much more prevalent (and accepted) in the United States in the last 20 years. Now, about 3 out of 10 family groups are maintained by just one parent, but in 1970 only 1 out of 10 were.... These societal changes have led to American children today living in increasingly varied and complex living arrangements. (Norton and Miller, 1992). Divorce has also a strong effect on children and youth. It has a long-term effect, though Garris (1998) states that the topic have been taken for granted by social scientists in the past.
The increase of children in the poverty area must have been the reason why most social scientists link poverty to at-risk behavior as most delinquent youths have come from an urban environment. Garris (1998) cites that Lugaila (1992) states young children are the most likely population cohorts to be living in poverty. "Twenty-five percent of children under age 3 lived in poverty, and 22.1 percent aged 3 to 5 years lived in poverty, compared to 17.3 percent for adolescents age 12 to 17." This can be backed up by Ozawa’s (1993) findings in 1990 that in 1990, 20.6% of all children in the United States were poor, compared with 15.1% in 1970. Children were the poorest demographic group in 1990. In contrast, only 12.2% of the elderly were poor in 1990. These figures indicate a great transformation in child poverty - until 1973, the poverty rate of children was always lower than that of the elderly.
It is evident that poverty and other factors can result to poor self-esteem. But Frank (1996) states that “as many concerned parents and grandparents ponder how to raise children in the 1990s, they realize that one half of our teenage children are at risk at more than the normal level. Even when there are two functioning parents, there remain potential difficulties because of low self-esteem, school phobia, and experimentation with drugs and alcohol.” This proves that not all at-risk youth are poor, or a product of a broken family. There are some cases that the reasons of at-risks are more than the usual causes. It can be because of intimidation from other youths, inferiority complex because of social and psychological factors. Frank (1996) further states that “the low self-esteem caused them (youth) to act out and rebel, not to be dominated or subdued. They became high-risk youth shortly before or after eighth grade. We now know that this could just as easily happen in third or fourth grade.” At times, hunger, spiritual pain, low self-esteem, and a lack of confidence in their future can easily lead such youth to gang life. Hundreds of youth have no other adults or place to turn to for support (Frank, 1996).
The youth’s hatred feeling towards the school that he or she attends to is one of the social, as well as psychological factors that rooted from conflicts in the family. Kennedy and Norton (1999) states that the key events that triggered the beginning of school hatred and the student's alienation with school were: a major move; illegal drug use and violence in the home; perceived racism issues; or the divorce and subsequent remarriage of a parent. Kennedy and Norton (1999) further states that Drug use usually gets students into deep trouble educationally, but this study goes further to say that drugs are not always introduced through school. According to the Uniform Crime Reports for the United States [1994], arrests for drug-related charges between 1985 and 1994 rose 66 percent for persons under 18 years of age compared to an increase of 60 percent for those older than 18 years. However, between 1990 and 1994, drug arrests for persons under 18 years of age increased 88.9 percent compared to 14.2 percent for those over 18 years (Garris, 1997). To put these statistics in context, there has been a general decrease in reported illicit drug use by high school twelfth graders since a high of almost 60 percent in 1979. By 1992, drug use for high school seniors had dropped to about 25 percent. But this reduction ceased that year and drug use began to rise once again.
Sneaking out and feigned sickness are more prevalent in our society than most parents believe to be true. This common behavior may help justify the curfew that teenagers object to so much. On the other hand, a major move is disruptive to a youth student because school system changes dramatically from one system to another and even between schools in the same district. Feeling like an outsider to a social group, such as a school classroom, can nudge teenagers to join an anti-school group or worst, gangs. As these groups are known to harbor trouble, it is mot likely that students joining these groups would learn to handle things in violence. This is where the malpractice of teachers to handle such cases comes to place. Kennedy, et al, (1999) states that “teacher unfairness is linked with the ideas that teachers assume that all students want to continue with a college education, and especially with the feeling that teachers identify more strongly with middle to upper middleclass socioeconomic groups.”
Stephen (1998) states that on the average school day, as many as 15% of junior and senior high school students are not in school. This pattern usually leads to dropout. Absentees represent a large portion of those arrested for daytime break-ins and thefts, and dropouts are over-represented in jails and prisons. Stephen (1998) cites the Census Bureau reports that earnings of students without a high school diploma average far below the poverty line.
In the case of alcohol use and drug abuse, Stephen (1998) states that polls of youth indicate that nine out of 10 teenagers drink alcohol to some extent by the time they finish high school, and a majority have used illegal drugs. A study of 1,200 school dropouts in California found their weekly alcohol-use rates were twice as high as in-school counterparts, and their use of hard drugs was two to five times as high. Dropout drug users were much more likely to be involved in violent and criminal activities. One-third said they had sold drugs in the past year, and twice as many dropouts as in-school students said they belonged to a gang. As the dropout students have nothing to turn to but the gang they’re in, many at-risk youth end up in jail. Stephen (1998) wrote that in 1996, the Justice Department reported that the juvenile homicide rate had almost doubled in over a decade, and blacks and males were by far the most likely to be killed. He further states that the major correlating factor was the increase in the use of firearms, and the number of juvenile homicide cases can double in the next 10 years. Tragically, most victims of juvenile violence are other juveniles, often children who are not even involved in the dispute.
There is a vast amount of the students who have become alienated from society slowly become alienated from school, too. In an analysis of data, it was reported that there was a significant difference in attitudes regarding the academic aspects of school between sophomores who remained in school and those who dropped out of school. Of course, other reasons for school dropout include low self-esteem and increased school standards (Robenstein and Shultz, 1994). The other significant factors attributed to high dropout rates, according to the Office of Educational Research, are social class position, truancy, and high absenteeism (Robenstein and Shultz, 1994). In addition, Frank (1996) states that, based on his experience as a school counselor, all of the students who sought his help were ready to drop out of school either by legal or illegal means. He reasoned that if the at-risk youth leave the system, which they have established, they lose the educational benefits teachers try to provide; and then they lose the societal benefits, such as jobs, an opportunity to rise in the socioeconomic hierarchy, and a place in the future, void of poverty, failure, and crime. The root of this is basically the fact that students bring all their past experiences, including family issues such as parental abuse of children, with them into the classroom (Rowley, 1989). Kennedy and Morton (1999) concluded that “two major points emerge from that study concerning patterns of early school leaving. The first point is that no student made a decision to drop out of school. Instead, it was a gradual process of increasing truancy, causing a student to get too far behind in academic work. The second point is that the parents of dropouts did not support the truancy of their child, nor did they support the student's dropping out of school. Parents are often unaware of the student's truancy and declining grades until it is too late. The student drops out rather than repeat the grade.”
For the record, the number of adolescents being jailed and otherwise involved in the criminal justice system in the United States has continued to climb over the past two decades (Smith, 1998). The incarceration and criminal activity of youth are currently major problems in the United States, with more and more youth being placed in state correctional, county jail, and juvenile delinquency facilities each year. According to the 1999 national report on juvenile offenders by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the overall juvenile arrest rate increased 22% between 1989 and 1997 (Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). The female population is becoming an increasing concern with arrest rates between 1981 and 1997 rising in aggravated assault (139%), weapons law violations (191%), and larceny theft (40%; Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). These reports are obviously alarming. The continuous increase of at-risk youth has led the government, and several non-governmental organizations to contain this increase and help the youth in trouble. Programs have been developed to reach out to at-risk youth.
Characteristics of At-risk Youth
There are several ways to determine if a youth is at-risk. Christle, et al (2002) cited that researchers have identified a number of demographic and behavioral characteristics of youth that contribute to their risk of involvement with the juvenile justice system. These include (Bullis & Walker, 1996; Nelson & Pearson, 1994; Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995): ethnic minority status; aggressive, antisocial behavior; difficulties in school and school failure (including educational disabilities); Family stresses, including poverty, single parent home, inadequate parental supervision, and lax or inconsistent parental discipline, coercive family interactions, physical abuse, substance abuse (self or family), living in a high crime community, and criminal or delinquent relatives or peers. These risk factors are common denominators in the backgrounds of youth who require a variety of human services, including special education, mental health interventions, and child welfare services, in addition to intervention by juvenile courts (Nelson et al., 1996). Basically, at-risk student characteristics are categorized into four areas: school, community, student, and family related (Wells, 1990)
Christle, et al (2002) states that Melton and Pagliocca (1992) found many similarities in the characteristics of youth served by the mental health and juvenile justice systems in South Carolina. Persons in both systems were predominantly males who were behind in school, involved in property or status offenses, and displayed traits associated with conduct disorders (e.g., association with delinquent peers, lack of a sense of conscience, poor insight into personal problems, and poor school attendance). Many incarcerated adolescents have behavioral and emotional problems that would qualify them for special education or residential treatment programs (Granallo and Hanna, 2003). Nelson and Rutherford (1989) reported that 77% of incarcerated students receiving special education services were behaviorally disordered. The link between behavioral and emotional problems and delinquency has been reported in the literature for decades (Mcintyre, 1993).
Granallo and Hanna (2003) cited that Chiles, Miller, and Cox (1980), in a study of 120 delinquent youth, reported that 23% of their sample met criteria for a major affective disorder (depression) using Beck and Hamilton depression rating scales (the Beck Depression Inventory and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, respectively). They commented that it is interesting the delinquents with depression in the study sought out exciting, dangerous, or illegal activities in an attempt to mitigate their feelings of depression, whereas delinquents who were not depressed did not seek out these activities. They took particular note on the high rate of alcohol and drug use among delinquents with depression, leading to more arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct for delinquents with depression than for non-depressed delinquents (Chiles et al., 1980). Granallo and Hanna (2003) state that incarcerated youth are often involved with gangs. In a study of 395 adjudicated adolescents, more than half (n = 194) of the male youth and almost half of the female youth in the study (n = 29) reported being involved in a gang. They state that the study is interesting because it indicated that incarcerated male youth who were involved in a gang had lower rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts than did male youth who were not involved in a gang (Evans, Albers, Macari, & Mason, 1996).
Christle, et al, (2002) states that if there is one characteristic that separates chronically antisocial and delinquent youth from other children who exhibit problematic or challenging behavior, perhaps it is the extraordinarily poor prognosis of successful rehabilitation, particularly if they have been incarcerated. They further state that Lane and Burchard (1983) characterize incarceration as the "A" phase of a withdrawal of treatment study designed to demonstrate how well the intervention sustains deviancy. Historically, juvenile justice has been the "default system" with regard to youth who require long-term care (Wollard, Gross, Mulvey, & Reppucci, 1992). However, with regard to providing effective educational and mental health services, incarceration should be considered the service alternative of last resort.
Kennedy and Morton (1999) states that the five basic human needs as described by Glasser (1986) are to survive and reproduce, to belong and love, to gain power, to be free, and to have fun. An assumption of Glasser's control theory is that our actions and interactions are initiated by "satisfying pictures of that activity that we store in our heads as a pleasant memory". Glasser believes that the at-risk student's positive mental image is replaced by pictures of themselves rebelling or withdrawing. What students do in school (and out) is completely determined by the pictures in their heads. Glasser also believes that if at-risk youth are lonely, they will spend their time looking for friends rather than knowledge. Negative images are dismissed and that positive images control our choices for behavior. But it is always the difference between the pictures in our head and the situation in the world that starts us misbehaving. A student may have to behave defiantly so he or she can get expelled from school in order to gain control of his or her life. If there is no visual of satisfying any personal need by learning in school, learning will not take place simply because a teacher demands that a student learn.
There are many ways to determine an at-risk youth. The Youth Research and General Assistant Project (1993) states that the traditional approach of employers to defining today’s at-risk youth is to use demographic characteristics. However, using group characteristics of who is at-risk has several significant drawbacks. First, group characteristics are really proxies for more specific skill deficits and social problems. They are not easily compared to employer requirements, in defining employability, nor are they readily translated into needs that can guide service strategy. As such, their value as a basis of individual assessment and community planning is limited. Second, using group characteristics as a basis for targeting means that some youth are likely to be arbitrarily defined as at-risk when their skill levels do not justify that definition. Without information that is more specific than demographic characteristics, practitioners are limited in their ability to make quality choices about allocating resources (YRGAP, 1993).
The YRGAP (1993) continued to enumerate the ways employers use to determine an at-risk youth. The team stated that besides the demographic characteristics, employers also use skills-based approach. As employers increasingly emphasize employability skills as the primary determinant in their hiring decisions, practitioners are increasingly responding by defining youth at-risks based on deficits in or level of, employability skills, especially functional basic skills and/ or pre-employment/ work maturity skills. YRGAP (1993) states that a skills-based approach lets practitioners define “at-riskness” in relation to the employability skills required by local employers. Another advantage of defining youth at-risk based on skill level is that it enables practitioners to assess the different needs within the at-risk population, very especially, e.g., individuals testing above or below specified readings and math levels. However, the YRGAP (1993) concluded that despite its advantages, a skills-based approach fails to take into account the group characteristics that have proven to be social or cultural barriers to employment.
YRGAP (1993) states that by combining skill measures or group characteristics, practitioners can develop a “hybrid” definition of at-risk youth that includes, for example, those who are dropouts, or minorities, or teen parents, and who lack educational and work skills. A hybrid definition lets practitioners target youth with clearly specified employment skills needs while also formally recognizing some of the social and cultural factors that exacerbate the risks of failure in the labor market. This approach may help youth serving agencies to develop common definitions and a common approach to assessing participants.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999) reports that In general, the most powerful demographic predictors of individual violent criminality are gender and age. Boys in late adolescence and young men are much more likely to be serious high-rate offenders than girls or older men (Chaiken, 1998). Further, studies using official record data have consistently found greater involvement of African-Americans in violent offending than of Caucasians (LaFree, 1995). Overall, OJJDP (1999) reports that juvenile violence is committed primarily by males and often occurs interracially among minority males. While some younger adolescents do commit violent offenses, the majority of juvenile offenders and victims are 16- and 17-year-olds. An examination of neighborhood factors indicates that many violent juvenile offenders live in disruptive and disorganized families and communities. However, as the surveys with the children living in high-risk neighborhoods show, the majority of youth who live in such environments are not involved in serious delinquency.
Woote Jr. and Modaski (1997) state that some authors have used the term “at-risk” as a label to identify students at-risk for dropping out of school (Wells, 1990; Slavin, 1989). Others have utilized a wider scope in defining the at-risk child, looking not only at probability of high school graduation, but also at preparation for employment, use of drugs and/or alcohol (Tindall, 1988). Students also could be considered at-risk if they are likely to complete school with inadequate basic skills (Slavin, 1989). Other possible labels include: disadvantaged, culturally deprived, underachiever, nonachiever, low ability, slow learner, less able, low socioeconomic status (SES), language impaired, dropout prone, alienated, marginal, disenfranchised, impoverished, underprivileged, low performing, and remedial (Lehr & Harris, 1988).
Programs for Youth At-risk
In response to the increasing numbers of at-risk youth, numerous programs have been developed to cope with problem. Here are some basic examples of approaches.
Stephen (1997) states that positive reinforcement is one of the approaches that works well on at-risk youth. He states that children crave attention more than anything else, especially positive attention. “A baby who is cuddled, talked to, and stimulated in the first six weeks of life is much more likely to be intelligent and well adjusted than a baby ignored and simply fed and cleaned up in silence. Later, the child who is rewarded with praise for accomplishments is much more likely than others to become optimistic and achievement oriented” (Stephen, 1997). He also states that one extinguishes unacceptable behavior by ignoring it and eliminating the child's ability to gain attention.
On the other hand, pats on the back, awards, and ceremonies to celebrate accomplishments are particularly effective in fostering prosocial behavior and giving at-risk youth a stake in society, helping them overcome lack of hope and lack of faith in the future. He then suggested that using positive reinforcement must become a way of life for parents, teachers, and others. Teaching positive reinforcement to potential parents has been successful in reducing the at-risk population. Parent education can offer information and skills to assist the parent-to-be with incentives to learn and use good child-rearing practices. One example of a positive reinforcement program are programs that force teenagers to carry a computerized crying and wetting doll around for a couple of weeks. This helps reduces teenage parenting as many teens decided to postpone teenage parenthood because of what they have experienced from the program.
The Justice Department and Health and Human Services each have Healthy Start programs. Justice's program was designed to reduce neglect and abuse, while the Health and Human Services program was designed to reduce infant mortality by strengthening the maternal and infant care systems at the community level (Stephen, 1997). A similar program, Healthy Families America, was launched in 1992 by the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse to help establish home visitation programs, service networks, and funding opportunities so all new parents can receive the necessary education and support (Stephen, 1997).
Stephen (1997) also states that mentoring is one the effective ways to prevent or stop a youth’s at-risk behavior. He cites the, leaders in Kansas City that are on a quest to recruit, train, and assign 30,000 mentors - one for every at-risk child in the city. Zimmerman, et al (2002) states that researchers have suggested that natural mentors may play a vital role in adolescent development. Young people often attribute their safe passage through the tumultuous years of adolescence to the influence of significant nonparental adults such as teachers, extended family members, or neighbors (Anderson, 1991; Lefkowitz, 1986; Smink, 1990). Zimmerman, et al (2002) have found empirical support for the proposition that having a natural mentor may play a vital role in the lives of adolescents.
Zimmerman, et al (2002) in their study entitled “Natural mentors and adolescent resiliency: A study with urban youth,” examine the effects that natural mentors have on the lives of urban adolescents. The researchers concluded that of the 770 adolescents participating in this study, 414 (53.8%) reported having a natural mentor. The most commonly reported type of natural mentor in our sample was an extended family member, such as an aunt, uncle, cousin, or grandparent (n = 171, 35.7%). The researchers found that youths with natural mentors reported more positive school attitudes than did youth without natural mentors. They also found out that having a natural mentor was also associated with lower levels of problem behavior, and youth with natural mentors had more positive attitudes toward school across the range of friends' negative school behaviors. However, natural mentors had somewhat larger direct effects on school attitudes than they did on problem behaviors. Nevertheless, having a natural mentor may play a vital role in the lives of adolescents. “Respondents with natural mentors reported lower levels of problem behavior, including marijuana use and nonviolent delinquency, than did those without mentors. This was true even after we adjusted for demographic variables and known risk factors such as problem behavior norms and friends' problem behaviors. Having a mentor partially offset the effect of these negative peer influences, providing evidence of a compensatory effect” (Zimmerman, et al, 2002). In addition, they suggested that programs that create settings that provide opportunities for youth to interact with nonparental adults may help adolescents foster the development of natural mentoring relationships.
Stephen (1997) states that programs are now appearing in schools and community centers to provide attitudes and skills necessary to resolve conflict nonviolently. Models have been developed by the American Bar Association and the Justice Department, as well as by educators. He further states that “one of the best models involves training school staff - teachers, administrators, custodians, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers - in creative nonviolent conflict-resolution methods.” He concluded that older students are also taught these techniques, and they in turn teach younger students, turning peer pressure into a positive rather than negative force. Community school programs are also effective because most youth spend their time at school. Stephen (1997) gave some examples of successful Community school programs. One of the programs is in Missouri, where 6,000 volunteers keep 675 schools open for extra hours. Another examples are the Boys' and Girls' Clubs that offer mentoring in New Jersey schools and the Safe Haven programs in New York that provide safe environments and positive after-school tutoring and enrichment programs.
Laursen (2000) discusses the strength-based approach and considers it as one the most effective approaches in an at-risk youth. He states that the strength-based approach encourages us to support and reinforce child and family functioning rather than focus on individual or family deficits, and it places the helping practitioners in the role of a partner, rather than an expert. The job of a strength-based practitioner is to look for the youth’s particular strength. They are particularly interested in a youth’s story. The personal narratives of a youth help them detect exceptions to their problems. They are genuinely interested when the problems do not occur, because, according to practitioners, it is often in these exceptions that possibilities for solution construction lie and the leverage to bounce back from life's hardships can be found. Primary principles of solution-based practice are, therefore, "If something works, do more of it!" and "If it doesn't work, do something different!" (Berg, 1994). Laursen (2000) concluded that “the core of strength-based practice is paying attention to what works and identifying strengths rather than deficits in the children and families with whom we work. As a result, strength-based practitioners team with children and families at all levels of service planning and implementation because one of our goals is to create less dependency on professionals. Strength-based values and principles place practitioners in a partnership with children and families to help them identify and use their strengths and resources to overcome obstacles and thus live empowered lives.”
Another program that is effective in the resilience of at-risk youth is the Life-skills training. Moote Jr. and Wodarski (1997) cite that life-skills training have been defined as "the formalized teaching of requisite skills for surviving, living with others, and succeeding in a complex society" (Hamburg, 1990). Wodarski (1988) reported that life-skills training was "proposed as the treatment of choice" when applied to prevention with adolescents. Gilchrist, Schinke, and Maxwell (1987) reported that life skills, which assist in the development of an adolescent's self-efficacy "include the ability to solve problems, to communicate honestly and directly, to gain and maintain social support, and to control emotions and personal feelings." Life-skills programs vary in the types and quality of services they provide. Kraizer (1990) stated that "essential components of any life-skills curriculum are based on the development of fundamental, generalized interpersonal skills." Hamburg (1990) reported that successful life-skills programs appeared to have similar core elements. Effective programs addressed developmental needs, health promotion/problem prevention, and high-risk groups. This program involves adventures as a self-esteem enhancer. The overall goal of adventure-based activities and programming appears to be the enhancement of participants' self-esteem or self-concept (Schoel, Prouty, & Radcliffe, 1988; Hopkins & Putnam, 1993). According to Butler (1993), adventure programming activities and experiences include excitement, risk taking, cooperation and competition, trust, communication, physical, mental, and emotional challenges, physical activity, problem-solving and creativity, group and individual skill development, and fun.
With all these programs, youth initiative is obviously an important factor for at-risk recovery. Surveys by Gallup Poll, Wirthlin Group, and others consistently find that 95% of teenagers believe it is important for adults and teens "to get involved in local civic, charitable, cultural, environmental, and political activities." More than three-fourths of teens say they are already participating in some volunteer work, such as working at soup kitchens for the poor, nursing homes for the elderly, or shelters for the homeless. Programs such as Americorps, Job Corps, Peace Corps, and others provide young people a chance to learn the joy of giving to others; at the same time, it gives them a stake in society by developing skills, discipline, and a chance to go to trade school or college through grants and loans. Many communities and even some states (Georgia, for example) are developing youth-oriented community service programs of their own. (Stephen, 1997).
The Reasons Why Some Programs Fail
The at-risks youth programs are only as effective as they can be when the organization’s body applies the right strategies and policies to convince a youth of his or her at-risk situation to accept resilience. Some programs fail because of the lack of strategy and ignorance on how to approach an at-risk youth properly.
Wright (1999) reports that drug czar Barry McCaffrey announced that drug education and prevention will never succeed as long as D.A.R.E. - the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program - is ensconced in 70 percent of our children's schools. It has been reported that over the last five years during that time, studies have been conducted for the federal General Accounting Office and Justice Department and for the California Department of Education. They describe how D.A.R.E. and other anti-drug programs fail to reach the teenagers most at risk of drug abuse. Brown, as cited by Wright (1999) states that most teens oppose authoritarian measures used to punish peers caught with alcohol or drugs. The teenagers Brown interviewed questioned whether suspension from school is really the best way to deal with kids caught experimenting with drugs. He further states that the core of the problem is that D.A.R.E. boosters refuse to recognize that teenagers experiment with drugs. Government surveys show, however, that half of high school students try an illegal drug before graduation. “How do we reach these youngsters?” He asks.
In preventing violence among at-risk youths, Fetsch and Silliman (2002) cited that many highly touted programs provide little evidence of research foundations, and most offer no evidence of effectiveness in reducing violence, despite claims in program goals (Wahler, Fetsch, and Silliman 1997). In a survey of 51 programs, Wilson-Brewer et al. (1991) found that fewer than half the programs surveyed provided empirical evidence of reducing violence (Posner 1994). Lack of evidence may stem from limited funding for evaluation, failure to include evaluation in program implementation, failure to target the relatively small groups of young people who commit acts of serious violence, and seriously flawed program designs (Posner 1994). Fetsch and Silliman (2002) concluded that nearly 400 violence prevention programs were identified. While there are surely others, only seven were found showing consistent impact on violence risk factors. The question then may arise: How many are effective with severely angry and very at-risk youth? In response, since program evaluations involved a cross-section of youth, even highly tested programs may be ineffective with severely angry and very at-risk young people. Clearly, resources are needed to fund applied research studies to determine which programs work best with high-risk groups.
Last 1997, the testimony of Cornelia M. Blanchette (1997), Associate Director of Employment Issues, Health, Education, and Human Services Division before the Subcommittee on Youth Violence, in the US senate states that analysis of some of the strategic plans required by the Results Act suggests that although the act may facilitate the integrated approach, to program implementation and management, the strategic plans are not specific enough for their committee to determine whether an integrated approach is operating with respect to services for a particular target group, such as at-risk and delinquent youth. It was also stated in the testimony that most at-risk and delinquent youth programs lack coordinated federal effort. She further states that although the federal government has invested billions of dollars in these programs, uncertainty exists as to whether the multitude of these federal programs offers the most efficient service delivery and is achieving the desired results. The federal system, for providing services to at-risk and delinquent youth clearly creates the potential for program overlap and duplication of funding. This may decrease the efficiency because of the large diversified numbers of programs being funded by the government. Their work suggests that efficiencies may be gained by having a smaller number of consolidated programs for at-risk or delinquent youth. She further stressed that while these programs were created to serve the youth at-risk, not all programs explicitly include juvenile prevention among their programs.
To conclude this review of literatures, it is evident that most at-risk youth came from an urban background, though some became at-risk because of the factors within family and school. At-risk behaviors lead to deviant acts such as drug use, early pregnancy, dropping out of school, resorting to violence, etc. Certain programs have been established to somehow contain and prevent the increase of at-risk youth cases but it is only effective based on the practices and strategies of the organization leaders. The review has found out that lack of enough knowledge on the strategies regarding the prevention of at-risk youth cases is one of the main reasons why some programs fail. Research would be an important factor in the improvement of youth at-risk programs. As the number of youth at-risk increase, the programs that were designated specifically for them should decrease to be able to strategically allocate the funds that the government provides to research rather for the similar programs that practices the same policies and procedures.
Bibliography
Americans for the Arts (1997). Arts Programs for At-Risk Youth. Available at artsusa.org.
Association of African American Role Models. Available at www.aaarm.org.
Astroth, K. A. (1993). Are youth at risk? Journal of Extension, Fall, Vol. 31 No. 3.Berg, I. K. (1994). Family based services. New York: W. W. Norton.
Blanchette, C.M. (1997). At-risk and Delinquent Youth: Most Programs Lack
Coordinated Federal Efforts. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Youth Violence, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (online). Available at: http://www.conginst.org
Brown, L. J. and Sevcik, K. (1999). TR for youth at risk. Northern Illinois Special Recreation Association (NISRA).
Bulls, M., & Walker, H. M. (1996). Characteristics and causal factors of troubled
youth. In C. M. Nelson, R. B. Rutherford, & B. I. Wolford (Eds.), Comprehensive and collaborative systems that work for troubled youth: A national agenda. Richmond, KY: National Juvenile Detention Association.
Butler, S. (1993). The physical education and recreation strand: The history and
the future. Zip Lines, 24(1)
Center for Human Resources (1993) A guide to case management for at-risk youth -- 2nd ed. Available at graduateschool.heller.brandies.edu.
Christle, C.A., Jolivette, J., Liaupsin, C.J., Nelson, M.C., Rinev, M., and
Scott, T.M. (2002). Addressing the needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth through positive behavior support: effective prevention practices. Education & Treatment of Children. Volume: 25. Issue: 4. COPYRIGHT 2002 Family Services of Western Pennsylvania
Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fetsch, R.J., And B. Silliman. (2002). Which Youth Violence Prevention
Programs Work?. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues 7(1). On-line. Available at: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pub/2002w/fetsch.html.
Foster, S., Alessandri, A., Keating, L.M., and Tomishima, M.A. (2002). The
effects of a mentoring program on at-risk youth. Adolescence. Volume: 37. Issue: 148. COPYRIGHT 2002 Libra Publishers, Inc.
Frank, I. (1996). Building Self-Esteem in At-Risk Youth: Peer Group Programs
and Individual Success Stories. Praeger Publishers. Westport, CT.
Garris, D. (1998). Poverty, single-parent households, and youth at-risk behavior:
an empirical study. Journal of Economic Issues. Volume: 32. Issue: 4. COPYRIGHT 1998 Association for Evolutionary Economics.
Gilchrist, L. D., Schinke, S. P., & Maxell, J. S. (1987). Life skills counseling for
preventing problems in adolescence. Journal of Social Service Research.
Glasser, W. ( 1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.
Glenn, S. H. and Nelsen, J. (1988). Raising self- reliant children in a self-indulgent world: Seven building blocks for developing capable young people. Rocklin, California: Prima Publishing & Communications.
Granallo, P.F. and Hanna, F.J. (2003). Incarcerated and court-involved
adolescents: counseling an at-risk population. Journal of Counseling and Development. Volume: 81. Issue: 1. COPYRIGHT 2003 American Counseling Association.
Hamburg, B. A. (1990). Life-skills training: Preventive interventions for young
adolescents. Washington, DC: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323 018.)
Hopkins, D., & Putnam, R. (1993). Personal growth through adventure. David
Fulton Publishers, Great Britain
Kraizer, S. K. (1990). Skills for living: The requirement of the '90s. In Critical
issues in prevention of child abuse and neglect: Adolescent parenting life skills for children. Austin, TX: Children's Trust Fund of Texas. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 361 116).
Kennedy, R.L. and Morton, J.H. (1999). Alternative Strategies for Teaching At-
Risk Students. Peter Lang, New York.
Laursen, E.K. (2000). Strength Based Practice with Children in Trouble.
Reclaiming Children and Youth. Volume: 9. Issue: 2. COPYRIGHT 2000 Pro-Ed.
Lofquist, W. A. (1992). Mental models and fundamental change: A path to human service transformation. New Designs for Youth Development, Spring, 28-33.
Lugalia, T. (1992). Households, Families, and Children: A 30-Year Perspective.
Current Population Reports, Population Characteristics. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Department of Commerce.
McIntyre, T. (1993). Behaviorally disordered youth in correctional settings:
Prevalence, programming, and teacher training. Behavioral Disorders, 18.
Melton, G. B., & Pagliocca, P. M. (1992). Treatment in the juvenile justice
system: Directions for policy and practice. In J. J. Cocozza (Ed.), Responding to the mental health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system
Moote Jr., G.T. and Wodarski, J.S. (1997). The acquisition of life skills through
adventure-based activities and programs: a review of the literature. Adolescence. Volume: 32. Issue: 125. COPYRIGHT 1997 Libra Publishers, Inc.
Nelson, C. M., & Pearson, C. A. (1994). Delinquency in the context of culture
and community. In R. Peterson & S. Ishii-Jordan (Eds.), Cultural and community contexts for emotional or behavioral disorders. Boston: Brookline Press.
Nelson, C. M., & Rutherford, R. B., Jr. (1989). Impact of the correctional special
education training (C/SET) project on correctional special education. Paper presented at the CEC/CCBD National Topical Conference on Behavioral Disorders, Charlotte, NC.
Nelson, C. M., Rutherford, R. B., & Wolford, B. (Eds.). (1996) Developing
comprehensive systems that work for troubled youth. Richmond, KY: National Juvenile Detention Association.
Norton, A.S., and Miller, L.F. (1992) Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the
1990's. Current Population Reports, Special Studies. Bureau of the
Census. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). Juvenile Violence Research. (online). Available at: http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.orgOzawa, M.N. (1993) "America's Future and Her Investment in Children." Child
Welfare 72, no. 6.
Posner, M. (1994). Youth at risk: Research raises troubling questions about
violence prevention programs. The Harvard Education Letter 10(3):1-4.
Robenstein, C. and Shultz, F. (1994). "Education Reform and AtRisk Students,"
in Multicultural Education. Dushkin Publishing Co., Guilford, CT.
Rowley M. W. (1989). An ethnographic inquiry into the reasons why students
drop out of high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
SasCulture, Inc. (2003). Culture reaches out to youth. Available at www.sasculture.sk.sa.
Schoel, J., Prouty, D., & Radcliffe, P. (1988). Islands of healing: A guide to
adventure-based counseling. Project Adventure, Inc.
Hamilton, MA
Smith, B. (1998). Children in custody: 20-year trends in juvenile detention,
correctional, and shelter facilities. Crime and Delinquency, 44.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999
national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sport Manitoba (2003). Sports for life. Available at sportmb.ca.
Stephen, G. (1997). Youth at risk: saving the world's most precious resource.
The Futurist. Volume: 31. Issue: 2. COPYRIGHT 1997 World Future Society.
Wahler, J.J., R.J. Fetsch, and B. Silliman (1997). Research-based, empirically
effective violence prevention curricula: A review of resources. (On-line). Available at: http://www.nnfr.org/violence/yvp_litrev.html.
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school:
Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.
Wilson-Brewer, R., Cohen, S., O'Donnel, L. and Goodman, I. (1991).
Violence prevention for young adolescents: A survey of the state of the art. (ERIC, ED356442.)
Wodarski, J. S. (1988). Preventive health services for adolescents: A practice
paradigm. Social Work in Education.
Wright, K. E. (1999). Just Say No: DARE doesn’t work. Family Watch Library
(online). Available at:www.familywatch.org
Youth Research and Technical Assistant Project (1993). Assessment for At-
risk Youth. Center for Human Resources, Brandeis University, Heller Graduate School, Waltham, MA. pp. 3-4
0 comments:
Post a Comment