Delinquency, Bread, and Books.

The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive validity of the HEW National Strategy for Youth Development's behavioral model Impact Scales in predicting delinquency. Human relationship variables rather than perceived ed ucational and occupational access variables were the most potent predictors of Self-Reported Delinquency (SRD) and accounted for 48% of SRD variance. A multiple regression analysis of 11 variables measuring social alienation, perceived negative labeling, perceived lack of access to educational and occupational roles, self-esteem, and peer group pressure towards delinquency, on SRD, showed Normative Peer Group Pressure, Parental Rejection, Negative Labeling by Teachers, Normlessness, and Self-Esteem (negative), in that order, to be the most predictive variables. The notable lack of SRD prediction via perceived educational and occupational access variables suggests that pouring money into educational and occupational programs may not be expected to significantly diminish delinquency levels. Other results do suggest, however, that such pro grams may be expected to bolster the self-esteem of youth and that self-esteem is only somewhat related to SRD. Nevertheless, in combating juvenile delin quency, bread and books may not be enough. For the past decade, the HEW National Strategy for Youth Development model (Brennan & Huizinga, 1975; Elliott, 1971 ; Elliott, Ageton, Hunter, & Knowles, 1976) has been subjected to extensive continuing construct validation (Brennan & Huizinga, 1975; Truckenmiller, Note 1, Note 2) on over 13,000 youth. The HEW model was created as a community-based planning and procedural model to promote positive youth development and prevent delin quency. The assessment of youth-perceived needs, the development of youth needs tar geted programs, and program impact assessment (Elliott, Ageton, Hunter, & Knowles, 1976) are all part of the total model. Given rising delinquency rates and shrinking resources for community programs, the HEW-type strategy seems all the more imperative. This procedure for data-based planning in community youth program development is unique in that it is predicated on a model of youth behavior and incorporates requisite measures of the model's components. Of the many assessment tools employed (a problems-and-needs frequency and seri ousness checklist, a demographics form, a knowledge of agencies questionnaire, and program impact scales), the Impact Scales have been found to most directly reflect the behavioral model (Truckenmiller, Note 3). Acceptable reliabilities (Brennan & Huizinga, 1975), substantial predictive validity (multiple R ~ .70) with respect to Self-Reported De linquency (SRD) (Brennan & Huizinga, 1975), and accumulating evidence of construct validity (Brennan & Huizinga, 1975; Truckenmiller, Note 2) have been found for the Impact Scales. The behavioral model is one wherein mutually reinforcing components press toward and interact with positive youth development on the one hand, or delinquency on the other. In a positive direction, a sense of general societal belonging, youth-perceived access to de sirable educational and occupational roles, youth-perceived positive labeling by significant This research was supported by a grant from the Crime Prevention Program for Juveniles from the Office of Children, Youth, and 82 Families, Pa. Department of Public Welfare. This content downloaded from 40.77.167.88 on Sat, 28 May 2016 05:23:18 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms others, and youth-perceived positive peer group pressure all are synergistically reinforcing with positive, nonproblematic social behavior. In the negative direction, social alienation, youth-perceived lack of access to desirable educational and occupational roles, youth perceived negative labeling by significant others, and youth-perceived antisocial peer group pressure all are mutually reinforcing with problematic and delinquent behavior. Twelve Impact Scales, including SRD, measure these major components. The alienation component is tapped by Impact Scales Normlessness vs. Conformity, Powerlessness vs. Control, and Societal Estrangement vs. Societal Integration. Perceived labeling by significant others is reflected by three Impact Scales: Negative vs. Positive Labeling by Parents, by Teachers, and by Peers. Another Impact Scale, Parental Rejection, might logically be grouped with the negative labeling scales. The perceived access to social roles component is measured by two Impact Scales: Perceived Access to Educational Roles and Perceived Access to Occupational Roles. The three remaining Impact Scales are: Normative Peer Group Pres sure, Self-Esteem, and SRD. The purpose of this study is to examine the predictive validity of the Impact Scales on SRD, a cross-validation study.