Citation
One State's Attempt to Improve Juvenile Knowledge of the Court Process

Material Information

Title:
One State's Attempt to Improve Juvenile Knowledge of the Court Process
Creator:
DRIVER, CHRISTINE
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Attorneys ( jstor )
Courtrooms ( jstor )
Experimentation ( jstor )
Guilty verdicts ( jstor )
Juvenile courts ( jstor )
Juveniles ( jstor )
Police ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
States attorney ( jstor )
Trials ( jstor )
City of Gainesville ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Christine Driver. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
5/31/2010
Resource Identifier:
659860310 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ONE STATE’S ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE JUVENILE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COURT PROCESS By CHRISTINE DRIVER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 Copyright 2007 by Christine Driver

PAGE 3

3 To all of those who have provided so much of their time, love, and support to help me accomplish this.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the chair and members of my supe rvisory committee for their input and support throughout this process. I also thank the Office of Court Improvement for the State of Florida, the staff of the sample schools and detention cente r for their support of this study, and all of the participants in the study for th eir participation. I also th ank the American Psychology-Law Society for their generous support.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 2 SHIFT OF FOCUS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM..............................................14 3 COMPETENCY.....................................................................................................................16 4 JUVENILE UNDERSTANDING OF TRIAL RELATED TERMS......................................19 5 TEACHING METHODS........................................................................................................26 6 REHABILITATING COMPREHENSION............................................................................30 7 CURRENT RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES....................................................................32 8 METHOD......................................................................................................................... ......34 Participants................................................................................................................... ..........34 College Pilot Sample.......................................................................................................34 Juvenile Pilot Sample......................................................................................................35 Juveniles in an Alternative Public School Sample..........................................................36 Detention Sample............................................................................................................36 Materials...................................................................................................................... ...........37 The DVD........................................................................................................................ .37 Questionnaire.................................................................................................................. .38 Design......................................................................................................................... ............46 9 RESULTS........................................................................................................................ .......50 College Pilot Sample........................................................................................................... ...50 Juveniles in a University La boratory School Pilot Sample....................................................51 College and Juvenile Pilot Samples Combined Results.........................................................54 Juveniles from an Alternative Public School Sample.............................................................55 Detention Sample............................................................................................................... .....57 Detention and Alternative School Combined Sample............................................................58 Between Sample Comparisons...............................................................................................65

PAGE 6

6 10 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................... ....74 11 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... ..81 APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUT IONAL REVIEW BOARD PROPOSAL...........82 B STATE INSTITUTIONAL RE VIEW BOARD PROPOSAL...............................................86 C PILOT PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORMS........................................................................90 D JUVENILE PILOT PARENTAL CONSENT FORMS.........................................................92 E JUVENILES IN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBL IC SCHOOL PARENTAL CONSENT FORMS.......................................................................................................................... .........94 F DETENTION ASSENT FORMS...........................................................................................96 G “TALES FROM DELINQUENCY COURT” DRAFT SCRIPTPRODUCED BY THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR.................................................100 H “A FAMILY GUIDE TO DELINQUENCY COURT” PAMPHLETPRODUCED BY THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR.........................................104 I QUESTIONNAIRE WITH CORRE CT ANSWERS HIGHLIGHTED...............................106 J PILOT QUESIONNAIRE PRETEST..................................................................................113 K PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE POSTTEST.............................................................................120 L JUVENILES IN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL PRETEST..............................127 M JUVENILES IN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL POSTTEST............................134 N DETENTION QUESTIONNAIRE PRETEST.....................................................................141 O DETENTION QUESTIONN AIRE POSTTEST..................................................................148 P COLLEGE SCRIPTS...........................................................................................................155 Q JUVENILES IN A UNIVERSITY LABO RATORY SCHOOL PILOT SCRIPTS.............158 R JUVENILES IN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL SCRIPTS...............................162 S DETENTION SCRIPTS.......................................................................................................166 T CODE SHEET FOR MATCHING PRETO POSTTESTS................................................170

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................171 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................174

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 8-1 Social and demographic charac teristics of main sample groups.......................................48 8-1 Continued.................................................................................................................. .........49 9-1 Mean percentage scores overall a nd by section topic fo r juvenile pilot............................68 9-2 Mean percentage scores overall and by sect ion topic for juveniles in an alternative public school.................................................................................................................. ....68 9-3 Mean percentage scores overall and by section topic for juve niles in detention...............68 9-4 Comparison of mean preand posttest, impr ovement, and section scores for juveniles in an alternative public school and detention.....................................................................69 9-5 Mean percentage scores by section topi c for detention and alternative school combined sample...............................................................................................................69 9-6 Regression: Social-demographic variables re lationship to pretest scores: Detention and alternative school combined sample...........................................................................70 9-7 Regression: Social-demographic variable s relationship to improvement scores: Detention and alternative school combined sample...........................................................70 9-8 Regression: Grades and prior experien ce variables relationship to pretest APPLICATION scores: Detention and a lternative school combined sample...................70 9-9 Mean percentage scores on preand posttest by sample...................................................71 9-10 Mean section score percenta ges on the pretest of the juve nile pilot and detention and alternative school combined samples.................................................................................71 9-11 Mean section score percenta ges on the posttest of the juvenile pilot and detention and alternative school combined samples.................................................................................71

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 9-1 Mean percent preand posttest scores acr oss samples. *Difference between pretest and posttest significant at p<.001......................................................................................72 9-2 Mean percent improvement scores across samples...........................................................72 9-3 Mean percent section scores on preand pos ttest for juvenile pilot and detention and alternative school combined samples. *S ignificant difference between preand posttest for at least one of the samples...............................................................................73

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the Univ ersity of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts ONE STATE’S ATTEMPT TO IMPROVE JUVENILE KNOWLEDGE OF THE COURT PROCESS By Christine Driver May 2007 Chair: Eve M. Brank Major Department: Criminology, Law and Society Our study first determined what juveniles und erstand about the juve nile court process. Second, it evaluated a DVD designed to be a syst ematic and simple way to improve that understanding. A preand posttest design was used with two pilot samples and two samples from the population of interest. The pilot samples in cluded college undergraduates and juveniles in a university laboratory middle and high school. The samples of interest include students at an alternative public middle and hi gh school and youth detained at a juvenile detention center. Initial understanding of the court process was quite low for the samples of interest and higher for the pilot samples. All samples experienced a significant improveme nt of knowledge after watching the DVD, but overall scores at the posttest were still low. Youth in the two samples of interest had a 5.7% increase between preand posttest, but their posttest scores were still 68.7% Respondents varied in their pe rformance on different question topics, scoring the lowest on questions related to what happe ns at juvenile court hearings . A negative relationship between number of prior arrests and pr etest scores was found for the sa mples of interest, with those having more arrests scoring lower at pretest. A positive relationship between age and pretest and improvement scores was also found across the sa mples of interest, where higher grades were associated with higher pretes t scores and greater improvement , though these relationships were

PAGE 11

11 not significant. Academic perfor mance in school was negatively re lated to pretest scores and positively to improvement scores for the juvenile samples of interest, though these relationships were not significant. At pretest, juveniles di d seem to have more difficulty with questions requiring application of concepts presented in the DVD as opposed to questions that did not require application. Juveniles showed more impr ovement on questions requiring application than on quesitons that did not, which brought the scores on both applica tion and non-application questions to near the same le vel for posttest scores.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION What does going to detention mean to a juve nile? “It’s like when you do something bad and your mother sends you to your room for th e whole weekend” was how one juvenile saw it (Steinberg, 2003). This quote exemplifies the nav e perception juveniles have of the juvenile justice system (Steinberg, 2003). In contrast to this one youth’s belief, going to detention has long-reaching ramifications in the life of a child (Lanes v. Texas, 1989; Steinberg, 2003). Juveniles also lack a complete understanding of the processes employed by the juvenile court (Cooper, 1997; Grisso, 1981; O’Connnor, 1990; Peterson-Badali & Abramovitch, 1992; Peterson-Badali, Abramovitch, & Duda, 1997; Red lich, Silvermand, & Steiner, 2003; Savitsky & Karras, 1984; Warren-Leubecker, Tate, Hinton, & Ozbek, 1989). This understanding is integral to their ability to participate in the fact finding process, but is often ove rlooked when a juvenile is brought to court (O’Connor, 1990) . If the juvenile does not unders tand the court process, then they will likely not understand the impact the pro ceedings will have on their life. The current study addresses the aforementioned issues by examin ing two main questions. The first is whether juveniles understand the trial pr ocess. The second is whether th eir knowledge of the process can be improved by introducing them to the basic vo cabulary and concepts relating to the court process. Additionally, demographic and social ch aracteristics will be considered in conjunction with juvenile court knowledge and knowledge improvement. The sections that follow will begin by describing the juvenile justice system and the historical changes that have taken place which ha ve shaped it into what it is today. Next, juvenile competency and understanding within th e system will be defined and addressed. The following section will give specific attention to th e past research on juvenile comprehension of the justice system. Borrowing primarily from e ducation research, the ne xt section will focus on

PAGE 13

13 new vocabulary acquisition and effective tools for teaching and learning. The section that follows will focus on rehabilitation of comprehens ion. The remaining sections detail the current study by focusing on its hypotheses, the four sample s, questionnaire and procedures. The results from each of the samples are presented individu ally and are followed by the between sample results. The final sections will outline the overall findings and make recommendations for future research.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 SHIFT OF FOCUS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM The juvenile justice system was originally deve loped to be a rehabilitative alternative to the adult criminal justice system. Over the year s, the rehabilitative goals were overshadowed by a more punitive focus that shifted from protecting juveniles and helping juveniles become productive members of society, to viewing them as persons in need of punishment for their wrongdoing. The shift was recognized in a series of Supreme Court cases beginning in the mid1960s that ultimately resulted in the court providing juveniles with certain due process rights. The first in this series was Kent v. United States (1966) in which a 16-year-old boy was waived to adult court based on the court’s “full investigation.” The details of this investigation were not made known to the juvenile or his couns el. On appeal the Supreme Court of the United States found that: In these circumstances, consider ing particularly that decision as to waiver of jurisdiction and transfer of the matter to the District Court was potentially as important to petitioner as the difference between five years' confinement a nd a death sentence, we conclude that, as a condition to a valid waiver order, petitioner was entitled to a hearing, including access by his counsel to the social records a nd probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court, and to a statement of reasons fo r the Juvenile Court's decision” (Kent v. United States, 1966, p.557). The Supreme Court opined that these rights were required because of the constitutional principles relating to due proce ss and the assistance of counsel ( Kent v. United States , 1966). Any questions about the mean ing and application of the Kent holding were answered with In re Gault (1967) where the Supreme Court decided that in all adjudication cases that may result in commitment to an institution, juveniles had rights to notice and counsel, to question the witness,

PAGE 15

15 and protection against self-incrimination. The next in this series of cases was In re Winship (1970), where the Supreme Court ruled that pr oof beyond a reasonable doubt was needed in juvenile court proceedings. Similarly, in Breed v. Jones (1975), the Supreme Court applied to juvenile waiver cases the Fifth Amendment’ s prohibition against double jeopardy, which had previously been reserved for criminal prosecuti ons. These four cases recognized a juvenile system that was much less distinguishable fr om the adult system than once intended. The Supreme Court acknowledged in each of these case s that juveniles needed the protection given under each of these rights due to the punitive natu re of the system, however, the cases did not address whether the juvenile had the ability to use these rights in the way the court intended. Because juveniles are now guaranteed these proce dural protections, questions of how juveniles understand and interact with the system become increasingly im portant. In order to fully participate in the system and exercise their right s, there is a need for them to understand what takes place in the juvenile court. The next se ction addresses how the courts, legislatures, and researchers have addressed the need for a juveni le to understand and interact with the system.

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 3 COMPETENCY In discussing whether juven iles understand the cour t process it is important to first consider the legal determinat ion of competency and to distinguish understanding from competency. In general, competency refers to the ability to function meaningfully and knowingly in the legal process (Chirsty, Douglas , Otto, & Petrila, 2004). Competency is a concern because our juvenile justice system pr esumes that a proceeding should not continue against a person who does not unders tand the nature of the charges or the purpose of the case. The following paragraphs will detail the compet ency requirements and where understanding of the court process fits within th e broader notion of competency. The U.S. Supreme Court addresse d competency to stand trial in Dusky v. U.S. (1960), holding that an adult defendant ha d to be able to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understa nding and a rational as we ll as factual understandi ng of proceedings against him. It provided that there was a need for appreciation, understa nding, and reasoning. The Dusky requirements for adults are important to juvenile competency evaluations because almost all state juvenile competency statutes define co mpetency or incompetency using the Dusky standard (Johnson, 2006). An example of how these factors are outlined in one state statute is the Florida statute on juvenile competency evaluations. This statute outlines that “a child is competent to proceed if the child has su fficient present ability to consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and the ch ild has a rational and factual understanding of the present proc eedings.” The statute also re quires a report addressing the juvenile’s capacity on the followi ng points: 1) appreciation of the charges or allegations against the child, 2) appreciation of the range and nature of possible penalties that may be imposed in the proceedings against the child, if applicable, 3) understanding of the adve rsarial nature of the

PAGE 17

17 legal process, 4) ability to disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue, 5) ability to display appropriate courtroom behavior, 6) ability to testify relevantly (Incompetency in Juvenile Delinquency Cases, 2006) . Developmental immaturity is also a factor for competency determinations in Florida. Fl orida statute provides th at a juvenile can be “adjudicated incompetent to proceed because of age or immaturity” (Incompetency in Juvenile Delinquency Cases, 2006). Clearly, juvenile under standing of the court process has a direct impact on the requirements of this statute. Researchers who study competen cy generally divide the Dusky requirements into a two basic concepts to allow for a more concrete way to measure them both in the legal and psychological fields (Bonnie, 1992) . These two concepts are, 1) The competence to assist counsel, and 2) Decisional competence. The comp etence to assist counsel examines the ability of the individual to understand the trial proc ess, the roles of those involved, and their understanding of their rights in the process. De cisional competence examin es their ability to weigh and compare options including determinin g the probability of consequences. Grisso (1997) identified three key areas of adolescents’ understand ing of the legal proc ess that pertain to the competency to assist counsel. They were: 1) understanding of the pro cess, 2) appreciation of the significance of legal circumstances for th eir defense, and 3) ability to communicate information to counsel. Their understanding of th e legal process is aff ected if they do not comprehend key concepts (such as that concept of a judge rather than the jury deciding their cases in the juvenile court) and terminology (suc h as the terms, “adjudication” and “prosecutor”) used in court or hold definitions to terms th at are incorrect (Cooper, 1997; Flin, Stevenson, & Davies, 1989; Savitsky & Karras, 1984; Sa ywitz, Jaenicke, & Camparo, 1990; WarrenLeubecker et al., 1989). Juveniles’ appreciati on for the significance of legal circumstances for

PAGE 18

18 their defense may be compromised if they do not understand the meaning of their plea of not guilty, that they are innocent unt il proven guilty, or if they do not understand other rights they possess (Cooper, 1997; Grisso, 1981 ; Peterson-Badali & Abramovitch, 1992). They may also be at a disadvantage in their abi lity to communicate information to counsel if they believe the lawyer will not represent them if they think they are guilty or think the lawyer will pass on information given to them from the client to third parties (Cooper 1997; Grisso, 1981; O’Connor, 1990; Peterson-Badali & Abramovitch, 1992; Peters on-Badali et al., 1997; Redlich et al., 2003). Because knowledge of the process is so impor tant and lacking understanding can have such detrimental effects, research has examined how well juveniles comprehend the process. The following section will detail this research and its implications.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 4 JUVENILE UNDERSTANDING OF TRIAL RELATED TERMS One of the earliest studies concerning juveni le understanding of the juvenile justice process and appreciation of le gal circumstance was done by Grisso (1981) concerning juvenile understanding of Miranda warnings. In this stud y, individual parts of th e Miranda warning were read one at a time to juveniles who were then as ked to rephrase, in their own words, what they had just heard. Grisso (1981) found that those juveniles with previous experience with the system did not differ significantly from those w ith no previous experien ce with the system. Another finding was that juvenile s’ comprehension generally did not differ considerably from that of adults, though in some cases adolesce nts age 16 and younger ha d a poorer understanding of what the Miranda warnings meant compared to adults. A significa nt difference between juveniles aged 14 and younger and those 15 a nd 16 was also found where those who were younger had a poorer understanding. Even thoug h the understanding of those who were 15 and 16 did not differ substantially from that of adu lts, they did not necessari ly understand what those rights meant either. An example of this mis understanding is that one -third of adolescents through age 16 in this study believed that the defense attorney need ed information so that they could decide whether they wanted to take an a dvocacy or accusatory role in the case. These juveniles believed that the de fense counsel only defended the innocent and not the guilty. Clearly this has important implications if a guilty juvenile is working with a lawyer because they may communicate differently when th ey think the lawyer will only work with them if they are not guilty. Grisso’s (1981) re search exemplifies a need for juveniles to possess a better understanding of the roles of key player s’ roles in the trial process. Savitsky and Karras (1984) followed Grisso ’s (1981) work with a study concerning juvenile understanding of the trial process. They examined juvenile comp etency to stand trial

PAGE 20

20 using the Competency Screening Test (McGa rry, 1973). The questions used were partial sentences regarding trial events, participants in the trial, and potential outcomes of the trial, which the juveniles had to complete. They found that the 12 year olds in this trial were not found to be competent. Juveniles aged 15-17, who were enrolled in public schools or were residing in juvenile detention centers, were c onsidered competent, but received significantly lower scores than adults. They did qualify this finding with th e possibility that these older adolescents may be able to reach adult levels of competency if they were instructed in some way regarding the trial process and that they were still considered to be equivale nt to adults in their ability to learn their legal rights. A number of other studies in the 1980s specifi cally examined juvenile s’ understanding of legal vocabulary related to the trial process. One of which was done by Smith (1985) using interviews of juveniles who had come before a pretrial court in Cana da. These juveniles had already entered a plea and had not yet gone to trial. This study al so examined vocabulary related to the juvenile’s appreciation of significance of legal circumst ances for their defense. The portion of the interviews con cerning understanding of legal wo rds consisted of asking the juvenile to describe commonly used courtroom phr ases in their own words. The terms tested were split into two categories, which were pr ocedural and technical terms. Some of the procedural terms included were “not guilty pleas,” “trial,” “party to an offense,” “pretrial court,” “how do you plead,” “notice to appear,” and “witne ss.” Some of the technical terms tested were “commit a delinquency,” “plea of not delinquent,” a nd “indicated a plea.” They found that of the 21 terms evaluated, there were only five that at least 80% of the juve niles tested understood. These were “still pleading not guilty,” “not guilt y your honor,” “adjourn,” “proceed to trial,” and “trial.” There were five terms that less than 30% of the juveniles tested understood, which were

PAGE 21

21 “drop certain charges,” commit a delinquency,” “witness,” “waive reading of the charge,” and “indicated plea.” Therefore, almost all of th e juveniles tested unders tood what “pleading not guilty” meant, but most did not understand what it meant to “indicate a plea.” Similar research conducted by Flin, St evenson, and Davies (1989), examined understanding of legal terms regarding the trial pr ocess in Scottish six, eight, and ten year olds from two primary schools and used adults as a comparison group. Nearly all of the juveniles tested had no previous experi ence with the c ourt system. They found that across age groups respondents performed the best in vocabulary recognition. This included simply asking the juveniles whether or not they re cognized a legal word. They pe rformed less well on their ability to give descriptions of what the legal terms mean t and poorest in their abi lity to conceptualize the terms. To measure conceptual ization they asked the juvenile s questions regarding why some things, like trials and lawyers, were necessary. The ten year olds achieved a level of 62% of the adult performance. The terms th at juveniles had trouble with in this study included the meaning of “going to court,” the meaning of “law,” the role of a “lawye r” and “jury,” the concept of “prosecution,” the concept of “evidence” and why it is needed, and the concept of “an oath.” Saywitz, Jaenicke, and Camparo (1990) compared kindergarten, third, and sixth grade children on their ability to define legal terms used in cour t. This study found that a lmost all children were able to define “judge,” “police,” “lie,” “remembe r,” and “promise.” The terms that were not well understood by all age groups included “allegation,” “petition,” “minor,” “motion,” “competent,” “hearsay,” and “defendant.” Some significant age differences in understanding were found for the terms “witness,” “lawyer,” “attorney,” “oath,” “swear,” “evidence,” “jury,” and “testify” with the younger children having a more difficult time th an the older children . On a whole they

PAGE 22

22 found that the ability of juvenile s to define legal terms develops with age, and therefore age appropriate word choice should be a f actor when dealing with juveniles. Moreover, Warren-Leubecker, Tate, Hinton, an d Ozbek (1989), tested whether juveniles knew what the roles of individuals in the cour troom were and what pr ocesses were involved. These tests evaluated concepts in the areas of understanding of the process and ability to communicate information to counsel. They evalua ted juveniles aged thre e to thirteen from public and private schools, church groups, clubs, day care centers and private families. In the first part of this study they test ed this by giving the juveniles choi ces of definitions for each legal term. They found that by age eight there was ne arly complete understanding that the judge was in charge of the courtroom. One very interest ing finding was that when asked to identify key players in the courtroom, less than 50% identified a lawyer at a ny age group. They found that by age 13 juveniles do not differ substantially from adults in their understanding of how guilt is decided and what the job of a lawyer is, even t hough they did not readily come to mind as key players in the courtroom. They did find that this trial related knowledge does increase considerably between the ages of 10 and 13. Mo re specifically, they found that a juvenile’s concept of a judge developed before that of a lawyer and the concept of a lawyer developed before that of a jury. In the younger children, they also found that some made the incorrect distinction between lawyers and attorneys w ith one representing the prosecution and one representing the defense. Another finding in th e younger age group included that some children believe that intentional acts resulted directly in jail sentences and that unintentional acts went to court. A significant age effect was present fo r providing a correct answer for the question asking how a judge or jury could tell if someone was lying. The tendency to not know how this is decided or to hold a misconception concerning this information decreased as age increased. The

PAGE 23

23 younger children often had no idea how this was d ecided, thought the judge was omniscient, or thought the consequences were how judges determined this rather than vi ce versa (guilty people would be in jail). The next study to add to this line of res earch was by O’Connor and Sweetapple, (1988) and O’Connor (1990) who interviewed juve niles in Australia shortly afte r they appeared in court to discuss their case. These juveniles had pled a nd been sentenced during their court appearance and were asked if they would pa rticipate in the inte rview once they left the courtroom (O’Connor & Sweetapple, 1988). This research noted that many juveniles viewed themselves as passive members of the court process rather than as someone that could meaningfully participate. Specifically they believed that they must remain silent during the process. This severely inhibits the child’s ability to work with their counsel b ecause they generally only answered questions that were asked of them rather than initiating conversation. They also found that some juveniles felt that the purpose of the court pr ocess was to determine sentencing rather than a place to present their case. A study by Peterson-Badali and Abramovitch (1992) examined age differences in juvenile understanding of legal concepts related to th eir appreciation of the significance of legal circumstances and their ability to communicate in formation to counsel. Their sample included juveniles age nine to sixteen who were in pub lic schools, as well as a sample of young adults ranging from eighteen to twenty-three years old. They employed open-ended questions referring to a court scenario to test the juveniles’ knowledge. They found th at the area that most juveniles and even many young adults had trouble with wa s the concept of being innocent until proven guilty. They did find that most of the juvenile s, even the youngest, understood the role of the attorney as an advocate, though they did not fully understand the principle of lawyer-client

PAGE 24

24 confidentiality. Though there were considerable deficits in ju venile understanding found in Peterson-Badali and Abramovitch’s (1992) study, the areas where comprehension was low was similar for juvenile and adult respondents. Two other studies have identified some misconc eptions juveniles hold concerning the trial process and the key players invo lved (Peterson-Badali et al., 1997; Redlich et al., 2003). The first of these, by Peterson-Badali et al. (1997) sampled 7-12 year olds fr om a treatment program for juveniles who were perceive d as at risk for offending a nd students attending a university laboratory school. They conducted in terviews with the juveniles wh ere they asked questions in vignette form related to legal know ledge and pleas. The youth were then asked to justify their answers to the questions. Many did not fully understand how the attorn ey-client relationship worked and most thought their attorney was allowed to reveal what they told them either to the judge, the police, or their parents. Peterson-B adali and her colleagues noted that this finding applied to both the older and younger children in the study, though older juveniles understood a lawyer’s function slightly better. The study by Redlich, Silverman, and Steine r (2003), evaluated juvenile and young adult understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights and their compet ence to stand trial. They found that age and suggestibility both predict Miranda competence. Trial competence was impacted by both suggestibility and average grad es in school with highe r average grades in school relating to lower competency scores. Prior experience with the justice system was also related to vocabulary competency with those with a higher fre quency of police contact having lower vocabulary competency scores. One of th e misconceptions they noted was that juveniles age 14-17 confused the roles of th e attorney and social worker. Th is is an important distinction considering that a statement the j uvenile makes to the social worker is likely not protected in the

PAGE 25

25 same way as one made to an attorney. (See Fare v. Michael C. , 1978, where asking for a probation officer was held not to be the same as asking for an attorney for the purpose of the Fifth Amendment). Another way in which the juveniles’ in this study tended to misunderstand the role of the lawyer was they did not know that they should disclose all the information to their lawyer so that the lawyer could best help them and represent th eir case. They also found that juveniles had more difficulty with application type que stions, where they were given a scenario and asked what the person in the scenario should do in this situation. An inability to correctly apply their knowledge demonstrates that some juveniles may have enough of an understanding of the system to be able to define key terms, but are incapable of applying the knowledge to their own situations. Research has demonstrated a general weakness for juveniles in terms of understanding the juvenile justice system. The section that follows borrows from educational research to examine the possibility of rehabilita ting juvenile understanding.

PAGE 26

26 CHAPTER 5 TEACHING METHODS A number of different teaching methods can be employed to more systematically aid juveniles in their understanding of legal vocabulary. These could include using video, pictures, and language that is more common to the j uvenile’s current voca bulary. A study by Cooper (1997) found that juveniles paid much more atten tion when presented with a video than when the information was given by a teacher. Many of these children had previously demonstrated difficulty in school and were le ss receptive to information bei ng taught by adults. In fact, Peterson-Badali and Abramovitch (1992) and Saywitz (1989) noted that some of what children know about the legal system probably comes from television portrayals of courtrooms and the trial process. Mayer and Anderson (1992) assessed presen tation methods includ ing how narration and animation together can be used to teach a concep t. The sample consisted of college students and the concepts tested included how a car braki ng system worked and how a bicycle tire pump worked. The students tested did not have prior k nowledge on these topics. The concepts were tested through three different types of pres entation of the inform ation. One included a presentation of the concepts only through narrations, one only presented through animation, and the last presented the concepts through both animation and narration. They examined how the presentation format affected co llege students’ abilities in rete ntion of information and problem solving based on the information presented. They explored how the contiguity principle, which states that the effectiveness of multimedia instruction using word s and pictures increases when the two are presented contiguousl y. They found that when words and pictures were presented together at the same time it increased the stud ent’s ability to solve problems based on the information, but did not increase their retention of the informa tion. Specifically, when the

PAGE 27

27 students were presented with animat ion before or after narration it did not increase their level of understanding, but when both were presented to gether large differences in the level of understanding were found when compared to thos e who had not received any instruction. They speculated that the reason for this might be becau se this timing in presentation allows the learner to build connections between verbal and visu al representation of the information. Teaching a foreign language is analogous to teaching juveniles basic legal information because the juveniles are forced to learn many ne w terms and concepts in both. For this reason, we next examine research in the area of fore ign language acquisition. Teaching methods used in acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language were evaluated in a study by Lotto and deGroot (1998) who looked specifically at two learning methods used in this process. In one method the unknown word was taught using the translation from the learner’s native la nguage. In the other method the unknown word was taught using pictures to represent the word. The study found that the teaching method using words from the learne r’s native language produc ed better results. These findings are not reason to dismiss learni ng through picture presentation; however, they do suggest that when presenting legal information to juveniles, pictorial repr esentation of concepts should be combined with words th e juvenile understands and that are common in their lives. For these juveniles, this would be similar to pres enting the information in their native language because they do not yet possess an understa nding of all of the legal vocabulary. Different teaching formats for second la nguage acquisition were evaluated by Chun and Plass (1996) by focusing on vocabulary learning among university German students. They tested three conditions to determine which was the most conducive to vocabulary learning. These were a presentation including only text definitions, one cont aining both text defini tions and pictures, and one containing both text defi nitions and video presentation of the words. They found that for

PAGE 28

28 short term tests students produced the most corre ct answers when presen ted with both a video and text to learn the term. A presentation includ ing both text and pictures produced of the most correct answers in the long term, when evaluated with a test two weeks after the vocabulary was learned. They explain the difference in recall rela ted to the picture and word combination with a hypermnesia effect, which predicts better recall of pictures over time compared with words that are more easily forgotten. These findings are us eful because they provide evidence that video and picture presentation of voca bulary terms can help with unde rstanding of these terms. A study by Duquette and Painchaud (1996) exam ined whether showing a video containing foreign language vocabulary woul d increase the amount learned in comparison with an auditory presentation. From their findings they speculate d that when audio and vi sual cues are mixed it allows the learner to infer th e meanings of more unfamiliar words. They did find support for media use in teaching new vocabulary to juveniles especially when it can be linked to words they already understand in thei r current language. These findings can be translated into a program for teaching legal vocabulary because words that are mo re common to the juvenile can be used in a video format to explain the more technical term s. This is similar to using words from the learner’s native language because these juven iles do not yet understand the legal vocabulary. Video presentation of concepts was also ev aluated in a study evaluating juror comfort (Bradshaw, Ross, Bradshaw, Headrick, and Thom as, 2005). In this jury study, Bradshaw, Ross, Bradshaw, Headrick, and Thomas (2005) examined the effects of a videotape. Their study examined whether a videotape containing inform ation necessary for jurors would help to increase juror knowledge and comfort. They f ound that those who were shown the video tape were significantly more knowledgeable than thos e who were not exposed to the video tape. They also found that juror knowledge was positively correlated to juror comfort. Juror comfort

PAGE 29

29 was measured by six Likert scale questions measuring participant feelings on their familiarity with the legal system, their ability to serve as a juror, their comf ort in the court atmosphere, their comfort pertaining to their place there on a whole, their understandi ng of what is expected of them as a juror, and their feeli ngs on jury service. This study demonstrates that both knowledge of and comfort with the system can be increased by presenting those who are experiencing it with necessary information. As the research has demonstrated, videos can be useful teaching tools for acquiring new knowledge (Bradshaw et al., 2005; Chun & Plass, 1996; Duquette & Painchaud, 1996). Next we will examine a study that specifically employed a vi deo to teach legal con cepts to juveniles.

PAGE 30

30 CHAPTER 6 REHABILITATING COMPREHENSION A study by Cooper (1997) was based on much of the research discussed in the previous chapter and examined how juvenile competency could be increased through video presentation of the concepts. Cooper (1997) tested juvenile le gal competency using a juvenile revision of the Georgia Court Competency Test. This study eval uated the areas of juvenile understanding of the trial process, their appreciation of legal circumstances for thei r defense and their ability to communicate information to counsel. The sample consisted of 112 juveniles, aged 13-16, who were experiencing their first in stitutional placement for delin quency and obtained a competency score below what was needed to be considered competent. The test included a mix of openended and multiple-choice questions assessing five specific areas including understanding of the courtroom layout (Picture), understanding of func tions and roles of c ourt personnel (Function), ability to assist one's attorn ey (Assist), understanding of th e nature of the charges and consequences of those charges (Charges), and kn owledge about the functions and roles of judges and attorneys in specific situations (General). The juveniles were administ ered the test and then shown a 50-minute videotape providi ng trial related information. The video consisted of a classroom presentati on of information necessary for competency and that which is covered by the revision of the Georgia Court Competency Test. This classroom presentation was taped to ensure that all juveniles received the same information. The video went over what the roles of those involve d in the trial process were, where each of the participants were placed in the courtroom, in formation regarding misdemeanors, felonies, and status offenses and what penalt ies were attached to each, and in structions on how to contact and assist counsel. A question and an swer period followed the presenta tion to allow th e juveniles to obtain clarification on any concepts.

PAGE 31

31 Cooper (1997) administered the test again the day after the participants watched the video. All portions of the study (pretest , video, and posttest) were given to juveniles scoring both above and below the cut point to ensure that the juveniles did not know how they had scored as this information may have biased their answers. It was found that j uveniles age 13 scored significantly lower than the othe r ages at pretest but not at posttest. There were significant improvements across age groups in the posttest sc ores for the categories of Picture, Function, Assist, and General. Only 12 of the 112 juveniles tested obtained pretest sc ores above the cutoff. The video produced a significant improvement in understanding of proceedi ngs in all age groups, though even with this improvement most juvenile s still did not receive scores that indicated competency. The results of this test were that levels of competency were related to age but over half of juveniles at each age did not have a competent level of understanding even after watching the video. In sum, the previous studies have demonstrat ed juveniles lack a co mplete understanding of the court process (Cooper, 1997; Griss o, 1981; O’Connnor, 1990; Peterson-Badali & Abramovitch, 1992; Peterson-Badali et al., 1997; Redlich et al., 2003; Savitsky & Karras, 1984; Warren-Leubecker et al., 1989). These limita tions and misconceptions in trial related understanding restrict the im pact that the cases of Kent (1966) , Gault (1967) , and Winship (1970) can have on protecting juveniles during the trial process. Cooper’s (1997) study provided a base for the re search conducted in the current study. Many of the concepts evaluated for competency determinations by Cooper are reworked in the current study to evaluate juvenile knowle dge and understanding. Additionally, greater knowledge might also increase juvenile comfort level with the system (Bradshaw, et al., 2005).

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 7 CURRENT RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES It is clear that juveniles l ack complete understanding of the juvenile justice system; however, education research and the study by C ooper (1997) demonstrate that there may be simple ways to improve a juvenile’s level of understanding. The research outlined in the previous two chapters provides a basis for the current research by demo nstrating a lack of comprehension by juveniles and some possible wa ys to increase understanding. The current research will test whether a DVD (Couch, 2005hereafter referred to as the DVD) portraying trial related information will be able to increase juvenile understanding of the trial process. The first goal will be to assess juveniles’ initial knowledge of the court pro cess. Initial knowledge will be assessed through performance on the pretest. Seven hypotheses will then be tested. The first hypothesis is that juvenile s’ knowledge will increase afte r watching the DVD so that their posttest scores are significantly higher than thei r pretest scores (Hypothesis 1 – Preand postknowledge). The next three hypotheses will focus on social and demographic information. The first of these predicts that age will be positively related to scores on the pretest with older juveniles scoring higher (Coope r, 1997; Grisso, 1981; Peters on-Badali and Abramovitch, 1992; Savitsky and Karras, 1984; Saywitz et al., 1990; Warren-Leubecker et al., 1989). Age is also predicted to be related to improvement sc ores, with those who are younger showing more improvement after watching the DVD than t hose who are older (Cooper, 1997, Savitsky and Karras, 1984) (Hypothesis 2Eff ect of age on pretest and impr ovement scores). The second social-demographic hypothesis is that those repo rting higher grades in school will perform worse on the pretest measures than those with lower scor es (Redlich et al., 2003). We also predict that, those with higher grades in school will show more improvement. (Hypothesis 3 – Effect of academic performance on pretest and improveme nt scores). The third social-demographic

PAGE 33

33 hypothesis is that those with pr ior experience with the system, both personally and through the experiences of friends and relativ es, will receive higher scores on the pretest and have the least amount of comprehension improvement in thei r posttest scores (Gri sso, 1981) (Hypothesis 4 – Effect of prior experience on pretest and impr ovement scores). The next two hypotheses deal with question content and format . The first hypothesizes that juveniles will have the most difficulty with questions related to the role of a lawyer in the courtroom and attorney client privilege (Cooper, 1997; Grisso, 1981; Peters on-Badali & Abramovitch, 1992; Peterson-Badali et al., 1997; Redlich et al. 2003) (Hypothesis 5 –Role of lawyer and attorney client-privilege). The second hypothesizes that, of the different types of questions, all juven iles will have the most difficulty with questions requiri ng application of the concepts presented in the DVD, and this difficulty will be compounded for those who struggle academically and those who have no prior experience in the justice system (Redlich et al., 2003) (Hypothesis 6 – Application of concepts). The last hypothesis predicts that there will be a significant increase in sureness of answers from pretest to posttest and that posttest sureness will be significan tly correlated to improvement scores (Bradshaw et al., 2005) (Hypothe sis 7 Effects of sureness).

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 8 METHOD Participants The current study took place in four phases, two pilot phases and two phases involving participants of interest. The firs t pilot phase of this study used a sample of college undergraduate students in an undergraduate Juve nile Law class. The second pilo t phase of this study included youth attending a University laboratory middle a nd high school. The third phase of the study included juveniles in an altern ative public middle and high school. The fourth phase of the study included juveniles currently detained in a juve nile detention facility who had not yet been adjudicated delinquent for their current case. Institutional Review Board approval from the University of Florida was obtained for all portions of this study. The proposal submitted to the university is included in Appendix A. In addition to this, approval from the Institutional Review Board for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the State of Florida was obtained fo r the detention sample. The proposal submitted to the State is included in Appendix B. The consent process used for each sample is further outlined in the sections below. The treatment of all subjects was in accordance with the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association. College Pilot Sample The sample for the college phase of this st udy consisted of 75 underg raduate students from Juvenile Law classes at the University of Florid a. Twenty participants were excluded because they did not participate in both days of the study. The final samp le (n = 55) consisted of both male and female students believed to be between the ages of 19 and 23. The ages recorded by respondents ranged from 12 to 23 due to the directions asking the respondent to answer as if they were a juvenile who has been arrested for a crime that they committed.

PAGE 35

35 Each participant gave their c onsent to participate in each da y of the study. The response rate was about 75%1 for the pretest and 55% for the posttest. Only participants who were able to complete both days of the study and completed bot h the pretest and posttest questionnaire were included in this sample. Consent was obtained fr om each college participant on each day of the study. The pilot consent forms for both days are included in Appendix C. Juvenile Pilot Sample The sample for the juvenile pilot phase of the current study included 63 students from a University laboratory middle and high school. There were 9 partic ipants that were not included in this sample because they were not present fo r both days of the study, leaving 54 students in the final sample. The sample consisted of both ma le and female students between the ages of 11 and 17. Parental consent was obtained for all participan ts in the juvenile pilot sample before the first day of the study took place. Consent forms we re handed out at least one week prior to the first day of the study (Appendix D). Participants were only included in the study if both parental consent and consent from the participant were obta ined. Each juvenile participant first consented to take part in the study and a ll participation was voluntary fo r both phases of the study. The forms asking for participant consent were the same used in the college pilot and are included in Appendix C. No incentives were given to partic ipate in the study. The response rate was about 45%2 for this sample. A failure to return the parental consent fo rm was the major reason for nonparticipation. 1 The response rate was approximate because the questionnaire s were handed out to everyone in the class and that that chose to not participate simply ha nded in blank forms. In order to minimize feelings of coercion, no formal counting or designation was made for those who chose not to participate. Two classes were sampled with 50 students per class. 2 The response rate was approximate becau se parental consent forms were handed out to everyone in the class and the questionnaires were handed out to everyone in the clas s who turned in a parental consent form. Those who chose

PAGE 36

36 Juveniles in an Alternativ e Public School Sample This sample of juveniles included 84 student s from an alternativ e public middle and high school. Thirty-one participants were excluded because they were not present for both days of the study and six chose not to participate. The rema ining 47 participants consisted of both male and female students between the ages of 13 and 17. Parental consent was obtained for all particip ants in this sample. Parents signed and returned the consent form if they did not want their child to participate. This passive consent method was suggested by the principal at the school based on his experience in conducting studies with the students in hi s school. These parental consent forms are included in Appendix E. Participants were only included in the study if both parental consent and consent from the participant were obtained. Each ju venile participant first consente d to take part in the study and all participation was voluntary for both phases of the study. The same consent form used for participants in the pilot tests was used in th is sample and is included in Appendix C. No incentives were given to participate in the study. The response rate was 93%3 for this sample. The social and demographic characteristics of this sample are contained in Table 8.1. Detention Sample The sample of juveniles in detention consis ted of 64 juveniles who were currently being held at a detention center, and had not yet been adjudicated delinquent for their current case. There were 22 participants that were not include d because they were released from detention prior to the second day of the st udy. Another 7 participants chose not to participate in the study. Data collection took place two or three times pe r week for 11 weeks. The reason for using those to not participate simply handed in blank questionnaires. Four classes were sampled with approximately 30 students per class. 3 The response rate is based on the number of questionnaires handed out as compared with those returned completed. There were 84 students sampled and 6 handed in blank questionnaires.

PAGE 37

37 who had not yet been adjudicated is that they were the targeted audience for the DVD (described in the next section) and they had the least am ount of knowledge of the system. The remaining 35 participants consisted of both males and females (only 4 participants were female) between the ages of 13 and 18. Assent was obtained from all de tention participants. The assent forms used are included in Appendix F. Parental consent was not required fr om the juveniles in detention because the study did not place the juveniles in more than minima l risk and the attainment of parental consent would have made the study impossible because th e juveniles were being held in the State’s custody at the time the study took pl ace. The response rate was 84%4 for this sample. The social and demographics of this samp le are contained in Table 8.1. Materials The DVD A DVD was recently jointly developed by the Office of Court Improvement and the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court for the State of Florida to improve juveniles’ comprehension of tr ial related information. The DVD was developed to address some areas where juveniles show deficits in understanding and commonly hold misconceptions concerning legal terms and concepts. A script for this DVD is included in Appendix G. In the past, pamphlets were provided to the juveniles explaining some of this trial related information. A copy of this pamphlet is included in Appendi x H. The pamphlet covered sections including “Important things to know,” “Why am I here,” “Who’s in the court room,” “What could happen to me,” and “What happens in juvenile court.” Mo st of these sections included pictures drawn by 4 This response rate is calculated by taking the total number of questionnaires that were handed out and the number of completed questionnaires received. T hose who participated in Day 1, but ch ose not to participate in Day 2 are counted as a non-response.

PAGE 38

38 juveniles to depict the issues. The DVD is intend ed to have a wider and more effective impact because it will be able to reach those juveni les who are not strong readers and because the information is presented in a more accessible way. This DVD was developed for the target audience of juveniles in the j uvenile justice system and their parents. The goal is to show it in detention centers, court hous es, probation offices, and assessment centers throughout Florida. Currently the DVD has not yet been implemented in the detention system in the c ounty of the current study. Questionnaire The questions the current study’s questionn aire are based on previous research, information contained in the DVD, and questions suggested from the detention center staff. These questions are not based on any competency sc reening measure, but rather are measures of understanding of the court process and are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the DVD in increasing knowledge of the court concepts. The final questionnaire consists of 41 total questions, which includes 23 multiple choice and matching questions assessing juvenile knowledge of the trial process including the ro les of key players and understanding of key concepts. Three open ended questions are al so included that measure the juvenile’s understanding of the nature and c onsequences of the charges and th e role of the lawyer. Eleven questions are also included to gather social a nd demographic information related to age, gender, race/ethnicity, grades, previous experience with the system, and previous experience of family and friends in the system. One question asks how sure respondents are of their answers. Three questions were included to determine if the juve niles were bringing in any outside information on the court process that may affect their scores . Each of the aforementioned questions will be examined in greater detail in th e following sections and a copy of the questionnaire, with the correct answers highlighted, is included in Appendix I.

PAGE 39

39 Role of the lawyer and attorney client confidentiality (LAWYER): Five of the questions included on the que stionnaire relate to the lawyer’s ro le in the courtroom and attorneyclient privilege. One question presents choices of people the juvenile would confide in with information regarding his or her trial, and is used to test the understanding of attorney client privilege. Another question asks respondents to check boxes for each item that describes the role of a lawyer. Juvenile understanding of the basic functions of a lawy er is tested here. Information is presented in the video to pr ovide the correct answers to the questions. As discussed above, a number of studies identified that juveniles may have trouble with defining th e role of an attorney or the concept of attorney-client privilege (C ooper, 1997; Flin, et al., 1989; Peterson-Badali and Abramovitch, 1992; Saywitz et al., 1990; Warre n-Leubecker, 1989). Three of the possible correct answers come from information presented in the video. Two of the other correct answer choices based both on information presented in the DVD and on the findings of Grisso (1981), are intended to determine if juveniles believe thei r lawyers will only represent them if they are innocent. Another question is a multiple choice question asking the juven ile to respond to a scenario about a juvenile who has information that could be useful to hi s current case, but could also get him in trouble for something else, and as ks who would be the best person to tell this information. The answer choices given for th is question include the lawyer, judge, social worker, state attorney, or probation officer. Two concepts were test ed in this question. The first being whether the juvenile understands the con cept of attorney-client privilege. The second examines whether the juvenile understands that in order for the lawyer to effectively help, the attorney needs to know all of the information relevant to the case . The final two questions about the lawyer’s role are open ended and simply aske d who the juvenile mostly likely would disclose important information to regardi ng their case, and who they would be least likely to tell and why.

PAGE 40

40 Roles of key players in the courtroom (KEY PLAYERS): The roles of other key players in the courtroom are addressed with five addi tional questions. As discussed above, Cooper (1997) noted that juveniles’ unde rstanding of the functions of ke y people in the court process could be increased through video presentation of this information. There is one multiple choice question with multiple correct answers provided by the DVD regarding the role that the state attorney plays in the trial. Th e question is included to test if the juvenile understands what role the state attorney plays. F lin et al. (1989) noted that su ch comprehension is sometimes problematic in younger children. Questions in th e same format are also included to test understanding of the roles of the Department of Juve nile Justice probation officer and the bailiff. Another question evaluates the ability of the juvenile to iden tify the key players that will be in the courtroom with them. This is a multiple choice answer where there are multiple correct responses. The respondent is graded on their abil ity to identify each one. The incorrect answer of “jury” is included to determine if the juve nile understands how thei r case is decided. As discussed above, Cooper (1997) found that juveni le’s understanding of the courtroom layout and who might be in the courtroom can be increased through video presentation of the information. A multiple choice question, containing only one co rrect answer, is also included to test understanding of the judge’s role. Nature and consequences of the charges (NATURE): Four questions are included on juveniles’ understanding of the nature and consequences of the charges. One question asks whether or not one can be locked up prior to appearing in court. Another question asks respondents to identify reas ons why they could be in court, scoring on the numb er of correctly identified responses. There is also a scenario ques tion evaluating understandi ng of what types of punishment may be imposed. The latter has multiple correct answers and is scored based on the

PAGE 41

41 number correctly identified. The last question in this area is open ended and evaluates the juvenile’s perception of the amount of time the punishment from the current proceedings could last. This is included to determ ine if the juvenile realizes how long the decision made regarding punishment could affect them. The question is al so used to analyze whether or not juveniles make decisions based on a shortened time pers pective (Steinberg, 2003). As discussed above, Cooper (1997) evaluated comprehension of concepts related to nature and consequences of the charges and did not find that this is affected by video pr esentation of the concepts. Juvenile court hearings (HEARINGS): The juveniles’ knowle dge of the differences between the types of hearings is tested by seve n questions. Two of these are multiple choice. One asks which hearing is also known as the trial. The other is a scenario asking for identification of the hearing that takes place first in a given situation. The last five are matching type questions where the respondent is given the decision made at the hearing and is asked to match this to the hearing where the decision is made. The hearings (answers) can be used more than once for this question. Pleas (PLEAS): One of the questions addresses pl eas that can be entered during an arraignment hearing. This is incl uded to determine if the juven iles can accurately identify their options regarding pleas. The inform ation needed to correctly answer this question is presented in the DVD. As discussed above, Smith (1985) f ound that juveniles sometimes had difficulty understanding the concepts of pleas and how they were entered. Court behavior (BEHAVIOR): Two questions examine juveniles’ perceptions of proper behavior regarding their case. The first of these questions asks what a ju venile should do if their parent is unable to take them to court. The ot her question is in scenario format and asks the

PAGE 42

42 respondent whether or not it is acceptable to ask questions in court if something is not understood. Questions not included in the DVD (NON-DVD): Three questions were included which covered information that was not found in the DVD. One question is designed to evaluate whether juveniles understand that they are innocent until proven guilty. As discussed above, Peterson-Badali and Abramovitch (1992) noted that many juveniles and young adults have trouble with this concep t. Two questions were included base d on suggestions from the detention center staff that they had found juveniles freque ntly asked while detained. These included one question as to whether juveniles had to appear in court once they were brought to detention and one asking whether a juvenile’s time in dete ntion could be extended past 21 days. These questions served two purposes. The first was to evaluate what the juveniles knew about those topics. The second was to serve as a control for the questions th at were contained in the DVD. With these questions it could be determined whether knowledge increased on a whole from pretest to posttest or only on the inform ation that was presented in the DVD. Application (APPLICATION) v. non-app lication (NON-APPLCIATION) questions: Five of the questions that were included in the questionnaire sec tions above required the respondent to apply information presented in the DVD in order to answer the question. Four of these five questions were scenarios where a vi gnette was presented and the respondent has to apply information from the DVD to the situation in order to answer it. One of these scenarios related to the LAWYER section, one to the HEARINGS section, one to the BEHAVIOR section, and one to the NATURE section. The other APPLICATION question required respondents to use information presented on the ro les of the lawyer and other key players in the court room to decide who they would tell important information about their case if they wanted it to be kept

PAGE 43

43 between just the two of them. The NON-APPL ICATION questions cons isted of the other 14 questions that were based on the DVD and were c ontained in the sections above (not including APPLICATION questions)5. Sureness of Correct Answer Choices: One question was included to test the participant’s perceived certainty of their an swers on the questionnaire. This was based on the research that found juror comfort was positively related to ju ror knowledge and both increased when shown a video intended to increase their knowledge (Bradshaw et al., 2005). Prev. Posttest Questions: Three questions varied between the pretest and posttest versions; all other questions were the same for both the preand posttest . The pretest questions evaluated whether they had any out side information relevant to th e court process that may affect their score on the questionnaire. Specifically these questions as ked if the respondents had been given or received any information about the cour t process and if so, then whom from and what about. The posttest questions asked whether the participants have spoke n with anyone about the video or information contained in the video since they watched it. Question Order: For the pilot samples, three different versions of each of pretest and posttest of the questionnaires were given in or der to randomize the ques tion ordering to ensure there was no order effect of the questions. No systematic differences were found between the different pilot versions; theref ore, question ordering within th e preand posttest was not continued for the alternative school or the deten tion sample. Different question orders were still given between the preand posttests to provide a visual difference for the participants on the two times they took the test. 5 This also did not include the question on the hearings which asked “Which hearing is also known as your trial?” This question was excluded from the questionnaires for th e target samples and was not included in any analyses.

PAGE 44

44 Differences in Questionnaires Between Samples: The pilot questionnai res are included in Appendixes (J-K). The questionnaires for juveniles in alterna tive public schools (see Appendixes L-M) and detention (see Appendixes N-O) were m odified based on comments and results from the pilot samples. These changes ar e further explained in the results section for the pilot samples. The questionnaire for juveniles in alternative public school s was further modified to gear the questions toward a sample that had not necessarily been arre sted previously. These changes only affected the wording of some ques tions and not the questi on content itself. This wording was not an issue for the pilot samples b ecause they were asked to imagine that they were a juvenile who had been arrested for a crime they had committed while answering the questionnaire. For the students in the alternat ive school, the question of whether the respondent had ever been arrested before the current ar rest was replaced by a question asking if the respondent had ever been arrested before. Grading: The grading of the questionnaire was base d on the number of questions that the respondent answered correctly. Missing responses we re treated as incorrec t just as they would have been had this been any type of academic examination. Using this grading mechanism, the highest raw score a participant could obtain on the questionnaire wa s a 44. This score is based only on questions that tested knowledge of materi al presented in the DVD. It also excludes one question on the hearings that was only included on the pilot surveys, for scoring purposes this question was not considered in scoring for any of the samples. The open ended questions were also not included for scoring purposes. Answers to the open ended questions will be examined separately. The social and dem ographic questions were not include d in this raw score as these only served as control variable s. There were a total of 19 questions as presented on the questionnaire that were included in the raw score. The reason th e highest possible raw score (44)

PAGE 45

45 is higher than the number of questions on the ques tionnaire is that for ques tions where there were multiple correct answers, each answer was scored as a separate question. A percentage score was also calculated based on these raw scores. Th is was simply done by calculating the number correct divided by the total possible correct. Impr ovement scores were al so calculated based on the difference between the posttest score and the pretest score. Improvement percentages were also calculated in the sa me manner as the preand posttest percentages. Throughout the remainder of this paper scores will be presented as percentages in most cases. For ease of interpretation, scores will al so be compared using a common college ten point grading scale. This will mean that scores of 100-90 will be considered as the A range, 89-80 in the B range, 79-70 in the C range, 69-60 in the D range, and 59 and below in the F range. The questions based on the DVD were divided into sections based on question topics described above. The sections are: 1) Questions related to the role of the lawyer lawyer/client confidentiality (LAWYER), 2) The roles of key players in the system (KEY PLAYERS), 3) The nature and consequences of the charges (NATURE) , 4) What happens at different juvenile court hearings (HEARINGS), 5) What types of pleas can be entered (PLEAS), and 6) Proper behavior related to the juvenile court pr ocess (BEHAVIOR). The questions in these sections are those outlined in the questionnaire section above. The to tal possible raw score for each section is as follows: LAWYER10, KEY PLAYERS16, NA TURE6, HEARINGS6, PLEAS4, and BEHAVIOR2. Percentage correct scores were al so calculated for each section by dividing the total raw score for the section by the tota l possible correct score on the section. The other sections, including those ques tions not covered on the DVD (NON-DVD), the APPLICATION questions, and the NON-APPLICAT ION questions were all also evaluated separately. The total po ssible raw score for the three NON-DVD questions was three. The total

PAGE 46

46 possible raw score for the five APPLICATION ques tions was nine. This was due to one of the questions having multiple possible correct answers. The total possible raw score for the 14 NON-APPLICATION questions was 35. This was ag ain due to some of the questions having multiple correct answer choices. Each of these ra w section scores were also calculated into percentage correct scores. Design A preand posttest design was employed to evaluate whether the information presented in the DVD aids in increasing understanding of key term s and concepts related to the juvenile court process. Scripts were used which included general information on the study, what we were asking them to do, and informati on concerning their vol untary participation and confidentiality of information. The scripts for the college pilot, juvenile pilot, juveniles in an alternative public school sample, and detention sample are include d in Appendixes P-S. For all samples but the college sample, the questionnaires were read out loud to the survey participants. This was to ensure that even those who could not read could participate in the study. The survey was designed with pictures next to each question and the answer c hoices were numbered. As each question was read, a card was held up with that picture on it so that everyone could follow along After the participants had completed the pretes t questionnaires, they were shown the DVD. The posttest was given two days after the pretest. This was done to determine if the juveniles could retain the information for this period of time. In the study by Cooper (1997) a one day lag was provided after the show ing of the video. This was increas ed in the current study to give a better indication of whether the juveniles could retain the information. This extra day is important because the relevant st atute states that a “child may not be held in secure detention under this subparagraph for more than 48 hours un less ordered by the court” (Use of Detention Statute, 2006). The two day de lay reflects the maximum amount of time that a juvenile may wait

PAGE 47

47 between being shown the DVD and appearing for th eir first hearing, a dete ntion hearing if the video is shown when they enter the detention cente r. During the posttest, participants were asked to answer the questionnair e a second time. As was mentioned in the question order subsection of the questionnaire section above, the question or dering was modified betw een preand posttests to provide a visual difference between the two. A code sheet was used for all samples to ma tch the pretest questionn aires to the posttest questionnaires. The code consisted of the responden t’s birth date (if they were born on February 10th, then this number would be 10) and the first tw o letters of their favorite color. This code sheet is included in Appendix T. When directions for writing the code were read aloud to the juveniles in the alternative public school and detention participants , cards were held up with the colors written out (ex. Red was written in red) to help those who may not know the correct spelling.

PAGE 48

48 Table 8-1 Social and demographic char acteristics of ma in sample groups Social / demographic variable Alternative Combined public school Detention detention N=47 N=35 N=82 % (n) % (n) % (n) Age (M=15.15, SD=1.21) (M=15.69, SD=1.45) (M=15.38, SD=1.34) 13 08.5% (4) 11.4% (4) 9.8% (8) 14 23.4% (11) 08.6% (3) 17.1% (14) 15 25.5% (12) 22.9% (8) 24.4% (20) 16 25.5% (12) 20.0% (7) 23.2% (19) 17 14.9% (7) 31.4% (11) 22.0% (18) 18 00.0% (0) 05.7% (2) 02.4% (2) Missinga 02.1% (1) 00.0% (0) 02.1% (1) Grades Mostly As 02.1% (1) 08.6% (3) 04.9% (4) Mostly As and Bs 29.8% (14) 05.7% (2) 19.5% (16) Mostly Bs 02.1% (1) 02.9% (1) 02.4% (2) Mostly Bs and Cs 44.7% (21) 31.4% (11) 39.0% (32) Mostly Cs 00.0% (0) 05.7% (2) 02.4% (2) Mostly Cs and Ds 04.3% (2) 34.3% (12) 17.1% (14) Mostly Ds 00.0% (0) 00.0% (0) 00.0% (0) Mostly Ds and Fs 08.5% (4) 02.9% (1) 06.1% (5) Mostly Fs 00.0% (0) 00.0% (0) 00.0% (0) Missinga 08.5% (4) 08.6% (3) 08.5% (7) Gender Male 76.6% (36) 88.6% (31) 81.7% (67) Female 23.4% (11) 11.4% (4) 18.3% (15) Race African American 87.2% (41) 48.6% (17) 70.7% (58) Otherb 12.8% (6) 48.6% (17) 28.0% (23) Missinga 00.0% (0) 02.9% (1) 01.2% (1) Know others with previous experiencec Yes 97.9% (46) 97.1% (34) 97.6% (80) No 02.1% (1) 02.9% (1) 02.4% (2)

PAGE 49

49 Table 8-1 Continued Social / demographic variable Alternative Combined public school Detention detention N=47 N=35 N=82 % (n) % (n) % (n) Number of previous arrests (M=1.64, SD=1.78) (M=1.17, SD=1.52) (M=1.43, SD=1.68) 0 31.9% (15) 42.9% (15) 36.6% (30) 1 25.5% (12) 31.4% (11) 28.0% (23) 2 12.8% (6) 11.4% (4) 12.2% (10) 3 06.4% (3) 02.9% (1) 04.9% (4) 4 02.1% (1) 02.9% (1) 02.4% (2) 5 or more 14.9% (7) 08.6% (3) 12.2% (10) Missinga 06.4% (3) 00.0% (0) 03.7% (3) Number of times in courtd (M=2.03, SD=1.91) (M=2.41, SD=1.68) (M=2.19 , SD=1.81) 0 27.7% (13) 11.4% (4) 20.7% (17) 1 12.8% (6) 22.9% (8) 17.1% (14) 2 12.8% (6) 14.3% (5) 13.4% (11) 3 10.6% (5) 20.0% (7) 14.6% (12) 4 04.3% (2) 05.7% (2) 04.9% (4) 5 or more 17.0% (8) 17.1% (6) 17.1% (14) Missinga 14.9% (7) 08.6% (3) 12.2% (10) a Missing cases were excluded pairwise for the purposes of regression analysis. b Other is composed of all races other than African American. Those respondents who chose multiple races including African American were c ode with the majority of African American c Know Others with Previous Experience was a recoded variable which included the two questions of whether they know juveniles or adul ts who had previously been through the juvenile or criminal justice systems. d Number of Times in CourtCo mbination of both times in court for cases respondents were involved in and those times they were in court for cases they were not involved in

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 9 RESULTS College Pilot Sample The college sample consisted of 55 college students in an underg raduate Juvenile Law class. The purpose of this sample was three fol d. First, it served as the sample which survey question order was evaluated. This issue was ad dressed in the questi onnaire section above. Second, comments and suggestions from this sample were used to help clarify the questions on the questionnaire. The reason for this was to en sure that questions would not be misunderstood by the target samples. The changes made to th e questionnaire based on comments from the pilot samples will be explained in the combined pilot section below. Third, this sample served as the “expert” sample. The scores from this sample will be used later as a comparison to the scores of the other samples. For this sample the mean pretest scores was an 83.1%. This indicates that the initial knowledge level of the “expert” sample is in the B range. The main hypothesis (Hypothesis 1 – Preand postknowledge) pred icted that scores would be higher after viewing the DVD (posttest). A one-tailed paired samples t-test wa s used to test whether there was a significant difference between pretest and posttest scores for this sample. A significant difference was present between mean pretest (83.1%, SD=6.9%) and mean posttest (92.0%, SD=5.4%) scores (t(54)= -9.71, p<.001). The mean improveme nt percentage was 8.1% (SD=6.6%). The questions that were missed the most of ten by this sample will be evaluated next. This will be evaluated separately for the pretes t and posttest. The top six most missed questions on the pretest for this sample were 1) When will an arrested juvenile go to court for the first time (87.3% missed), 2) At which hearing is it decide d whether or not there are enough facts in the police report to arrest a juvenile (81.8% missed), 3) Is there a jury present at juvenile court

PAGE 51

51 hearings (63.6% missed), 4) Can the court require juveniles to go to school as part of their disposition (54.5% missed), 5) At which hearing is it decided that a juvenile will get to go home before the trial (52.7% missed), a nd 6) At which hearing will it be decided whether a juvenile will be placed on probation or in a community progr am (52.7% missed). Four out of 6 of the top missed questions on the pretest were related to hearings. The top six most missed questions on the postt est were 1) At which hearing is it decided whether or not there are enough fact s in the police report to arrest a juvenile (54.5% missed), 2) At which hearing can a juvenile enter a plea a nd ask for a lawyer (40% missed), 3) At which hearing will it be decided whethe r a juvenile will be placed on probation or in a community program (38.2% missed), 4) Which hearing is also known as a juve nile’s trial (27.3% missed), 5) Is there a jury present at juve nile court hearings (23.6% missed) , and 6) At which hearing is it decided that a juvenile will get to go home before the trial (23.6% missed). Five out of six of the top missed questions on the posttest were related to hearings. The implications of the results from this pilot test and the juvenile pilot will be further evaluated in the combined pilot section below. Juveniles in a University Labo ratory School Pilot Sample Juveniles in a University laboratory middl e and high school made up the second pilot sample (n=54). There were two of specific purposes in including this sample. This sample served to ensure that the questionnaire was comprehensible to juveniles that were the same ages as the population of interest (i.e., juveni les involved in the juvenile justice system). The changes that were made based on these suggestions are discus sed in detail in the combined pilot section below. Another purpose of including this sample is to assess how a group of juveniles without justice system involvement would score on the questionnaires, therefor e providing a comparison group to the detention and a lternative school juveniles.

PAGE 52

52 The mean pretest score for this sample was 67.8%, which is in the D range. This provides a baseline score for the previous knowledge level of those in the juvenile pilot. The first hypothesis (Hypothesis 1Preand postknow ledge) predicted that scores w ould be higher after viewing the DVD (posttest). A one-tailed paired samples t-te st was used to test whether there was a significant difference between pret est and posttest scores for this sample. A significant difference was present between mean pretest (67.8%, SD=7.5%) and mean posttest (79.7%, SD=8.0%) scores (t(53)= -13.01, p<.001). Th is supported the main hypothes is (Hypothesis 1 – Preand postknowledge) that scores would significantly improve from preto posttest. The mean improvement percentage score was 11.9% (SD= 6.9%). The three questions which were not included on the DVD (NON-DVD) were also evaluated to determin e if there was a significant increase from preto posttest on these questi ons as well. Scored together there was not a significant difference between the pretest and posttest scores (prete st M=38.3%, SD=26.2%, posttest M=34.0%, SD=27.8%, t(53)=1.26, p=0.212). The section scores that were de scribed in the grading section above were then evaluated for two purposes. The first was to test the hypothesis th at juveniles would have the most trouble with the questions related to the lawy er and attorney-client privilege (Hypothesis 5Role of lawyer and attorney-client privilege). The second purpos e was to provide a comparison for the target sample groups to determine if the groups differe d on their performance based on section topic. The sections were LAWYER, KEY PLAYE RS, NATURE, HEARINGS, PLEAS, and BEHAVIOR. Section percentage scores, NON-DVD scores, and overa ll scores are presented in Table 9.1. A one-tailed paired sample s t-test was run to determine if there was a difference in the means between the pretest and posttest scores for each section of questions. A significant difference was found between mean pretest and m ean posttest scores for the sections of KEY

PAGE 53

53 PLAYERS (pretest M=72.6%, SD=10.5%, postt est M=83.2%, SD=10.7%, t(53)= -6.11, p< .001, NATURE (pretest M=65.7%, SD=21.1%, posttes t M=86.7%, SD=18.7%, t(53)= -7.33, p< .001), HEARINGS (pretest M=29.3%, SD=17.7%, postt est M=39.8%, SD=18.1%, t(53)= -2.503.26, p< .001), PLEAS (pretest M=59.7%, SD=25.9%, postte st M=88.9%, SD=23.6%, t(53)= -9.06, p< .001), and BEHAVIOR (pretest M=72.2%, SD =30.2%, posttest M=89.8%, SD=26.4%, t(53)= 3.67, p< .001). The means will also be used to determine how participant performance varied between sections. The hypothesis predicted that pa rticipants would have th e most difficulty with the LAWYER section, however participants actually scored the highest on the LAWYER section with a mean pretest score of 86.1% (SD=11.2 %). There was also the least amount of improvement from pretest to posttest in this section (mean posttest 88.0%, SD=11.9%). This is the opposite of what the hypothesis related to this stated, which was that this would be the category that proved to be most difficult. The ne xt highest section score on the pretest was for KEY PLAYERS and the lowest section scor e for this sample was for HEARINGS. Next, the questions that were missed the most frequently will be examined. In this sample there were eight pretest questi ons that were included in the DVD that over 70% of the sample missed. These were 1) Could a jury be in the courtroom with a juvenile during their hearing (92.6% missed), 2) Todd, who is 15, was arrested and is being sentenced for a crime that he committed, could part of his sentence be to go to school (88.9% missed), 3) At which hearing is it decided whether a juvenile will be placed on probation or in a community program (83.3% missed), 4) Which hearing is also known as the trial (79.6% missed), 5) At which hearing is it decided whether or not a juvenile gets to go home before their trial (79.6% missed), 6) Who makes the decision of whether a juvenile is guilt y or not at their trial (77.8% missed), 7) At

PAGE 54

54 which hearing is it decided whether or not there are enough facts in the police report to arrest a juvenile (77.8% missed), 8) Can a juvenile en ter a no contest plea in court (72.2% missed). There were five posttest questions that over 60 % of this sample missed. These were 1) At which hearing is it decided whether a juvenile will be placed on probation or in a community program (74.1% missed), 2) At wh ich hearing is it decided whethe r or not there are enough facts in the police report to arrest a j uvenile (72.2% missed), 3) Could a jury be in the courtroom with a juvenile during their hearing (72.2% missed), 4) Which heari ng is also known as the trial (66.7% missed), 5) At which hearing is it that a juvenile can enter a plea and ask for a lawyer (64.9% missed). The results of the most missed questions will be evaluated further in the combined pilot results section below. College and Juvenile Pilot Samples Combined Results The comments, suggestions, and results from the college and juvenile pilots were examined together to determine if any changes needed to be made to the questionnaire. Two questions were significantly modified for bot h the juveniles in an alternative school and detention samples. One question was also modifi ed only for the juveniles in the alternative public school. The first change was the removal of one of the hearings questions. This was the question asking the respondent to identify which hearing was also known as their trial. This allowed for the questions which contained “adjudicat ory hearing” as an answer to be change to “adjudicatory hearing/ trial.” This allowed fo r the assessment of whether juveniles had an understanding of what went on at their adjudicatory hearing but only knew th is to be their trial. This change better reflects the way the narrator s on the DVD discuss the adjudicatory hearing. The second change was the addition of one question which was added to clarify the answer to the question before it. The existing question asked if be fore the respondent was a rrested, if he or she knew anyone who had been arrested when they we re a juvenile. The question that was added

PAGE 55

55 asked if the respondent knew whether this person was charged as a juvenile or in adult court. Portions of the directions and other questions were clarified or expa nded based on comments and suggestions from the pilot group. One other qu estion was removed for the juveniles in an alternative public school which asked if this was the first time the respondent had been arrested. This was replaced with a question asking the responde nt if he or she had ever been arrested. This was done because the participants in this samp le may not have all been previously arrested. This question was not an issue for the pilot samples because they were asked to imagine that they were a juvenile who had been arrested for a crime that they committed. A number of other questions were also clarified for this sample to serve the purpose of not assuming that the respondents had already been arrested. The questions that were most missed by th e pilot samples were also evaluated. The questions in the HEARINGS section were consis tently the most missed, however which specific hearing question was the mo st missed varied from pretest to posttest and between the samples. Additionally, participants performed poorly on both the matching and multiple choice HEARING questions. This indicated that rather than there being a flaw in the questions, these were simply the questions participants found to be the most difficult or most unfamiliar. Therefore, the questions were not al tered for the samples of interest. Juveniles from an Alternative Public School Sample Juveniles in alternative public schools were included as the first main group of participants. These juveniles were included because most had experienced some contact with the juvenile justice system and provided for a test of juveniles with some juvenile court experience, but this information was not fresh in their minds because they were not currently in detention. The pretest for this sample could therefore measure what information concerning the court

PAGE 56

56 process they had previously or had retained from their experiences, and how much the DVD could improve their knowledge. Pretest scores were first examined to determ ine the baseline level of knowledge for this sample. Mean pretest scores for this sample were 62.7%, scoring in the D range. Next, the overall pretest and posttest scores will be ev aluated along with section scores. The first hypothesis (Hypothesis 1 –Preand postknowledge) predicted that scores would be higher after viewing the DVD (posttest). A one-t ailed paired samples t-test wa s used to test whether there was a significant difference between pretest and po sttest scores for this sample. Supporting the hypothesis, a significant differe nce was present between mean pretest (62.7%, SD=11.1%) and mean posttest (68.1%, SD=15.1%) scores (t= -2. 46, p<.01). The mean improvement score was 5.4%. Next the section scores were evaluated. Th e means and standard deviations from each of the sections for this sample are presented in Table 9.2. A paired samples t-test was run to determine if there was a difference in the means be tween the pretest and posttest scores for each section of questions. A significan t difference was found between mean pretest and mean posttest scores for the sections of NATURE (p retest M=62.8%, SD=21.2% posttest M=74.5%, SD=27.6%, t(46)= -2.72, p< .005), HEARINGS (pretest M=22.7%, SD=16.8% posttest M=29.1%, SD=19.5%, t(46)= -2.00, p< .05) and P LEAS (pretest M=60.6%, SD=25.9%, posttest M=73.4%, SD=30.6%, t(46)= -2.12, p< .05). This samp le will be combined with the detention sample for further analyses.

PAGE 57

57 Detention Sample Juveniles in detention were included as the se cond main sample of the study. This sample was used to get a baseline test of how juven iles who had minimal expe rience with the process (had not yet been adjudicated) would perform. These juveniles were also used because seemingly this information would be the most valuab le to this group as they would be able to use it immediately. First, baseline scores were determined to asse ss how much this group of juveniles currently knew about the court process. This sample ha d a mean pretest knowledge score of 62.5%, which is scoring in the D range. Next the main hypot hesis (Hypothesis 1Preand postknowledge) was tested. This predicted that scores would be higher after viewing the DVD (posttest). A onetailed paired samples t-test was used to test whether there was a significant difference between pretest and posttest scores for this sample. A significant difference was present between mean pretest (62.5%, SD=12.5%) and mean posttest (6 9.4%, SD=16.4%) scores (t(34)= -4.09, p<.001). This supported the main hypothesis. The mean im provement from pretest to posttest was 6.9%. Next the section scores will be evaluated. A one-tailed paired samples t-test was run to determine if there was a difference in the means be tween the pretest and posttest scores for each section of questions. The means and standard deviations are pres ented in Table 9.3. A significant difference was found between mean pretes t and mean posttest scores for the sections of KEY PLAYERS (pretest M=67.1%, SD= 15.6%, posttest M=74.8%, SD=18.5%, t(34)= -3.25, p< .005), NATURE (pretest M=59.1%, SD=20.3% , posttest M=75.7%, SD=20.3%, t(34)= -4.18, p< .001), PLEAS (pretest M=65.7%, SD=22.8% , posttest M=75.7%, SD=26.8%, t(34)= -2.79, p< .005), and BEHAVIOR (pretest M=58.6%, SD =32.9%, posttest M=74.3%, SD=32.9%, t(34)= -2.95, p< .005). This sample will be combined w ith the alternative school sample for further analyses.

PAGE 58

58 Detention and Alternative School Combined Sample The samples from alternative schools and detention were then combined (n = 82) resulting in a sample with an age range of 13-18 years old. The two samples were combined for statistical and practical reasons. Statistically, the larger sa mples allowed us to consider regression models for predicting both preand improvement scores . Practically, these two groups represent the target audience of the DVD. In addition, preand improvement-scores did not differ significantly between the two groups on any of the key measures. Results from the independent samples t-tests for the pretest, improvement, a nd section scores are presented in Table 9.4. Next, the combined sample pretest scores were examined to establish what juveniles base level of juvenile court knowledge was. Juvenile s in this sample had a mean pretest score of 62.6%. As expected, this score was also in the D range like the individual pretest scores for each of the two groups. The main hypothesis (Hypothesis 1Preand postknowledge) predicted that scores would be higher after vi ewing the DVD (posttest). A one-ta iled paired samples t-test was used to test whether there was a significant diffe rence between pretest and posttest scores for the combined sample. A significant difference was also present between mean pretest (62.6%, SD=11.6%) and mean posttest (68.7%, SD= 15.6%) scores (t(81)= -4.17, p<.001) for the combined sample. The mean improvement score was 5.7% (SD=13.3%) These scores along with NON-DVD, and section scores are included in Table 9.5. To confirm that the improvement between preand posttest was based on the information gleaned from the video and not just on testi ng effects, we evaluated whether there were significant improvements from preto posttest on the questions that were not included in the video (NON-DVD). The three questions which we re included on the questionnaire but not on the DVD were grouped together. These questions were “Before the tria l starts, which are you assumed to be (guilty or not guilty),” “Once you are brought to detenti on, do you have to go to

PAGE 59

59 court (yes, or no),” and “can your time in deten tion before your trial be extended past 21 days (yes or no).” A two-tailed paired samples ttest was conducted to determine if there was a significant change from mean pretest score ( 44.3%, SD=26.2%) to mean posttest score (46.3%, SD=27.1%). The change from preto posttest was not found to be significant (t(81)=-0.64, p=.525). This means that the participants’ know ledge improved on the topics covered in the DVD, but not on the material not included in the DVD Social and demographic variables were next examined for this sample to determine if age, grades, or prior experience had any influence on pretest or improvement scores while controlling for race and gender. The social and demographi c characteristics for the combined sample are contained in Table 8.1. The three hypotheses which related to social and demographic characteristics were tested here. The first (Hypothesis 2Effect of age on pretest and improvement scores) predicted that age would be related to both pretest and improvement scores with older juveniles scori ng higher at pretest and younge r juveniles showing greater improvement from preto posttest. The second (Hypothesis 3Effect of academic performance on pretest and improvement scores) predicted that those with highe r grades in school would have lower scores at pretest, and would have highe r improvement scores. The third (Hypothesis 4Effect of prior experience on pretest and improvement scores) predicted those will more prior experience with the system would receive highe r scores on the pretest and lower improvement scores. Two linear regression analyses6 were conducted, one for each dependent variable, pretest scores and improvement scores. The independent variables include d in each model were age, race, gender, grades, number of previous arrest s, and the number of times the respondent had 6 Missing cases were excluded pairwise for this analysis.

PAGE 60

60 been to court7. The variable of whether the responde nt knew anyone who had been arrested as either juvenile or an adult8 was not included in this analysis because only one juvenile in this sample said that they did not know anyone who ha d previously been arrested. The results from the pretest regression model are included in Ta ble 9.6. The pretest regression model was not found to be significant (F(6,55)=1.49, p=.199, R2=.133 and R2 adj=-.044). The individual relationship of number of previ ous arrests and pretest scores wa s found to be significant (t(77)=2.10, p<.05) when controlling for the other variables in the model. This relationship was not in the expected direction however, w ith pretest scores lower for those with more prior arrests. No other significant individual rela tionships were found for this m odel. The regression model for improvement scores was examined next and the results are contained in Table 9.7. The improvement model was not found to be significant (F(6,58)=1.44, p=.214, R2=.130 and R2 adj=.040). The individual relati onship between number of times previously in court and improvement scores was also found to be signi ficant (t(72)=-2.11, p<.05) with those who had been to court more times showing less im provement. No other significant individual relationships were found in this model. The re sults of these two models only lend partial support to the hypothesis that th ose with more previous experience with the system would have higher pretest scores and lower improvement scores (Hypot hesis 4Effect of prio r experience on pretest and improvement scores). These results indicate that the opposite is tr ue for the relationship between arrests and pretest scor es. The finding that those with more times in court improved 7 The number of times the respondent had been to court was an additive combination of the following two questions: 1) How many times have you been to court for cases you were involved in? 2) How many times have you been to a courtroom for a case you were not directly involved in? 8 This variable was a combined variable of two questions that were included on the questionnaire. The first was whether the respondent knew an yone (outside of detention) who had been arrested as a juvenile, and the second asked if the respondent knew anyone who ha d been arrested as an adult. If the respondent answered yes to either of these questions the combined variable was coded as a yes, they did know someone who had been arrested.

PAGE 61

61 less from preto posttest does lend some support to this hypothesis (Hypothesi s 4Effect of prior experience on pretest and improvement scores) as this was the predicted direction of this relationship. Minor support was found for the hypot hesis related to age (H ypothesis 2Effect of age on pretest and improvement scores). Age was found to be positively re lated to pretest with those who were older scoring higher as was pr edicted by the hypothesis. This individual relationship was not found to be significant however. The individual relationship between improvement scores and age was in the opposite direction as hypothesized, with those who were older showing more improvement. This relation ship was not found to be significant. Minor support was also found for the hypothesis relating to grades (Hypothesis 3-Effect of academic performance on pretest and improvement scores) when the other variables in the model are controlled for. Grades were found to be relate d to pretest and improveme nt scores with those with higher grades scoring lower on the pretes t but improving more, but this relationship was also not found to be significant. The two hypotheses that related to question content and format were next examined. The first (Hypothesis 5Role of the lawyer and atto rney-client privilege) pr edicted that juveniles would have the most difficulty with questions rela ted to the role of the lawyer and attorney-client confidentiality (LAWYER). In order to do this the mean scores on preand posttests for each of the sections was evaluated. The means and standard deviations for the section scores for this sample are presented in Table 9.5 Respondent s actually scored highest in the LAWYER (pretestM=75.1% correct, SD=17.9%, pos ttest M=76.3% correct, SD=20.7%) and KEY PLAYER (pretestM=70.4% correct, SD= 16.2%, posttest M=75.0% correct, SD=18.4%) sections. In this sample as in the college and juvenile pilot samples re spondents had the most difficulty with the HEARINGS section for bot h the pretest (24.4% co rrect, SD=19.1%) and the

PAGE 62

62 posttest (30.3% correct, SD=18.9%). The next lowest score was on the BEHAVIOR category. Here respondents had a mean pretest of 56.7% (SD=34.0%) and a mean posttest of 65.9% (SD=35.9%). These findings did not support the hypothesis (Hypothesis 5Role of the lawyer and attorney-client privilege). A one-tailed paired samples t-test was also conducted to determine if there was a significant difference in the means between the pretest and posttest scores for each section of questions. A significant differen ce was found between mean pretest and mean posttest scores for the sections of KEY PLAYE RS (pretest M=70.4%, SD= 16.2%, posttest M=74.9%, SD=18.4%, t(81)= -2.11, p< .05), NATURE (pretest M= 61.2%, SD=20.8%, posttest M=75.0%, SD=25.8%, t(81)= -4.62, p< .001), HEARINGS (prete st M=24.4%, SD=19.1%, posttest M=30.3%, SD=18.9%, t(81)= -2.36, p< .05), PLEAS (p retest M=62.8%, SD=24.6%, posttest M=74.4%, SD=28.9%, t(81)= -3.08, p< .005), and BEHAVI OR (pretest M=56.7%, SD=34.0%, posttest M=65.9%, SD=35.9%, t(81)= -2.24, p< .05). The only se ction where there was not a significant improvement from preto posttest was for LAWYER. The second hypothesis related to format of questions (Hypothesis 6Application of concepts) predicted that juveniles would have the most difficulty w ith questions requiring application of the concepts (APPLICATION), a nd that this difficulty would be compounded for those who struggle academically and those who have no prior experience. The differences in performance between questions requ iring application of concepts were next compared to those that did not require application. The mean pretest percentage sc ore for application questions was 57.3% (SD=18.1%), and the mean posttest percen tage score was 69.1% (SD=24.3%). The mean pretest percentage score for those questions whic h did not require application of concepts was 64.0% (SD=12.1%), and the mean posttest percen tage score was 68.6% (SD=15.2%). In the

PAGE 63

63 pretest juveniles did perform slightly better on the questions which did not require application, but in the posttest respondent s performed at nearly the same level for both APPLICATION and NON-APPLICATION questions. Respondents did s how slightly more improvement on the APPLICATION questions from pretest to posttest. These results only lend partial support to this hypothesis because while pretest scores were s lightly lower on APPLICATION questions as predicted, there was also more improvement fr om preto posttest for these questions. A regression analysis was then conducted fo r pretest APPLICTION scores to determine if those who had lower grades in school or no pr ior experience would have more trouble on the APPLICTION questions. The model included the variables of grades in school, number of previous arrests, and number of times in cour t. The model was not found to be significant (F(3,61)=1.18, p=.323, R2=.055 and R2 adj=.009). There were also no in dividual relationships that were found to be significant. The results from this regression model are included in Table 9.8. The results of this regression analysis do not support the prediction of the hypothesis that low grades and lack of prior expe rience add to the difficulty in answering questions requiring application. The final hypothesis (Hypothesis 7Effects of sureness) pred icted that scores on sureness in answer choices would increase significantly fr om preto posttest and that posttest sureness would be significantly correlated to improvement scores. Sure scores were compared using a one-tailed paired samples t-test. Sure scores were measured on a four point scale with 1=Not Sure and 4=Very Sure. A significant increase between mean sure scores at pretest (M=2.94, SD=0.68) and at posttest (M=3.14, SD=0.74) was f ound (t(80)= -2.78, p<.005). A two-tailed test using Pearson’s Correlation was th en conducted to determine if pos ttest sureness was related to improvement scores. No significant correla tion was found (Pearson Correlation = -0.117,

PAGE 64

64 p=.295). These findings provide partial support fo r the hypothesis in that there was a significant increase in sureness from preto posttest, but posttest scores were not sign ificantly correlated to improvement scores. Data from the open-ended questions was next examined. One assessed the juvenile’s perspective of how long the dis position imposed from the juven ile court system could last. About one-third of the sample did not answer th is question. On both the pr etest and posttest, for those who did answer, most wrote in answers of either a month or less (20.7%), or between one month and a year (18.3%). The answers ranged fr om a number of days up to life, with 4 juveniles writing in life as an answer. Another question assessed if the ju venile had received any information about the court process where it ha d come from. Answers included parents, school, other adults, their lawyer, court, and the police. Again about on e-third of respondents chose not to answer. For those that did answer, the largest percentage, 25.6% , said that this information came from law enforcement. Another question asked if a juvenile wanted to tell someone important information about his or her case, w ho would the best person to tell. The largest percentage for both pretest (70.7%) and posttest ( 75.6%) wrote in their lawyer for this question. Other answers included parents, other adults, the police, friends, the judge, a social worker, and their probation officer. This question was follo wed up by a question asking why they would tell that person. Again, for this quest ion about one-third of responde nts did not answer. For those that did, the majority wrote that this person was the best pers on to help them (pretest 26.8%, posttest 22.0%). The next most common answer on both the preand posttest was that that this person works for you (pretest 15.9%, posttest 18.3%). The next question asked who they would be least likely to share important information about their case with. On both the preand posttest most wrote in that they would le st likely tell either the state attorney (pretest 23.2%, posttest

PAGE 65

65 35.4%) or the judge (pretest 34.1%, posttest 28.0 %) for this question. Other answers included their probation officer, a social worker, the police, the jury, and friends. Respondents were again asked why they chose this person. About half of the sample did not answer this part of the question. The answers ranged greatly for thes e questions, but a couple of the more common answers for both preand posttest included that the person coul d use the information against them (pretest 8.5%, posttest 11.0%), or that that person could determine their guilt or innocence (pretest 6.1%, posttest 6.1%). One other specific finding was that for the pretest in this combined sample, 74.4% of respondents thought that one of the jo bs of the lawyer was to repres ent a juvenile in the trial if they were not guilty. Only 50% of respondents thought that the lawyer represented a juvenile in court if he or she was guilty however. This show s that about a quarter of those sampled thought the lawyer’s role was dependent on whether the juvenile was guilty or not. Between Sample Comparisons In this section the similarities and differences between the samples will be evaluated. First the mean pretest scores and improvement scores between the samples will be compared. Table 9.9 contains pretest, posttest and improvement scor es for each of the samples. A chart of mean scores for all samples is contained in Fi gure 9.1. A one-way ANOVA test was performed to determine if there was a significant difference be tween the pretest scores between the samples (college pilot, juvenile pilo t, and detention and alternative school combined sample). A significant difference between the groups for the pretest was found (F(2)=80.26, p<.001). Posthoc comparisons using the LSD test were then an alyzed to determine which groups significantly differed from one another. Here it was found that on pretes t scores the college sample significantly differed from both the juvenile p ilot (mean difference 15.4%, p<.001) and detention and alternative school combined sample (mean difference 20.5%, p<.001) samples, meaning the

PAGE 66

66 college sample scored significantly higher than th e other two samples at pretest. A significant difference in pretest scores was also found be tween the juvenile pilot and detention and alternative school combined sample (mean diff erence 5.1%, p<.005) with t hose in the juvenile pilot scoring higher than the detention and alternative school combined sample. Differences in improvement scores between the samples were then compared. Mean improvement scores are included in Figure 9.2. M eans and standard deviations for improvement scores are included in Table 9.9. A one-way ANOVA was performed to test if there was a significant difference in improvement scores be tween the samples. A significant difference between the groups for the improvement sc ores was found (F(2)=5.90, p<.005). Post-hoc comparisons using the LSD test were then an alyzed to determine which groups significantly differed from one another. He re it was found that on improvement scores the college sample significantly differed from the j uvenile pilot (mean difference -3.8%, p<.05) sample, meaning the juvenile sample improved significantly more than th e college sample from pretest to posttest. A significant difference in improvement scores was also found between the j uvenile pilot and the detention and alternative school combined sample s (mean difference 6.1%, p<.001) with those in the juvenile pilot improving more than the detent ion and alternative school combined sample. It was found in previous sections that fo r both the juvenile pilot and detention and alternative school combined samples there we re significant improvements from pretest to posttest for all sections except the LAWER sect ion. Because both groups significantly improved on the same sections, differences on preand posttest section scores between the two groups were next evaluated. This was done to determ ine if there were any differences in knowledge based on question topic between the juveniles in the pilot an d those in the detention and alternative school combined sample. A two-tailed independent samples t-test was conducted to

PAGE 67

67 determine if there was a significant difference betw een the scores of the two samples for any of the sections (LAWYER, KEY PLAYERS, NA TURE, HEARINGS, PLEAS, or BEHAVIOR) on pretest. The results from this test are list ed in Table 9.10. There wa s a significant difference between the mean pretest scores of the sample s for the sections of LAWYER (juvenile pilot M=86.1%, SD=11.2%, detention and alternative school combined M=75.1%, SD=17.9%, t(134)=4.02, p<.001) and BEHAVIOR (juvenile pilot M=72.2%, SD= 30.2%, detention and alternative school combined M=56.7%, SD=34.0% , t(123)=2.79, p<.01). No other significant differences were found for the pretest section scores. A second two-tailed independent samples t-test was conducted to determine if there were any significant differences be tween the samples on the section scores for the posttest. Significant differences were f ound between the mean posttest sc ores of the samples for all sections. The results from this test are include d in Table 9.11. Figure 9.3 is a chart containing the mean section scores from both the preand postt est for both the juvenile pilot and detention and alternative school combined samples. From this chart it is noticeable that the detention and alternative school combined sample did not score above what would be the C range on an academic scale for any of the sections. It is also again noticeable how low the scores on the HEARINGS section were for both sa mples. This would indicate that this section was the section juveniles had the least current knowledge. The results of these t-tests indi cate that while both the juveni le pilot and detention groups significantly improved on the same sections, their scores significantly differed from one another in the pretest sections of LAWYER and BEHA VIOR and in all posttest sections with the juvenile pilot always scoring higher.

PAGE 68

68 Table 9-1 Mean percentage scores overal l and by section topic for juvenile pilot Section Pretest Posttest M SD M SD Total**** 67.8% 7.5% 79.7% 8.0% NON-DVD 38.3% 26.2% 34.0% 27.8% LAWYER 86.1% 11.2% 88.1% 11.9% KEY PLAYERS**** 72.7% 10.5% 83.2% 10.7% NATURE**** 65.7% 21.1% 86.7% 18.7% HEARINGS**** 29.3% 17.7% 39.8% 18.1% PLEAS**** 59.7% 25.9% 88.9% 23.6% BEHAVIOR**** 72.2% 30.2% 89.8% 26.4% ****Difference between preand pos ttest scores significant at p<.001. Table 9-2 Mean percentage scores overall and by section topic for juven iles in an alternative public school Section Pretest Posttest M SD M SD Total**** 62.7% 11.1% 68.1% 15.1% LAWYER 73.0% 17.7% 76.6% 20.4% KEY PLAYERS 72.7% 16.3% 75.0% 18.5% NATURE*** 62.8% 21.2% 74.5% 27.6% HEARINGS* 22.7% 16.8% 29.1% 19.5% PLEAS* 60.6% 25.9% 73.4% 30.6% BEHAVIOR 55.3% 36.5% 59.6% 37.1% *Difference between preand postt est scores significant at p<.05. ***Difference between preand pos ttest scores significant at p<.005. ****Difference between preand pos ttest scores significant at p<.001. Table 9-3 Mean percentage scor es overall and by section topi c for juveniles in detention Section Pretest Posttest M SD M SD Total**** 62.5% 12.5% 69.4% 16.5% LAWYER 78.0% 18.0% 76.0% 21.4% KEY PLAYERS*** 67.1% 15.6% 74.8% 18.5% NATURE**** 59.1% 20.3% 75.7% 23.7% HEARINGS 26.7% 21.8% 31.9% 18.2% PLEAS*** 65.7% 22.8% 75.7% 26.8% BEHAVIOR*** 58.6% 30.9% 74.3% 32.9% ***Difference between preand pos ttest scores significant at p<.005. ****Difference between preand pos ttest scores significant at p<.001.

PAGE 69

69 Table 9-4 Comparison of mean preand posttest, improvement, and section scores for juveniles in an alternative public school and detention Section Alternative public school Detention M SD M SD t df p Pretest 62.7% 11.1% 62.5% 12.5% -0.09 68.3 .925 Improvement 5.0% 15.3% 6.9% 10.1% 0.68 79.1 .500 LAWYER Pretest 73.0% 17.7% 78.0% 18.0% 1.26 72.8 .211 LAWYER Posttest 76.6% 20.3% 76.0% 21.4% -0.13 71.2 .899 KEY PLAYERS Pretest 72.7% 16.3% 67.1% 15.6% -1.58 75.0 .120 KEY PLAYERS Posttest 75.0% 18.5% 74.8% 18.5% -0.04 73.5 .966 NATURE Pretest 62.8% 21.2% 59.1% 20.3% -0.80 75.0 .424 NATURE Posttest 74.5% 27.6% 75.7% 23.7% 0.22 78.3 .827 HEARINGS Pretest 22.7% 16.8% 26.6% 21.8% 0.90 61.8 .374 HEARINGS Posttest 29.1% 19.5% 31.9% 18.2% 0.67 75.8 .502 PLEAS Pretest 60.6% 25.9% 65.7% 22.8% 0.94 77.8 .350 PLEAS Posttest 73.4% 30.6% 75.7% 26.8% 0.36 77.9 .717 BEHAVIOR Pretest 55.3% 36.5% 58.6% 30.9% 0.44 78.6 .664 BEHAVIOR Posttest 59.6% 37.1% 74.3% 32.9% 1.90 77.5 .062 Table 9-5 Mean percentage scores by secti on topic for detention and alternative school combined sample Section Pretest Posttest M SD M SD Total**** 62.6% 11.6% 68.7% 15.6% NON-DVD 44.3% 26.2% 46.3% 27.1% LAWYER 75.1% 17.9% 76.3% 20.7% KEY PLAYERS* 70.4% 16.2% 74.9% 18.4% NATURE**** 61.2% 20.8% 75.0% 25.8% HEARINGS* 24.4% 19.1% 30.3% 18.9% PLEAS*** 62.8% 24.6% 74.4% 28.9% BEHAVIOR* 56.7% 34.1% 65.9% 35.9% * Difference between preand postt est scores significant at p<.05. ***Difference between preand pos ttest scores significant at p<.005. ****Difference between preand pos ttest scores significant at p<.001.

PAGE 70

70 Table 9-6 Regression: Social-demographic variab les relationship to pretest scores: Detention and alternative school combined sample Section M SD B Beta t df p Age 15.30 1.35 0.018 0.215 1.71 79 .093 Grades (1=Mostly Fs – 9=Mostly As) 6.13 1.74 -0.009 -0.151 -1.15 73 .255 Gender (1=male, 2=female) 1.20 0.41 -0.018 -0.063 -0.513 80 .610 Race (1=Other, 2=African American) a 1.75 0.44 0.008 0.032 0.251 79 .803 Number of previous arre sts* 1.44 2.22 -0.010 -0.380 -2.10 77 .040 Number of times previously in court b 2.64 3.33 0.007 0.221 1.183 72 .242 a Other is composed of all races other than African American. Those respondents who chose multiple races including African American were c ode with the majority of African American b Number of Times in CourtCo mbination of both times in court for cases respondents were involved in and those times they were in court for cases they were not involved in *Individual relationshi p significant at p<.05. Table 9-7 Regression: Social-demographic va riables relationship to improvement scores: Detention and alternative school combined sample Section M SD B Beta t df p Age 15.30 1.35 0.006 0.060 0.48 79 .637 Grades (1=Mostly Fs – 9=Mostly As) 6.13 1.74 0.016 0.223 1.69 73 .097 Gender (1=male, 2=female) 1.20 0.41 0.051 0.149 1.20 80 .235 Race (1=Other, 2=African American) a 1.75 0.44 -0.003 -0.011 -0.09 79 .930 Number of previous arrests 1.44 2.22 0.004 0.128 0.71 77 .483 Number of times previously in court b* 2.64 3.33 -0.014 -0.396 -2.11 72 .039 a Other is composed of all races other than African American. Those respondents who chose multiple races including African American were c ode with the majority of African American b Number of Times in CourtCo mbination of both times in court for cases respondents were involved in and those times they were in court for cases they were not involved in *Individual relationshi p significant at p<.05. Table 9-8 Regression: Grades and prior ex perience variables relationship to pretest APPLICATION scores: Detention and a lternative school combined sample Section M SD B Beta t df p Grades (1=Mostly Fs – 9=Mostly As) 5.95 1.80 -0.005 -0.047 -0.38 73 .708 Number of previous arre sts 1.94 4.04 -0.009 -0.200 -1.40 77 .166 Number of times previously in court b 2.19 1.81 -0.005 -0.050 -0.34 70 .732 a Other is composed of all races other than African American. Those respondents who chose multiple races including African American were c ode with the majority of African American b Number of Times in CourtCo mbination of both times in court for cases respondents were involved in and those times they were in court for cases they were not involved in

PAGE 71

71 Table 9-9 Mean percentage scores on preand posttest by sample Section Pretest Posttest Improvement M SD M SD M SD College pilot (n=55) 83.5% 6.9% 92.0% 5.4% 8.1% 6.6% Juvenile pilot (n=54) 67.8% 7.5% 79.7% 8.0% 11.9% 6.9% Detention and alternative school combined (n=82) 62.6% 11.6% 68.7% 15.6% 5.7% 13.3% Table 9-10 Mean section score perc entages on the pretest of the j uvenile pilot a nd detention and alternative school combined samples Section Juvenile Pilot Detention and alternative school combined M SD M SD t df p LAWYER**** 86.1% 11.2% 75.1% 17.9% 4.02 134 .000 KEY PLAYERS 72.7% 10.5% 70.4% 16.2% 0.94 134 .349 NATURE 65.7% 21.1% 61.2% 20.8% 1.24 112.5 .217 HEARINGS 29.3% 17.7% 24.4% 19.1% 1.54 119.4 .126 PLEAS 59.7% 25.9% 62.8% 24.6% -0.69 109.5 .490 BEHAVIOR** 72.2% 30.2% 56.7% 34.0% 2.79 122.6 .006 **Difference between samples significant at p<.01 **** Difference between samples significant at p<.001 Table 9-11 Mean section score perc entages on the posttest of the juvenile pilot and detention and alternative school combined samples Section Juvenile Pilot Detention and alternative school combined M SD M SD t df p LAWYER**** 88.0% 11.9% 76.3% 20.7% 3.74 134 .000 KEY PLAYERS*** 83.2% 10.7% 74.9% 18.4% 3.00 134 .003 NATURE*** 86.7% 18.7% 75.0% 25.8% 2.88 134 .005 HEARINGS** 39.8% 18.1% 30.3% 18.9% 2.95 116.8 .004 PLEAS*** 88.9% 23.6% 74.4% 28.9% 3.07 134 .003 BEHAVIOR**** 89.8% 26.4% 65.9% 35.9% 4.21 134 .000 **Difference between samples significant at p<.01 *** Difference between samples significant at p<.005 **** Difference between samples significant at p<.001

PAGE 72

72 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% College Pilot*Juvenile Pilot*Combined Detention* SampleTotal Percent Correct Pre-test Post-test Figure 9-1. Mean percent preand posttest scores across samples. *Difference between pretest and posttest significant at p<.001. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% College PilotJuvenile PilotCombined Detention SamplePercent Improvement Improvement Score Figure 9-2. Mean percent improvement scores across samples

PAGE 73

73 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% LAWYERKEY PLAYERS* NATURE*HEARINGS*PLEAS*BEHAVIOR* Section CategoryPercent Correct Juvenile Pre Juvenile Post Detention Pre Detention Post Figure 9-3. Mean percent section scores on preand posttest for juvenile pilot and detention and alternative school combined samples. *Significant difference between preand posttest for at least one of the samples.

PAGE 74

74 CHAPTER 10 DISCUSSION This study was undertaken for two purposes. Th e first was to determine what juveniles currently understand about the juve nile court system. Juveniles in the pilot and those in the detention and alternative school combined sample both scored in the D range on the pretest, compared to the expert sample (college pilo t) which scored in th e B range on a ten point academic scale. This demonstrates that the juven ile samples’ current knowledge of the juvenile court system was fairly low prior to watching the DVD. The second purpose of this study was to evalua te if the DVD achieved its intended purpose of presenting information about th e juvenile court process in an understandable way so as to increase the viewer’s knowledge of the juvenile court system (Hypothesis 1Preand postknowledge). A significant increase from preto posttest was found for all samples. This means that the DVD did do what it was intended to do which was to teach juveniles about the juvenile court process. These improvements in knowledge scores must be taken with caution however. Even though overall scores signi ficantly increased after watching the DVD, scores for the target sample were still only in the D range. Scores for the “expert” sample were in the A range at posttest. This goes against the prediction by Sa vitsky and Karras (1984) th at juveniles may be able to reach adult levels of understanding if in structed in some way. These low scores for the juvenile samples of interest indicate that , while the DVD is helping as was found in the education literature on second la nguage learning, there is still r oom for great improvement in how much those who are most affected by the ju venile court system can learn. These findings are consistent with those from Cooper’s (1997) study. In Cooper’s study a significant improvement from pre-to posttest after watching a video intended to improve competency was found. In Cooper’s study posttest scores for ove r half of the sample still did not indicate

PAGE 75

75 competency showing that there were still consid erable lapses in understa nding after watching the video. Though the current study is an evaluatio n of understanding rather than competency, the findings are very similar. Some other noteworthy findings included that some juve niles thought a lawyer only represented a juvenile in court if they were not guilty. Half of the detention and alternative school combined sample thought the lawyer did not re present a juvenile in court if that juvenile was guilty. This finding that j uveniles differentiate between re presentation of those who are guilty and not guilty is consistent with Grisso’s (1981) findings. This is important because juveniles may interact with their lawyer differe ntly based on whether they are guilty or not. Future presentations of this information shoul d take special care to make sure juveniles understand that the lawyer’s role does not di ffer based on whether or not they committed the crime. Another interesting finding was that over 75% of juveniles at bot h preand post test answered that they should let the judge know if they do not understa nd what is going on in court. This meant that over 20% of the combined juvenile sample chos e either “keep quiet and show the judge respect” or “ask someone what the judge meant after the hearing.” This contradicts the findings of O’Connor and Sweetappl e (1988) that many juveniles viewed themselves as passive members in the court process and felt they needed to remain silent during the process. These findings could be due to a diffe rence in court culture between the current study and that study which was conducted in Australia. Next we will evaluate whether or not the hypotheses relating to social and demographic characteristics was supported. It was hypothesized that age would be positively related to pretest scores with older juveniles scor ing higher, and negatively relate d to improvement scores with younger juveniles showing more improvement (H ypothesis 2Effect of age on pretest and

PAGE 76

76 improvement scores). While age was positively re lated to pretest scores, this relationship was not found to be significant. This positive relation ship is consistent with the findings of Cooper (1997), Grisso (1981), Redlich et al. (2003), and Saywitz, Jaenic ke, and Camparo, 1990, who all found that age to be related to knowledge of the j uvenile court process. Age was also found to be related to improvement scores. However, th is relationship was in the opposite direction as was predicted with older juve niles showing more improvement, and was not found to be significant. Only minimal support was found for th is hypothesis in that th e relationship between age and pretest scores was in the expected dire ction, but was not significant. The relationship between age and improvement scores did not pr ovide support for this hypothesis because the relationship was in the opposite direction as exp ected and was not significant. One possible explanation for these findings is that rather than younger juveniles being able to learn more from the DVD because they started with less knowledge, older juveniles we re able to retain more of the information that was presented in the DVD. Grades in school were hypothesized to be negatively related to pretest scores and positively related to improvement scores with t hose with higher grades scoring lower on the pretest and showing more improvement (Hypothe sis 3Effect of academic performance on pretest and improvement scores). Some support wa s found for this hypothesis in that a negative relationship was found between grades and pretest scores as predicted, bu t this relationship was not significant. This relationship is consistent with the findings of Redlich et al. (2003) who found grades to be negatively related to compet ence. A positive relationship between grades and improvement scores was also found which is consis tent with the hypothesis, but this was also not found to be significant. Possible reasons for this include that while past grades are generally associated with future performance (ex. college entrance requirements), the type of information

PAGE 77

77 being tested here may not confor m to this standard. Those with lower grades in school may have had more of a chance to learn this information fr om other sources such as delinquent peers than those with higher grades. Those w ith higher grades simply may not have been interacting with as many sources for this information as those with lower grades. Those with higher grades were still better able to learn the ma terial presented in the DVD, show ing that for this information higher grades were related to the ability to lear n the material rather th an previous knowledge of the material. Some support was found for the hypothesis that t hose with previous experience with the system would have higher pretest scores and lo wer improvement scores than those who did not have previous experience (Hypothesis 4Effect of prior experience on pretest and improvement scores). These findings are not c onsistent with Grisso’s findings that those with prior experience did not differ from those without prior experience. The current findi ngs qualify the type of prior experience that is related to scores. Two measures of prior experience were used to test this hypothesis. The first was the number of times the j uvenile had previously been arrested, and the second was the number of times the juvenile had pr eviously been to court. It was found that those with more arrests had si gnificantly lower pretest scores . This relationship was in the opposite direction of what was expected. This find ing is consistent with the findings of Redlich et al. (2003) that those with mo re frequent police contacts had lo wer vocabulary competence. It was also found that those with more court e xperience had higher pret est scores, but this relationship was not significant. As for improve ment scores, those with more court experience had significantly lower improvement than those with less court experien ce. This relationship does provide some support for the hypothesis. The relationship between number of arrests and improvement scores was found to be in the opposit e direction of what was expected with those

PAGE 78

78 with more arrests showing more improvement; th is relationship however was not significant. One possible reason for these results is that there is a distinction between how different types of prior experience could influence scores. Those w ith more arrests scored lower at pretest and showed more improvement meaning. Those with more times in court had higher pretest scores and lower improvement. This indicated that th ose who had spent more time in court learned more about what happens during the juvenile court process an d that this increased their knowledge more than being arrested. This is in tuitive because information on the court process can be learned through observation once in court, but this information is not presented at the time of arrest. There were two hypotheses that related to quest ion content and format. The first of these predicted that respondents would have the most difficulty with questions relating to the role of the lawyer and attorney client confidentiality (H ypothesis 5Role of the lawyer and attorneyclient privilege). In both the juvenile pilo t and detention and alte rnative school combined sample, juveniles’ knowledge varied based on ques tion topic. The questions were divided into six different sections by topic. These sections covered the role of the lawyer and attorney-client confidentiality (LAWYER), the roles of key players in the courtroom (KEY PLAYERS), the nature and consequences of the charges (NATUR E), the decisions that are made at hearings (HEARINGS), the pleas that can be entered (PLE AS), and proper behavior relating to the court process (BEHAVIOR). It was found that juveniles in both the pilo t and detention and alternative school combined samples had the least knowledg e of what happens during juvenile court hearings (HEARINGS) and the best understanding of the LAWY ER section. These findings did not support the hypothesis that the section relating to que stions about lawyer and attorney-client confidentiality (LAWYER) would pr ove to be the most difficult. Th is contradicts the findings of

PAGE 79

79 Flin et al. (1989), Grisso (1981) , Peterson-Badali and Abramovitc h (1992), Peterson-Badali et al. (1997) and Redlich et al. (2003) that these were concepts that were commonly misunderstood. In the open-ended questions, the role of the lawyer and attorney-client privilege was also not one that juveniles had trouble with. Most indicated that their lawyer was the person they would tell information about their case if they wanted it to be kept just between the two of them with most of those who answered indicating the reason was th at the lawyer worked for you or was the best person to help in that situation. This c ontradicts the findings of Peterson-Badali and Abramovitch (1992) who found that even though most understood the role of the lawyer, the concept of attorney client privilege proved di fficult to understand. Redlich et al. found that juveniles tended to not understa nd that they should disclose all the information about the case to their lawyer. Our findings showed that most woul d disclose important fa cts about their case to their lawyer. One possible reason for our finding s could be the increase in attention given to lawyers in television shows compared to that in the early 1990s when Peterson-Badali and Abramovitch’s study was conducted. There are ma ny shows currently about the criminal court process. The role of the defe nse attorney does not differ between juvenile and a dult court while the names of the hearings do differ, which m eans juveniles may be pulling information from these sources which would account for the high pr etest scores in this section. Television’s possible influence on what juven iles know about the legal proce ss was also noted by PetersonBadali and Abramovitch (1992) and Saywitz (1989). The second hypothesis relating to question content and format predicted that respondents would have the most difficulty with questions re quiring application of co ncepts presented in the DVD, and this difficulty would be compounded for those with lower grades and no experience with the system (Hypothesis 6Application of co ncepts). There was only minor support for this

PAGE 80

80 hypothesis in that juveniles did do better at pretest on questions wh ich did not require application of the concepts (NON-APPLICATION), but scores on APPLICATION questions improved more from pretest to posttest. This meant that at posttest, mean scores for the two types of questions were nearly equal. Grades and prio r experience were also found to not significantly affect pretest scores on the APPLICATION que stions. This does not lend support to the prediction in the hypothesis that lo w grades and no prior experien ce would add to the difficulty experienced on questions requiring application. These findings also contradict the findings of Redlich et al. (2003) which found that juvenile s had more difficulty with questions which required application. One possibl e reason for these findings is th at juveniles may not have had as clear of an understanding of concepts prior to watching the DVD, and once the DVD was shown these concepts became clearer and therefor e juveniles were better able to apply this information. The last hypothesis predicted that there would be a significant increase in level of sureness from pretest to posttest, and posttest surene ss would be related to improvement scores (Hypothesis 7Effects of sureness ). A significant increase in mean preto posttest sure scores was found, which supported the hypothesis. Th e portion of the hypothesis predicting that posttest sure scores would be correlated to im provement scores was not supported as there was no significant relationship. Although knowledge sc ores did statistically increase, the lack of relationship between sureness and knowledge improvement may be reflecting the fact that the knowledge increase is fa irly negligible.

PAGE 81

81 CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSION Overall this DVD does seem to be helping ju veniles to understand the court process; the only question is whether it has a la rge enough effect. Future research should expand the scope of this study to include other sites throughout the st ate to determine if the findings replicate. Including more study sites in the future will also allow for an assessment of any current implementation of the DVD throughout the state. Ba sed on the results of this study there are also recommendations for the DVD content and implem entation. First, the DVD needs to be shown consistently to all juveniles entering the court sy stem, or at least those experiencing their first court appearance. Currently the DVD has not been implemented in the study site. This could be due to the fact that the DVD was recently produced. Second, juveniles should be provided with a question and answer period after viewing the DVD. This could pot entially help to clarify any questions the juvenile or their parents might still have about the juvenile court process. Third, extra care should be taken when the DVD is show n to ensure that juveniles understand what happens during the different juveni le court hearings. The low scores in this area are a cause for concern. It is recommended th at an activity component or so me active learning technique be employed in conjunction with the DVD to teach the concepts related to hearings and possibly other topics also. Further rese arch should examine these additi onal techniques to determine if juvenile understanding of the court system can be further enhanced.

PAGE 82

82 APPENDIX A UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUT IONAL REVIEW BOARD PROPOSAL 1. Title of Protocol: An evaluation of one state’s attempt to improve juvenile comprehension of the court process 2. Principal Investigator: (Name, degree, title, dept ., address, phone #, e-mail & fax) Christine Driver, B.A. Graduate Student Criminology, Law and Society PO Box 115950 Phone: (352)273-2871 cdriver@ufl.edu Fax: (352)3925065 3. Supervisor: (Name, campus address, phone #, e-mail & fax) Eve Brank, J.D., Ph.D. Assistant Professor Criminology, Law and Society PO Box 115950 Phone: (352)392-1025 ext.208 ebrank@ufl.edu Fax: (352)3925065 4. Dates of Proposed Protocol : From __01/15/06 ____ To __12/31/06 ____ 5. Source of funding for protocol: (A copy of your grant proposal must be included with this protocol if DHHS funding is involved.) A $350 grant from the American Psychology and Law Society Grants-in-Aid program funded this protocol. 6. Scientific purpose of investigation: Overall, the purpose of this investigation is to eval uate if there is a simple and systematic way to increase the level of understanding juveniles have of the court pro cess. A number of past studies have evaluated whether juveniles understand the court process and most have found that they do not possess a complete understanding of it. A DVD has been produced by the Office of Court Improvement for the State of Florida to achie ve this goal. The DVD will be evaluated to determine if it can increase the juveniles’ level of understanding of the cour t process. (A copy of the DVD script is included with these materials along with the actual video.)

PAGE 83

83 7. Describe the research me thodology in non-technical languag e: The UFIRB needs to know what will be done with or to the research participant(s). A DVD was produced by the Office of Court Impr ovement for the State of Florida and is a product of the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court that fulfils a Supreme Court Administrative Order. The DVD covers info rmation including the roles of key players in the court process, such as the j udge and lawyer, as well as inform ation regarding what happens at the hearings and proper c ourt room behavior. A questionnaire was designed to test if this DVD works in the way it was intended. Questions were designed based on the inform ation presented in the video as well as from prior research in this area. The questionnaire will be administered first to the participants by a researcher reading the questions and the participants bubbling the answer s on their own papers (p lease see the attached materials). After completion of the questionn aire, the participants will watch the DVD. Following a two day delay, the participants will be retested using the same questionnaire and procedures to determine if their comprehension of the court process increased because of the DVD. The questionnaire and methodology will first be pilo t tested on a college sample to test the methodology before testing on a juvenile sample. This pilot will also be included to serve as an educational exercise in a Juvenile Law class as per the professor’s request. The faculty advisor for this project is also the professor for the Juvenile Law class we intend to sample. We plan to do this for several reasons . First of all, these ar e upper division Criminology, Law and Society majors. If anyone should be familiar with the terms that are being taught in the DVD it should be these students, esp ecially because these are the st udents who have a particular interest in juvenile law issues. This will form a nice comparison group to the juveniles and also enable us to test our methodology before entering the school and detention facility. Second, the DVD will be a useful pedagogical to ol for explaining the difficulty some juveniles experience in comprehending the court process. This is a topic we already discuss each semester and students have commented in the past about the possibility of teaching juveniles the information they need to know. Last, the course also involves discus sions about empirical research that can be done and this will provide an excellent example of research that a gra duate student in the department is conducting. To address the issue of perception of coercion by the students we will assume implied consent with the completing and turning in of the quest ionnaire. We will employ the same coding system as used for the juveniles. By using this proced ure, no names of the students who did (or did not) complete the study will be available. No comp ensation will be given in any form for those students who choose to participat e. To specifically address th e issue of the perception of coercion by the professor's students, the profe ssor will not be present when the surveys are administered and collected. A graduate research assistant will distri bute and collect the questionnaires. This research assistant is not associated with th e course in any way.

PAGE 84

84 The questionnaire and methodology will then be pilot tested on juveniles in public middle school and high school (ages 10-18). This group of students will be used as a baseline resource and as a way to test the methodology before going into the detention facility and a public school with a focus on behavior modification. After pilot testing is completed, the same methodology will be employed in two locations. These locations are the county juvenile dete ntion facilities and a public school with a focus on behavior modificati on. The classrooms within the detention facility and the cafeterias will be utilized for data collection. In the detention facilit y, the detention center staff will also be present to aid in data collection. The detent ion center staff will select out the juveniles that were present in the pretest to be present again for the posttest two days later. No identifying information will be maintained by the researchers. Staff at the behaviorally focused public school will also assist in identifyi ng juveniles who can pa rticipate in the study. Both samples, the pilot and that from the dete ntion facility and beha viorally focused public schools, will then be evaluated to determine if there was any significant improvement in the understanding of trial related information by these juveniles. 8. Potential benefits and anticipat ed risks: (If risk of physical , psychological or economic harm may be involved, describe the step s taken to protect participant.) The potential benefit to the participants incl udes increased knowledge of the court process, which can help them in their future trial. Ther e is also a potential benefit to the state in determining if this DVD has the intended benefits . The anticipated risk is very low because the survey is anonymous and does not address issues that are generally viewed as sensitive to participants. 9. Describe how participants wi ll be recruited, the number and age of the participants, and proposed compensation (if any): The participants for this study will come from four sources. The college p ilot portion of the study will consist of students in a Juvenile Law class at the University of Florida. The goal is to test 100 college students. There will be no proposed compensation for the college students’ participation in this study. The juvenile pilot po rtion of this study will co nsist of juveniles, age 10-18, in Middle and High School in Alachua County. Th e goal is to test 1 00 juveniles in public schools. There will be no proposed compensation for the juveniles to pa rticipate in the study. The third set of participants w ill consist of juveniles, age 10-1 8, currently detained in county juvenile detention facilities (we currently have permission from the Alachua County Detention Center and we may also ask permission with the Marion and Duval county facilities). The juveniles to be tested from this population will be selected by the Detention Center staff. The goal is to test 200 juveniles from the detenti on center. There will be no proposed compensation for the juveniles to participat e in the study. The fourth set of participants will come from behaviorally focused public schools. This portion of this study will consist of juveniles, age 1018. The goal is to test 150 juveniles in public schools with a behavior focus.

PAGE 85

85 10. Describe the informed consent process. Includ e a copy of the informed consent document (if applicable). The informed consent in this study will be done by giving each participant a consent form (see attached) and verbally explaining the informa tion on it (see narrative attached). The consent form will explain that participation in the research is voluntary and if they do not want to participate there will be no c onsequences. For both the college student and juvenile pilot samples, and the sample of juveniles in public schools with a behavior focus, by completing the questionnaire they will indicate their assent to pa rticipate. A separate consent/assent form will be given on Day 1 and Day 2 of the study. For the dete ntion population, an assent form will be used. There will be separate assent forms for each day. This will require that they sign and return a page indicating their assent to participate. Parental consent will be requi red for the juveniles in public schools and juveniles in public schools with a behavior focus. Parents will be re quired to sign and return a page giving their consent for their child to particip ate in the study for the juveniles in public schools. This parental consent form will be given out ahead of time to allow the parents to sign and return the form before Day 1 of data collection. Parents of j uveniles in public schools with a behavior focus will be asked to sign and return the forms if they wish not to give their consent. The parents will be given a minimum of 3 days to return the forms, and there is a space for a date to return by on the form. This change in the forms reflects a recommendation made by one principal that this would be a preferred method for collecting parent al consents, based on previous experience with research studies in their school. Parental consent will not be required for the dete ntion participants. This research will not place the juveniles in more than minimal risk as defi ned by the Department of Juvenile Justice. This means that the probability and magnitude of phys ical, psychological, or emotional harm in this research will not exceed that normally encounter ed in the daily lives or in routine medical, dental, or psychological examination of healt hy individuals. The questionnaires do not cover sensitive material as all material pertains to th e court process or is so cial or demographic in nature. The questionnaire is anonymous so that no information will be able to be traced back to individual juveniles in detention. The DVD will also present information that is intended to help them understand the juvenile court process which they are about to ente r. Watching this State developed DVD therefore will also not place th e juveniles in more than minimal risk. The detention center staff will be present at all times when researchers have contact with the juveniles. A background check will be completed on each researcher listed on this protocol prior to any contact with the juvenile s. For these reasons it will not be necessary to obtain parental consent for the juveniles part icipating in the study. Please use attachments sparingly. __________________________ Principal Investigator's Signature _________________________ Supervisor's Signature I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB: _________________________________-Dept. Chair/Center Director Date

PAGE 86

86 APPENDIX B STATE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PROPOSAL Project title : An evaluation of one state’s attempt to improve juvenile comprehension of the court process Investigators: Christine Driver, B.A. Graduate Student Criminology, Law and Society PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611 Phone: (352)273-2871 cdriver@ufl.edu Fax: (352)3925065 Eve Brank, J.D., Ph.D. Assistant Professor Criminology, Law and Society PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611 Phone: (352)392-1025 ext.208 ebrank@ufl.edu Fax: (352)3925065 Abstract : The purpose of this study is to determin e if there is a simple and systematic way to increase the level of unde rstanding juveniles have of the court process. The Office of Court Improvement for the State of Florida has produced a DVD to achieve this goal. We intend to test whether this DVD achieves this goal. Th e reason why this study is important is that a number of past research st udies have found that juven iles do not possess a complete understanding of the court process, which can ne gatively impact the expe rience they have with the system. The current study will evaluate if this can easily be improved so that juveniles have a better understanding of the court process pr ior to appearing at their trial. In the current study, participants will be asked to complete a questionnaire which will assess their current knowledge of the court process. Th ey will then be asked to watch the DVD. Two days later they will be asked to answer a nother questionnaire. Whether the participants’ knowledge of the court process improved from the pr etest to the posttest w ill then be evaluated. Specific aims : Overall, the purpose of this investigation is to evaluate if there is a simple and systematic way to increase th e level of understanding juveniles have of the court process. A number of past studies have evaluated whethe r juveniles understand the court process and most have found that they do not possess a complete understanding of it. A DVD has been produced by the Office of Court Improvement for the State of Florida to achieve this goal. The effect of the DVD will be evaluated to determine if it can increase the juveniles’ level of understanding of the court process. This research is being conducted as master’s thesis research for the primary investigator.

PAGE 87

87 Background and significance : A number of studies have provided a basis for the current research by supplying data on ar eas where juveniles show de ficits in understanding and commonly hold misconceptions concerning the term s and concepts used in the court process (Cowden & McKee, 1994-95; Redlich et al., 2003; Savitsky & Karras, 1984; Peterson-Badali and Abramovitch, 1992; Grisso, 1981; WarrenLeubecker, Tate, Hinton and Ozbek, 1989; O’Connnor, 1990; Peterson-Badali, Ab ramovitch, and Duda, 1997). The questionnaire for the current research eval uates many of the area s where deficits in understanding were found in past studies, including juve niles’ understanding of key players and their roles in the process, if they can distinguish between the decisions made at the different hearings, whether they understa nd the concept of attorney-client privilege, whether they understand the nature and conseque nces of their charges, pleas, the concept of innocent until proven guilty, and proper behavior relating to their case. In addition, the current study evaluates whethe r juveniles’ understa nding of the court process can be improved by watching an instruct ional DVD and if there are differing levels of improvement based on juvenile char acteristics or type of inform ation being taught. The predicted findings are that the video will sign ificantly increase the trial related understand ing of juveniles. Research plan : The participants for this study will come from three sources. The college pilot portion of this study will consist of colle ge students over age 18. The goal is to test 100 students in this portion of the pilot. There wi ll be no proposed compensation for the college students to participate in this study. The college student sample will be used as a test of the questionnaire and an adult comparison group. The juvenile pilot portion of this study will consist of juveniles, age 10-18, in Middle and High Schools in Alachua County. The goal is to test 100 juveniles from the Alachua County Midd le and High schools. There will be no proposed compensation for the juveniles to participate in the study. The public school students will be used as further test of the questionna ire and also as a comparison group to the detained juveniles. The third set of participants will consist of j uveniles, age 10-18, currently detained in the Alachua County Juvenile Detenti on Center. The juveniles to be tested from this population will be selected by the Detention Cent er staff. The goal is to test a total of 200 juveniles from the detention center. The detention center staff will attempt to select out the juveniles who will be present for both days of testing to be included in the study. The detention center staff will then select out the juveniles who were present for the first day of test ing and are present again for the third day of testing to be included in the post test. The researchers recognize that a number of juveniles may be lost due to attr ition if they are no longer in detention for the post test. The attrition will likely result in a larger pretest sample than posttest sample, but only the matched preand posttests will be compared for evalua tion purposes. The two day delay is necessary for the research in order to insure that the juveniles have truly acqui red the knowledge we are testing and can remember what they have learned beyond only a few minutes. The staff will select juveniles who have not yet been adjudicated delinquent. This is to allow the researchers to evaluate the DVD using the juveniles that it was most intended for, those who have the least knowledge of and experience with the court system. There will be no proposed compensation for the juveniles to participate in the study. The cl assrooms within the detention facility and the cafeteria will be utilized for data collection. A DVD was produced by the Office of Court Im provement for the State of Florida and is a product of the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court that fulfills a

PAGE 88

88 Supreme Court Administrative Order. The DVD c overs information including the roles of key players in the court process, such as the judge and lawyer, as well as information regarding what happens at the hearings and pr oper court room behavior. A questionnaire was designed to test if this DVD works in the way it was intended. Questions were designed based on the information pr esented in the video, prior research in this area, and suggestions made by detention center staff. Once consent from the juvenile is received, th e questionnaire will be administered to the juveniles by a researcher reading the questions and the juveniles bubbli ng the answers on their own papers (please see the attached material s). After completion of the questionnaire, the juveniles will watch the DVD. Following a two day delay, the participants will be retested using the same questionnaire and procedures to determ ine if their comprehension of the court process increased because of the DVD. An example of an individual participant’s experience in this study will involve receiving a consent form that is read aloud by the researcher. They will be asked to sign the consent form if they want to participate. Next, they will answer the ques tions on the questionnaire as the researcher reads the questions and answer c hoices aloud; the questions and answers will be repeated once. Once the questionnaire has been answered and collected, the DVD will be shown. The participants will be asked to carefully watc h the DVD. Two days later the participants will be asked to complete the survey a second time. This survey will differ from the one given on the first day by the last three questi ons that relate specifically to the DVD and any conversations had about the DVD. Day 1 Day 1 Day 3 Juveniles in the detention center who are not a pa rt of the study will receive the same treatment as they would normally receive. This research will not place the juveniles in more than minimal risk as defined by the Department of Juvenile Justice. This means that the probability and magnitude of physical, psychological, or emotional harm in this resear ch will not exceed that normally encountered in the daily lives or in routine me dical, dental, or psychological exam ination of healthy individuals. The questionnaires do not cover sensitive material as all material pertains to the court process or is social or demographic in nature. The questi onnaire is anonymous so that no information will be able to be traced back to individual j uveniles in detention. The DVD will also present information that is intended to help them unde rstand the juvenile court process which they are about to enter. Watching this State developed D VD therefore will also not place the juveniles in more than minimal risk. The detention center staf f will be present at all times when researchers have contact with the juveniles. A background check will be completed on each researcher listed on this protocol prior to any cont act with the juveniles. For these reasons it will not be necessary to obtain parental consent for the juveniles partic ipating in the study. In addition, with a target on sampling juveniles who have not yet been adjudicat ed, the logistics of obt aining parental consent would be virtually impossible prior to the juven ile appearing in court for the first time. Provide Consent then Complete Questionnaire Watch DVD Provide Consent then Complete Questionnaire

PAGE 89

89 All three samples, both pilot samples and that from the detention facility, will be evaluated to determine if there was any signifi cant improvement in the understanding of trial related information. Potential risks : The anticipated risk is no more than a minimal risk because the survey is anonymous and does not address issues that are genera lly viewed as sensitive to juveniles. Initial consent will be obtained from the juvenile during the first day of the study explaining that they will be asked to participate again in two days. They will be given another consent form on the third day explaining again what they are asked to do that day. The participants will be asked for a code consisting of the date (numerical day) of their birthday and the firs t two letters of their favorite color so that questionnaires from th e pretest and posttest can be matched. Common colors and how they are spelled will be held up on cards for the juveniles to reference. These codes will only be maintained until the questionn aires are matched after the second day of data collection. During the time that the codes are still on the questi onnaires they will be promptly transported to the University of Florida and kept in a locked filing cabinet. Once the two questionnaires are matched, the sheets with the codes will be shredded. Potential benefits : The potential benefit to the juveniles include s increased knowledge of the court process, which can help them in their futu re trial. There is also a potential benefit to the state in determining if this DVD ha s the intended benefits. There will be no direct benefit to the participants as no one will be compensate d for participating in the research. Potential financial risks : We do not foresee any financial risks. Potential financial benefits : We do not foresee any financial benefits. Conflict of interest : There are none.

PAGE 90

90 APPENDIX C PILOT PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORMS Informed Consent (Day 1) Protocol Title: An evaluation of one state’s attempt to impr ove juvenile comprehension of the court process. What you will be asked to do in this study: There are two parts to this study. In the first part, you will be asked to complete a series of questions concerning the trial process along with social and demographic information. You will t hen be asked to watch a 15 minute DVD. On the second day of this study you will be asked to complete another se ries of questions regarding the trial process along with social and demographic information. Time Required: This study will take place in two phases. The first phase will take place today and should take a total of 45 minutes. The questionnai re should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The DVD should take about 15 minutes to watch. The second phase will take place in two days and will take about 30 minutes. The sec ond questionnaire should take about 30 minutes to complete. Risks and Benefits: The benefit of participating is the possib ility of increasing y our understanding of the juvenile trial process. There is no more than mi nimal risk in participating in this study as it does not question sensitive material. Compensation: You will not be compensated for part icipating in this research. Confidentiality: Your data will be coded numerically and will not be traceable to you in any way. Your identity will remain anonymous which means any information y ou give cannot be traced back to you and the researcher will not k now who participated in this study. This information will not be shared with any sort of police agenc y, local, state or national gove rnment, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. Voluntary participation: Your participation is completely volu ntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from this study at any time and without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about this study: Christine Driver, University of Florida, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, 201 Walker Hall, PO Box 115950, Gainesville, FL 32611-5950, cdriver@ufl.edu , (352)273-2871. You may also cont act Eve Brank (at the same mailing address) ebrank@ufl.edu , 352-392-1025 ext 208, Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gaines ville, FL 32611-2250; ph (352)392-0433. Agreement: By completing and turning in the survey, you will be provid ing your implied consent to participate in this study. This informed consent description is yours to keep. Principle Investigator: ____________________________ Date: ____________________

PAGE 91

91 Informed Consent (Day 2) Protocol Title: An evaluation of one state’s attempt to impr ove juvenile comprehension of the court process. What you will be asked to do in this study: You will be asked to complete a series of questions concerning the trial process along with social and demographic information. Time Required: It should take a total of 30 minutes. T he questionnaire should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Risks and Benefits: The benefit of participating is the possib ility of increasing y our understanding of the juvenile trial process. There is no more than mi nimal risk in participating in this study as it does not question sensitive material. Compensation: You will not be compensated for part icipating in this research. Confidentiality: Your data will be coded numerically and will not be traceable to you in any way. Your identity will remain anonymous which means any information y ou give cannot be traced back to you and the researcher will not k now who participated in this study. This information will not be shared with any sort of police agenc y, local, state or national gove rnment, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. Voluntary participation: Your participation is completely volu ntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from this study at any time and without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about this study: Christine Driver, University of Florida, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, 201 Walker Hall, PO Box 115950, Gainesville, FL 32611-5950, cdriver@ufl.edu , (352)273-2871. You may also cont act Eve Brank (at the same mailing address), ebrank@ufl.edu , 352-392-1025 ext 208, Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gaines ville, FL 32611-2250; ph (352)392-0433. Agreement: By completing and turning in the survey, you will be provid ing your implied consent to participate in this study. This informed consent description is yours to keep. Principle Investigator: ____________________________ Date: ____________________

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX D JUVENILE PILOT PARENT AL CONSENT FORMS Center for Studies in Criminology and Law 201 Walker Hall College of Liberal Arts and Sciences PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 (352) 392-1025 (352) 392-5065, FAX Dear Parent/ Guardian, I am a graduate student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of Florida, conducting research on juvenile comprehension of the court process u nder the supervision of Dr. Eve Brank. The purpose of this study is to determine if an instructiona l video on the court process can increas e a juvenile’s understanding of the court process. The results of this stud y will help detention centers and juveni le courts to determine the best way to provide juveniles within the Juvenile Ju stice System with trial re lated information. These results may not directly help your child today, but may benefi t future children in the Juve nile Justice System. With your permission, I would like to ask your child to volunteer for this research. This study will take place in two parts. On the first day, the participating children will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning the juvenile court process and social and demographic information that will take about 30 minutes to complete. They will then be asked to watch a video that will take approximately 15 minutes. Two days later, the participating children will be asked to answer anot her series of questions that will take about 30 minutes to complete. The children do not have to answer any question that they do not wish to answer. Your child’s data will be coded numerically and will not be traceable to him/her in an y way. Your child’s identity will remain anonymous which means any information he/she gives cannot be traced back and I will not know who participated in this study. Results will only be reported in the form of group data. This info rmation will not be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with the school or with you. Participation or nonparticipation in this study will not affect the children's grades or placement in any programs. You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for your child's participation at any time without consequence. There are no known risks of this study. T here is a potential benefit in that your child may learn about the juvenile court process. No compensation is offered for participati on. Group results of this study will be available in August upon request. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (352) 273-2871 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Brank, at (352) 392-1025 ext. 208. Ques tions or concerns about your child's rights as research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 3920433. Sincerely, Christine Driver I have read the procedure described abov e. I voluntarily give my consent for my child, _________________, to participate in Christine Driver’s study of juvenile comprehe nsion of the court process. I have received a copy of this description. ____________________________ ___________ Parent / Guardian Date ____________________________ ___________ 2nd Parent / WitnessDate

PAGE 93

93 Center for Studies in Criminology and Law 201 Walker Hall College of Liberal Arts and Sciences PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 (352) 392-1025 (352) 392-5065, FAX Dear Parent/ Guardian, I am a graduate student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of Florida, conducting research on juvenile comprehension of the court process under the supervision of Dr. Eve Brank. The purpose of this study is to determine if an instructional video on the court process can increase a juvenile’s understanding of the court process. The results of this study will help detention centers and juvenile courts to determine the best way to provide juveniles within the Juvenile Justice System with trial related information. These results may not directly help your child today, but may benefit future children in the Juvenile Justice System. With your permission, I would like to ask your child to volunteer for this research. This study will take place in two parts. On the first day, the participating children will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning the juvenile court process and social and demographic information that will take about 30 minutes to complete. They will then be asked to watch a video that will take approximately 15 minutes. Two days later, the participating children will be asked to answer another series of questions that will take about 30 minutes to complete. The children do not have to answer any question that they do not wish to answer. Your child’s data will be coded numerically and will not be traceable to him/her in any way. Your child’s identity will remain anonymous which means any information he/she gives cannot be traced back and I will not know who participated in this study. Results will only be reported in the form of group data. This information will not be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with the school or with you. Participation or nonparticipation in this study will not affect the children's grades or placement in any programs. You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for your child's participation at any time without consequence. There are no known risks of this study. There is a potential benefit in that your child may learn about the juvenile court process. No compensation is offered for participation. Group results of this study will be available in August upon request. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (352) 273-2871 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Brank, at (352) 392-1025 ext. 208. Questions or concerns about your child's rights as research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0433. Sincerely, Christine Driver This letter is for you to keep for your records.

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX E JUVENILES IN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTAL CONSENT FORMS Center for Studies in Criminology and Law 201 Walker Hall College of Liberal Arts and Sciences PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 (352) 392-1025 (352) 392-5065, FAX Dear Parent/ Guardian, I am a graduate student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the Univer sity of Florida, conducting research on juvenile comprehension of the court process under the supervi sion of Dr. Eve Brank. The purpose of this study is to determine if an instructional video on the court process can in crease a juvenile’s understanding of the court process. The results of this study will help detention centers and juvenile courts to determine the best way to provide juveniles within the Juvenile Justice System with trial related information. Thes e results may not directly help your child today, but may benefit future children in the Juvenile Justice System. With your pe rmission, I would like to ask your child to volunteer for this research. If we do not receive this form back from you we will assume that you have consented to your child participating in the study. This study will take place in two parts. On the first day, the participating children will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning the juvenile court process and social an d demographic information that will take about 30 minutes to complete. They will then be asked to watch a video that will ta ke approximately 15 minutes. Two days later, the participating children will be asked to answer another series of questions that will take about 30 minutes to complete. The children do not have to answer any question that they do not wish to answer. Your child’s data will be coded numerically and will not be traceable to him/her in any way. Your child’s identity will remain anonymous which means any information he/she gives cannot be traced back and I will not know who participated in th is study. Results will only be reported in the form of group data. This information will not be shared with any sort of po lice agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with the school or with you. Partici pation or nonparticipation in this study will not affect the children's grades or placement in any programs. You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for y our child's participation at any time without consequence. There are no known risks of this study. There is a potential benefit in that your child may learn about the juvenile court process. No compensation is offered for participation. Group results of this study will be available in January upon request. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (352) 273-2871 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Brank, at (352) 392-1025 ext. 208. Questions or concerns about your child 's rights as research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Bo x 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 392-0433. Sincerely, Christine Driver PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM BY ___________________________. I have read the procedure described above. I DO NOT give my consent for my child, _________________, to participate in Christine Driver’s study of juvenile co mprehension of the court process. I have received a copy of this description. Parent / Guardian Signature ____________________________ Date ___________ 2nd Parent / Witness Signature ____________________________ Date ___________

PAGE 95

95 Center for Studies in Criminology and Law 201 Walker Hall College of Liberal Arts and Sciences PO Box 115950 Gainesville, FL 32611-5950 (352) 392-1025 (352) 392-5065, FAX Dear Parent/ Guardian, I am a graduate student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of Florida, conducting research on juvenile comprehension of the court process u nder the supervision of Dr. Eve Brank. The purpose of this study is to determine if an instructiona l video on the court process can increas e a juvenile’s understanding of the court process. The results of this stud y will help detention centers and juveni le courts to determine the best way to provide juveniles within the Juvenile Ju stice System with trial re lated information. These results may not directly help your child today, but may benefi t future children in the Juve nile Justice System. With your permission, I would like to ask your child to volunteer for this re search. If we do not receive this form back from you we will assume that you have consented to your child participating in the study. This study will take place in two parts. On the first day, the participating children will be asked to answer a series of questions concerning the juvenile court process and social and demographic information that will take about 30 minutes to complete. They will then be asked to watch a video that will take approximately 15 minutes. Two days later, the participating children will be asked to answer anot her series of questions that will take about 30 minutes to complete. The children do not have to answer any question that they do not wish to answer. Your child’s data will be coded numerically and will not be traceable to him/her in an y way. Your child’s identity will remain anonymous which means any information he/she gives cannot be traced back and I will not know who participated in this study. Results will only be reported in the form of group data. This info rmation will not be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with the school or with you. Participation or nonparticipation in this study will not affect the children's grades or placement in any programs. You and your child have the right to withdraw consent for your child's participation at any time without consequence. There are no known risks of this study. T here is a potential benefit in that your child may learn about the juvenile court process. No compensation is offered for participati on. Group results of this study will be available in January upon request. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me at (352) 273-2871 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Brank, at (352) 392-1025 ext. 208. Ques tions or concerns about your child's rights as research participant may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611, (352) 3920433. Sincerely, Christine Driver This letter is for you to keep for your records.

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX F DETENTION ASSENT FORMS Assent to Participate in Research (Day 1) Juvenile’s Name: _______________________________ You are being invited to participate in a research study. This form is designed to provide you with information about this study. The principle investigat or or representative will des cribe this study to you and answer any of your questions. If you have any q uestions or complaints about the informed consent process or the research study, please contact the De partment of Juvenile Justice Institutional Review Board (IRB), the committee that protects re search participants, at (850) 414-2238. Title of research study: An evaluation of one state’s attempt to improve juvenile comprehension of the court process. Principle investigators: Christine Driver, University of Florida (352)273-2871 and Dr. Eve Brank (Faculty Advisor-University of Florida) (352) 392-1025 ext. 208. Purpose of the research: We do not know if there is an easy way to help juveniles understand what goes on in court. This project will help us determine what you know and if the DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. Procedure for this research: There are two parts to this study. In the first part, you will be asked to complete a series of questions concerning the trial process along with social and demographic information. You will then be asked to watch a 15 minute DVD. On the second day of this study you will be asked to complete another series of questions regarding the trial process along with social and demographic information. Time required: This study will take place in two phases. The first phase will take place today and should take a total of 45 minutes. The questionnaire should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. The DVD should take about 15 minutes to watch. The se cond phase will take place two days from now and will take about 30 minutes. The second questionnaire should take about 30 minutes to complete. Risks and benefits: The benefit of participating is the possibility of increasing your understanding of the juvenile trial process. There is no more than minimal risk in participating in this study as it does not question sensitive material. Potential health risks or discomforts: We do not predict any health risks or discomforts to come from participation in this study. If you want to discuss th ese or any other discomfort s you may experience, you may call the Principle Investigator listed on this form. Potential health benefits: We do not predict any health benefits to come from participation in this study. Potential financial risks or benefits to you or others: We do not predict any financial risks or benefits to you or others resulting from participation in this research. Compensation for participation: You will not be compensa ted for participating in this research. Compensation for research related injury: We do not predict any research related injury to occur because of this research. In the unlikely event that this does occur, the researchers are not financially responsible for this injury. Voluntary participation and alternatives to participating in this research study: Your participation is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not parti cipating. Not participating in this study will not affect

PAGE 97

97 your treatment in any way, and you will receive the normal treatment offered by your juvenile justice program. Your participation in this study will not affe ct any decisions made by the court about your future sentencing or parole. You are free not to participate in this study. If you choose to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participati on in this research study at any time without this decision affecting your relationship to the people in your juvenile justice program or the investigators. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a pa rticipant, you may phone the Institutional Review Board (IRB) office at (850) 414-2238. Choosing not to par ticipate in this study will in no way affect your care and treatment. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from this study at any time and without consequence. If you wish to stop your partici pation in this research study for any reason, you should contact Christine Driver at (352) 273-2871. You may also contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office at (850) 414-2238. Confidentiality: Your data will be coded numerically and will not be traceable to you in any way. The researchers will not be able to match yo ur answers to you in any way. This information will not be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. We will not ask you to tell of any abuse, neglect, or abandonment, but we are required to report this if you ch oose to tell the research staff about it. Reports of abuse, neglect or abandonment will not be confiden tial between you and the researcher. Christine Driver will protect the confidentiality of your records to the extent allowed by law. You understand that the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Institutional Re view Board has the right to review your records. Whom to contact if you have questions about this study: Christine Driver, University of Florida, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, 201 Walker Hall, PO Box 115950, Gainesville, FL 326115950, cdriver@ufl.edu , (352)273-2871. You may also contact Eve Brank (at the same mailing address) ebrank@ufl.edu , 352-392-1025 ext 208. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gaines ville, FL 32611-2250; ph (352)392-0433. Agreement: By signing the form you are agreeing to give y our permission to participate in the study. A copy of this research description is yours to keep. The principle, Co-Principle investigator, or repr esentative has explained the nature and purpose of the above described procedure and the benefits and risks t hat are involved in this research protocol. Principle Investigator ______________________________ Date __________________ You have been informed of the above-described proc edure with its possible benefits and risks and you have received a copy of this descri ption. You have given permission for y our participation in this study. Signature of Participant: __________________________________ Date: ______________

PAGE 98

98 Assent to Participate in Research (Day 2) Juvenile’s Name: _______________________________ You are being invited to participate in a research study. This form is designed to provide you with information about this study. The principle investigat or or representative will des cribe this study to you and answer any of your questions. If you have any q uestions or complaints about the informed consent process or the research study, please contact the De partment of Juvenile Justice Institutional Review Board (IRB), the committee that protects re search participants, at (850) 414-2238. Title of research study: An evaluation of one state’s attempt to improve juvenile comprehension of the court process. Principle investigators: Christine Driver, University of Florida (352)273-2871 and Dr. Eve Brank (Faculty Advisor-University of Florida) (352) 392-1025 ext. 208. Purpose of the research: We do not know if there is an easy way to help juveniles understand what goes on in court. This project will help us determine what you know and if the DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. Procedure for this research: You will be asked to complete a series of questions concerning the trial process along with social and demographic information. Time required: It should take a total of 30 minutes. The questionnaire should take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Risks and benefits: The benefit of participating is the possibility of increasing your understanding of the juvenile trial process. There is no more than minimal risk in participating in this study as it does not question sensitive material. Potential health risks or discomforts: We do not predict any health risks or discomforts to come from participation in this study. If you want to discuss th ese or any other discomfort s you may experience, you may call the Principle Investigator listed on this form. Potential health benefits: We do not predict any health benefits to come from participation in this study. Potential financial risks or benefits to you or others: We do not predict any financial risks or benefits to you or others resulting from participation in this research. Compensation for participation: You will not be compensa ted for participating in this research. Compensation for research related injury: We do not predict any research related injury to occur because of this research. In the unlikely event that this does occur, the researchers are not financially responsible for this injury. Voluntary participation and alternatives to participating in this research study: Your participation is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not parti cipating. Not participating in this study will not affect your treatment in any way, and you will receive the normal treatment offered by your juvenile justice program. Your participation in this study will not a ffect any decisions made by the court about your future sentencing or parole. “You are free not to participate in this study. If you choose to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participati on in this research study at any time without this decision affecting your relationship to the people in your juvenile justice program or the investigators. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a pa rticipant, you may phone the Institutional Review

PAGE 99

99 Board (IRB) office at (850) 414-2238. Choosing not to par ticipate in this study will in no way affect your care and treatment. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from this study at any time and without consequence. If you wish to stop your partici pation in this research study for any reason, you should contact Christine Driver at (352) 273-2871. You may also contact the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office at (850) 414-2238. Confidentiality: Your data will be coded numerically and will not be traceable to you in any way. The researchers will not be able to match your answers to you in any way. This information will not be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. We will not ask you to tell of any abuse, neglect, or abandonment, but we are required to report this if you ch oose to tell the research staff about it. Reports of abuse, neglect or abandonment will not be confiden tial between you and the researcher. Christine Driver will protect the confidentiality of your records to the extent allowed by law. You understand that the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Institutional Re view Board has the right to review your records. Whom to contact if you have questions about this study: Christine Driver, University of Florida, Department of Criminology, Law and Society, 201 Walker Hall, PO Box 115950, Gainesville, FL 326115950, cdriver@ufl.edu , (352)273-2871. You may also contact Eve Brank (at the same mailing address) ebrank@ufl.edu , 352-392-1025 ext 208 Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gaines ville, FL 32611-2250; ph (352)392-0433. Agreement: By signing the form you are agreeing to give y our permission to participate in the study. A copy of this research description is yours to keep. The principle, Co-Principle investigator, or repr esentative has explained the nature and purpose of the above described procedure and the benefits and risks t hat are involved in this research protocol. Principle Investigator ______________________________ Date __________________ You have been informed of the above-described proc edure with its possible benefits and risks and you have received a copy of this descri ption. You have given permission for y our participation in this study. Signature of Participant : _________________________________ Date: ______________

PAGE 100

100 APPENDIX G “TALES FROM DELINQUENCY COURT” DRAF T SCRIPTPRODUCED BY THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COUR TS ADMINISTRATOR FAMILY GUIDE TO DELINQUENCY COURT Scene 1 Courtroom (An outside shot of a court house is shown. The camera begins to zoom closer to the building. In a hallway, a court security officer walks outside of a courtroom looking for any family members present for a deten tion hearing currently taking place.) Court Security Officer: Last call for anyone here for the detention heari ng of Derek Johnson! (A sixteen year old juvenile, Dere k Johnson, stands before the judge. Derek’s thoughts are heard while the judge is speak ing in the background.) Derek: What’s this judge trying to say to me! All I want to know is am I gettin locked up or am I going home. Judge: (looking at Derek who is star ing back at the judge with a c onfused look) At this hearing I will tell you the charges for which you were arrest ed, and read the police reports to decide if there is probable cause. Probabl e cause means there are enough f acts written in the police report which (The judge’s words become comically di storted right in the middle of his detention colloquy.) blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (As the incoherent sounds from the judge are he ard in the background, Derek looks around the courtroom blatantly not paying at tention. He looks at each of the participants occupying the courtroom, clueless as to their roles. The fuzzy speech ends a nd becomes clear again with the following words.) I hereby order secure detention. The Arraignment is set for August 5th at 9:00 am. (Derek is escorted from the courtr oom; his thoughts again can be heard.) Derek: (His thoughts are overlappe d.) Does that mean I’m locked up? What did he say was set for August? When can I tell my side of the st ory? Why didn’t my mom show up? (The chaotic ramblings cease and with perfect clarity the followi ng thought is heard.) This is a bunch of bull---! (beep censored) Scene 2 Detention Cell (Derek is sitting in his cell as another juvenile is pushing a book cart to each cell offering reading materials to the detain ees. He arrives at Derek’s cell door.) Juvenile: What’s up man, how are you doin? Derek: How does it look like I’m doin. Juvenile: When’s your next hearing? Derek: I don’t know. I don’t even know what my next hearing is. Juvenile: Here, why don’t ta ke something to read? Derek: (shaking his head) Nah, I’m straight. Juvenile: Check this out. It might clear up a fe w things up. (The juvenile tosses a comic book to Derek. Derek catches the comic book and apathetica lly glances at the cover. The cover reads “Family Guide To Delinquency Court.” He reluctantly opens to the first page.)

PAGE 101

101 Scene 3 The Comic Book Page One, Who’s Who in the Courtroom (The first frame is a picture of a juven ile in a detention suit being escorted to the courtroom. The frame “comes to lif e” and the juvenile begins to speak.) Narrator: Do you know what happens in juvenile delinquency court? You’d be surprised how many kids, and even their parents, don’t know what ’s going on here. Many hearings seem to be over before you even knew that they began. You don’t know who the people are around you or what they’re doing. It can be an extremely confus ing experience. I’m here to help explain what happens in court. The first step is learning who everyone is in the courtroom. (He points to his left, and the comic book page is shown again and the next frame is shown. The next frame is a picture of the courtroom with all of the participants in it. The juvenile in the detention suit now serves as the narrator.) Narrator: (A drawing of a cour troom with all of the partic ipants is shown throughout the narration, zooming in on the particular participants as they are bei ng described.) It is the job of the State Attorney or Prosecutor to try to prove that you broke the law. The job of your lawyer, also called the Public Defender or Defense Attorn ey, is to fight for you. He or she will give you advice on what to do. Your lawyer will also help you during court hearings and speak to the judge for you. The Juvenile Probation Officer or JPO works for the Department of Juvenile Justice. The JPO recommends whether you should stay in the detention center or go home, recommends services for you, and also recommends a sentence to the judg e. After hearing from your attorney and the state attorney, the judge will decide if you broke the law. If the judge fi nds that you did, the judge will decide what needs to happen next. It’s the Court Security Officer’s job to make sure the courtroom is safe for everyone, and the Clerk keeps a reco rd of what happens in court. (The page then turns to page two.) The Comic Book – Next Page, First Hearing (“First Hearing at Court” is writte n at the top of the page. The first frame is a picture of a courtroom door. The picture comes to life and the door opens revealing a hearing that is taking place. The hearing is shown throughout the narration.) Narrator: Now that you know what everyone does, let’s figure out what actually happens in court. If you were locked up at a de tention center or put on home detention, your first visit to court will be for a detention hearing. Th e judge will decide whet her you will stay locked up in the detention center, stay on home deten tion with restrictions, or whether you can go free while waiting for your second visi t to court, your arraignment h earing. If you were not locked up at a detention center or put on home detention, then your first visit to court will be for your arraignment hearing. At your arraignment heari ng, the judge will ask you whether you want a lawyer to help you. If the court or clerk finds th at you or your family cannot afford a lawyer, the judge will appoint one to help you. The main purpose of the A rraignment is to enter a plea. (Graphics will be shown for each plea during the narration.) There are three different kinds of pleas: not guilty, guilty, and no contest. Your la wyer should explain to you what each of these means and give you advice on what to do, but the d ecision is yours. If you enter a not guilty plea, then the next step is a trial (The last frame has the word “Trial” with arrows pointing to the right.)

PAGE 102

102 The Comic Book – Next Page, Trial (A courtroom scene is shown.) Narrator: A trial can also be called an adjudicatory heari ng. There’s the state attorney. State Attorney: I’m here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you broke the law. Narrator: That’s your attorn ey, the defense attorney. Defense Attorney: I’m here to show that the stat e attorney has not proven that you broke the law. Narrator: There’s no jury here, just the judge. Judge: I listen to the state a ttorney, defense atto rney, witnesses, a nd sometimes you, if you choose to testify. I will then decide if you have broken the law. If I decide you have not broken the law, your case is over. If I decide you have br oken the law, then you will need to go to court for a disposition hearing, where I will decide what will happen next. Many times, people decide to give up their right to tria l and want to enter an agreement instead. That means you, your lawyer, and the state attorney have all agre ed what should happen to you. If I accept the agreement or deal you have worked out, then yo u could have your disposition hearing right then, or you may have to come back to court for the disposition hearing. (The last fr ame is a picture of a juvenile with the question “What is a Disposition Hearing” written over his head and the page turns.) The Comic Book – Next Page, Disposition Hearing (A drawing of a Pre-Disposition Re port is shown before coming to life and being handed to the judge by someone from DJJ in a courtroom.) Narrator: At the Disposition hearing, the judge decides what will happen to you. If the judge finds you have broken the law, you can be pl aced in a commitment program or placed on probation. (A frame in the comic with the word “Commitment” is shown.) If you are sent to a minimum risk program, you get to live at home but ha ve to go to day treatment at least five times a week. In all of the other commitment program s, you have to live somewhere else for a while. (DJJ commitment footage is shown.) There are different kinds or levels of commitment programs. Some are less strict and others are a lo t like a prison. You should talk to your lawyer about the different level of programs, what kind of help you can get there, and where th ey are located. (A frame in the comic with the word “Probation” is shown.) If you are put on probation, you live at home, but the judge will order you to do a lot of things. (A bulleted list of the following examples is shown in a frame.) For example, the judge might order you to writ e an apology letter, stay away from certain people, attend school, be home at a certain time, get counseling, be tested for drugs, or do community service. The juvenile probation offi cer will help you get these things done, but is required to tell the court if you do not follow any of the probation conditions, which is called a violation of probation. (T he page is turned.) The Comic Book – Last Page, A Quick Review and Tips (This page is entitled “A Quick Review.” Graphi cs are flashed for each of the review items.) Narrator: Remember, at the Detention Hearing the judge decides whether you go home to wait for your next hearing or get locked up to awa it your next hearing. The next hearing is the Arraignment, where you enter a plea. At the trial, the judge hears the facts and decides whether or not you have broken the law. And at the Di sposition hearing, the judge decides whether you will be placed in a Commitment program or be pl aced on Probation (A frame is shown that reads “Tips.” and each tip is displayed graphically.) My first tip for you is to make sure you show up

PAGE 103

103 for your hearing. It’s really impor tant that your parents show up, too. You have to show up even if your parents cannot. If you don’t, the judge can order the po lice to lock you up. So, write down your next court date and time. If your parents cannot take you to cour t for some reason, ask a relative to take you. Another tip is to try to wear nice clothes to the court, and do your best to show the judge respect. You might be surprised how much the judge is wi lling to work with you. My last tip is to ask questions if you don’t know what’s going on. So metimes everything seems to be happening really quickly, so make sure to ask the judge or your lawyer if you are confused. That’s about as much as I’ve figured out about this whole process. Make sure to ask questions if you’re not sure what’s going on. (The last frame of the book reads “Don’t be afraid to ask questions.”) Scene 4 Back in the Detention Cell (Derek closes the book and places it on the desk. He then requests to use the telephone. Derek is escorted to the telephone by a security guard ; he picks up the phone and dials a number. Juvenile: Mom, hey it’s Derek.Yeah I’m alri ght, listen, I need you to show up for my arraignment hearing. (The camera begins to pa n back as the convers ation continues. The conversation becomes more muffled as the camera pulls back.) It will be on August 5th at 9:00 that morning. It’s important that you show up. Y eah, I think I’ll get appointed an attorney and (The conversation fades as the camera pans b ack, eventually panning outside of the detention center. The scene of the detenti on center morphs into a drawing in the last frame of a book. The page turns to the next page displaying the words “The End.” Fade to black.)

PAGE 104

104 APPENDIX H “A FAMILY GUIDE TO DELINQUENCY COURT” PAMPHLETPRODUCED BY THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR

PAGE 105

105

PAGE 106

106 APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE WITH CORRE CT ANSWERS HIGHLIGHTED For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. If you were living at home and had a court da te scheduled, what wo uld you do if your parents could not take you to court at the time you are supposed to be there? 1. Find another ride 2. Skip your court date 3. Call the courthouse and asked to be excused Who makes the decision of whether yo u are guilty or not at your trial? 1. Your lawyer 2. The judge 3. The jury 4. The police officer Who in the courtroom would you tell something important about your case if you wanted it to be kept just between you and that person? 1. The judge 2. Your lawyer 3. The social worker 4. The state attorney Can you be locked up befo re you appear in court (before you see a judge)? 1. Yes 2. No Before the trial starts, which are you assumed to be? 1. Guilty 2. Not guilty

PAGE 107

107 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Which people could be in the courtroom wi th you during a hearing? Bubble all that apply. 1. Judge 2. Jury 3. Your Lawyer/ Defense Attorney/ Public Defender 4. Juvenile Probation Officer 5. State Attorney/Prosecutor 6. Bailiff What is your lawyer’s job? Bubble all that apply. 1. Provide information to prove you are guilty 2. Speak to the judge for you 3. Tell the judge things that will get you in more trouble 4. Help you during the trial 5. Represent your parents in the trial 6. Give you advice about your case 7. Represent you in th e trial if you are guilty 8. Represent you in the trial if you are not guilty What does the Department of Juvenile Just ice Probation Officer do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Recommends whether you get locked up or get to go home 2. Represents you during the trial 3. Recommends a sentence for you to the judge What does the state attorney/pro secutor do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Tries to prove you broke the law 2. Represents your parents in the case 3. Defends your case

PAGE 108

108 What does the bailiff do in th e courtroom? Bubble all that apply. 1. Protect the public and keep the courtroom safe 2. Tries to prove you are guilty of the crime 3. Keeps a record of what happens during the hearing Which of the following pleas can you enter? Bubble all that apply. 1. Not guilty 2. Innocent 3. No contest 4. Guilty For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. Brian, who is 16, has been sent to court to de termine if he is guilty of spray painting the side of a building. Brian wants to tell some one that he couldn’t have been responsible because he was drinking across th e street with a friend at the time, but wants to make sure the fact that he was drinking will not be held against him. He is hoping that this information will help him avoid punishment for the spray painting. Who do you think is the best person to tell? 1. The judge 2. His lawyer 3. His social worker 4. The state attorney 5. His probation officer Nick, who is 17, is in court and does not understand what the judge is saying. What should he do? 1. Keep quiet to show the judge respect 2. Let the judge know that he doesn’t understand 3. Ask someone what the judge meant after the hearing Kyle, who is 14, is caught breaking car wind ows by the police. The police take him and put him in a detention center. When will Kyle go to court for the first time? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudication hearing / trial

PAGE 109

109 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Todd, who is 15, was arrested and is being sentenced for a crime that he committed. What are some of the things he could be sentenced to do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Community servicevo lunteer in the community 2. Go to school 3. Attend a day treatment program 4. Get counseling 5. Write an apology letter Please match each decision made at a hearing in Co lumn 1(telephone) with the hearing in Column 2 (alarm clock). Some choices in Column 2 (alarm cloc k) will be used more than once. Write the letter from Column 2 (alarm clock) in the blanks from Column 1 (telephone). Column 1 Column 2 __A__ 1. Whether or not there are enough facts A. Detention Hearing in the police report to arrest you B. Arraignment Hearing __A__ 2. Whether or not you get to go C. Disposition Hearing home before your trial D. Adjudicatory Hearing / __C__ 3. Whether you will be placed on Trial probation or in a community program __D__ 4. Whether or not you broke the law __B__ 5. Where you can enter a plea and ask for a lawyer Please bubble all answers that apply for the following question. What is your race? 1. African American or Black 2. American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian 3. Asian 4. Hispanic or Latino(a) 5. White 6. Other _____________________________

PAGE 110

110 Please write in your answers to the questions in this section. If you wanted to tell someone important information about your case, who would be the best person to tell? Why? ___________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ Who would you be least likely to tell? Why? _______________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ If you are found guilty at your trial, what is the longest your punishment could last? ________________________________________________________________________________________ Please bubble one box with your answer to the questions in this section. How sure are you of the answers you have provided so far? 1. Very Sure 2. Somewhat Sure 3. Not Very Sure 4. Not Sure What is your gender? 1. Male / Boy 2. Female / Girl What grades do you get in school? 1. Mostly A’s 2. Mostly A’s and B’s 3. Mostly B’s 4. Mostly B’s and C’s 5. Mostly C’s 6. Mostly C’s and D’s 7. Mostly D’s 8. Mostly D’s and F’s 9. Mostly F’s

PAGE 111

111 Do you know anyone who has been arrested as an adult (over 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Before you were first arrested, did you know anyone who had been arrested when they were a juvenile (under 18)? 1. Yes 2. No If you answered yes to the last ques tion, was that person charged in 1. Juvenile Court 2. Adult Court 3. I don’t know Is this the first time you have been arrested? 1. Yes 2. No Once you are brought to detention, do you have to go to court? 1. Yes 2. No Can your time in detention before your trial be extended past 21 days? 1. Yes 2. No Please write in your answer for the following questions. How old are you? __________ How many times have you been arrested before this time? __________

PAGE 112

112 How many times have you been to co urt for cases you were involved in? _____________ How many times have you been to a courtroom for a case you were not directly involved in? ____________ If you have been arrested before, what type of things have you been ordered to do in your other cases? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Have you been given any information or hear d anything about the court process? Fill in the bubble for the correct answer. 1. Yes 2. No If you have gotten informat ion or heard anything, where did this information come from? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ If you have gotten info rmation or heard anything, what was it about? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 113

113 APPLENDIX J PILOT QUESIONNAIRE PRETEST For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. If you were living at home and had a court date scheduled, what would you do if your parents could not take you to court at the time you are supposed to be there? 1. Find another ride 2. Skip your court date 3. Call the courthouse and asked to be excused Which hearing is also known as your trial? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudicatory hearing Who makes the decision of whether you are guilty or not at your trial? 1. Your lawyer 2. The judge 3. The jury 4. The police officer Who in the courtroom would you tell something important about your case if you wanted it to be kept just between you and that person? 1. The judge 2. Your lawyer 3. The social worker 4. The state attorney Can you be locked up prior to appearing in court (before you see a judge)? 1. Yes 2. No Before the trial starts, which are you assumed to be? 1. Guilty 2. Not guilty

PAGE 114

114 For questions in this section, bubble in all an swers for each question you feel are correct. Which people could be in the courtroom with you? Check all that apply. 1. Judge 2. Jury 3. Your Lawyer/ Defense Attorney/ Public Defender 4. Juvenile Probation Officer 5. State Attorney/Prosecutor 6. Police Officer What is your lawyer’s job? Check all that apply. 1. Provide information to prove you are guilty 2. Speak to the judge for you 3. Tell the judge things that will get you in more trouble 4. Help you during the trial 5. Represent your parents in the trial 6. Give you advice about your case 7. Represent you in the trial if you are guilty 8. Represent you in the trial if you are not guilty What does the Department of Juvenile Just ice Probation Officer do? Check all that apply. 1. Recommends whether you get locked up or get to go home 2. Represents you during the trial 3. Recommends a sentence for you to the judge What does the state attorney/prosecutor do? Check all that apply. 1. Tries to prove you broke the law 2. Represents your parents in the case 3. Defends your case

PAGE 115

115 What does the bailiff do in the courtroom? Check all that apply. 1. Protect the public and keep the courtroom safe 2. Tries to prove you are guilty of the crime 3. Keeps a record of what happens during the hearing Which of the following pleas ca n you enter? Check all that apply. 1. Not guilty 2. Innocent 3. No contest 4. Guilty Choose one correct answer for questions in this section. Brian, who is 16, has been sent to court to dete rmine if he is guilty of spray painting the side of a building. Brian wants to tell someone that he couldn’t have been responsible because he was drinking across the street with a friend at the time, but wants to make sure the fact that he was drinking will not be held against him. He is hoping that this information will help him avoid punishment for the spray painting. Who do you think is the best person to tell? 1. The judge 2. His lawyer 3. His social worker 4. The state attorney 5. His probation officer Nick, who is 17, is in court and does not unde rstand what the judge is saying. What should he do? 1. Keep quiet to show the judge respect 2. Let the judge know that he doesn’t understand 3. Ask someone what the judge meant after the hearing Kyle, who is 14, is caught breaking car window s by the police. The police take him and put him in a detention center. When will Kyle go to court for the first time? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudication hearing

PAGE 116

116 Choose all of the correct answers fo r the following section. Todd, who is 15, was arrested and is being se ntenced for a crime that he committed. What are some of the things he could be sentenced to do? 1. Community servicevolunteer in the community 2. Go to school 3. Attend a day treatment program 4. Get counseling 5. Write an apology letter Please match each decision made at a hearing in Column 1 with the hearing in Column 2. Some choices in Column 2 will be used more than once. Write the letter from Column 2 in the blanks from Column 1. Column 1 Column 2 __A__ 1. Whether or not there are enough facts A. Detention Hearing in the police report to arrest you B. Arraignment Hearing __A__ 2. Whether or not you get to go C. Disposition Hearing home before your trial D. Adjudicatory Hearing __C__ 3. Whether you will be placed on probation or in a community program __D__ 4. Whether or not you broke the law __B__ 5. Where you can enter a plea and ask for a lawyer Please bubble all answers that apply for the following question. What is your race? 1. African American or Black 2. American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian 3. Asian 4. Hispanic or Latino(a) 5. White 6. Other ___________________

PAGE 117

117 Please write in your answers to the questions in this section. If you wanted to tell someone important info rmation about your case, who would be the best person to tell? Why? ___________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Who would you be least likely to tell? Why? ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ If you are found guilty at your trial, what is the longest your punishment could last? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please bubble one box with your answer to the questions in this section. How sure are you of the answers you have provided so far? 1. Very Sure 2. Somewhat Sure 3. Not Very Sure 4. Not Sure What is your gender? 1. Male / Boy 2. Female / Girl What grades do you get in school? 1. Mostly A’s 2. Mostly A’s and B’s 3. Mostly B’s 4. Mostly B’s and C’s 5. Mostly C’s 6. Mostly C’s and D’s 7. Mostly D’s 8. Mostly D’s and F’s 9. Mostly F’s

PAGE 118

118 Do you know anyone who has been arrested as an adult (over 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Before you were first arrested, did you know anyone who had been arrested when they were a juvenile (under 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Is this the first time you have been arrested? 1. Yes 2. No Once you are brought to detention, do you have to go to court? 1. Yes 2. No Can your time in detention before yo ur trial be extended past 21 days? 1. Yes 2. No Please write in your answer for the following questions. How old are you? __________ How many times have you been arrested before this time? __________ How many times have you been to court for cases you were involved in? _____________ How many times have you been to a courtroom for a case you were not directly involved in? ____________

PAGE 119

119 If you have been arrested before, what type of things have you been ordered to do in your other cases? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Have you been given any information or heard anything about the court process? Fill in the bubble for the correct answer. 1. Yes 2. No If you have gotten information or heard anyt hing, where did this information come from? __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ If you have gotten information or heard anything, what was it about? __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Please write in any comments or sugges tions you have regarding this survey. __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 120

120 APPENDIX K PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE POSTTEST For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. If you were living at home and had a court date scheduled, what would you do if your parents could not take you to court at the time you are supposed to be there? 1. Find another ride 2. Skip your court date 3. Call the courthouse and asked to be excused Which hearing is also known as your trial? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudicatory hearing Who makes the decision of whether you are guilty or not at your trial? 1. Your lawyer 2. The judge 3. The jury 4. The police officer Who in the courtroom would you tell something important about your case if you wanted it to be kept just between you and that person? 1. The judge 2. Your lawyer 3. The social worker 4. The state attorney Can you be locked up prior to appearing in court (before you see a judge)? 1. Yes 2. No Before the trial starts, which are you assumed to be? 1. Guilty 2. Not guilty

PAGE 121

121 For questions in this section, bubble in all an swers for each question you feel are correct. Which people could be in the courtroom with you? Check all that apply. 1. Judge 2. Jury 3. Your Lawyer/ Defense Attorney/ Public Defender 4. Juvenile Probation Officer 5. State Attorney/Prosecutor 6. Police Officer What is your lawyer’s job? Check all that apply. 1. Provide information to prove you are guilty 2. Speak to the judge for you 3. Tell the judge things that will get you in more trouble 4. Help you during the trial 5. Represent your parents in the trial 6. Give you advice about your case 7. Represent you in the trial if you are guilty 8. Represent you in the trial if you are not guilty What does the Department of Juvenile Just ice Probation Officer do? Check all that apply. 1. Recommends whether you get locked up or get to go home 2. Represents you during the trial 3. Recommends a sentence for you to the judge What does the state attorney/prosecutor do? Check all that apply. 1. Tries to prove you broke the law 2. Represents your parents in the case 3. Defends your case

PAGE 122

122 What does the bailiff do in the courtroom? Check all that apply. 1. Protect the public and keep the courtroom safe 2. Tries to prove you are guilty of the crime 3. Keeps a record of what happens during the hearing Which of the following pleas ca n you enter? Check all that apply. 1. Not guilty 2. Innocent 3. No contest 4. Guilty Choose one correct answer for questions in this section. Brian, who is 16, has been sent to court to dete rmine if he is guilty of spray painting the side of a building. Brian wants to tell someone that he couldn’t have been responsible because he was drinking across the street with a friend at the time, but wants to make sure the fact that he was drinking will not be held against him. He is hoping that this information will help him avoid punishment for the spray painting. Who do you think is the best person to tell? 1. The judge 2. His lawyer 3. His social worker 4. The state attorney 5. His probation officer Nick, who is 17, is in court and does not unde rstand what the judge is saying. What should he do? 1. Keep quiet to show the judge respect 2. Let the judge know that he doesn’t understand 3. Ask someone what the judge meant after the hearing Kyle, who is 14, is caught breaking car window s by the police. The police take him and put him in a detention center. When will Kyle go to court for the first time? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudication hearing

PAGE 123

123 Choose all of the correct answers fo r the following section. Todd, who is 15, was arrested and is being se ntenced for a crime that he committed. What are some of the things he could be sentenced to do? 1. Community servicevolunteer in the community 2. Go to school 3. Attend a day treatment program 4. Get counseling 5. Write an apology letter Please match each decision made at a hearing in Column 1 with the hearing in Column 2. Some choices in Column 2 will be used more than once. Write the letter from Column 2 in the blanks from Column 1. Column 1 Column 2 _____ 1. Whether or not there are enough facts A. Detention Hearing in the police report to arrest you B. Arraignment Hearing _____ 2. Whether or not you get to go C. Disposition Hearing home before your trial D. Adjudicatory Hearing _____ 3. Whether you will be placed on probation or in a community program _____ 4. Whether or not you broke the law _____ 5. Where you can enter a plea and ask for a lawyer Please bubble all answers that apply for the following question. What is your race? 1. African American or Black 2. American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian 3. Asian 4. Hispanic or Latino(a) 5. White 6. Other ___________________

PAGE 124

124 Please write in your answers to the questions in this section. If you wanted to tell someone important info rmation about your case, who would be the best person to tell? Why? ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Who would you be least likely to tell? Why? ____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ If you are found guilty at your trial, what is the longest your punishment could last? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please bubble one box with your answer to the questions in this section. How sure are you of the answers you have provided so far? 1. Very Sure 2. Somewhat Sure 3. Not Very Sure 4. Not Sure What is your gender? 1. Male / Boy 2. Female / Girl What grades do you get in school? 1. Mostly A’s 2. Mostly A’s and B’s 3. Mostly B’s 4. Mostly B’s and C’s 5. Mostly C’s 6. Mostly C’s and D’s 7. Mostly D’s 8. Mostly D’s and F’s 9. Mostly F’s

PAGE 125

125 Do you know anyone who has been arrested as an adult (over 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Before you were first arrested, did you know anyone who had been arrested when they were a juvenile (under 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Is this the first time you have been arrested? 1. Yes 2. No Once you are brought to detention, do you have to go to court? 1. Yes 2. No Can your time in detention before yo ur trial be extended past 21 days? 1. Yes 2. No Please write in your answer for the following questions. How old are you? __________ How many times have you been arrested before this time? __________ How many times have you been to court for cases you were involved in? _____________ How many times have you been to a courtroom for a case you were not directly involved in? ____________

PAGE 126

126 If you have been arrested before, what type of things have you been ordered to do in your other cases? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Have you spoken with anyone about the video you watched on the first day we were here? Fill in the bubble for the correct answer. 1. Yes 2. No If so, who did you talk to about the video? ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ If so, what did you talk about? __________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please write in any comments or sugges tions you have regarding this survey. ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 127

127 APPENDIX L JUVENILES IN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL PRETEST For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. If you had a court date scheduled, what would you do if your parents could not take you to court at the time you are supposed to be there? 1. Find another ride 2. Skip your court date 3. Call the courthouse and asked to be excused Who makes the decision of whether you are guilty or not at a juvenile court trial? 1. Your lawyer 2. The judge 3. The jury 4. The police officer If you were in juvenile court, who in the courtroom would you tell something important about your case if you wanted it to be kept just between you and that person? 1. The judge 2. Your lawyer 3. The social worker 4. The state attorney Can a juvenile be locked up be fore he or she appears in court (before he or she sees a judge)? 1. Yes 2. No Before the trial starts, is a kid in juvenile court assumed to be? 1. Guilty 2. Not guilty

PAGE 128

128 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Which people could be in the courtroom with a juvenile during his or her hearing? Bubble all that apply. 1. Judge 2. Jury 3. Your Lawyer/ Defense Attorney/ Public Defender 4. Juvenile Probation Officer 5. State Attorney/Prosecutor 6. Bailiff What is the job of a lawyer for a kid in juvenile court? Bubble all that apply. 1. Provide information to prove you are guilty 2. Speak to the judge for you 3. Tell the judge things that will get you in more trouble 4. Help you during the trial 5. Represent your parents in the trial 6. Give you advice about your case 7. Represent you in the trial if you are guilty 8. Represent you in the trial if you are not guilty What does the Department of Juvenile Just ice Probation Officer do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Recommends whether you get locked up or get to go home 2. Represents you during the trial 3. Recommends a sentence for you to the judge What does the state attorney/pro secutor do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Tries to prove you broke the law 2. Represents your parents in the case 3. Defends your case

PAGE 129

129 What does the bailiff do in the courtroom? Bubble all that apply. 1. Protect the public and keep the courtroom safe 2. Tries to prove you are guilty of the crime 3. Keeps a record of what happens during the hearing Which of the following pleas can a kid in juvenile court enter? Bubble all that apply. 1. Not guilty 2. Innocent 3. No contest 4. Guilty For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. Brian, who is 16, has been sent to court to dete rmine if he is guilty of spray painting the side of a building. Brian wants to tell someone that he couldn’t have been responsible because he was drinking across the street with a friend at the time, but wants to make sure the fact that he was drinking will not be held against him. He is hoping that this information will help him avoid punishment for the spray painting. Who do you think is the best person to tell? 1. The judge 2. His lawyer 3. His social worker 4. The state attorney 5. His probation officer Nick, who is 17, is in court and does not unde rstand what the judge is saying. What should he do? 1. Keep quiet to show the judge respect 2. Let the judge know that he doesn’t understand 3. Ask someone what the judge meant after the hearing Kyle, who is 14, is caught breaking car window s by the police. The police take him and put him in a detention center. When will Kyle go to court for the first time? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudication hearing / trial

PAGE 130

130 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Todd, who is 15, was arrested and is being se ntenced for a crime that he committed. What are some of the things he could be sent enced to do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Community servicevolunteer in the community 2. Go to school 3. Attend a day treatment program 4. Get counseling 5. Write an apology letter Please match each decision made at a hearing in Co lumn 1(telephone) with the hearing in Column 2 (alarm clock). Some ch oices in Column 2 (alarm clock) will be used more than once. Write the letter from Column 2 (alarm clock) in the blanks from Column 1 (telephone). Column 1 Column 2 _____ 1. Whether or not there are enough facts A. Detention Hearing in the police report to arrest a juvenile B. Arraignment Hearing _____ 2. Whether or not a juvenile gets to go C. Disposition Hearing home before your trial D. Adjudicatory Hearing / Trial _____ 3. Whether a juvenile will be placed on probation or in a community program _____ 4. Whether or not a juvenile broke the law _____ 5. Where a juvenile ca n enter a plea and ask for a lawyer Please bubble all answers that apply for the following question. What is your race? 1. African American or Black 2. American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian 3. Asian 4. Hispanic or Latino(a) 5. White 6. Other _____________________________

PAGE 131

131 Please write in your answers to the questions in this section. If a juvenile wanted to tell someone impo rtant information about his or her case, who would be the best person to tell? Why? ___________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Who would be the worst person to tell? Why? _______________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ If a juvenile is found guilty at his or her trial, what is the longest his or her punishment could last? _______________________________________________________________________________________ Please bubble one box with your answer to the questions in this section. How sure are you of the answers you have provided so far? 1. Very Sure 2. Somewhat Sure 3. Not Very Sure 4. Not Sure What is your gender? 1. Male / Boy 2. Female / Girl What grades do you get in school? 1. Mostly A’s 2. Mostly A’s and B’s 3. Mostly B’s 4. Mostly B’s and C’s 5. Mostly C’s 6. Mostly C’s and D’s 7. Mostly D’s 8. Mostly D’s and F’s 9. Mostly F’s

PAGE 132

132 Do you know anyone who has been arrested as an adult (over 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Do you know anyone who has been arrested when they were a juvenile (under 18)? 1. Yes 2. No If you answered yes to the last ques tion, was that person charged in 1. Juvenile Court 2. Adult Court 3. I don’t know Have you ever been arrested? 1. Yes 2. No Once a juvenile is brought to detention, does he or she have to go to court? 1. Yes 2. No Can a juvenile’s time in detention before hi s or her trial be extended past 21 days? 1. Yes 2. No

PAGE 133

133 Please write in your answer for the following questions. How old are you? __________ How many times have you been arrested in the past? __________ How many times have you been to juvenile court for cases you were involved in (not including dependency court)? _____________ How many times have you been to a courtroom for a case you were not directly involved in? ____________ If you have been arrested before, what type of things have you been ordered to do in your other cases? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Have you been given any information or heard anything about the court process? Fill in the bubble for the correct answer. 1. Yes 2. No If you have gotten information or heard anyt hing, where did this information come from? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ If you have gotten information or heard anything, what was it about? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 134

134 APPENDIX M JUVENILES IN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL POSTTEST For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. If you had a court date scheduled, what would you do if your parents could not take you to court at the time you are supposed to be there? 1. Find another ride 2. Skip your court date 3. Call the courthouse and asked to be excused Who makes the decision of whether you are guilty or not at a juvenile court trial? 1. Your lawyer 2. The judge 3. The jury 4. The police officer If you were in juvenile court, who in the courtroom would you tell something important about your case if you wanted it to be kept just between you and that person? 1. The judge 2. Your lawyer 3. The social worker 4. The state attorney Can a juvenile be locked up be fore he or she appears in court (before he or she sees a judge)? 1. Yes 2. No Before the trial starts, is a kid in juvenile court assumed to be? 1. Guilty 2. Not guilty

PAGE 135

135 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Which people could be in the courtroom with a juvenile during his or her hearing? Bubble all that apply. 1. Judge 2. Jury 3. Your Lawyer/ Defense Attorney/ Public Defender 4. Juvenile Probation Officer 5. State Attorney/Prosecutor 6. Bailiff What is the job of a lawyer for a kid in juvenile court? Bubble all that apply. 1. Provide information to prove you are guilty 2. Speak to the judge for you 3. Tell the judge things that will get you in more trouble 4. Help you during the trial 5. Represent your parents in the trial 6. Give you advice about your case 7. Represent you in the trial if you are guilty 8. Represent you in the trial if you are not guilty What does the Department of Juvenile Just ice Probation Officer do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Recommends whether you get locked up or get to go home 2. Represents you during the trial 3. Recommends a sentence for you to the judge What does the state attorney/pro secutor do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Tries to prove you broke the law 2. Represents your parents in the case 3. Defends your case

PAGE 136

136 What does the bailiff do in the courtroom? Bubble all that apply. 1. Protect the public and keep the courtroom safe 2. Tries to prove you are guilty of the crime 3. Keeps a record of what happens during the hearing Which of the following pleas can a kid in juvenile court enter? Bubble all that apply. 1. Not guilty 2. Innocent 3. No contest 4. Guilty For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. Brian, who is 16, has been sent to court to dete rmine if he is guilty of spray painting the side of a building. Brian wants to tell someone that he couldn’t have been responsible because he was drinking across the street with a friend at the time, but wants to make sure the fact that he was drinking will not be held against him. He is hoping that this information will help him avoid punishment for the spray painting. Who do you think is the best person to tell? 1. The judge 2. His lawyer 3. His social worker 4. The state attorney 5. His probation officer Nick, who is 17, is in court and does not unde rstand what the judge is saying. What should he do? 1. Keep quiet to show the judge respect 2. Let the judge know that he doesn’t understand 3. Ask someone what the judge meant after the hearing Kyle, who is 14, is caught breaking car window s by the police. The police take him and put him in a detention center. When will Kyle go to court for the first time? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudication hearing / trial

PAGE 137

137 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Todd, who is 15, was arrested and is being se ntenced for a crime that he committed. What are some of the things he could be sent enced to do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Community servicevolunteer in the community 2. Go to school 3. Attend a day treatment program 4. Get counseling 5. Write an apology letter Please match each decision made at a hearing in Co lumn 1(telephone) with the hearing in Column 2 (alarm clock). Some ch oices in Column 2 (alarm clock) will be used more than once. Write the letter from Column 2 (alarm clock) in the blanks from Column 1 (telephone). Column 1 Column 2 _____ 1. Whether or not there are enough facts A. Detention Hearing in the police report to arrest a juvenile B. Arraignment Hearing _____ 2. Whether or not a juvenile gets to go C. Disposition Hearing home before your trial D. Adjudicatory Hearing / Trial _____ 3. Whether a juvenile will be placed on probation or in a community program _____ 4. Whether or not a juvenile broke the law _____ 5. Where a juvenile ca n enter a plea and ask for a lawyer Please bubble all answers that apply for the following question. What is your race? 1. African American or Black 2. American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian 3. Asian 4. Hispanic or Latino(a) 5. White 6. Other _____________________________

PAGE 138

138 Please write in your answers to the questions in this section. If a juvenile wanted to tell someone impo rtant information about his or her case, who would be the best person to tell? Why? ____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Who would be the worst person to tell? Why? ________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ If a juvenile is found guilty at his or her trial, what is the longest his or her punishment could last? _______________________________________________________________________________________ Please bubble one box with your answer to the questions in this section. How sure are you of the answers you have provided so far? 1. Very Sure 2. Somewhat Sure 3. Not Very Sure 4. Not Sure What is your gender? 1. Male / Boy 2. Female / Girl What grades do you get in school? 1. Mostly A’s 2. Mostly A’s and B’s 3. Mostly B’s 4. Mostly B’s and C’s 5. Mostly C’s 6. Mostly C’s and D’s 7. Mostly D’s 8. Mostly D’s and F’s 9. Mostly F’s

PAGE 139

139 Do you know anyone who has been arrested as an adult (over 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Do you know anyone who has been arrested when they were a juvenile (under 18)? 1. Yes 2. No If you answered yes to the last ques tion, was that person charged in 1. Juvenile Court 2. Adult Court 3. I don’t know Have you ever been arrested? 1. Yes 2. No Once a juvenile is brought to detention, does he or she have to go to court? 1. Yes 2. No Can a juvenile’s time in detention before hi s or her trial be extended past 21 days? 1. Yes 2. No Please write in your answer for the following questions. How old are you? __________ How many times have you been arrested in the past? __________

PAGE 140

140 How many times have you been to juvenile court for cases you were involved in (not including dependency court)? _____________ How many times have you been to a courtroom for a case you were not directly involved in? ____________ If you have been arrested before, what type of things have you been ordered to do in your other cases? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Have you spoken with anyone about the video you watched on the first day we were here? Fill in the bubble for the correct answer. 1. Yes 2. No If so, who did you talk to about the video? __________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ If so, what did you talk about? _________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 141

141 APPENDIX N DETENTION QUESTI ONNAIRE PRETEST For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. If you were living at home and had a court date scheduled, what would you do if your parents could not take you to court at the time you are supposed to be there? 1. Find another ride 2. Skip your court date 3. Call the courthouse and asked to be excused Who makes the decision of whether you are guilty or not at your trial? 1. Your lawyer 2. The judge 3. The jury 4. The police officer Who in the courtroom would you tell something important about your case if you wanted it to be kept just between you and that person? 1. The judge 2. Your lawyer 3. The social worker 4. The state attorney Can you be locked up before you appear in court (before you see a judge)? 1. Yes 2. No Before the trial starts, which are you assumed to be? 1. Guilty 2. Not guilty

PAGE 142

142 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Which people could be in the courtroom with you during a hearing? Bubble all that apply. 1. Judge 2. Jury 3. Your Lawyer/ Defense Attorney/ Public Defender 4. Juvenile Probation Officer 5. State Attorney/Prosecutor 6. Bailiff What is your lawyer’s job? Bubble all that apply. 1. Provide information to prove you are guilty 2. Speak to the judge for you 3. Tell the judge things that will get you in more trouble 4. Help you during the trial 5. Represent your parents in the trial 6. Give you advice about your case 7. Represent you in the trial if you are guilty 8. Represent you in the trial if you are not guilty What does the Department of Juvenile Just ice Probation Officer do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Recommends whether you get locked up or get to go home 2. Represents you during the trial 3. Recommends a sentence for you to the judge What does the state attorney/pro secutor do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Tries to prove you broke the law 2. Represents your parents in the case 3. Defends your case

PAGE 143

143 What does the bailiff do in the courtroom? Bubble all that apply. 1. Protect the public and keep the courtroom safe 2. Tries to prove you are guilty of the crime 3. Keeps a record of what happens during the hearing Which of the following pleas ca n you enter? Bubble all that apply. 1. Not guilty 2. Innocent 3. No contest 4. Guilty For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. Brian, who is 16, has been sent to court to dete rmine if he is guilty of spray painting the side of a building. Brian wants to tell someone that he couldn’t have been responsible because he was drinking across the street with a friend at the time, but wants to make sure the fact that he was drinking will not be held against him. He is hoping that this information will help him avoid punishment for the spray painting. Who do you think is the best person to tell? 1. The judge 2. His lawyer 3. His social worker 4. The state attorney 5. His probation officer Nick, who is 17, is in court and does not unde rstand what the judge is saying. What should he do? 1. Keep quiet to show the judge respect 2. Let the judge know that he doesn’t understand 3. Ask someone what the judge meant after the hearing Kyle, who is 14, is caught breaking car window s by the police. The police take him and put him in a detention center. When will Kyle go to court for the first time? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudication hearing / trial

PAGE 144

144 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Todd, who is 15, was arrested and is being se ntenced for a crime that he committed. What are some of the things he could be sent enced to do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Community servicevolunteer in the community 2. Go to school 3. Attend a day treatment program 4. Get counseling 5. Write an apology letter Please match each decision made at a hearing in Co lumn 1(telephone) with the hearing in Column 2 (alarm clock). Some ch oices in Column 2 (alarm clock) will be used more than once. Write the letter from Column 2 (alarm clock) in the blanks from Column 1 (telephone). Column 1 Column 2 _____ 1. Whether or not there are enough facts A. Detention Hearing in the police report to arrest you B. Arraignment Hearing _____ 2. Whether or not you get to go C. Disposition Hearing home before your trial D. Adjudicatory Hearing / Trial _____ 3. Whether you will be placed on probation or in a community program _____ 4. Whether or not you broke the law _____ 5. Where you can enter a plea and ask for a lawyer Please bubble all answers that apply for the following question. What is your race? 1. African American or Black 2. American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian 3. Asian 4. Hispanic or Latino(a) 5. White 6. Other _____________________________

PAGE 145

145 Please write in your answers to the questions in this section. If you wanted to tell someone important info rmation about your case, who would be the best person to tell? Why? ___________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Who would you be least likely to tell? Why? ____________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ If you are found guilty at your trial, what is the longest your punishment could last? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please bubble one box with your answer to the questions in this section. How sure are you of the answers you have provided so far? 1. Very Sure 2. Somewhat Sure 3. Not Very Sure 4. Not Sure What is your gender? 1. Male / Boy 2. Female / Girl What grades do you get in school? 1. Mostly A’s 2. Mostly A’s and B’s 3. Mostly B’s 4. Mostly B’s and C’s 5. Mostly C’s 6. Mostly C’s and D’s 7. Mostly D’s 8. Mostly D’s and F’s 9. Mostly F’s

PAGE 146

146 Do you know anyone who has been arrested as an adult (over 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Before you were first arrested, did you know anyone who had been arrested when they were a juvenile (under 18)? 1. Yes 2. No If you answered yes to the last ques tion, was that person charged in 1. Juvenile Court 2. Adult Court 3. I don’t know Is this the first time you have been arrested? 1. Yes 2. No Once you are brought to detention, do you have to go to court? 1. Yes 2. No Can your time in detention before yo ur trial be extended past 21 days? 1. Yes 2. No Please write in your answer for the following questions. How old are you? __________ How many times have you been arrested before this time? __________ How many times have you been to court for cases you were involved in? _____________

PAGE 147

147 How many times have you been to a courtroom for a case you were not directly involved in? ____________ If you have been arrested before, what type of things have you been ordered to do in your other cases? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Have you been given any information or heard anything about the court process? Fill in the bubble for the correct answer. 1. Yes 2. No If you have gotten information or heard anyt hing, where did this information come from? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ If you have gotten information or heard anything, what was it about? ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 148

148 APPENDIX O DETENTION QUESTIONN AIRE POSTTEST For questions in this section, fill in one bubble for each question with the answer you believe is correct. If you were living at home and had a court date scheduled, what would you do if your parents could not take you to court at the time you are supposed to be there? 1. Find another ride 2. Skip your court date 3. Call the courthouse and asked to be excused Who makes the decision of whether you are guilty or not at your trial? 1. Your lawyer 2. The judge 3. The jury 4. The police officer Who in the courtroom would you tell something important about your case if you wanted it to be kept just between you and that person? 1. The judge 2. Your lawyer 3. The social worker 4. The state attorney Can you be locked up before you appear in court (before you see a judge)? 1. Yes 2. No Before the trial starts, which are you assumed to be? 1. Guilty 2. Not guilty

PAGE 149

149 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Which people could be in the courtroom with you? Bubble all that apply. 1. Judge 2. Jury 3. Your Lawyer/ Defense Attorney/ Public Defender 4. Juvenile Probation Officer 5. State Attorney/Prosecutor 6. Bailiff What is your lawyer’s job? Bubble all that apply. 1. Provide information to prove you are guilty 2. Speak to the judge for you 3. Tell the judge things that will get you in more trouble 4. Help you during the trial 5. Represent your parents in the trial 6. Give you advice about your case 7. Represent you in the trial if you are guilty 8. Represent you in the trial if you are not guilty What does the Department of Juvenile Just ice Probation Officer do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Recommends whether you get locked up or get to go home 2. Represents you during the trial 3. Recommends a sentence for you to the judge What does the state attorney/pro secutor do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Tries to prove you broke the law 2. Represents your parents in the case 3. Defends your case

PAGE 150

150 What does the bailiff do in the courtroom? Bubble all that apply. 1. Protect the public and keep the courtroom safe 2. Tries to prove you are guilty of the crime 3. Keeps a record of what happens during the hearing Which of the following pleas ca n you enter? Bubble all that apply. 1. Not guilty 2. Innocent 3. No contest 4. Guilty Choose one correct answer for questions in this section. Brian, who is 16, has been sent to court to dete rmine if he is guilty of spray painting the side of a building. Brian wants to tell someone that he couldn’t have been responsible because he was drinking across the street with a friend at the time, but wants to make sure the fact that he was drinking will not be held against him. He is hoping that this information will help him avoid punishment for the spray painting. Who do you think is the best person to tell? 1. The judge 2. His lawyer 3. His social worker 4. The state attorney 5. His probation officer Nick, who is 17, is in court and does not unde rstand what the judge is saying. What should he do? 1. Keep quiet to show the judge respect 2. Let the judge know that he doesn’t understand 3. Ask someone what the judge meant after the hearing Kyle, who is 14, is caught breaking car window s by the police. The police take him and put him in a detention center. When will Kyle go to court for the first time? 1. The arraignment hearing 2. The detention hearing 3. The disposition hearing 4. The adjudicatory hearing/trial

PAGE 151

151 For questions in this section, bubble in all answers for each question you feel are correct. Todd, who is 15, was arrested and is being se ntenced for a crime that he committed. What are some of the things he could be sent enced to do? Bubble all that apply. 1. Community servicevolunteer in the community 2. Go to school 3. Attend a day treatment program 4. Get counseling 5. Write an apology letter Please match each decision made at a hearing in Co lumn 1(telephone) with the hearing in Column 2 (alarm clock). Some ch oices in Column 2 (alarm clock) will be used more than once. Write the letter from Column 2 (alarm clock) in the blanks from Column 1 (telephone). Column 1 Column 2 _____ 1. Whether or not there are enough facts A. Detention Hearing in the police report to arrest you B. Arraignment Hearing _____ 2. Whether or not you get to go C. Disposition Hearing home before your trial D. Adjudicatory Hearing / Trial _____ 3. Whether you will be placed on probation or in a community program _____ 4. Whether or not you broke the law _____ 5. Where you can enter a plea and ask for a lawyer Please bubble all answers that apply for the following question. What is your race? 1. African American or Black 2. American Indian, Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian 3. Asian 4. Hispanic or Latino(a) 5. White 6. Other _____________________

PAGE 152

152 Please write in your answers to the questions in this section. If you wanted to tell someone important info rmation about your case, who would be the best person to tell? Why? ___________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Who would you be least likely to tell? Why? ___________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ If you are found guilty at your trial, what is the longest your punishment could last? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Please bubble one box with your answer to the questions in this section. How sure are you of the answers you have provided so far? 1. Very Sure 2. Somewhat Sure 3. Not Very Sure 4. Not Sure What is your gender? 1. Male / Boy 2. Female / Girl What grades do you get in school? 1. Mostly A’s 2. Mostly A’s and B’s 3. Mostly B’s 4. Mostly B’s and C’s 5. Mostly C’s 6. Mostly C’s and D’s 7. Mostly D’s 8. Mostly D’s and F’s 9. Mostly F’s

PAGE 153

153 Do you know anyone who has been arrested as an adult (over 18)? 1. Yes 2. No Before you were first arrested, did you know anyone who had been arrested when they were a juvenile (under 18)? 1. Yes 2. No If you answered yes to the last ques tion, was that person charged in 1. Juvenile Court 2. Adult Court 3. I don’t know Is this the first time you have been arrested? 1. Yes 2. No Once you are brought to detention, do you have to go to court? 1. Yes 2. No Can your time in detention before yo ur trial be extended past 21 days? 1. Yes 2. No Please write in your answer for the following questions. How old are you? __________ How many times have you been arrested before this time? __________ How many times have you been to court for cases you were involved in? _____________

PAGE 154

154 How many times have you been to a courtroom for a case you were not directly involved in? ____________ If you have been arrested before, what type of things have you been ordered to do in your other cases? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Have you spoken with anyone about the video you watched on the first day we were here? Fill in the bubble for the correct answer. 1. Yes 2. No If so, who did you talk to about the video? ___________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ If so, what did you talk about? ___________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 155

155 APPENDIX P COLLEGE SCRIPTS Narrative to be read to the colleg e students in pilot test (Day One): Hello/Good Morning. We are researchers from the University of Florid a and we would like to ask you to do two things for us today. First, we would like to ask you to answer some questions fo r us about the juvenile court process. If you agree to participate, we will ask you to read and fill in your answers to the questions on the survey we will pass out. This should take about 30 minutes. Second, we will show you a short video on the trial process. The video should take about 15 minutes to watch. We will also come back in a couple of days to ask you to answer some more questions for us. This will take about 30 minutes. The purpose of this study is to find out if there is an easy way to help juveniles understand what goes on in court bette r. This project will help us determine what you know and if the DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. (Pass out questionnaires) Your participation in this is completely volun tary and you do not have to participate if you don’t want to, there will be no penalty if you do not participate. You may also withdraw from participation at any time during the study wit hout penalty. You will not be compensated for participating in this research. There is very li ttle risk in participati ng because the questions do not cover sensitive subjects. There is a possibl e benefit in participating because you may learn about the trial process. Your identity will remain anonymous which means any information you give cannot be traced back to you and the researcher will not know who participated in this study. The answers will only be looked at together so that no individual information will be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. We are going to ask you to include a code on the small sheet of paper attached to your survey that we will use to match your surveys later. Th is code will be the date of your birthday and the first two letters of your favorite color. An exam ple of this is if your birthday is February 10th, then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. Please write this code down now if you have not already, and check to make sure that it is correct. This piece of paper containing your code will be removed and shredded once your surveys are matched. This questionnaire will eventually be used with j uveniles who are in detention facilities, but we first need your help to make sure it makes sens e. Because of the purpos e of the questionnaire, we are going to ask that you imagine that you are a juvenile who has been arrested for a crime that you committed. This will allow you to answer the questions as the juveniles will be answering them in the detention facility. You shoul d mark or write in your answer according to the directions for that section. If you have any questions or need us to explain something, just ask and we will do so. Please turn over your answers on yo ur desk/tables when you are finished and we will come by and pick them up.

PAGE 156

156 After the questionnaires are in: Thank you for completing the survey. We ar e now going to watch a DVD about the court process. This DVD was made to help you unders tand the court process a little better. Please watch it carefully. After the DVD Thank you for watching the DVD. We will be back on (DAY) to talk to you some more and ask you to answer some more questions for us. We truly appreciate your help – thank you.

PAGE 157

157 Narrative to be read to the colleg e students in pilot test (Day Two): Hello/Good Morning. We are researchers from the University of Flor ida and we would like to ask you to do something for us today. We would like to as k you to answer some questions for us about the juvenile court process. If you agree to partic ipate, we will ask you to read a nd fill in your answers to the questions on the survey we will pass out. This should take about 30 minutes. The questions are similar to the ones we gave you two days ago before you watched the DVD. The purpose of this study is to find out if there is an easy way to help juveniles understa nd what goes on in court better. This project will help us determine what you know and if the DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. (Pass out questionnaires) Your participation in this is completely volun tary and you do not have to participate if you don’t want to, there will be no penalty if you do not participate. You may also withdraw from participation at any time during the study wit hout penalty. You will not be compensated for participating in this research. There is very li ttle risk in participati ng because the questions do not cover sensitive subjects. There is a possibl e benefit in participating because you may learn about the trial process. Your identity will remain anonymous which means any information you give cannot be traced back to you and the researcher will not know who participated in this study. The answers will only be looked at together so that no individual information will be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. We are going to ask you to include a code on the small sheet of paper attached to your survey that we will use to match your surveys later. Th is code will be the date of your birthday and the first two letters of your favorite color. An exam ple of this is if your birthday is February 10th, then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. Please write this code down now if you have not already, and check to make sure that it is correct. This piece of paper containing your code will be removed and shredded once your surveys are matched. This code should match th e code that you had on the first day we were here. This questionnaire will eventually be used with j uveniles who are in detention facilities, but we first need your help to make sure it makes sens e. Because of the purpos e of the questionnaire, we are going to ask that you imagine that you are a juvenile who has been arrested for a crime that you committed. This will allow you to answer the questions as the juveniles will be answering them in the detention facility. You shoul d mark or write in your answer according to the directions for that section. If you have any questions or need us to explain something, just ask and we will do so. Please turn over your answers on yo ur desk/tables when you are finished and we will come by and pick them up. After the questionnaires are in: Thank you for your help with this project, we truly appreciate it.

PAGE 158

158 APPENDIX Q JUVENILES IN A UNIVERSITY LABO RATORY SCHOOL PILOT SCRIPTS Narrative to be read to the juveniles in pilot test (Day One): Hello/Good Morning. We are researchers from the University of Florida and we would like to ask you to do two things for us today. First, we would like to as k you to answer some questions for us about the juvenile court process. If your parents have ag reed that you can participate, a nd you agree to participate, we will read these questions out loud for you and you will bubble in your answers or write in the answers on your papers. This should take about 30 minutes. Second, we will show you a short video on the trial process. The vi deo should take about 15 minutes to watch. We will also come back in a couple of days to ask you to answer so me more questions for us. This will take about 30 minutes. The purpose of this study is to find out if there is an easy way to help juveniles understand what goes on in court better. This pr oject will help us determine what you know and if the DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. (Pass out questionnaires) Your participation in this is completely volun tary and you do not have to participate if you don’t want to, there will be no penalty if you do not participate. You may also withdraw from participation at any time during the study wit hout penalty. You will not be compensated for participating in this research. There is very li ttle risk in participati ng because the questions do not cover sensitive subjects. There is a possibl e benefit in participating because you may learn about the trial process. Your identity will remain anonymous which means any information you give cannot be traced back to you and the researcher will not know who participated in this study. The answers will only be looked at together so that no individual information will be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. We are going to ask you to include a code on the small sheet of paper attached to your survey that we will use to match your surveys later. Th is code will be the date of your birthday and the first two letters of your favorite color. An exam ple of this is if your birthday is February 10th, then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. Please write this code down now if you have not already, and check to make sure that it is correct. This piece of paper containing your code will be removed and shredded once your surveys are matched. This questionnaire will eventually be used with j uveniles who are in detention facilities, but we first need your help to make sure it makes sense to kids your age. Because of the purpose of the questionnaire, we are going to ask that you imagine that you have been arrested for a crime that you committed. This will allow you to answer th e questions as the juveniles will be answering them in the detention facility. When we ar e asking you the questions, we will first say the picture next to the question and hold up a matc hing picture, so that you can identify which question we are on. We will then read the ques tion aloud, followed by the answers. We will then reread both the question and answer choices. You should mark or write in your answer according to the directions for that section. If you have any questions, need us to reread or explain something, just ask and we will do so.

PAGE 159

159 For the matching questions we will first read an answer choice from the first column. We will then read each of the choices from the second co lumn. We will then repeat each of these. The second answer choice from the first column will then be read, followed by each of the answer choices from the second column. We will then repeat each of these. This same format will be used for each of the answer c hoices in the first column. (Read through the questionnaire at this point, holding up the pi cture cards and repeating the questions and answer choices) Please turn over your answers on yo ur desk/tables when you are finished and we will come by and pick them up. After the questionnaires are in: Thank you for completing the survey. We ar e now going to watch a DVD about the court process. This DVD was made to help you unders tand the court process a little better. Please watch it carefully. After the DVD Thank you for watching the DVD. We will be back on (DAY) to talk to you some more and ask you to answer some more questions for us. We truly appreciate your help – thank you.

PAGE 160

160 Narrative to be read to the juveniles in pilot test (Day Two): Hello/Good Morning. We are researchers from the University of Florida and we would like to ask you to do something for us today. We would like to ask you to answer some questions for us about the juvenile court process. If your parents have agreed that you can participate, and you agree to participate, we will read these questions out loud for you and you will bubble in your answers or write in the answers on your papers. This should take abou t 30 minutes. The questions are similar to the ones we gave you two days ago before you watched the DVD. The purpose of this study is to find out if there is an easy way to help juveniles understand what goes on in court better. This project will help us determin e what you know and if the DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. (Pass out questionnaires) Your participation in this is completely volun tary and you do not have to participate if you don’t want to, there will be no penalty if you do not participate. You may also withdraw from participation at any time during the study wit hout penalty. You will not be compensated for participating in this research. There is very li ttle risk in participati ng because the questions do not cover sensitive subjects. There is a possibl e benefit in participating because you may learn about the trial process. Your identity will remain anonymous which means any information you give cannot be traced back to you and the researcher will not know who participated in this study. The answers will only be looked at together so that no individual information will be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. We are going to ask you to include a code on the small sheet of paper attached to your survey that we will use to match your surveys later. Th is code will be the date of your birthday and the first two letters of your favorite color. An exam ple of this is if your birthday is February 10th, then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. Please write this code down now if you have not already, and check to make sure that it is correct. This piece of paper containing your code will be removed and shredded once your surveys are matched. This code should match th e code that you had on the first day we were here. This questionnaire will eventually be used with j uveniles who are in detention facilities, but we first need your help to make sure it makes sense to kids your age. Because of the purpose of the questionnaire, we are going to ask that you imagine that you have been arrested for a crime that you committed. This will allow you to answer th e questions as the juveniles will be answering them in the detention facility. When we ar e asking you the questions, we will first say the picture next to the question, so that you can id entify which question we are on. We will then read the question aloud, followed by the answers. We will then reread both the question and answer choices. You should mark or write in your answer according to th e directions for that section. If you have any questions, need us to re read or explain something, just ask and we will do so. For the matching questions we will first read an answer choice from the first column. We will then read each of the choices from the second co lumn. We will then repeat each of these. The

PAGE 161

161 second answer choice from the first column will then be read, followed by each of the answer choice from the second column. We will then repeat each of these. This same format will be used for each of the answer c hoices in the first column. (Read through the questionnaire at this point, holding up the pi cture cards and repeating the questions and answer choices) Please turn over your answers on your desk/tab les and we will come by and pick them up. After the questionnaires are in: Thank you for your help with this project, we truly appreciate it.

PAGE 162

162 APPENDIX R JUVENILES IN AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLIC SCHOOL SCRIPTS Narrative to be read to the juveniles in be haviorally focused public schools (Day One): Hello/Good Morning. We are research ers from the University of Fl orida and we would like to ask you to do two things for us today. First, we would like to ask you to answer some questions for us about the juvenile court process. If your parents have agreed that you can participate, and you agree to participate, we will read these questions ou t loud for you and you will bubble in your answers or write in the answers on your papers. This should take about 30 minutes. Second, we will show you a short video on the trial process. The video should take about 15 minutes to watch. We will also come back in a couple of days to ask you to answer some more questions for us. This will take about 30 minutes. The purpose of this study is to find out if there is an easy way to help juveniles understand what goes on in court better. This proj ect will help us determin e what you know and if the DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. (Pass out questionnaires) Your participation in this is completely volun tary and you do not have to participate if you don’t want to, there will be no penalty if you do not participate. You may al so withdraw from participation at any time during the study without penalty. You w ill not be compensated for participating in this research. There is very little ri sk in participating because the questions do not cover sensitive subjects. There is a possible benefit in particip ating because you may learn about the trial process. Your identity will remain anonymous which means any information you give cannot be traced back to you and the researcher will not know who partic ipated in this study. The answers will only be looked at together so that no individual informati on will be shared with a ny sort of police agency, local, state or national governme nt, with any local community or ganizations, with your school or with your parents. We are going to ask you to include a code on the sm all sheet of paper attached to your survey that we will use to match your surveys later. This code will be the date of your birthday and the first two letters of your favorite color. An example of this is if your birthday is February 10th, then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. Please write this code down now if you have not already, and check to ma ke sure that it is correct. This piece of paper containing your code will be removed a nd shredded once your surveys are matched. When we are asking you the questions, we will first say the picture next to the question and hold up a matching picture, so that you can identify wh ich question we are on. We will then read the question aloud, followed by the answers. We will th en reread both the question and answer choices as needed. You should mark or write in your answer according to the directions for that section. If you have any questions, need us to reread or explain something, just ask and we will do so. For the matching questions we will first read an answ er choice from the first column. We will then read each of the choices from the second column. We will then re peat each of these. The second answer choice from the first column will then be read, followed by each of the answer choices from the second column. We will then repeat each of these. This same form at will be used for each of the answer choices in the first column.

PAGE 163

163 (Read through the questionnaire at this point, holding up the pi cture cards and repeating the questions and answer choices) Please turn over your answers on yo ur desk/tables when you are finished and we will come by and pick them up. After the questionnaires are in: Thank you for completing the survey. We are now going to watch a DVD about the court process. This DVD was made to help you understand the c ourt process a little be tter. Please watch it carefully. After the DVD Thank you for watching the DVD. We will be back on (DAY) to talk to you some more and ask you to answer some more questions for us. We truly appreciate your help – thank you.

PAGE 164

164 Narrative to be read to the juveniles in be haviorally focused public schools (Day Two): Hello/Good Morning. We are researchers from the University of Florida and we would like to ask you to do something for us today. We would lik e to ask you to answer some questions for us about the juvenile court process. If your parents have agreed that you can participate, and you agree to participate, we will read these que stions out loud for you and you will bubble in your answers or write in the answers on your papers . This should take about 30 minutes. The questions are similar to the ones we gave you two days ago before you watched the DVD. The purpose of this study is to find out if there is an easy way to help juveniles understand what goes on in court better. This project will help us determine what you know and if the DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. (Pass out questionnaires) Your participation in this is completely volun tary and you do not have to participate if you don’t want to, there will be no penalty if you do not participate. You may also withdraw from participation at any time during the study wit hout penalty. You will not be compensated for participating in this research. There is very li ttle risk in participati ng because the questions do not cover sensitive subjects. There is a possibl e benefit in participating because you may learn about the trial process. Your identity will remain anonymous which means any information you give cannot be traced back to you and the researcher will not know who participated in this study. The answers will only be looked at together so that no individual information will be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizations, with your school or with your parents. We are going to ask you to include a code on the small sheet of paper attached to your survey that we will use to match your surveys later. Th is code will be the date of your birthday and the first two letters of your favorite color. An exam ple of this is if your birthday is February 10th, then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. Please write this code down now if you have not already, and check to make sure that it is correct. This piece of paper containing your code will be removed and shredded once your surveys are matched. This code should match th e code that you had on the first day we were here. When we are asking you the questions, we will first say the picture next to the question, so that you can identify which question we are on. We will then read the question aloud, followed by the answers. We will then rere ad both the question and answer choices as needed. You should mark or write in your answer according to the directions for that section. If you have any questions, need us to reread or explain something, just ask and we will do so. For the matching questions we will first read an answer choice from the first column. We will then read each of the choices from the second co lumn. We will then repeat each of these. The second answer choice from the first column will then be read, followed by each of the answer choice from the second column. We will then repeat each of these. This same format will be used for each of the answer c hoices in the first column. (Read through the questionnaire at this point, holding up the pi cture cards and repeating the questions and answer choices)

PAGE 165

165 Please turn over your answers on your desk/tab les and we will come by and pick them up. After the questionnaires are in: Thank you for your help with this project, we truly appreciate it.

PAGE 166

166 APPENDIX S DETENTION SCRIPTS Narrative to be read to the juveniles in detention (Day One): Hello/Good Morning. We are researchers from the University of Florida and we would like to ask you to do two things for us today. First, we would like to as k you to answer some questions for us about the juvenile court process. If you agree to partic ipate, we will read these questions out loud for you and you will bubble in your answers or write in the answers on your papers. This should take about 30 minutes. Second, we will show you a short video on the trial process. The video should take about 15 minutes to watch. We will also come back in a couple of days to ask you to answer some more questions for us. This will take about 30 minutes. The purpose of this study is to find out if there is an easy way to help juveniles unde rstand what goes on in court. This project will help us determine what you know and if th e DVD we will show you will help you to understand more. (Pass out questionnaires) Your participation in this is completely volun tary and you do not have to participate if you do not want to. Choosing not to pa rticipate in this study will in no way affect your care and treatment, and you will receive th e normal treatment offered by your juvenile justice program. Your participation in this st udy will not affect any decisions made by the court or future sentencing or parole decisions. You are free not to participate in this study. If you choose to participate, you are free to withdr aw your consent and discontinue pa rticipation in this research study at any time without this deci sion affecting your relationship to the people in your juvenile justice program or the investig ators. If you have any questio ns regarding your rights as a participant, you may phone the Institutional Revi ew Board at the number listed on the assent form you were given. There will be no penalty if you do not participate. You may also withdraw from participation at any time during the st udy without penalty. If you wish to stop your participation in this research study for any r eason, you should contact Christine Driver at the phone number listed on the assent form you have been given. You may also contact the Institutional Review Board (I RB) Office at the phone number listed on the assent form. You will not be compensated for participating in this research. There is very little risk in participating because the questions do not cover se nsitive subjects. There is a possible benefit in participating because you may lear n about the trial process. We do not predict any health benefits to come from participation in this study. We also do not predict any health risks or discomforts. If you want to discuss any discomforts you may experience, you ma y call the Principle Investigator listed on this form. We do not predict any financial risk s or benefits to you or others resulting from participation in th is research. We do not predict any research related injury to occur because of this research. In the unlikely ev ent that this does occur, the researchers are not financially responsible for this injury. The researchers will not be able to match you to your answers. The answers will only be looked at together so that no individual information will be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizati ons, with your school or with your parents. The researchers will protect th e confidentiality of your records to the extent allowed by law, and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Institu tional Review Board has the right to review your records.

PAGE 167

167 We are going to ask you to include a code on the small sheet of paper attached to your survey that we will use to match your surveys later. Th is code will be the date of your birthday and the first two letters of your favorite color. An exam ple of this is if your birthday is February 10th, then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. Please write this code down now if you have not already, and check to make sure that it is correct. This piece of paper containing your code will be removed and shredded once your surveys are matched. When we are asking you the questions, we will first say the picture next to the question and hold up a matching picture so that you can identify whic h question we are on. We will then read the question aloud, followed by the answers. We w ill then reread both th e question and answer choices. You should mark or write in your answer according to the directions for that section. If you have any questions, need us to reread or explain something, just ask and we will do so. For the matching questions we will first read an answer choice from the first column. We will then read each of the choices from the second co lumn. We will then repeat each of these. The second answer choice from the first column will then be read, followed by each of the answer choice from the second column. We will then repeat each of these. This same format will be used for each of the answer c hoices in the first column. (Read through the questionnaire at this point, holding up the pi cture cards and repeating the questions and answer choices) Please turn over your answers on your desk/tab les and we will come by and pick them up. After the questionnaires are in: Thank you for completing the survey. We ar e now going to watch a DVD about the court process. This DVD was made to help you unders tand the court process a little better. Please watch it carefully. After the DVD Thank you for watching the DVD. We will be back on (DAY) to talk to you some more and ask you to answer some more questions for us. We truly appreciate your help – thank you.

PAGE 168

168 Narrative to be read to the juveniles in detention (Day Two): Hello/Good Morning. We are researchers from the University of Florida and we would like to ask you to do something for us today. We would like to ask you to answer some questions for us about the juvenile court process. If you agree to partic ipate, we will read these questions out loud for you and you will bubble in your answers or write in the answers on your papers. This should take about 30 minutes. The questions are similar to the ones we gave you two days ago before you watched the DVD. The purpose of this study is to find out if th ere is an easy way to help juveniles understand what goes on in court better. This project wi ll help us determine what you know and if the DVD we showed you helped you to understand more. (Pass out questionnaires) Your participation in this is completely volun tary and you do not have to participate if you do not want to. Choosing not to pa rticipate in this study will in no way affect your care and treatment, and you will receive th e normal treatment offered by your juvenile justice program. Your participation in this st udy will not affect any decisions made by the court or future sentencing or parole decisions. You are free not to participate in this study. If you choose to participate, you are free to withdr aw your consent and discontinue pa rticipation in this research study at any time without this deci sion affecting your relationship to the people in your juvenile justice program or the investig ators. If you have any questio ns regarding your rights as a participant, you may phone the Institutional Revi ew Board at the number listed on the assent form you were given. There will be no penalty if you do not participate. You may also withdraw from participation at any time during the st udy without penalty. If you wish to stop your participation in this research study for any r eason, you should contact Christine Driver at the phone number listed on the assent form you have been given. You may also contact the Institutional Review Board (I RB) Office at the phone number listed on the assent form. You will not be compensated for participating in this research. There is very little risk in participating because the questions do not cover se nsitive subjects. There is a possible benefit in participating because you may lear n about the trial process. We do not predict any health benefits to come from participation in this study. We also do not predict any health risks or discomforts. If you want to discuss any discomforts you may experience, you ma y call the Principle Investigator listed on this form. We do not predict any financial risk s or benefits to you or others resulting from participation in th is research. We do not predict any research related injury to occur because of this research. In the unlikely ev ent that this does occur, the researchers are not financially responsible for this injury. The researchers will not be able to match you to your answers. The answers will only be looked at together so that no individual information will be shared with any sort of police agency, local, state or national government, with any local community organizati ons, with your school or with your parents. The researchers will protect th e confidentiality of your records to the extent allowed by law, and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice Institu tional Review Board has the right to review your records. We are going to ask you to include a code on the small sheet of paper attached to your survey that we will use to match your surveys later. Th is code will be the date of your birthday and the first two letters of your favorite color. An exam ple of this is if your birthday is February 10th,

PAGE 169

169 then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. Please write this code down now if you have not already, and check to make sure that it is correct. This piece of paper containing your code will be removed and shredded once your surveys are matched. This code should match th e code that you had on the first day we were here. When we are asking you the questions, we will first say the picture next to the question and hold up a matching picture so that you can identify whic h question we are on. We will then read the question aloud, followed by the answers. We w ill then reread both th e question and answer choices. You should mark or write in your answer acco rding to the directions for that section. If you have any questions, need us to reread or explain something, just ask and we will do so. For the matching questions we will first read an answer choice from the first column. We will then read each of the choices from the second co lumn. We will then repeat each of these. The second answer choice from the first column will then be read, followed by each of the answer choice from the second column. We will then repeat each of these. This same format will be used for each of the answer c hoices in the first column. (Read through the questionnaire at this point, holding up the pi cture cards and repeating the questions and answer choices) Please turn over your answers on your desk/tab les and we will come by and pick them up. After the questionnaires are in: Thank you for your help with this project, we truly appreciate it.

PAGE 170

170 APPENDIX T CODE SHEET FOR MATCHING PRETO POSTTESTS Please write your code here _________________________ Your code is the date (day) of your birthday a nd the first two letters of your favorite color. Example: An example of this is if your birthday is Fe bruary 10th, then the date would be 10. If your favorite color is blue, then the first two letters would be BL. BirthdayFebruary 10th Favorite ColorBlue Code10BL *This page will be removed and shredded after you have complete d the second questionnaire.

PAGE 171

171 LIST OF REFERENCES Bonnie, R. (1992). The competence of criminal defendants: A theoretical reformulation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law , 10 , 291-316. Bradshaw, G.S., Ross, D. R., Bradshaw, E. E ., Headrick, B., & Thomas, W. N. III Fostering juror comfort: Effects of an orientation videotape. Law and Human behavior, 29, 457-467. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975). Christy, A., Douglas, K. S., Otto, R. K., & Petril a, J. (2004). Juveniles evaluated incompetent to proceed: Characteristics and quality of mental health professionals’ evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 380-388. Chun, D. M., & Plass, J. L. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 183-198. Cooper, D. K. (1997). Juveniles’ understanding of trial related in formation: Are they competent defendants? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 15, 167-180. Couch, J. K. (Lead Project Staff). (2005). Tales from delinquency court [Short video]. (Available from the Office of Court Improvement for the State of Florida, S upreme Court Building, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900) Duquette, L., & Painchaud, G. (1996). A compar ison of vocabulary acquisition in audio and video contexts. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 143-172. Dusky v. United States, 362 US 402 (1960). Fare v. Michael C ., 439 U.S. 1310 (1978). Incompetency in juvenile delinquen cy cases, 47 Fla. Stat. 985.223 (2006). Flin, R. H., Stevenson, Y., & Davies, G. M. ( 1989). Children’s knowledge of court proceedings. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 285-297. Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Le gal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum. Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 3 , 3-32. In re Gault , 387 U.S. 1 (1967). In re Winship , 397 U.S. 358 (1970). Johnson, K. (2006). Juvenile competency st atutes: A model for state legislation. Indiana Law Journal, 81, 1067-1095.

PAGE 172

172 Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966). Lanes v. Texas, 767 S.W.2d 789 (1989). Lotto, L., & deGroot, A. M. B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 31-69. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The in structive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pi ctures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 444-452. McGarry, A. L. (1973). Competency to stand trial and mental illness. National Institute of Mental Health. Rockville, MD: DHEW Publication No. HSM 73-9105. O’Connor, I. (1990). Can the children’s court prevent further offending? Youth Studies, 9, 12-17. O’Connor, I. & Sweetapple, P. (1988). Children in Justice. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire Pty Ltd. Peterson-Badali, M., & Abramovitch, R. (1992). Children’s knowledge of the legal system: Are they competent to instruct legal counsel? Canadian Journal of Criminology, April, 139-160. Peterson-Badali, M., Abramovitch, R., & Duda, J. (1997). Young children’s legal knowledge and reasoning ability. Canadian Journal of Criminology, April, 145-170. Redlich, A. D., Silverman, M., & Steiner, H. (2003). Pre-Adjudicat ive and adjudicative competence in juveniles and young adults. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 393-410. Savitsky, J., & Karras, D. (1984). Compet ency to stand trial among adolescents. Adolescence, 19, 349-358.1 Saywitz, K. J. (1989). Children’s conceptions of the legal system: “Court is a place to play basketball”. In S. J. Ceci, D. F. Ross, and M. P. Toglia (Eds.) Perspectives on Children’s Testimony. New York: Springer-Verlag. Saywitz, K., Jaenicke, C., & Camparo, L. ( 1990). Children’s knowledge of legal terminology. Law and Human Behavior, 14 , 523-535. Smith, T. F. (1985). Law talk: Juveni les’ understanding of legal language. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, 339-353. Steinberg, L. (2003). Juveniles on trial: MacA rthur Foundation study calls competency into question. Criminal Justice, 18 , 20-25. Use of detention, 47 Fla. Stat. 985.213 (2006)

PAGE 173

173 Warren-Leubecker, A., Tate, C. S., Hinton, I. D ., & Ozbek, I. N. (1989) What do children know about the legal system and when do they know it? First steps down a le ss traveled path in child witness research. In S. J. Ceci, D. F. Ross, and M. P. Toglia (Eds.) Perspectives on Children’s Testimony. New York: Springer-Verlag

PAGE 174

174 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christine Driver was born on June 30, 1981 in Paterson, New Jersey. She grew up in Jacksonville, Florida and graduated Stanton Co llege Preparatory School in 1999. She graduated Cum Laude with her B.A. in Criminology fr om the University of Florida in 2003. Upon graduation she began work at the University li brary which she continue d through the completion of her master’s degree. Upon comp letion of her master’s degree she will continue her work at the University library and will complete her other res earch projects that are currently in progress.