dc.contributor.author	Beinert, Timothy M.
dc.date.accessioned	2018-01-08T19:37:30Z
dc.date.available	2018-01-08T19:37:30Z
dc.date.issued	2015-12
dc.identifier.citation	Beinert, Timothy M., "The City of Hermiston Community Accountability Board, 20092012: A Program Evaluation Utilizing a Mixed Method Approach to Reduce Juvenile Recidivism," Ph.D. Diss., Valdosta State University, 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/10428/296
dc.identifier.other	80136A88-75D8-38B7-414B-C7BA6868276B	UUID
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10428/2967
dc.description.abstract	In a time of declining budgets and increased public transparency, criminal justice agencies are increasingly relying on evidence-based programs (EBP) to handle recurring issues. This dissertation examines the success of the Hermiston Police (OR) Community Accountability Board (CAB) and its effects on juvenile recidivism (2009-2012). Utilizing a mixed-method approach, this study incorporates a traditional program hierarchical design. Throughout this study, research questions measure the program’s effectiveness. The study focuses on the Needs Assessment followed by assessments of the Program Design and Theory, Program Process and Implementation, Program Outcome/Output, and Program Cost and Efficiency. Utilizing elements of Control Theory and Restorative Theory the study compares recidivism rates between the city of Hermiston, the County of Umatilla, and the State of Oregon. A quasi-scientific test is used to compare the experimental group that attended the CAB (N = 220) during 2009-2012 and all the other juvenile arrests throughout the City of Hermiston. Through collaboration with the Hermiston School District and the UCCJ-YSD (juvenile department), this study uses bi-variate and multi-variate tests to determine relationships between completion rates, success rates, and arrest rates of juveniles to the effects of race, parental support, and timeliness of program implementation. Participants were identified as Caucasian and Non-Caucasian to avoid unintentional identification of participants due to small numbers of minority races. In addition, the study excluded those above 18 years of age or below 10 years of age to focus on the core group that the CAB was designed to effect only. In addition, the efficiency of the program was revealed through a ratio analysis between the cost of juvenile crime, in the Hermiston area, and the costs of the program. The study revealed that though there were implementation problems and a lack of a firm program theory, the program was effective at reducing juvenile recidivism and was efficient in doing so. Although it appears that efficiency is dropping due to fewer participants in the CAB, this study revealed an excellent opportunity for collaborative programs and an adjustment in the implementation of the CAB that has the potential to continue reducing juvenile offenses below the state average.	en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents	Chapter I: INTRODUCTION. 1 ; Historical Trends 4 ; Statement of the Problem... 7 ; CAB Organizational Design 11 ; Community Accountability Board Process. 14 ; Purpose of the Study…..…. 16 ; Significance of the Study…. 17 ; Organization of the Study… 19 ; Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW…. 22 ; Early Historical Development of Juvenile Delinquency...... 23 ; History of Juvenile Justice in the United States... 28 ; Court Challenges to the Juvenile Courts…... 38 ; Kent v. United States 41 ; In re Gault 41 ; In re Winship … 42 ; McKeiver v. Pennsylvania 43 ; Breed v. Jones .. 44 ; Legislative Changes….. 45 ; Changing Context …. 47 ; Transfer Provisions 47 ; Sentencing Authority …. 48 ; Balanced and Restorative Efforts.. 51 ; Development of the Study of Causation….... 53 ; Critical Theories…. 54 ; Biological Theories….... 59 ; Psychological Theories.. 60 ; Psychoanalytic Theory … 60 ; Conditional Learning ….. 61 ; Psychopathology Theory 63 ; Sociological Theories..... 63 ; Differential Association Theory.... 69 ; Social Control .. 70 ; Transition to the General Theory of Crime.... 72 ; Critical Theory… 75 ; Conflict Theory ….. 76 ; Labeling Theory ….. 77 ; Radicalism ….. 79 ; Complexity Theory . 80 ; Integrated/Evidence Based Approaches….... 84 ; Summary of Theoretical Development.. 87 ; Program Evaluation … 90 ; Program Theory and Mediated Accountability …. 92 ; Moving Forward… 97 ; Chapter III: METHODOLOGY….…... 98 ; Statement of the Problem…................. 100 ; Purpose of the Study.... 103 ; Rationale of the Study.. 105 ; Participants... 106 ; Measures and Implementation….. 109 ; Limitations and Delimitations..…........ 116 ; Chapter IV: DATA ANALYSIS …... 119 ; Needs Assessment .…................. 121 ; Research Question 1 ….. 121 ; Research Question 2 …... 126 ; Research Question 3 …... 131 ; Assessment of Program Design and Theory….... 135 ; Research Question 4 135 ; Research Question 5 136 ; Research Question 6 139 ; Research Question 7. 142 ; Assessment of Program Process and Implementation ...….. 143 ; Evaluation Question 8 …. 143 ; Evaluation Question 9 …. 145 ; Evaluation Question 10 ... 145 ; Assessment of Program Outcome/Output... 155 ; Evaluation Question 11 .. 155 ; Assessment of Program Cost and Efficiency….. 158 ; Evaluation Question 12 . 158 ; Evaluation Question 13 ….. 163 ; Conclusion …..…........ 167 ; Chapter V: DISCUSSION .. 168 ; Purpose of the Study .. 168 ; Summary of Evaluation and Methodology .. 171 ; Needs Assessment …................. 171 ; Discussion and Implications .. 177 ; Assessment of Program Design and Theory.... 179 ; Discussion and Implications 185 ; Assessment of Program Process and Implementation ..... 188 ; Discussion and Implications . 195 ; Assessment of Program Outcome/Output... 199 ; Discussion and Implications .. 201 ; Assessment of Program Cost and Efficiency….. 205 ; Discussion and Implications … 210 ; Recommendation for Practice….. 213 ; Recommendation for Future Research. 220 ; Conclusion …..…........ 222 ; REFERENCES 224 ; APPENDICES…... 260 ; A. Acronyms and Definitions….. 260 ; B. Hermiston Police Department Cooperation Letter…..... 262 ; C. Umatilla County Juvenile Department Cooperation Letter... 264 ; D. Hermiston School District Cooperation Letter…...…... 266 ; E. Valdosta State University Institutional Review Board Review…..….. 268 ; F. Authorization for use of Copyrighted Material….. 270 ; G. Hermiston School District (HSD), Youth RoundTable Minutes 2/4/08. 272 ; H. HSD Youth Round Table Minutes, 3/31/2008 ….. 275 ; I. HSD Youth Round Table Minutes, 5/19/2008 ….. 279 ; J. Community Accountability Board Survey … 282 ; K. Survey Response Grouping, Goals and Objectives of the CAB … 287 ; L. Survey Response Grouping, Purpose of the CAB . 290 ; M. Survey Response Grouping, What is the Clientele of the CAB …. 294 ; N. Survey Response, Changes to Juvenile Crime Rate …... 297 ; O. Survey Response, Present Available Resources to the CAB .. 301 ; P. Survey Response, What Additional Resources for the CAB .. 305 ; Q. HPD Juvenile Arrest Times 2009-2012 (Random sample) … 307 ;	en_US
dc.language.iso	en_US	en_US
dc.subject	Juvenile recidivists	en_US
dc.subject	Restorative justice	en_US
dc.title	The City of Hermiston Community Accountability Board, 20092012: A Program Evaluation Utilizing a Mixed Method Approach to Reduce Juvenile Recidivism	en_US
dc.type	Dissertation	en_US
dc.contributor.department	he Department Of Political Science of The College Of Arts And Sciences	en_US
dc.description.advisor	Peterson, James W.
dc.description.committee	Prine, Rudy K.
dc.description.committee	Bamfo, Napoleon
dc.description.degree	D.PA	en_US
dc.description.major	Public Administration	en_US