Reducing Juvenile Delinquency With Automated Cell Phone Calls

Character Development Model

The theoretical foundation for the program comes from the Character Development Model (J. O. Cherrington & Cherrington, 2000), which is a theory explaining the internal processes leading to behavior change. This model explains the moral development process by examining the interactions among the following four key concepts: attitudes, behavioral intentions, behavior, and behavioral explanations. Behavioral intentions and behavioral explanations serve as intervening variables that explain the reciprocal impact of attitudes and behavior on each other. For example, attitudes influence behavior by first influencing behavioral intentions, while behavioral explanations mediate the effects of behavior on attitudes.

In the Character Development Model, the reasons why behavior influences attitudes and creates internalized values are explained by the mental thought processes associated with explaining one’s actions. People do not view themselves as capricious, random actors but as rational beings whose behavior is conscious and planned and whose actions are consistent with their attitudes. When behavior is inconsistent with attitudes, the easiest way to create harmony is to change one’s attitudes. Therefore, when a given action creates inconsistency between an attitude and behavior, the easiest way to reestablish harmony is to rationalize and justify the behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Festinger, 1957; Veer & Shankar, 2011).

This rationalization process can be reversed, according to the Character Development Model, if people recognize that their behavior is improper and make a plan to change (Lowell, 2012; Stone, 2012). This reversal can be facilitated by external interventions that affect any of the four internal components. These external interventions can occur independently or in combination, and the strength of a treatment intervention would be expected to increase as the number of components increases.

Cognitive-Behavioral Training

There has been extensive research on the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs for adult and juvenile offenders. In a meta-analysis of 400 studies treating juvenile delinquents, Lipsey (1995) observed that the average recidivism rate was about 50% for the control group compared with 45% for the treatment group, a 10% improvement. Lipsey, Chapman, and Landenberger (2001) examined 14 experiments and found that recidivism of those in treatment was only 55% of the recidivism of controls. Finally, in a meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral programs, Landenberger and Lipsey (2005) concluded that the most successful programs (a) focused on high-risk offenders, (b) had high quality implementation in terms of the length of the training and the number of treatment sessions per week, and (c) included training in anger control and interpersonal problem solving.

In their review of various meta-analyses, Lipsey and Cullen (2007) concluded that cognitive-behavioral programs tend to reduce recidivism although the results are rather modest. As they examined the different training programs, however, they concluded that “while the type of treatment clearly matters in relation to recidivism effects, it is not clear what it is about the different treatment types that accounts for those effects” (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007, p. 17).

The cognitive-behavioral training program evaluated in this research contains six 90-min training sessions. The concepts contained in the training were developed primarily by Bennett (1987) and are designed to help individuals examine their principles and beliefs more clearly, understand how their beliefs influence their behaviors, and make certain that the results of their behavior are aligned with their basic needs. This model assumes that human behavior is motivated by a desire to satisfy one of the following four basic needs: the need to live (survive), the need to love and be loved, the need to feel important, and the need to experience variety. It provides a value-neutral, nonjudgmental framework for examining one’s beliefs and adjusting one’s behaviors to achieve desired results.

Phone-Coach Monitoring

Prior research in the United States, England, and the Netherlands has demonstrated that telephone calls help some people overcome addictions to alcohol (Cacciola et al., 2008; Mundt, Moore, & Bean, 2006; Weitzel, Bernhardt, Usdan, Mays, & Glanz, 2007), tobacco (Gilbert & Sutton, 2006), and other drugs (Oudejans et al., 2009). Telephone calls have been highly effective in providing exercise counseling and promoting physical activity (Castro & Ling, 2002). Phone calls have also been used to treat people suffering from depression (Datto, Thompson, Horowitz, Disbot, & Oslin, 2003).

Most telephone technologies have utilized an interactive voice response that requires the participants to make daily calls and report their behavior by responding to a series of questions (Brown, Saunders, Bobula, Mundt, & Koch, 2007; Mundt et al., 2006). A branching format allows the answer to one question to determine what the content of following questions will be. Participants are asked to explain their failures and they are congratulated on their successes. They are required to initiate the phone calls and are paid to continue their participation. If they miss two successive days, a counselor calls to remind them.

The results of these studies are rather mixed; the participants generally provide accurate reports of their behaviors but the behavior of those who receive the phone calls is not much better than the controls. Furthermore, some participants have negative reactions to receiving daily phone calls; the calls are perceived as annoying and irritating.

In this research, the phone-coach program avoids the problem of requiring participants to initiate the phone calls by using an automated system to call all participants. Although the technology is rather sophisticated, the application of the phone-coach program is very simple. People participate in deciding how often they will be called and what they will be asked. Most participants receive two phone calls per day at preestablished times and their questions are tailored to their own personal situations. Their responses are recorded and compiled on a secure Internet site. The phone-coach system tracks progress and provides immediate feedback to the participant and, when authorized by the participant, to a parole officer or counselor. ¹

Prerecorded messages of support by friends and mentors can be played to reinforce or encourage good behavior. Most participants relied on family members for their support. Each participant identified three support persons and gave them a sheet of instructions explaining how to leave the following two messages: one that congratulated them when they were succeeding in reaching their goals and one that encouraged them when they were struggling. As these were simple phone-mail messages, they could be changed at any time by the support persons.

The calls can be received on any phone but most participants use cell phones. As most people carry their cell phones, they can receive calls at any time or place. The phone-coach program is a creative application of technology and needs to be evaluated.

Research Questions

The treatment program contains the following two primary components designed to reduce recidivism: (a) the cognitive training class, which is an intervention affecting attitudes and behavioral explanations, and (b) automated phone calls, which is an intervention affecting behavioral intentions and behavior. In this study, we focus primarily on the effectiveness of the automated phone calls on reducing recidivism. We hypothesize that participants who answer more phone calls will have fewer arrests than those who fail to answer as many.

Participants

The participants in this study came from a juvenile court in one county of a western state of the United States. A total of 76 juveniles were recruited to participate in this study: 33 controls plus 43 treatment participants who participated in one of five training groups. For the first two groups, moderate to low-risk participants were randomly assigned to one of the following three conditions: control, class-only, and class plus phone calls. The court assigned moderate to high-risk juveniles to the last three groups and allowed us to use court records to identify a matched control group of youth with the same age, gender, race, type of offense, and risk (low, medium, or high). Attrition was small—2 of the control and 4 of the treatment participants were lost from the study because they moved from the area, leaving a final sample of 70 juveniles. The 31 participants in the control condition received standard treatment for juveniles on probation, which included an individualized treatment plan plus classes to help them avoid drug use or succeed in school. The treatment and control participants were called every month to complete the monthly report card assessing their attitudes and behaviors.

Procedures

The 39 juveniles who received treatment all completed the cognitive-behavioral class. The six training sessions occurred every week and lasted about 90 min each. The content of these sessions was described in D. J. Cherrington, Bahr, Kawai, Bennett, and Burraston (2011) and focused on helping the youth to understand the natural consequences of their behavior and to discover whether their outcomes are satisfying their needs. In one of the sessions, the participants were asked to identify their long-term goals and what they needed to do to accomplish them.

Toward the end of the classes, all youth chose some goals and 28 were given cell phones, called twice daily, and asked how well they were accomplishing their goals. Personalized messages from significant others were created to congratulate them when they were making progress or to encourage them if they were struggling. The automated questions were updated periodically at the request of the participant; support people could also update their comments.

Eleven participants were not offered the phone-coach option after completing the class.

Measures

Control variables

Previous research has shown that age, gender, and criminal history are associated with recidivism (Agnew, 2005; Laub & Sampson, 2003; LeBel, Burnett, Maruna, & Bushway, 2008). Therefore, in the analyses we controlled for age, gender, number of prior felonies, and risk level. As shown in Table 1, the participants ranged in age from 13 to 18, 89% were male, the average number of previous felonies was 1.1, and the mean risk score was 1.87 on a 3-point scale. There were no significant differences between the treatment and control groups in age, gender, prior felonies, or risk level.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Description of Control Variables (N = 70).

Variables	Range	M (SD)
Monthly report cards	0-13	4.89 (3.99)
Age	13-18	16.07 (1.21)
Gender (1 = female)	0-1	0.11 (0.32)
Prior felonies	0-7	1.10 (0.32)
Risk level	1-3	1.87 (0.76)

One of the major challenges of evaluation research is avoiding selection bias. A crucial question for our research is whether involvement in the phone-coach program helps participants avoid arrest or whether answering phone calls is just an indicator of a preexisting motivation to succeed. If it is the latter, those who answer more phone calls would be expected to have lower recidivism rates whether or not they answered the phone calls; answering the phone regularly would just indicate a high motivation to succeed and would not be evidence of a valid treatment effect. To control for selection bias, the completion of monthly report cards was used as an indicator of preexisting motivation; those highly motivated to succeed would likely have been available to answer monthly report cards regularly. If, after controlling for the number of monthly report cards, those in the phone-coach program have less recidivism than the control participants, this difference could be attributed to the phone-coach program rather than to preexisting motivation.

Quantitative Results

Table 2 compares the four groups on percent rearrested and average number of total rearrests. Those who attended the class and answered more than half of their phone calls had the lowest percent rearrested (39%) and the fewest number of total arrests (.83). Participants who attended the class but did not have a phone also had a relatively low percent rearrested (55%) and a low average number of total arrests (.91). Those in the control condition had the highest percent rearrested (90%) and the greatest average number of total arrests (2.29), whereas those who attended the class but failed to answer their phone calls were only slightly better than the controls (80% and 2.00, respectively).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Percentage Rearrested and Mean Total Rearrests by Treatment Group.

	Rearrested (%)	Total rearrests
Class-phone High (n = 18)	39	0.83
Class-phone Low (n = 10)	80	2.00
Class-only (n = 11)	55	0.91
Control (n = 31)	90	2.29

Survival analysis was used to estimate the risk of rearrest during the year following the completion of the class, ² while negative binomial regression was used to estimate the impact of the treatment groups on total rearrests. ³ The results of the two regression equations are shown in Table 3. As hypothesized, those who answered at least half of their daily calls were 79% less likely to be rearrested (1.00 − 0.21 = 0.79) and they had 57% fewer total rearrests than those in the control group (1.00 − 0.43 = 0.57).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Regressions of Rearrest and Total Rearrests by Treatment and Control Variables (N = 70).

	Rearrested		Total rearrests
	Coefficient	OR	Coefficient	IRR
Class-phone High	−1.58**	0.21	−0.85*	0.43
Class-phone Low	−0.04	0.96	−0.17	0.86
Class-only	−0.68	0.51	−0.60*	0.55
Prior felonies	−0.26*	0.77	−0.18*	0.83
Risk	0.36	1.43	0.36*	1.43
Gender	0.68	1.97	0.41	1.51
Age	0.20	1.22	−0.14	0.87
Monthly report cards answered	0.02	1.02	−0.02	0.98

Note: OR = odds ratio; IRR = incident rate ratio. The OR is the antilog of the coefficient and is the ratio of the treatment group to the control group in the risk of rearrest. For example, the OR of 0.21 for the Class-phone High group indicates that their risk of rearrest is 79% lower than the control group (1.00 − 0.21 = 0.79). The IRR is the antilog of the coefficient and is the ratio of the treatment group rate to the control group rate. For example, the IRR of 0.43 for the Class-phone High group indicates their rate of total rearrests was 57% lower than the rate for control group (1.00 − 0.43 = 0.57).

*

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

Those who attended the class but did not receive phone calls had significantly fewer total rearrests than the control group (45%). They were also less likely to be rearrested (49%) although this difference was not statistically significant.

Those who took the class but answered fewer than half of their calls were not significantly different from the control group in the probability of being rearrested or in total rearrests. This finding suggests that involvement in the phone coach is not an effective treatment intervention unless the participants answer their phone calls.

Qualitative Results

The phone-coach program capitalizes on the use of a popular technology to facilitate change by directly influencing behavior and by creating behavioral intentions through a goal-setting program. The exit interviews at the end of a year suggest that the following factors contribute to the success of the phone-coach program.

Generalized goals → Specific objectives

The phone-coach program requires participants to move from general goals to specific objectives. General goals, such as wanting to be a better student or have better health, are not as powerful in creating change as specific objectives, such as completing daily homework assignments and avoiding the use of alcohol that day. Before they begin receiving calls, participants identified specific behavioral objectives that can be measured during each phone call.

The participants were required to identify a list of the activities and tasks that they could do on a daily basis to help them achieve their objectives. To stimulate their thinking, they were shown a list of potential activities that others had created. The participants were encouraged to identify at least a dozen activities, although some listed as many as 30. Each phone call asked how well they were achieving their specific objectives and the activities that accompany them. The calls helped keep them focused on what they wanted to accomplish.

Former social ties → New relationships

The phone-coach program helps participants develop new associations with people who support their efforts to change. They have to think about whom they admire and who would be willing to help them. The automated message delivery provides unprecedented access for these support people to deliver messages of praise and encouragement. These messages are frequently delivered at key times regardless of the participant’s location at that moment. Often, the messages are expressions of love and appreciation that the support people have wanted to give but have avoided saying in the past because it felt awkward.

Periodic calls asking participants about their progress also help them recognize the destructive impact of negative relationships. Friends who encourage them to do things that are contrary to their goals cause problems; in time, they tend to avoid these friends and seek more positive relationships. One participant reported, “It’s been a long time, but it reminded me to stay away from other people on drugs.”

Recorded messages extend the influence of support people. A probation officer described it this way,

The phone coach gives us the ability to reach the kids at parties and in gang hang outs, places we cannot go. When we reach them, the phone coach lets people they care about give them messages encouraging them to change.

The messages inspire, motivate, and sustain people as they work on change.

Self-doubt → Self-esteem

An ideal way to boost the participants’ self-esteem is to help them experience success. Daily feedback about even small successes is uplifting. One participant said, “It’s difficult being out of jail; you have such low self-esteem. The phone calls are helpful because it’s like you’re learning to walk again. It kept reminding me that I was doing better.” While technology cannot build self-esteem, it serves as a reminder of positive goals and provides helpful feedback. When failure occurs, the technology encourages participants to keep going, and it puts the failure in context.

The phone-coach program identifies daily objectives and measures personal progress. When the participants are achieving their goals, each phone call provides another opportunity to experience success and a feeling of personal accomplishment. As participants progress, the messages build self-esteem and provide assurance that behavior change is possible.

External motives for change → Internal motive for change

The phone-coach program helps participants internalize a desire for change. During the final training session, they write the goals and activities they want to have programmed into their phone calls. They are encouraged to select goals that are personally meaningful and they are reminded that this program is strictly for their own benefit.

Most participants identify meaningful goals that they genuinely want to achieve, and over time, these goals become internalized as part of their basic value system. It is not unusual for some participants initially to identify goals that sound good but do not really mean anything to them. Nor is it unusual for some participants to report that they are doing better than they really are. After a short time, however, many participants realize that they are only fooling themselves and there is nothing to be gained from lying. At this point, they tend to create more meaningful goals and realistic activities that will help them achieve success. This process moves the motive for change from external sources of pressure to internal sources of personal commitment.

Participants who say that the program is an irritant or that the calls are annoying generally do not feel a genuine sense of ownership of their goals or they are not answering the questions truthfully. Experience indicates that when participants have meaningful goals and realistic action plans, they are emotionally invested in the program and use it to improve their lives.

Limitations

There are important limitations to this research. First, the sample was relatively small and from one location. The small sample limited the statistical power of the analysis. It is important to replicate these findings with larger samples and participants from other geographical areas. Second, it is possible that the results were due to some unmeasured variables, such as internal motivation to change. The monthly evaluations were used as a control for personal involvement and internal motivation, but this was a rather crude control and we did not measure internal motivation directly. There is a need for further evaluation of the program to examine other possible confounding variables.

There are also important limitations to using cell phones with juvenile delinquents. We discovered that the phones could be misused to arrange drug exchanges or to view pornography. Some parents and case managers were not willing to allow some youth to have access to a cell phone. Strict rules regarding the appropriate use of the cell phones had to be taught and those who violated the rules lost the privilege of having a phone.