preliminary findings in evaluation of institute programs; some evaluation aspects

3
PAGE 28 JUVENILE COURT JUDGES JOURNAL - -4 INSTITUTE PROGRAM SECTION *-OF JUVENILE 8 0 C Y CI 0 e Preliminary Findings In Evaluation s 2 4 of Institute Programs; Some 0 Evaluation Aspects II C U M v, 0 z r( BY SHIRLEY McCUNE AND GORDON L. LIPPITT * ORG~ZPD ~~22.193~ fi degree of the representativeness of this group cannot be ascertained. It might be supposed that two factors-the amount of interest and activity of the Judges in previous programs and their current motivations to attend such an Institute - would be important determinants in the expec- tations of the Institute and the degree of value that the Institute would seem to be to a specific participant. 2. Changes in the Training Design -The nature of the training experiences provides that an experimental approach be applied to these institutes, first to evaluate the effective- ness of several techniques, and second, to provide for the training of personnel to serve as resources for future train- ing needs of the Council, and for state and local programs. This plan, of course, means that every Institute will be somewhat different in the training design as well as in the specific skills represented by the staff. 3. Timing and Group Climate - The intricacy of the in- tangible factors that determine the receptivity of the par- ticipants and the impact of the training upon the participants Shirley McCune, Project Research Director, Center for Behavioral Sciences, Washington, D. C. The Center for the Behavioral Sciences at The George Washington University has been conducting the evaluation research for the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges Institute Program. The material presented in this article is based upon the findings of the first two Institutes held at Zion, Illinois, and Airlie House, Virginia, in the Fall of 1962. The training program was conducted by the National Train- ing Laboratories of the National Education Association. Conditions of Research Research in the social sciences is always limited, to some extent, by the problems inherent in studying the complexity of human behavior. In addition, the multiplicity of causa- tive factors and individual differences must always be con- sidered in making any generalizations from research. The evaluation of a training project of this nature also has limitations which are determined by such factors as: 1. Selection of the Participants-The participants attend- ing the institutes are not selected on a random basis, so the Dr. Gordon 1. Lippitt, Director, Center for Behavioral Sciences, George Washington UnF versity.

Upload: shirley-mccune

Post on 29-Sep-2016

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

PAGE 28 JUVENILE COURT JUDGES JOURNAL

- -4 INSTITUTE PROGRAM SECTION * - O F J U V E N I L E 8

0 C Y CI 0 e Preliminary Findings In Evaluation

s 2

4 of Institute Programs; Some 0 Evaluation Aspects

II

C U

M v,

0

z

r(

BY SHIRLEY McCUNE AND GORDON L. LIPPITT * O R G ~ Z P D ~ ~ 2 2 . 1 9 3 ~ fi

degree of the representativeness of this group cannot be ascertained. It might be supposed that two factors-the amount of interest and activity of the Judges in previous programs and their current motivations to attend such an Institute - would be important determinants in the expec- tations of the Institute and the degree of value that the Institute would seem to be to a specific participant.

2. Changes in the Training Design -The nature of the training experiences provides that an experimental approach be applied to these institutes, first to evaluate the effective- ness of several techniques, and second, to provide for the training of personnel to serve as resources for future train- ing needs of the Council, and for state and local programs.

This plan, of course, means that every Institute will be somewhat different in the training design as well as in the specific skills represented by the staff.

3. Timing and Group Climate - The intricacy of the in- tangible factors that determine the receptivity of the par- ticipants and the impact of the training upon the participants

Shirley McCune, Project Research Director, Center for Behavioral Sciences, Washington, D. C.

The Center for the Behavioral Sciences at The George Washington University has been conducting the evaluation research for the National Council of Juvenile Court Judges Institute Program. The material presented in this article is based upon the findings of the first two Institutes held at Zion, Illinois, and Airlie House, Virginia, in the Fall of 1962. The training program was conducted by the National Train- ing Laboratories of the National Education Association.

Conditions of Research

Research in the social sciences is always limited, to some extent, by the problems inherent in studying the complexity of human behavior. In addition, the multiplicity of causa- tive factors and individual differences must always be con- sidered in making any generalizations from research. The evaluation of a training project of this nature also has limitations which are determined by such factors as:

1. Selection of the Participants-The participants attend- ing the institutes are not selected on a random basis, so the

Dr. Gordon 1. Lippitt, Director, Center for Behavioral Sciences, George Washington UnF versity.

APRlL, 1963 - VOL. 14, NO. 1. PAGE 29

are too numerous to list. Some of these would include the physical layout of the training site, the differences in indi- vidual communications skills of trainers, the previous ex- perience of participants, the timing of training experience, and the nature of the group process.

These factors cannot adequately be studied and identi- fied, except when they become obvious in overt behavior during and after the Institute, but must be considered as important aspects in the overall evaluation of the training experience.

Research Methods Utilized

The research instruments used in the first two Institutes were revisions of the data collection methods that the Center had developed for the Pilot Institute which was held in the Fall of 1961.

These included a Biographical Data Sheet which was sent out to participants before the Institute, and Questionnaires I and I1 which were given at the beginning and close of the Institute. In addition, the Role Perception Inventory was administered at the beginning and close of the Institute.

A follow-up questionnaire, court room observations, and interviews are being utilized in studies which are now in progress. Other research methods will be explored for future Institutes.

Information About the Judges in Attelndance The biographical data sheet has proven helpful in de-

veloping a profile on the Juvenile Court Judges in attend- ance.

The ninety-one Judges included in the research of the two Institutes represented twenty states, Canada, and the District of Columbia. Eighty-three of this group were full- time Judges, seven were part-time judges, and one addi- tional participant had previously served as a full-time judge, but is not actively serving as a judge at present.

The amount of time devoted to juvenile matters as a part of their judicial duties was as follows:

Table I

Time Devoted to Juvenile Court Cases Amount of Number of Percentage of

Judicial Time Judges Respondents

100% 13 75% 3 50% 30 25% 25

Less than 25% 19

14% 3%

33 %

22% 28%

Total 90 100% The populations of the judges’ jurisdictions were in-

dicated as follows: Table I1

Population of Number of Jurisdiction Judges

Over 100,000 50,000 - 100,000 20,000 - 50,000 20,000 or under

52 22 9 7

Total 90

The range of their years of experience as a juvenile judge was from none to thirty-six years. The mean number of years served as a juvenile judge was nine and the median number was eight.

A review of the educational background of the judges indicated the following:

Table I11 Number of

Degrees Earned Judges Bachelor’s Master’s LL.B. LL.M. PbD.

Behavioral Sciences Majors

56 7 74 1 1

13

This brief article does not permit a summary of some of the other information that is forthcoming from this bio- graphical data form.

Preliminary Findings

Some generalization that might be made about the pre- liminary findings of the evaluation research would include:

1. The participants gained a new level of understanding about child behavior. The questionnaires indicated that the participants of the Institutes felt that the Institute had pro- vided general knowledge about child behavior. This area of knowledge was one which participants had identified as a need. Further knowledge was contributed by the psycho- logical and sociological information which was included as part of the training design.

2. The participants gained valuable self-insight into their own behavior as a result of the training experience. While the total Institute must be considered as a total experience, the primary activity which was identified as being the re- sponsible influence to this area of learning was the training group experience. Some of the comments about this aspect of the Laboratory include:

“. . . I think I have learned to be more patient with the opinions of others.”

“. . . Most important is my reaction to others and their reaction to me this week. I understand a little better my weaknesses and strengths and the group resistance without goals.”

“. . . I do not appear as I feel inside.” “. . . A little of how others react to me.” “. . . Excellent, but sometimes quite painful personally

as one is torn to reveal something of himself that he really does not want to. A unique experience in my life.”

“The T-group was the best part of the whole thing. It was an entirely new experience. I could not gain this kind of knowledge by any other method.”

“I feel that there is a great potential in this method. My personal reaction to the T-group was that I was experiencing life in its essence, and I was anxious to find, as I did to a satisfying extent, some answers to how better to relate to people.”

3. The concepts of the team approach in the Juvenile Court and the opportunity far informal contact with profes- sionals representing varichus disciplines were reinforced by the Institute experience. One striking thing about the eval- uation research to date is the participants’ high regard for the staff people involved in the Institutes and value they place upon these contacts. This has been true even when the participants raised questions about the value of some parts of the training.

4. The Institute provided the participants with a n ap- preciation for variaus types of training methods and their potential use with their own staff and community in the back-home settings. Many of the judges have indicated their modification and application of the techniques that they learned at the Institute in the back-home setting. In several instances, Institute participants have assumed major responsibility for training programs in the home community or within the state association.

(Please Turn to Page 44)

PAGE 44 JUVENILE COURT JUDGES JOURNAL

Washington Metropolitan Area Council Meets

The Fourth Annual Institute for the Washington Metro- politan Area Juvenile Courts held February 28 included Workshops on Law, Pediatrics, Education, Sociology, Re- ligion, Psychiatry and Social Work.

Prominent people in the greater Washington area par- ticipated. They included G. Gregg Everngam, Law; Enrico Davoli, M.D., Pediatrics; John Koontz, Education; Dr. Hy- man Frankel, Sociology; Very Reverend Monsignor Thomas W. Lyons, Religion; Jacob R. Fishman, M.D., Psychiatry; and Ira L. Gibbons, Social Work.

Introductory remarks were made by Charles Horsky, Presidential Advisor for National Capital Affairs and Key- note Speaker was Jack Goldberg, Project Director of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Area Planning Project on Juvenile Delinquency.

Fourth Annual Washington Metropolitan Institute Held

A meeting of the Washington Metropolitan Area Council of Juvenile Court Judges took place December 12 at the Occidental Restaurant.

At that time it was agreed that the Fourth Annual In- stitute of the Washington Metropolitan Area council would be held Thursday, February 28.

Plans were made for a Central Juvenile Index which could be submitted to the District of Columbia Committee on Youth Opportunity and Community Improvement, with the hope that they would be included in a federally-spon- sored demonstration project in the Washington Metropolitan area.

I t was generally agreed by the judges present that such an index should be carefully controlled; its intake of data should be strictly limited to matters of juvenile delinquency; and the release of information from such an index should be covered by Juvenile Court statutes which protect the child’s records from general public inspection. With these aims in mind, it was agreed that the use and operation of the proposed central juvenile index should be limited to Washington Metropolitan Area, and to the youth or juvenile divisions within the several police departments in the Wash- ington area.

Faculties at Institutes I11 and IV Faculty at Institute 111 at Norman, Oklahoma, included

Dr. Charles Seashore, National Training Laboratories, Wash- ington, D. C., Dean; Dr. William Dyer, Professor of Sociolo- gy, Brigham Young University and the University of Utah, Provo, Utah; Prof. Dan Hopson, Professor of Law, Univer- sity of Kansas; Dr. Bernard Lubin, Director of Psychological Service, State of Indiana, Department of Mental Health, In- dianapolis; Dr. Alexander C. Rosen, Assistant Professor and Chief Psychologist, The Neuro Psychiatric Institute, Univer- sity of California Medical Center, Los Angeles.

At Institute IV, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, the faculty consisted of Dean Seashore, Dr. Dexter Bullard, Director, Chestnut Lodge Sanitarium, Rockville, Md.; Dr. Campbell Crockett, Dean of the Graduate School, University of Cin- cinnati; Prof. Caleb Foote, University of Pennsylvania Law School; Dr. Martin Lakin, Department of Psychology and Psychiatry, Duke University.

Preliminary Findings In Eva1 uation (Continued from Page 29)

5. The participants gained an increased awareness of the importance of utilizing the resources of the community and of the community’s responsibility to help in the provision of

these resources. While the data from the first Institute supported this conclusion much more than the second Insti- tute, it would appear that the Institute has served as a stimulus for the Judges to go back to their own community and work at obtaining more resources for the court. Two examples of participants’ comments which were responses to a follow-up questionnaire include:

“ . . . Since the Institute I have been delivering more speeches to civic organizations, women’s groups, and police groups to familiarize them with the activities of the family court.”

‘ I . . . The calls upon my time both as to consultation and appeals for help have increased. I am continually striving to increase the number of facilities available to the court- both private and governmental.”

6. The contacts with members of the staff have been maintained and Institute staff members have been called in as resource peaple for programs in the back-home setting.

While the evaluation research covers only the first two Institutes, and must be regarded as incomplete, these trends appear to be the most important. It is obvious that the training experience does not have the same degree of mean- ing for every participant and some have felt that the training was not helpful. The need for further research and con- tinued experimentation with training design will hopefully provide some of the answers raised by these questions.

In Summary

A multiplicity of factors play an important part in the effectiveness of a Juvenile Court Judge. The community, its social agencies, the law enforcement agencies, and the personnel involved in these agencies all play a part in the determination of effectiveness of the Juvenile Court Judge. A more thorough understanding of the function and poten- tial of the Juvenile Court Judge will not only aid in further understanding of this role, but also in understanding the complex factors in providing help to youth within the com- plexity of today’s community institutions.

The current evaluation has been concerned with the participants’ evaluation of the training that they received and the manner which they could apply it to their courtroom situation. While this information has been supplemented to some degree by the observations of the training staff and committees related to the National Council or the Center for the Behavioral Sciences, other avenues of approach are being planned to include the gaining of additional data from the Institutes, analysis of a follow-up study, and additional studies of participants in the “on-the-job” setting.

JOIN THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES NOW

Membership Gives You a National Office, Staff, Program

Institutes, Publications and Staff Assistance Help You in Your Jurisdiction.

Membership Dues Depend Upon Size of Jurisdiction. In Courts having jurisdiction over:

Not more than 50,000 pouulation ....._..._........ $ 5.00 More than 50,000 and not more than

150,000 population ...______ ~ ____. ~~ ._.._____.____.._ 10.00 More than 150,000 population ...................... 15.00

Send your dues today to:

JUDGE ELIZABETH McCAlN 616 A d a m Avenue Memphis, Tennessee