|
Study Design and Methods The LINC Study was accomplished through the use of two main research methods: analysis of self-reported data and analysis of data concerning youth services available in DC. Each research method is described in detail below. Analysis of Self-Reported Data Research staff from Howard University and ILJ administered a lengthy questionnaire to a random sample of 213 boys who, in the summer of 1996, were living in one of the three census tracts in Washington, DC, identified as having the highest rates of juvenile violence during the previous 3 years.1 The sample, the questionnaire, and LINC's analysis of the boys' responses are described below. The sample. The random sample included 213 boys ages 13 to 17, 98 percent of whom identified themselves as black or African American. ILJ and Howard University's process of recruiting boys for interviews and selecting the study sample involved several steps. First, a team of researchers from Howard University in mid-1996 canvassed the three census tracts and completed a form describing the physical conditions (for example, presence of graffiti or trash) of each block face.2 They also interviewed a member of each household to identify any boys living there between the ages of 13 and 17. Team members generally operated in pairs and discussed the project with whoever answered the door. In particular, they asked about the number and ages of boys in the household, explained the $15 payment available to any eligible youth who successfully completed an interview (pointing out that only one boy per household could participate), and distributed a flier about the project. This approach succeeded in letting the community know about the survey; however, information about the number of boys in each household was generally not forthcoming. Community members were suspicious of the team's inquiries and frequently informed team members that no eligible boys lived in their households (even when accepting the flier and asking questions about the interview process). As a supplemental approach to the canvass, key members of the Howard University research team provided fliers to community activists, businesses, and churches in the three census tracts. Researchers eventually interviewed 295 boys, either in their homes or at community centers. Of these, seven were unable to complete the interview process because of cognitive impairment. Interviewers used a seven-item Short Blessed Scale Exam (Katzman, Brown, and Fuld, 1983) to assess cognitive ability. Seventy-five of the remaining 288 who completed the interview had to be excluded from analysis. Primary reasons for exclusion were that a respondent was not from one of the three census tracts or that a respondent was from the same household as another respondent. Other reasons included a refusal to answer key sections of the questionnaire, an interviewer's judgment that answers were untruthful, and disruptive behavior during the interview.
 As reflected in figure 1, the 213 boys in the sample can be classified into five groups, based on the types of criminal behavior, if any, they reported committing. Classification of the boys according to the type of criminal behavior committed was carried out using methods developed by the author (Chaiken and Chaiken, 1984) that have been replicated by numerous researchers (Johnson et al., 1985). The classifications were as follows:3
The questionnaire. In mid-1996, Howard University and ILJ research staff conducted one-on-one interviews of each boy in the study sample. During these interviews, which typically lasted 21/2 hours, the researchers administered a lengthy and detailed questionnaire and recorded each boy's answers to the questions.5 The 70-page questionnaire, written and designed by Drs. Beverly R. Fletcher and Louis E. Wright, Jr., of Howard University, incorporated items from questionnaires previously designed and fielded as part of OJJDP-funded studies of delinquent behavior, including a parallel effort completed in Los Angeles, CA.6 The results of reliability analysis indicated that boys in the study sample responded in a consistent and truthful manner.7 In addition, the patterns of delinquency and other offenses reported by DC boys closely resembled those reported by boys in previous studies, suggesting that the DC boys were neither more nor less truthful than other boys interviewed about delinquent acts or other juvenile offenses they might have committed. The questionnaire sought information on the following subjects:
Data analysis. After research staff administered and recorded answers to the questionnaires, LINC analyzed the boys' responses. The primary statistical methods used to analyze responses were descriptive techniques (such as generating measures of dispersion and central tendency) and analysis of variance. LINC used the latter method to determine whether differences between the groups of boys in the study sample were real or simply the result of chance. This Bulletin reports only those findings that are statistically significant at the 5-percent level or better (meaning that at least 95 percent of the time, differences are not due to chance). Analysis of Youth Services Data The second research method utilized in LINC's study was the analysis of information concerning youth services available in DC. LINC gathered this information in two ways: by interviewing administrators and staff of youth-serving organizations and by reviewing documentation provided by these organizations. The types of organizations contacted and the procedures used to secure information are described below. Organizations contacted. When selecting organizations, LINC's primary source was the Resource Directory of Youth Services in the District of Columbia (prepared in July 1994 by the Mayor's Youth Initiative), which lists and describes 618 programs for DC youth. Seventy-two programs in the directory defined their purpose as delinquency prevention. Of these, 40 programs administered or provided services only to adjudicated youth or those awaiting trial, 4 programs provided drug treatment or drug prevention services, and 8 either provided no direct services or served only children under age 13 or adults. Of the 20 remaining delinquency prevention programs, LINC selected 12 that represented 3 types of youth-serving organizations:
Although the number of organizations contacted was far from exhaustive, these 12 organizations were representative of the types of organizations then offering delinquency prevention programs and youth development and social skills activities to DC adolescents who had not necessarily been adjudicated. LINC's research focused on programs that DC teens could choose to participate in rather than those that youth were ordered (by a court) to participate in. Interviewing administrators and staff. LINC collected data about youth services in DC in a series of structured telephone calls and in-person interviews with 20 administrators and staff members of the youth-serving organizations selected. When conducting these calls and interviews, the author used structured protocols, which listed questions to ask and specified a way to record responses consistently. Respondents, however, were encouraged to provide information in a conversational mode rather than a didactic format. Telephone interviews lasted on average 30 minutes, and in-person interviews lasted on average 1 hour. In gathering information on youth-serving organizations, LINC focused on programs and approaches available for youth at high risk of committing or becoming victims of violent acts, especially youth living in the three study areas. Researchers also sought information on coordination between the organizations and government agencies or nonprofit groups in DC. ILJ staff collected additional information about the status of youth services by conducting a telephone survey to update the Resource Directory discussed above. Gathering written materials. In addition to seeking verbal responses from administrators during interviews and calls, LINC asked about the availability of written materials on such issues as geographic areas served, programmatic activities provided, participant characteristics, and coalitions with which the organizations were working. At the end of each interview, LINC reviewed with the respondent a list of written materials to be furnished. Materials were then either provided immediately or mailed to LINC.
The term "block face" refers to one side of a street between two cross-streets or intersections. The names used for categories of juveniles in this Bulletin were developed as part of the DC study and are based on, but not identical to, the names used for categories of adult offenders in Varieties of Criminal Behavior (Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982). Only a few (three) of the dealers reported getting into fights. For additional information on the questionnaire and the methods used to select the sample and administer the questionnaire, refer to McEwen (1998). Two directors of past and ongoing studies, Dr. David Huizinga of the Institute for Behavior Sciences (University of Colorado) and Dr. Cheryl Maxson of the University of Southern California, served as advisers to Drs. Fletcher and Wright and reviewed drafts of the survey as it was being designed and pretested. Most reliability scales, as reflected by Cronbach's alpha, were consistent between the two studies and were generally greater than 0.70.
| ||||
