filipino children in conflict with the law

Filipino Children in Conflict with the Law

The care of Filipino CICL in residential facilities

evaluated using the Risk-Need-Responsivity model

Master thesis Forensic Child and Youth Care Sciences

School of Child Development and Education

University of Amsterdam

Anouk Spruit (6045022)

Supervision by dr. I. B. Wissink, and prof. dr. G.J.J.M. Stams

Table of contents

Abstract p. 3

Introduction p. 4

Methods p. 11

Results p.16

Discussion p. 20

References p. 25

Appendix 1 p. 28

2 Anouk Spruit - 6045022

Abstract

According to the risk-needs-responsivity model of offender assessment and rehabilitation,

treatment should target specific factors that are related to re-offending. This study evaluates

the residential care of Filipino children in conflict with the law (CICL) using the risk-needs-

responsivity model. Risk analyses and criminogenic needs assessments (parenting style,

aggression, relationship with peers, affective empathy, and moral development) have been

conducted at 55 CICL (N = 55) in four residential facilities. The psychological care has been

assessed using a checklist. Statistical analyses showed that CICL had a high risk of re-

offending, high aggression, difficulties with making pro-social friends, and a delayed socio-

moral development. The psychological programs in the residential facilities were poor,

however, conditions were better in non-governmental facilities. The care in the facilities

fitted poorly with the characteristics of the CICL, and didn't comply with the risk-needs-

responsivity model. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.


Introduction

The Philippines is a country with a high rate of youth delinquency; every day

approximately 28 children between 9 and 18 years are arrested for committing a crime

(UNICEF Philippines, 2004). When a child gets arrested, the 'Juvenile Justice and Welfare

Act' (from now on RA 9344) is applicable. RA 9344 was implemented in 2006. Before the

implementation of this law the so called "children in conflict with the law" (CICL) were

imprisoned under horrific circumstances (Amnesty International, 2003). CICL could be

detained with adults and were held from any form of education. Sexual abuse, torture and

harassment happened on a daily basis (Amnesty International, 2003). Today, RA 9344 makes

it impossible for CICL to be placed in custody with adults and protect CICL from violence

and abuse. Additionally, this law provides CICL the right to access individualized programs

that focus on prevention, rehabilitation, re-integration and after-care. International legislation

also provides conditions concerning how to treat children in criminal court procedures. First

of all, the Beijing Rules (1985) state that judicial interventions should improve the wellbeing

of children. Second, the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989)

says that judicial interventions should be as short as possible, with effective care and

effective procedures handling the situation of CICL. Finally, the UN's Guidelines for

Alternative Care (2010) state that the needs of children should be catered for in all

(residential) care settings.

When a child is arrested in the Philippines, procedures as stated in RA 9344 are set in

motion. Most of the crimes conducted by CICL are mild offences, the so called "crimes of

poverty" or crimes against property (Knowles, 2010). Only a small minority of the CICL are

arrested because of violent crimes or crimes with a sexual nature (Knowles, 2010). Police or

barangay officers (local governmental units) will place the child into custody in police

precincts, jails or youth detention homes (Knowles, 2010). The placement can be no longer

than eight hours following arrest (RA 9344). Unfortunately, this section of RA 9344 is highly

violated as the large majority of CICL have been detained for longer than 8 hours, which can

run up to multiple months (Knowles, 2010). During custody, first, the age of the child will be

determined. Children of 15 years or below should be exempt from criminal liability and

should be released immediately. In such a case, the local social welfare and development

officer will determine an appropriate program in consultation with the child and his or her

relatives. If relatives either cannot be located or refuse to accept the child, or when the child

is not safe with his or her relatives, the child must be released to a non-governmental


organization (NGO), barangay officer, or to the Department of Social Welfare (RA 9344).

Since the process of locating relatives or alternative care can take a long time, children of 15

years old or younger can be detained for a significant time as well, even though they should

not have been arrested in the first place (Knowles, 2010). In case the child is 16 years or

older, but younger than 18 years old, the social worker will determine if the child acted with

discernment or not. If the child acted without discernment, the procedures that will be

followed are the same as for children of 15 years or below (RA 9344). If a child acted with

discernment, the child will be subjected to proceedings. In case the imposable penalty for the

crime is less than six years of imprisonment, the child will be referred to a diversion program.

This is a required program a child has to undergo when he or she is found responsible for an

offense, without resorting to formal court proceedings. If the imposable penalty for the crime

is more than six years of imprisonment, the child will be referred to court proceedings (RA

9344). All together, CICL can be placed in different residential settings, like NGO's, youth

homes, holding centers, police precincts or jails, which is dependent on their background and

the stage of their judicial process.

Some of the facilities where CICL are placed are governmental facilities, other can be

NGO's. Nichter (2008) says that although these institutions acknowledge the international

legislation and the national laws regarding CICL, it is not always possible to implement the

law due to political or financial difficulties. It is clear that CRC and RA 9344 are not fully

implemented in governmental facilities, since there are still reports of CICL who are

imprisoned with adults and experience different forms of abuse (Knowles, 2010). Although

both governmental and non-governmental facilities offer at least "constructive activities",

little is known about the content of these program's and interventions (Knowles, 2010). As

the CRC states, the interventions provided by the NGO's and juvenile detention centers

should be effective. At this moment, it's not clear to what extent the programs are effective

and in compliance with the CRC and other international laws that protect CICL (Nichter,

2008). Another problem is that the laws are rather vague about what an effective intervention

should look like and what kind of interventions are exactly serving the child's wellbeing.

Current thesis will address some of the problems around the implementation of the laws

that protect CICL in residential facilities in the Philippines. It will focus on the identification

of aspects that should be addressed by the programs of these institutions and the

correspondence between the programs that are offered and the needs of the children. A

theoretical foundation of the programs in the residential facilities offered to the CICL is


necessary, so it is at least plausible the programs are effective and contribute to the wellbeing

of the children (Van Yperen & Van Bommel, 2009).

The risk-needs-responsivity model (Ogloff & Davis, 2004) describes directions for judicial

interventions, in order to be effective. It provides guidelines for the assessment and treatment

of offenders, with positive rehabilitation as an outcome. The risk-principle explains it is

necessary to assess the risk of re-offending and to match the intensity of the treatment with

the severity of the risk (Ogloff & Davis, 2004). The meta-analysis of Andrews and Bonta

(2010) shows the importance of a proper risk-assessment and a right match between the

intensity of the treatment and the risk of reoffending. High offenders only showed a reduction

in recidivism when intense levels of services were offered. On the other hand, when low-risk

offenders were treated in intensive programs, there was a negative effect shown; recidivism

increased. Thus, low-risk offenders benefited more from minimal or even no intervention at

all (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

The needs-principle says that an intervention should focus on "criminogenic needs". These

are factors that are dynamic and are related to delinquency and re-offending (Ogloff & Davis,

2004). For example, Ogloff (2002) found that problem solving skills, substance abuse, and

pro-criminal attitudes, amongst other factors, are related to delinquency and re-offending.

When the purpose of the treatment is to prevent reoffending, the intervention should focus on

changing the criminogenic needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2010).

The responsivity-principle says that treatment should consider individual factors that

might influence the intervention outcome (Ogloff & Davis). The way the intervention is

delivered should be consistent with the abilities and learning style of the offender (Andrews

& Bonta, 2010). Factors like motivation and mental abilities of the child and his or her

pedagogical environment should be taken into consideration (Ogloff & Davis, 2004). Even

though the risk-needs-responsivity model is created for adult offenders, research shows that

this model is also applicable to juvenile offenders (Lipsey, 2009).

Since the risk-needs-responsivity model states that intervention should target criminogenic

needs, current thesis will identify these factors for Filipino CICL. For Filipino children there

have been some factors identified that are related to delinquency in previous studies. The

rapport of 'Save the Children' (2004) shows that poverty plays a big role in the manifestation

of delinquent behavior of Filipino children. Poverty is directly related to criminal behavior,

because the crimes are committed to survive (Save the Children, 2004). In a more indirect

way, poverty is related to several factors that have been shown to increase the chance of

getting involved in criminal behavior. First, poverty is related to domestic violence (Jewkens,


2002). Maxwell and Maxwell (2003) found that having been a victim of child abuse or a

witness of (domestic) violence were both significantly related to self-reported aggression for

boys as well as for girls. This relation was even found when other factors that are related to

anti-social behavior, like peer influences, school achievement, and attachment were

controlled for. Results showed that the relation between being a witness of domestic violence

and aggression is the strongest, besides the relation between being a victim of child abuse and

aggression (Maxwell & Maxwell, 2003).

A second group of factors related to poverty and thought to increase criminal behavior

consists of several negative aspects of parenting (McLeod, & Shanahan, 1993). For example,

McLeod, and Shanahan (1993) showed that mothers who live in poverty show weak

emotional responsiveness and use more physical punishment. This can be explained by the

high stress that parents face, because of the economic deprivation they experience. The stress

interferes with parenting styles and practices, which leads to negative outcomes in the

children from poor families (Katz, Corlyon, La Placa, & Hunter, 2007). International

literature also shows that parental behavior can have a significant influence on delinquent

behavior of children (Hoeve, et al., 2009). Hoeve and colleagues (2009) showed that

parenting styles and delinquent behavior of children are related (with the strongest links for

parental monitoring, psychological control, and negative aspects such as rejection and

hostility).

Thirdly, poverty makes children live with peers in a gang (Save the Children, 2004). Two

out of five CICL admit being involved in a gang and the majority of crimes are committed

with peers (Knowles, 2010). Peer groups or barkada can have negative influences, since

research indicates that youth experience peer pressure from their barkada for missing classes

and drop out of school (Shoemaker, 1994). Most Filipino CICL are from large families

(Knowles, 2010), where parents are lacking adequate parenting skills and the family system

is unstable (Save the Children, 2004). Because of the fluid family structures, peers have a big

influence on the daily lives and morals of the children (Knowles, 2010). This context

increases the chance of gang involvement and criminal behavior (Save the Children, 2004).

There are also other factors (related to delinquency) following from international literature

and these factors might account for Filipino CICL as well. First, inadequate problem solving

skills or coping mechanisms (the way a person is reacting upon problems) have been found to

be related to delinquency, as well as to substance abuse (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller, 1992;

Loeber, 1990). The report of Save the Children (2004) shows that drug addiction of Filipino

CICL contributes to the manifestation and maintenance of criminal behavior, and could


therefore be related to delinquency. Since there is a high prevalence of substance abuse

among CICL (Save the Children, 2004), Filipino CICL might also show inadequate problem

strategies. Second, affective empathy was shown to be related to delinquency (Jolliffe, &

Farrington, 2004). Affective empathy is the drive to respond with an appropriate emotion to

another's mental states. It is about being affected by another's emotional state by feeling

personal distress or empathic concern. Many CICL are in "survival mode" (Save the

Children, 2004), where the interests and needs of others are assumed not to be important, and

where it is necessary to harm the rights of others in order to survive. Finally, developmentally

delayed moral development has been found to be strongly related to delinquent behavior

(Stams, et al., 2006). Juvenile delinquents show a significantly lower stage of moral

judgments, compared to their non-delinquent peers (Stams, et al., 2006).

Based on the above, current study will focus on the following criminogenic needs:

parenting style of the parents, aggression, relation with peers, coping mechanisms, affective

empathy, and socio-moral development. The purpose of this thesis is to gain more insight into

what an intervention for male CICL (age 12-18 years) in residential settings should look like

in order to be effective, and to find out to what extent residential facilities are already

contributing to decreasing the risk of re-offending. The following question is formulated: To

what extent do the programs for CICL in residential facilities comply with the risk-needs-

responsivity model? To answer that question, the following sub questions will be answered:

1. What is the risk of re-offending of CICL who stay at a residential facility?

2. What are the criminogenic needs of these children?

3. What is the relation between criminogenic needs and risk of re-offending?

4. What kind of psychological interventions and strategies are offered at the residential

facilities?

5. To what extent do the psychological interventions and strategies comply with the

characteristics of CICL?

Even though there is no existing research about this specific topic in the Philippines, it is

possible to formulate hypotheses based on what is already known about the situation of CICL

in the Philippines. Concerning the first sub question, the risk of re-offending is expected to be

high, according to the deprived backgrounds of most CICL, little sources of support, and

many life stressors (Amnesty International, 2003).

Regarding the second sub question, we first expect that the parents of CICL show

inadequate parenting styles (Hoeve, et al., 2009). Second, even though aggression is often


seen in juvenile delinquents (Loeber, 2009), it is hypothesized that the aggression level is not

very high, because most CICL are not arrested because of a violent crime (Knowles, 2010).

Thirdly, it is expected that CICL do not feel socially accepted and feel insecure about making

pro-social friendships, because of their high involvement with negative peers (Knowles,

2010). Fourthly, we predict that CICL use more inadequate than adequate coping strategies,

because of the high substance abuse by CICL (Save the Children, 2004) and the relationship

between substance abuse and inadequate coping strategies (Hawkins, Catalano, & Miller,

1992). Fifthly, it is expected that CICL lack affective empathy based on the "survival mode"

of CICL (Save the Children, 2004). Finally, we expect that CICL have a delayed socio-moral

development, based on the study of Stams and colleagues (2006).

Concerning the relation between criminogenic needs and risk of re-offending, it is

predicted that the more criminogenic needs, the higher the risk of re-offending. It seems

likely that when there are a lot of factors that are related to re-offending (like the presence of

a negative peer group, history of abuse or serious offenses) (Barnoski, 2004), the more

criminogenic needs there are. More specifically, it is hypothesized that the presence of

unwanted parenting styles is related to higher risk of re-offending. Second, it is expected that

high aggression is related to a higher risk of re-offending. Third, a relation between low

social acceptance and low ability of making positive friendships on one hand, and re-

offending on the other hand is expected. Fourthly, a relationship between poor coping

mechanisms and re-offending is hypothesized. Fifthly, lacking affective empathy is expected

to be related to a higher risk of re-offending. Finally, it is expected that a delayed moral

development is related to a higher risk of re-offending.

Concerning the psychological interventions in the residential facilities, we expect that

there are little psychological interventions and strategies available and that the quality is poor.

Although according to RA 9344, CICL should receive appropriate interventions, it has been

shown that there are problems with implementing RA 9344 and specifically with offering

psychological intervention (Knowles, 2010).

Finally, it is predicted that there is no appropriate fit between the characteristics of the

CICL and the psychological intervention and strategies that are offered in the residential

facilities.


Figure 1

Variables in the research and method of measurement

Affective empathy (BES)

Moral development (SRM-SF)

Criminogenic needs

Risk of re-offending (WSJCA Pre-Screen)

Parenting: restrictive control (PBQ)

Coping style: social support and palliative reactions (UCL)

Risk-principle (check-list)

Ability of making pro-social friends: perceived social acceptance and ability to make close friendships (CBSA)

Psychological interventions and strategies

Overt aggression (BDHI)

Risk of re-offending

Needs-principle (check-list)

Responsivity-principle (check-list)


Methods

Participants

The research was conducted in four different residential facilities in Metro Manila. Ten

children from Kokkyo naki Kodomotachi (KnK) Philippines, ten children from Educational

Research and Development Assistance (ERDA) Foundation, 28 children from Yakap Bata

Holding Centre (YBHC) and seven children from Molave Youth Home (MYH) participated

in the study. In total, 55 male CICL aged 11 to 19 years (M = 15.71; SD = 1.825) filled in

questionnaires. ERDA and KnK are both NGO's, funded by organizations abroad, corporate

organizations or private gifts. YBHC and MYH are both provided by the Filipino

government. During the observations in the facilities, differences between NGO's and

governmental facilities were apparent. Conditions in the NGO's were more appropriate than

the conditions in governmental facilities. In order to enhance representativeness of the

situation of CICL in residential facilities, both governmental and non-governmental facilities

were included in the study.

Procedure

Four different facilities, located in different parts of Metro Manila, were approached and

informed about the research. All facilities agreed to cooperate if the information about the

participating CICL was anonymized and handled with confidentiality. The researchers visited

the facilities where access to the case studies was provided and questionnaires were filled in

by the participating CICL. The researchers were accompanied by a staff member of KnK

Philippines during the visits to the other participating facilities. Since many participating

CICL were still in court procedures, staff members of that facility were not present during

answering the questions, to prevent CICL from being scared that their answers could be used

against them in court and in order to decrease the risk of socially desirable answering. A

KnK-staff member assisted the participating CICL with filling in the questionnaires. No

refusals of the CICL were recorded, however some CICL had difficulties with filling in the

questionnaires, due to short attention span, little education and difficulties with the expression

of opinions. It took the CICL between 30 to 60 minutes to finish the questionnaires.


Materials

Risk of reoffending: The instrument that was used for the risk analysis is the WSJCA Pre-

screen (Barnoski, 2004). The WSJCA Pre-screen indicates whether the child has a low,

moderate or high risk of re-offending based on his or her criminal and social history

(Barnoski, 2004). The researchers gained permission from the facility's executive directors to

access the case studies and initial intake reports of the participating CICL. Based on the

information in these files, the WSJCA was filled in by the researchers. In case the files did

not contain enough information, additional information was provided by the social worker of

the facility.

Criminogenic needs: For the assessment of the criminogenic needs of the CICL, multiple

scales and questionnaires were filled in by the CICL (see Figure 1). To assess the parenting

style of the parents, the Restrictive control-scale of the Parental Behavior Questionnaire

(PBQ; Wissink, Deković, & Meijer, 2006) was used. This scale measures the level of

authoritarian control (control based upon force, threat, and physical punishment), and is

associated with undesirable outcomes (Wissink, Deković, & Meijer, 2006). The answering

scale is a five point-scale ranging from "never" till "very often". The higher the score, the

higher the frequency of the use of restrictive control. Means of the PBQ in the dissertation of

Wissink (2006) were used as a norm, where scores higher than one standard deviation above

the mean were determined as an clinical score.

Aggression was measured by using the Overt aggression-scale of the Buss-Durkee

Hostility Inventory (BDHI; Lange, Hoogendoorn, Wiederspahn, & De Beurs, 1995). The

higher the scores on the BDHI Overt aggression-scale, the higher the aggression of the child.

To assess the ability of making pro-social friends, the Social acceptance-scale and the

Close friendship-scale of the Perceived Competence for Adolescents (CBSA; Treffers, et al.,

2004) were taken together and filled in by the CICL. These scales assess the perceived

acceptance by other people and the ability to make close friendships (Treffers, et al., 2004),

or the perceived competence of social behavior. These scales were chosen, because peer

rejection is a strong predictor of involvement with antisocial peers (Dishion, Patterson,

Stoolmiller, & Skinner, 1991). The higher the scores on these scales, the larger the ability of

making pro-social friends.

To assess the coping style of the CICL, two scales of the Utrechtse Coping List (UCL;

Schreurs, Van de Willige, Brosschot, Tellegen, & Graus, 1993) were filled in by the CICL.


The Social support-scale assesses in what way the child is looking for social support when

there are problems. This strategy can be seen as an adequate coping strategy and is usually

used by people with a strong internal locus of control (pointing themselves as the cause of the

problem, instead of someone else). The Palliative reactions-scale assesses in what way the

child is looking for distractions in order to keep his or her mind of the problem, for example

by smoking, drinking or using drugs, and is associated with psychopathology (Schreurs, et

al., 1993). The higher the scores on these scales, the more frequent a child uses that coping

strategy.

The Affective empathy-scale of the Basic Empathy Scale (BES; Jolliffe & Farrington,

2006) was used to assess affective empathy, and norm scores of Van Langen, Van Vugt, and

Stams (2009) were applied. The higher the scores on the BES, the higher the level of

affective empathy in the child.

Finally, the Sociomoral Reflection Measure-short version (SRM-SF; Basinger, Gibbs, &

Fuller, 1995) was used to assess the maturity of moral development based on Kohlberg's

stages of moral development (Basinger, et al., 1995). Five Filipino psychology students of the

Our Lady of Fatima University in Quezon City were asked to translate the open-ended

answers of the CICL into English, after instruction given by the main researcher. Since the

Filipino language consists many expressions or words that cannot be directly translated into

English, the meaning of some of the answers were discussed with the main researcher. The

translated answers on the open-ended questions of the SRM-SF were scored by the main

researcher of the current study; scoring the answers took 7-20 minutes per interview. The

scores determine Kohlberg's stages of moral development; the higher the scores, the higher

the level of moral development. The scores are standardized by calculating Cohen's d using

the norms of Basinger, Gibbs, and Fuller (1995). The larger the negative Cohen's d, the larger

the delay in moral development.

All questionnaires and scales were translated into Tagalog by the Commission on the

Filipino Language. A Filipino clinical psychologist evaluated the face validity of the

questionnaires for Filipino children and adjusted the original version of the CBSA-scales to

make it more usable for Filipino children. The questionnaires were then pretested on a small

sample of Filipino CICL to evaluate if there were any confusing or unclear questions. No

adjustments were made after the pretest.

Psychological interventions and strategies: To assess the available psychological

interventions and strategies, a checklist was created based upon international literature

(Appendix 1). The checklist contains scales about the risk of re-offending (risk principle),


scales about the criminogenic needs (needs principle) and a scale about the responsivity. The

items of the checklist assess whether the care in the institution is in compliance with the risk-

principle (i.e. 'Does the facility make predictions about the risk of re-offending?'), the

responsivity-principles (i.e. 'Does the facility enhance the motivation of the CICL for

participating in the program?'), and is targeting the criminogenic needs that are discussed in

this thesis (i.e. 'Does the facility provide group discussions on moral dilemmas?' and 'Does

the facility provide problem solving skill training?'). This checklist was filled in by the

researchers, based upon conversations with staff members of the facilities and published

documents provided by the facilities.

Reliability of instruments

Cronbach's alpha was computed to estimate the reliability of the instruments and

questionnaires in this sample. Sijtsma (2009) shows that Cronbach's alpha is the lower limit

of the estimation of reliability, therefore Gutmann's lambda 2 was also computed to give a

second estimation of the reliability of the questionnaires in this sample. Gutmann's lambda 2

is seen as a more accurate estimation of reliability (Sijtsma, 2009). Since scoring of the SRM-

SF leaves space for interpretation, a small sample (N=10) was scored double by two

researchers to estimate inter-rater reliability by calculating the percentage of agreement and

Cohen's Kappa.

Cases were excluded from the analyses when too little items were filled in (less than 60%

of the items) (see Table 1). The reliability estimates or internal consistency of the instruments

in the sample is listed in Table 1. Some items of the scales were deleted to improve the

Table 1 Reliability of instruments used for risk and needs assessment

N Missing values

Crombach's alpha (α)

Gutmann's lambda 2 (λ2)

Percentage agreement (%)

Cohen's Kappa (κ)

PBQ - Restrictive control

52 3 .640 (if one item deleted)

.669 (if one item deleted)

BDHI - Overt aggression



CBSA - Ability of making pro-social friends



BES - Affective empathy



SRM-SF 47 8 .758 .771 92 .91


reliability of the scales (see Table 2). The CBSA-scales (α = .584) and the BDHI Overt

aggression-scale (α = .541) had a questionable reliability, but considering the early stage of

research about this topic, it might be accepted (Nunnally, 1967). The SRM-SF had an

acceptable internal consistency (α = .758), with an inter-rater agreement of 92% percent (κ =

.91). Both the BES Affective empathy-scale (α = .695) and the PBQ Restrictive control-scale

(α = .640) had acceptable internal consistency. The scales of the UCL had unacceptably low

reliability and were therefore excluded from further analysis.

Table 2 Items deleted after reliability analysis Scale Item deleted PBQ - Restrictive control How often do your parents say you should listen to people who are

older than you (such as parents and teachers)? BDHI - Overt aggression I never get so angry that I start to throw things CBSA – scales I am capable of finding friends where I can really count on BES - Affective empathy The feelings of other persons don't affect me in any way

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were used to describe the level of risk of re-offending of CICL, the

level of restrictive control used by the parents, the level of aggression, the perceived

competence of social behavior (social acceptance and making close friendships), the coping

mechanisms, the affective empathy, and the socio-moral development of CICL.

Logistic regression analysis was used to describe the relation between the number of

criminogenic needs and risk of re-offending. Logistic regression analysis was also used to

describe the relationship between criminogenic needs and risk of re-offending. The dependent

variable was risk of re-offending, independent variables were the level of restrictive control,

aggression, perceived competence of social behavior, coping mechanisms, affective empathy,

and socio-moral development.

Pearson-correlations were also used to determine the relation between the risk-scale of the

checklist concerning the psychological care and interventions and the risk of reoffending.

Further, the six criminogenic needs were compared with the six "needs" scales of the

checklist by using Pearson-correlations.


Results

Risk of re-offending of Filipino CICL

The mean score of risk of re-offending was 2.24 (SD = .639). This is significantly higher

than would be expected from the norm group, with t(45) = 2.538, and p = .015. Only 10.9%

of the CICL had low risk of re-offending, 54.3% had moderate risk of re-offending, and

34.8% had high risk of re-offending. The hypothesis that the risk of re-offending of Filipino

CICL is high, is therefore accepted.

Criminogenic needs of Filipino CICL

Restrictive control: the mean score on the restrictive control scale was 3.01 (SD = .497).

This is significantly higher than expected from the norm group, with t(52) = 11.335, and p =

.000. All CICL reported that their parents use restrictive control more or less, with 47.2%

scoring normal and 52.8% scoring high on restrictive control. The first hypothesis of second

sub question, where it was expected that the parents of CICL show inadequate parenting

styles, was hereby accepted.

Aggression: the mean score of the CICL on the BDHI Overt aggression-scale was 3.42

(SD = 1.242). This is significantly higher than expected from the norm group, with t(51) =

2.456, and p = .008. Almost ten percent of the CICL scored very low on aggression, 13.5%

scored low, 23.1% scored moderate, 32.7% scored high on aggression, and 21.2% scored

very high on overt aggression. More than half of the CICL may need an intervention that

reduces aggression. It was hypothesized that the aggression level would not be very high.

This hypothesis was rejected.

Ability of making pro-social friends: the mean score of the CICL on the CBSA Social

acceptance and Close friendship-scales was .80 (SD = .452). This is significantly lower than

the scores of the norm group, with t(49) = -3.130, and p = .003. More than 20% of the scores

were clinically low, 76% had no divergent score, and 2% of the scores were clinically high on

perceived social acceptance. Also, 54% of the CICL had divergent scores on either one or

both scales that were used to measure the ability of making pro-social friends, so the

hypothesis that CICL have problems with making pro-social friendships was accepted.


Affective empathy: the mean score of the CICL on the BES Affective empathy-scale was

.94 (SD = .238). There was no difference between the scores of the CICL and the norm

group, with t(50) = 1.237, and p = .222. Only six percent of the CICL had a lack of affective

empathy. The hypothesis that CICL lack affective empathy was therefore rejected.

Moral development: the mean score of the CICL on the SRM-SF was 204.25 (SD =

35.627), which corresponds with stage 2 moral reasoning. Two percent of the CICL scored

on stage 1, 14.9% on stage 1/2, 57.4% on stage 2, 23.4 on stage 2/3, and 2.1% on stage 3

moral reasoning. The mean difference between CICL and the norm group was d = -3.04 (SD

= 1.389. This difference is significant, with t(43) = -14.519, and p = .000. The hypothesis that

CICL have a delayed socio-moral development was therefore accepted.

Relation between criminogenic needs and risk of re-offending

Number of criminogenic needs and risk of re-offending: Logistic regression analysis of 47

cases described the relationship between the number of criminogenic needs and risk of re-

offending. Number of criminogenic needs was a significant predictor of the risk of re-

offending of CICL, with B = 12.567, SE = 3.847, Wald = 10.6691, df = 1, p = .001, and

Exp(B) = 286879.159. The Hosmer and Lemeshow test was not significant, with χ2 = 4.687,

df = 4, and p = .321, which indicates that the model fitted the data accurately. The number of

criminogenic needs accounted for between 44.0% and 60.4% of the variance in risk of re-

offending, with 96.7% of the low/moderate risk CICL and 70.6% of the high risk CICL

successfully predicted. Overall 87.2% of the predictions were accurate. The hypothesis which

stated the more criminogenic needs, the higher the risk of re-offending was therefore

accepted.

Criminogenic needs and risk of re-offending: Logistic regression analysis of 34 cases was

performed. At first, all five variables were included in the model. However, due to a low fit

of the full model (omnibus χ2 was not significant), two variables (moral development and

aggression) who didn't significantly contribute to the model were excluded from the analysis.

The second model, which contained three criminogenic needs (ability of making pro-social

friends, restrictive control by parents and affective empathy), significantly predicted risk of

re-offending (omnibus χ2 = 9.260, df = 3, p = .026). The Hosmer and Lemeshow test was not

significant, with χ2 = 6.143, df = 8, and p = .631, which indicates that the model fitted the data

accurately. The model accounted for between 21.1% and 29.0% of the variance in risk of re-


offending, with 84.0% of the low/moderate risk CICL and 42.9% of the high risk CICL

successfully predicted. Overall 69.2% of the predictions were accurate. Table 2 shows that

only the ability of making pro-social friendships had a significant contribution to the

explanation of risk of re-offending.

Table 3 Logistic regression analysis for the relationship between criminogenic needs and risk of re-offending B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)

PBQ - Restrictive control

-.909 .902 1.016 1 .313 .403

CBSA - Ability of making pro-social friends

-2.215 .991 5.001 1 .025*

.109

BES - Affective empathy

-1.266 .889 2.029 1 .154 .282

Constant 12.636 5.753 4.824 1 .028 307334.778 * Significant at .05 level

Psychological interventions and strategies in residential facilities

During the observations, differences between the NGO's and the governmental facilities

were noticed. In the governmental facilities, the conditions were very poor. Many children

from different age groups and different (criminogenic) backgrounds were being held together

inside a small room without beds or other furniture. The governmental facilities provided

basic meals, but education or any type of psychological care was lacking.

In the NGO's, conditions for the CICL seemed somewhat better. The NGO's provided

proper basic supplies, like housing, food, clothing, education, and other daytime activities.

Also, activities aimed at rehabilitation and reintegration were available in the NGO's, for

example, counseling, group activities, and parental involvement. However, scientifically

based intervention programs or strategies were not present.

Table 3 lists a summary of the responses on the checklist about the psychological care in

the residential facilities. The majority of the facilities were not offering the measured

psychological interventions and strategies, and the care in the majority of the facilities was

not in line with the principles of the risk-needs-responsivity model. The hypothesis that the

psychological care in the residential facilities is poor, was therefore accepted.


Table 3

Summary of the responses on the checklist about the psychological care in the facilities

Items Response in percentages Riskprinciple No Yes 1a. Does the facility make predictions about risk of re-offending? 100 0

Low Moderate High 1b. What is the general intensity of the care? 50 25 25

No Yes 1c.Are there possibilities to differentiate in the intensity of the care? 50 50

No Yes, some Yes, full 1d. Is education offered? 50 25 25 1e. Is there attention for negative friends? 75 0 25 1f. Is there attention for substance use? 50 25 25

Parenting No Yes, some Yes, full 2. Does the facility offer adequate training for parents? 50 25 25

Aggression No Yes 3a. Does the facility provide an aggression reduction program? 100 0 3b. Does the facility provide role modeling or role plays? 50 50 3c. Does the facility have a structural behavioral reward system (for example, token economy) implemented in the program?

100 0

3d. Does the facility provide other scientifically based methods to reduce aggression?

50 50

Relation with peers No Yes 4a. Are there extracurricular group activities? 25 75 4b. Does the facility provide future goal setting activities? 50 50 4c. Does the facility provide a program or intervention to increase self-esteem?

75 25

4d. Does the facility provide training to increase peer pressure resistance/refusal skills?

75 25

4e. Are there specific methods to prevent deviancy training (negative peer influences) among the CICL within the facility?

75 25

Affective empathy 6. Does the facility provide a program or method to increase empathy? 50 50

Moral development 7a. Does the facility provide group discussions on moral dilemmas? 100 0 7b. Are there other methods provided to increase moral development? 50 50

Responsivity 8a. Does the facility identify individual learning characteristics? 75 25 8b. Does the facility enhance the motivation of the CICL for participating in the program? 8c. Does the facility use other methods to increase a positive response of the child to the program or interventions in the facility?

50 75

50 25

No Trained Certified 8d. Is the staff that directly works with the CICL in the facility trained or certified to work with the target group?

50 25 25


Compliance between the characteristic of CICL and the psychological care provided in the

facilities

Pearson's correlations were performed to estimate the relation between the characteristics

of the CICL and the psychological care that was offered in the facilities. Table 3 shows that

only two out of six correlations were significant. First, there was a significant positive

correlation between the level of overt aggression in CICL and the amount of aggression

reduction care in the facilities, with r = .330, N = 52, and p = .017. This is a moderate

correlation: 10.9% of the variation in aggression care was explained by the level of

aggression of CICL. Second, there was a significant positive correlation between the delayed

moral development of CICL and the care provided in the facilities that targets moral

development, with r = .368, N = 44, and p = .014. This is a moderate correlation: 13.5% of

the variation in moral development care was explained by the delayed moral development of

CICL. However, this correlation was not in the expected direction: the higher the delay in

moral development, the lower the intensity of the moral development care in the institution.

Since only the aggression care is in compliance with the characteristics of CICL, it is

concluded that the care in the facilities does not fit the characteristics of the CICL

appropriately and sufficiently. The hypothesis was therefore accepted.

Table 4 Pearson correlations for the relationship between criminogenic needs and the specific care in the facility Variables N R Risk of re-offending - Risk-principle care 47 .195 Restrictive control - Parenting training 53 .062 Overt aggression - Aggression reduction care 52 .330* Ability of making pro-social friends - Peers care 50 -.238 Affective empathy - Empathy care 51 .083 Moral development - Moral development care 44 .368*

* Significant at the .05 level

Discussion

This study focused on the programs in Filipino residential facilities for Children in

Conflict with Law (CICL). The results show that CICL have a high risk of re-offending,

which is in compliance with the hypothesis. Additionally, multiple criminogenic factors have


been identified in CICL: high aggression, difficulties with making pro-social friends, delayed

socio-moral development, and parents who use negative parenting styles. The high

aggression in CICL was not expected, but might be explained by the negative parenting

experiences of CICL (Chang, Schwartz, Dodge, & McBride-Chang, 2003). Also, the

moderate affective empathy level in the CICL was unexpected. The number of criminogenic

factors and the ability of making pro-social friends were significantly related to the risk of re-

offending. The other criminogenic needs did not have significant value in the explanation of

risk of re-offending. This research also indicated that the psychological intervention and

strategies are extremely poor in governmental facilities. Conditions seem to be better in

NGO's, however, scientifically based interventions and strategies are lacking. The

psychological care in the facilities is not in line with the characters of the CICL (except for

the compliance between level of aggression and the aggression care), and the facilities do not

apply the risk- and responsivity-principles appropriately. These findings are in line with the

hypotheses. However, it should be noted that the findings regarding the program in the

residential facilities are based on observations and interviews in only four facilities.

Therefore, cautiousness should be considered in the generalization of the conclusions.

With these findings, the main research question "To what extent do the programs for CICL

in residential facilities comply with the risk-needs-responsivity model?" can be answered.

Based on the current study’s results, it can be concluded that the programs in the residential

facilities comply poorly with the risk-needs-responsivity model. This finding is in line with

previous reports about the situation of CICL in residential facilities and the conditions in

which some of them are detained. The current research also supports the findings of Knowles

(2010) that governmental facilities lack basic care, such as psychological programs or

education enrollment, even though RA 9344 guarantees access to those forms of basic

facilities. Other results of the present study are also supported by existing research. For

instance, the results of the current study emphasize the importance of peers in delinquency:

CICL were shown to have difficulties with making pro-social friends, and this variable was

significantly related to the risk of re-offending. The importance of the role of peers in the

development and maintenance of delinquent behavior has been described for a long time in

many studies (Haynie, & Osgood, 2005; Loeber, 1990), which supports the findings of the

present study. Also, the findings concerning the negative parenting styles and the delayed

socio-moral development of the CICL in this study, are in compliance with findings of

existing research (Hoeve, et al., 2009; Stams, et al., 2006). The moderate level of affective

empathy in CICL was unexpected, however, it is somewhat consistent with findings of a


previous study, which showed that affective empathy is only weakly related to offending

(Jolliffe, & Farrington, 2004). Thus, it is possible that offenders (or CICL) do not have a

much lower level of affective empathy than non-offenders. Finally, the present research

showed that the larger the number of criminogenic needs, the higher the risk of re-offending.

This cumulative effect is in compliance with theories that are described before, for example

the "dose-response"-relation in Van der Laan, Van der Schans, Bogaerts, and Doreleijers

(2009). The "dose-response"-relation describes the cumulative effect of risk factors: the more

risk factors, the more likely that problems will rise (Van der Laan et al., 2009). Also, Loeber

(1990) stated that "the interaction between certain risk factors often substantially magnifies

subsequent risk for antisocial behavior beyond the contribution of the individual factors" (p.

13).

This study has some limitations. First and foremost, it should be noted that the instruments

which were used to assess the risk of re-offending and the criminogenic needs of the CICL,

were not validated or standardized for Filipino children. Even though the instruments were

translated into Tagalog and a Filipino clinical psychologist reviewed the instruments,

interpretation of the scores should be done with caution. Second, scoring the answers on the

SRM-SF consisted many coding, with space for interpretation, and thus a less objective

scoring method. However, the inter-rater reliability was sufficient, which is positive. Third,

the internal consistency of the BDHI Overt aggression-scale and the CBSA-scales was

between .5 and .6, which can be considered as a questionable reliability. Nunnally (1967)

stated that an α between .5 and .6 is recommended for the early stages of research, however

he increased this minimum in later publications (Nunnally, 1978; Nunnally, & Bernstein,

1994). Cronbach's alpha is sensitive for the number of respondents and the number of item of

the scale (Streiner, 2003), which might indicate that in this case the Cronbach's alpha’s were

a lower estimate of reliability. Since the Gutmann's lambda of the scales was sufficient, the

two scales were used in the further analyses. However, cautiousness is in place regarding the

results based on these scales. Fourth, the analyses were not controlled for the length of time a

CICL stayed in the residential facility. Unfortunately, it was not possible to derive

information about the length of time a CICL stayed in the facility, but this might be an

interesting factor to take into consideration in further research, because the moment of

assessment may influence the level of risk of re-offending and the presence of criminogenic

needs. Finally, with the assessment of risk of re-offending, the researchers were dependent on

the information that was provided in the case studies of the CICL, or additional information

provided by the social worker of that facility. The quality of the information derived from the


files and the social workers was variable. Especially in the governmental facilities, the quality

of the information necessary for the risk-analysis was sometimes poor. In future research,

observations could be employed, if facilities give permission for such an approach. Actually,

it was very remarkable that researchers of current studies had access to these facilities and

gained allowance to see the files. Due to the existing relationships between KnK Philippines

and the governmental facilities, it was possible for the researchers to conduct this study.

All together, this thesis offers implications and suggestions for theory and practice. First of

all, since this research showed that residential facilities ae poorly implementing the risk-

principles (no risk-assessments, no possibility to differentiate the care in governmental

facilities), it is recommended that risk-assessment tools are developed for Filipino CICL.

Further research should focus on the development of valid and reliable instruments to assess

risk of re-offending. Once a residential facility is able to assess the risk of re-offending, it is

advised to adjust the program for CICL according to the risk-principle.

Second, the current programs do not adequately fit the criminogenic needs of the CICL. It

is therefore recommended to assess criminogenic needs of CICL and to offer scientifically

based programs that target the specific criminogenic needs of that child. RA 9344 prescibes

that CICL should be treated with such individualized programs, but for now, this law doesn't

seem to have been implemented fully. Further research should focus on the development of

valid and reliable instruments to assess criminogenic needs as well.

Finally, it is recommended to implement the responsivity-principles. It is very important to

employee staff members who are trained and certified to work with CICL. Not only will this

increase the chances of a positive implementation of the program (Ogloff, & Davis, 2004), it

can also create a pedagogical safe environment. Knowles (2010) showed that in the

residential facilities physical and sexual abuse are still present, while Colton (2002) showed

that training and education of staff members can decrease the abuse by staff members, as well

as the abuse by other CICL in the residential facility. A safe pedagogical environment is an

important factor in the residential rehabilitation and treatment of juvenile delinquents (Van

der Helm, Klapwijk, Stams, & Van der Laan, 2009), it is recommended that educated staff

are responsible for the care of CICL in residential facilities.

Although on paper, there are beautiful laws that protect Filipino CICL and offer them

interesting programs for a brighter future, the results of the current study indicate that there

are still many opportunities for improvement, particularly in governmental facilities.

Hopefully, the findings can be used to work to a better offender assessment and rehabilitation


for Filipino CICL. All in all, it is of high importance that the basic human rights are also

respected for Filipino CICL.


References

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The empirical base of PCC and the RNR model. In: D.A.

Andrews & J. Bonta: The psychology of criminal conduct, 5th edition(45-78). New Providence:

Elsevier.

Anmesty International (2003). Philippines, a different childhood: The apprehension and detention of

child suspects and offenders. From:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA35/007/2003/en/db3bf02a-d71b-11dd-b0cc-

1f0860013475/asa350072003en.pdf

Barnoski, R. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington State Juvenile Court

Assessment. Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Beijing Rules. United Nations standard minimum rules for the administration of juvenile justice

(1985).

Boeije, H. (2005). Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek. Amsterdam: Boom Onderwijs

Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to

child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 598-606.

Colton, M. (2002). Factors associated with abuse in residential child care institutions. Children &

Society, 1, 33–44. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. L. (1991). Family, school, and

behavioral antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental

Psychology, 27, Jan 1991, 172-180. Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.E., & Miller, J.Y. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other

drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention.

Psychological Bulletin, 112, 64-105.

Haynie, D.L., & Osgood, D.W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do peers matter?

Social Forces, 2, 1109-1130.

Hoeve, M., Dubas, J.S., Eichelsheim, V.I., Van der Laan, P.H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J.R.M. (2009).

The relationship between parenting and delinquency: a meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 37, 749-775.

Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359, 1423-1429.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-

analysis. Aggressive and Violent behavior, 9, 441-476.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-

analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441–476.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D.P. (2006). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale.

Journal of Adolescence, 4, 589-611.


http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA35/007/2003/en/db3bf02a-d71b-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/asa350072003en.pdf

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA35/007/2003/en/db3bf02a-d71b-11dd-b0cc-1f0860013475/asa350072003en.pdf

Katz, I., Corlyon, J., La Placa, V., & Hunter, S. (2007). The relationship between parenting and

poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Knowles, J. (2010). Still behind bars: child incarceration and juvenile justice policy in the

Philippines. From: http://www.preda.org/main/archives/still-behind-bars.pdf.

Kodjo, C.M., & Klein, J.D. (2002). Prevention and risk of adolescent substance abuse. The role of

adolescents, families, and communities. The Pediatric Clinics of North America, 49, 257 – 268.

Lange, A., Hoogendoorn, M., Wiederspahn, A., & De Beurs, E. (1995). Buss-Durkee Hostility

Inventory-Dutch. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Lipsey, M.W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile

offenders: a meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4, 124-147.

Loeber, R. (1990). Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency.

Clinical Psychological Review, 10, 1-41.

Lovett, B.J., & Sheffield, R.A. (2007). Affective empathy deficits in aggressive children and

adolescents: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 1, 1-13.

Maxwell, C.D., & Maxwell, S.R. (2003). Experiencing and witnessing familial aggression and their

relationship to physically aggressive behaviors among Filipino adolescents. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1432-1451.

McLeod, J.D., & Shanahan, M.J. (1993). Poverty, parenting, and children's mental health. American

Sociological Review, 3, 351-366.

Nichter, M. (2008). Global Health: Why cultural perceptions, social representations, and biopolitics

matter. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hil

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd edition).New York: McGraw-

Hill.

Ogloff, J. R. P. (2002). Offender rehabilitation: from ‘what works’ to what next? Australian

Psychologist , 37, 242-252.

Ogloff, J.R.P., & Davis, M.R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation:

Contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3, 229-242.

RA 9344, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, Republic Act No. 9344 (2006).

Save the Children (2004). Breaking rules: Children in conflict with the law and the juvenile justice

process. Quezon City: Save the Children, UK.

Schreurs, P.J.G., Van de Willige G., Brosschot, J.F., Tellegen, B., & Graus, G.M.H. (1993). Utrechtse

Coping List. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Shoemaker, D.J. (1994). Male-female delinquency in the Philippines: A comparative analysis, Youth

and Society, 25, 299-329.

Sijtsma, K. (2009). Cronbach’s alpha and the desirability of alternatives. De Psycholoog, 44, 561-567.


Stams, G.J., Brugman, D., Deković, M., Van Rosmalen, L., Van der Laan, P., & Gibbs, J.C. (2006).

The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: a meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child

Psychology, 34, 697-713.

Streiner, D.L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal

consistency, Journal of Personality Assessment, 1, 99-103.

Treffers, P.D.A., Goedhart, A.W., Veerman, J.W., van den Bergh, B.R.H., Ackaert, L., & de Rycke,

L. (2004). Perceived Competence scale for Adolescents. Amsterdam: Harcourt Assessment.

UNICEF Philippines (2004). Jail is no place for a child. Verkregen van:

http://www.unicef.org/philippines/children/jj_1.html

Van der Helm, G.H.P, Klapwijk, M., Stams, G.J.J.M., & Van der Laan, P.H. (2009). 'What Works’ for

juvenile prisoners. The role of group climate in a youth prison, Journal of Children’s Services, 2,

36-48.

Van der Laan, A.M, Van der Schans, C.M., Bogaerts, S., & Doreleijers, Th.A.H. (2009). Criminogene

en beschermende factoren bij jongeren die een basisraadsonderzoek ondergaan. Meppel: Boom

Juridische Uitgevers.

Van Langen, M.A.M., Van Vugt, E.S., & Stams, G.J.J.M. (2009). Dutch validation of the basic

empathy scale. Unpublished Manuscript.

Van Yperen, T., & Van Bommel, M. (2009). Kwaliteitseisen interventies 2009-2010. Utrecht:

Nederlands Jeugd Instituut.

Wissink, I.B. (2006). Parenting, friendship relations and adolescent functioning in different ethnic

groups. Dissertation, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Wissink, I.B., Deković, M., & Meijer, A.M. (2006). Parenting behavior, quality of the parent-

adolescent relationship, and adolescent functioning in four ethnic groups. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 26, 133-159.


Appendix 1

Checklist care in Filipino facilities for CICL Risk principle 1. Does the facility make predictions about the risk of re-offending? 0 yes 0 no (Based on Ogloff et al., 2004) 2. What is the general intensity of the psychological care? 0 low 0 moderate 0 high (Low: no psychological care. Moderate: (therapeutic) group activities. High: therapeutic group activities and individualized therapy programs/diagnostics. Based on Ogloff et al., 2004) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3. Are there possibilities to differentiate the intensity of the care? ` 0 yes 0 no (Are there possibilities to intensify the care when this is necessary according to the individual needs of the child, for example individual therapy or intensified monitoring. Based on Ogloff et al., 2004) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4. Are there programs offered that lower/decrease specific risk factors? 4a. Is education offered? 0 no 0 yes, part-time 0 yes, full-time 4b. Is there attention for negative friends? 0 no 0 yes, implicit in program 0 yes, explicit 4c. Is there attention for substance use? 0 no 0 yes, implicit in program 0 yes, explicit (Based on Barnoski, 2004) Needs-principle Parenting styles 5. Does the facility provide adequate training 0 no 0 yes, but minimal 0 yes, intensively for parents to decrease delinquent behavior? (Factors that are related to delinquent behavior are parental monitoring, psychological control, and negative aspects of support (Hoeve et al., 2009). No: parents are not involved in the program of the institution or the program is not addressing identified factors. Minimal: occasionally addressing these factors with parents. Intensively: structural training with parents addressing these factors)


Aggression 6a. Does the facility provide an aggression reduction program which 0 no 0 yes enhances the use of adequate social skills? (For example, a program which contains identification of anger triggers, calming down techniques, social skills education or coping with anger or social stress. Based on Goldstein et al., 1994; Frey et al., 2000) 6b. Does the facility provide role modeling or role plays to enhance 0 no 0 yes the use of appropriate alternatives of aggression? (Based on Goldstone et al., 1994) 6c. Does the facility have a structural behavioral reward system 0 no 0 yes (for example, token economy) implemented in the program to give feedback about behavior? (Based on Novaco et al., 2004) 6d. Does the facility provide other scientifically based methods to 0 no 0 yes reduce aggression? If yes, specify below: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ (For example, specific techniques of approaching the children, education of the staff or specific therapy) Relation with peers 7a. Are there extracurricular group activities to create involvement in 0 no 0 yes pro-social peer interactions? (For example, sport activities, leisure activities or hobbies. Based on Eccles et al., 2003) 7b. Does the facility provide future goal setting activities to lower 0 no 0 yes pro-criminal attitudes? (Based on Thornberry et al., 1994 and Carroll et al., 2001) 7b. Does the facility provide a program or intervention to increase self-esteem? 0 no 0 yes (Zimmerman et al. (1997) show that the lower the self-esteem, the higher the susceptibility to peer pressure. Interventions to increase self-esteem can be resilience training, anti-bullying training or self-defense training. 7c. Does the facility provide training to increase peer pressure 0 no 0 yes resistances/refusal skills? (For example: identifying other peoples motives, saying no, ignoring deviant peers, finding pro-social alternatives for the delinquent behavior, based on Wright et al., 2004). 7c. Are there specific methods to prevent deviancy training (negative 0 no 0 yes peer influences) among the CICL within the facility? If yes, please specify: (Based on Dishion, et al., 1999. For example, creating a peer culture with pro-social values instead of anti-social values based on Brentro et al., 2007). ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Coping mechanisms 8a. Does the facility provide problem solving skill training? 0 no 0 yes


(For example: teaching strategies in asking for help, analyzing problems, evaluating different alternatives. Based on Rohde et al., 2004 and Frey et al., 2000). 8b. Does the facility use role playing or positive modeling to increase the 0 no 0 yes use of adequate problem solving skills? (Based on Hawkins et al., 1991) 8c. Does the facility provide training in coping with stress? 0 no 0 yes (For example: relaxation techniques, training in the expression of feelings. Based on Rohde et al., 2004). Affective empathy 9. Does the facility provide a program or method to increase empathy? 0 no 0 yes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ (For example, enhancing perspective taking skills by role playing, group discussions about the impact of delinquent behavior on others and restorative justice (Day et al., 2010; Frey et al., 2000; Pranis, 2000) Moral development 10a. Does the facility provide group discussions on moral dilemmas? 0 no 0 yes Based on Arbuthnot et al., 1986) 10b. Are there other methods provided to increase moral development? 0 no 0 yes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Responsivity 11. Does the facility identify individual learning characteristics, for example 0 no 0 yes intelligence? 12. Does the facility enhance the motivation of the CICL for participating 0 no 0 yes in the program? 13. Is the staff that directly works with the CICL in the facility 0 no 0 trained 0 certified trained or certified to work with the target group? 14. Does the facility use other methods to increase a positive response 0 no 0 yes of the child to the program or interventions in the facility? If yes, specify below: .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. (Based on Ogloff et al., 2004).


References

Arbuthnot, J., & Gordon, D.A. (1986). Behavioral and cognitive effects of a moral reasoning

development intervention for high-risk-disordered adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85, 1275-1301.

Barnoski, R. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment. Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Barnoski, R. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment. Washington: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Brendtro, L.K., Mitchell, M.L., & McCall, H. (2007). Positive peer culture: antidote to "peer deviance training". Reclaiming Children and Youth, 4, 200-206.

Carroll, A., Hattie, J., Durkin, K., & Houghton, S. (2001). Goal-setting and reputation enhancement: Behavioural choices among delinquent, at-risk and not at-risk adolescents. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 165-184.

Day, A., Casey, S., & Gerance, A. (2010). Interventions to improve empathy awareness in sexual and violent offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 201-208.

Dishion, T.J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist, 9, 755-764.

Eccles, J.S., Barber, B.L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 865-889.

Frey, K.S., Hirschenstein, M.K., & Guzzo, B.A. (2000). Second step: Preventing aggression by promoting social competence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 2, 102-112.

Goldstein, A. P., & Glick, B. (1994). Aggression Replacement Training: Curriculum and evaluation. Stimulation & Gaming, 1, 9-26.

Hawkins, J.D., Jenson, J.M., Catalano, R.F., & Wells, E.A. (1991). Effects of a Skills Training Intervention with juvenile delinquents. Research on Social Work Practices, 2, 107-121.

Hoeve, M., Dubas, J.S., Eichelsheim, V.I., Van der Laan, P.H., Smeenk, W., & Gerris, J.R.M. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: a meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 749-775.

Novaco, R.W., Ramm, M., & Black, L. (2004). Anger treatment with offenders. In C. R. Hollin, Essential handbook of offender assessment and treatment. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Ogloff, J.R.P., & Davis, M.R. (2004). Advances in offender assessment and rehabilitation: Contributions of the risk–needs–responsivity approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3, 229-242.

Pranis, K. (2000). Empathy development in youth through restorative practices. Public Service Psychology, 2, 1-5.

Rohde, P., Jorgensen, J.S., Seeley, J.R., & Mace, D.E. (2004). Pilot evaluation of the Coping Course: a cognitive-behavioral intervention to enhance coping skills in incarcerated youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 6, 669-676.

Thornberry, T.P., Lizotte, A.J., Krohn, M.D., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S.J. (1994). Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: a longitudinal test of interactional theory. Criminology, 1, 47-84.

Wright, A.J., Nichils, T.R., Graber, J.A., Brooks-Gunn, J.B., & Botvin, G.J. (2004). Links between divergent peer resistance skills and delinquency a year later. Journal of Adolescent Health, 5, 380-391.

Zimmerman, M.A., Copeland, L.A., Shope, J.T., & Dielman, T.E. (1997). A longitudinal study of self-esteem: implications for adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2, 117-141.


filipino children in conflict with the law

Documents