The evidence is very strong and persuasive that if serious juvenile delinquents are identified as having reached Level 4, a differential treatment program can be identified for them which will increase their chances of avoiding further law violation behaviour. Looking at both I-level growth and further delinquent behaviour, less is known about how to bring about change in the Power-oriented youths than in other I-level groups. This group is perhaps the most deserving of the label “Impossible Child.” Continuing attempts to treat the Power-oriented offender in experimental programs is extremely important because this group includes the most serious offenders (the most felony-type crimes and the most assaultive crimes). More research is also needed on the treatment of the Passive Conformist group. We need to know more about the reasons for the short-term success and the long-term failure. Although this subtype does not commit as serious crimes as the other I3 subtypes, there is some evidence that there is a persistence to the offence behaviour which continues into adulthood, producing highly recidivistic individuals.
References
1.
AdamsS.N.: “The PICO Project.” In JohnstonNorman, SavitzLeonard, and MarvinE. Wolfgang (eds.), The Sociology of Punishment and Correction, New York: Wiley, (2nd Edition), pp. 548–61, 1970.
2.
AdamsS.N.: Evaluating correctional treatments.Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 4: 323–39, 1977.
3.
ArgyleM.: “A New Approach to the Classification of Delinquents with Implications for Treatment.”California State Board of Corrections Monograph, 2: 15–26, 1961.
4.
BaileyW.C.: Correctional outcomes: An evaluation of 100 reports.Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 57: 153–160, 1966.
5.
British Department of Health and Social Security.Youth Treatment Centers.London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1971.
6.
CaviorH.E., SchmidtA.: “A Test for the Effectiveness of a Differential Treatment Strategy at the Robert F. Kennedy Youth Center.”Federal Bureau of Prisons. Research Report, 1974.
7.
CohenH.L., FilipczakJ.: A New Learning Environment: A Case for Learning.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971.
8.
FriedlanderK.: The Psychoanalytic Approach to Juvenile Delinquency.New York: International Universities Press, 1949.
9.
GibbonsD.C.: Changing the Lawbreaker.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965.
10.
GlaserD.: Remedies for the key deficiency in criminal justice evaluation research.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 11: 144–54, 1974.
11.
GrantM.Q.: Interpersonal Maturity Level Classification: Juvenile.Sacramento: California Youth Authority, 1961.
12.
GrantJ.D., GrantM.Q.: A group dynamics approach to the treatment of nonconformists in the Navy.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 126–35, 1959.
13.
HarrisP.W.: “The Interpersonal Maturity of Delinquents and Nondelinquents.” Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Albany, 1978.
14.
HarveyO.J., HuntD.E., SchroderH.M.: Conceptual Systems and Personality Organization.New York: Wiley, 1961.
15.
HirschiT.: Causes of Delinquency.Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1969.
16.
HuntD.: “A Paradigm for Developing and Analyzing Differential Treatment Programs.” In DavisC.S., and SchmidtM.R. (eds.), Differential Treatment of Drug and Alcohol Abusers.Palm Springs: ETC Publications, 1977.
17.
HurwitzJ.I.: Three delinquent types: A multivariate analysis.Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 56: 328–34, 1965.
18.
JenkinsR.L.: “Diagnosis, Dynamics and Treatment in Child Psychiatry.”Psychiatric Research Report 18, American Psychiatric Association, 1964.
19.
JenkinsR.L., HewittL.: Types of personality structure encountered in child guidance clinics.Am J Orthopsychiatry, 14: 84–94, 1944.
20.
JesnessC.: The Fricot Ranch Study: Outcomes With Small Versus Large Living Groups in the Rehabilitation of Delinquents.Sacramento: California Youth Authority, Research Report No. 47, 1965.
21.
JesnessC.: The Preston Typology Study: An experiment with differential treatment in an institution.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 8: 38–52, 1971.
22.
JesnessC., DeRisiW., McCormickP., WedgeR.: The Youth Center Research Project: Final Report.Sacramento: California Youth Authority and American Justice Institute, 1972.
23.
KassebaumG., WardD.A., WilnerD.M.: Prison Treatment and Parole Survival.New York: John Wiley, 1971.
24.
KelleyF.J., BaerD.J.: Physical challenge as a treatment for delinquency.Crime and Delinquency, 17: 437–45, 1971.
25.
KohlbergL., KauffmanK., ScharfP., HickeyJ.: The Just Community Approach to Corrections: A Manual.Niantic, Connecticut: Connecticut Department of Corrections, 1973.
26.
LermanP.: Community Treatment and Social Control: A Critical Analysis of Juvenile Correctional Policy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
27.
LiptonD., MartinsonR.M., WilksJ.: The Effectiveness of Correctional Treatment.New York: Praeger, 1975.
MartinsonR.: What works? Questions and answers about prison reform.Public Interest, 35: 22–54, 1974.
30.
McCordW., McCordJ., ZolaI.K.: Origins of Crime.New York: Columbia University Press, 1959.
31.
MegargeeE.: Crime and Delinquency. University Programs Modular Studies,Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1975.
32.
MertonR.: Social structure and anomie.Am Soc Rev, 3: 672–82, 1938.
33.
MillerW.: Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency.Journal of Social Issues, 14: 5–19, 1958.
34.
PalmerT.: California's Community Treatment Project: The Phase I, II, and III Experiments: Developments and Progress. Research Report #10, 1970.
35.
PalmerT.: The youth authority Community Treatment Project.Federal Probation, 38: 3–14, 1974.
36.
PalmerT.: Martinson revisited.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 12: 133–152, 1975.
37.
PalmerT.: Correctional Intervention and Research. Current Issues and Future Prospects.Health Publishing. In press.
38.
PeckR.F., HavighurstR.J.: The Psychology of Character Development.New York: Wiley,1960.
39.
QuayH., ParsonsL.: The Differential Classification of the Juvenile Offender.Morgantown, W. Va.: Robert F. Kennedy Youth Center, 1971.
40.
ReissA.J.: Social correlates of psychological types of delinquency.Am Soc Rev, 17: 710–18, 1952.
41.
RobisonJ., SmithG.: The effectiveness of correctional programs.Crime and Delinquency, 71: 67–80, 1971.
42.
SchragC.C.: A preliminary criminal typology.Pacific Sociological Review, 4: 11–16, 1961.
43.
SullivanC.E., GrantM.Q., GrantJ.D.: The development of interpersonal maturity: Applications to delinquency.Psychiatry, 20: 373–85, 1957.
44.
WardD.A.: “Evaluative Research for Corrections.” In LloydE. Ohlin (ed.), Prisoners in America.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973, pp. 184–203.
45.
WarrenM.Q.: The case for differential treatment of delinquents.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 381: 47–60, 1969.
46.
WarrenM.Q.: Classification of offenders as an aid to efficient management and effective treatment.Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62: 239–58, 1971.
47.
WarrenM.Q.: All things being equal.Criminal Law Bulletin, 9: 473–90, 1973.
48.
WarrenM.Q.: “Intervention With Juvenile Delinquents. In RosenheimM. (ed.), Pursuing Justice for the Child.University of Chicago Press, 1976.
49.
WarrenM.Q., and the Community Treatment Staff: Interpersonal Maturity Level Classification: Juvenile: Diagnosis of Law, Middle, and High Maturity Delinquents.Sacramento: California Youth Authority, 1966.
50.
WarrenM.Q., HindelangM.: “Differential Explanation of Offender Behaviour.” In TochH. (ed.), Psychology of Crime and Criminal Justice.Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.
51.
WilksJ., MartinsonR.M.: “Is the treatment of criminal offenders really necessary?”Federal Probation, 40: 3–9, 1976.
