University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Student in the seats, teacher in the streets: Evaluating the impacts of law students becoming “street law” teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

Student in the seats, teacher in the streets: Evaluating the impacts of law students becoming “street law” teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

STUDENT IN THE SEATS, TEACHER IN THE STREETS:

EVALUATING THE IMPACTS OF LAW STUDENTS
BECOMING “STREET LAW” TEACHERS

by

Brandon Bo Golob

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(COMMUNICATION)

August 2018

Copyright 2018 Brandon Bo Golob

DEDICATION
For my maternal grandmother – my forever reminder that all of our actions only matter
insofar that they bring good to others.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
All my work has been the byproduct of inspiration from, and collaboration with,
the most brilliant, gracious, and kind people. Thus, this project would not have been
possible without those individuals who influence every aspect of my existence.
I have infinite gratitude for my parents, Suzan and Ron, without whom I would
have no opportunities, let alone the chance to become a doctor. To my sister Javanne, you
have been the co-author of my life since day one. You are, and forever will be, my raison
d’être. To my chosen family, Skyler Courter and Katherine Elder, you are the only
people who would ‘willingly’ do anything for me and my blood family – editorial and
statistical support of this project included. To my Faraz, your persistent work ethic makes
me strive to achieve more; your persistent love makes me already whole.
I am also immeasurably grateful for all my mentors, colleagues, and friends who
accompanied me on this academic journey. Thank you to my advisor, Sandra Ball-
Rokeach, and my other mentors, specifically Alison Trope, Laura Cohen, Geoff Cowan,
Emily Ryo, Sheila Murphy, Mark Lloyd, Lynn Miller, Tom Valente, and Tony Tolbert.
Thank you to my USC colleagues, specifically LeeAnn Sangalang, Nazli Senyuva,
Christy Hagen, and Cat Duffy. Thank you to my friends who were willing to listen while
I talked about this process, specifically Kevin Crouch, Joshua Vera, and Bruce Dobby.
Lastly, thank you to all the Street Law faculty, alumni, and students across the
country who participated in my research. Sabrina Frydman and Lauren Bernadett went
above and beyond, but there are far too many helpful individuals to enumerate. Your
participation made this project possible – here’s hoping the results make a difference.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables 1
List of Figures 2
Abstract 3
Chapter One: Introduction 4
Project and Chapter Summaries 6
Chapter Two 7
Chapter Three 7
Chapter Four 8
Chapter Five 8

Chapter Two: Background 9
Law-Related Education 9
Program Evaluation of Law-Related Education 10
Law-Related Education Programs’ Intended Operation 11
Program Evaluation of Street Law 15
Street Law’s Lack of Standardization 15
Law Student Instructors 17
Self-Efficacy 18
Self-Efficacy in the Education Domain 18
Measuring Self-Efficacy in Educational Contexts 20
Dichotomous Scales and Confidence Ratings 21
Measuring General Efficacy 23
Likert Scales 24
Self-Efficacy in Law School 25
Improving Self-Efficacy Measures of Law Students 27
Legal Consciousness Formation during Adolescence 32

Chapter Three: Method 36
Pilot Research 36
Survey, Interview Protocol, and Focus Group Protocol 36
Participant Observation 36
Participants 37
Survey 37
Interviews 43
Focus Group 44
Participant Observation 45
Procedures 46
Quantitative Data Analysis 46
Qualitative Data Analysis 47
Measures 52
Achievement Goal Questionnaire 53

Self-Efficacy Questionnaire 55
Additional Lawyering Effectiveness Factors 57
Additional Variables 57

Chapter Four: Results 59
Mastery-Oriented versus Performance-Oriented (RQ1 & RQ2) 59
Retention of Legal Material 60
Practical Lawyering Experiences 61
Learning is Enjoyable 63
Redefine Success 64
Self-Efficacy 65
Communicating Legal Material to Non-Lawyers (RQ3) 67
Public Speaking (RQ4) 69
Developing Lawyer-Client Relationships (RQ5) 72
Developing Soft Skills (RQ6) 77
Legal Consciousness (RQ7) 82
General Conceptions of their Legal Rights 82
Law Enforcement Officials 83
Immigration 85
Gender-based Violence 85
Outside Scheduled Class Sessions 87

Chapter Five: Discussion 89
Limitations 89
History 90
Testing 90
Sensitization 90
Instrumentation 91
Maturation 91
Selection 91
Access to Research Subjects 92
Additional Limitations 93
Ongoing Research and Potential Impacts 93
Additional Funding Sources and Support 94
Additional Variables 95
Dissemination 96
Potential Broader Impacts 100
Concluding Thoughts 103

References 105

Appendices 122
Appendix A: Survey 122
Appendix B: Interview Protocol 133
Appendix C: Focus Group Waiting Room Survey 135
Appendix D: Focus Group Protocol 138
1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Participating Street Law Programs 40

Table 3.2: Street Law Programs Where Respondents Completed
Pre-/Post-Survey 41

Table 3.3: Codebook for Interview and Focus Group Datasets 51

Table 3.4: Codebook for Interview and Focus Group Dataset 52

Table 3.5: Mastery-Oriented and Performance-Oriented Dimensions 54

Table 4.1: Paired Samples T-Tests for Treatment Group’s Self-
Efficacy Variables 66

Table 4.2: Paired Samples T-Tests for Comparison Group’s Self-
Efficacy Variables 67

Table 5.1: Change Scores on Self-Efficacy Variables by Faculty
Advisor Condition 95

2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Model of Law-Related Education Programs 12

Figure 2.2: Sources of Self-Efficacy 20

Figure 2.3: Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy 22

Figure 2.4: Student Approaches to Learning (SAL) Instrument:
Subscale Self-Efficacy 24

Figure 2.5: Academic Efficacy Subscale from Patterns of Adaptive
Learning Scales (PALS) 25

Figure 2.6: Modified Academic Efficacy Subscale from Patterns of
Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) 27

Figure 2.7: Program Evaluation Research Design 30

Figure 3.1: Map of Active U.S. Law School Street Law Programs 38

3

ABSTRACT
Police and other law enforcement agents killed nearly 1,000 people in the United
States last year (Fatal Force, 2017). As of April 2018, another 351 people have lost their
lives at the hands of those charged with maintaining public safety (Fatal Force, 2018).
These sobering statistics about police brutality strengthen the need for law-related
education (LRE) programs – programs designed to teach practical law to non-lawyers –
because interactions with police have left citizens in a vulnerable position. Street Law
programs, administered by law students to teenagers, are a prominent type of such
program. Despite the urgent importance of Street Law programs, it is not known whether
they are pedagogically effective, or how they affect those who administer them. This
project helps to close that gap through its multimethod research on the course instructors
– law students – and observations of teenagers enrolled in the program. In addition to
completing this program evaluation, the project also (1) develops a theoretical framework
that will enable law school administrators and scholars from a variety of disciplines to
understand how law students are impacted by Street Law programs, and (2) lays the
foundation for future assessments of teenagers participating in Street Law programs. The
importance of understanding the impacts of these programs, which the results of this
study show to be overwhelmingly positive, cannot be overstated because they have broad
potential to affect law students’ transition to practice, the youth exposed to the programs,
and society at large.

4

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
“An important goal of the [Street Law] program is to provide high school students with a
sense of belonging in society through empowerment with knowledge of the law. By
demystifying the law, Street Law will hopefully allow young people to develop a positive
attitude towards the law and reduce juvenile delinquency” (University of Washington
School of Law, 2016).

“[Street Law students] help make legal and civics concepts relevant and exciting to high
school students, enabling them to understand the legal system and ultimately to
participate more effectively in society” (North Carolina Central University School of
Law, 2018).

“Our Street Law program seeks to bring proficiency in practical law to youth…and to
empower them to use the law and become more active citizens” (Rutgers School of Law,
2016).

“Cumberland Street Law is an outreach delinquency prevention program for students in
Birmingham schools” (Cumberland School of Law, 2018).

These excerpts, taken from the course descriptions and syllabi of four Street Law
programs at U.S. law schools, articulate three of the common goals Street Law programs
across the nation: (1) to increase teenagers’ acquisition of legal knowledge; (2) to
increase teenagers’ civic and social engagement; (3) to reduce teenagers’ delinquent
behaviors. Street Law programs have grown rapidly in recent years, yet they are a
relatively new part of the legal academy. In 1972, a small group of students and
professors from Georgetown University Law Center (GULC) piloted a clinical legal
education program called “Street Law.” Based in two District of Columbia public high
schools, the purpose of the program was to educate these teenagers about laws and legal
systems that impact their daily lives. Due to the success of GULC’s program, a national
organization began to form. Formalized in 1975, the National Institute for Citizen
Education in the Law (NICEL) spread the news of the GULC program’s successes and
5

sought to help launch similar programs across the nation (Alexander, 1993). NICEL
subsequently became Street Law, Inc.,
a global, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization with more than 40 years of
experience developing classroom and community programs that educate young
people about law and government. Street Law programs and materials help
advance justice by empowering people with the legal and civic knowledge, skills,
and confidence to bring about positive change for themselves and others. (Street
Law, Inc., 2018a)
Over the last four decades, Street Law has grown substantially in the United
States: there are currently more than 90 iterations of this program at law schools across
the nation (Street Law, Inc., 2018b). However, despite the growth of such programs,
there has been virtually no research on whether they are pedagogically effective, or how
they affect the law students who administer them. This project helps to close that gap
through its multimethod research on the course instructors – law students – and
observations of teenagers enrolled in the program. In addition to completing this program
evaluation, the project also (1) develops a theoretical framework that will enable law
school administrators and scholars from a variety of disciplines to understand how law
students are impacted by Street Law programs, and (2) lays the foundation for future
assessments of teenagers participating in Street Law programs. The importance of
understanding the impacts of these programs cannot be overstated because they have
broad potential to positively affect law students’ transition to practice, the youth exposed
to the programs, and society at large.
6

I have worked with and researched Street Law programs in a variety of capacities
over the last five years. My first interactions with Street Law were in Spring 2013, when I
was a third-year law student at the UCLA School of Law. During that semester, I taught a
10-week Street Law course to 35 junior and senior students at Alliance William & Carol
Ouchi High School in Crenshaw, Los Angeles. I designed and taught lessons on concepts
such as privacy rights, freedom of speech on campus, search and seizure, and
international human rights. Two years later, during Spring 2015, I returned to Street Law
classrooms throughout Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to observe UCLA
Street Law students as they taught in various schools.
1
In collaboration with UCLA Street
Law Professor Anthony Tolbert, my goal was to provide them feedback on their
curriculum design, presentation style, and classroom management techniques. During
April 2015, I was invited to give a guest lecture for a Street Law class at Bell
Multicultural High School in Washington, D.C. I was also asked to observe a
Georgetown University Law Center student and provide constructive feedback on his
teaching in a Street Law classroom. These cumulative experiences as both a Street Law
teacher and researcher formed my interest in evaluating the impacts of Street Law
programs. Although the programs have existed for decades, little has been done to assess
their effectiveness. In fact, this project marks the first effort to measure Street Law’s
effectiveness in a multimethod, standardized way.
Project and Chapter Summaries
The focus of this project is on law students and how their participation in Street
Law can impact their law school experience, transition to practice, and subsequent

1
See Chapter Three – Pilot Research section for detailed analysis of observations.
7

careers. Specifically, it measures how Street Law impacts law students’: (1) approaches
to learning, and (2) self-efficacy for a variety of lawyering skills. As a subsidiary research
question, this project also analyzes how teenagers participating in Street Law
communicate about the law.
Chapter Two
The second chapter provides a literature review of Street Law as a subset of law-
related education programs, as well as the relevant topics from a variety of fields (i.e.,
program evaluation, socio-legal studies, education, and social psychology). Program
evaluation is the primary organizing method for this project. Although program
evaluation has been used extensively in public health, education, public policy, and other
fields, it has not been widely applied to evaluate law-related education programs. Thus,
this chapter overviews and combines methodological tools and theoretical constructs
from multiple disciplines in order to establish an appropriate framework for evaluating
Street Law.
Chapter Three
The third chapter provides a methodological outline of this study, which is a
multimethod project that combines: (1) a survey of law students at ten law schools across
the nation, (2) interviews with law students from seven law schools across the nation, (3)
a focus group and waiting room survey with alumni from one law school, and (4)
ongoing observations of one law student’s classroom throughout her participation in
Street Law. This chapter explains how each instrument was piloted, before providing the
sampling procedure and sample characteristics for the data collected via each instrument.
Lastly, this chapter provides: (1) a description of the measures used in each instrument,
8

and (2) a summary of analytical procedures used to address the research questions
outlined in the second chapter.
Chapter Four
The fourth chapter overviews the results of the analyses of the seven research
questions detailed in chapter two. Results were generated from multimethod data
collected via the instruments described in chapter three. Data were analyzed using a
variety of statistical procedures and qualitative analysis methods. However, the primary
statistical test employed was paired t-tests to assess mean differences between pre-/post-
survey responses for the dependent variables of interest, while the primary qualitative
data analysis method employed was thematic analysis to identify patterns across the
interview datasets. Results of each method are discussed to various degrees in each
section based off their relevance to addressing the particular research questions.
Chapter Five
The fifth chapter situates these results within the larger considerations of effective
program evaluation. After recognizing the primary limitations of the study, the next steps
for Street Law research, as well as the potential short-term and long-term benefits of such
research, are explored. Moreover, this chapter discusses best practices for disseminating
these results to a variety of audiences, including: (1) law school professors and
administrators, (2) Street Law, Inc. and other law-related education non-profits, and (3)
academic journals. The School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine
has committed $20,000 in funding over the next three years for the continued
development of this project.

9

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND
Literature on Street Law programs is scant (Arthurs, 2015; O’Brien, 1977; Pinder,
1988; Roe, 2012). This lack of literature is reflective of a paucity of evaluation of law-
related education (LRE) programs in general. Program evaluation has cemented its
importance in a number of fields that impact communities, including public health
(Koplan, Milstein, & Wetterhall, 1999; Stice, Shaw, & Marti, 2006; Tobler et al., 2000;
Valente, 2002); education (Cohen, J. Kulik, & C. Kulik, 1982; Gilliam & Zigler, 2001;
Idol, 2006; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005), and public policy (Bemelmans-Videc,
Rist, & Vedung, 2011; Nagel, 2001; Vedung, 1997). However, although evaluation
research has been done on the community impacts of changes in law (e.g., criminal
sentencing propositions in California such as Proposition 36 (Hser et al., 2003) and
Proposition 47 (Nguyen, 2016)), little has been done to assess the effects of community-
focused programs aimed at improving non-lawyers’ relationship with and understanding
of the law. Some studies to date undoubtedly implicate questions of law (e.g., gang
suppression programs (Esbensen, Osgood, Peterson, Taylor, & Carson, 2013)), but this is
not synonymous with evaluating LRE.
Law-Related Education
Although traces of law-related education (LRE) can be found throughout the
history of American education (Alexander, 1993), the 1970s and 1980s saw the dramatic
growth and institutionalization of LRE in schools across the nation (Alexander, 1993;
Feinstein & Wood, 1995; Smorodin & Riekes, 1989). This growth spurt can be attributed
to the federal government’s formal support of LRE, which came when Congress amended
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to include the Law-Related Education Act
10

of 1978 (Feinstein & Wood, 1995). According to the Act, LRE can be defined as
“education to equip non-lawyers with knowledge and skills pertaining to the law, the
legal process, and the legal system, and the fundamental principles and values on which
these are based” (20 U.S.C. § 3002). Moreover, during this time, five national programs
were funded through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
in order to assist the expansion of LRE: (1) Street Law, Inc. (formerly NICEL), (2) the
American Bar Association Special Committee in Youth Education for Citizenship, (3) the
Center for Civic Education/Law in a Free Society Project, (4) the Constitutional Rights
Foundation, and (5) Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity. Coupled with more localized,
grassroots efforts in cities and towns across the nation, these programs helped LRE
cement its place in American education during the 1980s (Alexander, 1993).
Program Evaluation of Law-Related Education
Regardless of LRE’s increasing institutionalization towards the end of the 20
th

century, LRE programs did not follow a unified structure or curriculum (Alexander,
1993; Feinstein & Wood, 1995; Smorodin & Riekes, 1989). Part of the reason for this
lack of focus can be attributed to the fact that individual LRE programs often operated in
silos, not communicating or sharing best practices with one another:
There are hundreds, possibly thousands of LRE programs in existence all across
the country, but there is a distinct lack of dialog between the various
participants…This lack of centralized information, and a lack of adequate data on
which to evaluate LRE programs has consistently plagued the field. (Alexander,
1993, pp. 74-75)
11

Alexander’s diagnosis of the LRE field still rings true nearly a quarter-century later. In
short, some attempts to assess the impact of LRE have been undertaken at both national
and local levels, but rigorous evaluation of LRE is limited. The most comprehensive
national evaluation of LRE was conducted over three decades ago (Johnson & Hunter,
1985). Furthermore, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data’s Law-Related
Education Evaluation Project, which contains evaluative information from the five
national programs (listed in the introductory paragraph of this paper) that focus on the
advancement of LRE in K-12 education, ended in 1984 (National Archive of Criminal
Justice Data, 2010). Evaluations of individual LRE programs have been more frequent,
but are still sporadic and unpublished, tend to lack a rigorous methodological approach,
and offer non-generalizable results (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 1996; Denton &
Kracht, 1976; Fernlund, 1992; Gruenhagen & Leslein, 1993; Marri, 2010).
Law-Related Education Programs’ Intended Operation
Even though evaluation efforts have not been conclusive, LRE programs have
continued to be built into the curriculum of K-12 schools across the nation. Regardless of
their structural, curricular, facilitator, etc. differences, these programs remain committed
to their core purpose of “education to equip non-lawyers with knowledge and skills
pertaining to the law, the legal process, and the legal system” (20 U.S.C. § 3002). Thus,
as its name suggests, LRE’s primary goal continues to be (1) enhancement of students’
understanding of law and legal systems. In addition to, but not completely independent of
this goal, are two other central goals of LRE: (2) improving students’ attitudes towards
legal systems and legal actors (e.g., police officers, lawyers) and (3) reducing students’
tendency to engage in delinquent behavior. These program outcomes were expectations
12

of the OJJD when that office began funding LRE programs (Speirs, 1985). Recall that as
LRE became institutionalized, the OJJD lent fiscal and administrative support to five
national law-related education programs that attempted to facilitate the development of
LRE programs across the nation. These programs undertook a cooperative effort, called
the National Training and Dissemination Program (which would later become Youth
Justice), to provide LRE programs with materials, trainings, and models (Social Science
Education Consortium, 1989). The three primary goals of LRE, taken together, are meant
to fulfill the heart of LRE’s mission: “the ideal modern LRE program” leads to
“empowerment of a more aware citizenry” because “at its best, LRE can teach awareness
of rights and responsibilities in our participatory democracy and help the student work to
ensure greater participation and protection of rights for all” (Alexander, 1993. p. 76).
Therefore, the conceptual model in Figure 2.1, describes how LRE programs are
expected to operate:

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Model of Law-Related Education Programs
13

Granted, this conceptual model largely represents the operations and outcomes of
an ideal LRE program. The design is predicated on the perspective of the OJJDP, which
played a significant financial and administrative role in the attempted institutionalization
of LRE programs through its National Training and Dissemination Program. The
OJJDP’s belief in what the outcomes of LRE could be were clear:
Maintaining our democracy is not an easy task. Only through education can we
hope to teach our young people to be effective, law-abiding, and participating
citizens. Law-related education offers a promising vehicle for achieving these
goals. (Speirs, 1985, p. 1)
Importantly, the OJJDP did consult a number of LRE program designers and
implementers in reaching its conclusions about the potential impacts of LRE programs.
The OJJDP conducted 180 interviews with LRE teachers, school administrators, and
other professionals involved with LRE programs to assess what they saw as expected
outcomes for students in LRE programs (Johnson & Hunter, 1985). However, due to
practical constraints, LRE programs are often not implemented in accordance to ideal
model, or even following a large group of designers’ expectations. Instead,
administrative, fiscal, political, etc. constraints cause LRE programs to get implemented
in a variety of different ways in different communities and schools (Smorodin & Riekes,
1989).
Regardless, most LRE programs are developed in hopes of achieving some
combination of the outcomes listed in the conceptual model in Figure 2.1, and designers
of these programs employ a variety of theoretical frameworks that inform these expected
outcomes. Outcome 1, enhance students’ understanding of law and legal systems, is
14

arguably the most intuitive goal and what one would expect for all LRE programs to aim
to achieve – after all, in order for an educational program to claim the title of “law-
related,” it must instruct its students on the topics of law. Building on a wide variety of
educational theories about the importance of civic education (Butts, 1989; Fernlund,
1993; Leming, 1986; Tolo, 1998), LRE programs may choose to teach different topics
but they are unified in their goal of equipping non-lawyers with knowledge about the law
(Fielding, Kameenui, & Gersten, 1983; Jacobson & Palonsky, 1981; Picard, 1984; Santa
Clara County Office of Education, 1998). In terms of outcome 2, improve students’
attitudes towards legal systems and legal actors, many LRE programs recognize that
simply teaching about the law is a narrow goal (Alexander, 1993) and therefore commit
themselves to pedagogical approaches that aim to shift students’ attitudes as well
(Esfondari, 1998; Jacobson & Palonsky, 1981; Van Decar, 1984). The goal of attitude
change is often linked to outcome 3, reduce students’ tendency to engage in delinquent
behavior, because attitudes impact behavioral intent. Thus, LRE program designers and
implementers have relied heavily on a vast array of sociological and social psychology
theories (e.g., labeling theory, structural strain theory, social control theory, theory of
planned behavior), to articulate the expected impacts of their programs (Esbensen, 2009;
Gottfredson, 1990; Hunter, 1987; Johnson & Hunter, 1985; Kiriakidis, 2008).
Admittedly, trying to unpack all the expected outcomes of the multitude of LRE
programs across the county makes it so we cannot see the forest for the trees. The myriad
approaches to implementing LRE are reflective of the fact that the stakeholders, and their
respective interests, can differ amongst programs. Thus, as is the case before any program
evaluation can be undertaken, it is necessary to take stock of the specific goals of the
15

LRE program at hand: “In whatever way goals may be established, the important point is
that it is not possible to determine whether a program worked without developing a
limited and specific set of criteria for establishing the condition of ‘having worked’’’
(Berk & Rossi, 1999).
Program Evaluation of Street Law
Street Law programs are a subset of LRE programs, institutionalized in law
schools and administered to teenagers (and at times, other community members) across
the country. Similar to LRE programs as a whole, rigorous evaluation of Street Law
programs is scant. Some scholarly assessments have been undertaken (Arthurs, 2015
MacDowell, 2008; Montana, 2009; O’Brien, 1977; Pinder, 1988; Roe, 2012, Arthurs,
2015), but they are largely descriptive and lack common approaches to program
evaluation by either those who facilitate the programs or external researchers. Although
some programs have set up internal mechanisms for evaluation on a superficial, non-
empirical level, the vast majority of them have not even done this. For example, the
GULC program evaluates its effectiveness by asking law students who completed the
course to journal about their experiences, and some of the law students claimed that high
school students were highly involved and receptive to the legal concepts taught (Pinder,
1988). UCLA Law’s program follows a similar practice, requiring law students to submit
bi-weekly journals chronicling their experiences teaching in Los Angeles.
2

Street Law’s Lack of Standardization
This dearth of rigorous evaluation can likely be attributed to the fact that
evaluation of Street Law may seem unduly complex because, as with LRE programs in

2
UCLA Street Law syllabus provided by Professor Tony Tolbert.
16

general, the program is not administered in a standardized way. A review of Street Law
programs across the nation reveals a number of structural, curricular, and population
differences. In terms of structural variations, there are: (1) programs that are built into the
clinical curriculum of a law school versus student-run programs, and (2) variations in
duration of the program each academic year (e.g., whether or not the program runs for a
semester or full year). For example, consider the differences between UCLA Law’s Street
Law program and USC Gould School of Law’s Street Law program. UCLA Law’s
program is part of the clinical curriculum and runs during the spring semester of each
academic year. Law students in the clinical course teach 10 weekly, one-hour sessions at
a high school in Los Angeles. Conversely, USC’s program is a student-run organization
that operates throughout the entire academic year. Law students involved in the
organization teach one session a month at a high school in Los Angeles. In terms of
curricular differences, there is not a singular curriculum that is taught at all Street Law
sites. Although there is an official Street Law Textbook, it is not frequently used. In fact,
most Street Law programs follow a model similar to UCLA Law, where law students
design and execute their own lesson plans.
3
Thus, there are curricular variations across
Street Law programs based at different law schools, and also curricular variations within
each program. Lastly, marked differences in the populations served by each Street Law
program also complicate program evaluation efforts. For example, the Southwestern Law
School’s Street Law program programs only serves at-risk youth, most of whom are
involved with the delinquency or dependency system, while UCLA Law’s program

3
A review of numerous Street Law programs’ syllabi and course descriptions (in addition to conversations
with Street Law directors and students from across the nation) revealed the varied nature of Street Law
curriculum.
17

serves a large array of students at traditional public schools, charter schools, and
continuation schools across Los Angeles. In short, measuring effectiveness of Street Law
programs on a broad scale is difficult because aside from their shared purpose of teaching
law to non-lawyers, the defining characteristics of the programs vary vastly.
Law Student Instructors
Notably, the desired outcomes of LRE programs in general (outlined in the
conceptual model in Figure 2.1), parallel the outcome goals that Street Law programs
have for their populations served: (1) to increase teenagers’ acquisition of legal
knowledge; (2) to increase teenagers’ civic and social engagement; (3) to reduce
teenagers’ delinquent behaviors.
4
However, these goals overlook a crucial aspect of the
Street Law programs that distinguishes them from other LRE programs – namely, that as
a part of law schools across the nation, these programs are also intended to benefit the
law students who participate in them. In fact, all the previously cited Street Law literature
elucidates this point (MacDowell, 2008; Montana, 2009; O’Brien, 1977; Pinder, 1988;
Roe, 2012), as well as additional literature that specifically focuses on the benefits to law
students (Kovach, 1998). Thus, unlike other LRE programs, Street Law has two
populations that are the intended beneficiaries of the programs (i.e., the teenagers
exposed to the programs and the law students who administer them). Bearing in mind the
structural, curricular, and population differences – as well as the variation in stated
program goals – that make assessing the impact of Street Law on teenagers unduly
challenging, this project shifts focus to the constant of all Street Law programs: law

4
A review of Street Law programs’ syllabi and course descriptions (in addition to conversations with Street
Law directors and students from across the nation) revealed these three goals as common in Street Law
programs.
18

student instructors. Ultimately, this project capitalizes on this similarity and conducts a
program evaluation that analyzes how law student instructors are impacted by Street Law
programs.
Self-Efficacy
In 1977, social psychologist Albert Bandura developed the construct of self-
efficacy as a clinical tool. Since then, the construct has been applied across a multitude of
clinical and academic settings, including health (Ashford, Edmunds, & French, 2010;
Chatterjee, Bhanot, Frank, Murphy, & Power, 2009; Holden, 1992), education (Hackett,
1995; Schunk, 1989; Usher & Pajares, 2008), sports (Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008;
Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000; Roberts, 1992), and business (Chen, Greene, &
Crick, 1998; Sadri & Robertso,1993; Zhao, Seibert, & Hills, 2005). This project focuses
on the theoretical and methodological application of the construct in the education field.
Self-Efficacy in the Education Domain
Simply put, “perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments”
(Bandura, 1997, p. 3). Such beliefs are critically important because peoples’ beliefs in
their abilities to achieve certain actions can have widespread and lasting impacts on their
aspirations, motivations, performance, and so forth (Bandura, 1997; Bouffard-Bouchard,
1990; Zimmerman, 2000). Specific to the education context, self-efficacy has been shown
to impact students’ interests and goals, choices for majors and other activities, persistence
in the face of adversity, level of effort exerted, and ultimately, their overall academic
achievement (Bandura, 1997; Lent et al., 2008; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Pajares,
19

1997; Schunk, 1995). In short, students with higher self-efficacy achieve at a higher level
(Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984; Schunk, 1991).
It follows, then, that since self-efficacy has such a large impact on student
achievement, education scholars have taken great interest in determining the sources of
students’ self-efficacy beliefs (Hampton, 1998; Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, 1990;
Usher & Pajares, 1998). Bandura (1977) argued that there are four main sources of self-
efficacy beliefs: (1) performance accomplishments, (2) vicarious experience, (3) verbal
persuasion, and (4) emotional state. Performance accomplishments are especially
influential because they are the actual experiences of the person – whether that person
fails or succeeds at a specific task will understandably impact their beliefs about their
capabilities. Vicarious experience happens through the observation of others in a specific
environment; people develop their self-efficacy by seeing others (often social models)
undertake certain tasks. Verbal or social persuasion from others, whether it is supportive
or critical, can also impact someone’s belief about whether they are capable of a task.
Lastly, emotional state (e.g., stress, fatigue, anxiety) can also play a role in someone’s
perception of their competence. Figure 2.2 summarizes these sources.
20

Figure 2.2. Sources of self-efficacy (Adapted from Bandura, 1977)
Education studies analyzing the sources of self-efficacy rely on a framework that
parallels the one originally outlined by Bandura:
Four factors influence the strength of a student's perceptions of her self-efficacy
for performing a task: (1) the student's current skill level, (2) the extent to which
she has witnessed modeling from peers and from teachers (if the student has not
yet become skilled at the task), (3) verbal persuasion regarding the difficulty of
the task, and (4) the student's current psychological state (Schwartz, 2003, p. 456)
However, although Bandura’s framework of self-efficacy has been applied in a wide
array of educational settings (e.g., different levels of education, different content areas),
scholars have differed in their approaches to measuring students’ self-efficacy.
Measuring Self-Efficacy in Educational Contexts
Since education is a broad field that encompasses different levels (i.e., primary,
secondary, tertiary) and different content (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics, science), it
makes sense that there is not a cookie-cutter approach to measurement. For one, as
21

Bandura (1986, 2006) emphasizes, measures of self-efficacy must be tailored to specific
activity domains. Thus, the fact that self-efficacy measures should be domain-specific
leads to continual creation of new scales by scholars focusing on different educational
topics. Moreover, Bandura (1977) defines self-efficacy as having three dimensions: (1)
magnitude/level, (2) strength, and (3) generality. In other words, one’s self-efficacy
beliefs can differ along these dimensions:
The level of self-efficacy refers to its dependence on the difficulty of a particular
task, such as spelling words of increasing difficulty; generality pertains to the
transferability of self-efficacy beliefs across activities, such as from algebra to
statistics; strength of perceived efficacy is measured by the amount of one’s
certainty about performing a given task. (Zimmerman, 2000, p. 83)
Bandura’s suggestion that judgments of self-efficacy can vary along these dimensions has
prompted education scholars to focus on different aspects of the construct. For example,
most self-efficacy studies in the education field have focused on the strength and/or level
dimension (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1984; Lent, Lopez, & Bieschke, 1991; Pajares &
Miller, 1994; Pajares & Graham, 1999; Schunk, 1991), but some have focused on the
generality dimension (Bong, 1997; Bong, 1999; Zimmerman & Ringle, 1981). Regardless
of these distinctions that have altered the substantive focus of the items within self-
efficacy scales, there are some common structural approaches to scales that pervade the
historical and contemporary attempts to measure self-efficacy in academic contexts.
Dichotomous Scales and Confidence Ratings
Following in the vein of Bandura, the majority of studies employ measures that
“elicit students’ confidence that they can perform a specific set of tasks or types of tasks”
22

(Rosen, Glennie, Dalton, Lennon, & Bozick, 2010, p. 94). Traditionally, survey
respondents were asked to respond to dichotomous items about whether or not they were
capable of performing a specific academic task (Maibach & Murphy, 1995; van der Bijl
& Shortridge-Baggett, 2001). Thus, the level dimension of self-efficacy could be
calculated by summing the affirmative responses. In tandem with each affirmative
response to an item, respondents would then give a confidence rating about their certainty
of being able to complete said task (i.e., 100-point scale with 10-unit intervals from 10,
“Little certainty can do”, to 100, “Highly certainty can do”). Thus, the strength dimension
of self-efficacy could be calculated by summing the confidence rating items.
However, scholars soon started combining these two items (i.e., the one
measuring level dimension and the one measuring strength dimension) into one item.
Each item uses a 0 (“Cannot do at all”) to 100-point scale (“Highly certain can do”):
5

Figure 2.3. Problem-Solving Self-Efficacy (Reproduced from Bandura, 2006)

As Figure 2.3 demonstrates, the standard practice is to provide a short instruction to
participants (“Please rate how certain you are that you can solve the academic problems

5
Some scholars have retained this scale but used single unit intervals ranging from 0 (“Cannot do at all”) to
10 (“Highly certain can do”) (van der Bijl & Shortridge-Baggett, 2001). However, this practice has not
been used regularly in the education field.
23

at each of the levels described below”).
6
This response format ensures that respondents
offer two appraisals each time they answer an item: (1) whether or not they are capable of
solving the academic problems at each level (a degree of confidence rating of “0” is the
equivalent of “no” on a dichotomous scale while any other rating is the equivalent of
“yes”), and (2) a confidence rating about their certainty of being able to complete the
academic problems at each level. Therefore, this simplified approach allows researchers
to assess the same self-perceived efficacy ratings described in the traditional two-
question format (i.e., one item assessing level dimension and one item assessing strength
dimension) described above.
Measuring General Efficacy
As is evident from the focus on level dimension and strength dimension in the
scales discussion above, most studies measuring the self-efficacy construct in academic
contexts neglect its generality dimension (Bong, 1997; Bong, 1999; Zimmerman &
Ringle, 1981). Even though Bandura argues that measures of self-efficacy should be as
specific as possible to the activity domain of interest (1986, 2006), he also acknowledges
that “[some experiences] instill a more generalized sense of efficacy that extends well
beyond the specific treatment situation” (1977, p. 194). This has led some education
scholars to explore whether academic self-efficacy, instead of being limited to a specific
content area (e.g., writing versus mathematics), can be generalized across domains
(Bong, 1997; Marsh, Hau, Artelt, Baumert, & Peschar, 2006; Pajares, 1996; Schunk,
1991). Thus, more general self-efficacy scales, such as the Student Approaches to

6
The levels of this efficacy scale are not reproduced here because they are not relevant to the current
discussion.

24

Learning (SAL) Instrument, have been developed (Marsh, Hau, Artelt, Baumert, &
Peschar, 2006). This instrument measures 14 affective constructs, including self-efficacy.
In the subscale measuring self-efficacy, respondents are given statements and asked to
respond to the items on a 4-point response scale (1, “almost never”; 2, “sometimes”; 3,
“often”; 4, “almost always”). The items of the subscale are reproduced in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.4. Student Approaches to Learning (SAL) Instrument: Subscale Self-Efficacy
(Reproduced from Marsh, Hau, Artelt, Baumert, & Peschar, 2006)

Likert Scales
Likert scales have also been used (albeit, not with the same frequency as 100-
point scale detailed above) to measure self-efficacy in academic contexts (Rosen,
Glennie, Dalton, Lennon, & Bozick, 2010). Although a similar self-appraisal format is
followed (i.e., seeking to elicit from students their perceived competence in certain
areas), studies have varied in the point values on their scales (e.g., 5-point, 6-point, 7-
point) and the anchoring terms assigned to those values (e.g., ranging from “not very
well” to “very well” versus ranging from “not true at all” to “very true”). One example of
a common Likert scale approach to measuring the self-efficacy construct in academic
contexts is reproduced in Figure 2.5.

25

Figure 2.5. Academic Efficacy Subscale from Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales
(PALS) (Reproduced from Midgley et al, 2000)

The Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS) were developed to “examine the
relation between the learning environment and students’ motivation, affect, and behavior”
(Midgley et al, 2000, p. 2). This subscale uses a 5-point Likert scale to measure academic
self-efficacy. Although developed for use in K-12 education contexts, scholars studying
the self-efficacy construct in higher education have adapted it (Christensen, 2009).
Self-Efficacy in Law School
There is a paucity of literature exploring how the construct of self-efficacy may
predict achievement outcomes for law students (Christensen, 2009; Diaz, Glass, Arnkoff,
& Tanofsky-Kraff, 2001; McKinney, 2002; Palmer, 2015). Moreover, the literature does
not offer a common approach for how to measure the construct of self-efficacy; in fact,
the studies in this context tend to lack methodological rigor. For example, Palmer (2015)
makes chilling conclusions about the current state of “millennial law students”: he argues
that although they “are supremely self-confident and brimming with high self-esteem,
many suffer from low self-efficacy,” which prevents them “from overcoming challenges
in their educational growth” (p. 676). McKinney (2002) paints an even bleaker picture,
26

contending that it is “hard to imagine a more perfect laboratory for development of low
self-efficacy beliefs” than the law school classroom (p. 12). Ultimately, both recommend
changes in the pedagogical structure of law schools to combat this loss of self-efficacy
(McKinney, 2002; Palmer, 2015). However, what is most striking is that neither of them
make any attempt to measure the self-efficacy construct in the law school context; both
studies are merely descriptive, offering syntheses of other bodies of literature and
compelling personal observations instead of any real attempts at empiricism.
The Christensen (2009) and Diaz et al. (2001) studies both seek to measure the
self-efficacy construct, but are not without serious flaws. Diaz et al. developed two 24-
item questionnaires to assess law student self-efficacy in two areas: (1) on the final exam,
and (2) on the oral argument. However, even though the authors acknowledge in their
“Implications for Future Research and Legal Education” section that “it may prove useful
to look at the strength and generality of self-efficacy expectations later in the law
course,” (2001, p. 427) they only describe some of the items used in the questionnaire.
Moreover, the items used in the questionnaire are not phrased properly for measuring the
construct of self-efficacy (e.g., “I will be able to control my nervousness when I take my
contracts final exam”; “I will be able to argue the case I am given successfully”). Since
self-efficacy is a measure of perceived capability, the
items should be phrased in terms of can do rather than will do. Can is a judgment
of capability; will is a statement of intention. Perceived self-efficacy is a major
determinant of intention, but the two constructs are conceptually and empirically
separable. (Bandura, 2006, pp. 308-309)
27

Thus, Christensen (2009) appears to provide the most comprehensive and accurate
measure of the self-efficacy construct in the laws school context, mildly modifying the
PALS subscale in Figure 2.6 to fit the law school context:

Figure 2.6. Modified Academic Efficacy Subscale from Patterns of Adaptive Learning
Scales (PALS) (Reproduced from Christensen, 2009)

Although the author used a common scale for measuring the construct of self-efficacy for
the sake of consistency and reliability, the study reached notably different results than
those from other academic contexts: “In this study, the law students with high class rank
had low self-efficacy (i.e., high-ranking law students did not believe they could do work
in law school or that they could meet academic challenges in law school)” (2009, p. 72).
Such a finding goes against the predominate findings of self-efficacy research in
education contexts: higher self-efficacy predicts higher academic achievement.
Improving Self-Efficacy Measures of Law Students
Bearing in mind the lack of rigorously methodological instruments for measuring
the self-efficacy of law students, there is much room for improved scholarship in this
context. Returning to Bandura’s (1977) seminal work on self-efficacy and behavior
change, he cites an individual’s personal mastery as the most important influence on self-
28

efficacy an individual’s personal mastery.
7
Thus, this project measures personal mastery
as the first dependent variable of interest.
As previously discussed, many scholars have explored the connection between
students’ self-efficacy and academic achievement in a variety of contexts (Multon,
Brown, & Lent, 1991; Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1984). Most germane to this project, some
scholars have even studied how the pedagogical structure of law schools need to be
reformed to improve law students’ self-efficacy (Palmer, 2015; Schwartz, 2003). A
pervasive criticism of the pedagogical structure of law schools is that it tends to
emphasize performance-oriented learning instead of mastery-oriented learning
(Christensen, 2009; Fines, 1996; Palmer, 2015; Schwartz, 2003). Performance orientation
means focusing on competition and comparison to others, while mastery orientation
means focusing on learning and self-improvement. However, despite the fact that law
school curriculum conditions students to be performance-oriented, previous research has
shown that the most successful law students are those who are mastery-oriented learners
(Christensen, 2009). Since Street Law programs that are built into the law school
curriculum do not follow the traditional, curved grading system and allow students the
opportunity to collaborate and learn from one another, they may be a critical breeding
ground for developing mastery-oriented goals. Therefore, it is important to determine
whether these programs empower students to approach learning from a more mastery-
oriented (versus performance-oriented) perspective:
RQ1: Does participation in Street Law impact law students’ mastery-oriented
goals?

7
See Figure 2.2.
29

RQ2: Does participation in Street Law impact law students’ performance-
oriented goals?
Even beyond academic success, developing mastery-oriented goals has also been
shown to help increase a student’s self-efficacy (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Palmer, 2015;
more). One skill set that is particularly important for law students to believe is within
their capacity is communicating legal concepts to non-lawyers; after all, effective client
communication is the cornerstone of many legal industries (Cunningham, 1998).
Foundational literature on Street Law programs claims that these programs help law
students cultivate this skill set because the programs train their students how to
communicate complex legal concepts to people not familiar with the legal language – a
necessary skill for those who aspire to advocate effectively (Roe, 2012; Pinder, 1988).
However, there is only anecdotal evidence (i.e., law student journals collected by certain
law schools and course objectives listed in Street Law syllabi) in support of this
contention. Thus, this project translates such anecdotal evidence into empirical data by
measuring whether participation in Street Law impacts law students’ self-efficacy for
communicating material to non-lawyers (see Figure 2.7):
RQ3: Does participation in Street Law impact law students’ self-efficacy for
communicating legal material to non-lawyer audiences?

30

Figure 2.7 Program Evaluation Research Design

However, translating legal material for non-lawyers is merely one of many
competencies that law students are supposed to develop during their legal education.
Scholars have identified numerous technical skills that are critical for being a lawyer
(Binder, 2003; Boccaccini, Boothby, & Brodsky, 2002; Maughan & Webb, 2005; Shultz
& Zedeck, 2011), and a personal analysis of Street Law syllabi reveals that development
of many of these skills are often the pedagogical objectives of Street Law programs.
Since attempting to measure all the technical skills that are important to lawyering would
be unduly burdensome for this project, the focus is placed on one that appears frequently
across the literature and is clearly executed in the Street Law context: public speaking.
Thus, this project also measures whether participation in Street Law impacts law
students’ self-efficacy for this skill:
31

RQ4: Does participation in Street Law impact law students’ self-efficacy for
public speaking?
Lastly, it is crucial to acknowledge that scholars have long argued that lawyering
effectiveness depends on more than technical competence such as translation of complex
legal material and public speaking. Rather, they have found that lawyers who blend
technical competence with soft skills (e.g., people skills) are the most effective (Araujo,
1999; Barkai & Fine, 1982; Smith, 2015; Sternlight & Robbennolt, 2007). Therefore, this
project also measures whether participation in Street Law impacts law students’ self-
efficacy for soft skills such as developing positive client-relationships:
RQ5: Does Participation in Street Law impact law students’ self-efficacy for
developing lawyer-client relationships?
Granted, measuring some of the most crucial soft skills for lawyers, such as empathy
(Barkai & Fine, 1982; Sternlight & Robbennolt, 2007), is complex and beyond the scope
of this project. Moreover, what specifically constitutes a soft skill is debatable. Thus, I
took an inductive approach to this question and relied on interviews, a focus group, and a
waiting room survey to assess the soft skills that Street Law participants and alumni
contend they develop:
RQ6: Does participation in Street Law impact law students’ self-efficacy for
developing a variety of soft skills?
In short, the importance of measuring self-efficacy cannot be overstated. In
addition to the ways it may impact a law students’ academic performance and practice
readiness level, a law student instructor’s self-efficacy in teaching in Street Law
programs will also likely impact student outcomes in the classrooms in which law
32

students teach. Education research has demonstrated extensively that a teacher’s level of
self-efficacy is related to student outcomes, such as achievement and motivation (Armor
et al., 1976; Ashton & Webb, 1986; Protheroe, 2008; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, A.W., &
Hoy, W.K., 1998). Thus, developing an understanding of Street Law instructors’ self-
efficacy is a necessary first step for assessing the broader impacts of Street Law
programs.
Legal Consciousness Formation during Adolescence
Beyond understanding how participation in Street Law impacts law students’ self-
efficacy in a number of areas, this project lays the groundwork for assessing the impacts
of Street Law on the other population it intends to benefit: teenagers. As noted earlier in
this background section, a myriad of differences (e.g., structural, curricular, population
served) in Street Law programs makes assessing the impact of Street Law on teenagers
challenging. However, such research would be a worthwhile undertaking that would
greatly advance our understanding of the potential positive impacts of law-related
education (LRE) programs. In order to start this research, I isolated one of the core goals
of Street Law programs discussed at the outset of this paper: to increase teenagers’
acquisition of legal knowledge. If Street Law programs are successful in terms of this
goal, then teenagers gain knowledge through these programs about legal systems and the
ways they can interact with them. In other words, LRE programs such as Street Law may
shape teenagers’ legal consciousness.
Although legal consciousness has been defined multiple ways, at the core of these
definitions is a focus on individuals; more specifically, on the subjective experiences and
perceptions an ordinary citizen has of law in their everyday life (Cowan, 2004; Ewick &
33

Silbey, 1991; Marshall & Barclay, 2003; Nielsen, 2000; Sarat, 1990; Sarat & Kearns,
1995). Of particular note is Nielsen’s (2000) extension of legal consciousness to include
people’s unconscious connections to law:
Legal consciousness also refers to how people do not think about the law; that is
to say, it is the body of assumptions people have about the law that are simply
taken for granted. These assumptions may be so much a part of an individual’s
worldview that they are difficult to articulate. Thus, legal consciousness can be
present even when law is seemingly absent from an understanding or construction
of life events. (p. 1059)
In short, legal consciousness recognizes the ubiquitous nature of law – the way its rules,
systems, structures, etc. shape our day-to-day experiences in ways we may not be
cognizant of.
Granted, defining legal consciousness with such broad strokes may get us too far
from understanding how it can be empirically studied. Ewick and Silbey’s (1998) study
provides a useful typology for distinguishing different ways that people’s legal
consciousness is oriented: (1) before the law, which means people see law as objective,
autonomous, legitimate, and majestic; (2) with the law, which means people see a
utilitarian purpose in law and treat it as a game; and (3) against the law, which means
people see law as inaccessible and are largely distrustful of it. However, this typology
should not be seen as unbending because legal consciousness is “neither fixed, stable,
unitary, nor consistent,” but rather, “may vary across time…or across interactions”
(Ewick & Sibley, 1991, p. 742).
34

Regardless of the complex nature of legal consciousness, scholars’ efforts to
define and explore the concept have led to research results that greatly improve our
understanding of how ordinary people experience the law. Empirical research on legal
consciousness has been conducted for populations as diverse as: undocumented
immigrants (Abreggo, 2011), same-sex couples seeking to legalize their union (Hull,
2003), married couples facing divorce proceedings (Sarat & Felstiner, 1989), and
individuals subjected to street harassment (Nielsen, 2000). However, since legal
consciousness scholarship has largely focused on adult-based legal issues, scholarship on
adolescents’ legal consciousness is sparse (Brisman, 2012; Piquero, Fagan, Mulvey,
Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005). This paucity is striking because it can be argued that one’s
legal consciousness – which is “neither fixed, stable, unitary, nor consistent” – is likely
in an even greater state of flux during the identity formation process of adolescence.
During adolescence, one’s beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors are especially fluid and
malleable (Biddle, Bank, & Marlin, 1980; Kerpelman, Pittman, & Lamke, 1997; Marcia,
1994). Since adolescence marks one’s transition to adulthood, the time when someone
becomes a full legal person, there is a great deal at stake in understanding what forces
shape adolescents’ legal consciousness.
The limited scholarship that has examined factors that impact an adolescent’s
legal consciousness formation has focused on: family and neighborhoods (Anderson,
2000; Fagan & Tyler, 2005), fictionalized criminal law (Brisman, 2010), news stories
(Shepherd, 1998), and personal contact with law enforcement and courts (Piquero, Fagan,
Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005). However, the potential impacts of school
curriculum – and specifically LRE programs – on adolescents’ legal consciousness
35

formation remain virtually unexplored by scholars. Therefore, the final research question
of this project offers a foundational examination of this topic:
RQ7: Does participation in Street Law impact teenagers’ legal consciousness?

36

CHAPTER THREE: METHOD
This multimethod project uses four methods [(1) a survey; (2) interviews; (3)
participant observations; (4) a focus group] to investigate the impacts of participation in
Street Law on law students.
Pilot Research
Pilot research was conducted on each instrument prior to data collection.
Survey, Interview Protocol, and Focus Group Protocol
The survey questionnaire, interview protocol, and focus group protocol were each
distributed to a group of alumni Street Law instructors to check for any ambiguity with
the questions and measures. Alumni were also invited to provide additional feedback
(e.g., other questions that would be valuable to ask). Based off the preliminary results
from piloting, items from each instrument were revised to help ensure collection of data
appropriate to measuring the variables of interest.
Participant Observation
Prior to conducting in-depth participant observations of a Street Law classroom, I
visited three different Street Law sites in April 2015 to refine my process for taking,
analyzing, and coding fieldnotes. This also gave me the opportunity to observe different
pedagogical styles of Street Law instructors in a variety of classroom contexts. The
classroom sites visited are each part of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD):
(1) University High School in West Los Angeles; (2) New Designs Charter School in
East Los Angeles; and (3) Susan Miller Dorsey Senior High School in South Los
Angeles. University High School is a traditional public high that serves grades 9-12.
Students attending University come from the neighborhoods of West Los Angeles,
37

Brentwood, Bel-Air, and Westwood. The student population is racially and ethnically
diverse; currently, the student body consists of individuals born in 47 different countries
(University High School, 2018). New Designs Charter School is a charter school that
serves grades 6-12. Students attending New Designs come from across Los Angeles
because admittance does not depend on neighborhood of residence. The student
population is predominately Hispanic (New Designs Charter School, 2018). Susan Miller
Dorsey Senior High School is a traditional public high school that serves grades 9-12.
Students attending Dorsey come from the neighborhoods of Baldwin Hills, Baldwin
Village, Jefferson Park, Leimert Park, Crenshaw, and West Adams. The student
population is predominately African American (Dorsey High School, 2018).
Participants
Survey
Street Law Inc., the national organization, keeps a database of active Street Law
programs. According to this database, there are currently approximately 90 active law
school Street Law programs across the United States (Street Law, Inc., 2018b). The
national distribution of the programs are reproduced in Figure 3.1.
38

Figure 3.1 Map of Active U.S. Law School Street Law Programs (Reproduced from Street
Law, Inc., 2018b)

Using this database, I attempted to establish a point of contact at each active Street Law
program in Spring 2017. However, this was not possible for nearly half of the programs
because many of the programs listed as “active” by Street Law, Inc. are defunct.
Moreover, many of the programs do not provide contact information or have outdated
contact information in the database. In total, I was able to contact 48 Street Law
programs via email. 46 of these were located using the national database, while the other
two were located through my personal network.
8
The bulk of the programs either: (1) did
not respond, (2) informed me that the program was now defunct or not running that
semester, or (3) directed my email to someone else. Whenever possible, I attempted other

8
In April 2015, I served as a guest lecturer for a Street Law class in Washington D.C. through the
Georgetown University Law Center Street Law Clinic. In September 2015, I established contact with
Alexandra Mateus, the 2015-2016 president of the Street Law student organization at USC Gould School of
Law. Neither of these Street Law programs appeared in the database of active Street Law programs when I
started this project.
39

modes of contact with the listed Street Law coordinator (e.g., requests to connect via the
professional networking social media platform, LinkedIn).
Through this process, I was able to get 14 active Street Law programs from across
the nation to agree to participate in my data collection (see Table 3.1 below). Since it was
not possible for me to gain direct access to Street Law instructors in these programs (i.e.,
there was no way for me to know which law students were participating in Street Law), I
requested that the faculty or student director of each program distribute the survey to the
instructors. This also maintained the anonymity of survey respondents. Moreover, the
faculty and student directors agreed to distribute the surveys to comparison groups of
similar law students who were not participating in the Street Law program. This helped
ensure that the comparison groups were as similar as possible to the treatment groups in
terms of relevant characteristics (e.g., educational background, option to participate in
Street Law).

40

Table 3.1: Participating Street Law Programs

One hundred and five law students from these schools completed the pre-survey.
However, 56 of these did not complete the post-survey. Thus, 49 law students completed
both the pre-survey and post-survey; these responses are used as the data for this project.
37 of the respondents were Street Law participants (treatment group), while 12
respondents comprised the comparison group. In total, respondents represented 10 law
schools from across the nation.

Street Law Program Affiliation Location
Case Western Reserve University School of Law Cleveland, Ohio
Creighton Law School Omaha, Nebraska
Georgetown University Law Center Washington, D.C.
The George Washington University Law School Washington, D.C.
LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Minnesota Justice Foundation (Representing four law schools) Various locations, Minnesota
Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Northern Kentucky University, Chase College of Law Highland Heights, Kentucky
Rutgers School of Law - Camden Camden, New Jersey
Seattle University School of School of Law Seattle, Washington
Southwestern Law School Los Angeles, California
St. John's University School of Law Queens, New York
UCLA School of Law Los Angeles, California
Vanderbilt University Law School Nashville, Tennessee
41

Table 3.2: Street Law Programs Where Respondents Completed Pre-/Post-Survey

*Law school population accessed through Minnesota Justice Foundation
In addition to representing different law schools, the respondents’ demographic
backgrounds varied. It is important to note that this demographic variation occurred in
both the treatment group and comparison group. In terms of gender identify for the
treatment group, 62.2% (n = 23) selected female, 35.1% (n = 13) selected male, a 1.3%
(n = 1) selected genderqueer/gender non-conforming. As for the comparison group, 75%
(n = 9) selected female, while 25% (n = 3) selected male. In terms of racial and ethnic
identity for the treatment group, 73% (n = 27) selected White (six of which selected
Hispanic or Latino), 2.7% selected (n = 1) selected Asian, 2.7% (n = 1) selected Black or
African American, 2.7% (n = 1) selected American Indian or Alaska native, and 18.9% (n
= 7) selected Other.
9
As for the comparison group, 75% (n = 9) selected White, 8.3%

9
This lack of racial and ethnic diversity is reflective of the legal profession as a whole. According to
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017), 86.6% of all people employed in legal occupations identify as White.
Law School Number of Respondents
Creighton Law School 7
LSU Paul M. Hebert Law Center 2
Mitchell Hamline Law School* 3
University of Minnesota Law School School* 12
University of St. Thomas Law School* 3
Rutgers School of Law - Camden 4
Seattle University School of School of Law 3
Southwestern Law School 7
UCLA School of Law 4
Vanderbilt University Law School 4
42

selected (n = 1) selected Asian, and 16.7% (n = 2) selected Other. The mean age for the
treatment group was 25.4 years old (with a range of 16 years), while the mean age for the
comparison group was 25.5 years old (with a range of 7 years). Lastly, the respondents
varied in what year they were in law school. For the treatment group, 43.2% (n = 16)
were in their first year, 37.8% (n = 14) were in their second year, 16.2% (n = 6) were in
their third year, and 2.7% (n = 1) skipped this question. For the comparison group, 8.3%
(n = 1) were in their first year, 58.3% (n = 7) were in their second year, and 33.3% (n =
4) were in their third year. Thus, although random assignment to each group was not
possible, efforts were made to ensure that the groups were as similar as possible. For
example, if the law school had a restriction on what year students could participate in
Street Law, then those recruited for the comparison group also had to meet that condition
(e.g., first year UCLA Law students are not allowed to participate in Street Law, so no
first year UCLA Law students were recruited for the comparison group).
10

Moreover, it should be noted that this sample of 10 Street Law programs reflects
some of the key structural, curricular, and population differences across Street Law
programs.
11
For example, UCLA Law’s program is built into the clinical curriculum, runs
for one semester, and serves a large array of students at traditional public schools, charter
schools, and continuation schools.
12
Law students design their own lesson plans.
Southwestern Law’s program is also built into the clinical curriculum, but students have
the option to participate for a full year by subsequently enrolling in an “Advanced Street

10
Ensuring that the comparison groups are as similar as possible to the treatment groups in terms of
relevant characteristics helps control for selection, which is the largest potential threat to the research
design’s internal validity. See Chapter Five – Limitations section for a detailed analysis of threats to
validity.
11
See Chapter Two – Street Law’s Lack of Standardization section for detailed analysis of the differences
across Street Law programs.
12
UCLA Street Law syllabus provided by Professor Tony Tolbert.
43

Law” course. Moreover, the bulk of students served by the program are court involved in
the dependency or juvenile justice systems.
13
Although students design their own
curriculum, the faculty advisor ensures that the same substantive topics are taught at each
Street Law site. Mitchell Hamline’s Street Law program, on the other hand, does not
have a faculty advisor. The program is volunteer-based and administered through the
Minnesota Justice Foundation (MJF). A staff attorney from MFJ helps recruit students
and puts on a two-day training for law students on various substantive areas of the law.
However, there is no additional oversight or university support for the program. Although
this project is not able to account for all these structural, curricular, and population
differences, it is important to acknowledge when evaluating Street Law programs that
such differences can impact outcomes for law students and teenagers affiliated with the
program.
14

Interviews
Following collection of survey data, seven semi-structured interviews were
conducted with respondents who completed the pre-/post-survey. Five of these were in-
depth interviews with Street Law alumni and two were interviews with law students from
the comparison group. Interviews were conducted with individuals who were still
enrolled in law school. In other words, respondents must have taken the survey during
their first or second year of law school in order to participate. These respondents were
selected because one of the primary purposes of the interviews was to assess more
immediate impacts of Street Law participation on individuals continuing to work on their
law degree. This can be contrasted with the focus group, which selected law school

13
Southwestern Law Street Law syllabus provided by Professor Laura Cohen.
14
See Chapter Five – Additional Variables section for exploratory analysis on this topic.
44

alumni as participants in order to assess the long-term impacts of participation in Street
Law. In order to represent all of the law schools that participated in this study, one
student from each of the 10 law schools that had respondents for both the pre-/post-
survey was invited for a follow-up interview. Eight people responded to the interview
request, with one declining to participate. The participants were also selected because
they varied in terms of demographic background. In terms of gender identity, 42.9% (n =
3) selected female, 42.9% (n = 3), selected male, and 14.3% (n = 1) selected
genderqueer/gender non-conforming. In terms of racial and ethnic identity, 85.7% (n = 6)
selected White (one of which selected Hispanic or Latino) and 14.3% (n = 1) selected
Other.
15
The mean age was 26 years old, with a range of eight years. Lastly, the
participants were a nearly even split in their year in law school: 42.9% (n = 3) were first-
year law students when they completed the survey, while 57.1% (n = 4) were second-year
law students when they completed the survey. It is important to note that all respondents
showed a measurable difference in their pre-/post-survey responses and participated in
the interview approximately one year after the survey. This timeline was used so that
interview data could reflect the respondents’ development as law students since first
participating in the study.
Focus Group
A focus group was conducted with nine alumni of the Southwestern Law School
Street Law Clinic. The survey and follow-up interviews focused on currently enrolled
law students, while the primary purpose of the focus group was to analyze potential long-
term impacts of participation in Street Law. Thus, all participants in the focus group had

15
This lack of racial and ethnic diversity is reflective of the legal profession as a whole, as previously
explained in footnote 9.
45

already graduated from law school. Participants were recruited through Professor Laura
Cohen’s professional network. Professor Cohen is the founder and director of the
Southwestern Law Street Law Clinic, which she started in 2006. The recruited
participants help reflect the history of the clinic because their program completion dates
span the last ten years. The earliest Street Law participant completed the clinic in Fall
2007 (n = 1), while the most recent had completed the clinic in Fall 2017 (n = 1). Other
participants enrolled in the clinic during: Fall 2008 (n = 1), Spring 2010 (n = 2), Spring
2011 (n = 1), Fall 2013 (n = 2), Fall 2014 (n = 1). Additionally, the participants varied in
terms of demographic background. In terms of gender identity, 66.7% (n = 6) selected
female and 33.7% (n = 3) selected male. In terms of racial and ethnic identity, 44.4% (n
= 4) selected White (2 of which selected Hispanic or Latino), 22.2% (n = 2) selected
Black or African American, 22.2% (n = 2) selected Asian, and 11.1% (n = 1) selected
Other. The mean age was 34.9 years old, with a range of 12 years. Lastly, the participants
represented a wide array of careers: 22.2% (n = 2) work in the private sector; 22.2% (n =
2) work for the government; 22.2% (n = 2) work for nonprofit organizations; 33.3% (n =
3) work in higher education and administration.
Participant Observation
One street law instructor was selected for observation while teaching a Street Law
course in Fall 2017. The Street Law instructor was enrolled in the Southwestern Law
School Street Law Clinic and taught at the East L.A. Education Center. The East L.A.
Education Center is one of 17 education centers operated by Soledad Enrichment Action
(SEA) Charter. SEA Charter operates on an alternative education model that offers
personalized education programs for high-risk individuals (Soledad Enrichment Action,
46

2018). The class consisted of approximately 25 students and was predominately
(instructor estimates 90%)
16
ethnically Hispanic or Latino.
Procedures
Survey data were collected between February 2017 and February 2018. The
participant observation data were collected on the following dates: October 4, 2017;
October 18, 2017; November 1, 2017; November 8, 2017; November 29, 2017. The focus
group data were collected in February 2018. The interview data were collected in March
2018.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The survey
17
included: (1) a questionnaire asking law students about their
achievement goals (adapted from Elliot and McGregor, 2001) and (2) a questionnaire
measuring law students’ self-efficacy for a number of crucial lawyering skills, such as
communicating legal material to non-lawyers (which follows Bandura’s (2006)
guidelines for constructing self-efficacy scales). These surveys were given twice: (1) at
the beginning of the semester, before law students had Street Law teaching experience,
and (2) after the law students finished teaching at their respective sites. This pre-test/post-
test was also administered to comparison groups who were not participating in the Street
Law program. All data were collected using Qualtrics software.
In total, there were five dependent variables of interest measured by the survey,
corresponding to the first five research questions: (1) mastery-oriented goals; (2)
performance-oriented goals; (3) self-efficacy for communicating legal material to non-

16
The instructor estimated that approximately 90% of the students were ethnically Hispanic or Latino
(Southwestern Street Law Instructor, personal communication, April 4, 2018).
17
See Appendix A for full survey.
47

lawyers; (4) self-efficacy for public speaking; (5) self-efficacy for developing lawyer-
client relations. Dependent variables (1) and (2) were measured by responses to the
achievement goal questionnaire. Dependent variables (3), (4), and (5) were measured by
responses to the self-efficacy questionnaire. Results of the survey were analyzed using
paired samples t-tests to assess mean differences between pre-/post-survey responses for
each dependent variable of interest. Paired samples t-tests were conducted on: (1) the
treatment group to assess mean differences from pre-test to post-test, and (2) the
comparison group to assess mean differences between pre-test to post-test. Mean
differences between the treatment group and comparison group were then compared to
see which group had the greater change score. Independent samples t-tests were also
conducted to check if the change scores of the treatment group versus comparison group
were significant. All alpha levels were set at p < .10 due to the relatively small sample size.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with recent Street Law
alumni instructors who completed the pre-/post-survey. The interview protocol
18
built
upon questions asked in the survey and took into account additional skills that make
lawyers effective (adapted from Shultz & Zedeck, 2011). The interviews were conducted
by Skype and video recorded via “Ecamm,” a call recorder program. Each interview was
approximately 45 minutes and was personally transcribed afterwards. Thus, a total of
approximately four hours of recorded interviews and 225 pages of interview transcripts
were analyzed to identify patterns across the dataset.

18
See Appendix B for full interview protocol.
48

Focus Group. The focus group protocol
19
followed a similar format to the
interview one but also included questions about alumni’s post-law school experiences
because participants had graduated from law school and transitioned to careers. The focus
group was recorded using my personal iPad. The focus group was approximately two
hours long and was personally transcribed afterwards. Similar to my processes with the
individual interviews, I analyzed approximately 80 pages of focus group transcripts to
identify patterns across the dataset. Directly prior to participating in the focus group,
participants completed a waiting room survey. The purpose of this waiting room survey
was twofold: (1) to allow participants (especially those who had completed Street Law
several years prior) the opportunity to begin remembering and reflecting on their Street
Law experiences; and (2) to serve as a check against groupthink, which may occur during
focus groups (MacDougall & Baum, 1997). Thus, the waiting room survey included
some similar questions to those asked during the focus group (e.g., What skills did you
develop through your work with the Street Law Clinic?) to check for consistency.
Moreover, responses to the waiting room survey were included in the results of this
project when they matched or supplemented the patterns discovered in the primary
datasets.
Participant Observation. Participant observations were conducted in-person at
the Street Law instructor’s teaching site over a two-month period. In total, five classroom
sessions were observed, with each observation lasting approximately 70 minutes.
However, unlike the other methods employed in this study, the observations focused not
on the Street Law instructor, but rather, the students in the classroom. Moreover, in order

19
See Appendix D for full focus group protocol.
49

to avoid disturbing the classroom, I simply selected an unused seat each session and
recorded my observations. During these observations, I produced approximately 30 pages
of field notes which I subsequently analyzed for patterns related to student engagement
and communication.
Thematic Analysis. The primary qualitative data analysis method employed was
thematic analysis. As mentioned above, all transcripts from individual interviews and the
focus group, as well as the field notes generated from participant observations, were
analyzed to identify patterns. Both deductive and inductive coding were used throughout
analyses of the interview and focus group transcripts. Deductive coding was used to
determine when respondents’ used words or phrases that matched dependent variables of
interest from RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, RQ4, RQ5. In short, whenever words or phrases correlated
with the concepts of those dependent variables [(1) mastery-oriented goals; (2)
performance-oriented goals; (3) self-efficacy for communicating legal material to non-
lawyers; (4) self-efficacy for public speaking; (5) self-efficacy for developing lawyer-
client relations], they were coded according to that research question’s number and
theme.
However, rather than forcing all the responses to fit into pre-established codes
that matched the research questions, I also left open the possibility for new themes to
emerge. Thus, I also took an inductive approach by developing new codes as I analyzed
the raw text. This approach was especially useful for RQ6 (Does participation in Street
Law impact law students’ self-efficacy for developing a variety of soft skills?), where no
specific skills were pre-identified. Subsequently, emergent themes were retroactively
organized according to Shultz and Zedeck’s (2011) lawyering effectiveness factors.
50

Bearing in mind the vast number of soft skills that respondents mentioned, this
framework was used in order to identify those skills that previously literature has shown
to strongly correlate with lawyering effectiveness. These skills included: (1) Able to see
the world through the eyes of others; (2) Community involvement and service; (3)
Listening.
This inductive coding approach revealed new themes relevant to both RQ1 (Does
participation in Street Law impact law students’ mastery-oriented goals?) and RQ2
(Does participation in Street Law impact law students’ performance-oriented goals?).
Rather than forcing the program’s effects on law students’ learning styles neatly into one
of these binary categories (mastery versus performance), the inductive coding showed
that Street Law impacted law students’ approach to learning in four additional ways: (1)
Street Law improves students’ retention of legal material; (2) Street Law provides law
students with practical lawyering experiences; (3) Street Law reminds students that
learning is enjoyable; (4) Street Law helps students redefine success in academic and
professional environments. Moreover, this inductive coding approach also revealed new
themes relevant to RQ5 (Does Participation in Street Law impact law students’ self-
efficacy for developing lawyer-client relationships?). Throughout discussions about
developing lawyering skills, three key subthemes that emerged were: (1) Learning how to
engage Street Law teenagers in the classroom is a skill that directly translates to engaging
clients; (2) Street Law trains law students to bridge the professional divide between them
and non-lawyers; (3) Street Law prepares law students to interact with diverse client
populations.
51

Throughout this inductive coding process, whenever a new subtheme emerged,
the codebook was revised. Themes and subthemes always corresponded to the number of
their respective research question (e.g., when working with “diverse client populations”
arose as the third subtheme of RQ6 (Does Participation in Street Law impact law
students’ self-efficacy for developing lawyer-client relationships?), it received the code
6.3). Thus, the final codebook for the interview and focus group datasets was:

Table 3.3: Codebook for Interview and Focus Group Datasets

Code Theme
1 Mastery-Oriented Goals
2 Performance-Oriented Goals
1-2.1 Retention of Legal Material
1-2.2 Practical Lawyering Experiences
1-2.3 Learning is Enjoyable
1-2.4 Redefine Success
3 Communicating Legal Material to Non-Lawyers
4 Public Speaking
5 Developing Relationships with Clients
5.1 Directly Translates to Engaging Clients
5.2 Bridge the Professional Divide
5.3 Diverse Client Populations
6.1 Able to See the World through the Eyes of Others
6.2 Community Involvement and Service
6.3 Listening
52

Lastly, a purely inductive coding approach was used when analyzing my
participant observation field notes. I had a preliminary codebook based on my pilot visits
to three different Street Law sites in April 2015, which was subsequently revised based
on my participant observations for this project. Analyses of the field notes revealed that
students have perspectives on the law in a number of distinct substantive areas, but the
bulk of their class communication could be grouped into four categories: (1) General
conceptions of their legal rights; (2) Law enforcement officials; (3) Immigration; (4)
Gender-based violence. Thus, the final codebook for the participant observation dataset
was:

Table 3.4 Codebook for Participant Observation Dataset

Measures
Previous program evaluations of LRE programs have relied on mixed methods to
present the most comprehensive evaluation possible (Constitutional Rights Foundation,
1996; Gruenhagen & Leslein, 1993). This project follows the same practice, combining
surveys, interviews, participant observations, and a focus group, in order to assess the
research questions through a variety of methodological instruments.

Code Theme
1 General Conceptions of Legal Rights
2 Law Enforcement Officials
3 Immigration
4 Gender-Based Violence
53

Achievement Goal Questionnaire
An achievement goal questionnaire was used to measure whether participation in
Street Law affects a law student’s development of mastery-oriented goals versus
performance-oriented goals. Elliot and McGregor’s (2001) 12-item questionnaire, which
has been used in a variety of educational contexts (Grant & Dweck, 2003; Hulleman et
al., 2010; Wang, Biddle, & Elliot, 2007), was slightly modified to fit the law school
context. Participants in this survey were asked to “Please indicate the number that most
accurately reflects how you feel on a scale of 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly
agree”).” Thus, a standard five-point Likert scale was used. The questionnaire presented
participants with achievement goal statements such as (1) “I am striving to do well
compared to other law students”; (2) “My goal is to learn as much as possible”; (3) “My
aim is to completely master the material presented in law school.”
20

In total, the questionnaire had six items designed to measure the dimension of
mastery-orientation and six items designed to measure the dimension of performance-
orientation. Although not presented in this format to respondents, the items for each
dimension were the following:

20
See Appendix A, Section III for 12-item questionnaire.
54

Table 3.5 Mastery-Oriented and Performance-Oriented Dimensions

Reliability analysis was conducted with the items in the mastery-oriented
dimension for both the pre-survey (Cronbach’s α = .76) and the post-survey (Cronbach’s
α = .84). If removed, item 3 would improve the reliability for the pre-survey mastery-
oriented dimension (Cronbach’s α = .80). However, because this difference is minimal
and only applies to the pre-survey data, item 3 was retained in the data. Reliability
analysis was also conducted with the items in the performance-oriented dimension for
both the pre-survey (Cronbach’s α = .84) and post-survey (Cronbach’s α = .94). If
removed, item 4 would improve the reliability for the pre-survey performance-oriented
dimension (Cronbach’s α = .94). However, because this difference is minimal and only
applies to the pre-survey data, item 4 was retained in the data. Moreover, no items were
dropped because these factors were adapted from previously validated scales that have
been repeatedly shown to have a high internal consistency with a Cronbach’s α between
.83 and .92 (Grant & Dweck, 2003; Hulleman et al., 2010; Wang, Biddle, & Elliot, 2007).
Thus, for the purposes of analysis, one composite variable was created for the six
Mastery-Oriented Items Performance-Oriented Items
1. My aim is to completely master the
material presented in law school.
2. My aim is to perform well relative to
other law students.
3. My aim is to avoid learning less than I
possibly could.
4. My aim is to avoid doing worse than
other law students.
5. My goal is to learn as much as possible. 6. My goal is to avoid performing poorly
compared to other law students.
7. My goal is to avoid learning less than it
is possible to learn.
8. My goal is to perform better than other
law students.
9. I am striving to understand the content
as thoroughly as possible.
10. I am striving to do well compared to other
law students.
11. I am striving to avoid an incomplete
understanding of the course material.
12. I am striving to avoid performing worse
than other law students.
55

mastery-oriented items and one composite variable was created for the six performance-
oriented items.
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
Bandura (2006) contends that scales measuring self-efficacy must be tailored to
the particular domain of interest because there is no “all-purpose measure of perceived
self-efficacy” (p. 307-8). Thus, I designed a new questionnaire to measure law students’
self-efficacy for communicating legal material to non-lawyers, as well as several other
critical lawyering skills. The first step was to generate a pool of items to be potentially
included in the scale (DeVellis, 2012). As someone with a law degree, I have knowledge
about the types of skills, tasks, etc. that permeate the law school context. Moreover,
critical lawyering skills were identified through both a literature review (Binder, 2003;
Boccaccini, Boothby, & Brodsky, 2002; Maughan & Webb, 2005; Shultz & Zedeck,
2011) and an analysis of the UCLA Law Street Law Clinic curriculum, which has
development of lawyering skills as one its primary pedagogical objectives.
21
However,
when “establishing the content validity of the scale, individual or focus group interviews
with members of the target population are needed to identify the most relevant tasks and
the corresponding competencies, barriers and challenges” (van der Bijl & Shortridge-
Baggett, 2001, p. 203). Therefore, I shared potential items with Street Law alumni to
ensure that the items are relevant to, and comprehendible by, the population of interest.
Moreover, I worked with these individuals to ensure that there are sufficient gradations of
challenge in the items because “sufficient gradations or difficulties should be built into
the efficacy items to avoid ceiling effects” (Bandura, 2006). In other words, there must be

21
UCLA Street Law syllabus provided by Professor Tony Tolbert. Additional analysis of the curriculum
was based off my personal experience as a law student in the program.
56

sense of difficulty in accomplishing the task because if there is not, then all law students
would be able to perform it and everyone would be equally efficacious. For example, the
questionnaire asked how confident the respondent is in developing a “positive
relationship with clients,” as well as a “positive relationship with the most difficult
clients.” Lastly, I had the item pool reviewed by a professor who specializes in self-
efficacy constructs, which is in line with the best practices recommendation that experts
offer a final oversight process (DeVellis, 2012). In sum, Bandura (2006) provides a clear
framework for developing self-efficacy scales, which I followed closely, taking into
account his following factors: (1) domain specification, (2) gradations of challenge, (3)
phrasing of items, (4) response scale, (5) item analysis, (6) minimize response bias, (7)
validation.
In the final 10-item questionnaire, participants were instructed to “Please indicate
the number that most accurately reflects your degree of confidence, on a scale of 1 (“not
at all confident”) to 10 (“highly confident”). The questionnaire presented participants
with self-efficacy statements such as: (1) “Explain a legal concept to a non-lawyer,
regardless of their familiarity with the topic”, (2) “Develop a positive relationship with
clients”, (3) “Adapt to an unexpected occurrence (e.g., a client asks an off-topic question)
when working with clients”).
22
Based off my pilot research, I anticipated that the 10-
items would correlate with three different lawyering skills factors: (1) communicating
legal material to non-lawyers; (2) public speaking; (3) developing lawyer-client
relationships. However, factor analysis revealed that there were low average correlations
among any of the items. Bearing in mind that factor analysis is inappropriate when there

22
See Appendix A, Section IV for 10-item questionnaire.
57

are low average correlations among items, especially when working with a small sample
size, each item was treated independently in my data analysis (MacCallum, Widaman,
Zhang, & Hong, 1999).
Additional Lawyering Effectiveness Factors
Although the survey focused on a narrow set of measurable lawyering skills (e.g.,
communicating legal material to non-lawyers, public speaking, explaining your role to a
client), scholars have recognized that there are numerous skills that contribute to effective
lawyering (Maughan & Webb, 2005; Shultz & Zedeck, 2011). Thus, I designed my
interview and focus group protocols to help assess skills that law students may develop
through participation in Street Law that were not measurable through the survey
instrument. For example, interview participants were asked generally “What skills did
Street Law help you develop?” and focus group participants were asked “Are there any
skills that you developed through Street Law that are pertinent to your current (or future)
work?” Such questions allowed participants to discuss both traditional lawyering skills
and soft skills that were not assessed in the survey. The framework for assessing soft
skills was adapted from Shultz & Zedeck (2011) which identified skills such as “able to
see the world through the eyes of others” and “listening” as crucial lawyering
effectiveness factors.
Additional Variables
A number of other variables were collected to test for potential moderating or
mediating effects on the dependent variables of interest. These variables included: (1)
duration of program, (2) size of class taught, (3) racial/ethnic composition of class taught,
(4) relevant demographics of law school students, (5) whether the program is built into
58

the law school clinical curriculum, (6) whether the program has a full-time law school
faculty member, (7) whether law students design their curriculum, (8) law students’
previous teaching experiences. Although some of these variables are analyzed in this
project in an exploratory fashion, the small sample size precludes being able to make any
concrete conclusions at this point as to their moderating or mediating effects.

59

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The following results are based on data from: (1) a survey of law students at ten
law schools across the nation, (2) interviews with law students from seven law schools
across the nation, (3) a focus group and waiting room survey with alumni from one law
school, and (4) ongoing observations of one law student’s classroom throughout her
participation in Street Law. Reporting of results is guided by this project’s eight research
questions. Therefore, results of each method are discussed to various degrees in each
section based off their relevance to addressing the particular research questions.
Mastery-Oriented versus Performance-Oriented
To address the first two interrelated research questions (RQ1: Does participation
in Street Law impact law students’ mastery-oriented goals? and RQ2: Does participation
in Street Law impact law students’ performance-oriented goals?), results of the survey
were analyzed using paired t-tests to assess mean differences between pre-/post-survey
responses for the dependent variables of interest. These variables were: (1) mastery-
oriented goals (RQ1; measured by a composite variable created from the six mastery-
oriented items in the achievement goal questionnaire); (2) performance-oriented goals
(RQ1; measured by a composite variable created from the six performance-oriented items
in the achievement goal questionnaire). The results of these tests, for both the treatment
group (Street Law students) and comparison group (non-Street Law students) were not
significant.
Granted, this binary framework that defines law students as either mastery-
oriented or performance-oriented may be limited for measuring how Street Law impacts
their approach to legal education. In fact, interviews with Street Law alumni still in law
60

school and Street Law alumni at various stages of their careers revealed that program
participation affected the way they learn in complex, difficult to measure ways. Thus, a
general inductive approach was taken to condense raw data from these interviews and
allow for new themes that describe the ways law students learn to emerge. Throughout
these conversations about learning, four subthemes emerged about how Street Law
participation can reshape law students’ approaches to learning: (1) Street Law improves
law students’ retention of legal material; (2) Street Law provides law students with
practical lawyering experiences; (3) Street Law reminds law students that learning is
enjoyable; and (4) Street Law helps law students redefine success in academic and
professional environments.
Retention of Legal Material
Several individual interviewees and focus group members contended that
participation in Street Law helped them retain legal material. Specifically, they contrasted
their experiences with Street Law against other law school experiences and classes to
explain why mastering material was necessary in Street Law. For example, one current
law student stated that prior to Street Law, she “was not retaining information. It was not
learning. It was just like memorizing for the exam and then it was out the window. I
mean, I just couldn’t recall.” However, “once Street Law came along…it was very
apparent that explaining to someone that is not in law school…was much better and I
retain things better than if I studied with my law school buddies.” Arguably most
importantly, she concluded this point by stating “so that’s what I do now. … That’s
something I got from Street Law ‘cause I don’t think I would have tried that otherwise”
(Southwestern Law student, personal communication, March 18, 2018). Thus, Street Law
61

helped this student discover a method for mastering law school material (i.e., teaching the
concepts to a non-lawyer
23
), which no other law school class or opportunity would have
provided. Moreover, she continues to apply that method to her other coursework, rather
than simply “memorizing for the exam.” Law school alumni confirmed this point by
current students that most classes are about “just keeping [information] in my brain for
that few months and then spit[ting] it out on the test.” Conversely, “Street Law was more
consuming the material, feeling it” (Southwestern Law 2011 alumnus, personal
communication, February 12, 2018). In short, Street Law was continually described as a
singular space in the law school environment – a space where the importance of
mastering material, in lieu of simply learning it to perform well on an exam, became
clear.
Practical Lawyering Experiences
Related to retention, Street Law participants emphasized that having opportunities
to apply the material they learn in practical contexts motivates them to master the legal
concepts. Again, alumni focused on how Street Law is different from other experiences
and classes in law school because it provides “that practical lens to look at things
through” (Southwestern Law 2013 alumnus, personal communication, February 12,
2018). This practical component came from being able to share what one learns in law
school outside that academic environment:
In Street Law it really was more practical. You know, things that make sense in
the real world that you’re going to use and that you can teach to other people. I
don’t think I’ve ever had the opportunity to teach what I’ve learned in my other

23
See Chapter 4 – RQ3 results for a more detailed analysis of Street Law’s impact on participants’ self-
confidence for communicating legal material to non-lawyers.
62

classes to anyone. (Southwestern Law 2011 alumnus, personal communication,
February 12, 2018)
Some alumni extended this point by connecting Street Law experiences to their current
careers. According to one alumnus who currently practices as a constitutional lawyer,
“Doing Street Law helped me see ‘oh, I’m gonna learn constitutional law really well so
that I could later advocate for my client’” (Southwestern Law 2008, alumnus, personal
communication, February 12, 2018). Of particular note is this alumnus’ comment as to
how Street Law made her want to learn the material from other law school classes (i.e.,
constitutional law). Importantly, the goal for learning was not performance-oriented (i.e.,
to do well on an exam), but rather, mastery-oriented (i.e., learn that material really well in
order to be able to retain it and advocate for future clients). A current UCLA Law student
made explicit this connection between participation in Street Law and decreased concern
with performance in individual classes:
There’s like this practicality that comes from Street Law that you don’t get
through any of law school… It really doesn’t matter if you got an A in contracts,
like can you figure out…when you’re reading a contract [if it sounds] right… Is
your client gonna understand why their firing was [or was not] chill? Can you
help them figure that out?… It really doesn’t matter like what grade you got in
employment law if you can’t help them figure that out. (UCLA School of Law
student, personal communication, March 16, 2018)
However, although Street Law helped students see the importance of thinking beyond
grades, that did not mean their academic performance suffered. In fact, many law school
alumni contended that they believe Street Law had a positive impact on their
63

performance. According to one alumnus during the focus group, who several other
participants agreed with, when “I think about looking at my GPA, before Street Law and
after Street Law, it kind of went up a bit. Because now I see, ‘well ok this is where all
this is going’…and I really loved it” (Southwestern Law 2013 alumnus, personal
communication, February 12, 2018).
Learning is Enjoyable
Current law students across the nation stressed that participating in Street Law
helped them rediscover what they like about learning in general, and specifically in the
law school context. One Seattle University law student explained how “a lot of times [in
law school] you’re just focusing on what’s important to like learn for the course” but
“Street Law makes you think a little bit more like what’s interesting to you” as an
individual. This student argued that this self-discovery process is wrapped up in the act of
teaching:
When you have to actually sit down and think to yourself, “Okay, well what do I
find really interesting about the law? What would I want to share with somebody
else? What do I think that they have to know to be a good citizen?” When you
start asking yourself those questions, I guess you start reaffirming to yourself
what you find interesting in the law. (Seattle University School of Law student,
personal communication, March 16, 2018)
Students also emphasized that Street Law offered a refuge from the typical, performance-
oriented approach to learning in law school. As one University of Minnesota law student
stated, the “first year of law school is very competitive” but Street Law was different
“because we were working with a team. We got a partner. We were all working towards
64

the same goal. It’s fun talking with students, it’s fun helping clients” (University of
Minnesota Law School student, personal communication, March 13, 2018). A law
student at Mitchell Hamline took this point a step further, stating that it is not only first
year that is competitive, but that legal education in general forces students to constantly
compare themselves to their colleagues:
When you interact with youth it reminds you how fun it is to learn, especially
when something is new. Like it’s important to be a civically engaged person and
feel like someone who has efficacy. So, I think interacting with people who get
genuinely excited about it helps remind me like “oh yeah, you also fundamentally
are like that and it’s unfortunate that you’re being compared,” but that’s what you
are doing for three years. (Mitchell Hamline School of Law student, personal
communication, March 16, 2018)
Thus, the law school environment often breeds a competitive environment that stifles
students’ enjoyment for learning (Dolovich, 1998). Street Law, on the other hand, is seen
as an antithesis of this performance obsessed approach to learning and can renew student
interest in legal material.
Redefine Success
Related to decreasing students’ performance-oriented approach to learning, Street
Law alumni asserted that their participation in the program helped them redefine what
success in law school meant for them. As one current law student said, “I think the first
year coming into law school, I was completely obsessed with [performance]. My goal
was to be like top ten percent” but “come Street Law, it was the whole teaching students
thing that changed it for me.” While her original goal was to focus on class performance,
65

“Street Law put that pause for me or slowed me down if you will… It just kind of made
me reflect on what it is that I really want to do.” Ultimately, her new definition of success
is “end[ing] up somewhere where I really want to be rather than having that thought that I
did before like ‘oh I just want to make money and not be happy’” (Southwestern Law
student, personal communication, March 18, 2018). Other Street Law alumni echoed this
point about changing their notions of success, but were more explicit about how their
experiences as teachers is what moved them away from a performance-oriented approach
to learning. Several interviewees mentioned that it was the act of “failing” in front of
their students (e.g., having a lesson that did not engage students) that made them redefine
success. As one alumni described it, the law school “system is set up in a way that you
are seeking the A by somebody else,” but Street Law was different because you do not
get assessed by some objective measure. Rather, as this interviewee said, each new Street
Law teaching session created a “challenge for me to try and figure out what success will
mean in this scenario.” In short, “the experience of failure helps you redefine success”
because it forces you to “find what your own A looks like” (Southwestern Law 2017
alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018).
Self-Efficacy
To address research questions three, four, and five (which all tied to self-efficacy
for technical lawyering skills), results of the survey were analyzed using paired t-tests to
assess mean differences between pre-/post-survey responses for the dependent variables
of interest. These variables were: (1) communicating legal material to non-lawyers (RQ3;
measured by items 1, 5); (2) public speaking (RQ4; measured by items 3, 8); (3)
66

developing lawyer-client relationships (RQ5; measured by items 2, 4, 6 7, 9, 10).
24
The
results of these tests, for both the treatment group (Street Law students) and comparison
group (non-Street Law students) are reported below:

Table 4.1. Paired Samples T-Tests for Treatment Group’s Self-Efficacy Variables
Variable Mean Standard
Deviation
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Item 1: Explain legal concept to
non-lawyer
-.51 1.17 -2.67 36 .011**
Item 2: Develop positive
relationship with clients
-.24 1.34 -1.10 36 .277
Item 3: Speak to small group of
non-lawyers
-.27 1.09 -.15 36 .881
Item 4: Think on feet while
communicating with clients
.08 1.14 .43 36 .668
Item 5: Teach non-lawyers about
their rights
-.30 1.27 -1.43 36 .162
Item 6: Adapt to an unexpected
occurrence with clients
.00 1.45 .00 36 1.000
Item 7: Develop positive
relationship with difficult clients
-.38 1.36 -1.70 36 .100*
Item 8: Speak to larger group of
non-lawyers
-.17 1.32 -.76 35 .454
Item 9: Describe your role as
lawyer/advocate to clients
-.54 1.68 -1.96 36 .058*
Item 10: Continue to work with
clients after disruptive experience
-.16 1.37 -.72 36 .474
*p < .10, **p < .05

24
The dependent variable of developing lawyer-client relationships was measured through more items than
the other self-efficacy variables were. This is because lawyer-client relationships are multifaceted and can
thus be analyzed several ways. See RQ5 results below for further explanation.
67

Table 4.2. Paired Samples T-Tests for Comparison Group’s Self-Efficacy Variables
Variable Mean Standard
Deviation
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Item 1: Explain legal concept to
non-lawyer
.083 1.38 -.21 11 .838
Item 2: Develop positive
relationship with clients
-.25 1.55 -.56 11 .586
Item 3: Speak to small group of
non-lawyers
-.33 1.61 -.72 11 .489
Item 4: Think on feet while
communicating with clients
-.33 2.10 -.55 11 .594
Item 5: Teach non-lawyers about
their rights
-.08 1.56 -.19 11 .857
Item 6: Adapt to an unexpected
occurrence with clients
.17 1.64 .35 11 .732
Item 7: Develop positive
relationship with difficult clients
-.33 1.37 -.84 11 .417
Item 8: Speak to larger group of
non-lawyers
-1.08 2.31 -1.62 11 .133
Item 9: Describe your role as
lawyer/advocate to clients
-.67 1.72 -1.34 11 .207
Item 10: Continue to work with
clients after disruptive experience
-.58 1.51 -1.34 11 .206
*p < .10, **p < .05

The comparison group did not show a significant increase for any of the items. However,
the treatment group did show a significant increase for items 1, 7, 10, which measure the
following dependent variables of interest: (1) communicating legal materials to non-
lawyers (item 1), and (2) developing lawyer-client relationships (items 7, 10). These
survey results are discussed in further detail below, along with qualitative data results.
Communicating Legal Material to Non-Lawyers
To address the third research question (Does participation in Street Law impact
law students’ self-efficacy for communicating legal material to non-lawyer audiences?),
results of the survey were analyzed using a paired t-test to assess mean differences
between pre-/post-survey responses for the dependent variable of communicating legal
material to non-lawyers. To measure this dependent variable, respondents were asked:
68

“How confident are you that you can explain a legal concept to a non-lawyer, regardless
of their familiarity with the topic?” (Item 1).
25
There was a significant increase in this
confidence level for the law students after participation in Street Law (M = 7.84; SD =
1.39) when compared with before they taught (M = 7.32; SD = 1.31); t(36) = 2.67; p =
.011). Conversely, there was not a significant increase in the confidence level for the law
students who did not participate in Street Law at the post-test (M = 8.33; SD = 1.30)
compared with the pre-test (M = 8.42; SD = 1.56); t(11) = .209; p = .838). Thus, Street
Law students showed an increase in confidence for explaining a legal concept to non-
lawyers after teaching their classes, while the comparison group did not show a positive
change during the same time period.
Consistent with these results, Street Law alumni that were interviewed
individually and in a focus group setting cited communicating legal material to non-
lawyers as the skill they most developed through participation in Street Law. During
interviews, several individuals contrasted Street Law with traditional law school
experiences to describe how the law school setting rarely gives you the opportunity to
learn how to explain legal material to non-lawyers. As one current Seattle University
School of Law student explained,
When you just use the concepts in school with other lawyers, you know law
students and lawyers, you kind of take for granted certain pieces of these concepts
and [in Street Law] you have to actually break them down and pull them apart to
see how the best way to explain it is. I think that kind of made me feel more

25
Respondents were also asked, “How confident are you that you can teach non-lawyers about their rights,
regardless of their familiarity with those rights?” (Item 5). Although results for this item were not
significant (see Table 4.1), Street Law participants showed a nominal average increase in confidence for
this skill between pre-test (M = 7.59; SD = 1.59) and post-test (M = 7.89; SD = 1.35).
69

confident in taking some of these law school concepts or legal concepts and
breaking those down a little bit in more simple terms. (Seattle University School
of Law student, personal communication, March 16, 2018)
Law school alumni contended that this ability to speak to lawyers and non-lawyers
differently is integral to professional success. One 2011 alumnus of the Southwestern
Street Law Clinic explained how at her current job as an employment defense attorney,
the firm has all these “brilliant attorneys but… no one’s gonna understand what they’re
saying unless you’re an attorney.” This made her reflect on the benefits of her Street Law
experiences, which “helped [her] learn how to kind of talk to lay people or children about
law and try to explain it to them” (Southwestern Law alumnus, personal communication,
February 12, 2018).
Although the respondents utilized different language, this core theme of learning
how to communicate “in more simple terms” with non-lawyers arose consistently
throughout interviews. Time and again, interviewees contended that Street Law taught
them how to: (1) “tone things down” (Southwestern Law student, personal
communication, March 18, 2018); “just boil it down to a couple key points that they can
take back and remember and like make useful at some point” (UCLA School of Law
student, personal communication, March 16, 2018); “get right to the point” by thinking
“what do these people care about, and how can I make it as clear as possible” (University
of Minnesota Law School student, personal communication, March 13, 2018).
Public Speaking
To address the fourth research question (Does participation in Street Law impact
law students’ self-efficacy for public speaking?), results of the survey were analyzed
70

using a paired t-test to assess mean differences between pre-/post-survey responses for
the dependent variable of public speaking. To measure this dependent variable,
respondents were asked: “How confident are you that you can speak to a small group of
non-lawyers (5-10 people)?” (Item 3), and “How confident are you that you can speak to
a larger group of non-lawyers (more than 10 people)?” (Item 8). Although the results
were not significant,
26
Street Law participants did show a nominal average increase in
confidence for public speaking. This increase can be seen between pre-test (M = 8.35; SD
= 1.34) and post-test (M = 8.38; SD = 1.34) for confidence speaking in front of small
groups, as well as between pre-test (M = 7.89; SD = 1.41) and post-test (M = 8.06; SD =
1.59) for confidence speaking in front of larger groups.
Granted, closed-ended questions on a survey may not be the ideal item format for
measuring respondents’ confidence for a complex skill like public speaking. In fact, when
Street Law alumni were asked the open-ended question of “What skills did you develop
through your work with the Street Law Clinic?” in a waiting room survey, half (n = 4) of
respondents specifically identified public speaking/oral presentation. Moreover, during
the focus group, several alumni expanded upon how Street Law was their primary
opportunity for developing public speaking skills during their legal training. According to
a 2007 alumnus of the Southwestern Street Law Clinic, “Street Law was sort of the first
segue for me where I felt like I can be a confident speaker and I can communicate an idea
and people will listen to me. So that really helped [my] confidence” (Southwestern Law
alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018). This contention that Street Law
was the foundational space for becoming a more confident public speaker was echoed by

26
See Table 4.1.
71

not only alumni, but also current law students across the nation. One student pointed out
that Street Law helped him “improve [his] public speaking skills and there’s not a huge
opportunity to do that in law school” (University of Minnesota Law School student,
personal communication, March 13, 2018).
Through interviews with both law school alumni and current law students, it was
clear that their increased confidence in public speaking had application beyond the Street
Law program. Two distinct contexts arose where Street Law alumni frequently apply
their public speaking skills: (1) in other law school classrooms, and (2) in professional
settings. In terms of context one, law school classes are often driven by student
participation (Madison III, 2007). Thus, developing the ability to speak confidently in
front of your colleagues is a necessary part of integrating into the law school
environment. Current law students at several schools cited Street Law as the reason they
feel comfortable voicing their opinions in other classes as well. One student mentioned
how before Street Law “[I] rarely if ever voluntarily raised my hand” in class (Mitchell
Hamline School of Law student, personal communication, March 16, 2018), while
another explicitly stated that because of Street Law “I feel a lot more confident just like
speaking about whatever topic we’re talking about in class” (UCLA School of Law
student, personal communication, March 16, 2018).
In terms of context two, law school alumni expressed how they continue to use
the public speaking/oral presentation skills that they developed in Street Law in their
current careers. Importantly, the alumni interviewed represented a wide range of careers,
including the private sector, the government, and nonprofit organizations.
27
Thus, public

27
See Chapter 3 – Focus Group section.
72

speaking skills were described as critical for a variety of professional fields. An alumnus
of the Southwestern Street Law Clinic, who currently works for the Office of the Los
Angeles County Counsel, explained how she still uses skills she developed during Street
Law:
I work with a lot of non-lawyers and … I use those skills for presenting big
projects, and [explaining] what the purpose is and what the goal is, and keeping
these folks all engaged. You know I use those skills now and I’m sure I would
have gotten there eventually but I think that [Street Law] really forced me to do it
and I don’t know if I would have been forced to do it until I took on this job
essentially. (Southwestern Law 2008 alumnus, personal communication, February
12, 2018)
Of particular note is this alumnus’ suggestion that the Street Law program helped them
prepare for their career in a way no other class did. As someone a decade out of law
school, Street Law still stood out in her mind as the only time they were “forced” to
develop these pertinent public speaking/oral presentation skills. This echoes the
sentiment of the earlier cited interviewee from University of Minnesota Law School
student, who said when it comes to refining public speaking skills, “there’s not a huge
opportunity to do that in law school” (University of Minnesota Law School student,
personal communication, March 13, 2018).
Developing Lawyer-Client Relationships
To address the fifth research question (Does Participation in Street Law impact
law students’ self-efficacy for developing lawyer-client relationships?), results of the
survey were analyzed using a paired t-test to assess mean differences between pre-/post-
73

survey responses for the dependent variable of developing lawyer-client relationships. To
measure this dependent variable, respondents were asked: “How confident are you that
you can describe your role as an advocate/lawyer to clients?” (Item 9) and “How
confident are you that you can develop a positive relationship with the most difficult
clients?” (Item 7).
28
In terms of describing their role, there was a significant increase in
this confidence level for the law students after participation in Street Law (M = 8.35; SD
= 1.32) when compared with before they taught (M = 7.81; SD = 1.54); t(36) = 1.96; p =
.058). Conversely, there was not a significant increase in the confidence level for the law
students who did not participate in Street Law at the post-test (M = 8.50; SD = 1.51)
compared with the pre-test (M = 7.83; SD = 1.85); t(11) = 1.34; p = .207).
Similarly, in terms of developing a positive relationship, there was a significant
increase in this confidence level for the law students after participation in Street Law (M
= 8.14; SD = 1.64) when compared with before they taught (M = 7.76; SD = 1.52); t(36)
= 1.69; p = .100). Conversely, there was not a significant increase in the confidence level
for the law students who did not participate in Street Law at the post-test (M = 8.33; SD =
1.44) compared with the pre-test (M = 8.00; SD = 1.65); t(11) = 0.842; p = .417). Thus,
Street Law students showed an increase in confidence for developing lawyer-client
relationships after teaching their classes, while the comparison group did not show a
significant change during the same time period.

28
Respondents were also asked, “How confident are you that you can teach non-lawyers about their rights,
regardless of their familiarity with those rights?” (Item 5). Although results for this item were not
significant (see Table 4.1), Street Law participants showed a nominal average increase in confidence for
this skill between pre-test (M = 7.59; SD = 1.59) and post-test (M = 7.89; SD = 1.35). Additional items
showed no relevant results.
74

Consistent with, and expanding upon, these results, Street Law alumni
interviewed individually and in a focus group setting highlighted how participating in
Street Law increased their confidence for developing lawyer-client relationships. In fact,
one interviewee even directly asserted before the focus group began that Street Law is
where she “learned how to connect with my clients [that she has] now” (Southwestern
Law 2014 alumnus, waiting room survey, February 12, 2018). Throughout these
interviews, three key subthemes that emerged were: (1) Learning how to engage Street
Law teenagers in the classroom is a skill that directly translates to engaging clients; (2)
Street Law trains law students to bridge the professional divide between them and non-
lawyers; (3) Street Law prepares law students to interact with diverse client populations.
Directly Translates to Engaging Clients. In terms of subtheme one, a law school
alumnus who currently works as an employment defense attorney explained the
connection between engaging Street Law teenagers and engaging clients:
So in Street Law, first of all you gotta get the kid engaged. You got to get them to
like pay attention to you and then once you get them to pay attention you have to
feed them the information in a way they’re gonna understand. Similarly, with
your client, you have to get them to understand the information or you’re gonna
go nowhere. Half the battle is getting them to comply and do the program, and
you know helping them understand the system. In Street Law we were helping
these kids understand the system – what their rights are, what they should do,
what they shouldn’t do, things like that. So I thought it was really helpful.
(Southwestern Law 2011 alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018)
75

Numerous focus group participants echoed this sentiment, arguing that they were
constantly figuring out “how we were going to keep the kids engaged” (Southwestern
Law 2008 alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018) and how to “really
engage and talk with them…and I think that’s like probably one of the best skills you can
get” (Southwestern Law 2017 alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018). In
short, law school alumni expressed a clear connection between the skills they developed
to engage Street Law teenagers and the skills they currently use to engage clients.
Bridge the Professional Divide. In terms of subtheme two, law students from a
variety of schools noted that Street Law was critical in helping them bridge the
professional divide between them and non-lawyers. A current UCLA Law student
explained how she had trouble connecting with her Street Law teenagers at first, but
through the program, she learned to “knock off most of the formalism and just be like a
normal person who’s helping [them] learn about the law” (UCLA School of Law student,
personal communication, March 16, 2018). Similarly, a Mitchell Hamline Law student
explained how legal concepts and terminology are often “a little bit pretentious” and she
needed to deformalize the conversations in order to “feel more comfortable” working
with students and clients. For example, during one lecture on pro se legal representation,
students remarked, “that’s just made up language to say that you represent yourself” and
she used this as an opportunity to have socioeconomic “class conversations…about the
law” (Mitchell Hamline School of Law student, personal communication, March 16,
2018). As one Seattle University law student stated so simply, Street Law taught him how
to not only “talk about the law stuff” but also how to “make small talk and just be
76

friendly” with non-lawyers (Seattle University School of Law student, personal
communication, March 16, 2018).
Diverse Client Populations. In terms of subtheme three, law students who
participated in Street Law noted how the program was a unique opportunity to interact
with diverse populations. As one interviewee made explicit, Street Law trained him “how
to approach dealing with diverse populations” that are “different than law school
[populations]” (University of Minnesota Law School student, personal communication,
March 13, 2018). This exposure to different populations is important because as this
interviewee suggested, his law school colleagues are not demographically diverse – a
point that is in line with the fact that law continues to be one of the least diverse
professions.
29
Thus, without programs such as Street Law, law students would be more
limited in their opportunities to discuss legal concepts with a diversity of populations.
Some Street Law alumni were more specific about the benefits of teaching law-related
education to diverse populations. For example, one interviewee explained that having “a
pretty diverse class” that was “not shy about getting into some political discussions”
helped him learn how to “wade through those different issues [and] different viewpoints.”
He ultimately concluded that it made him more confident about his future interactions
with clients because “if you can manage that with like ten different people and different
mindsets than it’s a little easier when you have maybe a smaller group in front of you” or
even a “one-on-one client meeting” (Seattle University School of Law student, personal
communication, March 16, 2018). Lastly, alumni credited Street Law with not only
giving them the opportunity to interact with diverse populations, but also teaching them

29
See footnote 9.
77

to pay attention to the differences within these populations. As one interviewee
explained, participating in Street Law “provided nuance to the community which there
always was and I just didn’t know... And [it showed] how important it is to get the
diverse perspectives of a group that you might lump together” (Mitchell Hamline School
of Law student, personal communication, March 16, 2018).
Developing Soft Skills
To address the sixth research question (Does participation in Street Law impact
law students’ self-efficacy for developing a variety of soft skills?), I took an inductive
approach the relied on (1) semi-structured interviews with law students from across the
nation, and (2) a focus group and waiting room survey with Street Law alumni. The most
commonly identified soft skills that emerged were: (1) Able to see the world through the
eyes of others; (2) Community involvement and service; (3) Listening.
Able to See the World through the Eyes of Others. Shultz and Zedeck (2011)
identify wanting to understand other people’s views and experiences as a central factor
for effective lawyering. Throughout my interviews with Street Law alumni, this is the
soft skill that they mentioned most frequently when discussing how the program
impacted them. As one 2007 alumnus of Southwestern Law explained, Street Law “was
so eye-opening to me – how little I know and how little I can appreciate about other
people’s experiences… And so it made me much more empathetic and it’s forced me to
look at life with eyes wide open” (Southwestern Law 2007 alumnus, personal
communication, February 12, 2018).
Others categorized this quality as “empathy,” but expressed a similar sentiment.
Another Street Law alumni from Southwestern, who participated in the program a decade
78

after the previous interviewee, stated that Street Law is a reminder that when interacting
with non-lawyers of any age, “what you need to be is human. So I think one of the
qualities teaching brings back to you is empathy and building empathy. Something that
the world seems to be lacking nowadays” (Southwestern Law 2017 alumnus, personal
communication, February 12, 2018). Importantly, alumni also explained how they have
applied this skill that they learned in Street Law to their current careers. According to one
alumni who currently works for the Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, Street
Law “helped me realize on a very granular level the needs of this underserved
population” (Southwestern Law 2008 alumnus, waiting room survey, February 12, 2018):
I grew up knowing that I had rights. I grew up knowing that I could challenge the
system right. And so much of this juvenile community, they didn’t realize that…
Forwarding into what I do now, [Street Law] really helped me to see both sides.
I’m very kind of centrist viewpoints on a lot of things and…learning the granular
aspects of what this population does know makes me rethink the decisions that I
make currently because I work with a [similar] underserved population.
(Southwestern Law 2008 alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018)
Community Involvement and Service. Shultz and Zedeck (2011) also discuss
applying one’s legal training and skills to community issues as another critical lawyering
effectiveness factor. With regards to this factor, Street Law is an important program
because it gives law students an opportunity to begin using their legal skills to benefit
their local communities. Several interviewees highlighted how being involved with Street
Law was a meaningful way to bridge the academy-community divide. As one current law
student, who worked in after-school programming prior to entering the legal academy,
79

expressed, “When I heard about Street Law, at that point I was like feeling really
irrelevant in the ivory tower. I was missing having that day-to-day interaction with
youth.” She went on to explain how participating in Street Law was the perfect balance
between an activity that was “self-interested” but also an opportunity “to feel like I was
doing something” for others (Mitchell Hamline School of Law student, personal
communication, March 16, 2018). However, even beyond the initial opportunity to
connect with local communities that Street Law creates, numerous Street Law alumni
contended that the program made them want to serve their communities in other ways
both during law school and after graduation. A current University of Minnesota Street
Law student contended that “Street Law definitely made me continue to care about those
issues and continue to care about people who need access to the legal system that, you
know, may not readily have it as easily as others.” In short, “it made me want to continue
to do pro bono work for sure in some capacity… in law school and then afterwards as
well” (University of Minnesota Law School student, personal communication, March 13,
2018). Of particular note is that even for students who intended to pursue jobs in the
private sector, Street Law cultivated in them a desire to engage in pro bono and public
service work whenever possible. Some of the law students expressed a desire to continue
working with a population similar to the youth they served through Street Law. As one
UCLA Law student who has committed to work at a private firm after graduation
explained, “I could definitely see myself wanting to work with that particular community
again which I hadn’t expected… Kids in school are an important point that we’re missing
in the legal profession. We don’t work with them and maybe we should” (UCLA School
of Law student, personal communication, March 16, 2018).
80

Law school alumni who currently work in a variety of legal careers echoed the
perspective that Street Law developed their desire, as well as their ability, to apply their
legal skills to community issues. As one alumnus who currently with underserved
populations reflected, “Street Law, you know, reminded me of like what my little, you
know, five minutes did with this kid” before ultimately concluding that “it makes me
want to continue to give back to this population” (Southwestern Law 2008 alumnus,
personal communication, February 12, 2018). However, even those alumni whose careers
are in the private sector and do not directly relate to any public service work, still felt that
their professional choices have been shaped by Street Law. According to one alumnus
who runs his own estate planning and personal injury firm, “I always give back no matter
what… I always want to have that one person who I can help… and for me that’s just
kind of something that I picked up from Street Law” (Southwestern Law 2013 alumnus,
personal communication, February 12, 2018). Perhaps one alumnus said it best when he
simply remarked that Street Law makes it so you are “always looking for a way that you
can help other people” (Southwestern Law 2010 alumnus, personal communication,
February 12, 2018), or in the words of a current law student, “Street Law just makes me
want to help out” (Seattle University School of Law student, personal communication,
March 16, 2018).
Listening. Shultz and Zedeck (2011) also emphasize that effective lawyers have
the ability to correctly perceive what others are saying, which requires active listening.
Street Law alumni emphasized that in order to become successful teachers they had to
listen to their students’ opinions and experiences, and incorporate those into their
pedagogy. As a current Seattle University law student explained, he learned through
81

Street Law to “try not to lecture for too long” and instead build in time for students to
“tell me about themselves in a way that was connected to the material. Just because I felt
like in that way they were able to tell a little bit about their own personal life and personal
experience” (Seattle University School of Law student, personal communication, March
16, 2018). For many alumni, they have translated this experience of “getting them
involved in the conversation” to their current work with clients by “talking with them,
instead of talking at them” (Southwestern Law 2011 alumnus, personal communication,
February 12, 2018). One alumnus noted how time is limited during client meetings, but
“you’re gonna listen to them” if you want to “build a relationship” (Southwestern Law
2008 alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018).
Thus, alumni established a clear connection between the importance of listening
and developing positive relationships with students and clients alike. Most poignantly, an
interviewee extended this point about relationship-building by asserting that the
byproduct is a mutually beneficial relationship through which both parties learn:
The question [each class] was like, “What do I have to offer that is different from
just repeating what you already know?” I think that part of the learning is that you
are as much a student as they are, and it’s like a two-way process where you teach
and you’re getting a learning experience also unique for yourself. (Southwestern
Law 2017 alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018)
Notably, this interviewee made an effort to emphasize that this two-way process of being
both a teacher and student is not limited to the classroom setting. Rather, it is “something
that if you can really grasp…you can take it anywhere” (Southwestern Law 2017
alumnus, personal communication, February 12, 2018).
82

Legal Consciousness
To address the seventh research question (Does participation in Street Law
impact teenagers’ legal consciousness?), I observed a Street Law classroom for a
semester at an East Los Angeles charter school. One of the primary purposes for this
method was to observe how teenage students perceive the law and legal systems, and
whether participation in Street Law impacts those perceptions. Observations revealed two
crucial points that are explored in-depth through a thematic analysis below: (1) people are
thinking about law, and their relation to it, from a young age; (2) law-related education
helps youth refine their understanding of the law. My inductive coding system revealed
that students have perspectives on the law in a number of distinct substantive areas,
including: (1) General conceptions of their legal rights; (2) Law enforcement officials; (3)
Immigration; (4) Gender-based violence.
General Conceptions of their Legal Rights
Throughout the Street Law program, students shared their perspective about their
rights as citizens, even when this perspective was misinformed. For example, during a
lesson early in the semester, the instructor asked: “How do you know if you have
rights?”. One student responded vaguely, “We all have rights.” The instructor followed-
up: “From where?”, to which the student responded: “Democrats” (personal observation,
October 4, 2017). Although the student is demonstrating some political knowledge, she is
clearly misinformed about the source of her legal rights. In this particular discussion, the
instructor was looking for “The Constitution” as the correct response. This student’s
vague, inaccurate statement can be contrasted with discussions that occurred later in the
semester. Consider the following class dialogue during a subsequent discussion on laws
83

and rights: when asked “Why do we make laws?”, one student responded that we do so in
order to “organize society,” while another discussed that we do it to regulate behavior
because we “think certain things are bad” (personal observation, November 8, 2017).
Thus, students developed an understanding of law as a tool for social organization and
control.
However, although students recognized that laws often have an intended purpose
(e.g., to organize society), they also noted that this purpose is not always fulfilled. During
a discussion on the constitutional right to a fair trial, one student exclaimed “We never
have a fair trial!” When pushed on this point, the student expounded: “Even though we
have that right, the cops don’t care. They shoot you or they take you to jail. You try to tell
them you weren’t involved but they don’t care” (personal observation, October 18, 2017).
This student’s contention reveals a frequently explored principle in socio-legal
scholarship: the divergence between ‘law-on-the-books’ and ‘law-in-action.’ Moreover,
this student’s comments intersect with another commonly discussed thematic area in this
classroom: law enforcement officials.
Law Enforcement Officials
Several students revealed negative, distrustful perspectives about law enforcement
officials during their Street Law class sessions. For instance, consider the following
conversation between the instructor and a student:
Instructor: What do you think about the police?
Student: I think they all should die.
Instructor: Why do you think that?
Student: They’re assholes.
84

Instructor: In a proper way please...
Student: They think they’re above the law. (personal observation, October 4,
2017)
This crass exchange happened during a class session when the instructor was specifically
soliciting student opinions about law enforcement officials. However, it is important to
note that even when the instructor was covering different substantive areas, students
would still interject with their opinions about police. For instance, during a lesson on free
speech, the instructor asked, “What is speech?” and used the example of “kicking a ball”
in order to explain that speech acts can also include nonverbal gestures. During this
lecture, a student responded, “If you do a certain movement, the cops will shoot you…
They don’t tell you your rights. They just shoot you” (personal observation, October 18,
2017). This reveals that unlike other law topics (e.g., housing law), students did not need
to be prompted to think about law enforcement officials – interactions with police were a
pervasive concern.
Furthermore, students demonstrated opinions about not only their personal
relationships with police, but also other people’s interactions with law enforcement.
During a role-playing activity in the last class session, students were asked to embody a
character who differs from them demographically. In each scenario, the character is the
victim of a crime and must decide whether or not to go to the police. One student argued
vehemently that her character “would get hurt” if she went to the police to report the
crime because she was a “paperless immigrant” and would thus “get deported” (personal
observation, November 29, 2017). In addition to revealing students’ general distrust of
85

police, this empathy exercise also intersected with another commonly discussed thematic
area in this classroom: immigration.
Immigration
The ethnic makeup of the Street Law classroom
30
likely impacted the students’
perspectives on immigration. Several students freely shared their political opinions about
immigration generally, and the President Trump’s approach to immigration issues
specifically. During a lesson about symbolic speech, the class was asked if they have ever
worn something that “has meaning.” One student responded that he has a shirt that reads
“build your walls; we’ll dig tunnels” – a clear statement on Trump’s plan to build a US-
Mexico border wall. Another student stated more directly: “Nobody likes him; he’s a
racist mofo” (personal observation, October 18, 2017). During a later lesson, students
showcased an even more nuanced understanding of immigration issues. One student
pointed out that Mexican immigrants in the US may not be able to travel easily “ ‘cause
of the border,” while another student built upon this point by noting that if immigrants
have “no papers” they would likely be even more restricted in their movement due to
deportation concerns (personal observation, November 29, 2017). Although immigration
was a prominent topic that students brought their personal background to, it was not the
only one; students also readily shared their experiences with gender-based violence.
Gender-based Violence

The Street Law students brought complex personal backgrounds and opinions to
classroom conversations about gender-based violence. In response to most questions
about street harassment, sexual assault, and rape, students framed their answers in a

30
As previously explained in footnote 16, the instructor estimated that approximately 90% of the students
were ethnically Hispanic or Latino.
86

manner that suggested that these crimes only happen to women. For example, when
discussing the pervasive nature of street harassment, one student responded that
“sometimes women dress that way ‘cause they want the attention” (personal observation,
November 8, 2017). Regardless of the negative implication of this response, the framing
reveals a clear belief that street harassment only happens to women. Similarly, when
asked whether “know any women who have received aggressive messages about the way
they look?”, several students were quick to respond “Yes,” but when asked the same
about men, there was much hesitation but no affirmative responses (personal observation,
November 8, 2017). Most explicitly, when the instructor questioned students about how
to prevent rape, one strongly declared “Death penalty. If you rape someone, you die.
Simple as that.” When the instructor pushed back and introduced complicated concepts
such as deterrence (i.e., whether the death penalty would work in deterring people from
committing rape) and proportionality (i.e., whether sentencing someone to death for
committing is a proportional response to the crime), the student added that the death
penalty is an appropriate sentence if you are a “serial rapist,” meaning “if you rape
100,000 girls” (personal observation, November 8, 2017). Regardless of the over
exaggeration in terms of numbers, the student’s diction makes it seem as though he sees
rape as a crime that happens to “girls” but not boys. Although it can be argued that this
belief mirrors popular public sentiment (i.e., people often frame rape as a crime that is
perpetrated against women, but not men), it is important to note that the male student
who made this comment mentioned earlier that he was a victim of rape. During a side
conversation with another student, he shared “I got raped. Swear to God. [It was] my
87

brother’s homegirl. She was like two years older than me” (personal observation,
November 8, 2017).
Although no inferences should be made from one example, it is worth considering
how personal experience impacts how one perceives the law and criminal behavior. For
instance, students brought in other personal experiences that have potentially shaped their
views on punishment. The instructor, while discussing criminal punishment, asked “If
[retribution] doesn’t work, what other things can we do to change people’s behavior?”
One student suggested “therapy,” but another student was quick to comment that it
“doesn’t work” while rhetorically inquiring “You know how many years I was in
therapy?” The instructor then introduced the possibility of knowledge as an avenue for
changing behavior: “Me being here with you, talking about this, knowing the law. This is
one way society thinks we can change behavior. Do you agree?” To which students
responded “Yes” (personal observation, November 8, 2017). In short, students vocalized
a variety of perspectives about gender-based violence, just as they did other legal issues
throughout the semester, and it is worth considering what shapes these perspectives (e.g.,
personal experience, law-related education).
Outside Scheduled Class Sessions

Although the above analysis focuses on what I observed during the class sessions,
there were activities that occurred not during regularly scheduled class time that also
revealed a need for law-related education. For instance, after one lesson ended, a student
approached the instructor after class to discuss a legal issue concerning a newborn baby.
The student explained to the instructor that she is trying to protect the baby from being
taken away from its mother and the instructor replied, “I can give you some advice about
88

where to go to get legal advice” (personal observation, November 8, 2017). Moreover,
before the last Street Law lesson began, one of the school teachers approached the Street
Law instructor and said “I need to tell you something.” The teacher then explained how
the earlier in the week she saw a student interacting with a cop and the cop yelled “F-U”
at the student, in addition to other vulgar sayings, before speeding away. The student then
approached the teacher and inquired, “Did you see that? Why did he do that to me?”
(personal observation, November 29, 2017). Regardless of the outcome of these two
scenarios, they both further demonstrate that youth continually face personal situations
that raise legal questions and law-related education could thus be crucial training for
addressing these issues.

89

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this project is to explore multiple ways to measure Street Law’s
effectiveness in an empirical, standardized way. Although Street Law programs continue
to populate across the nation (and beyond), efforts to evaluate their effectiveness have
been few and far between. This dearth of evaluation efforts is problematic because
understanding program impacts is a crucial part of ensuring that they are benefiting their
intended recipients. This project helps to close that gap in evaluation through its
multimethod research on the course instructors – law students – and observations of
teenagers enrolled in the program. In addition to completing this program evaluation, the
project also (1) develops a theoretical framework that will enable law school
administrators and scholars from a variety of disciplines to understand how law students
are impacted by Street Law programs, and (2) lays the foundation for future assessments
of teenagers participating in Street Law programs. Although this project serves as the
premier rigorous analysis of Street Law programs, it was not without its limitations.
Thus, the most common limitations of program evaluations are discussed, with a specific
focus on the ones that most likely impacted the results of my study, before considering
my project’s potential impacts and future steps.
Limitations
Program evaluation scholars agree that some of the most common threats to
internal validity are: (1) history, (2) testing, (3) sensitization, (4) instrumentation, (5)
maturation, and (6) selection (Fisher, Laing, Stoeckel, & Townsend, 1991; Valente,
2002). However, my quasi-experimental design had a pre- and post-program with
comparison groups, which “controls for most threats to validity, provided that the
90

intervention and control groups are comparable for all relevant characteristics” (Valente,
2002, p. 100).
History
History was not a threat to my study design because any uncontrollable factors or
events that occurred during the course of the study impacted both groups. Thus, any
measured difference between the two groups was not be due to the historical event(s).
Testing
Testing is a concern when taking the pretest enables participants to have “better
performance on the posttest” (Fisher, Laing, Stoeckel, & Townsend, 1991). Although my
study design does not control for testing, this was not a major concern because my survey
did not ask knowledge-based questions that would be impacted by learning effects. All
the primary variables of interest, (e.g., self-efficacy for a variety of lawyering skills), are
self-reported measures which participants do not “perform better” on simply by seeing
them. Granted, self-reported measures are subject to social desirability bias, but this is
controlled for as much as possible through the survey design (e.g., both direct and
indirect questions measuring the dependent variables). Additionally, other qualitative
methods (e.g., semi-structured interviews) were employed to check for social desirability
in survey responses.
Sensitization
Sensitization is also complicated to control for, but not as much of a concern to
my program evaluation as it would be for a health promotion program evaluation. While
health promotion program evaluations are often concerned with whether or not the pretest
makes participants “aware of the program” or “aware of topics and issues that they would
91

not have normally paid attention to” (Valente, 2002, p. 91), Street Law participants had
already self-selected into the program and were thus aware of what their teaching
requirements would be. In fact, one could argue that Street Law course descriptions and
syllabi would have a comparable (if not greater) “sensitizing” effect to the pre-test
survey.
Instrumentation
Instrumentation was controlled for by ensuring that the treatment and exposure
groups received the same survey. Moreover, instrument decay was avoided by ensuring
that the items were the same in both the pre-test and post-test. The survey (as well as all
other instruments) was also piloted on a group of Street law alumni to check for
ambiguity with the questions and measures. Lastly, as discussed throughout this project, I
used multiple methods (e.g., interviews, focus group, participant observations) to help
account for potential effects of any one instrument on research participants.
Maturation
Maturation was not a major concern because my program evaluation took place
over a relatively short period of time. Moreover, the comparison groups were as similar
as possible to the treatment groups in terms of relevant characteristics (e.g., age,
educational background, option to participate in Street Law), which also helped control
for maturation concern such as age of the participants.
Selection
The fact that law students self-select into Street Law programs was one of the
greatest threats to the validity of my study. Although there is no foolproof approach to
controlling for this threat, I helped preserve the validity of my study by attempting to
92

build comparison groups that were as similar as possible to the treatment groups in terms
of relevant characteristics. I did this through the assistance of faculty and student
directors of Street Law programs, who agreed to distribute the surveys to comparison
groups of similar law students who were not participating in the Street Law program.
Granted, I did not have control over whether these faculty and student directors actually
selected the most relevant participants for the comparison groups. For example, the
possibility exists that there were law students who were either waitlisted for the Street
Law course or would have participated in Street Law had they been able to (e.g., the
course or extracurricular opportunity did not fit into their schedule). Alternatively, I could
have located classes in the curriculum, and/or student-run organizations, that are most
similar to Street Law (i.e., clinical courses that connect students to their local
communities) and use students who participate in those as a comparison group. Such
approaches would have strengthened the study design by helping ensure that the
treatment groups and comparison groups matched on relevant characteristics. However,
bearing in mind that my knowledge of the specific curriculums and extracurricular
offerings of each law school that participants came from is limited, these approaches
would have been unduly burdensome for my study.
Access to Research Subjects
Similar to my challenges with accessing appropriate comparison groups, access to
research participants in general was limited. This is reflected in my relatively small
sample size. The largest barrier was due to the fact that I was not able to directly contact
current participants in Street Law because I do not have access to law school enrollment
information. Thus, as discussed in the above section on selection, I had to rely on faculty
93

and student directors of Street Law programs to distribute the survey. This became
increasingly complicated because respondents needed to complete both a pre-survey and
post-survey in order for their data to be relevant to my project. Attrition rates between the
pre-survey and post-survey (105 law students completed the pre-survey, but 56 of those
respondents failed to complete the post-survey) reveal one of the central difficulties in
accessing research subjects for this project.
Additional Limitations
There are also drawbacks to administering a survey online. It is impossible to
monitor respondents, who may be multitasking while taking the survey or not focusing
for one reason or another. Some respondents completed the survey in less than three
minutes, while others had it open for nearly three hours, suggesting that there were likely
varying levels of attention to the survey. Granted, a researcher can never monitor the
behavior of anonymous online participants.
Although face-to-face research participants do not present the same challenges as
online ones, there were also limitations with my participants who were measured through
qualitative methods. For example, my focus group consisted of all Southwestern Law
alumni. Ideally, the perspectives of alumni from other law schools would have also been
included in the sample. Thus, my future research will focus on recruiting more
participants for both the survey sample and the samples used to generate qualitative data.
Ongoing Research and Potential Impacts
Regarding increasing the sample sizes of this study, I have already continued to
collect data beyond that included in the results of this project. In Fall 2017, I redistributed
the survey questionnaire to newly enrolled Street Law students across the nation. These
94

data, along with data from future distributions of the survey, will be added to the project.
I am also scheduling additional semi-structured interviews and focus groups with Street
Law alumni, as well as identifying classroom sites for additional participant observations.
Additional Funding Sources and Support
The School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine (which
houses my future department of Criminology, Law and Society) has committed $20,000
in funding over the next three years for the continued development of this project.
Project Youth OCBF (Orange County Bar Foundation), a nonprofit organization
that provides at-risk youth with a range of educational opportunities, has expressed
interest in helping expand Street Law programs throughout the Orange County school
districts. I will begin serving on the board of Project Youth in June 2018.
I am also collaborating with Dr. Alison Trope, Director of the Critical Media
Project (CMP), which is a web-based media resource focused on the politics of identity.
We are working on integrating law-related education into CMP in order to help students
explore how law intersects with components of their specific identities (e.g., race, gender,
class, sexuality).
Lastly, my first major goal for application of this research is to further develop the
Street Law program at the UC Irvine School of Law. Currently, it is a student-run
organization, but I am aiming to integrate the program into the law school’s clinical
curriculum. Several faculty members of Criminology, Law and Society hold joint
appointment with the UC Irvine School of Law, so I have begun the process for
becoming affiliated faculty.

95

Additional Variables
As detailed in the method chapter of this project, several other variables (e.g.,
whether a full-time faculty member directs the Street Law program) were collected in the
survey to test for potential moderating or mediating effects on the dependent variables of
interest. Although the small sample size precludes being able to make any concrete
conclusions about significance at this point, exploratory analysis reveals that a number of
these variables may impact the effectiveness of Street Law programs. For example,
consider the following preliminary data comparing participants in Street Law programs
with a faculty advisor (n = 21) versus those without a faculty advisor (n = 14). Street Law
participants with a faculty advisor showed a higher average change score
31
for a number
of items of interest:

Table 5.1. Change Scores on Self-Efficacy Variables by Faculty Advisor Condition
Variable Directed by
faculty
member?
Mean Standard
Deviation
Item 2: Develop positive relationship with
clients
Yes
No
.33
.07
1.15
1.38
Item 3: Speak to small group of
non-lawyers
Yes
No
.10
-.14
.95
1.35
Item 5: Teach non-lawyers about their
rights
Yes
No
.52
.14
1.40
.95
Item 7: Develop positive relationship with
difficult clients
Yes
No
.62
.00
1.36
1.41
Item 10: Continue to work with clients
after disruptive experience
Yes
No
.29
-.14
1.19
1.61

In short, Street Law participants in a program with a faculty director reported a
greater increase of confidence for a number of skills between pre-test and post-test. Thus,

31
Paired samples t-tests to assess mean differences between pre-/post-survey responses were computed for
both conditions. The reported means represent the average change between pre-survey and post-survey for
all respondents in each condition.
96

further research should explore the potential benefits of having a faculty director for
Street Law programs. In fact, other scholars have already begun to argue that “any law
school that currently has a student-run or voluntary Street Law Program should seriously
consider making it part of its credit-bearing curriculum to ensure that it is effective in its
mission and provides a rigorous academic experience” (Montana, 2009). However, such
arguments have yet to be validated by empirical data. Thus, I aim to strengthen such
contentions based on my current and future program evaluation results. This faculty-
director variable will be of primary interest as my project develops at the University of
California, Irvine; an evaluation of the Street Law program both before and after it is
integrated into the curriculum will be a worthwhile study, assuming my intervention
efforts are successful. Granted, faculty-directed versus non-faculty directed programs is
merely one of many variables that will be of interest as I disseminate and apply my
study’s results.
Dissemination
The results will be disseminated in professional meetings at law schools and
published in socio-legal and education journals, as well as law reviews. The current and
future findings will, broadly speaking, have three main audiences: (1) law school
professors and administrators, (2) Street Law, Inc. and other law-related education non-
profits, and (3) academic journals.
Law School Professors and Administrators. As previously implied, the first
audience that could benefit from these results is the law school professors who design,
97

oversee, and/or support Street Law programs at their schools.
32
As educators with a
vested interest in their students’ success, they will want to know what impacts their
courses and programs have on their students. Moreover, since the results show that Street
Law is having positive impacts on law students, these findings can serve as additional
justifications for their work. In a time where clinics are constantly competing for student
enrollment and limited resources (Greenwald, 2007), it is imperative that clinical
professors are able to offer compelling justifications for their work in order to sustain
administrative and financial support. Administrative support for Street Law programs, as
with any education program, is a crucial part of ensuring that they continue to exist. Thus,
law school administrators are also an audience for these results. Current results can
already serve as data for arguing that administrators should increase their backing for
such programs. Moreover, as the sample sizes increase and the variables that most impact
program effectiveness are determined, then these results can serve as the basis from
which to reform structural and pedagogical deficiencies in some programs. At the very
least, a better understanding of what results Street Law programs produce will reveal to
legal administrators and professors why such programs matter.
Street Law, Inc. Another important audience for these results is Street Law, Inc.
and other law-related education non-profits (such as the previously discussed Project
Youth). Recall that Street Law, Inc. was born out of the success of the original Street
Law clinical program at Georgetown University Law Center and that one of its core
missions was to help launch similar programs across the nation (Alexander, 1993). It still

32
Laura Cohen, Director of the Street Law program at Southwestern Law School, has agreed to be the first
professor to review this project’s results. Tony Tolbert, Director of the Street Law program at UCLA
School of law, will be the second professor.
98

does so today – over the last four decades, Street Law programs have cropped up across
the nation. The staff and board of directors would benefit from knowing the results of this
program evaluation, since data about the performance of Street Law programs are sparse.
Moreover, Street Law, Inc., has a research division that “recognizes program evaluations
as a valuable learning tool that help the organization measure its achievement of program
objectives and understand and improve the effectiveness of its work” (Street Law, Inc.,
2018b). However, none of their evaluations have looked at how being involved with
Street Law impacts law students specifically. Thus, the results will serve as a novel
addition to Street Law, Inc.’s body of work.
Academic Journals. Another main audience for the results is a wide array of
academic journals. There are several journals focused on a variety of legal education
topics (e.g., Journal of Legal Education, Journal of Law & Education). An even more
specific target will be the Clinical Law Review, which publishes articles on lawyering
theory and clinical legal education. However, the findings are also relevant to a number
of other social science, education, and socio-legal journals, as well as law reviews.
Modes of Dissemination. Effective dissemination of evaluation findings is
crucial. Without a clear and concise communication process that culminates in a
meaningful product for the audience, the research quickly becomes useless. Different
audiences, however, respond to different modes of presentation. Thus, the mode used to
disseminate evaluation results is highly important (Mueller, Burke, Luke, & Harris,
2008). In short, when deciding the mode for disseminating the results, I will follow
Fisher et al.’s (1991) recommendation closely:
99

You will need to match the message (findings) with the audience. Some of the
findings will be of more interest to one group than another; and, to complicate
matters further, some channels of communication will be more appropriate to
reaching one group than another. (p. 64)
Most germane to my project, research products for non-academic audiences will differ
markedly than those for academic audiences. Namely, non-academic reports should avoid
overly technical jargon and other rigid scholarly standards that muddle the key points
(Fisher, Laing, Stoeckel, & Townsend, 1991; Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, &
Donohue, 2003; Valente, 2002).
Granted, my first set of audiences, law professors and administrators, occupy a
hybrid space between academics and non-academics when it comes to dissemination of
results. Although they would be able to understand formal research reports and academic
articles, my goal is to be able to disseminate the results to them during short professional
meetings. Thus, based off this project’s findings, I am currently creating a key findings
report, which will include: (1) Executive Summary, (2) Program Description, (3) Study
Design, (4) Sample Description, (5) Estimate of Effect, (6) Discussions and Implications
(Valente, 2002, p. 243). Moreover, although printed reports are the traditional mode of
dissemination for evaluation results, face-to-face meetings can serve as a more active
form of dissemination (Mueller, Burke, Luke, & Harris, 2008).
A key-findings report will also be disseminated to the research division and other
central staff at Street Law, Inc. On one level, the organization can use the results to
inform their own evaluations of Street Law programs. If replicating the study on a
different scale is desired, I could provide them with a more formal and comprehensive
100

evaluation report. On another level, since the organization helps new Street Law
programs develop, I would recommend that the organization uses the results to explain to
law schools the potential impacts starting a program could have on their students. Thus,
although it is not possible to predict how precisely the organization will engage with the
results, the goal would be for them to undertake secondary dissemination. This would be
a way for additional law schools to see the results and learn about Street Law. Currently,
not much is known “about how evaluation results are communicated and shared past the
first direct dissemination of information” (Mueller, Burke, Luke, & Harris, 2008, p. 175),
so partnering with a national organization that is connected to Street Law programs
across the nation would be a unique way to explore the widespread possibilities of
secondary dissemination.
Potential Broader Impacts
As evident, I will use this foundational assessment as to why these programs
matter as groundwork for continued research in this area. Ultimately, if ongoing
evaluation of Street Law indicates that the programs positively impact law students, then
results will be used to continue arguing that law schools should increase their fiscal and
administrative backing for such programs. This paves the way for additional support of
LRE programs (i.e., programs for community members of all ages) from both inside and
outside the academy. Increased support for LRE programs such as Street Law can have a
number of benefits for those populations exposed to the program, as well as society at
large. Although it was beyond the scope of this project to measure all the potential
benefits of Street Law, the three goals listed at the outset of this project are now revisited
in greater depth in order to consider the myriad potential gains from investing in Street
101

Law research. To reiterate, Street Law programs often have the following goals: (1) to
increase teenagers’ acquisition of legal knowledge; (2) to increase teenagers’ civic and
social engagement; (3) to reduce teenagers’ delinquent behaviors. At the very least,
exposure to legal students in this context may enhance their career and collegiate
aspirations. Moreover, for society at large, Street Law could provide a stepping-stone to
numerous social benefits. These social benefits could accrue from the impacts of the
programs on both the high school students (e.g., decreased delinquent behavior) and the
law students administering the program (e.g., increased desire to pursue public interest
legal work). In discussing these broader impacts in greater detail below, it becomes
increasingly clear why research on Street Law matters.
If Street Law programs are successful in terms of goal one above, then teenagers
gain knowledge through these programs about legal systems and the ways they can
interact with them (i.e., LRE programs can help shape students’ legal consciousness). As
evidenced by the results to RQ7 (Does participation in Street Law impact teenagers’
legal consciousness?), Street Law programs are likely to affect teenagers’ legal
consciousness. Although it is not possible at this point to analyze the specific impacts that
Street Law can have on teenagers, the results of my research justify additional participant
observations of classrooms (as well as other methodological assessments of teenagers in
the program). An increased understanding of how adolescents situate themselves in a
world shaped by legal systems would be a much-needed extension of legal consciousness
literature. Beyond that, the importance of educating teenagers about their legal rights
cannot be overstated; observations revealed that youth encounter a variety of personal
102

situations that implicate questions of law and Street Law could thus serve a critical role in
helping them face these issues.
If Street Law programs succeed in achieving goal two (i.e., increasing teenagers’
civic and social engagement) and/or goal three (i.e., reducing teenagers’ delinquent
behaviors) above, then such programs serve a critical social function; they will, as
mentioned before, be a stepping stone to securing numerous social benefits (e.g.,
decreased crime rates, decreased truancy, increased volunteering and community service,
increased voting and other forms of civic participation, and so forth). Moreover, the law
students administering the program could also become an important resource for society
– as evidenced by the results to RQ6 (Does participation in Street Law impact law
students’ self-efficacy for developing a variety of soft skills?), investment in public
interest programs such as Street Law helps build a connection between future lawyers
and members of the community. This project is the first effort to measure the impact of
Street Law on law students, and my continuation of this study will further explore how
connecting future lawyers to teenagers in their community can lead to a cornucopia of
socio-cultural benefits (e.g., sparking a future lawyer’s career in community-based social
justice work).
In fact, interviews with Street Law alumni have already started to reveal that the
Street Law program often exposes law students to alternate career options. As one
interviewee noted, who is now an environmental lawyer who specializes in agriculture
and water law, Street Law
showed me that there are lots of cool and alternative ways to use your J.D., and
you don’t just have to go straight to some firm in LA and be miserable. It was
103

definitely one of the classes that helped me take a less streamlined approach to my
career and what it means to be a lawyer. (UCLA Law alumni, personal
communication, February 23, 2018)
Beginning to explore this research question about the connection between participation in
Street Law and future career choices resonates personally. After I finished teaching my
own Street Law class in Crenshaw, I submitted the following reflection as part of my
final project:
For me, Street Law represents an intersection of two of our society’s most
powerful tools for affecting change: education and the law. Reflecting on my
experiences in the program, I find myself reinvigorated in my pursuit of a career
that allows me to work as both a lawyer and an educator. Although I am not yet
sure what this path will look like (and in all likelihood will not until I get there), I
know that I will take my memories as a street lawyer with me. (Golob, personal
reflection excerpt, May 16, 2013)
Concluding Thoughts
Program evaluation literature consistently recognizes that real-world constraints
limit evaluation efforts (Berk & Rossi, 1999; Fisher, Laing, Stoeckel, & Townsend, 1991;
Valente, 2002). In other words, any study design will face administrative, fiscal, political,
practical, etc. constraints. Thus, the goal is to design and execute the best evaluation
possible given the restraints. My program evaluation sought to do just that; these initial
findings will serve as the basis for further program evaluations of Street Law and other
law-related education (LRE) programs by me, and ideally other scholars as well. In short,
this foundational project’s limitations will be accounted for as I continue to research LRE
104

programs in additional contexts, with similar and different methodologies. But, as we
must remember,
there is no fixed recipe. Prescriptions for ‘successful’ evaluations are, in practice,
prescriptions for failure. The techniques that evaluations may bring to bear are
only tools, and even the very best of tools does not ensure a worthy product. Just
as for any craft, there is no substitute for intelligence, experience, perseverance,
and a touch of whimsy. (Berk & Rossi, 1999, p. 107)
Ultimately, although Street Law is a relatively nascent part of the legal academy,
it is a prominent LRE program that serves a potentially crucial role in helping law
students become practice-ready. However, attempted evaluations of iterations of this
program have employed varied and inconsistent metrics, thereby leaving us with little
understanding about their effectiveness. This project marks the first multimethod
empirical, standardized program evaluation of Street Law. In addition, it (1) developed a
theoretical framework that will enable law school administrators and scholars from a
variety of disciplines to understand how law students are impacted by Street Law
programs, and (2) laid the foundation for future assessments of teenagers participating in
Street Law programs. Such assessments should now be undertaken with rigor because
these programs have broad potential to positively affect law students’ transition to
practice, the youth exposed to the programs, and society at large.
105

REFERENCES

Abrego, L. J. (2011). Legal consciousness of undocumented Latinos: Fear and stigma as
barriers to claims-making for first-and 1.5-generation immigrants. Law & Society
Review, 45(2), 337-370.
Alexander, M. C. (1993). Law-Related Education: Hope for Today's Students. Ohio NUL
Rev., 20, 57.
Anderson, E. (2000). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the
inner city. WW Norton & Company.
Araujo, R. J. (1999). The Lawyer's Duty to Promote the Common Good: The Virtuous
Law Student and Teacher. S. Tex. L. Rev., 40, 83.
Armor, D., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E.,
& Zellman, G. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in
selected Los Angeles minority schools. The Rand Corporation.
Arthurs, S. G. (2015). Street Law: Creating Tomorrow's Citizens Today. Lewis & Clark
L. Rev., 19, 925.
Ashford, S., Edmunds, J., & French, D. P. (2010). What is the best way to change self
efficacy to promote lifestyle and recreational physical activity? A systematic
review with meta-analysis. British journal of health psychology, 15(2), 265-288.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers' sense of efficacy
and student achievement. Longman Publishing Group.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral
Change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
106

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs of
Adolescents, 5, 307-337.
Barkai, J. L., & Fine, V. O. (1982). Empathy training for lawyers and law students. Sw.
UL Rev., 13, 505.
Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. O. (Eds.). (2011). Carrots, sticks,
And sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (Vol. 1). Transaction
Publishers.
Berk, R. A., & Rossi, P. H. (1999). Thinking about program evaluation. Sage.
Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., & Marlin, M. M. (1980). Parental and peer influence on
adolescents. Social Forces, 58(4), 1057-1079.
Binder, D. A., & Bergman, P. (2003). Taking Lawyering skills training
seriously. Clinical L. Rev., 10, 191.
Boccaccini, M. T., Boothby, J. L., & Brodsky, S. L. (2002). Client-relations skills in
effective lawyering: Attitudes of criminal defense attorneys and experienced
clients. Law & Psychol. Rev., 26, 97.
Bong, M. (1997). Generality of academic self-efficacy judgments: Evidence of
hierarchical relations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 696.
Bong, M. (1999). Comparison between Domain-, Task-, and Problem-Specific Academic
Self Efficacy Judgments: Their Generality and Predictive Utility for Immediate
and Delayed Academic Performances.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (1990). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive
task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353-363.

107

Brisman, A. (2010). Fictionalized criminal law and youth legal consciousness. NYL Sch.
L.Rev., 55, 1039.
Brisman, A. L. (2012). Legal Consciousness Among Youth at the Red Hook Community
Justice Center (Doctoral dissertation, Emory University).
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017). Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population
Survey. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm
Butts, R. F. (1989). The Civic Mission in Educational Reform. Perspectives for the Public
and the Profession. Education and Society Series. Hoover Institution Press:
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Chatterjee, J. S., Bhanot, A., Frank, L. B., Murphy, S. T., & Power, G. (2009). The
importance of interpersonal discussion and self-efficacy in knowledge, attitude,
and practice models.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy
distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?. Journal of business venturing, 13(4),
295-316.
Christensen, L. M. (2009). Enhancing Law School Success: A Study of Goal
Orientations, Academic Achievement and the Declining Self-Efficacy of Our Law
Students. Law & Psychol. Rev., 33, 57.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A
meta analysis of findings. American educational research journal,19(2), 237-248.
Constitutional Rights Foundation (1996). Impact Assessment Study of Citizenship/Law
Related Education on Violent and Antisocial Behavior: Year One Evaluation, Bell
Gardens Intermediate School, Executive Summary.
108

Cowan, D. (2004). Legal consciousness: some observations. The Modern Law
Review, 67(6), 928-958.
Cumberland School of Law. (2018). Center for Law & Civic Education. Retrieved from
https://www.samford.edu/cumberlandlaw/center-for-law-and-civic-education
Cunningham, C. D. (1998). Evaluating Effective Lawyer-Client Communication: An
International Project Moving from Research to Reform. Fordham L. Rev., 67,
1959.
Denton, J. J., & Kracht, J. B. (1976). Final Evaluation Report of Teacher Training
Projects. Unpublished Report, Dallas, TX: Law in a Changing Society.
DeVellis, R. F. (2012). Scale Development. Theory and Applications. (3rd Edition).
Applied Social Research Methods Series (Volume 26). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Diaz, R. J., Glass, C. R., Arnkoff, D. B., & Tanofsky-Kraff, M. (2001). Cognition,
anxiety, and prediction of performance in 1st-year law students. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(2), 420.
Dolovich, S. (1998). Making Docile Lawyers: An Essay on the Pacification of Law
Students. HARV. L. REV., 111, 2027-2041.
Dorsey High School. (2018). About. Retrieved from https://www.dorseydons.org/
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological review, 95(2), 256.
Esbensen, F. A. (2009). Evaluation of the Teens, Crime and the Community and
Community Works program. Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice,
University of Missouri-St. Louis.

109

Esbensen, F. A., Osgood, D. W., Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Carson, D. C. (2013).
Short-and Long-Term Outcome Results from a Multisite Evaluation of the
GREAT Program. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(3), 375-411.
Esfondari, Mahtash. (1998). “Assessment of Citizenship/Law-Related Education on
Violent and Antisocial Behavior.” In Compendium of Research Supporting Law-
Related Education, Part 11. Alternative Conceptions/Applications of Law-Related
Education. Boulder, CO: Social Science Education Consortium.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2× 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 80(3), 501.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. S. (1991). Conformity, contestation, and resistance: An account
of legal consciousness. New Eng. L. Rev., 26, 731.
Ewick, P. &Silbey, S. S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life.
University of Chicago Press.
Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social
justice research, 18(3), 217-241.
Fatal Force. (2017). The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2017/
Fatal Force. (2018). The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/police-shootings-2018/
Feinstein, S., & Wood, R. W. (1995). History of Law-Related Education. Eric
Clearinghouse.
Felstiner, W. L., Abel, R. L., & Sarat, A. (1980). The Emergence and Transformation of
Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming... Law and society review, 631-654.
110

Feltz, D., Short, S., & Sullivan, P. (2008). Self efficacy in sport: Research and strategies
for working with athletes, teams and coaches. International Journal of Sports
Science and Coaching, 3(2), 293-295.
Fernlund, P. M. (1992). Perspectives on Law and Government: A Study of Eighth
Graders. Unplublished paper. Boulder, CO: Social Science Education
Consortium.
Fernlund, P. M. (1993). Curriculum Review: Law and US History. Update on L. Related
Educ., 17, 23. Fielding, G. D., Kameenui, E., & Gersten, R. (1983). A comparison
of an inquiry and a direct instruction approach to teaching legal concepts and
applications to secondary school students. The Journal of Educational
Research, 76(5), 287-293.
Fines, B. G. (1996). Competition and the Curve. UMKc L. REv., 65, 879.
Fisher, A. A., Laing, J. E., Stoeckel, J. E., & Townsend, J. W. (1991). Handbook for
family planning operations research design. New York, NY: Population Council.
Gilliam, W. S., & Zigler, E. F. (2001). A critical meta-analysis of all evaluations of state
funded preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery and
program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 441-473.
Gottfredson, D. C. (1990). Changing school structures to benefit high-risk
youths. Understanding troubled and troubling youth, 246-271.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their
impact. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(3), 541.
Greenwald, R. (2007). The Role of Community-Based Clinical Legal Education in
Supporting Public Interest Lawyering. Harv. CR-CLL Rev., 42, 569.
111

Gruenhagen, K. A., & Leslein, B. S. (1993). Using Law-Related Education as a Lifeline
for Rural At-Risk Students. U.S. Department of Education.
Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career choice and development. In A. Bandura
(Ed.), Self efficacy in changing societies (pp. 232-258). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hampton, N. Z. (1998). Sources of Academic Self-Efficacy Scale: An assessment tool for
rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.
Holden, G. (1992). The relationship of self-efficacy appraisals to subsequent health
related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Social work in health care, 16(1), 53-93.
Hull, K. E. (2003). The Cultural Power of Law and the Cultural Enactment of Legality:
The Case of Same‐Sex Marriage. Law & Social Inquiry, 28(3), 629-657.
Hulleman, Chris S., Schrager, S.M., Bodmann, S.M, & Harackiewicz, J.M. "A
meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same
constructs or different constructs with similar labels?." Psychological
bulletin 136, no. 3 (2010): 422.
Hser, Y. I., Teruya, C., Evans, E. A., Longshore, D., Grella, C., & Farabee, D. (2003).
Treating Drug-Abusing Offenders Initial Findings from a Five-County Study on
the Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the Treatment System and Patient
Outcomes. Evaluation Review, 27(5), 479-505.
Hunter, R. M. (1987). Law-Related Educational Practice and Delinquency
Theory. International Journal of Social Education, 2(2), 52-64.

112

Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education a
program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special education, 27(2), 77-
94.
Jacobson, M. G., & Palonsky, S. B. (1981). Effects of a law-related education
program. The Elementary School Journal, 82(1), 49-57.
Johnson, G., & Hunter, R. (1985). Law-related education as a delinquency prevention
strategy: A three-year evaluation of the impact of LRE on students. Unpublished
manuscript, Center for Action Research, Boulder, CO.
Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., & Lamke, L. K. (1997). Toward a Microprocess
Perspective on Adolescent Identity Development: An Identity Control Theory
Approach. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(3), 325-346.
Kiriakidis, S. P. (2008). Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to Recidivism:
The Role of Personal Norm in Predicting Behavioral Intentions of Re-
Offending. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(9), 2210-2221.
Koplan, J. P., Milstein, R., & Wetterhall, S. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in
public health. MMWR: Recommendations and Reports, 48, 1-40.
Kovach, K. K. (1998). Lawyer as Teacher: The Role of Education in Lawyering,
The. Clinical L. Rev., 4, 359.
Law-Related Education Act of 1978, 20 U.S.C. § 3002.
Leming, J. S. (1986). Rethinking social studies research and the goals of social
education. Theory & Research in Social Education, 14(2), 139-152.

113

Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Larkin, K. C. (1984). Relation of self-efficacy expectations
to academic achievement and persistence. Journal of counseling
psychology, 31(3), 356.
Lent, R. W., Lopez, F. G., & Bieschke, K. J. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources
and relation to science-based career choice. Journal of counseling
psychology, 38(4), 424.
Lent, R. W., Sheu, H. B., Singley, D., Schmidt, J. A., Schmidt, L. C., & Gloster, C. S.
(2008). Longitudinal relations of self-efficacy to outcome expectations, interests,
and major choice goals in engineering students. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 73(2), 328-335.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample Size in Factor
Analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.
MacDougall, C., & Baum, F. (1997). The devil's advocate: A strategy to avoid
groupthink and stimulate discussion in focus groups. Qualitative health
research, 7(4), 532-541.
MacDowell, E. L. (2008). Law on the street: Legal narrative and the Street Law
classroom. Rutgers Race & L. Rev., 9, 285.
Madison III, B. V. (2007). The elephant in law school classrooms: Overuse of the
Socratic method as an obstacle to teaching modern law students. U. Det. Mercy L.
Rev., 85, 293.
Maibach, E., & Murphy, D. A. (1995). Self-efficacy in health promotion research and
practice: conceptualization and measurement. Health education research, 10(1),
37-50.
114

Maughan, C., & Webb, J. (2005). Lawyering skills and the legal process. Cambridge
University Press.
Marri, A. R. (2010). Using law-related education to engage marginalized urban high
school students. Action in Teacher Education, 32(3), 40-54.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J. L. (2006). OECD's brief
self report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs:
Cross-cultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International
Journal of Testing, 6(4), 311-360.
Marshall, A. M., & Barclay, S. (2003). In their own words: How ordinary people
construct the legal world. Law & Social Inquiry, 28(3), 617-628.
Matsui, T., Matsui, K., & Ohnishi, R. (1990). Mechanisms underlying math self-efficacy
learning of college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(2), 225-238.
McKinney, R. A. (2002). Depression and anxiety in law students: Are we part of the
problem and can we be part of the solution. Legal Writing: J. Legal Writing
Inst., 8, 229.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E.,
& Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive learning
scales. University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Montana, P. G. (2009). Lessons from the Carnegie and Best Practices Reports: A Look at
St. John's University School of Law's Street Law Program as a Model for
Teaching Professional Skills. TM Cooley J. Prac. & Clinical L., 11, 97.

115

Moritz, S. E., Feltz, D. L., Fahrbach, K. R., & Mack, D. E. (2000). The relation of self
efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research
quarterly for exercise and sport, 71(3), 280-294.
Morrill, C., Tyson, K., Edelman, L. B., & Arum, R. (2010). Legal mobilization in
schools: The paradox of rights and race among youth. Law & Society
Review, 44(3-4), 651-694.
Mueller, N. B., Burke, R. C., Luke, D. A., & Harris, J. K. (2008). Getting the word out:
multiple methods for disseminating evaluation findings. Journal of Public Health
Management and Practice, 14(2), 170-176.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to
academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of counseling
psychology, 38(1), 30.
Nagel, S. S. (2001). Handbook of public policy evaluation. Sage Publications.
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (2010). Law-Related Education Evaluation
Project [United States], 1979-1984. Retrieved from
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/8406
New Designs Charter School. (2018). About Us. Retrieved from
https://www.newdesignscharter.com/
Nielsen, L.B. (2000). Situating Legal Consciousness: Experiences and Attitudes of
Ordinary Citizens about Law and Street Harassment. Law & Society Review, 34,
1055-90.
North Carolina Central University School of Law. (2018). Street Law. Retrieved from
http://law.nccu.edu/clinics/street-law/
116

Nguyen, V. (2016). How Has Proposition 47 Affected California’s Jail Population?.
Public Policy Institute of California.
O'Brien, E. L., & Arbetman, L. P. (1977). New Clinical Curriculum: Teaching Practical
Law to High School Students and Inmates, A. J. Legal Educ., 29, 568.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of educational
research, 66(4), 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Graham, L. (1999). Self-efficacy, motivation constructs, and mathematics
performance of entering middle school students. Contemporary educational
psychology, 24(2), 124-139.
Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). Role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in
mathematical problem solving: A path analysis. Journal of educational
psychology, 86(2), 193.
Palmer, J. S. (2015). Millennials Are Coming: Improving Self-Efficacy in Law Students
through Universal Design in Learning, The. Clev. St. L. Rev., 63, 675.
Picard, R. L. (1984). The Effects of Justice Education on the Attitudes and Knowledge of
Elementary School Children Regarding the Justice System. Doctoral Dissertation.
Temple University.
Pinder, K. A. (1998). Street law: Twenty-five years and counting. JL & Educ., 27, 211.
Piquero, A. R., Fagan, J., Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., & Odgers, C. (2005).
Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent
offenders. The Journal of criminal law & criminology, 96(1), 267.
Protheroe, N. (2008). Teacher Efficacy: What Is It and Does It Matter?. Principal, 87(5),
42-45.
117

Roberts, G. C. (1992). Motivation in sport and exercise. Human Kinetics Books.
Roe, R. (2012). Street Law Clinics at Georgetown University Law Center, Washington,
D.C., and Others. The Education Pipeline to the Professions: Programs That
Work To Increase Diversity. Sarah E. Redfield (ed.). Carolina Academic Press.
135-144.
Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. V. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of
program effectiveness research on English language learners. Educational
Policy, 19(4), 572-594.
Rosen, J. A., Glennie, E. J., Dalton, B. W., Lennon, J. M., & Bozick, R. N.
(2010). Noncognitive Skills in the Classroom: New Perspectives on Educational
Research. RTI International. Triangle Park, NC.
Rutgers School of Law. (2016). Street Law, Inc. Retrieved from
https://law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/What%20is%20Street%20Law.pdf
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and work-related behaviour: a review
and meta-analysis. Applied Psychology, 42(2), 139-152.
Santa Clara County Office of Education. (1998). Evaluation of the Law-Related
Education Program in San Jose Unified School District Fifth Grade Classrooms,
1995-1997. San Jose, CA: Santa Clara County Office of Education.
Sarat, A. (1990). Law Is All Over: Power, Resistance and the Legal Consciousness of the
Welfare Poor. Yale JL & Human., 2, 343.
Sarat, A., & Felstiner, W. L. (1989). Lawyers and legal consciousness: law talk in the
divorce lawyer's office. Yale Law Journal, 1663-1688.

118

Sarat, A., & Kearns, T. (1995). ‘Beyond the Great Divide: Forms of Legal Scholarship
and Everyday Life.’ Law in everyday life. A. Sarat & T Kearns (eds). University
of Michigan Press.
Schunk, D. H. (1984). Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools,
22(2), 208-223.
Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology
Review, 1, 173-208.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational
psychologist, 26(3-4), 207-231.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.),
Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp.
281-303). New York: Plenum.
Schwartz, M. H. (2003). Teaching law students to be self-regulated learners. L. Rev.
MSU-DCL, 447.
Shepard, B., & Marshall, A. (1999). Possible Selves Mapping: Life-Career Exploration
with Young Adolescents. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 33(1), 37-54.
Shultz, M. M., & Zedeck, S. (2011). Predicting lawyer effectiveness: Broadening the
basis for law school admission decisions. Law & Social Inquiry, 36(3), 620-661.
Smith, R. H. (2015). From Students to Colleagues: How the Legal Writing Classroom
Can Create Conscientious and Empathetic Practitioners. Legal Writing Institute,
10-12.

119

Smorodin, C., Riekes, L., Phi Alpha Delta Law Fraternity International, Juvenile Justice
Office, & United States of America. (1989). Mobilizing Community Support for
Law-related Education. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Social Science Education Consortium. (1989). Institutionalizing LRE Programs: Eight
Case Studies. Unpublished Report. Boulder, CO: SSEC.
Soledad Enrichment Action. (2018). About. Retrieved from http://www.seacharter.net
Speirs, V. L. (1985). Law-Related Education: Making a Difference. US Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Sternlight, J. R., & Robbennolt, J. (2007). Good lawyers should be good psychologists:
Insights for interviewing and counseling clients. Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., 23,
437.
Stice, E., Shaw, H., & Marti, C. N. (2006). A meta-analytic review of obesity prevention
programs for children and adolescents: the skinny on interventions that
work. Psychological bulletin, 132(5), 667.
Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Donohue, P. (2003). Principles of
best practice for community-based research. Michigan Journal of Community
Service Learning, 9(3), 5.
Street Law, Inc. (2018a). Who We Are. Retrieved from http://www.streetlaw.org/en/about
Street Law, Inc. (2018b). Program Locations. Retrieved from
http://www.streetlaw.org/en/program_map

120

Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole,
K. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-
analysis. Journal of primary Prevention, 20(4), 275-336.
Tolo, K. W. (1998). An Assessment of “We the People... Project Citizen”: Promoting
Citizenship in Classrooms and Communities. A Report by the Policy Research
Project on “An Assessment of Project Citizen.” Policy Research Project Report
Number 129. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs: Austin, Texas.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of educational research, 68(2), 202-248.
University High School. (2018). School History. Retrieved from
http://universitywildcats.edlioschool.com/
University of Washington School of Law. (2018). History and Philosophy of Street Law.
Retrieved from https://www.law.washington.edu/coursecatalog/syllabi/2016
winter_mcintyreje_b514_street_law_clinic.pdf
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of
the literature and future directions. Review of educational research, 78(4), 751-
796.
Valente, T. W. (2002). Evaluating health promotion programs. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
van der Bijl, J. J., & Shortridge-Baggett, L. M. (2001). The theory and measurement of
the self efficacy construct. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 15(3), 189-
207.

121

Van Decar, P. A. (1984). The Effect of Law-Related Education on Students' Attitudes and
Knowledge About Authority and the Legal System. Doctoral dissertation.
Vanderbilt University, George Peabody College for Teachers.
Vedung, E. (1997). Public policy and program evaluation. Transaction Publishers.
Wang, C. J., Biddle, S. J., & Elliot, A. J. (2007). The 2× 2 achievement goal framework
in a physical education context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(2), 147-168.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the
development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of applied psychology, 90(6),
1265.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary
educational psychology, 25(1), 82-91.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Ringle, J. (1981). Effects of model persistence and statements of
confidence on children's self-efficacy and problem solving. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73(4), 485.
122

APPENDIX A: SURVEY
33

You are invited to participate in an anonymous online research study conducted by
Brandon Golob, J.D. at the University of Southern California. You will be asked to take
this survey again at the end of the semester. Although the study is anonymous and your
personal responses will never be disclosed, you will have the option of providing your
email at the end of the survey. If you do so, you will be entered into a raffle for a $100
Amazon gift card as a thank you for your participation. The drawings will be held at the
end of the study and the winners notified via email.

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of how Street Law programs
impact law student participants. However, you do not need to be part of a Street Law
program to complete this study. Street Law programs educate high school students about
laws and legal systems that affect their daily lives. This survey is divided into four parts
and asks participants questions about themselves, their law school goals, and their Street
Law participation. The survey as a whole will take less than 15 minutes to complete each
time. If you are over the age of 18 and would like to participate please proceed. You don't
have to answer any questions you don’t want to. You may withdraw your consent at any
time and discontinue participation without penalty.

[Page Break]

These two questions are for data organization purposes. They will not be used to
personally identify you.

1. What street did you grow up on?

2. What high school did you go to?

33
This survey was distributed twice, as both a pre-test and a post-test. Included in this appendix is the pre-
test survey. Some questions for post-test survey were edited to reflect past tense (e.g., “Are you in charge
of designing your own Street Law curriculum to teach?” became “Were you charge of designing your own
Street Law curriculum to teach?”) but none of the questions differed substantively.
123

I. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS

Directions: The following questions are about your background. Please answer them as
accurately as possible.

1. How old are you?

2. What is your current gender identity?
A) Male
B) Female
C) Trans male/Trans man
D) Trans female/Trans woman
E) Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming
F) Different identity

3. Which of the following best describes your place of birth?
A) Urbanized Area (50,000 or more people)
B) Urbanized Cluster (At least 2,500 people but less than 50,000 people)
C) Rural (Less than 2,500 people)

4. Which of the following most accurately describes your ethnicity?
A) Hispanic or Latino
B) Not Hispanic or Latino

5. Which of the following most accurately describes your race?
A) White
B) Black or African American
C) American Indian or Alaska Native
D) Asian
E) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
F) Other

124

6. What is the highest educational level obtained by your mother?
A) No schooling completed, or less than 1 year
B) Nursery, kindergarten, and elementary (grades 1-8)
C) High school (grades 9-12, no degree)
D) High school graduate (or equivalent)
E) Some college (1-4 years, no degree)
F) Associate’s degree (including occupational or academic degrees)
G) Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS, AB, etc.)
H) Master’s degree (MA, MS, MENG, MSW, etc.)
I) Professional school degree (MD, DDC, JD, etc.)
J) Doctorate degree (PhD, EdD, etc.)

7. What is the highest education level obtained by your father?
A) No schooling completed, or less than 1 year
B) Nursery, kindergarten, and elementary (grades 1-8)
C) High school (grades 9-12, no degree)
D) High school graduate (or equivalent)
E) Some college (1-4 years, no degree)
F) Associate’s degree (including occupational or academic degrees)
G) Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS, AB, etc.)
H) Master’s degree (MA, MS, MENG, MSW, etc.)
I) Professional school degree (MD, DDC, JD, etc.)
J) Doctorate degree (PhD, EdD, etc.)

8. What law school do you attend?

9. What year in law school are you?
A) First
B) Second
C) Third
D) Part-time
125

II. BACKGROUND ON YOUR STREET LAW PARTICIPATION

Directions: The following questions are about your participation in Street Law. If you are
not participating in Street Law this semester, you can skip to the next section.

1. Do you have any previous academic teaching experience?
A) Yes
B) No

2. Approximately how many hours total do you expect to teach this semester?

3. Which of the following best describes your Street Law program?
A) Part of a class or seminar for credit
B) Part of a pro bono requirement
C) Volunteer organization
D) Other ____________________________________

4. Is your Street Law program directed by a full-time faculty member?
A) Yes
B) No

5. Are you in charge of designing your own Street Law curriculum to teach?
A) Yes
B) No

126

6. Approximately how many students will be in the Street Law class you teach?

7. What is the ethnic & racial composition of the class you will teach?
A) Majority White
B) Majority Hispanic or Latino
C) Majority Black or African American

D) Majority Native American or American Indian

E) Majority Asian or Pacific Islander

F) No one majority

G) Unsure

127

III. QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR LAW SCHOOL GOALS

Directions: The following questions ask about your aims and goals in law school (not
about one class specifically). Answer all the questions even if they appear redundant.
Please indicate the number that most accurately reflects how you feel on a scale of 1
(“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

MY AIM IS TO…

1) ... completely master the material presented in law school.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

2) ... perform well relative to other law students.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

3) ... avoid learning less than I possibly could.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

4) ... avoid doing worse than other law students.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

128

MY GOAL IS TO…

1) ... learn as much as possible.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

2) ... avoid performing poorly compared to other law students.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

3) ... perform better than the other law students.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

4) ... avoid learning less than it is possible to learn.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

129

I AM STRIVING TO…

1) ... do well compared to other law students.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

2) ... understand the content as thoroughly as possible.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

3) ... avoid performing worse than other law students.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

4) ... avoid an incomplete understanding of the course material.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

130

IV. QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR LAWYERING SKILLS

Directions: The following questions ask about your lawyering skills. Please indicate the
number that most accurately reflects your degree of confidence, on a scale of 1 (“not at
all confident”) to 10 (“highly confident”).

HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU THAT YOU CAN…

1) … explain a legal concept to a non-lawyer, regardless of their familiarity with the
topic.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

2) … develop a positive relationship with clients.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

3) … speak to a small group of non-lawyers (5-10 people).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

4) … think on your feet while communicating with clients.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

5) … teach non-lawyers about their rights, regardless of their familiarity with them.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

131

6) … adapt to an unexpected occurrence (e.g. a client asks an off-topic question)
when working with clients.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

7) … develop a positive relationship with the most difficult clients.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

8) … speak to a larger group of non-lawyers (more than 10 people).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

9) … describe your role as an advocate/lawyer to clients.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

10) … continue to work with clients after a disruptive experience (e.g., a client yells
at you).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Not at all confident Highly confident

132

Please provide any additional comments to supplement your responses. (Optional)

What is your email address? (Optional, but necessary for gift card entry)

Thank you for participating in this survey. If you have any questions about it, please
contact Brandon Golob at brandongolob@gmail.com.

133

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
For this semi-structured interview, the goal is to tap the knowledge and experiences of
recent Street Law Alumni. I will focus on two areas: 1) pre-law school experiences (i.e.,
what motivated participants to apply to and attend law school); (2) law school
experiences (in Street Law and in general); 3) post-Street Law experiences (i.e., intended
professional trajectory).

Greet the participant and give a brief introduction to myself (emphasizing my
connections to Street Law) before giving an overview of the project.

I am a Street Law alumni who is completing this project for my doctoral dissertation. My
main objective is to understand how participation in Street Law can impact one’s law
school experience and subsequent transition to practice. I value the perspective that you
bring to the table on this topic and would like to ask you a bit about your own experience.
I believe that hearing your stories and learning your experiences will help me better
understand how Street Law can shape someone’s legal training and subsequent legal
career. This process is completely voluntary and you can stop participating at any time.

I’m going to record audio of this interview—but this recording will only be used for the
purpose of documentation. The recordings will be transcribed, but I will not use your
names in any printed descriptions of the research. Everything you share will remain
confidential.

I will collect your contact information in order to facilitate future communication but this
contact information will be entered in a separate data file from the file that records your
answers to questions posed during the interview.

You been invited to participate because you completed Street Law during the Spring
2017 semester. I’m going to ask you to share some of your experiences and stories.

Transition: Let’s start with a discussion of your experiences prior to attending law
school…

I. Pre-Law School Experiences

1. What sparked your initial interest in attending law school?

2. What were your primary goals for law school?

3. Did you have any classroom teaching experience prior to working with
Street Law? [If experience clear from survey response, reframe]
134

Transition: Now I’d like to take some time for us to discuss your experiences while in
Street Law/law school…

II. Law School Experiences

1. Describe your experience with Street Law.

2. What motivated you to participate in Street Law?

3. What skills did Street Law help you develop?
[Potential distinction between ‘soft’ skills and lawyering skills]

4. Did you complete (other) clinics during your legal education?
a. If so, which ones?
b. How would you compare/contrast your work in Street Law to your
work in these (other) clinics?
c. Do you see any similarities in the skills these clinics helped you master?

5. Did your work in Street Law impact other aspects of your law school
experience?

6. Did Street Law change the way you view/approach (other) courses and
learn their material?

Transition: Now I’d like to discuss your experiences since completing Street Law…

III. Post-Street Law Experiences

1. Do you see Street Law as having an impact on your career choice(s)?

2. Regardless of your previous answer, are there any skills that you developed
through Street Law that are pertinent to your current (or future) work?
a. If so, what skills? [Distinguishing ‘soft’ skills and lawyering skills?]

3. Have you participated in anything similar to Street Law (e.g., teaching a
law-related education class; running a “Know Your Rights” workshop) since
completing Street Law?

4. Is there anything you would change about Street Law?

5. Is there anything else you would like to share about how Street Law has
impacted you (e.g., impressions of the legal system; commitment to social
justice; growth as a person)?

Thank the participant for their time.
135

APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUP WAITING ROOM SURVEY
The purpose of this survey is to (1) collect your demographic information, and (2) give
you the opportunity to reflect on your Street Law experiences and their subsequent
impact on your personal and/or professional lives. You are not required to answer any
question and may terminate participation at any time.

Name: Email:

I. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS

1. How old are you?

2. What is your current gender identity?
A) Male
B) Female
C) Trans male/Trans man
D) Trans female/Trans woman
E) Genderqueer/Gender non-conforming
F) Different identity

3. What is your place of birth?

4. Which of the following most accurately describes your ethnicity?
A) Hispanic or Latino
B) Not Hispanic or Latino

5. Which of the following most accurately describes your race?
A) White
B) Black or African American
C) American Indian or Alaska Native
D) Asian
E) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
F) Other
136

6. What is the highest educational level obtained by your mother?
A) No schooling completed, or less than 1 year
B) Nursery, kindergarten, and elementary (grades 1-8)
C) High school (grades 9-12, no degree)
D) High school graduate (or equivalent)
E) Some college (1-4 years, no degree)
F) Associate’s degree (including occupational or academic degrees)
G) Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS, AB, etc.)
H) Master’s degree (MA, MS, MENG, MSW, etc.)
I) Professional school degree (MD, DDC, JD, etc.)
J) Doctorate degree (PhD, EdD, etc.)

7. What is the highest education level obtained by your father?
A) No schooling completed, or less than 1 year
B) Nursery, kindergarten, and elementary (grades 1-8)
C) High school (grades 9-12, no degree)
D) High school graduate (or equivalent)
E) Some college (1-4 years, no degree)
F) Associate’s degree (including occupational or academic degrees)
G) Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS, AB, etc.)
H) Master’s degree (MA, MS, MENG, MSW, etc.)
I) Professional school degree (MD, DDC, JD, etc.)
J) Doctorate degree (PhD, EdD, etc.)

II. STREET LAW CLINIC PARTICIPATION

8. What semester (e.g., Fall 2009) did you participate in the Street Law Clinic?

9. What year in law school were you in when you participated?
A) First D) Part-time
B) Second E) LLM
C) Third
137

9. Did you have any classroom teaching experience prior to working with Street
Law?
A) Yes (explain)
B) No
10. What motivated you to enroll in the Street Law Clinic?

11. What skills did you develop through your work with the Street Law Clinic?

12. Briefly describe your career trajectory since graduating from law school.

13. Did Street Law have an impact on your career choice(s)?

14. Is there anything else you would like to share about how Street Law has impacted
you (either professionally or personally)?

138

APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL
For this session, the goals are to tap the knowledge and experiences of Southwestern
Street Law Alumni. We will focus on three areas: 1) pre-law school experiences (i.e.,
what motivated participants to apply to and attend law school); (2) law school
experiences (in the Street Law clinic, in other clinics, and in general); 2) post-law school
experiences (i.e., professional trajectory with a focus on any ways Street Law has
impacted participant’s career).

Greet the participants and give a brief introduction to myself (emphasizing my
connections to Street Law) before giving an overview of the project.

I am a Street Law alumni who is completing this project for my doctoral dissertation. My
main objective is to understand how participation in Street Law can impact one’s law
school experience and subsequent transition to practice. I value the perspective that each
of you bring to the table on this topic, and would like to ask you a bit about your own
experience. I believe that hearing your stories and learning your experiences will help me
better understand how Street Law can shape someone’s legal training and subsequent
legal career. This process is completely voluntary and you can stop participating at any
time.

I’m going to record video of this focus group—but this recording will only be used for
the purpose of documentation. The recordings will be transcribed, but I will not use your
names in any printed descriptions of the research. Everything you share with us will
remain confidential.

I will collect your contact information in order to facilitate future communication but this
contact information will be entered in a separate data file from the file that records your
answers to questions posed during the focus group.

[Record video]

All of you have been invited to participate because you completed Southwestern’s Street
Law Clinic during law school. I’m going to ask you to share some of your experiences
and stories.

Transition: Let’s start with a discussion of your experiences prior to attending
Southwestern…

I. Pre-Law School Experiences

1. What sparked your initial interest in attending law school?

2. What were your primary goals for law school?

139

Transition: Now I’d like to take some time for us to discuss your experiences while at
Southwestern…

II. Law School Experiences

1. What motivated you to enroll in the Street Law clinic?

2. Did you complete other clinics during your legal education?
a. If so, which ones?
b. How would you compare/contrast your work in Street Law to your
work in these other clinics?
c. Do you see any similarities in the skills these clinics helped you master?

3. Did your work in Street Law impact other aspects of your law school
experience?
a. If so, how?
i. Did it change the way you view/approach other courses and learn
their material?

Transition: Now I’d like to discuss your experiences since leaving Southwestern…

III. Post-Law School Experiences

1. Do you see Street Law as having an impact on your career choice(s)?

2. Regardless of your previous answer, are there any skills that you developed
through Street Law that are pertinent to your current work?
a. If so, what skills?

3. Have you participated in anything similar to Street Law (e.g., teaching a
law-related education class; running a “Know Your Rights” workshop) since
graduating?

4. Is there anything you would change about Street Law?

5. Is there anything else you would like to share about how Street Law has
impacted you (e.g., impressions of the legal system; commitment to social
justice; growth as a person)?

Thank the participants for their time.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The tracking effect: tracking and the impact on self-efficacy in middle school students

PDF

Honorary mention: the untold stories of minoritized community college honors students

PDF

The impact of teacher perceptions about underrepresented students

PDF

The role of social control in promoting healthy eating behavior among Chinese immigrants: an ecological approach

PDF

The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study

PDF

Institutional diversity's impact on Latinx students' self-efficacy and sense of belonging

PDF

Addiction recovery: success in the recovery process

PDF

Better together: teacher attrition, burnout, and efficacy

PDF

Political coming-of-age in the era of WeChat: understanding the ethnic media ecosystem and group politics of first-generation Chinese Americans

PDF

Exploring the effectiveness of continuing medical education for physicians enrolled in an MBA program

PDF

A multilevel communication approach to understanding human trafficking prevention behaviors in Indonesia

PDF

Cultivating a growth mindset: an exploration of teacher beliefs and learning environments

PDF

The Awareness Podcast: a look into how sports can negatively affect a student-athlete's mental health

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Evaluation study: building teacher efficacy in K8 computer science integration

PDF

Examining donor engagement strategies: an exploratory study of the impact of performance gaps on donor retention and cultivation within higher education development offices

PDF

Musical self-efficacy of graduate students in South Korea and the United States

PDF

Impact of participation in STEM organizations and authentic learning experiences on women of color engineering students

PDF

Approaches to encouraging and supporting self-regulated learning in the college classroom

PDF

Women of color: self-efficacy and sustainability as administrators in education

Asset Metadata

Creator Golob, Brandon (author)

Core Title Student in the seats, teacher in the streets: Evaluating the impacts of law students becoming “street law” teachers

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Communication

Publication Date 07/23/2018

Defense Date 05/08/2018

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

Tag law-related education,OAI-PMH Harvest,program evaluation,self-efficacy,street law

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Ball-Rokeach, Sandra (committee chair), Cohen, Laura (committee member), Trope, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email bgolob@uci.edu,bgolob@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-21767

Unique identifier UC11670918

Identifier etd-GolobBrand-6441.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-21767 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GolobBrand-6441.pdf

Dmrecord 21767

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Golob, Brandon

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