Girls and Culture˜ in Delinquency Intervention: A Case Study of RYSE

Abstract

Given the growing trend of girls in the juvenile justice system, there has been increasing attention toward providing gender‐specific programming. The Reaffirming Young Sisters' Excellence (RYSE) program was one of Alameda County, Calif., Probation Department's intervention programs designed to address both gender and cultural factors in girls programming. ANCOVA analyses of 350 randomized girls did not provide support for the gender‐specific hypothesis that girls who received RYSE intervention will have a lower recidivism score than girls who received traditional probation services. However, the cultural hypothesis was partially supported with African American girls who participated in the RYSE intervention faring better than Hispanic, White, and Asian RYSE girls, and their African American control counterparts.

The current state of gender-specific delinquency programming

“…Baseline group equivalence unknown Increases in GPA, school attendance, school behavior, school bonding, and self-control (no statistical analysis performed) Attrition was 14 percent for first sample; 35 percent for second sample; no analysis of differential attrition Irvine (2005) Reductions in risky sexual practices at posttest, improvements in healthy attitudes towards drug and alcohol use, and reductions in quantity of marijuana usage at one-year follow-up; reductions in suicide-risk scores and likelihood of initiating alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use at two-year follow-up Attrition was 33 percent; no differential attrition on outcome variables Le et al (2003) Randomized, controlled design Baseline group equivalence unknown…”

“…There was one gang-prevention and intervention program (Williams, Curry, & Cohen, 2002). Two were probation-based (Burke, Keaton, & Pennell, 2003;Le, Arifuku, & Nunez, 2003) and two others were detention-based (Stack, 2005;Trupin et al, 2002). Others were based in the school or community and primarily involved support groups-a relatively informal group-discussion counseling approach (Belgrave, Reed, Plybon, & Corneille, 2004;Brown & Block, 2001;Irvine, 2005;Marshall, Matthews, & Yager, 2001;Steese et al, 2006).…”

“…Attrition was 55.6 percent; no analysis of differential attrition Belgrave, Reed, Plybon, Butler, et al (2004) Quasi-experimental, matchedcomparison group design Equivalent at baseline on demographics, aggression, ethnic identity but not on gender androgyny Increases in ethnic identity and slight program effects on gender androgyny and relational aggression, controlling for baseline levels Attrition was 16.7 percent; no differential attrition on baseline and outcome measures Stack (2005) One pre-posttest, noncontrolled design; one quasi-experimental, nonequivalent comparison group design assessing the intensive mental health program Baseline group equivalence and attrition unknown Evaluation 1: 2.8 percent readmission and 19.7 percent re-offending rate one year after completion, for those who completed in 2003-2004; 2 to 3 percent of all graduates of Southern Oaks were serving an adult incarceration sentence as of 2005 Evaluation 2: fewer treatment girls were reincarcerated and had new charges after two years than controls; reduced self-harmful and assaultive behaviors and time spent in both security unit and state mental health institution placements (no statistical tests of significance) Burke et al (2003) Randomized, controlled design Equivalent on all measures at baseline Increased protective factors and reduced risk factors for completers, compared to non-completers; reductions in commitments to an institution after a new offense, compared to controls; program effects on school outcomes disappeared across follow-ups Risk score data unavailable for 11 percent of treatment girls and 19 percent of controls; no analysis of differential attrition RYSE program suffered from high attrition and nonequivalent groups (Le et al, 2003), and the WINGS program evaluation revealed mixed results (Burke et al, 2003). Here, effects on risk and protective factors were not evident in comparison to controls, as data were missing for control girls, and only one significant effect emerged for program "completers," relative to the control group members.…”

“…Two others incorporated home visitations in their case management models, referring parents and guardians to relevant services. Four sought to enhance cultural awareness, cultural competencies, and ethnic identity (Belgrave, Reed, Plybon, Butler, et al, 2004;Belgrave, Reed, Plybon, & Corneille, 2004;Le et al, 2003;Williams et al, 2002). Several also incorporated gender identity and discussions of gender into their programs (Belgrave, Reed, Plybon, Butler, et al, 2004;Belgrave, Reed, Plybon, & Corneille, 2004;Irvine, 2005;Steese et al, 2006).…”

“…Others were based in the school or community and primarily involved support groups-a relatively informal group-discussion counseling approach (Belgrave, Reed, Plybon, & Corneille, 2004;Brown & Block, 2001;Irvine, 2005;Marshall, Matthews, & Yager, 2001;Steese et al, 2006). One primarily involved peer-mentoring (Weiss & Nicholson, 1998) and three others were based on case management (Brown & Block, 2001;Le et al, 2003;Trupin et al, 2002). About half of the programs targeted adolescent girls up through age eighteen or nineteen, while another half targeted younger, preadolescent girls.…”