Effects of Goal Commitment and Solution Building on the Completion Rates for a Juvenile Diversion Program

Abstract

Strengths-based, goal-focused approaches to working with at-risk youth have been successfully used by mentoring programs, therapeutic interventions, prevention programs, and self-help groups. However, few such approaches have been used to inform juvenile diversion programs. This is partially explained by limited empirical research on mechanisms of change used by goal-focused interventions in populations of young offenders. The authors use goal-setting theory to explore the effects of goal commitment and solution building on program completion, in a sample of violent first-time offenders (N = 159). Mediation effects of solution building in the relationship between goal commitment and program completion were tested using both Baron and Kenny’s and Preacher and Hayes’s approaches. Results showed that high goal commitment and solution building were significant predictors of program completion. In addition, solution building fully mediated the impact of goal commitment on program completion. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

goal-setting theory goal commitment solution building diversion programs juvenile offenders mediating effects

Juvenile diversion programs were created to offer a range of services and alternatives, thus helping juvenile justice agencies to avoid incarcerating youth (Evans-Cuellar, McReynolds, & Wasserman, 2006; Wilson & Hoge, 2013). In a meta-analysis of effective juvenile diversion programs, Lipsey (2009) found that a therapeutic approach to diversion, involving a personal relationship between the offender and a responsible adult, is an effective way of reducing recidivism. Therapeutic diversion targets a person’s individual needs by enhancing his or her behavioral and emotional competencies (Hoge, 2009). Many of these programs are based on strengths-based interventions: empowering and hope-inducing practices that use the client’s strengths to attain the client’s goals (Rapp, Saleebey, & Sullivan, 2006). A recent systematic review of juvenile justice interventions, conducted by Evans-Chase and Zhou (2014), indicated that therapeutic programs that used a strengths-based approach to diversion and used counseling, multiple services, and youth empowerment, proved effective in reducing recidivism in first-time offenders (e.g., Hinton, 2004; Mallett & Julian, 2008; Quinn & van Dyke, 2004; Timmons-Mitchell, Bender, Kishna, & Mitchell, 2006).

Research suggests that strengths-based, therapeutic interventions are effective approaches to juvenile diversion, but studies have not given attention to the mechanism of change that may account for the effectiveness of strengths-based interventions. Neither have the specific interventions used in strengths-based programs been investigated in relationship to their contributions to successful outcomes such as program completion. Solution-focused brief therapy (SFBT) is an example of a strengths-based approach that has successfully been used in youth services to change internalizing and externalizing behaviors, and to remedy academic problems of youths (Clark, 1996; Corcoran, 1997; Franklin, Moore, & Hopson, 2008; Kim & Franklin, 2009). SFBT interventions that provide counseling and multiple services, and build on youth’ competencies have also been used as an intervention in juvenile diversion programs for first-time offenders (Jordan et al., 2013; Seagram, 1997). These programs are very future-focused, and goal setting is an important part of their change process.

Goal-Setting Theory

The use of goals with the purpose to reorganize behavior has a solid theoretical base offered by goal-setting theory. Goal-setting theory suggests that a goal is “the object or aim of an action” thus directly affecting actions and performance (Locke & Latham, 2002, p. 705). Goals affect performance primarily through four mechanisms. First, goals have a directive function, in that they direct attention and effort toward goal-relevant activities and away from goal-irrelevant activities (Locke & Bryan, 1969; Rothkopf & Billington, 1979). Second, goals serve a motivating function: High goals lead to greater effort than low goals (Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Bryan & Locke, 1967). Third, goals affect persistence: Tight deadlines lead to a more rapid work pace (Latham & Locke, 1975). Fourth and last, goals affect action indirectly by leading to the discovery and use of task-relevant knowledge and strategies (Locke & Latham, 2002). This means that when a goal is set, individuals will be able to develop information directly or indirectly related to the aim of that goal. The fact that goals have a potential to motivate individuals toward positive action, while harnessing their skills and strengths to carry out specific tasks toward the goals, makes goal setting a particularly practical therapeutic activity for juvenile diversion programs.

An important concept in the goal-setting process is goal commitment. Research suggests that the relationship between goals and performance is stronger when people are committed to their goals (Carroll, Hattie, Durkin, & Houghton, 2001; Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, & Alge, 1999). Empirical research suggests that goal commitment positively affects task performance by focusing one’s attention on the task, learning task-relevant skills and knowledge, and enhancing planning toward the accomplishment of the goal (Klein et al., 1999). A similar goal-setting process has been described as being part of the SFBT programs, where practitioners negotiate with youth reasonable, observable goals and tasks that lead to a preferred future where problems will be solved (De Shazer, 1988). Commitment to the goals is also important to the solution-building process. Practitioners working in youth programs ask youth to commit to a self-determined goal from which future solutions may be created (Berg, 1994; Berg & De Jong, 1996; De Jong & Berg, 2008).

Self-determined goals are also associated with enhanced commitment and better therapeutic outcomes (Gordon, 1996; Lee, Uken, & Sebold, 2007; Maple, 1998). As a part of solution building, self-determined goals are identified and described in vivid details by the youths (Lee, Uken, & Sebold, 2004). When putting a client in charge of determining his or her future, the goals become self-directed and “personally meaningful and useful to the client” (Greene & Lee, 2011, p. 81).

Goal Setting in Juvenile Diversion Programs

Although goal setting, as a therapeutic technique, is widely used in the work with at-risk youth (homeless, abused, neglected, pregnant, parenting, and academically at-risk students), being employed in mentoring programs, therapeutic interventions, school-based prevention programs, and self-help groups (e.g., Britner, Balcazar, Blechman, Blinn-Pike, & Larose, 2006; Flowers, 2010; Franklin, Streeter, Kim, & Tripodi, 2007; Walker, 2008), not many juvenile diversion programs report using this technique. Two therapeutic approaches that consistently use goal setting as a part of their treatment philosophy, documented by the literature on diversion programs, are multi-systemic therapy (MST) and SFBT. Several randomized control trials that used MST with samples of serious young offenders found that participants who have received MST had significant lower recidivism and re-arrest rates, as well as improved family, school, and social functioning at follow-up (Henggeler, Melton, Brondino, Scherer, & Hanley, 1997; Schaeffer & Borduin, 2005; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 2006). A matched pair design study evaluated the efficacy of SFBT on improving antisocial attitudes and behaviors in incarcerated juvenile offenders with a history of violent behavior and re-offending (Seagram, 1997). Results showed an improvement in empathy, optimism, antisocial tendency, and less chemical abuse in the treatment group. Within a 6-month follow-up period, significantly fewer individuals from the treatment group had re-offended (20% vs. 42%).

A randomized controlled trial with Korean young probationers, using an SFBT approach, showed statistically significant decreased aggressiveness and increased quality of social relationships, emotion-control ability, and problem-solving capacity in the treatment group (Shin, 2009). Participants in the treatment group also succeeded at accomplishing most of their self-determined pro-social goals during the treatment period. Another recent study, using a pretest–posttest design, used SFBT in a therapeutic diversion program with violent first-time offenders, and found that the participants’ posttest scores on a series of internalizing and externalizing behaviors (e.g., anger, depression, substance abuse, suicidal ideations) decreased significantly (Jordan et al., 2013). In the same time, they scored higher on hope, resiliency, and solution building at posttest. An earlier systematic review by Frick (2001) focused on psychosocial treatments for youth with conduct disorder (CD), arguing that youth with CD oftentimes get involved with the legal system, and the effective treatment of these youth is a critical component to any plan to reduce juvenile delinquency. Frick (2001) reported that among the most effective treatments for CD were programs that established clear behavioral goals, developed a system to monitor goal progress, included reinforcement for reaching goals, and provided consequences for inappropriate behavior. Despite a solid theoretical and empirical base on goal setting in the field of psychology and social work, this technique has not been examined in relationship to its effectiveness in juvenile diversion programs.

Purpose of Study

Although evidence exists that goal-focused therapy “works” (i.e., is responsible for behavioral change), little is known about why or how it works in juvenile offenders. In a recent review examining empirically supported treatments for youth with serious antisocial behavior, including criminal behavior, Henggeler and Sheidow (2012) stressed the importance of understanding the mechanisms of change used by specific interventions, to be able to competently use and adapt them to practice settings. The lack of process research could be one reason why goal-focused therapy is not used consistently in the juvenile justice field. Although goals are an important part of SFBT and other strengths-based interventions, the relationship between goals and the completion of a therapeutic program has not been studied to date. In the current study, a specific component of SFBT—solution building, which is an important part of the change process—will be examined in relationship with goal commitment, a vehicle toward task performance. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between goal commitment, solution building, and program completion in a sample of first-time offenders charged with domestic violence toward a non-intimate family member. In addition, the study will determine whether the relationship between goal commitment and program completion is mediated by solution building.

Method

Setting and Sample

Data were collected from youth who met criteria to be admitted to the Youth Offender Diversion Alternative (YODA). YODA is a voluntary therapeutic court diversion program that aims to prevent future violence through engagement in individual SFBT, family-based SFBT, and case management services. The program was developed in response to an ongoing trend of youth arrests in Tarrant County, Texas, for domestic assault against family member (e.g., mother, sister, grandparent, etc.). The initiative evolved as a collaborative effort between a County Court in Texas, the University of Texas at Arlington School of Social Work (UTA SSW) and their community partners (see Bolton, Lehmann, & Jordan, 2015, and Jordan et al., 2013, for more details on the YODA program). Before YODA, young offenders received deferred adjudication and referral to anger-management courses. Beginning in January 2011, the County Court identified youth at their first violent assault and gave them the opportunity to participate in YODA, attend a treatment-as-usual program, or proceed to trial. Successful participation and completion of the diversion program were necessary conditions of bond. Once a youth completed the program, all assault charges were dismissed.

Youth, aged 17 to 25, charged with a misdemeanor for family violence, were recruited for voluntary enrollment in the program between 2011 and 2013. After obtaining an informed consent, personal data were collected through self-administered questionnaires. The current study will only use data obtained at program admission (pretest data) and use a cross-sectional design.

Descriptive characteristics of the youth in our sample are presented in Table 1. The participants were approximately 19 years of age (SD = 2.04) and were predominately male (60.4%, n = 95). Less than a half of participants described their ethnic background as White/Caucasian (42.1%, n = 67), and 57.9% (n = 92) specified other ethnicities (e.g., Hispanic, African American, Asian, Other). Out of 159 youth entering YODA, 66.7% (n = 106) were able to successfully complete it, whereas 33.3% (n = 53) dropped out of the program for various reasons. Most participants self-identified as highly goal-committed people (74.2%, n = 112), as opposed to 25.8% (n = 41) who acknowledged that they are not energetically pursuing their goals. Youth in our sample scored average to high in solution building (M = 56.6, SD = 9.48).

Table 1:

Demographic Characteristics of the YODA Program Participants (N = 159)

	n (%)
	M ± SD	Range
Age	19.4 ± 2.04	17-25
Gender
Male	96 (60.4)
Female	63 (39.6)
Race/ethnicity
White/Caucasian	67 (42.1)
Non-White	92 (57.9)
Program completion
Yes	106 (66.7)
No	53 (33.3)
Goal commitment
Yes	112 (74.2)
No	41 (25.8)
Solution building	56.6 ± 9.48	14-70

Measures

Program Completion

Program completion is the main dependent variable of the study and an indicator of task performance. The fact that youth voluntarily agreed to participate into the diversion program implies the intentional focus on the end or aim of their action—to complete the program. Under this perspective, the agreement to participate would be considered a goal-setting action, and the program completion would indicate goal achievement and task performance. Youth who were able to successfully complete YODA were assigned the value 1, and those who dropped out of the program were assigned the value 0. The cases that missed values on this variable, or that were still in progress, were excluded from the analysis.

Goal Commitment

Researchers have had difficulty demonstrating the effect of goal commitment on task performance because of lack of variability and a positive response bias found in the answers of research participants (e.g., Hollenbeck, Klein, O’Leary, & Wright, 1989; Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, Wright, & DeShon, 2001). However, when specific steps are taken to differentiate between truly goal-committed and less committed individuals, the effect of goal commitment can be demonstrated. The current study used a measure of general goal commitment, instead of a goal-specific measure (a goal-specific measure could have increased response bias), and asked respondents to rate the following statement: “I energetically pursue my goals.” Participants were given eight response options ranging from “definitely false” (coded 1) to “definitely true” (coded 8). Subsequently, to address the skewness of the variable, and facilitate the interpretation of results, goal commitment was dichotomized by assigning the response categories “definitely true,” “mostly true,” and “somewhat true” the value 1. Individuals who scored 1 in goal commitment were considered highly committed to their goals. The response categories “definitely false,” “mostly false,” “somewhat false,” “slightly false,” and “slightly true” were coded 0. The participants who chose the latter response categories were considered to have low commitment toward their personal goals.

Solution building was measured by the Solution-Building Inventory (SBI), a standardized questionnaire developed by Smock, McCollum and Stevenson (2010). SBI is a self-report scale with 14 items related to the ability of respondents to develop solutions to their own problems and identify exceptions in any negative situation. The Likert-type response categories range from strongly disagree (coded 1) to strongly agree (coded 5). The respondents’ ability to build solutions was assessed by their level of agreement with such statements as “I am able to generate solutions,” “I have the ability to focus on what I want to occur in my life,” or “I am able to see good things in my situation even though parts of it seem very difficult.” In the present sample, the Cronbach’s α = .92 indicates high internal consistency of the measure. According to Berg (1994), solution building involves identifying and focusing on the desired state of things (on the future), searching for evidence proving that pieces of one’s desired life are already occurring, discovering a solution (usually the solution already exists in the life of the individual, in the form of exceptions to the problem, and needs to be discovered), and last, institutionalizing the solution in one’s life. The process described by Berg (1994) that involves formulating a goal (goal setting or defining task performance), searching for the exception to the problem (certainly a skill), acknowledgment of the existence of the exceptions in one’s life (the discovery), and striving to institutionalize the exception (achieving the goal-related task) closely mirrors the concept of “discovery, and/or use of task-relevant knowledge and strategies” proposed by Locke and Latham (2002, p. 707) as the fourth mechanism used by goals to affect performance.

Demographic variables included age (age at admission to the program), gender (male = 1, female = 0), and race/ethnicity (White = 1, non-White = 0).

Data Analysis

The current analysis was performed using SPSS 21 and included the full sample of 159 youth. Prior to statistical analysis, data were evaluated for missing values and normality of distribution. All study variables were normally distributed. The few missing cases on the independent variables were determined to be at random (based on the Little’s Missing Completely at Random [MCAR] test results) and in a small proportion (less than 5% per variable). Mean imputation was used as a data treatment procedure (Cohen & Cohen, 1983).

Sample characteristics were assessed using means, standard deviations and range for continuous variables, and frequencies for the categorical/binary variables. Pearson’s correlations were used to examine bivariate relationships between study independent variables and program completion. In addition, multivariate analysis was performed to explore whether solution building mediated the relationship between goal commitment and program completion. Both, Baron and Kenny’s (1986), and Preacher and Hayes’s (2008) approaches were used for the estimation of mediating effects of solution building on the relationship between goal commitment and program completion.

According to Baron and Kenny (1986), four conditions must exist for a variable to be considered a mediator: (a) The predictor (goal commitment) must be significantly associated with the hypothesized mediator (solution building, Path a), (b) the mediator must be significantly associated with the dependent variable (program completion; Path b), (c) the predictor must be significantly associated with the dependent variable (Path c), and (d) the impact of the predictor on the dependent measure must be significantly reduced after controlling for the mediator (Path c’). A series of logistic and linear regressions were used to test for mediation effects, controlling for age, gender, and race/ethnicity (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The Sobel’s z test was used to assess whether the mediator significantly reduces the effect of the predictor on the dependent variable (Sobel, 1982).

As an alternative to Baron and Kenny’s classic approach, mediation effects were also tested by using the Preacher and Hayes (2008) method. The SPSS macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) uses bootstrapping as a method that produces reliable estimates in a small sample without imposing the sampling distribution assumption (Hayes, 2009). The 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effects were estimated using 10,000 bootstrap samples.

Different methods were used to test mediation effects with the purpose of increasing the validity of the findings with the existing small sample size, while being able to analyze and evaluate the impact of independent variables on different outcomes of interest.

Results

The results of Pearson’s correlations and chi-square analysis are presented in Table 2. Moderate and strong effects were found between solution building, program completion, and goal commitment. High solution-builders were more likely to complete the program (r = .24, p = .002) and self-identify as goal-committed (r = .16, p = .041). In the same time, chi-square analysis revealed statistically significant differences in the program completion rates of the youth who self-identified as goal-committed, χ²(1) = 4.21, p = .043. Analysis also revealed significant differences in program completion by gender, χ²(1) = 4.26, p = .041.

Table 2:

Pearson’s Correlations Results for Focal Continuous Variables and Chi-Square Results for Categorical Variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6
	r (χ²)	r (χ²)	r (χ²)	r (χ²)	r (χ²)	r (χ²)
Age	—
Gender	.01	—
Race/ethnicity	−.03	(0.26)	—
Program completion	.12	(4.26*)	(0.05)	—
Goal commitment	.10	(1.94)	(1.45)	(4.21*)	—
Solution building	.06	−.003	.11	.24**	.51***	—

Note. YODA = Youth Offender Diversion Alternative.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3 summarizes the results of four regressions testing for the mediation effect of solution building, using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) criteria for mediation. Age, gender, and race/ethnicity were used as controls in all four models.

Table 3:

Multivariate Regression Models of Mediation Effect Using the Baron and Kenny Method (N = 159)

	Model 1:Solution building(Path a)			Model 2:Program completion(Path b)			Model 3:Program completion(Path c)			Model 4:Program completion(Path c’)
	B	SE	β	B	SE	OR (95% CI)	B	SE	OR (95% CI)	B	SE	OR (95% CI)
Age	0.05	0.32	.01	.13	.09	1.14 [0.95, 1.36]	0.13	0.09	1.14 [0.95, 1.36]	0.12	0.09	1.13 [0.94, 1.36]
Gender	−1.20	1.34	−.06	−.80*	.38	0.45 [0.22, 0.95]	−0.88*	0.38	0.42 [0.20, 0.87]	−0.84*	0.38	0.43 [0.20, 0.92]
Race/ethnicity	1.29	1.33	.07	−.16	.36	0.85 [0.42, 1.73]	−0.13	0.36	0.88 [0.44, 1.77]	−0.18	0.36	0.84 [0.41, 1.70]
Goal commitment	10.9***	1.51	.51	—	—	—	0.87*	0.40	2.38 [1.10, 5.14]	0.37	0.46	1.45 [0.59, 3.57]
Solution building	—	—	—	.05**	.02	1.06 [1.02, 1.10]	—	—	—	0.05*	0.02	1.05 [1.00, 1.09]
R ²	.27***
Nagelkerke R²				.13			.10			.14
Cox & Snell R²				.10			.07			.10
−2 log likelihood				186.6			190.6			185.9

Note. B = unstandardized coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized coefficient; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Model 1 used a standard linear regression due to the continuous nature of the dependent variable, and found that goal commitment was significantly associated with solution building (B = 10.9, SE = 1.51, β = .51, p < .001), accounting for a statistically significant amount of variance in it, R² = .27, F(4, 154) = 13.9, p < .001. The respondents who identified themselves as highly committed to their goals, on average scored 10 points higher in solution building.

Model 2 used a logistic regression method due to the binary nature of the variable “program completion,” and found that solution building was a significant predictor of program completion (B = .05, SE = .02, OR = 1.06, CI = [1.02, 1.10]). The odds of completing the program increased with 6% with each 1 point above overage in solution building. The significant χ² = 15.8, df = 4, p = .003 and the non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (χ² = 6.54, df = 8, p = .59) indicated a good model fit.

In Model 3 goal commitment emerged as a significant predictor of program completion (B = .87, SE = .40, OR = 2.38, CI = [1.10, 5.14]). The odds of completing the program were 2.38 times higher for the individuals who self-identified as highly committed to personal goals. The significant χ² = 11.8, df = 4, p = .019 and the non-significant Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (χ² = 11.9, df = 8, p = .16) indicated an adequate model fit.

In Model 4, when the effect of solution building was controlled, the effect of goal commitment on program completion became non-significant (B = .37, SE = .46, OR = 1.45, CI = [0.59, 3.57]). Sobel’s z test showed that the amount of reduction in the regression coefficient from Model 3 to Model 4 was statistically significant (z = 2.04, p = .04).

The SPSS macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) was used for estimating the mediating effects of solution building on the relationship between goal commitment and YODA program completion (see Figure 1). The 95% confidence intervals for the indirect effects were estimated using 10,000 bootstrap samples, and span 1.0 [0.004, 1.07], indicating a non-significant impact of goal commitment on program completion after controlling for solution building. These findings indicate that solution building mediates the effects of goal commitment on program completion. In other words, solution building increases the odds, for the goal-committed youth, to successfully complete the diversion program.

Figure 1:

Solution Building Mediation Effect on the Relationship between Goal Commitment and Program Completion, Based on the Preacher and Hayes Method (N = 159)

Discussion

Strengths-based, goal-focused interventions have been shown to be effective in working with at-risk youth. However, few diversion programs report the use of goal-focused approaches in working with offending youth. The limited empirical base of goal-focused approaches with juvenile offenders, as well as opaque mechanisms of change used by the interventions, makes it difficult to evaluate the appropriateness of such programs for practice (Fixsen, Blase, Duda, Naoom, & Van Dyke, 2010; Henggeler & Sheidow, 2012). The current study examined the relationship between goal commitment, solution building, and diversion program completion, in a sample of first-time offenders, trying to uncover the mechanism of change used by a program based on SFBT. Goal-setting theory posits that high goal commitment, in addition to the self-determined nature of the goal, is necessary for task performance to occur (Locke & Latham, 1990; Locke & Latham, 2002). Results support the theory by showing that goal commitment was a significant predictor of program completion, after controlling for age, gender, and race/ethnicity. This finding suggests that committed program participants carried through on their goal-related performance. A relevant implication for practice would be to measure the goal commitment levels of diversion program participants, and take steps toward boosting their commitment, which will increase their odds to successfully complete the program.

In addition, youth who scored higher in solution building were more likely to complete the program than those who scored lower on this measure. The significant impact of solution building on program completion also reveals that the participants who completed the program may possess more hope and confidence in their ability to achieve their goals, as well as be more engaged in actively searching, acknowledging, and discovering solutions, while carrying out specific tasks related to the proposed changes in their lives. By exploring past solution-building experiences of program participants, practitioners could determine which youth might benefit more from a future-oriented, goal-focused diversion program, thus choosing the right therapeutic approach for them. For example, youth who can identify more exceptions to problems and recall their past successes may be better candidates for goal-focused diversion programs.

Most important to these findings is the fact that solution building also mediated the relationship between goal commitment and program completion, inferring that solution building accounted for the changes associated with goal commitment. This might mean that the youth who displayed high goal commitment demonstrated it in tangible ways through solution building (searching for exceptions to problems, acknowledging their presence, discovering their competencies, and acting to sustain the changes in their lives), while participants who were not committed to their goals failed to solution-build or “do something” about those goals. A possible implication for practitioners, stemming from this finding, could be the need to adequately prepare and inform qualifying youth about diversion programs. Choosing to participate in diversion should not merely be seen as an “easy way out” of the juvenile justice system. It is actually a path toward initiating and performing the behavioral change desired by the participant. In eliciting cooperation in this type of process, program developers may wish to provide an orientation, asking youth to make an informed choice and commitment, while helping them set their own goals to be achieved through program participation.

Although solution building is a process that takes place across time within a brief intervention, this study examined the solution-building abilities that existed in the sample at the time of program entry, based on a self-report instrument. Although these findings suggest that solution building facilitates program completion, they could also mean that the participants who came into the program with greater confidence in their abilities, experience in discovering solutions to their problems, and a goal-achievement history were more likely to benefit from it. Solution building needs to be further studied as a process of change, in longitudinal studies that would demonstrate more clearly its mediating effects.

An unexpected auxiliary finding of this study was that female gender consistently predicted program completion, versus male gender. Although gender was introduced in the analysis as a control variable, to ensure that the mediation process is not attributed to demographic characteristics, the fact that males were consistently worse at completing the program than females is important. Possible explanations might be related to a bias present in the current sample, or that males and females involved in the juvenile justice system have different mental health needs (e.g., Bloom, Owen, Deschenes, & Rosenbaum, 2002; Timmons-Mitchell et al., 1997). Females might also be more likely than males to follow program rules and comply. The effect of gender and gender-related differences on the completion rates of strength-based, goal-oriented diversion programs has to be further investigated, so that a plausible explanation could be found. Despite gender differences in program completion, the findings of the study suggest that it is important to build on and focus on the strengths that offending youth bring into diversion programs (including their solution-building competencies). This type of approach is also consistent with the SFBT intervention, which purports that clients have strengths that can be harnessed and activated, and when practitioners focus on these strengths, they help clients build their own solutions (Berg & De Jong, 1996; Franklin, Trepper, Gingerich, & McCollum, 2012).

Limitations of the Study

Limitations include an available sample, consisting of service-seeking youth only. However, the findings of the study could apply beyond the current sample, to a population of first-time offenders who chose to participate in diversion programs. Another limitation pertains to the cross-sectional nature of the study. Although the analysis supported solution building as a mediator between goal commitment and program completion, there might be other models that could yield similar results (Cliff, 1983), because in cross-sectional studies, no inferences can be made about a causal relationship between variables. The final limitation stems from the self-report type of available data, which are valid only to the extent that self-reports closely mirror the respondents’ realities. Despite these limitations, this study addresses an absence of literature on possible mechanisms of change in strengths-based goal-focused juvenile diversion programs and also shows the importance of solution building and goal commitment on diversion program outcomes.

Conclusion

Results from this study showed that high goal commitment and solution building were significant predictors of program completion in a juvenile diversion program for first-time offenders. In addition, solution building fully mediated the impact of goal commitment on program completion. This is an important finding because mediating effects for programs have rarely been studied, leaving program planners with little direction on how to understand which youth may benefit or not from diversion programs. Although goal commitment was important to the outcome of the program, this study suggests that it alone was not responsible for program completion. Instead, solution building played a significant role in helping committed youth succeed through the program, and should be studied further as a process of change.

Footnotes

This research article used secondary data provided by an evaluation study funded by the Amon Carter Foundation on the Youth Offenders Diversion Alternatives (YODA).

Constanta Belciug is a doctoral candidate at the University of Texas at Austin, School of Social Work. Her research interests include juvenile diversion, effective brief interventions, organizational interventions, and organizational learning.

Cynthia Franklin is the Stiernberg/Spencer Family Professor in mental health and assistant dean for the PhD program in the School of Social Work at University of Texas at Austin. Her research examines the practice and effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy with children and adolescents.

Kristin Whitehill Bolton is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Her primary research interests include testing the effectiveness of solution-focused brief therapy, violence prevention and offender populations, and program evaluation.

Catheleen Jordan is a professor and holder of the Cheryl Milkes Moore Professorship in Mental Health at the University of Texas at Arlington, School of Social Work where she has taught since 1985. Her areas of expertise include family social work assessment and intervention.

Peter Lehmann has been on the faculty of social work at the University of Texas at Arlington since 1995. He is an expert in solution-focused brief therapy practice and research. He is co-director of the Youth Offender Diversion Alternative Project (YODA) with Dr. Catheleen Jordan.

References

Bandura

Cervone

(1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017-1028.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Berg

I. K.

(1994). Family-based services: A solution-focused approach. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Berg

I. K.

De Jong

(1996). Solution-building conversations: Co-constructing a sense of competence with clients. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 77, 376-391.

Bloom

Owen

Deschenes

E. P.

Rosenbaum

(2002). Improving juvenile justice for females: A statewide assessment in California. Crime & Delinquency, 48, 526-552.

Bolton

K. W.

Lehmann

Jordan

(2015). The Youth Offender Diversion Alternative (YODA) in Texas: A community-based research project to intervene in youth-to-family violence. In Holt

(Ed.), Working with adolescent violence and abuse towards parents: Approaches and contexts for intervention (pp. 134-146). New York, NY: Routledge.

Britner

P. A.

Balcazar

F. E.

Blechman

E. A.

Blinn-Pike

Larose

(2006). Mentoring special youth populations. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 747-763.

Bryan

J. F.

Locke

E. A.

(1967). Goal setting as a means of increasing motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 274-277.

Carroll

Hattie

Durkin

Houghton

(2001). Goal-setting and reputation enhancement: Behavioral choices among delinquent, at-risk and not at-risk adolescents. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 165-184.

10.

Clark

M. D.

(1996). Brief solution-focused work: A strength-based method for juvenile justice practice. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 47(1), 57-65.

11.

Cliff

(1983). Some cautions concerning the application of causal modeling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 115-126.

12.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis of the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Corcoran

(1997). A solution-oriented approach to working with juvenile offenders. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14, 277-288.

14.

De Jong

Berg

I. K

. (2008). Interviewing for solutions (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

15.

De Shazer

. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

16.

Evans-Chase

Zhou

(2014). A systematic review of the juvenile justice intervention literature. What it can (and cannot) tell us about what works with delinquent youth. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 451-470.

17.

Evans-Cuellar

McReynolds

L. S.

Wasserman

G. A.

(2006). A cure for crime: Can mental health treatment diversion reduce crime among youth? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 197-214.

18.

Fixsen

D. L.

Blase

K. A.

Duda

M. A.

Naoom

S. F.

Van Dyke

M. W.

(2010). Implementation of evidence-based treatments for children and adolescents: Research findings and their implications for the future. In Weisz

J. R.

Kazdin

A. E.

(Eds.), Evidence-based psychotherapies for children and adolescents (2nd ed., pp. 435-450). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

19.

Flowers

A. S.

(2010). Time dollar youth court 2010 evaluation final report. Washington, DC: Global Youth Justice.

20.

Franklin

Moore

K. C.

Hopson

(2008). The effectiveness of solution-focused therapy with school-related behavior problems. Children & Schools, 30, 15-26.

21.

Franklin

Streeter

C. L.

Kim

J. S.

Tripodi

S. J.

(2007). The effectiveness of a solution-focused, public alternative school for dropout prevention and retrieval. Children & Schools, 29, 133-144.

22.

Franklin

Trepper

Gingerich

McCollum

(2012). Solution-focused brief therapy: A handbook of evidence based practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

23.

Frick

P. J.

(2001). Effective interventions for children and adolescents with conduct disorder. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 597-608.

24.

Gordon

K. A.

(1996). Resilient Hispanic youths’ self-concept and motivational patterns. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18, 63-73.

25.

Greene

G. J.

Lee

M. Y.

(2011). Solution-oriented social work practice: An integrative approach to working with client strengths. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

26.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420.

27.

Henggeler

S. W.

Melton

G. B.

Brondino

M. J.

Scherer

D. G.

Hanley

J. H.

(1997). Multisystemic therapy with violent and chronic juvenile offenders and their families: The role of treatment fidelity in successful dissemination. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 821-833.

28.

Henggeler

S. W.

Sheidow

A. J.

(2012). Empirically supported family-based treatments for conduct disorder and delinquency in adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 30-58.

29.

Hinton

W. J.

(2004). Examining the impact of a family systems counseling approach for reducing the recidivism rates of first-offender juveniles (Mississippi State University). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/305158540?accountid=7118 (UMI No. 305158540)

30.

Hoge

(2009). Advances in the assessment and treatment of juvenile offenders. Kriminologija i Socijalna Integracija, 17(2), 49-70.

31.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Klein

H. J.

O’Leary

A. M.

Wright

P. M.

(1989). Investigation of the construct validity of a self-report measure of goal commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 951-956.

32.

Jordan

Lehmann

Whitehill

Huynh

Chigbu

Schoech

Bezner

(2013). Youthful Offender Diversion Project. Best Practices in Mental Health, 9(1), 20-30.

33.

Kim

J. S.

Franklin

(2009). Solution-focused brief therapy in schools: A review of the outcome literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 464-470.

34.

Klein

H. J.

Wesson

M. J.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Alge

B. J.

(1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 32-55.

35.

Klein

H. J.

Wesson

M. J.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Wright

P. M.

DeShon

R. P.

(2001). The assessment of goal commitment: A measurement model meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 32-55.

36.

Latham

G. P.

Locke

E. A.

(1975). Increasing productivity with decreasing time limits: A field replication of Parkinson’s law. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 524-526.

37.

Lee

M. Y.

Uken

Sebold

(2004). Accountability for change: Solution-focused treatment with domestic violence offenders. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 85, 463-476.

38.

Lee

M. Y.

Uken

Sebold

(2007). Role of self-determined goals in predicting recidivism in domestic violence offenders. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 30-41.

39.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4, 124-147.

40.

Locke

E. A.

Bryan

J. F.

(1969). The directing function of goals in task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4, 35-42.

41.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

42.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.

43.

Mallett

C. A.

Julian

(2008). Alternatives for youth’s advocacy program: Reducing minority youth incarceration placements in Cleveland, Ohio. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 59(3), 1-17.

44.

Maple

F. F.

(1998). Goal-focused interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

45.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

46.

Quinn

W. H.

van Dyke

D. J.

(2004). A multiple family group intervention for first-time juvenile offenders: Comparisons with probation and dropouts on recidivism. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 177-200.

47.

Rapp

C. A.

Saleebey

Sullivan

W. P.

(2006). The future of strengths-based social work. Advances in Social Work: Special Issue on the Futures of Social Work, 6(1), 79-90.

48.

Rothkopf

E. Z.

Billington

M. J.

(1979). Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 310-317.

49.

Schaeffer

C. M.

Borduin

C. M.

(2005). Long-term follow-up to a randomized clinical trial of multisystemic therapy with serious and violent juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 445-453.

50.

Seagram

B. C.

(1997). The efficacy of solution-focused therapy with young offenders (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). York University, Ontario, Canada.

51.

Shin

S. K.

(2009). Effects of a solution-focused program on the reduction of aggressiveness and the improvement of social readjustment for Korean youth probationers. Journal of Social Service Research, 35, 274-284.

52.

Smock

S. A.

McCollum

E. E.

Stevenson

M. L.

(2010). The development of the solution building inventory. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 36, 499-510.

53.

Sobel

M. E.

(1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13(1982), 290-312.

54.

Timmons-Mitchell

Bender

M. B.

Kishna

M. A.

Mitchell

C. C.

(2006). An independent effectiveness trial of multisystemic therapy with juvenile justice youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 35, 227-236.

55.

Timmons-Mitchell

Brown

Schulz

S. C.

Webster

S. E.

Underwood

L. A.

Semple

W. E.

(1997). Comparing the mental health needs of female and male incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 15, 195-202.

56.

Walker

(2008). Waikiki youth circles: Homeless youth learn goal setting skills. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 19, 85-91.

57.

Wilson

H. A.

Hoge

R. D.

(2013). The effect of youth diversion programs on recidivism: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 497-518.