University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A review of the effects of juvenile delinquency on entrance into post-secondary institutions of higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

A review of the effects of juvenile delinquency on entrance into post-secondary institutions of higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 1
A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY ON ENTRANCE INTO
POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

by
Rockisha Roland

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Rockisha Roland
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 2
Table of Contents
Abstract 4
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 5
Background of the Problem 5
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 8
Significance of the Study 9
Limitations 10
Definitions of Terms 12
Organization of the Study 13
Chapter Two: Literature Review 14
Socioeconomic Rationalization 15
History of Juvenile Delinquency 18
Theoretical Frameworks 20
Social Control Theory 20
Rational Choice Theory 31
Education after Incarceration 37
Summary 40
Chapter Three: Methodology 43
Qualitative Design 44
Sample and Population 44
Instrumentation 45
Data Collection 46
Data Analysis 46
Summary 47
Chapter Four: Results 49
Purpose 49
Protocol Questions in Relation to Research Questions 50
History and Background of Juvenile Delinquency and Detention Camp 51
Participants 53
The Survivor 53
The Scholar 54
The Achiever 54
The Forgotten 55
Results for Research Question One 56
Emergent Themes 63
Results for Research Question Two 64
Emergent Themes 68
Results for Research Question Three 69
Emergent Themes 71
Summary 71
Chapter Five: Conclusions 75
Summary of Findings 76
Research Question One 76
Research Question Two 77
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 3
Research Question Three 77
Limitations 78
Implications 78
Recommendations for Further Research 79
Recommendations for Practice 80
Conclusion 81
References 83
Appendix A: Research Table 87
Appendix B: Research Questions and Protocol Grid 89
Appendix C: Consent Form for Participation in a Research Study 91
Appendix D: Interview with David W. 92
Appendix E: Interview with George F. 99
Appendix F: Interview with Jason S. 105
Appendix G: Interview with Lira J. 114

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 4
Abstract
This study investigated the effect juvenile delinquency has on youth perceptions of and
entrance into postsecondary education. The purpose was to help identifying how minors’ arrests
interfere with the traditional educational process, the effects juvenile delinquency has on youths’
attitudes toward higher education, and how social control and rational choice theory support or
aggravate the phenomenon. Also, this study sought to understand how a minor’s arrest interferes
with the schooling process to the extent of hindering postsecondary education. This study
analyzed how rational choice theory and social control theories affect juvenile delinquents
before, during, and after their incarceration in terms of their ability and desire to attend
institutions of higher education.
Findings provide substantial proof that arrests affect the dropout decisions. There is a
disparity between arrested youths and their non-criminal counterparts in enrollment at 4-year
colleges. Institutional disruptions and responses caused these students to drop out and not attend
college, rather than social-psychological influences. This study provides practitioners positive
deviant case studies from which to learn how former juvenile delinquents accessed and
participated in postsecondary education.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 5
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
There is a growing epidemic of juvenile delinquency and youth incarceration in America,
and the problem continues to worsen despite a growing number of rehabilitative centers and
implementation of prevention practices (Tanner, Davies, & O’Grady, 1999). As a result, many
former delinquents become disillusioned regarding school and the pursuit of higher education
(Katsiyannis, Ryan, Zhang, & Spann, 2008). There is limited research on the percentage of
juvenile delinquents who attend colleges and universities; however, current studies show the
numbers are much lower when compared to those of their peers who have never been through the
justice system (Siennick & Staff, 2008).
Federal and state laws regulating education recognize the right of every citizen to receive
an appropriate education as a fundamental human right, with laws governing against
discrimination based on race, national origin, sex or disability (U.S. Department of Education,
2012). Throughout history, providing education for incarcerated persons varied depending on
whether the nation’s prison reform trends prioritized punishment or rehabilitation. During the
1960s, education and training programs in prisons increased as support for rehabilitation grew.
In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act requiring that
states receiving federal funding focus on prevention, intervention, and accountability (Vacca,
2007).
Background of the Problem
Despite the expectation, the country’s public education system is replete with inequities,
such as large gaps in achievement, high rates of suspension, expulsion, criminal activity, and low
graduation rates for poor youth, youth of color, youth with disabilities and youth for whom
English is a second language. Failure by the United States government to ensure youth are
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 6
provided equitable education contributed to a growing population of youth and adults who are
pushed towards delinquency. This push is further exacerbated by a lack of access to and quality
in educational programs in juvenile correctional facilities.
The United States educational system is based on the outdated system of the industrial
age when students were trained in specialized subjects to prepare to join the factory workforce
(Sweeten, 2006). For many, this model proves ineffective for gaining social mobility,
educational access, or social equality (Lott, 1987). As a result, students resort to criminal
activity, which turns them into juvenile delinquents and labels them as youth criminals (Siennick
& Staff, 2008). As such, these individuals remain academically, socially, and societally
marginalized, and, for many, nullifies the opportunity to attend educational institutions after high
school (Lott, 1987). Fortunately, there has been an increase in the number of juvenile
delinquents who complete high school or obtaining equivalent degrees due to an increase in
programs and training options now housed within the juvenile justice system (Ford & Schroeder,
2010).
Due to the relatively high percentages of American adolescents who succumb to
delinquency, it is necessary to study the societal factors contributing to juvenile delinquency.
Factors such as lack of social mobility, social inequality, limited educational access, and
inadequate educational facilities increase the potential for juveniles to commit crimes and
become incarcerated. Among this population, the effectiveness of social support systems can be
determined by two paradigms: social control theory and rational choice. Analyzing the
experiences of this population through these lenses aids in understanding whether inequities such
as the lack of power and educational access cause youth to become disenfranchised from the
school system and, consequently, not advance to postsecondary education.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 7
Statement of the Problem
Prior research on the effects of juvenile delinquency on entrance into post-secondary
institutions indicates that juvenile delinquents have a much lower rate of college attendance than
their counterparts who do not have criminal records (Lott, 1987). Though different hypotheses,
theory-based reasoning, and conclusions exist among the various studies, agreement occurs when
observing the interference of arrest on the traditional schooling process, reducing a juvenile
delinquent’s chances of enrolling in or completing postsecondary education (Sweeten, 2006).
There is disagreement between researchers as to whether the attitude of the minor towards school
and education precedes the arrest. This study aimed to understand the psyche of juvenile
delinquents in order to determine true causes for delinquency and lack of educational attainment.
Additionally, the reason for this study was to identify how minors’ arrests interfere with
the traditional educational process, the effects juvenile delinquency has on youths’ attitudes
toward higher education, and whether social control and rational choice theory explain the
phenomenon. Though longitudinal studies have attempted to track the success of rehabilitated
youth offenders, few focused on the factors or effect of social control or rational choice theory in
the overall scheme of their delinquency.
Though this study did not address direct mitigating interventions for juvenile delinquents,
it shed light on some of the public and private implementations geared towards rehabilitating
these minors and increasing the likelihood that these youths complete high school and go on to
achieve a college degree. The study revealed the positive and negative aspects of these
interventions in terms of their achieving their goals.
Juvenile delinquency is not a new issue in this country; however, the effects of juvenile
delinquency, specifically how an arrest disrupts the schooling process and affects access to
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 8
higher education, have noticeable repercussions on society. Social control theory, which states
that individuals will conform to the rules and regulations set forth by society because of the
connections they feel with and the awareness they have of that society, does not seem applicable
to juvenile delinquents and shows little influence on intervention strategies (Katsiyannis et al.,
2008). Rational choice theory, which finds individuals make conforming or deviant decisions
based on a cost-benefit analysis also seems to lack validity in explaining the actions of a
delinquent (Katsiyannis et al., 2008).
This information can help researchers and policy makers glean into the existing social
problem of juvenile delinquency and how it affects individuals regarding entering institutions of
higher education. Though a survey would allow the researcher to obtain a greater amount of
information from a larger sample and codify it into statistical data that could be used to reform
both the juvenile justice and the education system, a qualitative study that includes telephone and
face-to-face interviews yielded insight as to the actual reasons justice-involved students do not
attend college. Though the small sample limited the validity and applicability of the study, open-
ended question interviews allowed the researcher to better understand the participants.
Purpose of the Study
Juvenile delinquency is the consistent performance of criminal acts or offenses by a
young person (Binder, 1988). Rational choice theory acts as a framework for understanding and,
often, formally modeling social behavior. Social control theory proposes that exploiting the
process of socialization and social learning builds self-control and reduces the inclination to
indulge in behavior recognized as antisocial. This study sought to analyze how rational choice
theory and social control theories affect juvenile delinquents before, during, and after their
incarceration in terms of their ability and desire to attend institutions of higher education. It also
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 9
endeavored to determine the effects of juvenile delinquency on entrance into post-secondary
institutions through an observation- and interview-based qualitative study.
A study including observations and interviews to obtain qualitative data on higher
education enrollment among adults who were incarcerated as youths will allow for reliable, valid
data and findings that can be accurately applied to society. This study how compared how the
camp experiences of four former juvenile delinquents affected their attitudes towards and
entrance into college. For this comparison, three research questions guided this study:
RQ1: Does a minor’s arrest interfere with the schooling process to the point of significant
hindrance into postsecondary education?
RQ2: How does juvenile delinquency affect youths’ attitudes towards higher education?
RQ3:

How does rational choice theory explain juvenile delinquents’ lack of attendance at
institutions of higher education?
Significance of the Study
According to Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, and Puzzanchera (2011), more than two-thirds of
youth who are released from juvenile detention facilities do not return to school. These numbers
may be due to the multiple barriers to educational reentry. Among these are the fact that schools
often do not want these children back, children are often released from custody at mid-semester,
custodial records and records of credits earned are not transferred to the home school, and that
home schools refuse to accept custodial credit.
Once schooling is interrupted by arrest, detention or incarceration, many juveniles are
excluded from returning to a mainstream school and are, instead, referred to a disciplinary
alternative school with inferior educational services. According to a report from the National
Center for Education Statistics, “38% of school districts reported arrest or involvement with the
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 10
juvenile justice system as a sufficient reason for transfer to an alternative school” (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2002, p. 17). As a result, youth who struggle to access
educational services while in detention often face continued barriers to quality education when
they are forced into sub-par alternative schools, rather than mainstreamed back into regular
schools following their incarceration.
This study contributes to the existing literature by providing up-to-date and accurate
statistics on previously incarcerated youth who had difficulty completing their schooling process
due to arrest and/or detention. This study also provides statistics on previously incarcerated
youth to who attained college degrees in spite of having being detained. This allows for a
determination as to whether current methods of rehabilitation and prevention are working. If
they are not, this study may shed light on necessary modifications.
Results of this study could aid in the reform of education and juvenile incarceration. The
study also adds to the research on methods of rehabilitation during incarceration to decrease the
probability of recidivism and increase the likelihood of releasing into society students who are
fully equipped for positive functioning. Finally, the study sought to decipher reasons
incarcerated students do not attend colleges and universities and to design methods to increase
the rate at which youth offenders enter institutions of higher education.
Limitations
To understand how the arrest of a minor interferes with the schooling process to the
extent of hindrance into post-secondary education, four adults who went through the juvenile
justice system as youth offenders were interviewed and observed. One of the individuals
completed college post incarceration, two attended but did not complete higher education, and
one did not attend at all. To increase the study’s validity, the researcher sought honest answers
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 11
to juxtapose with observations. A limitation, however, was the reliability of the information
gathered along with the lack of ability to reproduce the study and obtain similar results since
every individual’s experience is unique.
Alternative variables for attending or not attending college may exist without being
apparent to the researcher or the subjects themselves. Additionally, there was the potential for
individuals who did not attend or complete post-secondary education to do so in the future,
thereby negating current results. Since the sample was considerably small and came from the
inner city of Los Angeles, a significant delimitation was the inability to generalize findings to a
greater population.
Another limitation self-reported data. Relying solely on participants’ answers without
observation to corroborate what they are report does not allow validation and negatively affects
reliability. The reality of self-report data can be compromised based on many factors, including
lack of honesty, misinterpretation of the question, response bias, inability to articulate thoughts
accurately, and leading questions.
Admittedly, some of the questions were leading and could have affected the way in
which the participants responded. Questions should have been asked in a way which stated both
sides of the concept being inquired about and allowed the participant to choose the one in which
he or she agreed with based on his or her experience. This constituted another limitation and
further research would be needed to validate the questions.
It is the general purpose and desire of a researcher and the study to be applicable to as
great a population as possible. The greater the sample, the higher the validity or extent to which
a concept or conclusion accurately corresponds to the real-world inferences about a population.
Additionally, the larger the sample, the easier it is for the researcher to determine the reliability,
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 12
or extent to which assessments are consistent in terms of measurements, observations and
conclusions. The small sample was due to inability to enter Los Angeles detention center
facilities, difficulty obtaining consent to interview minors, and limited access to individuals’
incarceration and education records negatively affect the generalizability of the findings.
Definitions of Terms
Detained – to keep someone in official custody, typically for questioning about a crime or in
politically sensitive situations.
Deviant - departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior.
Incarceration - the state of being confined in prison; imprisonment.
Institution- a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar
purpose.
Higher education - education beyond high school, especially at a college or university.
Juvenile delinquency - the habitual committing of criminal acts or offenses by a young person,
especially one below the age at which ordinary criminal prosecution is possible.
Minor - a person under the age of full legal responsibility.
Rational choice - an economic principle that assumes individuals always make prudent and
logical decisions that provide them with the greatest benefit or satisfaction and that are in their
highest self-interest.
Rehabilitative - having qualities to restore to good health, capacity, or useful life, as through
therapy and education.
Social control - a concept that refers to the ways in which people’s thoughts, feelings,
appearance, and behavior are regulated in social systems.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 13
Social equality - a state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group
have the same status in certain respects, often including civil rights, freedom of speech, property
rights, and equal access to social goods and services.
Social mobility - is the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of
people within or between social strata in a society.
Theory - a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based
on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
Organization of the Study
The first chapter of this study provided insight to juvenile delinquency and its relation to
education. Chapter One also presented a case for focusing on this study as well as its
significance. Next, Chapter Two introduces Sweeten (2006) rational choice theory and
Katsiyannis et al.’s (2008) social control theory. These theoretical frameworks steer the study.
Furthermore, Chapter Two provides a historical context of juvenile delinquency and addresses
the socioeconomic rationalization of how detention affects the schooling process. Then, Chapter
Three describes the methodology used to conduct the study, and Chapter Four presents the
results obtained through those methods. Finally, Chapter Five states the findings and links them
to the literature. Chapter Five also provide implications for research.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 14
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Juvenile delinquency is the consistent performance of criminal acts or offenses by a
young person (Binder, 1988). It is not a new issue plaguing America, its citizens, or its justice
and educational systems (Tanner et al., 1999). However, the effects of juvenile delinquency,
including how an arrest disrupts the schooling process and affects access to higher education,
become more apparent as studies about postsecondary education of youth in the juvenile justice
system evidence the viewpoints and attitudes of both the offender and the general population
(Binder, 1988). Therefore, the literature reviewed here details the psyche of juvenile
delinquency, how it interferes with the traditional educational process, the effects of juvenile
delinquency on youths’ attitudes toward higher education, and methods that can be implemented
to increase juvenile delinquents’ postsecondary attendance.
Psychologists cited many reasons this phenomenon takes place. One means of
explanation is social control theory, which proposes that utilizing and even exploiting social
learning through the socialization process shapes an individual’s behavioral habits, including
self-control, and limits his/her desire and disposition to participate in antisocial behavior
(Siennick & Staff, 2008). A second is rational choice theory, which posits that patterns of
behavior reflect choices made by individuals as they try to maximize their benefits and minimize
their costs (Katsiyannis et al., 2008). This review presents and analysis how rational choice
theory and social control theory affect juvenile delinquents before, during, and after their
incarceration in terms of the schooling process and the individual’s ability and desire to attend
institutions of higher education.
This review defines and discusses the concepts of social mobility, educational access, and
social equality in relation to juvenile delinquency and how these systems affect youths and aid in
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 15
their decision to participate in a life of criminal activity. The review also chronicles the history
of the juvenile justice system to conceptualize its current state and understand its strengths and
limitations regarding the population it serves. Recommendations for increasing efficiency are
also speculated. Social control theory is herein examined as a sociological explanation for
juvenile delinquency as well as the potential method by which to prevent it. Rational choice
theory is similarly assessed. Both theories are scrutinized for non-prevention of the
phenomenon. Finally, to analyze the mentality of incarcerated youths behind attending and
graduating from institutions of higher education and the rate at which they do so, this chapter
discusses the means and acceptance of education before, during and after incarceration.
Socioeconomic Rationalization
Deviant youths are less likely to complete the conventional education track as compared
to their counterparts (Siennick & Staff, 2008). Findings show that lower expectations and effort
put forth by these youths’ schools or other educational institutions are the primary causes of non-
completion. These students are also less likely to attend college than their peers and, when they
do, are less likely to graduate (Lott, 1987). In many cases, school reports of students regarded as
juvenile delinquents showcase their inappropriate behavior more so than their academic grades
(Siennick & Staff, 2008). As a nonachievers, juvenile delinquents exhibit low levels of
investment in their own education and low interest in school. Therefore, they are less likely to
make the gains necessary to access education, graduate high school, and attend college (Sweeten,
2006).
As juvenile delinquency takes its toll on individuals, families, immediate communities,
and greater society, three overarching themes that can be pinpointed as both causing the problem
and being affected by it. First, social mobility refers to the movement of individuals, families,
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 16
households, or other categories of people within or between social strata (Cross, 2003). When
lack of social mobility or opportunities to arrive at this largely desired endeavor become apparent
in a minor’s life, a potential consequence is his/her engaging in juvenile delinquency (Lott,
1987). Once incarcerated, the label of criminal offender or juvenile delinquent is attached to an
individual, negatively affecting his/her options for social mobility. Secondly, educational access
is concerned with complete and general access to education, meaning the ability of all people to
have equal opportunity in education regardless of factors such as gender, class, ethnicity, race,
religion, or physical and mental disabilities (Lott, 1987). Lack of access to education has been a
leading cause of juvenile delinquency and positively correlates to high rates of recidivism (Ford
& Schroeder, 2010). Observations and conclusions demonstrated that educating juvenile
delinquents within the justice system depends on the general legal and governmental atmosphere
at a given time (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). Additionally, a minor’s arrest often interrupts the
schooling process, which exacerbates the existing issue (Kirk & Sampson, 2013).
Lastly, social equality relates to the set of conditions required for all individuals in a
specific society or group to share the same status in various respects (Kirk & Sampson, 2013).
Again, there is a cause and effect relationship, as juvenile delinquency relates to social equality.
Studies show that many incarcerated minors do not enjoy social equality with other members of
society predating their arrest, and that inequality is exacerbated post-incarceration (Lott, 1987).
The inverse relationship of social equality and juvenile delinquency provides psychologists
ample reason to research this trend in hopes of assessing absolute connections as well as
determining prevention methods for youth offenders to mitigate juvenile delinquency (Kirk &
Sampson, 2013).
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 17
As it relates to social equality and social mobility, juvenile delinquency results in the
inability to maintain a level of equal status. These youth offenders resort to solace through either
finding an identity on their continued path towards criminal activity or maintaining a status
within a group of other individuals labeled social miscreants (Sweeten, 2006). In either case, a
more desirable status is acquired and returning to school or from a life of crime is not considered.
Once juvenile delinquents’ social mobility is drastically reduced, they are often viewed as
inferior students or citizens, and, consequently, movement between social strata or upward in
status in relation to others is almost impossible (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). The result is that
minors find it easier and more rewarding to remove themselves from the educational system and
join that of the justice system (Kirk & Sampson, 2013) where a false sense of autonomy based on
their efforts in various criminal activities can result in movement within criminal organizations
(Tanner et al., 1999). Consequently, higher education is disregarded as an option.
The socioeconomic framework as it relates to social mobility, social equality and
educational access helps to describe the scope within which juvenile delinquents exist and
function. It defines and validates reasons for beginning a life of crime as well as explains the
perpetuation of the delinquency cycle, how it interrupts the schooling process and subsequently
hinders or promotes entrance into higher education. In order to understand juvenile delinquency
in its current state, as well as the marginalization of juvenile delinquents from the school system
before and after their legal conflict, it is necessary to glean a historical view of the U.S.
educational system, including its origins of design and intention. It is also necessary to
understand the history of the juvenile justice system to fully appreciate how it currently functions
and affects minors involved in it.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 18
History of Juvenile Delinquency
Historically, U.S. law was heavily influenced by the common law of England, including
the line between juvenile and adult criminal offenders. During the nineteenth century, social
reformers sought to protect juvenile offenders by separating them from offending adults (Binder,
1988). The goal was to aid youths avoid an imminent life of crime by focusing on rehabilitation.
This goal was to be achieved through the creation of special facilities for troubled juveniles,
especially in large cities (Cross, 2003). In 1899, Cook County, Illinois, established the first
juvenile court in the United States. Within 25 years, most states had set up juvenile court
systems similar to reform schools intended to rehabilitate rather than to punish (Cross, 2003).
These early changes to the justice system were made under a newly established belief that
society had a responsibility to recover the lives of its young offenders before they became
engrossed in criminal activity (Cross, 2003). The early reformers foresaw and proposed a system
where youth offenders would receive curative treatment to rehabilitate them of antisocial ways.
The basis of the juvenile detentions centers was the parens patriae doctrine, which gave the state
the power to serve as the parent or guardian of juveniles and those with legal disabilities, with
the ultimate goal of guiding a juvenile offender toward life as a responsible, law-abiding adult
(Cross, 2003). The state accepted the charge of parenting the minors until they either
demonstrated positive behavioral changes or became adults. Much about the juvenile justice
system has changed from its initial creation and intent of the late 1800s, when youths were not
tried as adult offenders, to the current juvenile justice system which reflects the adult penal
system (Binder, 1988).
The rehabilitative standard of juvenile justice succeeded during the first half of the
twentieth century, but began to deteriorate during the 1960s. The 1980s brought about rising
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 19
crime rates among youths and an increase in recidivism (Cross, 2003). For these reasons, U.S.
politicians declared that the rehabilitation model was failing and no longer applicable.
Consequently, modern-day reformers rejected parens patriae and advocated for tough and
stringent policies for juvenile offenders, often characterizing the youth as predators involved in
crimes much more dangerous than those committed by adult criminals (Cross, 2003). The early
1990s saw a shift in the type of crimes committed by juveniles, homicide rates rising to
unprecedented percentages. As a result, politicians across the country, through various
legislative strategies, enacted the toughest policies for juvenile delinquents ever seen (Tanner et
al., 1999).
Binder (1988) stated that, to control the behavior of individuals in society, smaller,
informal community groups and larger mainstream groups create laws, rules, and regulations that
specify proper and improper behavior. When individuals break rules set forth by these groups,
they are considered criminals. In the event that the individual breaking the law is a minor, s/he is
considered a juvenile delinquent, and this can wreak havoc on his/her current academic career
and future freedom (Siennick & Staff, 2008). Binder (1988) differentiated among the terms
antisocial, delinquency, and deviance to clarify the fact that delinquency is not necessarily a legal
term, but, rather, a psychological one and should be dealt with that way. Similarly, Katsiyannis
et al. (2008) noted that many juvenile offenders suffer from psychological disorders such as
ADHD and conduct and anxiety disorders. This study did not seek to further establish the causal
link between lack of education and criminal behavior, but aimed to examine how students have
difficulty reintegrating back into the education system and accessing post-secondary
opportunities after incarceration.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 20
Insight into the history of juvenile delinquency aids in identifying and interpreting the
interaction of today’s youth with the justice system and in terms of the idea that lack of access to
education is a major cause for the criminal behavior of youth leading to juvenile delinquency. It
provides a baseline for examining the role social mobility, social equality and educational access
play in juvenile delinquency over time. Finally, it allows for social control theory and rational
choice theory to be explored longitudinally with regard to how it affects an individual’s
education as well as their participation in the juvenile justice system.
Various sociological, criminological, and psychological theories apply to society and its
institutions in understanding the existence of juvenile delinquency and the way in which it is
handled. Social control theory purports to understand why people obey social rules. Since
juvenile delinquents do not fall in this category, it is worth investigating the reasons social
control theory does not work with this population. Examining the lack of compliance with social
norms and laws can inform research into which social controls are failing and instruct lawmakers
on the controls necessary for preventing and mitigating juvenile delinquency.
Theoretical Frameworks
Social Control Theory
Katsiyannis et al. (2008) focused on delinquency theories, including social control theory,
as a cause of juvenile delinquency. Social control theorists argue that school and its associated
pro-social experiences can serve as a social bond to help prevent children from engaging in
delinquent acts; however, the negative correlation between intelligence and criminal behavior
shows this bond is not taking place for juvenile delinquents. Intellectual and academic
deficiencies tend to be inversely proportional to delinquent behavior (Siennick & Staff, 2008).
Katsiyannis et al. (2008) attempted to look at the causal relationship. Since arrest and
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 21
incarceration hinders the learning process, it can be assumed that juvenile delinquency is an
effect of the penal system; however, the opposite could also be true in that juvenile delinquency
is the cause of intellectual deficiencies (Katsiyannis et al., 2008).
Under social control theory, individuals will conform to the rules and regulations set forth
by society because of the connections they feel with and the awareness they have of that society
(Siennick & Staff, 2008). Though there longitudinal attempted to track the success of
rehabilitated youth offenders, few focused on the factors or effect of social control theory in the
overall scheme of their delinquency predicament. This study fills the gap in research by
purporting that remediation and school success lead to decreased rates of juvenile delinquent
recidivism (Katsiyannis et al., 2008).
Siennick and Staff (2008) sought reasons delinquent youths tend to complete less
education than their counterparts. As they relied on social control theory to direct their study, the
researchers concluded that delinquent youths are unaware of the future consequences of their
current behavior, and incomprehension of how their actions can jeopardize their goals is of
greater consequence than the aspirational and behavioral components of education commitment
(Siennick & Staff, 2008). Siennick and Staff began their study with the concept that the strength
of the juvenile’s ties or lack thereof will lead him or her to behave appropriately, as societal
norm dictates. They concluded, however, with less focus on society and more on the individual,
noting that “studies of delinquent youths’ educational attainment should examine delinquents’
school-related behaviors in conjunction with their future goals (Siennick & Staff, 2008, pp. 610-
11). As to why education is unattainable, blame is placed on the minor for the inequality of goal
aspirations and expounded school effort.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 22
While their results portray that commitment to school, as measured by educational efforts
and expectations, is a primary cause of the educational deficits experienced by juvenile
delinquents, the researchers did not analyze how these minors arrived at a state of low efforts and
expectations. Without this very necessary and valid data, it is easy to conclude and justify that
juvenile delinquents are unengaged in school, thereby diminishing their ambition, or the potential
that their ambition would afford, in future educational and life settings. However, not seeking
the factors leading up to disengagement and marginalization implies that these emotions and
behaviors are intrinsic and thereby a personal, not a social, issue. This conclusion is unjustifiable
in a general sense, but, particularly with social control theory as the foundation for the research,
the methods remain unreliable with questionable results and seemingly biased conclusions.
Youth in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems usually demonstrate poor
performance in terms of educational outcome measures and generally experience challenges
within both the academic and behavioral arenas. Often, they drop out before finishing high
school (Gonsoulin & Read, 2011). Gonsoulin and Read argued that collaboration of key social
and, therefore, socialization institutions would foster a shared structure of responsibility in that
the child welfare, juvenile justice, and education systems would coordinate child services to
improve juvenile delinquents’ educational success and overall well-being. This structure would
inevitably create a system where each agency the offending youth is involved in, individually
and collaboratively, ensures the academic progress of all its students (Gonsoulin & Read, 2011).
Gonsoulin and Read (2011) depicted the disconnections and inconsistencies between
these institutions and the effect of these on minors who rely on their services. The authors
offered these services would, if fully integrated, inadvertently socialize youth into productive
citizens by exploiting the social learning process through interagency communication to
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 23
coordinates services and supports to meet students’ needs (Gonsoulin & Read, 2011). Through
an integrated system, youth offenders may build self-control, which may result in a reduction in
inappropriate behaviors or urges to engage in anti-social behavior (Gonsoulin & Read, 2011). A
newfound understanding of social controls and appropriate behaviors, coupled with a meeting of
general needs, may enable students to return to the normal school setting and advance to
institutions of higher learning.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of research regarding modern-day interventions and their
corrective application to and usefulness for incarcerated youth. Gonsoulin and Read (2011) shed
light on the corrective intervention of interagency collaboration, including its applicability as
well as its effectiveness on mitigating juvenile delinquency, reducing recidivism within the
juvenile penal system, and increasing the rate at which juvenile offenders attend post-secondary
education.
Leone and Weinberg (2010) also examined inconsistencies within the parens patriae
organizations and the effect these have on the schooling process of the delinquent minors for
whom they assumed guardianship. Though the study highlighted many of the factors
contributing to juvenile delinquency, it focused solely on the role of the individual as opposed to
society or its institutions, naming, for example, substance abuse, learning disabilities, poverty,
poor mental and physical healthcare, poor family-school relationship, adverse childhood
experiences, and emotional and behavioral disorders as the leading risk factors for delinquency
(Leone & Weinberg, 2010). They noted that the risk factors exacerbate one another, and,
consequently, the youth is moved from institution to institution (Leone & Weinberg, 2010), but
failed to recognize the possibility that the exacerbating factor is the institutional makeup. When
the authors did hint upon this possibility, they were vague and noncommittal: “A lack of
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 24
integrated services can create a number of negative outcomes, even though such outcomes may
be unintended” (Leone & Weinberg, 2010, p. 10). They concluded that current agencies are
incapable of meeting these students’ needs and that true collaboration is needed if the intention is
to comprehensively address them from the perspective of the child welfare, juvenile justice, and
educational and mental health systems (Leone & Weinberg, 2010).
Ford and Schroeder (2010) also ascribed to social control, theory as they reported,
“educational attainment and school bonding are established predictors of delinquent behavior”
(pp. 32). The fact that education is seen as one of the most telling factors for delinquency
supports the idea that lack of educational access is a primary cause for juvenile delinquent
behavior, and, therefore, access to an equitable education system can act as a preventative
measure against criminal activity among youth (Kirk & Sampson, 2013). Access to education,
or lack thereof, correlates directly to social equality and social mobility. Without access to
education, opportunities for growth, including financial, social, and additional education are not
afforded (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). This hindrance further exacerbates the existing problem
leading juveniles to resort to a life of crime.
There is no shortage of information on the reforms, laws, and programs that state and
federal governments allotted for at-risk youth in the attempt to provide them with viable options
for education, social mobility, and academic success. Although there is also a plethora of
statistics as to the meeting of these objectives, or failure to do so, there is still limited research
regarding why these programs fail and at what point in the process they become obsolete.
Mathur and Nelson (2013) studied the positive outcomes of youth when punitive settings
are transformed into constructive environments. The punishment model that defines the juvenile
justice system is one that operates against the desired outcome, which is rehabilitation and
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 25
reentry into the traditional school setting (Mathur & Nelson, 2013). The researchers found that
nearly fifty percent of the youth became reoffending criminals, proving deficiency in the system.
Their contribution filled the gap indicating flailing approaches and practices of the various
agencies responsible for moving juvenile delinquents from criminal behavior to productive
activity. They purported that leadership within alternative education, juvenile justice, and
residential facility agencies must engage in long-term visionary planning and that only informed
decision-making can lead to effective practices correlated to desired outcomes (Mathur &
Nelson, 2013).
Reductions in juvenile delinquency may ensue if societies allow opportunities for social
mobility without encouraging or promoting infringement upon others’ freedoms (Tanner et al.,
1999). Ford and Schroeder (2010) emphasized the correlation between access to education and
advances in social equality and social mobility; however, they only slightly indicated where
access was diminished and how delinquent youths could reach it.
Researching delinquency in terms of engaging in property crime, skipping school, violent
behavior, drug use, and contact with the criminal justice system, Tanner et al. (1999) filled the
literature gap with a longitudinal study on the effect of juvenile delinquency on future
occupational status. As occupation in America is often a result of higher education, often defines
one’s social status and, consequently, social equality and mobility, their study proved to be
valuable as a basis for understanding the effects of juvenile delinquency on post-secondary
education attendance. Their data (Tanner et al., 1999) suggested that delinquency in all
measures has negative consequences on higher education attainment for males and females and
significant negative effects on employment outcomes for males. Later life chances, in general,
are damaged by early interaction with the justice system (Tanner et al., 1999). While the
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 26
researchers succeed in explaining their conclusions and validity regarding attainment models and
crime and delinquency theory, the attitude of former delinquents towards higher education was
not clearly distinguished and, therefore, indecipherable as to how great an influence it was on
their lack of achievement in the higher education echelon. Also absent from the study was the
attitude of higher education professionals regarding acceptance of and entrance by juvenile
delinquents. A descriptive analysis of the attitudes within the post-secondary institutions would
have offered a greater and more balanced understanding of the effects of juvenile delinquency on
attainment theory.
The National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent
Children and Youth (NDTAC) investigated the standard of individualized behavioral and
academic support services for juvenile delinquents as a method of fostering positive outcomes
(Gonsoulin & Read, 2012). The standard allows for the examination of the reality that the
academic challenges institutionalized youths face can be modified with a change in mobility,
whether it be placement, family, conditions, economic, or actual involvement in the justice
system (Gonsoulin & Read, 2012).
Gonsoulin and Read (2012) also aided in identifying some of the corrective actions that
would assist at-risk students overcome barriers to meet essential expectations for social mobility.
The researchers declared it is imperative to provide these students high-quality curriculum and
instruction. Lack of supplemental support that aids in the fulfillment of academic and personal
potential denies the youth the opportunity for advanced education and, consequently, social
mobility (Gonsoulin & Read, 2012). High rates of poverty, mental and/or behavioral health
needs, and court involvement have often created struggles for these youths that their peers, who
are not involved with the authorities or justice system, do not contend with (Gonsoulin & Read,
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 27
2012). One possible solution is to provide the youth encased in the juvenile justice systems with
vocational skills and success (Leone & Weinberg, 2010).
Career technical courses often follow a state-established career technical course outline
typically based on current labor trends in the area wherein they are housed (Gonsoulin & Read,
2012). Content, activities, and coursework are designed to be completed in a correctional school
setting aligned with state and/or district school guidelines so that coursework can be easily
transferred to proceeding educational placements (Leone & Weinberg, 2010). With high levels
of accountability, monitoring, and evaluation, career-track and vocational programs within
juvenile detention centers can work to increase the likelihood that incarcerated youth develop
skills that can be utilized in the real world. In doing so, social mobility is upward and the
probability of returning to a life of crime decreases (Gonsoulin & Read, 2012).
Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is an approach created to establish
behavioral supports and social culture thought to be needed for students to achieve social,
emotional, and academic success. This system supports social control theory, which proposes
that the inclination to participate in antisocial behavior can be reduced among adolescents if the
processes of social learning and socialization are exploited. As a method of mitigating the
school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon currently occurring in the lives of some youth, Jolivette,
Swoszowski, and Ennis (2013) encouraged the implementation of PBIS to provide students in
alternative education, such as residential and juvenile justice settings, the same opportunities as
students in traditional school settings. The researchers provided an empirical and practical
explanation of the PBIS framework with a clear focus on how educators and service providers
such as counselors, policy organizers, mental health personnel, and behavior specialists, can
implement these supports for the benefit of high-risk youth (Jolivette et al., 2013). However, they
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 28
failed to mention how the youths came to be in their current situation or ways to mitigate
initiating phenomena.
PBIS is a multi-tiered framework which differentiates interventions, including the
intensity of the distribution of each intervention, based on student needs and data (Jolivette et al.,
2013). It was shown to be applicable across all education settings and has been applied in
numerous traditional education settings (Jolivette et al., 2013). Youth within non-traditional
settings, within which PBIS had recently been implemented, displayed a wide range of academic
and behavioral deficits and excesses, and the researchers asserted they could benefit from the
tiered PBIS support (Jolivette et al., 2013).
Supporting the continued and extended use of PBIS in these settings may modify the
students’ socialization process. Implementing behavior modification programs that encourage
what society deems as positive, for both school and societal settings, would force the attending
youth to comply. Focusing not on an academic education, but, rather, on appropriate behavior
regarding social norms, the researchers asserted, the PBIS framework would act as a preventative
method to address the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon and reduce the possibility of these
students being placed in more restrictive situations, including prison (Jolivette et al., 2013).
Jolivette et al. (2013) were comprehensive describing a corrective intervention and the
potential and actual outcomes of PBIS, specifically. Unfortunately, their framework does not
address the academic deficiencies, the lack of skills for attainment of viable livelihood, or the
disagreeable school experiences that still plague the students. Knowledge of right behavior will
not necessarily translate into right action without a connection between how to act and why to act
or if the tools for right action are not present.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 29
Jolivette et al. (2013) also did not provide statistical data on the percentages of students
who complete PBIS in either the traditional or non-traditional school setting and who progress
into higher education or what their success or graduation rates are. PBIS is too new to provide
this type of data; however, there does not seem to be a focus on students entering college or
university as a direct result of the PBIS framework.
In a concurrent article, Mathur and Nelson (2013) cited that PBIS implementation is
growing rapidly in the restrictive settings of youth offenders. They proposed future research
examine the effects of PBIS on reducing the school-to-prison pipeline phenomenon, distinguish
factors that have an impact on PBIS implementation, and design professional development
models to accelerate implementation and assess its influence on recidivism. Again, these
suggestions lack focus on the success PBIS has in terms of students attending institutions of
higher education.
In criminology, social control theory proposes that exploiting the process of socialization
and social learning builds self-control and reduces the inclination to indulge in behavior
recognized as antisocial. As such, there have been many attempts to understand the factors that
lead up to juvenile delinquency and the best ways to combat the issue. Unfortunately, despite the
various agencies that exist to deescalate the problem, high rates of recidivism exist among
juvenile offenders.
Essential to the idea of social control are the agencies that exist to instill the social
learning necessary for the process to work. One of the socializing agents is the school the
juvenile delinquent is often truant from or unsuccessfully attends. Upon criminal offense, the
youth becomes a ward under the juvenile justice system and, then, is often a victim of the
revolving group home, alternative education, and criminal system cycle. With no real
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 30
consistency among the various social organizations, the youth’s behavior is not rehabilitated,
and, in some cases, made worse. In most cases, the strain on educational attainment is
exacerbated, resulting in decreased likelihood of graduating from high school and attending
college, which places their rates of higher education completion at much lower numbers than
those their peers who have not been incarcerated.
To successfully apply social control theory to the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency,
agencies responsible for embedding the accepted social norms must be functional. A genuine
desire to assist in the behavioral and academic success of the delinquents must be garnered at the
leadership level and cooperation and all agencies working with the delinquent youths must
communicate well. Only at this stage can pro-social experiences that foster appropriate
socialization and lead to decreased delinquency and increased educational attainment be studied
in connection, and potentially attributed, to social control.
Social control theory provides tenets and processes to assist in explaining an individual’s
lack of development into a functioning adult, including that of the juvenile delinquent.
Transitioning from the juvenile justice system into institutions of higher education through the
building of self-control and reducing the inclination to indulge in anti-social behavior can be
studied through the lens of social control theory. Social control theory can also explain how the
prevention of incarceration affects the schooling process, which results in potential methods of
promoting enrollment in in higher education post-incarceration.
One theory that purports appropriate socialization is rational choice, which assumes that
individuals will make the most rational and logical determination when making a decision and
that their best interest will be served by the choices they make. Since evidence shows that
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 31
incarcerated youth make less than optimal decisions, it is of benefit to examine the role rational
choice theory plays in the phenomenon of juvenile delinquency.
Rational Choice Theory
As rational choice theory relates to juvenile delinquency, juvenile delinquents’ behavior
can be associated, under this theory, with regard to educational access, social mobility, and social
equality. Rational choice theory states that individuals make decisions, whether conforming or
deviant, based on a cost-benefit analysis (Sweeten, 2006). It can be argued that lack of
education, cultural background, and other factors of upbringing can affect ability to logically
assess the cost versus the benefit of an illegal action. Considering there are consequences and
ramifications for every illegal activity and a fifty percent chance of being caught each time, one
would assume the negative cost-benefit would persuade would-be youth offenders from
committing the crime. Statistics paint a different story, where youths go forward with the
decision to commit the crime regardless of the repercussions.
The benefit of social mobility and social equality in areas such as money, material and
asset attainment in terms of respect, fame, and notoriety, or basic necessities such as food,
clothing, and survival seem to outweigh the potential of being arrested and going through the
juvenile criminal system (Kirk & Sampson, 2013). There is a higher need for individuals to fit
into society by means which may be counterproductive to their goal rather than to do nothing and
remain marginalized (Kirk & Sampson, 2013).
Kirk and Sampson (2013) proposed that school completion is a rite of passage into
adulthood, and for many juvenile delinquents whose education is interrupted by the juvenile
justice system, the inability to complete school becomes a hindrance to their transition into
adulthood. Kirk and Sampson’s contribution to the body of research is significant in that they
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 32
analyzed longitudinal data to estimate the direct effect that juvenile arrests have on high school
dropout and college enrollment rates. Their findings provide substantial proof that arrests have a
significant impact on dropout rates, hypothesizing that arrest and its accompanying interruption
of the schooling process exacerbates any ongoing educational issues (Kirk & Sampson, 2013).
Evidence that a disparity between arrested youths and their non-criminal counterparts exists in
enrollment at four-year colleges is also provided, leading to implications that institutional
disruptions and responses, rather than social-psychological influences, cause these students to
drop out and not attend college.
Kirk and Sampson (2013) identified the sources of educational attainment to support the
theory that juvenile arrests hinder it. Through systematic racism, blacks and Latinos are
stratified in lower socioeconomic levels embedded with education failure. For this reason,
juvenile delinquency is more prevalent and post-secondary education becomes infrequent. By
identifying and analyzing the mechanisms for high school dropout, college enrollment, and the
effects of arrest, the researchers succeed in outlining the issue of juvenile arrests, college
attendance, and the processes connecting them. Their conclusion about the significance of
educational expectations and school attachment is not consistent with prior studies. Kirk and
Sampson found that these aspects do not explain or considerably affect students’ dropping out
after arrest, while other studies reported that the home-school connection and the expectations of
schools and teachers on juvenile delinquents are major determining factors in the student’s
likelihood of graduating. Kirk and Sampson confidently conclude “arrest in adolescence hinders
the transition to adulthood by undermining the pathways to educational attainment” (p. 55).
Disengagement from school, as social control theory and the cost-benefit assessment of
rational choice theory would purport, increased juvenile delinquents’ school dropout rate
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 33
(Sweeten, 2006). When students no longer understand the reason for or benefit in attending
school, the cost of remaining there becomes greater than that of leaving. At this point, rational
choice theory supports their departure as they seek alternative means of education, fulfillment,
and acceptance. Limited opportunities for the juvenile delinquents, specifically those who have
been labeled as such, also motivates youths to drop out of school (Sweeten, 2006).
The personal challenges experienced by these marginalized youths are usually intensified
by equally challenging experiences in school. Often, they encounter enrollment issues,
inappropriate class placements, inability to successfully transfer records, special education labels
and placements, suspension, and lack of communication between the varying agencies that
oversee their education and well-being (Leone & Weinberg, 2010). Consequently, students in
the juvenile justice system make choices that seem irrational, but can be quite common when
considering the lack of high-quality education services and supports that make transition from
adolescence to adulthood successful, higher education attainable, and social equality probable
(Leone & Weinberg, 2010).
Social mobility is a specific motivating factor for juvenile delinquents’ choice to drop out
of, rather than remain in, school. With a limited understanding of how the education they
receive will benefit them in the future, there is little interest in continuing conventional schooling
(Kirk & Sampson, 2013). With failing grades, contemptible labels, and a lack of academic
success, the ability to realize upward social movement is limited. Minors choose to leave school
and resort to criminal activity in order to gain the material possessions, financial status, and the
respect and fulfillment of being accepted by a smaller group within society (Sweeten, 2006).
Social equality is another factor that can motivate minors to relieve themselves of the
benefit of conventional education and drop out of school in order to risk the cost of criminal
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 34
activities (Sweeten, 2006). Again, in search of equal status, whether financial, educational, or
social, youths leave the environment in which they are failing and cannot comprehend future
success and choose a life of crime in order to attain the equality their current situation is devoid
of (Kirk & Sampson, 2013). This can be seen with the implementation of secure care
environments.
Traditionally, secure care environments sanction a punitive system provided for
misbehavior (Mathur & Nelson, 2013). This system replaces the teaching and support of desired
and appropriate behavior. This type of environment is comparable to many public and private
schools across the country which implemented zero-tolerance policies, thus assuring the
criminalization of student behavior and promoting the use of exclusionary disciplinary practices
(Mathur & Nelson, 2013). Inadequately run schools, specifically those that utilize punitive
action for disagreeable student behavior have the potential to reinforce antisocial behavior and
discourage student involvement; contrarily, well-organized schools with a supportive structure
and learning environment can aid in a youth’s academic and social flourishing (Gonsoulin &
Read, 2012).
Within this climate, students are excluded based on race, religion, ethnicity, disability or
other forms of differences and disproportionally exposed to marginalization and legal encounters
(Losen & Gillespie, 2012). Youth of color make up 41% of the population in juvenile facilities
and youth with disabilities comprise 30% to 40% of the incarcerated juvenile population (Mathur
& Nelson, 2013). Leone and Weinberg (2010) noted,
regardless of the reasons for their involvement, youth in these systems are
disproportionately children and youth of color, who currently have or have experienced a
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 35
host of risk factors that are associated with poor academic achievement, delinquency,
recidivism, substance abuse, and mental health issues (pp. 1).
This is where the school-to-prison pipeline begins, according to Mathur and Nelson (2013), who
recommended the use of PBIS for facilities that operate this way: “Although entry into the
pipeline is influenced by individual characteristics and local factors, it is clear that school
disciplinary policies and practices have a prominent role” (Mathur & Nelson, 2013).
Disciplinary policies, specifically zero-tolerance, but also repeated exposure to
suspension, encounters with law enforcement, and, inversely, loss of academic instruction
(Mathur & Nelson, 2013) are the known causes of student disengagement from school resulting
results in truancy and dropout patterns. Therefore, these policies would also be the culprit in
reducing the number of juvenile delinquents who return to school and progress on to higher
education. These policies should also be categorized as the risk factors for participation in
delinquent behavior, arrest, and incarceration (Mathur & Nelson, 2013).
The national recidivism rate for all incarcerated youth averages 55% within one year of
release (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Mathur and Nelson (2013) argued that, while corrective
programs often demonstrate improved youth behaviors and climatic environments of juvenile
institutions, this does not carry over into quality of life or higher education settings post-
incarceration. If the goal of the juvenile delinquency institution is to rehabilitate youth, then
these individuals should be returned to an intact level of functioning, resembling one prior to
their incarceration (Mathur & Nelson, 2013). This would potentially result in said students’
acquiring a post-secondary education. The fact that over 50% of incarcerated youth return to
secure care facilities or engage in reoffending acts of criminality indicates that this objective is
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 36
not being achieved (Mathur & Nelson, 2013) with higher education for juvenile delinquents not a
viable possibility.
It is common practice for youth correctional facilities to offer educational and other
rehabilitative services, which often include social skills training and vocational/career technical
training (Gonsoulin, Darwin, & Read, 2012). Youths in this predicament may become fully
rehabilitated through the socialization process, or opt to make more socially adept choices
towards educational advancement and accepted social behavior. On the other hand, students
who failed in the traditional academic setting may opt to continue to attend the juvenile
delinquency facilities, which offer a full range of academic services, including the ability to
obtain a General Education Development (GED) certificate or high school diploma and earn
postsecondary credits (Gonsoulin et al., 2012). In this event, students able to function in society
may rationalize negative behaviors or reoffending crimes that allow them to remain in the
restrictive environment (Losen & Gillespie, 2012).
The premise of rational choice theory is that behavioral patterns in societies are reflected
in the choices made by individuals in their effort to maximize their benefits and minimize their
costs. By weighing the costs and benefits of involvement in a particular action or situation to the
cost and benefit of remaining uninvolved, individuals can make determinations as to whether to
partake in that action or situation. The analysis by which this is made is dependent on a variety
of factors, including intelligence, experience, need, and desire. Three social factors that
significantly influence a cost-benefit analysis are educational access, social mobility, and social
equality.
The conforming or deviant decisions an individual makes based on rational choice theory
would result in his/her understanding of and identification with those social factors. The higher
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 37
the chance of obtaining educational access, social mobility, and social equality, the more likely it
is that an individual will follow the prescribed path set forth by social norms. When these factors
are limited or an individual is marginalized from attaining their advantages due to race, religion,
age, gender, socioeconomic status, or disability, the opportunity to engage in criminal activity is
heightened. As a result, these youths become juvenile delinquents, setting off a plethora of
disadvantages that add to the limits on educational access, social mobility, and social equality. A
primary consequence of this effect is interference with educational instruction and a shift in the
juvenile delinquent’s behaviors and attitudes towards school. This often results in non-
completion of high school and low probability of attending college. In the event that delinquents
do attend college, they are not likely to graduate. It is necessary, then, to give youths optimism
for their future opportunities so that the cost of criminal and the benefit of remaining in school
activity are both high to ensure lower numbers of juvenile delinquents and higher numbers of
college graduates.
Focusing on the theories that explain the causes of juvenile delinquency is necessary to
gain a greater understanding of the issue. Minors’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors to
engage in criminal activity are also of utmost interest. Following the educational paths of these
minors before, during, and after incarceration aids in understanding the juvenile justice system’s
efficacy., Rational choice theory can aid analyzing, evaluating, and understanding the social and
economic behavior of adults who were youth offenders in terms of the disruption to their
educational process and entrance into post-secondary education (Sweeten 2006).
Education after Incarceration
The NYS Prison to College Pipeline (P2CP), a program of the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice (2015), is a transitional program aimed at directing 700,000 individuals
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 38
scheduled to be released from prison back into mainstream society with ease. Program staff
administers college academic coursework within the prison in a workshop series that includes the
appropriate skills and behaviors necessary for a successful college life and reentry planning that
covers issues concerning health, family needs, compliance with criminal justice conditions, and
residence maintenance (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2015). The rationale for the
program is the understanding that higher education reduces the rate of recidivism and that
obtaining just an associate’s degree reduces the rate of return by sixty percent (John Jay College
of Criminal Justice, 2015). P2CP (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2015) noted a study by
the University of California, Los Angeles that found that spending and equal amount of money
on crime prevention as is spent on incarceration yields almost twice the reduction in crime. This
investment benefits not only the youth offenders, but also the country.
Though education, rehabilitation, and justice are often seen as a public issue, Lott (1987)
proposed the privatizing of these entities to decrease crime. With the belief that private school
increases investment on human capital, Lott (1987) noted positive implications for individuals
who would likely opt for a life of crime. With higher investment in human capital, social control
theory would be applicable to would-be youth offenders who may develop the necessary
connections to school, authority, and society and, thereby, abide by the laws set forth by these
entities (Katsiyannis et al. 2008). With more direct and personal interaction between students
and teachers, labels would be less likely to define students, even if they display negative
behaviors. When labels are not distributed, the likelihood of accepting the negative identity and
participating in the self-fulfilling prophecy is diminished (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). A minor’s
increased belief in the school system and in him/herself would essentially lead to the decision to
attain education and resist criminal activity once the cost-benefit analysis of rational choice
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 39
theory is conducted. As a result, juvenile delinquency would be reduced and educational
attainment and graduation rates would increase (Tanner et al., 1999).
Private or public institutions do not propose implementing heightened educational access,
and government money is more likely to be spent on building more jails rather than on
rehabilitative or educational approaches (Tanner et al., 1999). As discussed, these avenues do
not support the benefits that can be achieved through methods examined and explained by social
control theory or rational choice theory, but, instead, exacerbate the negative consequences
experienced by labeling these youths (Lott, 1987). Increased access to education is important;
however, students must be able to grasp the educational content and understand the long-term
benefits of completing high school and progressing to higher education (Katsiyannis et al.,
2008).
Education after incarceration is vital for mitigating the likelihood a youth offender will
return to a life of crime and reentering a juvenile detention center (Siennick & Staff, 2008).
Social mobility in legal and socially acceptable ways can alleviate stigmas produced by previous
labels and encourage self-esteem, higher productivity, and greater acceptance for the youth
offender (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). A sense of social equality can also be experienced and
acceptance by their immediate community as well as greater society can be gained (Tanner et al.,
1999).
Unfortunately, there is limited research on the positive effects of higher education access
on juvenile delinquency and few educational institutions implement programs to aid in
increasing education and, thereby, reducing the numbers of repeat juvenile criminal offenders
(John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2015). This study fills a gap in the literature by providing
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 40
a positive deviant case study from which to learn how a former juvenile delinquent accessed and
participated in post-secondary education.
All prior research surrounding this topic agrees that juvenile delinquents have a much
lower rate of college attendance than their counterparts who do not have a criminal record.
Though each study puts for a different hypothesis, subscribes to a specific line of theory-based
reasoning, and varies in findings and conclusions, the interference of arrest on the traditional
schooling process is apparent and reduces a minor’s chances of attending postsecondary
education or completing college if he or she did attend. While levels of significance vary
regarding the effect arrests in adolescence have on future educational attainment, researchers
concur that there is a correlation between the two factors.
Less agreement is held on how juvenile delinquency affects the attitude of the previously
incarcerated youth towards higher education. Some researchers proposed that negative attitudes
towards school, future goals, or life in general are precursory to delinquency, while others
maintained that arrest and incarceration are the primary causes of higher negative attitudes and a
reduction in probability for completing high school and attending an institution of higher
education. It is important to ascertain if the attitude precedes or follows the arrest to help
determine true causes for delinquency and lack of educational attainment as well as direct
mitigating programs and interventions that can help assuage the phenomenon of juvenile
delinquency while increasing the likelihood that these youths complete high school and go on to
attain a college degree.
Summary
Delinquent youths complete less education than their conventional peers (Siennick &
Staff, 2008). Investigation of the rate of education after incarceration is of utmost importance to
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 41
this study. Analysis of the relationship between juvenile justice system interactions and high
school graduation (Hjalmarsson, 2008) and subsequent entrance into college allow for
conclusions about the severity of the impact youth incarceration has on the schooling process and
how it hinders advancement into higher educational settings.
Understanding how social mobility, education and social equality affect a youth’s
agreeableness to social norms and his or her participation in acceptable and appropriate societal
behaviors, along with the application of social control theory and rational choice theory as they
relate to juvenile delinquency, allows for an examination as to whether a minor’s arrest interferes
with the schooling process to the point of significant hindrance into postsecondary education. It
also aids in understanding how juvenile delinquency affect youths’ attitude towards higher
education and how the educational services provided by the juvenile justice system prepare
detained minors for post-secondary education.
Hirschfield (2009) noted, “Five previous studies assessed the independent impact of
juvenile arrests on court involvement on high school completion. Four found a reliable adverse
impact overall” (p. 370). Analysis of the role social equality, social mobility and educational
access play in juvenile delinquency and of the effects of juvenile delinquency, specifically how
an arrest disrupts the schooling process and affects access to higher education, is necessary and
beneficial to attempt positively integrating this group into society.
Social control theory, which states individuals will conform to society’s rules and
regulations because of connections to and the awareness of society, must be considered in
conjunction with socioeconomic explanations to strengthen the theory’s impact on reducing
youth offenders’ marginalization (Katsiyannis et al. 2008). Rational choice theory must be
examined in the same way to create a social environment where individuals can make choices
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 42
beneficial to society as a whole, namely continuing education and advancing to the point of
attaining productive citizenship (Sweeten 2006).
With these ideas in mind and by focusing on how social control and rational choice
theory account for juvenile delinquents’ lack of postsecondary education enrollment, this study
sought to answer questions regarding how a minor’s arrest affects his/her attitude toward higher
education and whether interference with the schooling process is severe enough to hinder
advancement into institutions of higher education. As a result, the following research questions
guided this study:
RQ1: Does a minor’s arrest interfere with the schooling process to the point of significant
hindrance into postsecondary education?
RQ2: How does juvenile delinquency affect youths’ attitudes towards higher education?
RQ3:

How does rational choice theory explain juvenile delinquents’ lack of attendance at
institutions of higher education?

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Purpose of Study
The reason for this study was to aid in identifying how minors’ arrests interfere with the
traditional educational process, the effects of juvenile delinquency on youths’ attitudes toward
higher education, and how social control and rational choice theory support or aggravate the
phenomenon. This information can help researchers and policy makers understand the existing
social problem of juvenile delinquency and how it affects individuals regarding entering
institutions of higher education.
A qualitative research design was chosen for the methodology of this study. Research
questions guide the type of data the study would need to produce in order to support the authors’
conclusions. Social scientists oftentimes develop research questions that are broad and
exploratory in nature with the focus on understanding how people interpret their experiences and
the meaning they perceive from them (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative data does not limit a study to
narrow results, but, instead, ensures the investigative process remains open to unexpected
findings. Consequently, the results of qualitative research may reveal the importance of certain
previously unknown or omitted factors in assessing complex social and individual phenomena.
The study sought to answer three questions:
RQ1: Does a minor’s arrest interfere with the schooling process to the point of significant
hindrance into postsecondary education?
RQ2: How does juvenile delinquency affect youths’ attitudes towards higher education?
RQ3:

How does rational choice theory explain juvenile delinquents’ lack of attendance at
institutions of higher education?
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 44
Qualitative Design
The qualitative design is emergent, meaning it is fluid, dynamic, and evolving (Creswell,
2009; Merriam, 2009). This design allowed the literature to be informed through both rich
descriptions of the juvenile detention camps and the categories or themes identified through the
data analysis (Merriam, 2009). Interviews and observations are main sources of qualitative data.
Both methods are a part of fieldwork, which refers to going where the individuals of interest are
and spending time there in order to learn from these individuals’ experiences (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007). Interviews involve sitting down with a person and learning about his/her unique
perspective. Interviews are useful when the researcher tries to understand the respondent’s
views, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. Interviews may be the only source of data in
the study, or performed in conjunction with observation or other data collection methods
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
A qualitative study design was required to sufficiently address the research questions. In
this case, specific individuals were identified to investigate their experience with the juvenile
justice system and how it affected their educational process and shaped their view of post-
secondary education.
Sample and Population
Because the research questions involved the perspectives of specific individuals (former
juvenile delinquents), purposeful sampling was used. Purposeful sampling refers to selecting
study participants based on characteristics directly related to the purpose of the study (Merriam,
2009). A convenience sample was used, defined as “a sample based on time, money, location,
availability of sites or respondents” (Merriam, 2009, p. 79). With permission from the facility,
the researcher utilized the Los Angeles Probationary Database to obtain records from four former
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 45
juvenile delinquents: three males and one female. They were chosen at random without regard to
race, age, or their current academic, professional, or socioeconomic statuses. These individuals
were contacted directly by telephone and asked to participate in the study.
Instrumentation
Participants were recruited through both convenience and purposeful sampling. They
were found through word-of-mouth inquiries with individuals connected to the juvenile justice
system. The individuals were chosen on a non-probability basis with intent based on their
experience with juvenile delinquents and on being easily accessible through a referral.
The interview protocol consisted of eleven open-ended questions reflecting the research
questions and the relevant body of scholarly literature addressing student academic achievement
in juvenile detention camps. This predesigned interview protocol, devised by the researcher,
allowed follow-up questions to obtain more descriptive information and clarification of previous
questions. The interview questions were designed to prompt responses about the former
delinquents’ educational instruction, experience, and views on higher education prior to and after
incarceration. The line of questioning was also meant to elicit information on practices which
had the most impact on the students’ academic achievement in the juvenile detention camp.
The most effective strategy to increase the credibility of a case study’s findings is through
triangulation (Merriam, 2009). The comparison of data collected via multiple sources allows for
cross-checking their accuracy. In this case study, triangulation included a review of both public
and internal records that provided a rich source of information about the participants as well as
the camp’s practices.
Instrumentation consisted of the researcher and a researcher-designed interview protocol.
Though a survey would have allowed a greater amount of information from a larger sample for
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 46
codifying into statistical data, a qualitative study that included telephone and face-to-face
interviews was more likely to yield insight as to the actual reasons justice-involved students do
not attend college. The small sample limited the validity and applicability of the study, yet open-
ended question interviews allowed a better understanding of participants.
Data Collection
Each interview participant received a short demographic profile sheet to complete prior to
the interview. A 60-minute one-on-one interview was conducted with each of the four
participants, three males and one female, who were formerly incarcerated through the Los
Angeles juvenile justice system and who all met the sampling criteria. Initial interviews were
conducted over the telephone. An informed consent form, the demographic profile sheet, and a
promise of confidentiality were discussed and completed during the initial meeting. The
interviews were audio recorded simultaneously with appropriate note taking by the researcher,
and later transcribed. The conceptual framework for observations and interviewing, including
probing, was guided by the work of Bogdan and Biklen (2007). Researcher notes were securely
locked in a file cabinet, only accessible by the researcher and destroyed at the end of the study.
In addition, all participants were had the opportunity to request receipt of a copy of the final
dissertation.
Data Analysis
To answer the research questions, qualitative data were systematically analyzed in an
effort to identify how a minor’s arrest interferes with the schooling process to the point of
significant hindrance to postsecondary education, how juvenile delinquency affects youths’
attitude towards higher education, how rational choice theory explains juvenile delinquents’
decisions to not enroll at institutions of higher education, and how the practices of the juvenile
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 47
justice system affect entrance into post-secondary education. In addition, for further validation
of relevance and significance, the findings were compared to the existing body of literature.
After completing all interviews and observations, data were searched for incomplete
information and for reoccurring themes. Interviews were coded the using key phrases related to
the themes. After coding, information was transferred onto a codebook. Triangulating similar
data from various sources ensured credibility and reduction of the influence personal biases on
the results. Given that the camp was the researcher’s previous workplace, which could result in
some of the interviewees having been on her prior caseload, openness was of utmost importance
in conducting the research and reporting the results.
The necessary steps were taken to ensure ethical standards. The study’s purpose was
explained, and each interviewee received a guarantee of confidentiality. No personal
information was collected and no real names were used herein. Respondents’ participation was
strictly voluntary. Results of the study were available to the respondents and obtain consent
prior to interviewing anyone.
Summary
This chapter detailed the methodology utilized in this qualitative study and explained the
justification of selecting those methods. The chapter discussed the purpose of the study, the
research questions, the rationale for implementing a qualitative design, the sample and
population, instrumentation and validity, data collection and analysis, and a summary. The
research questions directed the study and operated as a guide to investigate the effects of juvenile
delinquency on formerly incarcerated individuals’ thoughts on postsecondary education and
subsequent college attendance. The researcher’s objective was to conduct the study ethically and
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 48
with integrity throughout the entire process, specifically the phase of data collection (Merriam,
2009; Patton, 2002).
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 49
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Prior research on the topic of the effects of the effect of juvenile delinquency on entrance
into postsecondary education indicates that juvenile delinquents have a much lower rate of
college attendance than their counterparts who do not have a criminal record (Lott, 1987). An
arrest’s disruption of juvenile delinquents’ schooling process, specifically its effect on access to
higher education, has noticeable repercussions on society. This chapter presents the findings
from a qualitative case study comprised of a document review and four interviews conducted
with former juvenile detention or camp inmates. The data were collected in order to formulate
significant findings derived from answers to the following research questions:
RQ1: Does a minor’s arrest interfere with the schooling process to the point of significant
hindrance into postsecondary education?
RQ2: How does juvenile delinquency affect youths’ attitudes towards higher education?
RQ3:

How does rational choice theory explain juvenile delinquents’ lack of attendance at
institutions of higher education?
Purpose
The effects of juvenile delinquency, including how an arrest disrupts the schooling
process and effects access to higher education, are becoming more and more apparent as studies
about post-secondary education of youth in the juvenile justice system are conducted and the
viewpoints and attitudes of both the offender and the general population become evident (Binder,
1988). Youths that are considered deviant are less likely to complete the conventional education
track when compared to their counterparts (Siennick & Staff, 2008). Though there is
disagreement between researchers as to whether the attitude of the minor towards school and
education precedes the arrest, agreement occurs when observing the interference of arrest on the
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 50
traditional schooling process, reducing the chance of a juvenile delinquent attending or
completing postsecondary education (Sweeten, 2006).
The study sought to address how minors’ arrests interfere with the traditional educational
process, the effects juvenile delinquency has on youths’ attitudes toward higher education, and
how rational choice theory supports or aggravates the phenomenon. It aimed to examine the ease
or difficulty with which students reintegrate back into the education system and access
postsecondary opportunities after incarceration. Additionally, this study purported to understand
the psyche of juvenile delinquents to determine true causes for delinquency and lack of
educational attainment and aimed to find the reasons delinquent youths tend to complete less
education than their counterparts. This study analyzed how rational choice theory affects
juvenile delinquents before, during, and after their incarceration in terms of their ability and
desire to attend institutions of higher education. It also sought to determine the effects of
juvenile delinquency on entrance into postsecondary institutions through an interview-based
qualitative study.
Protocol Questions in Relation to Research Questions
The first research question asked, “How does the arrest of a minor interfere with the
schooling process to the point of significant hindrance into postsecondary education?” The
protocol questions utilized for this question regarded participants’ education status before being
arrested, placement in courses that would enhance their education, and whether they were in
classes with students at the same educational level as them. Participants were asked to describe
their experiences regarding these topics.
The second research question asked, “How does being a part of the juvenile delinquency
system affect youths’ attitude towards higher education?” The protocol items used for this
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 51
question referenced whether their experience in a juvenile detention facility changed their
opinion about education, whether they believed the education program in camp or juvenile hall
helped towards reintegration into school they you left, and suggestions for improvements the
probation department could make to improve education for detained minors.
The third research question asked, “How does rational choice theory explain the non-
attendance of institutions of higher education by juvenile delinquents?” The protocol items
included for this question asked their beliefs regarding the benefits are of furthering education
after high school, whether their ideas of the benefits of college changed after becoming involved
in the juvenile justice system and why, and how being arrested affected their ability to complete
high school and attend a postsecondary education institution.
History and Background of Juvenile Delinquency and Detention Camp
Juvenile detention centers were founded under the premise of the parens patriae doctrine,
which gave the state the power to serve as the parent or guardian of juveniles and those with
legal disabilities, accepting the responsibility of parenting the minors until they demonstrated
positive behavioral changes or became adults (Cross, 2003). The Los Angeles Juvenile
Detention Center was founded in 1903. Much about the juvenile justice system has changed
from its initial creation and intent in the late 1800s, when youths were no longer tried as adult
offenders, to now where the current juvenile justice system reflects the adult penal system
(Binder, 1988). Nonetheless, due to limited fiscal resources, priority often goes to security and
treatment, rather than education, with class time often being used to “warehouse” juveniles
(Hjalmarsson, 2008).
Based on the literature, 0.3% of people arrested are aged 10 through 17, based on
statistics from the year 2000, that is 3000 in every 10,000 (Hjalmarsson, 2008). According to
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 52
Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, and Puzzanchera (2011), more than two-thirds of youth released from
juvenile detention facilities do not return to school for reasons such as schools often not wanting
them back, being released from custody at mid-semester, the fact that custodial records and
records of credits earned are not transferred to the home school or the home school’s refusal to
accept custodial credit.
Studies suggest that juvenile arrests significantly increase the high school dropout rate
(Sweeten, 2006). After the traditional schooling process is interrupted by arrest, detention or
incarceration, many juveniles are excluded from returning to a mainstream school, and are
instead referred to a disciplinary alternative school with inferior educational services.
Disengagement from school, which often leads to grade retention, also increases the likelihood
of high school dropout (Sweeten, 2006). Sweeten (2006) also mentioned that juvenile detention
centers put youths in close proximity to delinquent youths who may discourage attendance of
high school and college and encourage further delinquency, which can lead to poorer educational
outcomes.
However, post-secondary opportunities reduce recidivism rates and enhance
employability, self-esteem and personal growth (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). Higher education
opportunities also afford an individual time for emerging adulthood, rather than premature entry
into the workforce. They also open avenues for creating social bonds and social supports that
increase an individual’s social capital (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). Social bonds, employment
rate, status achievement and life events are positively affected by attending postsecondary
institutions of education (Sweeten, 2006).
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 53
Participants
The Survivor
David was an 18-year old African-American male completing high school at the time of
this study. He resided in Lakewood, California. David entered juvenile hall when he was in
ninth grade and fifteen years old.
He remained in juvenile hall for a week and was placed on house arrest for a few months.
He lived in Lakewood, but was transferred to a school in Artesia as a result of being in juvenile
hall. Youngsters are required by state law to attend school even while incarcerated
(Hjalmarsson, 2008), but David’s coursework was usually limited to English and math with
unchallenging content. Depending on resources and finances, delinquents’ education was
tertiary to security and treatment (Hjalmarsson, 2008).
David’s life plan before going to juvenile hall was to become a barber, and it still was, so
he did not feel that juvenile hall did anything to hinder or advance his career goals. He wanted to
open a barber shop with his older brother who has a barber’s license, and those were still his
plans. David did think that “juvey” taught him a great lesson: “To think about what you do and
stay in control of your anger.” David believed that the educational program in juvenile hall,
100% did not help him at all towards his education or school goals. Juvenile hall also did not
assist him with re-enrolling in school. No education plan was put in place for him, and he did
not receive information about how to get back into school.
David is “The Survivor” because, despite the setback the juvenile hall offered his
academic career, he survived the system and, at the time of this study, was in 12th grade with the
correct number of credits and was scheduled to graduate on time.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 54
The Scholar
Lira J. was a 28-year old African-American female who grew up and still resided in
Inglewood, California. She was first detained at 17-years old, right after completing high school.
She was detained for five months in juvenile hall while fighting her case and then spent 9 months
in camp for a 15-month sentence. Lira J. had already completed high school prior to being
detained, so she was not offered an educational program.
Though Lira J. did not believe the school system within the juvenile detention center
helped her return to school, her plans for attending the community college she had already been
accepted to did not change due to incarceration. Once released from the juvenile detention
center, she matriculated there.
Lira J. is a scholar because she already had plans and a program in place to attend college
before being arrested. Her arrest hindered her timeline for attending postsecondary education,
but she continued her studies as best she could while incarcerated. She went on to attend the
school of her choice upon release, though she was not placed in courses that would enhance her
education. Lira J. did not complete college and worked as a security officer.
The Achiever
George was 36 years old and was in his first semester at California State University San
Marcos. George grew up in Santa Ana, California, but resided in San Diego. He was
incarcerated at the age of 16 and reported not having any education past the seventh grade.
George was in and out of juvenile hall and California Youth Authority (CYA) between of 1994
and1997 from ages 14 to 18. When he got to the youth authority, the work was around ninth and
tenth grade material, but “it was just repetitive” and haphazard. There was no organization or
individualized plans; everyone was placed together regardless of age or level. He reported that
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 55
everyone was in class together with classes comprised of students 15 to 19 years old. George
stated that the workload was not heavy at all and the students never received work to complete
outside of class. The CYA (now known as Department of Juvenile Justice or DJJ) work was
repetitive for the ninth and tenth grade and often consisted of busy work packets. George noted
there was no attempt at relationship-building between teachers and students.
George originally had no plans of completing school. Exacerbating the problem, he was
released without any help getting back into traditional school and was never able to return to
traditional school after being detained. He felt he was denied the opportunity to complete high
school and continue to higher education and, as a result, was forced to return to street life. He
received his GED while in county jail and did not feel like he was prepared for a higher
education program or even to work in the real world.
George is the achiever because he entered the child and adolescent development program
at Cal State San Marcos where he hoped to work with at-risk youth, those minors or juveniles
who are on their last chance before they enter the juvenile system or help the juveniles coming
out of the system with no sense of direction. He was married and his wife was a PhD candidate.
The Forgotten
Jason was a Latino aged 31. He was both in juvenile hall and in a camp. He was in camp
for 3 months while fighting a case and was then sentenced to camp time. He dropped out of
school in the seventh grade and was supposed to be in the ninth grade when he first went to
juvenile hall. Jason remembered being placed in camp in either 1993 or 1994, but did not
remember the exact year because he was there a couple of times.
Jason was involved in a gang prior to entering the system. Upon release, he reported
being angrier than when he first went in. Jason did not believe the courses helped him with his
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 56
education since no assessment was given and he was placed in class with other detainees based
on age and not ability. Jason did not think the work was interesting or appropriate.
Jason did not have any thoughts or plans about the future when he entered juvenile camp
and his plans did not change when he got out. Upon release, juvenile hall did not offer any
aftercare or any kind of post-juvenile-detention assistance. He never got back into school. Jason
is the forgotten because he was largely ignored while in camp and oftentimes just spent time in
his cell. Jason was in and out of prison between 1996 and 2007 and received his GED while he
was in prison. Jason completed college in 2010.
Results for Research Question One
The first research question asked, “Does a minor’s arrest interfere with the schooling
process to the point of significant hindrance into postsecondary education?” All four participants
answered in similar ways, describing a facility that did not speak to their academic needs during
or after incarceration, including not being placed in a class, not receiving age-appropriate work,
not learning anything, not receiving help with school enrollment upon release, and not preparing
for higher education. Most of the students were clumped together based loosely on age. The
school work provided did not reflect legitimate or appropriate academic content, but, instead,
consisted of busy work.
According to David, The Survivor, while in juvenile hall, he took a placement test in
order to be appropriately placed in educational classes and it took about three or four days to be
placed in the right classroom. David attended school for a day or two and was then transferred
out of the hall. David reported not being in school during his time in juvenile hall and,
inevitably, not being able to learn anything in class. He remembered reading and coloring and
repeating the basics.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 57
David’s life plan before going to juvenile to become a barber had not changed, so he did
not feel that juvenile hall did anything to hinder or advance his career goals. At the same time,
he believed juvenile hall’s educational program did not help him at all towards his education or
school goals or help him re-enroll in school. He received no education plan or information about
how to get back into school.
When asked what he thought would have happened to his life if he had stayed in
traditional school and had not been arrested or go to juvenile hall, David answered,
I would be playing football still, and I think I would be a little better educated. I feel like
me missing all that school...all them months of school...my freshman year, it really set me
back because I used to really be into school. Ever since I got out of jail, my whole
perspective, my whole demeanor changed. Yeah, if I stayed in school, I’d be a tad
brighter, I could say.
Lira J. was well ahead in her academic courses, which were halted once she was arrested.
Lucky for her, as she relayed, “After a couple months, I was placed on a different probation
officer’s caseload, and she arranged for me to take online classes through a community college.”
Though she took political science, history, and English, taking online courses with limited
resources was difficult. Lira J. noted that, “Yes, these courses were helping me with my
education so that once I got out I would already have units towards my AA degree,” although she
was only able to do classwork when her probation officer was present for work.
Lira J. noticed “that the education before the detention center was of more quality. The
education given in a detention center was poor quality.” She added,
While I was in juvenile hall, I didn’t get any type of education. I had already completed
high school so they had no program for high school graduates. I just basically sat in my
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 58
room. The same thing happened when I first got to camp. For the first 3 months, there
was nothing for me to do. I just cleaned the camp, was on the work crew where I kept the
grounds clean. I also was a TA for the classrooms.
Before being detained, Lira J. had plans to go directly to a community college after high
school and play sports. She said her plans did not change due to incarceration and, once released
from the juvenile detention center, her probation officer while in camp contacted the community
college she was originally supposed to attend. Though she had to wait longer than a traditional
student, the community college “allowed me to still come and play on the basketball [team],” she
recalled.
Lira J. did not believe that the school system within the juvenile detention center helped
her return to school. She stated,
No, the traditional education program in the juvenile facility did not help me get back
into school once I left, but taking the online classes did prepare [me] for attending
community college…The juvenile educational system does not provide enough learning
skill and material to prepare individuals for school.
She added,
If I had not been detained, I would have not had a record and been able to go straight to
community college without waiting a year. I would probably not have reoffended
because I would have been in school and not on a different path.
Lira J. did not complete college due to lack of preparation. She was rearrested and returned to
prison.
George noted that, when he was detained at Joplin, a juvenile camp in Orange County,
“They used to just give us history books, and I remember a teacher saying that was eleventh
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 59
grade work, which that was funny to me because I had never made it out of seventh grade.”
George stated that the work was pretty easy, as they would give students pamphlets and tell them
to use the textbook to find the answers and write them in. George said he did not really have to
memorize anything; it was just a matter of looking over it and plugging in the missing word or
whatever was being asked.
When George got to the youth authority, schoolwork was repetitive, haphazard and aimed
for the ninth and tenth grade level. George stated that the workload was light, students never
received work to complete outside of class, and was often busy work. He felt that the treatment
was different than traditional school and reported that, “Nothing I learned helped with anything
later in life.”
George was released without any help getting back into traditional school and never
returned to traditional school: “I went from schools in juvenile hall to the program in the CYA
education program to a transition program.” George said that he “can’t say a good thing” about
the education received in juvenile detention. He noted he could be positive because, being in
college, he tried to take everything he learned and apply it to his life, whether it came from
college, the streets or while being in the criminal system: “While it was a very bad experience,
15, 20 years later I’m trying to make the best out of it. That’s it.”
Incarceration severely hindered George’s academic track. He was in and out of juvenile
hall and CYA between the years of 1994 and 1997 from ages 14 to 18. He felt he was denied the
opportunity to complete high school and continue to higher education and was forced to return to
street life. He received a GED while in county jail: “I did not feel like I was prepared for higher
[a] education program or even to work in the real world.”
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 60
Jason, The Forgotten, was placed in camp in either 1993 or 1994, but did not remember
the exact year. He stated that, in camp, “They make you go to school, but, to me, it didn’t seem
like they were taking it seriously. It was just somewhere to send you for a couple hours.” Jason
remembered doing math:
I know we did math, and I think we did history or English, one of those two, but to be
honest with you, you’d get to class, everybody’d sit down, the teacher hands out these
worksheets or just paper to write...Just give you something to do to keep you busy...They
would just tell us to behave, and just do what you do.
Incarceration hindered Jason’s academic career. He did not believe the courses helped
him with his education. “When I was in the seventh grade, I was probably in ninth grade math
level.” He was in class with other detainees based on age and not ability; no assessment was
given, so everyone was on different education levels. Jason said that what they gave him was
not really for him, but he was not there to do the work, anyway.
Jason stated that juvenile hall did not offer any aftercare or any kind of post-incarceration
assistance: “I graduated from camp, and that was it. Just graduated, and parents picked you up,
you’re their problem now.” When asked about re-enrolling in school, Jason answered,
I never got back in school. When I got out, I went home, I stayed at my mom’s house for
a day or two, then I went back to my neighborhood, and I just kept running around the
street. I didn’t get my GED until I went to prison in 1996.
He recalled receiving no help when he was released from camp, and, as a result, he never went
back to school.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 61
Jason showed no interest at camp, and, as a result, the adults showed no interest in him:
“If I had not been involved in the juvenile system or someone cared about helping with my
education, I possibly could have been a lawyer,” he noted. Jason continued,
If I would have gone to school, honestly, I’d probably be a millionaire right now. I’m
smart, I’m really smart. It’s just I made bad choices. I liked the street; I fell in love with
the street. I knew what I was doing. I knew that what I was doing wasn’t going to get me
nowhere, but at the time, that’s what I wanted. I do, today, I think about it, and I know
for a fact I’d be owning a company. I might have been a lawyer. I wanted to be a lawyer
when I was a little kid, and I know I would have made it.
There was no way for Jason to be positively influenced towards doing the right thing while he
was incarcerated, hindering what could have been progress in life.
Jason received a GED while he was in prison and, in 1997, enrolled at LA Trade Tech to
study business administration. He only attended the first week of school, and then he was
arrested again. Jason did not feel that going to prison affected his thoughts on postsecondary
education either way: “It didn’t have no bearing on how I felt. I went into juvenile hall not
wanting to go to school and came out not wanting to go to school.” Jason referred to the school
in camp as “dead time” and said that, if the school system had been better in camp or if CYA had
a vocational program, it would have been beneficial. He was in and out of prison between 1996
and 2007.
Jason did feel like being arrested affected his educational process. He stated,
It affected it greatly because I wasn’t on the street to complete high school and junior
high, everything, in an orderly fashion. If I would have been serious about my education
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 62
when I was on the street, I could have got everything done instead of committing the
crimes and going back to jail.
Jason’s thoughts were that,
If a person goes to juvenile hall and the school system is serious, they make you get
engaged; they make you start earning credits. You start doing all that. Maybe a
percentage of the people, it will ignite something in them to say, “I got a couple credits
here. Why not, when I get out, finish this up?” But if you’re going to juvenile hall, and
you’re doing what I call dead time in school...As a matter of fact, a lot of times, if I didn’t
want to go to school. I’d just start some shit in my unit, and they’d be like, “Don’t open
the door.” And, if I wanted to go to school, I’d just behave a little bit and get out. But, if
I didn’t want to go to school, then I’d act bad because they would call school. I’ll be
honest with you, I didn’t give a shit when I was there in school.
Jason reported that, if there had been vocational classes offered when he was in camp, he
would have taken them. “I know I would have,” he stated,
Because I’ve loved computers my whole life. I’ve always been good at them. I know if I
would have got to juvenile hall, and gone to camp, and then out there what we have is
computer repair, computer programming, I would have got into that. That would have
been something cool…I think those vocational programs would be better than just regular
education, but, if the teachers aren’t going in wanting to give you an education, then
you’re not going to get it.
Jason completed college in 2010.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 63
Emergent Themes
Social economic rationalization purports that individuals will make choices based, not on
the current values and traditions of a society, but, rather, what they feel would be most beneficial
to their current situation or circumstance. Educational access, social mobility and social
inequality are three significant factors that affect an individual’s behavior under social economic
rationalization. A recurring theme within the participants’ answers is the fact that juveniles’
incarceration interferes with the traditional schooling process. For various reasons, these
students did not receive adequate education while incarcerated and were not assisted throughout
the process of entering back into mainstream education once released. Participants alleged
having no assistance from the detention facility to re-enroll in the school they attended prior to
incarceration. As a result, not one participant returned to his/her original school. This not only
prolonged the process of reentering school, but also forced participants to retake classes that they
were not granted credit due to non-transference of academic credits.
Participants also reported being placed in inappropriate classes that were inconsistent
with their grade or academic levels. Low quality curriculum instruction is also a recurrent
theme, with all participants stating that during incarceration, they were given repetitive or busy
work while in class, or no work at all. All experienced substandard education, teachers who did
not really care, and irrelevant coursework, contributing heavily to their experience of
diminishing educational access.
Educational access, or lack thereof, is another theme that emerged from the participants’
interviews. Not having access to comparable educational facilities and resources as their non-
incarcerated peers placed the participants at an educational disadvantage. The immediate effect
of this disadvantage was falling behind in their current grade and potentially not graduating from
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 64
high school. The long-term effect of the limited educational access was incomplete preparation
for higher education and, therefore, inability to access post-high-school academia. Limited
access to education directly affects another frequently noted theme: social mobility.
The movement within or between social strata defines social mobility, and various factors
affect upward mobility. Education level is a proven factor. With limited access to education, the
participants’ social mobility was impeded. One participant noted she would have been able to
enter community college sooner if it had not been for the mandatory year wait due to
incarceration. Another participant stated that, if he had not been arrested, he could have become
a lawyer or held a well-paying job. All participants showed interest in positive social mobility;
all alluded to incarceration’s being a hindrance to that movement.
Results for Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How does being a part of the juvenile delinquency
system affect youths’ attitude towards higher education?” Although the researcher expected that
being a part of the juvenile delinquency system would negatively affect the youths’ attitudes
towards higher education, all participants either maintained the same attitude towards higher
education upon exiting that they did upon entering or changed it for the better. While none of
the participants believed that juvenile hall helped their reintegration into school once they were
released, their opinion about education in general was not changed by their facility experience.
Three stated that vocational education would have been beneficial and that the probation
department should implement a vocational track to help detainees prepare for a viable future.
For example, before entering the juvenile justice system, David’s plan was to become a
barber. He maintained that nothing has changed since then and he still endeavored to obtain a
barbering license and co-own a barbershop with his brother. Juvenile hall did not bring him any
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 65
closer to his career goal and offered no vocational education or services towards it. David noted,
“Ever since I got out of jail, my whole perspective, my whole demeanor changed. Yeah, if I
stayed in school, I’d be a tad brighter, I could say.”
David did feel like the detention hall taught him to control his anger and remain in school
so that he would not get into trouble. He reported that having to enroll in a school outside of his
neighborhood, since he was unable to reenter his previous school, helped him remain out of
trouble and stay focused. When asked if he believed the educational program in juvenile hall
helped him towards school, he answered, “One hundred percent it didn’t help me at all.”
Before being arrested, David had no interest in attending college. He had never thought
about the benefits of going to college and maintained that his career goal of becoming a barber
was mostly due to the fact that, “[my] older brother, he became a barber at a young age, and we
just had plans to open a barbershop as brothers and run our own business together.” At the time
of the interview, David was scheduled to graduate college on time; however, he had not taken
any steps to enroll in barber school.
Lira J. had already completed high school prior to being detained and was on track to
enter community college. Her thoughts and feelings towards school, specifically higher
education did not change due to incarceration, as she did her best to complete online coursework
while detained and continued into college after being released. She noted, “Being in camp
helped me see and appreciate the education I received outside of a detention center.” She noticed
“that the education before the detention center was of more quality. The education given in a
detention center was poor quality.”
Before being detained, Lira J. had plans to go directly to a community college after high
school and play sports. She reported that her “plans did not change,” and, once released from the
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 66
juvenile detention center, my probation officer while in camp contacted the community college I
was originally supposed to attend.” The college allowed Lira J. to still come and play on the
basketball team.
Lira J.’s attitude towards higher education was positive before and after being detained.
She wanted and had planned to attend college before she was arrested. It was still her desire to
attend college upon release, and she accomplished that goal. While a teacher’s assistant in the
juvenile education system, Lira J. reported that the work she saw the students doing was of low
quality. She believed and was told by the minors that they were not learning anything while in
class in camp. Lira J. stated, “The juvenile educational system does not provide enough learning
skill and material to prepare individuals for school.” When asked had she thought about the
benefits of obtaining a higher education, Lira J. stated “Yes, I thought about the benefits of going
to college after school. Obtaining a higher education would allow me to get a higher paying
job.” She also reported that, “No, this did not change as a result of the justice system.” In Lira
J.’s case, it seemed to have strengthened her desire to attend. “The justice system made me
realize education is important,” Lira J. affirmed.
George states that he originally had no plans for completing school. George noted that
“being detained actually helped me want to do better in school.” This socialization was enough
to change George’s mindset, but not enough to change is behavior. He recounted that, even
though he wanted to do better, he just “couldn’t get it together.” George was never able to return
to traditional school after being detained, reporting, “I went from schools in juvenile hall to the
program in the YA education program to a transition program.”
George developed and maintained a positive attitude towards education. Though he felt
like he “was denied the opportunity to complete high school and continue towards higher
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 67
education,” he received a GED while in county jail. This did not deter George from progressing
in his education. He enrolled at California State San Marcos and was completing his first
semester in the child and adolescent development program at the time of the interview. His goal
was to help at-risk youth in the juvenile justice system and give them the direction they need for
enrolling in school and looking for a job, basically “everything that didn’t happen with me,” he
stated. In George’s case, he did not want to or plan to attend college before entering the juvenile
justice system, but modified his attitude towards higher education as a result of being
incarcerated.
Jason dropped out of school in the seventh grade. He did not have any plans of attending
college prior to being incarcerated and reported that he spent his time “gangbanging.” Jason
never got back into school and stated that, “No help was given when released from camp to
enroll in school.” Jason reported that, when he got out of camp, he was angrier than when he
went in. Although Jason did assert his displeasure with the juvenile justice’s schooling process,
noting that they did not take it seriously and utilized it as a place to send kids for hours, he did
receive a GED while in prison.
Jason concluded that he did not want to be a 50- or 60-year old gang member and
enrolled at Los Angeles Trade Tech College to study business administration in 1997. Although
he admitted he was not concerned about his future, he reported that, “If I had not been involved
in the juvenile system or someone cared about helping with my education, I possibly could have
been a lawyer.” Jason was arrested one week after entering college, however. When asked if the
juvenile justice system affected his attitude towards higher education, he clearly stated, “No, it
didn’t affect it either way. It didn’t have no bearing on how I felt. I went into juvenile hall not
wanting to go to school and came out not wanting to go to school.” Although Jason admitted to
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 68
having no desire for higher education upon entering or exiting juvenile camp, he completed
college in 2010 after 10 years of being in and out of prison.
Emergent Themes
Participant responses portrayed varied attitudes towards higher education before and after
incarceration, and no psychological pattern could be deciphered as a theme. The juvenile
delinquent attitude towards higher education had various combinations among three possibilities
occurring before and after incarceration: positive, negative, or indifferent. Responses from the
four participants elicited all three sentiments.
The concept of rationalization is that individuals will make decisions and choices based
on what is appropriate in light of current values that are acceptable by societal standards. Social
control theory shapes an individual’s habits and encourages them to conform to the rules
accepted by society, such as self-control and appropriate social behaviors. Rational choice
theory purports that societal behavior patterns reflect individuals’ choice and choices are made
through a cost-benefit analysis. Both social control and rational choice are themes that emerged
in the interviews.
Social control theory was not formally observed in the participants. Their habits and
behaviors did not conform to societal norms generally considered appropriate, leading them to
commit crimes and end up detained. The environment and experience of being incarcerated
worked to socialize one of the participants, George, who wanted to do better as a result of being
in jail. For Jason, it had the opposite effect. He stated, “You’re getting out of jail, so it’s like a
reputation grower.”
Rational choice theory was portrayed by each of the participants. Jason exemplified the
theme of rational choice theory when he stated, “I don’t blame it on the juvenile system or camp
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 69
or prison. It’s choices I made.” Each interviewee reported having come to the decision that
attending higher education was the best option for their lives and would result in more positive
consequences than remaining a criminal.
Social equality showed up indirectly in all participants’ words; each of them was
categorized as a minority living in urban Los Angeles. Jason clearly stated,
I know I would have made it, but couldn’t based on 10% to 50% where I grew up. If I
would have grown up in a place where there was no gangs, then I wouldn’t have got
enticed. Maybe. I’m saying maybe. I don’t know. It was just right outside my door, so
it was easy.
Results for Research Question Three
The third research question asked, “How does rational choice theory explain the non-
attendance of institutions of higher education by juvenile delinquents?” According to the
findings of this study, rational choice theory does not explain juvenile delinquents’ not enrolling
at institutions of higher education. Each participant concluded there are benefits to furthering
one’s education after high school. Lira J. noted, “obtaining a higher education would allow me
to get a higher paying job…The justice system made me realize education is important.” George
stated,
I just think that, regardless of how bad incarceration is or may seem sometimes, if you
learn from that, then you can use that to your advantage. If you learn from being
incarcerated and just continue on a criminal path then you obviously aren’t benefiting
from it, but if you actually buckle down and try to learn from everything that you’ve
learned in the past and use it to your advantage then it can be.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 70
Rational choice theory would have been displayed if the participants had no desire to
attend and did not enroll in higher education at all. Three participants applied to college. Only
one completed a degree and one other was enrolled at the time of this study. Though being
incarcerated did negatively affect each participant’s high school experience and make
completing high school more difficult than it was for their non-incarcerated peers, detention did
not prevent them from entering college. As a result, rational choice theory does not explain non-
attendance because there is a high rate of enrollment and attendance at higher educational
institutions by the former juvenile detainee participants.
Unfortunately, lack of educational preparation did prevent most from completing. Lira J.
stated she “was not able to attend a formal graduation with my graduating class in order to
receive my diploma.” However, she was still awarded a high school diploma due to “my credits
already being completed prior to being detained.” David was scheduled to graduate high school
and states he was “actually above credits.”
Jason believed, “
In camp and YA, you have enough time to accomplish something. I understand, they
want people to get their diplomas first, that’s understandable, but you’ve got to also
understand who you’re dealing with. If [I] wasn’t going to school on the street, and I go
to jail, what makes you think that in jail I’m going to say, “Okay, well, I’ll get my
diploma here.”
Rational choice does not explain not attending higher educational institutions, but, actually, does
the opposite by explaining the choice to attend post-secondary schools. Most of the participants
chose to attend college, and, for most, it reflected a cost-benefit analysis in favor of rational
choice theory.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 71
Emergent Themes
For each participant, there was significant interruption in their schooling process, again
portraying themes of limited educational access and incarceration’s interference in traditional
schooling, graduating from high school or receiving a GED with a delay in the process. Youths’
attitudes towards higher education was also evident. While some participants blamed the system
for holding them back, others acknowledged the role they themselves played in the stagnation of
their education. Some credited the system for helping them understand the need for higher
education in order to have more opportunities and a greater chance at a better life. Rational
choice theory was evident as a theme, portrayed in the fact that all participants decided to attend
post-secondary educational institutions.
Summary
The concept of rationalization is that individuals will make decisions and choices based
on the rationalization of what is appropriate based on values acceptable by societal standards.
Social economic rationalization purports that individuals will make choices based, not on the
current values and traditions of a society, but, rather, on what they feel would be most beneficial
to their current situation or circumstance. Educational access, social mobility and social
inequality are three significant factors that affect an individual’s behavior under social economic
rationalization. Educational access is concerned with complete and general access to education.
According to the literature, lack of access to education is a leading cause of juvenile delinquency
and positively correlates to high rates of recidivism (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). Additionally, a
minor’s arrest often interrupts the schooling process (Kirk & Sampson, 2013).
As seen in the case studies, arrest severely interrupted schooling processes, often placing
them behind in academic progress and off track with regard to reenrollment in traditional school.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 72
Their experiences prove Leone and Weinberg’s (2010) findings that juvenile delinquents often
encounter enrollment issues, inappropriate class placements, inability to successfully transfer
records, and lack of communication between the varying agencies that oversee their education
and well-being. This affects educational attainment as well as social equality and social
mobility.
According to Kirk and Sampson (2013), social equality relates to the set of conditions
where all individuals in a specific society or group share the same status in various respects.
According to the literature, incarcerated minors do not enjoy the same social equality as other
members in society predating their arrest, and this inequality is exacerbated post incarceration
(Lott, 1987). The three male participants grew up in female-run, single-parent, low
socioeconomic status households. The literature states that juvenile delinquency, as it relates to
social equality and social mobility, results in the inability to maintain a level of equal status
(Sweeten, 2006). The male participants did not enjoy a life of social equality before being
incarcerated and returning to school after incarceration, as the literature indicates, was not
considered. Upon attaining juvenile delinquent status, they were often viewed as inferior
citizens. Consequently, as the literature states, social mobility was drastically reduced and
upward movement in status as students in relation to others was difficult (Ford & Schroeder,
2010).
On the contrary, the female participant grew up in a two-parent household dwelling in a
middle-class neighborhood and had already obtained a high school diploma upon being arrested.
As a result of the economic stability she experienced and enjoyed as a youth, she did not find it
easier and more rewarding to remove herself from the educational system and join that of the
justice system (Kirk & Sampson, 2013), but, rather, chose to continue in her educational
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 73
endeavors even while incarcerated; higher education was not disregarded as an option (Tanner et
al., 1999), which is probably due to the difference in socioeconomic status. This study,
unfortunately, did not take gender into account and did not measure that variable.
All participants chose to continue on a path that allowed them to achieve a higher social
standing than they possessed before incarceration. The literature attempted to use the
socioeconomic framework of social mobility, social equality and educational access to explain
the scope within which juvenile delinquents exist and function (Tanner et al., 1999), define
motives for youth who begin a life of crime (Kirk & Sampson, 2013), and describe how
delinquency becomes a cycle that interrupts the schooling process and, consequently, delays or
encourages entrance into post-secondary education (Ford & Schroeder, 2010).
Each case study refutes the findings that an arrest has a significant impact on a minor’s
chances of dropping out (Kirk & Sampson, 2013), as all four individuals did, at some point,
complete a high school program and continue to postsecondary education. Nonetheless, Kirk and
Sampson (2013) confidently concluded that “arrest in adolescence hinders the transition to
adulthood by undermining the pathways to educational attainment” (pp. 55).
According to Siennick and Staff (2008), delinquent youths are unaware of the future
consequences of their current behavior. This was true of each participant. George noted that, if
he would have known how much harder life was going to be because of his record, he probably
would not have committed any crimes that would have landed him in “juvey.” Jason believed
that, if he had not become a criminal, he would be a millionaire right now because of his
intelligence. David reported that being in juvenile detention taught him to think about his actions
before he took them and to stay in control of his anger. Lira J. noted that, if she had not been
detained, she would have been able to go straight to community college and her future plans and
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 74
life would not have been placed on hold. Each participant posed as an example of what the
literature states about social control theory: a youth offender’s actions which can jeopardize his
or her goals are of greater consequence than are aspirations and behavioral components of
education commitment (Siennick& Staff, 2008).
Interviews with former juvenile delinquents to answer the research questions yielded
results consistent with many of the findings in the existing literature: these individuals remain
academically, socially, and societally marginalized, and, for many, the opportunity to attend
educational institutions, post high school graduation is hindered (Lott, 1987).
Fortunately, there has been an increase of juvenile delinquents’ completing high school
or obtaining equivalent degrees due to the increase in programs housed within the juvenile
justice system (Ford & Schroeder, 2010). Two of the participants received a GED while
incarcerated: one was completing a high school diploma on time and one completed her high
school education prior to being arrested and enrolled in online courses while detained. Of the
three who completed high school, all enrolled in post-secondary education, with one graduating,
though they were delayed in reaching this level of their education. All reported not receiving
any aid or assistance in returning to school after being released from camp.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 75
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
The relatively high percentage of Americans who resort to criminal activity during their
adolescent years and thereby succumb to delinquency within our society make it necessary to
study the societal factors that contribute to juvenile delinquency as well as its corresponding
effects. Influences such as the lack of social mobility, social inequality, limited educational
access, and inadequate educational facilities increase the likelihood for juveniles to commit
crimes and become incarcerated. Rational choice theory is a paradigm by which inequities, such
as lack of power and lack of educational access, can be used to determine or explain potential
causes for youths to become disenfranchised with the school system and, consequently, not
advance to postsecondary institutions of education.
The role rational choice theory plays in terms of juvenile delinquency can be established
by understanding how access to social mobility, education and social equality affect a youth’s
acquiescence to social norms and his or her participation in acceptable and appropriate societal
behaviors. Conclusions that a minor’s arrest interferes with the schooling process to the point of
significant hindrance into postsecondary education can also be drawn. Additionally, deductions
emerged regarding how juvenile delinquency affect youths’ attitude towards higher education
along with suppositions on how the educational services provided by the juvenile justice system
fail to prepare detained minors for post-secondary education.
Through a qualitative process of open-ended interviewing of four adult individuals who
have gone through the juvenile justice system as youth offenders, the purpose for this study was
to bring us closer to identifying how arrests of minors interfere with the traditional educational
process, the effects juvenile delinquency has on youths’ attitudes toward higher education, and
how rational choice theory supports or aggravates the phenomenon.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 76
Summary of Findings
Juvenile detainees complete less education than their peers in traditional education
settings. A correlation between access to education and advances in social equality and social
mobility exists, yet access to these is diminished for juvenile delinquents due, in part, to the
interference of incarceration in their schooling process. Thus, education during and after
incarceration is vital for reversing this phenomenon.
Deviant youths are less likely to complete the conventional education track as compared
to their counterparts (Siennick & Staff, 2008). Findings show that lower expectations and effort
put forth by the schools or other educational institutions on behalf of these youths are the
primary causes of non-completion; they are also less likely to attend college than their peers and
when they do, less likely to graduate (Lott, 1987). As nonachievers, investment in their own
education remains low for juvenile delinquents, as does their interest in school, and, therefore,
they are less likely to make the necessary gains for accessing education, graduating high school,
and attending college (Sweeten, 2006).
This study sought to evaluate how rational choice theory affected juvenile delinquents
before, during, and after their incarceration regarding their ability and desire to attend institutions
of higher education; as well as determine the effects that juvenile delinquency had on their
entrance into post-secondary institutions. The following section reports the findings related to
participant responses.
Research Question One
The first research question asked, “Does a minor’s arrest interfere with the schooling
process to the point of significant hindrance into postsecondary education?” Many of the
participants answered in similar ways, describing a facility that did not speak to their academic
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 77
needs during or after incarceration. Most of the students were clumped together based loosely on
age. The school work which was provided did not reflect legitimate or appropriate academic
content.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked, “How does juvenile delinquency affect youths’
attitudes towards higher education?” Each participant answered similarly. The detention facility
did not seem to alter anyone’s perception of education. The attitude towards education
participants entered with was maintained, whether positive or negative. None believed that
juvenile hall or camp helped them towards reintegration into school upon leaving. There was no
assistance in the form of academic or administrative support, and re-enrolling in school was left
up to the student.
Participants offered suggestions such as academic assessment and placement tests,
vocational options, career counseling with individuals who can relate to the students, and
assistance with school reentry. Class work that provides more of a challenge than coloring or
filling in the blanks was also suggested.
Research Question Three
The third research question asked,
“
How does rational choice theory explain juvenile
delinquents’ lack of attendance at institutions of higher education?” For each participant,
significant interruption in their schooling process resulted from juvenile incarceration.
Receiving general education diplomas while incarcerated was a common trend among them.
Completing high school at an alternative school was also common. Those who entered camp or
juvenile hall and went on to postsecondary education did so with a delay in the process, often
beginning college in their thirties. While some participants blame the system for holding them
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 78
back, others acknowledge the role they played in the stagnation of their education. Some credit
the system for helping them to understand the need for higher education in order to have more
opportunities and a greater chance at a better life. One of the four participants completed
college, denoting a severe obstruction to their higher education track.
Limitations
Telephone interviews were conducted to obtain honest answers from the subjects.
Limitations of the study include the reliability of the information gathered along with the lack of
ability to reproduce the study and obtain similar results, since every individual’s experience was
unique. Additionally, alternative variables for attaining postsecondary education may have
existed without being apparent to the researcher or the subjects themselves. The possibility also
exists that individuals who did not attend postsecondary education will do so in the future after
the study’s completion. Moreover, underlying reasons for those individuals who entered college
at the time of the study but did not complete their higher educational endeavors may also exist.
Finally, since the sample was considerably small and was obtained from the inner-city of Los
Angeles, the inability to generalize the findings to a greater population remains a significant
limitation, as does the limited access to participants’ incarceration and education records.
Implications
Findings can inform researchers and policy makers of the existing social problem of
juvenile delinquency and how these affects individuals with regard to entering institutions of
higher education. This study contributes to existing literature by providing primary accounts of
experiences with the juvenile justice system. The results of this study can aid in reforming
education and juvenile incarceration.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 79
Methods of rehabilitation during the incarceration period can be identified and evaluated
to decrease the probability of recidivism and increase the likelihood of students being released
into society fully equipped for positive functioning. Finally, this research can help determine
factors affecting incarcerated students’ not attending colleges and universities and lead to the
designing of methods to increase the rate at which youth offenders enter institutions of higher
education.
Recommendations for Further Research
Limited research is available on the percentage of juvenile delinquents who attend
colleges and universities. However, current studies show the numbers are much lower when
compared to their peers who have never been through the justice system (Siennick & Staff,
2008). Investigation of the rate of education after incarceration is necessary, as is an analysis of
the relationship between juvenile justice system interactions and high school graduation and
subsequent entrance into college. It is recommended that further research regarding modern day
interventions and their corrective application and usefulness on incarcerated youth be conducted.
Additionally, further descriptive analyses of the attitudes of higher education institutions
regarding acceptance of and entrance by juvenile delinquents would offer a greater and more
balanced understanding of the effects of adolescent incarceration on former juvenile delinquents’
entering post-secondary educational institutions. Finally, further investigation should be
conducted as a follow up to the findings of the University of California Los Angeles study which
reported that money spent on crime prevention over incarceration yields almost twice the
reduction in crime (John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2015). This investment would likely
prove beneficial to both the youth offender, the community in which he or she lives, and the
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 80
country as a whole. Research with more recently released detainees as participants is also
recommended as it would provide a broader perspective on the problem.
Recommendations for Practice
Juvenile delinquents have direct interactions with educators within the detention facility.
These educators can be the catalyst for continued learning for these minors or for complete
disregard of both their current and future education. Educators within juvenile detention
facilities should be specially trained, not just in core subject areas, but in compassion and
counseling along with motivating and guiding students. The classrooms of juvenile detention
centers should also be fashioned to promotes optimal learning, with proper resources, academic
assessments and ability grouping of students. Vocational programs should be available and
appropriate for preparing minors for work or educational experience while incarcerated to create
viable opportunities upon release.
Other service providers, such as probation officers, department of children and
family services personnel, foster parents, group home facilitators, lawyers and other contract
providers should also be trained and encouraged to steer youth offenders towards furthering their
education. Those individuals involved in the release process of the deviant, including the
administrative members of the youths’ previous school, should have a smoother transitional
process with greater support, aid and acceptance back into the traditional track for the student.
It is the recommended that juvenile detention facilities be converted into second chance
specialized educational institutions in which detainees receive education in their vocation of
choice. Modified sentencing may be necessary to ensure incarcerated youth completion a term,
semester or course
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 81
Conclusion
Participant responses lead conclusions regarding the effect incarceration has on a minor’s
educational process, specifically concerning postsecondary education. Findings show a juvenile
arrest interferes with the process and quality of a juvenile delinquents’ education and is
correlated with a delay in attaining higher education. Conclusions are mostly consistent with
existing research and show that juvenile delinquents remain academically, socially, and
societally marginalized as compared to their counterparts.
Many of the participants described a facility that did not speak to their academic needs
during or after incarceration. Thus, the detention facility did not alter anyone’s perception of
education. None of the participants believed juvenile hall or camp helped them towards
reintegration into school, and there was no assistance in the form of academic or administrative
support, and re-enrolling in school was left up to the student.
Participants offered suggestions such as academic assessment and placement tests,
vocational options, career counseling with individuals who can relate to the students, and
assistance with school reentry. They also suggested class work that provides more of a challenge
than coloring or filling in the blanks.
For each participant, there was significant interruption in their schooling process, and
completing high school at an alternative school or receiving general education diplomas while
incarcerated were common trends. Those who went on to postsecondary education saw a
significant delay in the process, often beginning college in their thirties, and only one graduated.
While some participants blamed the system for holding them back, others acknowledged the role
they played in the stagnation of their education. Some credited the system with helping them
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 82
understand the need for higher education in order to have more opportunities and a greater
chance at a better life.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 83
References
Binder, A., Geis, G., & Bruce Jr, D. D. (2001). Juvenile Delinquency: Historical, Cultural &
Legal Perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5
th
Ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Creswell, 2009
Cross, W. E. (2003). Tracing the historical origins of youth delinquency & violence: Myths &
realities about black culture. Journal of Social Issues, 59(1), 67–82. doi:10.1111/1540-
4560.t01-1-00005.
Ford, J. A., & Schroeder, R. D. (2010;2011;). higher education and criminal offending over the
life course. Sociological Spectrum, 31(1), 32–58. doi:10.1080/02732173.2011.525695.
Gonsoulin, S., & Read, N.W. (2011). Improving educational outcomes for youth in the juvenile
justice and child welfare systems through interagency communication and collaboration.
Washington, DC: National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or
Delinquent Children and Youth.
Gonsoulin & Read, 2012
Gonsoulin, S., Darwin, M. J., & Read, N. W. (2012). Providing individually tailored academic
and behavioral support services for youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare
systems. Washington, DC: National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of
Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth.
Hirschfield, P. (2009). Another way out: The impact of juvenile arrests on high school dropout.
Sociology of Education, 82(4), 368-393. doi:10.1177/003804070908200404.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 84
Hjalmarsson, R. (2008). Criminal justice involvement and high school completion. Journal of
Urban Economics, 63(2), 613-630.
John Jay College of Criminal Justice. (2015). NYS prison-to-college pipeline: Providing
university-level education to ease prisoner reentry and enhance success. Retrieved
fromhttp://johnjayresearch.org/pri/projects/nys-prison-to-college-pipeline
Jolivette, K., Swoszowski, N. C., & Ennis, R. P. (2013). PBIS as prevention for high-risk youth
in alternative education, residential, and juvenile justice settings. Education and
Treatment of Children, 36(3), 1-2. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0027.
Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., Zhang, D., & Spann, A. (2008). Juvenile delinquency and
recidivism: The impact of academic achievement. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(2),
177–196. doi:10.1080/10573560701808460.
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.
doi:10.1177/0038040712448862.
Leone, P. E., & Weinberg, L. A. (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.
Losen, D. J., & Gillespie, J. (2012). Opportunities suspended: The disparate impact of
disciplinary exclusion from school. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project.
Lott, J. R. (1987). Juvenile delinquency and education: A comparison of public and private
provision. International Review of Law & Economics, 7(2), 163–175. doi:10.1016/0144-
8188(87)90018-4.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 85
Mathur, S. R., & Nelson, C. M. (2013). PBIS as prevention for high-risk youth in restrictive
settings: Where do we go from here? Education and Treatment of Children, 36(3), 175–
181. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0025.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Public Alternative Schools and Programs for
Students at Risk of Education Failure: 2000-01. Washington DC: Author.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA,
SAGE.
Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). Easy access to the census of
juveniles in residential placement. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/
ezacjrp/
Siennick, S. E., & Staff, J. (2008). explaining the educational deficits of delinquent youths.
Criminology, 46(3), 609-635. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00118.x.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report.
Washington, DV: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Sweeten, G. (2006). Who will graduate? disruption of high school education by arrest and court
involvement. Justice Quarterly, 23(4), 462–480. doi:10.1080/07418820600985313.
Tanner, J., Davies, S., & O'Grady, B. (1999). Whatever happened to yesterday's rebels?
longitudinal effects of youth delinquency on education and employment. Social
Problems, 46(2), 250–274. doi:10.1525/sp.1999.46.2.03x0188f
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Consolidate State Performance Report. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ocr/know.htmlVacca, 2007
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 86
Vacca, J. (2007). Crime can be prevented if schools teach juvenile offenders to read. Children
and Youth Services Review, 30 ,1055–1062

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 87
Appendix A
Research Table
Research Question Author & Article Interview Question

1. How does the arrest of a
minor interfere with the
schooling process to the point
of significant hindrance into
postsecondary education?

Hjalmarsson, R. (2008).
Criminal justice involvement
and high school completion.
Journal of Urban Economics,
63(2), 613-630.

1. What was your education
status before being arrested?

1. How does the arrest of a
minor interfere with the
schooling process to the point
of significant hindrance into
postsecondary education?

Hjalmarsson, R. (2008).
Criminal justice involvement
and high school completion.
Journal of Urban Economics,
63(2), 613-630.

2. Were you placed in the
courses that would enhance
your education? Please
describe

1. How does the arrest of a
minor interfere with the
schooling process to the point
of significant hindrance into
postsecondary education?

Hjalmarsson, R. (2008).
Criminal justice involvement
and high school completion.
Journal of Urban Economics,
63(2), 613-630.

3. Were you in class with
students at the same
educational level as you?
Please explain. Have you had
formal training in teaching
gifted and talented students?
Please describe.

2. How does being a part of
the juvenile delinquency
system affect youths’ attitude
towards higher education?
Ford, J. A., & Schroeder, R.
D. (2010). Higher education
and criminal offending over
the life course. Sociological
Spectrum, 31(1), 32-58.

1. How did your experience in
a juvenile detention facility
change your opinion about
education?

2. How does being a part of
the juvenile delinquency
system affect youths’ attitude
towards higher education?
Ford, J. A., & Schroeder, R.
D. (2010). Higher education
and criminal offending over
the life course. Sociological
Spectrum, 31(1), 32-58.

2.Do you believe the
education program in camp or
juvenile hall helped you
towards reintegration into
school once you left?
Research Question Author & Article Interview Question

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 88
3. How does rational choice
theory explain the non-
attendance of institutions of
higher education by juvenile
delinquents?
Sweeten, G. (2006).
Who will graduate?
Disruption of high school
education by arrest and court
involvement. Justice
Quarterly, 23(4), 462-480.
1. What do you believe the
benefits are of furthering your
education after high school?

3. How does rational choice
theory explain the non-
attendance of institutions of
higher education by juvenile
delinquents?

Sweeten, G. (2006).
Who will graduate?
Disruption of high school
education by arrest and court
involvement. Justice
Quarterly, 23(4), 462-480.

2. Did your idea of the
benefits of college change
after becoming involved in the
juvenile justice system? If so,
why?

3. How does rational choice
theory explain the non-
attendance of institutions of
higher education by juvenile
delinquents?

Sweeten, G. (2006).
Who will graduate?
Disruption of high school
education by arrest and court
involvement. Justice
Quarterly, 23(4), 462-480

3. How did being arrested
affect your ability to complete
high school and attend
postsecondary education
institution?

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 89
Appendix B
Research Questions and Protocol Grid

RQ1: Does a minor’s arrest interfere with the schooling process to the point of significant
hindrance into postsecondary education?
RQ2: How does juvenile delinquency affect youths’ attitudes towards higher education?
RQ3:

How does rational choice theory explain juvenile delinquents’ lack of attendance at
institutions of higher education?

Research Question #1
How does the arrest of a minor interfere with the schooling process to the point of
significant hindrance into postsecondary education?
Interview Questions
1. What was your education status before being arrested?
2. Were you placed in the courses that would enhance your education? Please
describe.
3. Were you in class with students at the same educational level as you? Please
explain. Have you had formal training in teaching gifted and talented students?
Please describe.
Observation Data
10. Observations of the minor’s interactions with their peers and teachers at school while
detained
11. Observations of minors during their daily routine to see if they do anything extra to
enhance their education, i.e. reading, practicing math, etc.

How does being a part of the juvenile delinquency system affect youths’ attitude
towards higher education?
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 90
Research Question #2

Research Question #3
How does rational choice theory explain the non-attendance of institutions of higher
education by juvenile delinquents?
Interview Questions
1. What do you believe the benefits are of furthering your education after high
school?
2. Did your idea of the benefits of college change after becoming involved in the
juvenile justice system? If so, why?
3. How did being arrested affect your ability to complete high school and attend
postsecondary education institution?
Observation Data
10. Observations of the minor’s interactions with their peers and teachers at school while
detained
11. Observations of minors during their daily routine to see if they do anything extra to
enhance their education, i.e. reading, practicing math, etc.

Interview Questions
1. How did your experience in a juvenile detention facility change your opinion
about education?
2. Do you believe the education program in camp or juvenile hall helped you towards
reintegration into school once you left?
3. What would you suggest the Probation Department could do to help improve the
education for minors while detained?
Observation Data
10. Observations of the minor’s interactions with their peers and teachers at school while
detained
11. Observations of minors during their daily routine to see if they do anything extra to
enhance their education, i.e. reading, practicing math, etc.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 91
Appendix C
Consent Form for Participation in a Research Study
University of Southern California

Education Services in Juvenile Detention Facilities

Description of the research and your participation
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Rockisha Roland. The purpose of
this research is gain insight on the perceptions of services in camp and whether they increase or
decrease the chances of minors reoffending.

Your participation will include an interview and being observed by myself in various setting of
the camp facility.

Risks and discomforts
You may feel uncomfortable asking some of the questions. Please feel free to refuse to answer
any questions you don’t feel comfortable answering.

Potential benefits
There are no personal benefits from this study, however the results may allow you to incorporate
different, or better ways of working with the minors.

Protection of confidentiality
I will do everything I can to protect your privacy. Your name will be replaced with a
pseudonym. Your answers will on be shared with my professor and myself.

Voluntary participation
Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate and
you may withdraw your consent to participate at any time.

Contact information
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact Professor Green at
University of Southern California at (xxx) xxx-xxxx.

Consent
I have read this consent form and have been given the opportunity to ask questions. I give
my consent to participate in this study.

Participant’s signature_______________________________ Date: _________________

Consenter’s signature_________________________________ Date: ________________
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 92
Appendix D
Interview with David W.

Order

Client Rockisha Roland
Ref # Dissertation
Order # TC0392922580

Audio

File URL
http://www.infinear.com/s3/./32BE004B-F937-4B60-9D34-
3905CD5C8678-2016-01-29-13-26-23-iphone.call.100.mp3
Length 14 min

Transcriptionist Anne Marie J.
Rockisha: This is Rockisha. [inaudible 00:00:36] you get that?
David W: Yeah, I did.
Rockisha: Let me count the questions first. It’s about ten questions and they have like
[inaudible 00:00:50] to help you understand the questions. It should take no more
than thirty minutes, and I’m sending out a Target gift card, so when we finish, can
you text me your address so I can mail it to you?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Rockisha: Now, would you prefer a regular Visa card or you could use a Target card?
Speaker 2: Excuse me?
Rockisha: Can you use a Target card?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 93
Rockisha: I’m going to read you this information sheet before I start the research, okay?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Rockisha: It says you’re invited to participate in a research study conducted by Rockisha
Roland. The purpose of this research is to gain insight on perceptions of services
in camp and whether increase or decrease the chances of minors re-offending. If
you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete an interview
and up to two follow-up interviews, which may be conducted by phone. The
interviews are anticipated last no more than an hour each, and will be audio
recorded. If you do not want to be recorded, you cannot participate in the study.
This phone conversation is being recorded, specifically so that if I can’t all of the
notes while I’m talking to you, then I can go back [inaudible 00:02:33], I mean,
go over with it. You will be compensated with a $20 gift card at the end of your
participation. You do not have to answer all of the questions to receive the gift
card. It’s saying that it doesn’t have to be Target, it can be a regular Visa card if
you want.
Speaker 2: That’d be fine, a regular Visa. That would be great.
Rockisha: Okay. You may feel uncomfortable answering some of the questions. You do not
have to answer any questions you don’t want to. There are no benefits to your
participation in this study. It’s hoped that the results of the study will allow
researchers and policy-makers to understand the existing social problem of
juvenile delinquency and how it affects individuals regarding entering institutions
of higher education, so college.
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with false name and maintained
separately from any identifiable information, and the audio tapes will be
destroyed once they’ve been transcribed. The data will be stored on a password-
protected computer in the researcher’s office. Identifiable information will be
destroyed upon completion of the study and the remaining data will be retained at
the researcher’s discretion and may be used in future research.
I’m going to start asking the questions. If you don’t understand it, just ask me to
repeat it or clarify it.
Speaker 2: Okay.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 94
Rockisha: First, let me get some background information. How long ago or where were you
in camp? Were you in camp or just in juvenile hall?
Speaker 2: I was in juvenile hall, and that was about my ninth grade year, so like three years
ago.
Rockisha: Did you go to camp ever?
Speaker 2: No. I wound up staying in juvenile hall for a week.
Rockisha: That’s all you were in juvenile hall?
Speaker 2: I was in juvenile hall for a week, then I was on house arrest for a few months.
Rockisha: Do you remember the education you received while in the hall?
Speaker 2: When I was in there, they took about three or four days to place me, because I had
to take a placement test, and they took about three or four days to find the right
classroom for me. Once I did go to school, I went to school for about a day or
two, and ... What was the question about, what about the education?
Rockisha: I was just wondering if you remembered. You answered all that.
[crosstalk 00:05:08]
Do you remember if you were placed in education courses that could enhance
your education?
Speaker 2: No, I do not remember that.
Rockisha: You don’t remember ...
Do you remember if there were any teachers that you liked or didn’t like?
Speaker 2: I had one teacher, his name Mr. Tigre. I’ll never forget his name. He was pretty
cool, a cool black guy. He was very sarcastic. Yes.
Rockisha: Did you like him at all?
Speaker 2: He was cool, yeah, actually.
Rockisha: Do you remember learning anything in his class?
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 95
Speaker 2: No, I wasn’t there that long to learn anything. We just read. That’s all I remember
doing, reading and coloring and doing a lot of basic stuff.
Rockisha: You were coloring in the ninth grade?
Speaker 2: Yeah, coloring, like making things like on the paper and stuff like that.
Rockisha: Awesome.
You were probably like fourteen or something?
Speaker 2: Yeah, like fourteen, fifteen.
Rockisha: Were you in classes with people that were way older than you?
Speaker 2: Around the same age. Some people were seventeen, sixteen, fifteen. Around the
same age.
Rockisha: Do you know if people were on the same level as you or do you think you could
have been in a class that was older than you ... you weren’t at your grade level?
Speaker 2: I feel like some in there were on the same level, but some were behind. They
weren’t at the same pace. It was bunch of different levels in there, I think.
Rockisha: Okay.
Speaker 2: Because I remember, I went to school with the same people that was in my unit,
you know what I mean? In the same cells as me, and they weren’t too smart, they
weren’t too dumb.
Rockisha: They weren’t too dumb? Okay.
How did your experience in the hall change your feeling about education?
Basically, before you were ... did you have any college plans?
Speaker 2: My plan was to become a barber, and it still is. I don’t think juvenile hall did
anything about my ... Not like that ... It taught me a lesson, I can say.
Rockisha: It taught you a lesson?
Speaker 2: A great lesson.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 96
Rockisha: Did any of these plans change as a result of being in the hall?
Speaker 2: No, not at all.
Rockisha: You still want to be a barber?
Speaker 2: Become a barber and apply for a [inaudible 00:08:14] and get my barber career
started.
Rockisha: As far as education was concerned, what lesson did it teach you? Or vocational?
Barber school is vocational. What lesson did being in juvenile hall teach you?
Speaker 2: It taught me more to think about what you do and stay in control of your anger. It
taught me ... how can I explain ... it taught me ...
Rockisha: How did it affect you in regard to your education? Did you feel like you needed
make sure to stay in school so that you wouldn’t get in trouble, or not?
Speaker 2: Yeah, of course. I think me being in school out here ...
Rockisha: Out where? Where are you?
Speaker 2: I’m in Lakewood. Me going to Artesia will keep me out of trouble and keep me
focused on school. It’s hard to explain.
Rockisha: It’s okay.
Do you believe that the educational program in juvenile hall, did it help you
towards [crosstalk 00:09:49] school?
Speaker 2: 100% it didn’t help me at all.
Rockisha: When you left, did they help you re-enroll in school? Or did they just say, “Okay,
you’re released.”
Speaker 2: No, juvenile hall didn’t. The Artesia school, and my mom, and the home studies I
was on when I got out, they all did put that together and got me back into my
stuff.
Rockisha: So you were released from the hall without an education plan?
Speaker 2: Not that I know of. I don’t know if I had a education plan or not.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 97
Rockisha: When you were released, no one gave you information about how to get back into
school?
Speaker 2: No.
Rockisha: Okay, they did not.
What do you think would have happened to your life if you continued to stay in
traditional school and wasn’t arrested, or you didn’t go to juvenile hall?
Speaker 2: I would be playing football still, and I think I would be a little better educated. I
feel like me missing all that school ... all them months of school ... my freshman
year, it really set me back, because I used to really be into school. Ever since I got
out of jail, my whole perspective, my whole demeanor changed. I don’t know if
you know what I mean.
Rockisha: I understand.
Speaker 2: Yeah, if I stayed in school, I’d be a tad brighter, I could say.
Rockisha: A tad brighter?
Speaker 2: No, seriously.
Rockisha: Yeah, I understand.
Did you ever think about the benefits of going to college? You said, after high
school, you wanted to go to barber school. Do you ever think about the benefits of
that?
Speaker 2: Not really. I ain’t really been thinking about the benefits or anything like that.
That’s just something I’ve wanted to do, because my older brother, he became a
barber at a young age, and we just had plans to open a barbershop as brothers and
run our own business together.
Rockisha: How did being arrested affect your ability to complete high school? Did you
complete high school?
Speaker 2: No, I’m still in twelfth grade right now.
Rockisha: How old are you?
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 98
Speaker 2: I’m eighteen years old.
Rockisha: Are you graduating on time?
Rockisha: Yeah, I’m actually above credits. I’m fifteen ahead of where I’m supposed to be,
so I’m good on credit.
Rockisha: So you’ll be graduating at eighteen or nineteen?
Rockisha: Eighteen.
Rockisha: How did being arrested your ability to ... well, it didn’t because you’re still at
school right now.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Rockisha: That’s it, then. Do you have anything else you wanted to ... any other information
that you would like for me to have, that I didn’t address?
Speaker 2: Not really. If there’s any other questions you need to ask, or you want to ask, or
you want to know about, feel free to ask or call me or shoot a text or anything.
Rockisha: Well, just text me your address so I can send you the gift card, okay?
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you so much.
Rockisha: Thank you so much. Bye bye.
Speaker 2: Bye bye.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 99
Appendix E
Interview with George F.
Client Rockisha Roland
Ref # Dissertation
Order # TC0392922580

Audio

File URL
http://www.infinear.com/s3/./32BE004B-F937-4B60-9D34-
3905CD5C8678-2016-01-07-14-03-11-iphone.call.100.mp3
Length 41 min

Transcriptionist Tabatha R.
Rockisha: [inaudible 00:28:27] So you were at [Cal State 00:28:33]?
George F: [inaudible 00:28:31]
Rockisha: [inaudible 00:28:34]
Speaker 2: I’m actually just entering my first semester.
Rockisha: Oh, okay. Cool. Congratulations.
Speaker 2: Thanks.
Rockisha: Would you say, you mentioned that you didn’t have any education past seventh
grade. Would you say that all those years that you were [detained 00:28:54]
whether it’s incarcerated as a juvenile, adult or specifically as a juvenile the work
that you were learning was, I guess remedial or what were they teaching? Was it
like third grade work? What level of work was it if you can remember?
Speaker 2: You know what, I think when I was in Joplin at one of the Orange County
juvenile camps I remember it being, they used to just give us history books and I
remember a teacher saying that was eleventh grade work, which that was funny to
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 100
me because I had never made it out of seventh grade. They give you these
pamphlets like, “Open up book. Find the answers and put them on this.” It was
pretty easy. It was just, you didn’t really have to memorize. Just look over it, plug
in the missing word or whatever. When I got to the youth authority the work I
would probably think was maybe like ninth, tenth grade material, but it was just
repetitive. It wasn’t like okay you’re here for a year, you’re graduating you’re
moving up to the eleventh grade. It was pretty much like everybody’s like they’re
all over the place. The juvenile system and [inaudible 00:30:29] in particular they
were all over the place with the age, twelve, fifteen, seventeen. I don’t know if
they just averaged the age group that the class was in and then taught them
whatever was appropriate for that average. I don’t know how they did it, but they
had to meet something, it was probably something in the middle. I’m thinking
ninth grade. People weren’t seniors and people weren’t seventh graders. Some
[inaudible 00:30:56].
Rockisha: Interesting. Is there anything I did not ask that you would like to tell me or that
would further explain [crosstalk 00:31:13].
Speaker 2: No, I just think that regardless of how bad incarceration is or may seem
sometimes if you learn from that then you can use that to your advantage. If you
learn [inaudible 00:31:37] from being incarcerated and just continue on a criminal
path then you obviously aren’t benefiting from it, but if you actually buckle down
and try to learn from everything that you’ve learned in the past and use it to your
advantage then it can be ...
Rockisha: Beneficial.
Speaker 2: ... I can’t say a good thing, but positive because now that I’m in college I try to
take everything that I’m learning in college and put it with the education that I
learned while being in the criminal system and on the streets and so I’m trying to
help other minors from committing those same mistakes that I did. The one thing
that I remember is the teachers, the counselors everybody that tried to talk to you
no one was ever ... We had nothing in common. They would sit back and try to
talk to you on how to change your life, but we had nothing in common. I was
from Santa Ana and these other people were from like Newport. We had nothing
in common. You know what I’m saying?
Rockisha: Right.
Speaker 2: When you have something in common with the minors that you want to talk to,
that’s what I’m focusing in now like learn everything that I’ve learned there and
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 101
then try to reach back out to the people that I something in common with, people
from my community. While it was a very bad experience, fifteen, twenty years
later I’m trying to make the best out of it. That’s it.
Rockisha: What are your plans now? What would you like to do once you finish school?
What are you doing working now? [crosstalk 00:33:42] you mentioned working
with minors.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I’m trying to, right now I’m entering the [CHAD 00:33:45] program which
is the Child and Adolescent Development program at Cal State San Marcos and
then hopefully work with at risk youth either the minors or children, juveniles that
are about to enter, they’re in their last chances before they enter the juvenile
system. Somewhere in that field. Help the juveniles that are coming out of the
system and have no sense of direction, don’t know where to look for a job, don’t
know how to enroll in school, don’t know ... Everything that didn’t happen with
me I’m trying to think ... I’m trying to learn. That’s what I’m trying to tell you.
I’m trying to remember what could have, how my life could have been better.
How if I had somebody to actually not just basically tell me hey go do that but
take the time to say hey go do that and if you don’t know how to do then I’ll come
with you.
Rockisha: Show you? Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Rockisha: That’s what they’re missing [inaudible 00:34:54] I wonder sometimes. My
question is ... This is not a research question, but sometimes I’m like do you really
want them to change or is the system set up for recidivism to happen?
Speaker 2: Yeah, that’s a very good question because if it’s changing then ... Some people
need criminals if they want to keep a job so to speak. You know what I mean?
Rockisha: Yeah. [crosstalk 00:35:31] that’s exactly right.
Speaker 2: I don’t really want to be in probation or anything like that. I just want to be able to
help these kids to stay out of trouble. Just thinking back, what didn’t I have? Or if
I had this, had my life been a little bit different. Had somebody actually took the
time to see eye to eye with me and help me out a little bit more could my life have
been a little bit different? Knowing that I’m trying to take all that and adapt it to
my studies now and how I’m going to go about helping out the next kids.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 102
Rockisha: They have a lot of programs right now where they’re trying to help ... I forget the
name of it, but I know the LACCC, the junior college system [inaudible 00:36:29]
have a lot of programs that are helping [inaudible 00:36:36] return to college and
[inaudible 00:36:42] LA has fifteen camps.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Rockisha: I see there’s more of a push [inaudible 00:36:50] when I worked in a camp I
created a college program because we would have kids come and they would have
actually completed high school. I had created a college [inaudible 00:37:00]
program when I worked there and they were taking online classes at Trade Tech. I
noticed that one of my girls she left with twelve units. I was like oh the ones that
are still in high school they can, because you know college credits are twice as
much high school credit.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Rockisha: In that type of system once that director leaves, that program kind of goes
[crosstalk 00:37:28] very political with the education system when I was there.
That was probably nine years that I had that program.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Rockisha: I’m interested in trying to figure out how can ... Because LA counties there’s an
entire, it’s Los Angeles County Office of Education and they work with all those
types of [inaudible 00:37:58] the schools that are in placement or the schools that
are in probation camps or they call them [inaudible 00:38:05] the same kind
where you said that there were kids that were home on probation but still going to
that school.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the [inaudible 00:38:13] schools.
Rockisha: They cover all those schools. It’s the same type of work, pamphlets and or if you
get detained when you’re eighteen you don’t have anything to do. All you do is
walk around and clean up the [inaudible 00:38:27].
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Rockisha: How is that beneficial?
Speaker 2: Exactly.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 103
Rockisha: [inaudible 00:38:39] try to figure out something. [crosstalk 00:38:42] What year
was this [inaudible 00:38:46]? You said about fifteen years ago?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was from ‘94 to ... Since I turned eighteen? It was ‘94 to ‘97, ‘98
something like that.
Rockisha: Oh, okay. [inaudible 00:39:04] I’m thirty five.
Speaker 2: I’m thirty six.
Rockisha: Okay, [inaudible 00:39:10] I’m not even thirty five. I’m thirty six. [inaudible
00:39:17] that’s funny. If I have any more questions because [inaudible 00:39:28]
listen to the recording and transcribe it I’ll call you back.
Speaker 2: Yeah, absolutely.
Rockisha: I do want to [inaudible 00:39:40] you live near San Diego?
Speaker 2: Yeah, we live in San Diego now.
Rockisha: In San Diego, okay. We don’t have class anymore. Would you like me to send
you [inaudible 00:39:53].
Speaker 2: You’re fine. You don’t have to worry about that. You don’t have to [inaudible
00:39:57].
Rockisha: [inaudible 00:40:00] it’s just a thank you.
Speaker 2: No, don’t worry about it. My wife’s doing her doctorate program too. She’s like
constantly trying to look for interviews. I figured, eh. She got a few interviews
and it’s just ... I understand the struggle sometimes.
Rockisha: I know. I gave her a number yesterday [crosstalk 00:40:21] classmates.
Speaker 2: I think they’re going to set up an interview. Thank you.
Rockisha: Oh, okay. Cool. Yeah, that’s cool. Great. Okay, thank you so much, Frank.
Speaker 2: No problem. If you have any more questions ... Hopefully I was some help.
Rockisha: Yes, no you were a lot of help.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 104
Speaker 2: If you have any more questions feel free to call.
Rockisha: Okay, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Have a good one.
Rockisha: You too. Bye, bye.
Speaker 2: Thank you, bye, bye.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 105
Appendix F
Interview with Jason S.

Order

Client Rockisha Roland
Ref # Dissertation
Order # TC0392922580
Audio

File URL
http://www.infinear.com/s3/32BE004B-F937-4B60-9D34-
3905CD5C8678-2016-01-23-19-02-23-iphone.call.100.mp3
Length 25 min
Transcriptionist Anne Marie J.
Rockisha: My name is Rockisha. Thanks so much for participating.
JASON S.: Yeah, no problem.
Rockisha: I have to record the call, just so if I can’t write as fast as you talk I can go back
and look at the ...
Speaker 2: Yeah, that’d probably be better.
Rockisha: I’m going to read a consent form, and then I’m sending out, if you don’t mind
giving me your address, or I can connect with ...
Speaker 2: What happened?
Rockisha: If you can give me your address, or I can connect with Delilah. I’m giving a $20
gift card for participation.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I’ll give you my address, you can mail it. What are you mailing?
Rockisha: Yeah, I can mail it.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 106
Speaker 2: No, what are you mailing? You don’t have to.
Rockisha: Everybody’s like, “You don’t have to,” but I said that I would.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I’ll give you my address. No problem.
Rockisha: I’m going to read a description of the research ...
Speaker 2: You’re going to have to speak up a little louder, though.
Rockisha: Can you hear me now?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Rockisha: I’m using my earpiece.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay.
Rockisha: So I can write at the same time.
You’re invited to participate in a research study conducted by myself The purpose
of this research is to gain insight on the perception of services at camps and
whether they increase or decrease the chances of minors re-offending. Research
studies include only people who voluntary choose to take part. [inaudible
00:02:26] explain information about this study, you should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you. If you agree to participate in the study, you
will be asked to complete an in-person interview and up to two follow up
interviews which may be conducted by phone. The interview or interviews are
anticipated to last no more than an hour and will be audio recorded. If you do not
want to be recorded, you cannot participate in this study. You will be
compensated with a $20 gift card at the end of your participation.
You may feel uncomfortable answering some of the questions. You do not have to
answer any questions you don’t want to. There are no anticipated benefits to your
participation in the study. It is hoped that the results of this study will allow
researchers and/or policy-makers to understand the existing social problem of
juvenile delinquency and how it affects individuals regarding institutions of
higher education.
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain
confidential. Your responses will be coded with a false name and maintained
separately from any identifiable information. Audio tapes will be destroyed once
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 107
they have been transcribed, and the data will be stored on a password protected
computer in the researcher’s office. Identifiable information will be destroyed
upon completion of the research study, and the remaining data will be retained at
the researcher’s discretion, and may be used in future research.
I’m going to ask about ten questions, and there’s [inaudible 00:04:18] probing
questions [crosstalk 00:04:20], and some of them may sound redundant because
they’re asked a different way or [inaudible 00:04:29] they need to ask the
question.
How long ago were you ... Where were you detained. Were you in juvenile hall,
or were you in a camp?
Speaker 2: What do you mean, when I was a juvenile?
Rockisha: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I was in both.
Rockisha: How long was your camp program, do you remember?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was in three months.
Rockisha: Do you remember how much school you did before you went ...
Speaker 2: Yeah, when I went to juvenile hall, I was a dropout. I was supposed to be in the
ninth grade, but I dropped out of the seventh grade.
Rockisha: You said you were in camp three months. How long were you in there total? Did
you fight a case or was it it like four months, one month in the hall, and three
months in the camp?
Speaker 2: I think it was three months in the hall, and I was fighting my case, and then they
gave me camp time.
Rockisha: Okay. So, about six months total.
While you were there, were you placed in courses that would enhance your
education?
Speaker 2: No. I was there in ‘94, I believe. ‘93 or ‘94. I don’t remember the exact year
because I was there a couple times. They make you go to school, but to me it
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 108
didn’t seem like they were taking it seriously. It was just somewhere to send you
for a couple hours. Most of the time, we’d have fought our enemies because I was
from a gang, so we fought our enemies in school, or messed around, smoked
cigarettes in the bathroom, or just give the teacher hell, basically.
Rockisha: Do you remember the kind of courses you took [crosstalk 00:06:46] like math,
science ...
Speaker 2: I remember math. I know we did math, and I think we did history or English, one
of those two.
Rockisha: Helpful. So, probably a combination, all together.
Speaker 2: Yeah, to be honest with you, you’d get to class, everybody’d sit down, the teacher
hands out these worksheets or just paper to write ... Just give you something to do
to keep you busy. I know I don’t remember the teacher ... because I’ve went to
college. I don’t remember the teacher standing in front and giving a full lecture.
They would put on all these, tell us to behave, and just do what you do.
Rockisha: Well, this one says “Which courses did you like best?” But you might not
[inaudible 00:07:45]. Did you believe that these courses were helping you in your
education?
Speaker 2: No, not really. When I was in the seventh grade, I was probably in ninth grade
math level. What they were giving me wasn’t ... and like I say, I wasn’t there to
do the work.
Rockisha: You think some of it was you, but they also didn’t give you work to even get your
attention? [crosstalk 00:08:21]
Speaker 2: No, I don’t think ... and don’t get me wrong. Maybe if I would have put forth a
little more effort and myself come to the teacher and said, “I’m serious about my
education, help me.” Maybe then I would have got some kind of assessement test
and they would have seen where I was at. It’s like I said, if you don’t say nothing,
you don’t do nothing.
Rockisha: Right. Okay.
Were you in class with students that were at the same grade level as you?
Speaker 2: No. See, that’s what I’m saying, there was no assessment test given to me ever, so
they don’t know where I’m at in school. They put us in there by age, basically,
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 109
and that’s kind of guess. I was fourteen or fifteen, so they put me in a class with
fourteen or fifteen-year-olds.
Rockisha: What kind of students were in classes with you? I know in camps ... I worked at
Camp Scott as a girl’s [inaudible 00:09:26] for about nine years. I left in 2012,
and I remember, like you said, the older kids were in the older class, and the
younger kids were in the younger class, and sometimes everybody was bunched
together. If it was a math class, maybe a 17-year-old with a 14-year-old in the
same class.
Speaker 2: It was probably like that. Not everybody was on the same level.
Rockisha: Do you remember other students feeling the same way as you felt about class, or
about the classes you guys were in, or school?
Speaker 2: What do you mean? Like they didn’t care?
Rockisha: Yeah. Or they didn’t feel like the work was helping at all? Or [crosstalk 00:10:15]
Speaker 2: No, that’s what I’m saying. When we went to school, us guys that were in there,
we didn’t talk about the work. We didn’t do it. We didn’t even care about doing
it, so it was just more gossiping and fighting and arguing. The teacher’s just trying
to maintain control of the students to keep them calm for a couple hours.
Rockisha: How did your experience in the juvenile detention facility change your opinion
about education? For example, before you were in the system, did you have any
vocational, job or college plans, before you went?
Speaker 2: No. When I went to camp, I was gangbanging at time, so I wasn’t even worried
about my future.
Rockisha: Did you plans change once you got out? Did you have a different opinion, or did
you have ...
Speaker 2: No, I think I just came out more angry. You’re getting out of jail, so it’s like a
reputation grower.
Rockisha: You said you went a couple times. What was the last time you went to camp? Did
you go back as an adult?
Speaker 2: I went to juvenile hall when I was eighteen, but it was only like a week or two,
because I had a juvenile warrant, an old one, and I got stopped when I was
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 110
eighteen. They took me to juvenile hall, but they put me in high security. I was
just in my cell. I didn’t get out of the cell for nothing.
Rockisha: Was that your last time going to jail, period, or did that ...
Speaker 2: No, that was my last time in juvenile hall. The last time I went to juvenile hall, I
had just got out of county jail.
Rockisha: Do you believe the education program helped you towards getting back into
school once you left? At the beginning, you said you were a dropout. When you
were leaving, did they try to enroll you into a school, or did they just release you?
Speaker 2: I remember, they didn’t do no aftercare, no kind of “What are you going to do
when you get out?” I graduated from camp, and that was it. Just graduated, and
parents picked you up, you’re their problem now.
Rockisha: Did your parent try to enroll you back in school? Did you have any problems
getting back into school?
Speaker 2: I never got back in school. When I got out, I went home, I stayed at my mom’s
house for a day or two, then I went back to my neighborhood, and I just kept
running around the street. I didn’t get my GED till I went to prison in ‘96.
Rockisha: What do you think would have happened to you in your life if you continued
going to school?
Speaker 2: If I would have gone to school, honestly, I’d probably be a millionaire right now.
I’m smart, I’m really smart. It’s just I made bad choices. I liked the street, I fell in
love with the street. I knew what I was doing. I knew that what I was doing
wasn’t going to get me nowhere, but at the time, that’s what I wanted. I do, today,
I think about it, and I know for a fact I’d be owning a company. I might have been
a lawyer. I wanted to be a lawyer when I was a little kid, and I know I would have
made it. I don’t blame it on the juvenile system or camp or prison. It’s choices I
made. 10 to 50% where I grew up.
Rockisha: Your environment?
Speaker 2: If I would have grown up in a place where there was no gangs, then I wouldn’t
have got enticed. Maybe, I’m saying maybe. I don’t know. It was just right
outside my door, so it was easy.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 111
Rockisha: Did you ever think about the benefits of going to college, once you got your
GED?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Like I said, I was in prison when I got my GED, and that was in ‘96.
Rockisha: And you realized that while in prison, the importance of education?
Speaker 2: As far as gangbanging went, I knew I didn’t want to be a 50 or 60-year-old
gangbanger. I knew at some point I would have to do something with my life. So I
was in prison, they’re offering it, one of them got-nothing-better-to-do things.
Why not?
Rockisha: After you got that, did you feel like you wanted to go to college.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I actually did. I got out of prison in ‘97 and I enrolled into LA Trade Tech
for business management, or, no, business administration, but I only went for a
week. The first week of school I went to school, and then I got arrested again.
Rockisha: How do think being arrested affected your ability to complete high school?
Speaker 2: It affected it greatly because I wasn’t on the street to complete high school and
junior high, everything, in an orderly fashion. If I would have been serious about
my education when I was on the street, I could have got everything done instead
of committing the crimes and going back to jail.
Rockisha: How do you think being arrested affected your ability to attempt post-secondary
education? Did it help you? Eventually you’re saying it did because you got your
GED. Or do you ... It’s kind of obvious that it postponed the process, but do you
think it changed your opinion about it? Did you feel like “I don’t need to go to
school because of what I saw in here”?
Speaker 2: No, it didn’t affect it either way. It didn’t have no bearing on how I felt. I went
into juvenile hall not wanting to go to school and came out not wanting to go to
school.
Rockisha: When did you go to college?
Speaker 2: I didn’t complete college until 2010.
Rockisha: Well, congratulations.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I went to prison in ‘96, and I didn’t stop going to prison until 2007.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 112
Rockisha: I’m basically trying to determine whether being in camp and whether or not the
educational system in there had a better impact. My research questions are how
does the arrest of a minor interfere with the schooling process? How does being
part of the juvenile delinquency system affect students’ attitude toward education?
Because I see a lot times kids are the [inaudible 00:18:37]. Even if they are
dropouts, once they get there, it’s like education’s not ... Like you said, you go to
school, the teachers are there, it’s not engaging, and I’m wondering if you
[inaudible 00:18:55] because I feel like sometimes there is a teacher there that
people respect, and kids would want to learn. But if they’re throwing, like you
said, worksheets at you, I feel like that’s not helping the process. So I’m trying to
determine if the education system that are in there, will it reduce juvenile
delinquency? Keep you from coming back, because, if I can do this ...
Speaker 2: It might, if a person goes to juvenile hall and the school system is serious. They
make you get engaged, they make you start earning credits. You start doing all
that. Maybe a percentage of the people, it will ignite something in them to say, “I
got a couple credits here, why not when I get out, finish this up?” But if you’re
going to juvenile hall, and you’re doing what I call dead time in school ... as a
matter of fact, a lot of times, if I didn’t want to go to school, I’d just start some
shit in my unit, and they’d be like, “Don’t open the door.” If I wanted to go to
school that day, because they would call school, and I wanted to go to school, I’d
just behave a little bit and get out. But if I didn’t want to to to school, then I’d act
bad, and they’re all right, just don’t open his door, and he won’t go.
Rockisha: And school was like a waste of time because you could only do there and do
nothing, or you’d just had your days when you just didn’t feel like it.
Speaker 2: I’ll be honest with you, I didn’t give a shit when I was there.
Rockisha: Last question. Do you think if there were vocational programs, if there were ...
Speaker 2: Yeah! Juvenile hall is like a transient [crosstalk 00:21:09]
Rockisha: When in camp? If there were those programs in camp?
Speaker 2: If you go to camp and YA, you have enough time to accomplish something. I
know I would have, because I’ve loved computers my whole life. I’ve always
been good at them. I know if I would have got to juvenile hall, and gone to camp,
and then out there what we have is computer repair, computer programming, I
would have got into that. That would have been something cool.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 113
I understand, they want people to get their diplomas first, that’s understandable.
But you’ve got to also understand who you’re dealing with. If wasn’t going to
school on the street, and I go to jail, what makes you think that in jail I’m going to
say, “Okay, well, I’ll get my diploma here.”
Rockisha: Right. Yeah, I think those vocational programs would be very fit ...
Speaker 2: I think those vocational programs would better than just regular educational.
Rockisha: The option of it if you were detained at 16. Some kids want a traditional
education, they just don’t have the means because, like you said, the environment
at home is the gangs, or parents on drugs, just different things. So sometimes they
come to camp and they want to get the education, but they’re treating you at camp
as if you’re just a throwaway, almost. [crosstalk 00:22:52]
Speaker 2: Exactly. If the teachers aren’t going in wanting to give you an education, then
you’re not going to get it.
Rockisha: Thank you so much. I’ll be writing up and trying to get some of the answers to my
questions, so I may call you back if there’s something I don’t understand or can’t
remember, or because the recording isn’t clear, I’ll call you back.
Speaker 2: Okay, no problem.
Rockisha: Let me get your address so I can send the gift card out to you.
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 114
Appendix G
Interview with Lira J.
Lira J- African American, 28 yr old female, grew up and currently resides in Inglewood,
CA. First detained at 17 years old.
RQ 1
1. I completed the high school right before being detained
I was detained for 5 months in juvenile hall fighting my case and 9 months in Camp for a
15 months
2. While I was in juvenile hall, I didn’t get any type of education. I had already completed
high school so they had no program for high school graduates. I just basically sat in my
room. The same thing happened while when I first got to camp for the first 3 months
there was nothing for me to do. I just cleaned the camp, was on the work crew where I
kept the grounds clean. I also was a TA for the classrooms. Then after a couple months I
was placed on a different probation officers caseload and she arranged for me to take
online classes through a community college.
I took Political Science, History, and English. Political science was
a course a course I least liked. Taking that subject as an online course
with limited resources made the course difficult. An online course I
enjoyed while being detained was English. It was very simple without
needing outside resources.
Yes these courses were helping me with my education so that once I got out I would
already have units towards my AA degree.
3. I wasn’t in any classes because in the juvenile detention center all the minors were in
high school or below. I had already received a high school diploma prior to being
detained.
After I enrolled in these online classes other minors that were close to graduating wanted
to enroll in them too. My probation officer worked with the Director of the camp at that
time and was able to enroll like 4 or 5 other minors in the classes too. It became known as
the college program. All the students taking the online classes were High School
students.
RQ 2
4. Being in camp helped me see and appreciate the education I received outside of a
detention center. I also noticed that the education before the detention center was of more
quality. The education given in a detention center was poor quality.
5. Before being detained, I had plans to go directly to a community college after high school
and play sports.
6. No my plans did not change. Once released from the juvenile
detention center, my probation officer while in camp contacted the community college I
was originally supposed to attend. They allowed me to still come and play on the
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND HIGHER EDUCATION 115
basketball.

7. No the traditional education program in the juvenile facility did not help me get back into
school once I left. But taking the online classes did prepare for attending community
college. I remember other minors telling me that they did not learn anything while in
class in camp. When I was the TA for classes and I saw the work they were doing, I
noticed that it was low quality work. The juvenile educational system does
not provide enough learning skill and material to prepare individuals for
school.
RQ 3
8. If I had not been detained I would have not had a record and been able to go straight to
community college without waiting a year. I would probably not have reoffended because
I would have been in school and not on a different path.
9. Yes I thought about the benefits of going to college after school. Obtaining a higher
education would allow me to get a higher paying job. No, this did not change as a result
of the justice system. The justice system made me realize education is important.
10. I was not able to attend a formal graduation with my graduating class in
order to receive my diploma. But was still awarded and received a high
school diploma due to my credits already being completed prior to being
detained.
11. I was not prepared for post-secondary education due to the poor quality of education that
was given in the juvenile facility. Although, I was I was taking online classes, being in
camp took away the formal class setting. I was only able to do work on my online classes
when my probation officer was at work. If there was a standard program for high school
graduate then I would have probably been better prepared.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study investigated the effect juvenile delinquency has on youth perceptions of and entrance into postsecondary education. The purpose was to help identifying how minors’ arrests interfere with the traditional educational process, the effects juvenile delinquency has on youths’ attitudes toward higher education, and how social control and rational choice theory support or aggravate the phenomenon. Also, this study sought to understand how a minor’s arrest interferes with the schooling process to the extent of hindering postsecondary education. This study analyzed how rational choice theory and social control theories affect juvenile delinquents before, during, and after their incarceration in terms of their ability and desire to attend institutions of higher education. ❧ Findings provide substantial proof that arrests affect the dropout decisions. There is a disparity between arrested youths and their non-criminal counterparts in enrollment at 4-year colleges. Institutional disruptions and responses caused these students to drop out and not attend college, rather than social-psychological influences. This study provides practitioners positive deviant case studies from which to learn how former juvenile delinquents accessed and participated in postsecondary education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining influences on the decision-making process of Filipino students and parents in selecting a post-secondary institution

PDF

Representation matters: the ways in which African American faculty support African American students in higher education

PDF

A review of successful instructional practices in juvenile detention centers: invigorating the disposable generation

PDF

Bad boys, reform school girls, and teenage werewolves: the juvenile delinquency film in postwar America

PDF

A decolonial praxis of hip-hop: hip-hop culture's connection to resilient youth's critical consciousness and wellbeing

PDF

Educational factors at urban public school that contribute to variation in academic achievement: comparison of high and average achieving Chinese Americans

PDF

A field study of juvenile recidivism in Los Angeles

PDF

Significant others in the lives of Latino first-generation college students: how social capital aids persistence

PDF

The academic experiences and social outcomes of Black males at a predominately White Christian university

PDF

Stories of persistence and courage: undocumented students' educational experience enrolled at a 4-year institution

PDF

The revolution just might be digitized: toward a critical race theory of the African-American igeneration's online social enfranchisement

PDF

First year experiences contributing to foster youth higher education attainment

PDF

Resilient voices of success: counter‐narratives of foster youth in graduate school

PDF

Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...

PDF

African-American parent perspectives on special education

PDF

Exploring the prevalence and mitigating variables of secondary traumatic stress in K-12 educators

PDF

His story: African-American male college students’ journey to success

PDF

Impact of culturally responsive education on college choice

PDF

Undocumented students' personal reflections on the role institutional agents play in providing social capital towards post-secondary education

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

Asset Metadata

Creator Roland, Rockisha D. (author)

Core Title A review of the effects of juvenile delinquency on entrance into post-secondary institutions of higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 03/07/2017

Defense Date 11/16/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag arrest,Camps,detention facility,education,Higher education,juvenile,juvenile delinquency,math,minors,OAI-PMH Harvest,postsecondary education,rational choice theory,Reading,recidivism,social control theory

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Green, Alan (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo (committee member), Paul, Seema (committee member)

Creator Email drrockisha@gmail.com,rroland@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-345895

Unique identifier UC11258296

Identifier etd-RolandRock-5122.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-345895 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RolandRock-5122.pdf

Dmrecord 345895

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Roland, Rockisha D.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA