An evaluation of an arts program for incarcerated juvenile offenders

An evaluation of an arts program for incarcerated juvenile offenders

Ezell, Mark

Abstract

This article focuses on the evaluation of an innovative arts program that facilitates teaching and interaction between artists and institutionalized juvenile offenders. A three year, multi-method evaluation was conducted of the program in order to examine its effects on participating juveniles. The research found that the academic, vocational, and behavioral goals of the arts workshops were accomplished to a very high degree, concrete participants acquired vocational skills, and youth had positive feelings of goal accomplishment. While involved in workshops, youth compliance with institutional rules was high and their behavior less disruptive at a statistically significant level. The results also begin to suggest that involvement in the art workshops had longer term effects as evidenced by relatively low recidivism for participants. The article concludes with discussions of practice implications and suggestions for future research.

Introduction

Recent juvenile justice policies depart from the traditional rehabilitative goals of the juvenile court in favor of more punitive responses to juvenile crime (Woolard, Fondacaro & Slobogin, 2001). This “get tough” approach is evidenced by a proliferation of zero tolerance policies, mandatory minimum sentences, efforts to try juveniles as adults, as well as proposals to abolish juvenile court entirely. Despite the recent decreasing rate in juvenile crime, there are an increasing number of youth entering the juvenile and criminal justice systems (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine [NRC/IOM], 2001). Based on the one-day count from the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, approximately 106,000 adjudicated juveniles were in residential placement in the United States in 1997 (OJJDP, 1999). Not surprisingly, the magnitude of incarceration is putting a strain on correctional facilities for youth. Reports of overcrowding and poor conditions in juvenile institutions are common (Krisberg & Howell, 1998; NRC/IOM, 2001; Puritz & Scali, 1998). Despite these circumstances, not only is information on juvenile corrections programming and practices minimum (NRC/IOM, 2001), too little is understood about the effectiveness of various correctional interventions in preventing further juvenile crime, not to mention other desirable outcomes.

This article focuses on the evaluation of an innovative arts program that facilitates teaching and interaction between artists and institutionalized juvenile offenders. In 1992, a curator, Ms. Susan Warner, launched a program called “A Changed World” (ACW). The program consists of short-term workshops that serve as the settings for interactions, experiential learning, and the production of stories, poems, sketches, videos, murals, sculptures and other artistic work. This article highlights the potential of arts programs to impact youth behavior both during incarceration and after release.

Literature Review

The concept of using the arts to reach at-risk youth is nothing new. Called art education, art workshops, arts programs, community art or creative arts therapy groups, these programs are as varied as the names used to describe them. Some programs utilize a particular artistic medium; others incorporate a broad definition of art (including drama, dance, and the visual arts). Though the programs may be “therapeutic” in nature, they are not “art (or music or drama) therapy.” Art therapy involves a professionally trained therapist who used creative expression to generate insights for treatment or diagnostic purposes (Aulich, 1994). In contrast, arts programs are usually led by professional artists who may or, more often, may not have special training in working with at-risk populations. These programs focus on both the creative process and product while broadly defining “therapeutic” as any artistic activity that promotes positive change (Riches, 1994).

The arts possess a fundamental potential to impact individuals in many ways. Most simply, art provides an opportunity for activity or keeping busy, thus making them highly relevant to institutionalized persons. The arts afford youth a chance to learn new skills while keeping physically and mentally occupied in a constructive way. Arts programs offer a haven through which to explore unrecognized or under-appreciated talents (Warner, 1995). Youth may become so involved in the creative process that art provides a temporary escape from their current life or institutional circumstances.

The arts provide rich opportunities for personal growth. “Arts instruction teaches youth about themselves, their sensations and their ideas and shows them unexpected ways of understanding other people and the world) (Sautter, 1994, p. 434). Art provides a means through which to express the self and communicate feelings and ideas. Engaging in art can be cathartic and it provides a release of tension in a manner that is not dependent on the verbal communication of feelings (Feder & Feder, 1981). As a result of the endurance and patience necessary to complete art works, youth may develop a feeling of competence and, importantly, the results are tactile. Artists demonstrate a way to “achieve success, self-esteem, pride in one’s self and one’s work, a sense of accomplishment and contribution, and a feeling of independence” (Szekely, 1982, pp. 19-20).

For youth who are incarcerated, the arts hold additional promise. The highly structured environment of juvenile correctional facilities places heavy restrictions on freedom and choice. Arts programs offer opportunities to exercise decision-making and take ownership and responsibility for something. Creative art provides incarcerated youth with a socially acceptable outlet for releasing tension (Szekely, 1982; Gussak, 1997). Youth receive positive attention and recognition from the artists. As community-based professionals, the artists provide a connection to the real world. Arts programs that include exhibitions provide incarcerated youth with a voice in the community while the community is given an opportunity to better understand the youths’ situation.

Very little is known about the impact of arts programs with incarcerated youth both in the short- and long-run (Jones, 1986). Only one study was found to focus on the impact of an art program in a juvenile institution. An improvisational theater program working within a California Youth Authority institution demonstrated a 60 to 70%Ie decrease in violence for program participants (Cleveland, 1992). Arts programs for “at-risk youth” have been found to be capable of producing measurable change in problem and delinquent behavior. Clawson and Coolbaugh (2001) conducted a study in three cities using pre-test, post-test, and follow-up data. Even though the samples of at-risk youth were small and somewhat different from site to site (e.g., truants, youth on probation, youth referred by schools) and efforts to use comparison groups met with varied success, several important findings emerged. The research found that youth who participated in the arts programs demonstrated increased interpersonal skills, decreased delinquent behavior, improve academic performance and higher rates of graduation.

Another study conducted by the Rand Corporation (Stone, Bikson, Moini & McArthur, 1998) examined a large number of arts programs for at-risk youth in the Los Angeles area. Based on the judgments of an expert panel, programs that had a strong impact on youths’ prosocial development were compared to programs that had a weak impact in order to identify key program features the contribute to positive outcomes. They found that “serious artistic instruction is a necessary program feature for fine arts interventions to promote prosocial development in youth” (p. ii) and that other key program features (e.g., emphasis on performance and presentation) also have to be in place for the artistic instruction to have a positive impact. This research, while very helpful to those who are designing and operating arts programs, is hard to compare to other studies due to the fact that there was no definition of “at-risk youth.”

Despite these benefits, art programs are not routinely incorporated in the programming offered to institutionalized juvenile offenders. Since September 1999, the NEA and OJJDP have supported three pilot sites and three existing programs through their “Arts Programs for Juvenile Offenders in Detention and Corrections” initiative. Beyond these sites, the total number of arts programs for incarcerated youth is unknown, though there were 60 applications for funding through the NEA/ OJJDP initiative (Hillman, n.d.).

More is known about prison art programs that serve incarcerated adults. Since the early 1970’s, collaborations between professional artists and prisons have multiplied across the country through the initiative such as the Artist-in-Residence Program, jointly funded by the NEA and the United States Department of Justice. Despite a limited number of published studies examining art programs in correctional facilities, evidence suggests some positive findings in regard to decreased prison violence and less future crime among program participants (Szekely, 1982).

The Illinois Department of Corrections discovered that art eases tension among inmates (Piazza, 1997). “Culture,” an arts program in 60 state prisons, developed by the American Corrections Association, found reduction in aggression from 54 to 100% (Count-Van Manen, 1991). Arts programs in adult correctional facilities in California, Oklahoma and Massachusetts demonstrated a decrease in incident rates by 60 to 90% (Durland, 1996). In particular, the California Arts-In-Corrections program found incidents of violence and disruptive behavior reduced by 75 to 81 % (Cleveland, 1992).

Prison arts programs also show an impact on recidivism. A 1997 study found that recidivism decreased by 51% for parolees who participated in the Arts-In-Corrections program for at least six months while incarcerated (Cleveland, 1992). Two years after their release, 69% of Arts-In-Corrections participants remained out of prison compared to 42% of inmate who did not participate in the program (Riches, 1994). Theater Without Bars, a New Jersey prison drama program, determined that 12% of participants returned to prison, compared to 33% of other prisoners (Count-Van Manen, 1991). Despite the successes reported for incarcerated adults, a lack of outcome studies with institutionalized juveniles leaves questions regarding the effectiveness of arts programs with this population unanswered.

A Changed World

This section gives a detailed description of “A Changed World” (ACW), the program studied. Since the program’s inception, it has operated under the auspices of several different agencies. Funding for the program has always been a challenge and Ms. Warner has successfully received Federal grants, as well as funding, contributions, and in-kind donations from numerous organizations and individuals. The purpose of ACW is to reduce the recidivism of juvenile offenders through their participation in culturally -relevant, experiential arts activities. Major objectives include: 1) to inculcate cultural and community awareness; 2) to lessen the risks of inappropriate behavior within the institutional environment; 3) to develop vocational and academic skills that will motivate and assist the student with the search for employment/career; and 4) to reduce the likelihood to reoffend after release. Artists of many talents, skilled with a variety of media, conduct workshops with the juveniles. These professional artists include poets, musicians, sculptors, videographers, graphic designers and photographers,just to name a few. The vast majority of artists have little or no formal training or prior experience in working with incarcerated youth.

Artists conduct workshops that range from two weeks to two months. While no specific curriculum is espoused, artists are encouraged to follow these principles:

* Individualize curriculum within a team approach that adapts to the changing needs of the student throughout the project;

* Create a safe, non-judgmental environment by encouraging positive experimentation and rewarding participation and effort with praise and public recognition;

* Courier negativism with positive role modeling;

* Guide the decision-making process with questions, stories, and discussion )group and individual);

* Demonstrate at all times a 100% commitment to the student and his/her work;

* Provide concrete examples of how individuals in history and in present times have succeeded in overcoming enormous odds to make a lasting contribution to society; and

* Give every opportunity to nurture leadership qualities.

In the first and second year of the evaluation (1996 and 1997), the youth created a touring multimedia exhibit, including supporting curriculum materials for use by teachers and counselors. During the third year of the evaluation (1998), the focus was on the production of a film for television-because of this, fewer workshops were conducted. The youth were extensively involved in the planning of the film including: 1) the script and filming; 2) the musical score; and 3) the catalog that accompanies the film.

ACW and Ms. Warner are highly respected in the field of arts programming. In 1998, ACW was honored with the “Coming Up Taller Award” from the National endowment for the Arts (NEA). Recently, ACW, along with five other programs, received funding from a partnership between the NEA and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), indicating that the concept of arts programs in juvenile corrections facilities is catching on and spreading.

Research Methods

In this section, we will describe the. research procedures and measures used to evaluate the project. This article combines three separate annual evaluations and primarily uses the results of the second and third years. The first author of this article served as the evaluator of ACW. The research methods and results of the first year’s evaluation will be discussed briefly even though numerous changes were made for subsequent years; many useful lessons were learned about studying this kind of program during the first year.

The program evaluations addressed the following general research questions:

1. Do students learn new academic and vocational skills from the art workshops?

2. Does institutional behavior of program participants improve during their workshops?

3. How does the recidivism rate of program participants compare to nonparticipants?

Participants and Workshop Types

The study included a sample of youth who participated in arts workshops while incarcerated in Washington state juvenile correctional facilities. Incarceration in these correctional facilities is reserved for the most violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Demographic information was collected on program participants only during the first year. The participants in that year were ethnically diverse: 48.8% Caucasian, 20.7% Hispanic, 15.9% Native American, 11.0% African American, 1.2% Asian, 1.2% multiracial and 1.2% “other.” Ages of participants ranged from 15 to 21 with 17.8 being the average. Time until release ranged from I week to more than 3 years. On average, youth had 44.5 weeks remaining on their sentences. Information on the juveniles’ crimes was not gathered. Program staff reported that the characteristics of youth who participated in subsequent years were similar to those of the first year.

Youth participation in the workshops was voluntary, as was their involvement in the evaluation. In the first year of the program, 17 workshops were held in six institutions involving 265 participants1 of whom 86 participated in the evaluation. In the second year, 11 workshops in six institutions involved 117 participants, 57 of whom participated in the evaluation. The program’s third year saw six workshops in five institutions with 41 participants who all completed evaluations. Workshop offerings varied slightly each year. Over the three years, workshop types included visual arts, creative writing, music, wood sculpture, graphic design, murals, poetry, photography, drama, cartoon art, collage and papier-mache.

Data Collection

First Year Evaluation. Several measures were used in a pre-test post-test design to measure changes in self– esteem, peer relations, cultural awareness, and community identity. Youth self-reported on the first two and staff recorded their perceptions on the latter two. In all cases, multi-item scales were used. The self-esteem scale was a version of Rosenberg’s (1979), and the peer– relations scale was adapted from Hudson (1982). Both scales had adequate levels of reliability with coefficient alpha equal to .74 and .81 respectively. The items used to measure community identity focused on the youth’s ability to differentiate between life in an institution and life in the community. The cultural awareness items reflected the degree to which youth expressed cultural awareness, identification, and pride.

Teachers assessed the accomplishment of learning goals for each workshop by indicating whether they observed little or no progress, moderate progress, or substantial progress for each participant. In most cases, two workshop goals were developed in each of the three categories: Academic; Vocational; and Behavioral/ Social. An example of an academic goal was, “To learn how to read the work of his peers in a way that will enable him to acquire insight about craft, and to provide constructive criticism to his peers.” The following are illustrative vocational and behavioral goals from the first year of the evaluation: “Increase knowledge of the safe and proper use of power hand tools,” and “To increase his tolerance for others by learning to treat their literacy efforts with respect.”

Second and Third Year Evaluation. Numerous changes were made in data collection procedures after the first year. Data were collected directly from youth and artists on several quantitative and qualitative instruments following completion of workshops. Data were also obtained from correctional facility staff as well as court records. Described below are the methods used to measure key variables and collect the data.

Skill Acquisition. An open-ended survey was designed to collect information from youth on skills learned in workshops, socio-emotional outcomes from the workshop, self-learning from the workshop, ability to collaborate with other students, and feedback on the workshop. Open-ended items allowed youth to explore their growth in both skills and self-awareness in an unbounded manner. Each youth’s response was recorded and all the responses were analyzed for core themes. Categories were developed in which to fit each response.

Workshop Goals. At the beginning of every workshop, artists developed learning goals specific to the group. The goals, shared with the youth, articulated the specific outcomes the teachers intended to achieve. Just as in the first year, goals addressed academic and vocational skills as well as social and interpersonal behavior. At the end of the workshop, the teacher made an assessment of the degree to which workshop goals were accomplished. To do so, for every learning goal they marked a scale from zero to six where zero indicated “no progress” and six indicated the goal was completely accomplished.

Observed Change. Artists were asked to record observations of changes in each youth as they worked with him/her during the workshop. This included observations of the youth’s skill development, attitude(s), behavior, contribution, self-esteem and confidence, ability to collaborate, and interactions. A content analysis of these data was conducted.

Institutional Behavior. Staff at the juvenile facilities utilize a point system to keep track of “incidents” (i.e., violations of rules and misbehavior). Staff were asked to report how many points participating youth accumulated during the month prior to their ACW workshop and their points during the workshop. Since the time periods when youth were involved in workshops varied in length, figures were standardized as if all workshops were 30 days.

Recidivism. The court records of youth who had participated in ACW during 1995-96 and who were released from their institution prior to May 1, 1996 were monitored for six months to see if they had recidivated. The six-month follow-up period began when the youth left the institution, not when their workshops were completed. The period of six months represents the average length of parole. In this case, recidivism is defined as the commission of a criminal offense for which there is a conviction. If the offense occurs within the six-month period, even if the conviction doesn’t, the youth will be considered a recidivist. This definition is used in order to be comparable to the definition used in the Washington State Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation’s study, Recidivism Rates: Class of 1992 Versus Class of 1982 (Washington State, n.d.). The recidivism for this class is used for comparison purposes because none of those youth would have been involved with the arts program.

Findings

This section of the article describes the findings of the evaluation of A Changed World. The findings from the first evaluation are briefly summarized, while the second part of this section gives emphasis to the combined second and third year results. Even though the results of the first year evaluation were equivocal, it is useful to review the findings briefly so as to alert future researchers what research methods and measures were less efficient and productive than others.

First Year Findings. The major finding from the pretest post-test measures was that since workshops are generally fairly short (e.g., two weeks) it is unreasonable to expect change in self-esteem, for example, in this short period of time. There was no statistically significant change in participating youth’s self-esteem from pre- to post-test, which at least indicates that participating in a workshop is not associated with a decline in self-esteem. Similarly, there was no significant change in the scores on the peer-relations scale. As a note, of those youth who improved peer relations, two items stood out: “If feel I am part of the group,” and “Other students understand me.” Most (70.7%) youth’s cultural awareness remained stable with only a small number (7.2%) improving. Youth’s ability to differentiate between life in and out of an institution, as perceived by the teachers, were a little better with 31.7% improving and 46.3% remaining stable (n=37). Finally, based on artists’ assessments, we found that moderate or substantial progress was achieved on all types of learning goals, especially the academic goals.

Combined Evaluations of the Second and Third Year. Similarly, in the second and third years, artists developed multiple goals for each workshop. Using goal attainment scaling; where a score of zero means the goal was not accomplished and a score of six means the goal was completely accomplished, an average score for each workshop was calculated. The average across all the workshops in the second and third year was 5.1. This indicated that on the average, the artists perceived that youth had accomplished almost all of their goals in their workshops.

In addition to assessing goal attainment in the second and third years of the evaluation, we asked the youth about the skills they may have attained during the workshops and we asked them how they felt about their projects. Table I shows the combined results of the second and third year and we see that more than 60% of the youth said they learned concrete vocational skills. It can also be seen in Table 2 that approximately 70% of the youth reported positive feelings about their projects and that 17.6% had feelings of accomplishment.

Observed Change.

The many artists who taught the workshops and spent countless hours with these incarcerated youth came to know them very well and were able to observe change taking place. The artists recorded their observations on all participating youth. Their comments were analyzed and grouped into those that occurred very frequently, frequently, and occasionally (see Table 3).

The observations that were made very frequently by artists indicate that youth participants were highly engaged in the workshops and their projects, were quite happy to get a break from the usual routine of their institutions, and were open about personal issues.

Institutional Behavior

Institution staff were very cooperative and helped collect and facilitate the collection of information on the number of incidents for ACW participants before and during their workshops. Again, an “incident” is when a youth violates institutional rules or misbehaves. For every workshop, the evaluator calculated the average number of incident reports per youth for the month prior to the workshop and the average number of incident reports per youth during the workshop. Since the workshops varied in length, ranging from 20 to 55 days, data were transformed as if all workshops were 30 days.

The number of incidents per youth per day pre-workshop was compared to the same measure during workshops for the ten workshops on which there was incident data. On the average, there were approximately 3.31 incidents reported per workshop in the month prior to each workshop and almost 1.21 per workshop during the workshops, a decline of 63%. A paired samples t-test was used to see if the difference between the number of incidents per juvenile before the workshops was significantly higher than the number of incidents per juvenile during the workshops. The observed decline from before to during the workshops was statistically significant (t=3.079, p

Follow-up on Previous Workshop Participants

Of those students who participated in workshops during 1995-96, and who completed their stay at institutions, 29 were released prior to May 1, 1996. A list of these youth’s names and juvenile justice identification numbers was given to the evaluator in order to conduct follow-up research. Five cases were dropped from the sample because the information needed to track them in the state’s juvenile justice information system could not be located. The follow-up sample, therefore, consisted of 24 youth. This aspect of the study focused on the six month time period after institutional release. Of the 24 follow-up youth, 16.7% (4) recidivated within the six month follow-up period. The six-month recidivism rate for the Class of 1992, which is what we used as a benchmark, was 32.9% (Washington State, 1987).

Discussion

As a result of three years of evaluative research, ACW had a very positive impact on the youth who participated. Workshop goals were accomplished to a very high degree, concrete vocational skills were acquired, and youth had positive feelings of goal accomplishment. Further, while involved in workshops, youth compliance with institutional rules was high and their behavior less disruptive. Finally, the results begin to suggest that involvement in the art workshops has longer term effects as evidenced by relatively lower recidivism for participants.

A significant finding of this evaluation is the impact of the arts workshops on youth behavior while in the institution. Participation in the workshops significantly reduced rule breaking and misbehavior. The finding of improved behavior by individual youth takes on even more meaning if viewed at an institution-wide level. If all of the juvenile offenders in a 200-bed institution, for example, participate in workshops, one would expect significantly fewer incidents per month. With improved youth behavior safety increases, injuries to staff and youth are greatly diminished, and the amount of time staff can use for constructive work is greatly increased.

The analysis of recidivism, while promising, must be interpreted very cautiously. Youth may have turned 18 in the follow-up period or may have moved out of state and, therefore, no subsequent offenses or convictions would show up in the Washington state juvenile justice information system. Besides this weakness in the research, as well as a very small nonrandom sample, readers should view these particular findings as preliminary. Nevertheless, the trends are promising and more extensive research should be conducted to ascertain more exact estimates of arts programs’ impact on recidivism.

An analysis of comments by youth as well as the artists’ observations indicate that four major processes occur with the participants in this arts program: connecting, expressing, learning, and discovery. Workshops emphasize experiential learning to facilitate the youths’ search for solutions to real issues while developing academic and vocational skills. The participating youth forge deep connections with artists, with their pasts, their emotions, and with each other as they develop and expand their talents and techniques to express their pain, joy, and hope. Workshops demonstrate to students the significance of their own experiences and voices, and provide an environment in which they could experience success.

Practice Implications. A report by the American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center created for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, outlines the need for strong programming in juvenile detention (Puritz & Scali, 1998). Specifically, the report recommends that program in detention facilities meet goals such as:

* providing for a release of emotional tension;

* providing for a constructive outlet for physical energy;

* giving youth self-confidence in wholesome pursuits;

* giving the youth a better understanding of himself or herself;

* developing new interests and skills to be followed upon release;

* keeping the youth busy by providing a structure for his or her day.

It may be easily argued that arts programs, such as ACW, clearly meet these goals. Yet, arts programs have not been traditionally viewed as an essential component of juvenile corrections programming. One reason may be due to the lack of information demonstrating the value of arts programs. While arts programs clearly have an impact on the security and functioning of correctional institutions, it is difficult to calculate the cost-benefit of this effect at this time.

Implications for Future Research. There is an urgent need for more empirical research regarding the effects of arts programs for incarcerated juvenile offenders. Programs for juvenile offenders often fail to receive attention due to nonexistent or inadequate evaluation (Puritz & Scali, 1998). Besides improving research designs, future research needs to incorporate more comprehensive information on participating youth. Information on youths’ backgrounds, types of offense(s), average institutional stay(s), and other factors will help determine which youth are most likely to benefit from this type of programming. Unlike many other aspects of incarceration, most arts programs are completely voluntary. There is a need to compare those who choose to participate with other youth in the institution in order to determine if volunteers’ desire for change might explain the results. The institutional setting should also be examined for the availability of other services for the youths, staff views and support for programs.

Researchers must also look more critically at arts programs themselves as well as their costs. Different artistic disciplines may hold different promise for youth. Some arts activities, such as the performing arts, provide more opportunity for team building and the development of interpersonal and problem solving skills. Other activities such as painting and writing are more solitary, introspective activities. Are particular types of art more effective in impacting the behavior of incarcerated youth?

As of yet, it is unclear what aspects) of the program provide the impetus for change with the youth. The recreational, social and relational aspects of the program may contribute differently to its transformational potential. As Stone and her colleagues (1998) suggest, serious artistic instruction should be considered a necessary but not sufficient program feature for achieving positive outcomes, and other program elements are necessary. Silha (1995) advises artists to understand that art form is secondary to the relationship between artist and student. A more in-depth observation of artists’ approaches with youth may yield important clues as to the essence of a successful arts program. Factors to study include instructor preparation, training, and available support.

Longitudinal studies need to be done on the long-term effects of arts programs on youth behavior. Do incidents within the institution continue to decline following the completion of an arts program? Notwithstanding the fact that recidivism is the gold standard in juvenile and criminal justice research, it may not be entirely reasonable to include recidivism as one of the evaluative criteria for arts programs. Workshops are of short duration, especially when compared both to overall sentence length as well as the length of the sentence remaining after participation in a workshop. There are so many factors before, during, and after incarceration that effect future criminality, and even though this research found promising trends, arts programs should be cautious about promises to reduce recidivism.

Although there is much yet to be learned about the effects of arts programs and the program elements that explain outcomes, this research produced preliminary evidence to conclude that art education programs can generate positive changes with institutionalized juveniles.

1This is a duplicated count because some youth participated in more than one workshop at their institution.

References

Aulich, L. (1994) Fear and loathing: Art therapy, sex offenders and gender. In M. Liebmann (Ed.), Art therapy with offenders (pp. 165-196). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Clawson, H.J. & Coolbaugh, K. (2001). The youthARTS development project. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Cleveland, W. (1992). Art in other places: Artists at work in America’s community and social institutions. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Count-Van Manen, G. (1991). Drama-imagery processes as socialization: An interdisciplinary perspective. Journal of Mental Imagery, 15(1-2), 243-293.

Durland, S. (1996). Maintaining humanity: Grady Hillman talks about arts programs in correctional settings. High Performance.

Feder, E. & Feder, B. (1981). The expressive art therapies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gussak, D. (1997). Breaking through barriers: Advantages of art therapy in prison. In D. Gussak & E. Virshup (Eds.), Drawing time: Art therapy in prisons and other correctional settings (pp. 1-11). Chicago, IL: Magnolia Street Publishers.

Hilman, G. (n.d.) Arts program for juvenile offenders in detention and corrections: A guide to promising practices. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hudson, W. (1982). The clinical measurement package: Afield manual. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

Jones, R. (1986). Using art to help develop self-esteem for troubled youth. Art Education, 39(1), 21-22.

Krisberg, B. & Howell, J.C. (1998). The impact of the juvenile justice system and prospects for graduated sanctions in a comprehensive strategy. In R. Leober & D.P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 346-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2001). Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Panel of Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control. J. McCord, C.S. Widom, and N.A. Crowell (Eds.). Committee on Law and Justice and Board on Children, Youth, and Families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: Author.

Piazza, M. (1997). Members only: From the Art Institute to the Cook County Juvenile Detention Center. New Art Examiner, 24, 32-35.

Puritz, P. & Scali, M.A. (1998). Beyond the walls: Improving conditions of confinement for youth in custody. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center.

Riches, C. (1994). The hidden therapy of a prison art education programme. In M. Liebmann (Ed.), Art therapy with offenders (pp. 77-101). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. NY: Basic Books.

Sautter, R.C. (1994). An arts education school reform strategy. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 432-437.

Silha, S. (1995) Young at art: Artists working with youth at risk. Boise, ID: Idaho commission of the Arts.

Stone, A., Bikson, T., Moini, J. & McArthur, D, (1998). The arts and prosocial impact study: Program characteristics and prosocial effects. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Szekely, G. (1982). Art education in correctional settings. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services & Rehabilitation, 6(4), 5-28.

Warner, S. (1995). Insight out: A different perspective. Olympia, WA: The Washington State Historical Society, Capitol Museum, Experimental Gallery Program.

Washington State, Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Juvenile Rehabilitation. (n.d.). Recidivism rates: Class of 1992 versus class of 1982. Unpublished manuscript. Olympia, WA: Author.

Woolard, J.L., Fondacaro, M.R. & Slobogin, C. (2001). Informing juvenile justice policy: Directions for behavioral science research. Law and Human Behavior, 25(1), 13-24.

Biographical Sketches

Professor Mark Ezell has been in academia for almost 20 years and has published and teaches about juvenile justice, social work administration, advocacy, and research.

Michelle Levy has been practicing social work for over 10 years. She specializes in program administration, evaluation and research in child welfare.

Copyright Correctional Education Association Sep 2003

Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved