- Email: [email protected]
Critical aspects of institutional programs for youths
Critical Aspects of Institutional Programs for Youths Jeanne P. Deschner University
of Texas
at Arlington
This study examines aspects of institutional life that influence, for better or worse, the treatment of adolescent residents. Psychosocial development of 802 youths was measured by four indices, internality, self-concept, opportunism and number of deviant signs. Subjects were interviewed while placed at fourteen residential and five alternative day treatment programs. An analysis of 200 youths’ developmental progress after two to five months of treatment showed slight positive changes among institutional residents and negative changes among day treatment youths. Canonical correlation analysis of measures suggested three main types of programs: the positive program which produced the most mature youths, the poorly staffed facility which went with delinquent personality development, and the underfinanced but caring program which seemed to foster more disturbed personality profiles.
Currents of instability and change are flowing through the whole area of residential institutions for troubled youths in this country. Managers of new and old institutions alike are Jeanne .P. Deschner, Ph.D., Graduate School of Social Work, Box 19129,
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, 76019. This study was supported by Grant No. 90-C-636, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Child Development, Research, Demonstration and Evaluation Grants, Washington, D.C. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Hector E. Ayala, Ph.D. in the conduct of this study. 271
Deschner
272
changing programs, changing clientele, and all too often, ciosing facilities. Such changes reflect public dissatisfaction concerning results of institutional treatment, funding crises. increased governmental regulations, lawsuits, or several of these pressures at once. Administrators deciding about what to retain or to scrap can obtain little help from social science research in identifying the aspects of institutional Iife that make a difference, for better or worse, in the treatment of adolescents. The individual program evaluations that have been made pubtic lack a common approach that would make comparisons with other programs possible, even when the methodology used is sound enough to render the results believable. The critical aspects of institutional living in general will emerge only through comparative studies of different programs. The few previous studies that included a number of different adolescent treatment institutions evaluated in the same manner are described briefly in the following. Previous
Comparative Studies
Wolins (1974) examined five institutions for youths in other countries. Al1 provided long-term treatment and enjoyed reputations of being uriusually successful. intellectual achievement and psychological maturity of each group of institutionalized youths were compared with scores of their peers who lived at home. The institutionalized boys and girls scored the same on psychoiogical maturity but lower on achievement, except in israel. There the institutionalized youths actually scored higher on several psychological maturity measures. The three most successful institutions, Wolins found, all prepared their residents to join the local adult community by teaching the particular cultural and behavioral norms of that community. Thomas (19iS) studied all of the child welfare institutions in a single southern state which provided N-hour care for children and youths. In this study also, cognitive and social skills of residents were compared with non-institutionalized classmates. Thomas found nonsignificant differences between institutional and comparison senior high students. Among younger residents, institutional treatment seemed moderately
Institutional Programs for Youths
273
favorable for those who stayed more than a year. Children improved best in cognitive skills at stable, structured facilities. Only two of the 32 institutions studied were able to take in poorly adapted residents and induce such large positive gains in social functioning that they caught up to the noninstitutionalized comparison group. The two facilities were described only as “highly community oriented.” Moos (1975) reported an assessment of the social environment of 112 programs in 28 juvenile correctional facilities. Data from several thousand inmates was used to derive normative scores for nine subscales of the Correctional Institutions Environment Scale {CIES). No outcome variables were measured, so the six different types of institutional social environments found could only be compared with staff perceptions, or with “ideal” profiles. Moos reported an outcome study of one small experimental program showing strong correlations between developmental progress and an environment high in involvement, autonomy, and clarity, but this result was not replicated at a second program. Braukmann, Kirigin, and Wolf (Note 1) compared recidivist offense rates for youths treated at six teaching-fairy group homes with youths placed in three comparison group homes. Offenses committed by residents of the teachingfamiiy programs dropped during treatment and remained lower after graduation. Offenses of the comparison group home youths actually rose during treatment. Consumer (i.e., resident) satisfaction ratings were strongly correlated with an absence of recidivist offenses. In particular, the higher the youths rated their group home staff on fairness, concern, effectiveness, and pleasantness, the less likely they were to commit offenses. Vinter, Newcomb, and Kish (1976) surveyed a stratified sample of 42 youth correctional institutions in 16 states. This was largely a descriptive study rather than a comparative evaluation like the first four studies. However, the authors did note that youths who were institutionalized for over nine months tended to become “hardened,” but only at institutions which had a large group of veteran residents. Finally, the Child Welfare League of America commissioned Mayer, Richman, and Balcerzak (197’7) to carry out a
Deschner
274
national survey of group residential care for children and youths. Results were descriptive only and were based on interviews with staff, administrators and alumni rather than the residents themselves. A long-term evaluation was attempted through interviewing a sample of institutional alumni, who seemed to be about as successful in adult life as their homereared contemporaries. Unfortunately this study did not identify which aspects of institutional life might have affected later adult adjustment. The six comparative studies tend toward the same conclusion: that institutional treatment helps some adolescents, harms others, and leaves the majority unaffected as to psychosocial development. Since the institutions also provide for the basic necessities and preserve their charges from the dangers of street life, a lack of harmfulness might be seen as sufficient justification for continuing such placements in the future. Youth Institutions Studied The present study was designed as a search for institutional and individual predictors of the developmental progress of youths in residential treatment. Therefore the approximately thirty institutions approached for participation included a cross-section of public and private facilities around the state of Texas. Only half of those contacted ultimately participated. Two refused because their board of directors raised questions about outside interviewers seeing their charges. Others dropped out as a part of the general instability in the youth care field which has been mentioned already. Several institutions changed programs, were in the process of reorganization, or closed entirely before data could be collected. Administrators of at least three programs balked at completing arrangements because they felt that conditions within their facilities were so unsettled that the researchers would obtain a poor picture of their real program. The 14 institutions that did take part in the study all enjoyed a reputation for good quality treatment, as all the more marginal institutions had dropped out of the sample. However, in structural characteristics the 14 sites were a representative sampling of adolescent treatment institutions in the state. Some
Institutioua~ Programs for Youths
275
were large and others small. Some were privately funded and others were publicly funded, but all were dependent to some extent on public funds to balance the budget. The institutions labeled their treatment programs in different ways, including “therapeutic camping,*’ “boys’ ranch,” “group home,” “teaching-family,” “psychiatric hospital,” “correctional training school,” and “home for dependent/m+ glected children.” The actual campus programs were surprisingly similar, possibly because all had to meet the same state or possibly because of the natural licensing requirements, needs of teenagers. All youths at every program either attended school or planned activities all day long together, went on frequent weekend excursions together, and spent evenings together either in recreation or with their house parent staff. There were differences in the amount of home contact permitted the residents, which it was not possible to document for this study. There were also differences in the amounts of formal therapy offered, but all programs claimed that informd therapy was occurring throughout the day as residents and staff interacted. For comparative purposes a group of five day treatment programs operated by an urban public school system were included in the study. These programs were set up as shortterm alternatives to institutionalizatioti for junior high school status offenders. The day treatment activities were quite similar to the programs within the institution, in that the primary focus was on group activities with the goal of improved developmental adjustment, with only a secondary emphasis on academic instruction. The principal program difference, then, was the nightly return of the day treatment subjects to their original homes and peer groups.
Measuring Institutional Variables Identification of the institutional characteristics critical for study was a difficult task. The earlier comparative studies gave only vague clues, such as “community orientation,” which defied measurement, with the exception of the studies by Moos (1975) and Braukmann et al. (Note 1). Six variables measuring demographic or structural char-
Deschner
276
acteristics of the various institutions were included in this study: the size of the youth resident population at the time of the site visit, the age of the institution, the per diem costs calculated as the percentage of the total budget for each resident each day, the rapidity of staff turnover, average age of direct care staff. and the ratio of residents to house parent staff in the evenings. Rankings of each program on these variables are shown in Table 1. Social Environment Variables Moos (1975) has documented the importance of the social environment as experienced by each individual, which might be different from cottage to cottage or even from youth to youth. Four measures of the social environment were used in the present study. Two were factors found in an analysis of the Correctional Institutions Environmental Scale (CIES) and Satisfaction scale, and two were instruments created for this study. Moos (1974) devised the CIES to measure variations in different residents’ perceptions of their social milieu. The CIES Short Form was adopted for use in the present study. It consisted of 36 items relating to nine subscales: Involvement, Support, Expressiveness, Autonomy, Practical Orientation, Personal Problem Orientation, Order and Organization, Clarity, and Staff Control. The above subscales were based on earlier theories about the social environment. No attempts at empirical validation of the scales have been published by Moos. Preliminary scores from pilot data collected in this study indicated that construct validity of several of the scales was questionable. That is, the scores did not measure what the subscale title suggested. The principle environmental measure used in the Braukmann et al. evaluation was the Consumer Satisfaction Scale (Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & Wolf, 1974) which asked residents to rate their satisfaction with six areas of the institutional program: fairness, staff concern, program effectiveness. pleasantness of staff and of peers, helpfulness of the program, and overall program quality. Though the Satisfaction Scale has been used extensively in evaluations and seems to have predic-
Institutional
Programs
for Youths TABLE
277 1
Characteristics of Institutional (IT) and Day Treatment (DT) Programs
Inst. :
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mean 15 16 17 18 19 Mean
Size 230 100 50 40 40 33 30 23 16 13 11 5 5
4 42.9
28 27 21 20 19 23
Institutional (IT) programs Staff stay Age Per diem (mos.) W-s.)
Staff age
Ratios
19.2 12.1 17.3 28.1 8.0 22.3 7.1 2.0 19.3 12.0 10.5 3.6 8.2 3.1 12.3
44.3 25.6 28.3 34.4 23.0 43.1 24.0 25.0 26.6 24.9 27.0 40.2 22.0 23.7 -29.4
4.911 4.711 5.0/l 4.211 5.311 4.0/l 10.011 6.011 4.011 4.711 2.811 3.511 3.211 2.511 4.60
Day treatment (DT) programs 22.29 6.5 4 (mo.) 23.12 4.3 5 29.73 5.8 3 29.28 31.5 18 3 -32.85 - 9.5 27.46 11.5 6.6 (mo.)
-29.7 37.7 30.2 31.7 35.5 -33.0
4.011 5.411 4.211 3.3/l 3.8/l 4.1/l
88 68 2 50 6 5 6 11 8 4 2 : 5 19.1
$41.42 29.58 16f.00 50.00 18.50 23.00 32.00 24.54 17.12 37.00 25,71 28.53 36.00 40.80
tive validity’ for runaway rates at least (Fixsen, Phillips, Baron, Coughlin, Daly, & Daly, 1978), construct validity of the subscales does not seem to have been examined. Ten of the Satisfaction Scale items were added to the CIES, with the scoring changed from a seven-point rating to a yes-no response. The pilot data suggested that the two scales might be measuring the same things, so a factor analysis of all 46 items was carried out, utilizing the factoring program of Gorsuch and Dreger (1979). In the initial step six primary factors were identified among the pattern of Round One subjects’ responses to the 46 CIES and Satisfaction items. The factoring
278
Deschner
program automatically searched out the oblique rotation which maximized the independence of the factors. It also carried out a higher order analysis that revealed that all but one primary factor coalesced into a single second order factor of 24 items that accounted for 50% of the variance by itself. One strong primary factor remained outside as a second factor of six items, accounting for another 16% of the variance. Table 2 gives the items in each factor along with the item-total correiations or factor loadings. The first factor was called Good Relationships, since the majority of items discuss relationships, such as, “The staff care about the residents.” Nine items came from the Satisfaction Scale and 15 from the CIES. Three items came from the Involvement subscale. The other twelve came from every other subscale, except for Staff Control. The second factor was called Positive Program, since the common theme of all six items was a complaint About the social climate, such as, “There is very little group spirit on this unit.” A negative response was keyed as correct, meaning that the resident felt positively about the social climate. All items in the factor came from the CIES, from six different subscales. Scores for Good Relationships and Positive Program became the first two measures used in this study to compare differences in the social climates of the participating programs. Table 3 shows the average scores for each institution. Rigidity of program had been identified as one of the chief harmful aspects of institutions by Goffman (1961) and has been attacked by several researchers since then. Yet many elitist institutions for youths, such as military schools and religious training academies, are highly structured and rigid. Since institutional rigidity has never been measured, the actual direction of effect is unknown. A 25-item checklist based on one by King and Raynes (1968) was devised and administered to staff at each institution, in order to measure the amount of rigidity at each participating program. Many researchers have pointed out the effects on youths of piunging them into a highly deviant group of youths (see, for example Pobky (1962) and Vinter et al. (1976)). Some evaluators have assigned arbitrary values to various offenses in order to measure depth of inmates’ delinquency (Cowden &
Institutional Programs for Youths
279
Pacht, 1967; Handler, 1975; Lerman, 1968; Stollery, 1977). Sellin and Wolfgang (1964) made an impressive start on developing an empirical rating scale for offenses, but abandoned it later in favor of a complex tripartite scoring system that omitted all status offenses and focused on serious crimes (Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). Yet they themselves found, in a study of Philadelphia youths, that the majority of youth offenses are status offenses. For the present study a beginning was made on developing an empirical rating index for all juvenile offenses, following the general rationale of the early Sellin and Wolfgang scale. This work will be described in detail in a forthcoming article. The values on the Depth of Delinquency Index (DDI) ranged from 1000 for murder down to 1 for a first-time truancy, IO for vandalism, and 50 for robbing $5 at gunpoint. The juvenile records for all residents in the sample who came from the two most populous counties in the state were read and all offenses scored to give a cumulative DDI score. This was only a partial sample, since some youths came from other, less populous counties. Others had no official record at all. Since it was not possible to tell whether, in fact, a youth had no prior offense record, the average level of peer group deviancy was based only on the records that were actually found. This procedure may have resulted in an overestimate of the average level of delinquency at those institutions- treating very few delinquents. (See Table 3.) Participating Youths At each institution the entire youth population was invited to participate in “a study of programs for youths.” A mass interviewing evening was arranged with a team of graduate students trained in reading the entire questionnaire aloud to small groups of youths. The reading and answering process took an hour and was followed by serving of refreshments which the team brought with them. Though participation was voluntary nearly all residents at each facility chose to take part. The original plan was to return to each site after six months to readminister the same measures to all residents, in
Deschner
280
order to assess changes after a period of institutional treatment, The first few return trips revealed that 100% turnover had taken place, despite prior information that the average length of stay was six to nine months. The rapid turnover was another indication of the unsettled conditions in youth care in the state, as was the closing of one of the participant programs (#9) just before the second visit was scheduled. Accordingly, the time interval between visits was shortened to two to four months, even though it meant that subjects had less exposure to the institutional treatment. Even with the new schedule it was possible to obtain two sets of scores for only 135 institutionalized youths and 65 day treatment participants. Six hundred other boys and girls were interviewed once, on either the first or second site visit. The twice-tested and once-tested subjects did not differ in any spstematic way on the variables of age, sex, race, prior deviance, or even length of stay. Therefore it was assumed that the change scores for the twice-tested sample were representative of the psychosocial changes among all the youths in the same programs. Subjects in the institutional treatment (IT) and day treatment (DT) samples also were comparable on every characteristic save one, as may be seen in Table 4. The average age of both groups was I4 years. In both groups 66% were boys. Nearly all youths in both groups came from non-affluent backgrounds. Average prior deviancy rates were similar. Reading skills were similarly limited in both groups. The one difference, and it may be an important one, between the institutionalized population and the comparison group was in race. The majority of youths in institutions were white while the majority in the day treatment programs were black or hispanic. TABLE 2 Item-Factor Correlations
Good relationships factor .55 .55
.ZG .48
Items This This The The
is a good program for youths. program is fair. staff are pleasant and nice to be around. staff care about the residents.
Institutional Programs for Youths
281
Table 2 (continued) .44 .44 .42 .41 .40 .40 .39 .39 .38 .37 .34 .33 .33 .33 .32
.31 .30 .30 .29 .29 .47 .42 .35 -34 .33 .31
Residents are able to express their ideas and ask questions about the program. The program is able to teach residents to get along better with other people. The residents are proud of this unit. The residents learn to get along better with their family here. The residents learn how to get along better on a job here. The residents try to learn here. Discussions in the unit emnhasize understanding personal pioblems. This is a very well organized unit. If a resident’s program is changed, someone on the staff always tells him why. The staff act on residents’ suggestions. Residents are encouraged to learn new ways of doing things. Staff and residents say how they feel about each other. The residents in the program are pleasant and nice to be around. Residents are encouraged to show their feelings. When residents first arrive on the unit, someone shows them around and explains how the unit operates. Residents have a say about what goes on here. The staff help new residents get acquainted on the unit. The more mature residents on this unit help take care of the less mature ones. Personal problems are openly talked about. Residents on this unit care about each other. Positive program There is very little group spirit on this unit. There is very Iittle emphasis on what residents will be doing after they leave this unit. The staff give residents very little responsibility. Staff are always changing their minds here. Residents rarely talk about their personal problems with other residents. Staff have very little time to encourage residents.
Deschner
282
TABLE 3 Indices of the Social Environmentat ParticipatingPrograms
Inst.
Institutional (IT) programs Positive Good rekkmships program Rigidity
Peer group delinquency
1 2 3 4 c ;
14.88 13.98 20.75 18.00 15.53 19.23
3.27 2.80 4.39 3.57 4.05 3.40
15.8 44.9 18.7 18.6 10.0 15.0
31.1 137.3 55.8 102.9 49.5 32.6
7
18.67
3.93
28.0
157.4
fz 10 11 12 13 14 Mean
22.12 15.36 20.08 17.87 19.50 12.43 19.67 17.93
4.75 3.09 3.92 3.73 3.33 2.43 4.17 3.60
20.8 12.0 12.0 .7 10.0 .7 15.9
66.9 58.5 201.0 118.7 226.0 71.0 100.7
15 16 17 18 19 Mean
Day treatment (DT) programs 17.69 2.56 19.64 2.50 20.00 3.46 14.18 3.36 18.12 3.92 17.70 3.20
145.0 86. I 176.3 102.9 56.9 113.40
Measures of Youth’s Psychosocial Development The dependent variables for this study were two positive and two negative measures of the psychosocial development of Self-Concept Scale the adolescent subjects. The Tennessee (Fitts SC Hamner, 1969) was administered, and the total p or overall self-concept score was used as a positive measure, and the number of deviant signs was taken as a measure of maladjustment. Internality was measured by a l+item scale emerging from a factor analysis of Nowicki and Strickland’s (1973) Children’s Locus of Control Scale, Strodtbeck’s ( 1958) V-Scale, and the Kiddie Mach scale of Christie and Geis (1970). The
283
Institutional Programs for Youths
TABLE 4 Characteristicsof the Youth Population at Participating Programs Institutional (IT) programs (n = 7 17) Inst. 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mean 15 16 17 18 19 Mean
Mean months n in Mean stay sampie Sex age % White % Black % Hispanic 226 176 67 22 44 33 58 34 11 12 14 6 7 9
50.9 30 15 13 11 16 16.6
CO M co
14.2 14.9 15.1
82 40 95
co M M F M co M M M F
15.8 14.7 15.6 13.6 14.9 14.4 15.5 16.3 12.0 16.0 14.2 14.7
;: 62 64 70 61 66 10 75 80 20 62.9
7 40
4 11 21 12 26 15 20 20 70 0 0 60 22.3
10
20 1 6 11 25 10 15 19 14 20 25 20 20 15.2
Day treatment (DT) programs (n = 85) co 14.0 0 69 31 M 13.8 36 50 14 co 13.8 33 33 33 CO 15.6 56 22 22 CO 14.2 50 33 17 14.2 -35.0 41.4 23.4
30.3 3.6 1.5 3.7 4.3 27.4 10.7 3.7 11.5 6.3 3.3 3.0 8.6 3.8 16.1 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.9 3.0 2.3
Internality scale included ten locus of control items and four V-Scale items, indicating that the V-Scale also measured internality and not achievement motivation as the author claimed. The internal consistency reliability for the Internality factor was -73. Though four other factors emerged, only one made up of five items from the Kiddie Mach showed satisfactory internal reliability at -55. This scale was called Opportunism and contained items like, “Sometimes you have to cheat a little to get ahead.” Like Deviant Signs, it was considered a negative developmental indicator.
Deschner
284 Changes in the Twice-Tested Sample
Changes over time among the 200 youths test.ed twice were assessed by four multivariate regression analyses, one for each dependent variable. The regression analyses permitted statistical control of the possible confounding differences between groups on such demographic variables as race, sex or prior delinquency, by the device of entering these variables into the regression equation first. If enough score differences remained after controlling for the demographic variables then the impact of institutional variables could be judged. Results of the regression analysis are given in Table 3. Changes in the two positive personality indicators are given first, followed by changes in the two negative personality indicators. One positive measure, internality, proved to be so stable over time that results were non-significant. The first columns give the pretest means for the Institutional Treatment (IT) and Day Treatment (DT) groups and the amount of change each group showed after two to five months of treatment. The next column lists the independent variables that significantly predicted differences in the amount of change. These variables were entered into the equation in a fixed order, beginning with the demographic variables of youths’ age, sex, ethnicity and length of stay. Race turned out to make a significant difference to self-concept scores, accounting for 11% of the total variance by itself (shown in the R2 column). Length of Stay had a moderate influence on each of the variables, but in a maladaptive direction (shown by the sign of the Beta coefficient). The next set of independent variables to be entered were the characteristics of the programs, including the institutional versus day treatment group comparison. The IT/DT variable had an effect on changes in all three dependent variables. Inspection of the pretest mean and mean change columns show that the youths in institutional treatment were improving slightly at the same time that the youths in day treatment were getting worse. The final independent variables to enter the regression equation were the four social environment variables. Rigidity was non-significant. Peer delinquency had a negative relation-
of signs
41.7 55.7
2.8 3.1
Opportunism IT D-I
Number deviant IT DT
7.6 5.8
303.5 306.5
2.59 10.41
-.13 .I9
Changes
IT/DT Length stay Positive program
Length stay lT/DT Peer delinquency Positive program
(None significant)
5
.I8 .21 .25
.16 .20 .23 .33
.33 .36 .38 .41
R
.03 .04 .06
.03 .04 .05 .ll
.13 .I5 .I7
.ll
R2
in Youths’ Psychosocial
TABLE
Ethnicity Length stay 1T/MGood relationships
Independent variable
Affecting
.04 -.4a
7.09 - 14.03
Mean change
Pretest mean
Internality IT DT
Self-Concept IT DT
Variables
Treatment
.03 .Ol .02
.03 .Ol .Ol .06
.ll .02 .Ol .02
R’ increase
-.17 .13 -.18
.12 --.I2 -.13 -.25
-.27 -.ll .I3 .17
Bet0
Development
5.17 3.61 3.53
4.94 3.72 3.22 5.48
20.49 12.55 9.36 8.26
F
(n = 200)
< .05 < .05 < .05
< .05 < .05 < .Ol
c .05
P
!S
Ii
g
3. if
F
286
Deschner TABLE 6 Canonical Factors Showing Relationships Between Sets of Independent and Dependent Variables Canonical Variables
Factor
1
2
3
Independent Variables Sex Ethnicity Age Stay IT/DT Institution size Per diem Staff ratio Staff stay Rigidity Peer delinquency Good relationships Positive program
.Ol -.15 .35 .07 .14 -.12 .“l -.12 .02 .24 -.28 -.05 .70
-.22 -.15 -.I7 .18 -.03 -.48 -.31 1.16 -.48 -.lO .lO -.60 .17
-.39 -.03 .19 .07 .65 -.16 -.47 -.17 -.78 -.06 -.34 .54 .02
Dependent Variables Internality Self-concept No. deviant signs Opportunism
.61 - .05 -.45 - .25
.46 -.78 -.36 .6i
.81 50 .82 5 1
.28
.07
.05
53
.26
.22
Eigenvalues Canonical Chi Square Significance
Correlations (u!!
28 1.98 -=I
.OOl
(52)
81.38 < .OOl
(36)
38.40
(22)
c.02
ship to increases in Opportunism, suggesting that delinquent youths became less opportunistic while their nondelinquent peers became more opportunistic as a result of treatment. Good Relationships had a positive relation to increases in selfconcept, while Positive Program decreased both Opportunism and Deviant Signs. These effects were mildly significant even after controlling for all the subject and external institutional differences.
Institutional Programs for Youths
287
Types of Youths and Types of Institutions In order to learn more about the relationships between independent and dependent variables, a canonical correlation analysis was carried out with scores from all 802 subjects. The procedure is similar to a factor analysis, except that the groups of independent and outcome variables are kept separate. The results are striking in that they show which institutional variables, in combination, predict which personality types. The canonical correlation analysis results are summarized in Table 6. The first and strongest pattern was of an institution distinguished only by its positive program. The youth type associated with such a facility was notably low in deviant behaviors and high in internal, self-directed attitudes. They tended also to be slightly older. Self-concept, most interestingly, was unrelated to this exemplary “good kid” pattern. The other two patterns appeared to be less strong, but still significant. One pattern was of an institution with thin staff coverage and poor relationships between staff and residents and even among residents themselves. Also associated were low per diem rates and small size. The kind of youths to be found in such troubled facilities were highly opportunistic in behavior and low in self-concept. On the positive side they scored well on internality and did not exhibit emotionally disturbed behavior. They seemed to be “delinquent” but not disturbed. The third pattern occurred at institutions marked by high staff turnover and poor funding, but good relationships between youths and staff and among youths. The youths at such places showed elevated scores on every measure, giving an unwholesome picture of adolescents acting disturbed and delinquent but thinking well of themselves at the same time. These youths tended to be boys and to have low prior delinquency scores. The good staff-resident relationships, along with low pay and high turnover, suggested programs staffed by idealistic nonprofessionals who lacked the resources to manage difficult youths or to prevent their own burnout. The close relationship seemed to make the youths feel better about themselves without making any genuine changes.
Deschner
288 Conclusions
The findings of this comparative study of different kinds of youth treatment facilities support the practice of placing severely troubled youths in residential treatment, but of certain kinds only. The unfavorable changes over time of the day treatment group, compared to the slight improvements in the total institutional group, argue that removal from the home is sometimes needed to stop the downward maladjustment spiral of troubled adolescents. The canonical analysis emphasized the importance of a social environment marked by a positive program, that is, one positively oriented toward teaching youths to function as independent adults. Youths need to learn to make their own decisions, to plan for the future, and to lean on peers rather than adult authority figures. The staff’s role is to be consistent and encouraging, rather than to form close therapeutic relationships. That high morale is a leading characteristic of such a program demonstrates that youths respond to a program that encourages them to adopt an adult orientation. In addition, this study reaffirms a finding of earlier studies, that long stays in treatment have a negative effect on adolescents. To venture a guess as to what is wrong with long residential stays, it would be that the youth loses contact with family and community and comes under the sway of a primarily maladapted peer group. Involvement of the residents in the larger community was pointed to by two of the earlier comparative studies as critical for success. Neither one measured this variable quantitatively. This study also failed to measure community involvement, although several attempts were made. None of the participating institutions were keeping the kind of records that would reveal residents’ contacts with home or community such as number of home visits, letters, phone calls or school activities. But the adverse effect of long stays does point once again to the probable importance of maintaining youths’ community contacts during their removal into residential treatment. One of the surprising findings of this study was the relationship of the self-concept scores to other factors. Selfconcept was consistently positively related to Good Relation-
Institutional Programs for Youths ships in the environment. However, it proved to have no consistent relationship to the indicators of disturbance or to internality. Either self-concept was not well measured by the instrument used, or else it bears little relation to other areas of psychosocial maturity and merely reflects, mirror-like, what others think of one, as was suggested long ago by G. H. Mead (1956). One of the chief contributions of this study was the identification of two factors, Good Relationships and Positive Program, within earlier social environment measures. Institutional rigidity also was measured, but the non-significant results indicate that the measure was poorly designed or that rigidity is not an important institutional characteristic after all. A major weakness in this study was the necessity of relying on pencil and paper measures of youths’ psychosocial maturity as the dependent variables. Staff ratings were attempted but proved to be incomplete and unreliable. Observations turned out to be too difficult to arrange in the usual institutional situation of fragile and rather uneasy relations with outsiders. Self-reports must remain suspect, however, so the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution, even though most of them agree with the conclusions of earlier comparative studies of residential treatments for youths. Reference Notes 1. Braukmann,
C. J., Kirigin, K. A., & Wolf, M. M. Achitvemnt Place: The researchers’ perspective. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1976.
References Christie, R., & Geis, R. L. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Cowden, J. E., & Pacht, A. R. Predicting institutional and post release adjustment of delinquent boys. Jouml of Consulting Psychology. 1967, 37, 377-381. Fitts, W. H., & Hamner, W. T. The self concept and delinquency (Monograph I). Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969. Fiisen, D. L., Phillips, E. L., Baron, R. L., Coughlin, D. D., Daly, D. L., 8c Daly, P. B. The Boys Town revolution. Human Nature, 1978, 1, 54-61. Goffman, E. Asylums. New York: Doubleday, 1961.
290
Deschner
Got-such, R. L., & Dreger, R. hl. “Big Jiffy”: A more sophisticated factor analysis and rotation program. Educational and Psychological :Measuremenl, 1979,39, 209-214. Handler, E. Residential treatment programs for juvenile delinquents. Soczal Work, 1975, 20, 217-222. King, R. D., & Raynes, N. V. An operational measure of inmate management in residential institutions. Social Science and ,Medicine, 1968, 2, -%I53. Lerman, P. Evaluative studies of institutions for delinquents: Implications for research and social policy. Social Work, 1968, 13, 55-64. Mayer, M. F., Richman, L. H., & Balcerzak, E. A. Group cure of children: Crossroads and transitions. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1977. Mead, G. H. George Herbert Mead on social psychology. (A. Strauss, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Moos, R. H. Correctional institutions environment scale manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1974. Moos, R. H. Evaluating cowectional and community settings. New York: Wiley, 1975. Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. A locus of control scale for children.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 148-153. Phillips, E. L., Phillips, E. A., Fixsen, D. L., & Wolf, M. M. The teaching-family handbook (Rev. ed.). Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, 1974. Polsky, H. W. Cottage six: The social system of delinquent boys in residential treatment. New York: Wiley, 1962. Sellin T., & Wolfgang, M. E. The measurement of delinquency. New York: Wiley, 1964. Stollery, P. L. Searching for the magic answer to juvenile delinquency. Federal Probation, 1977, 4, 28-33. Strodtbeck, F. L. Family interaction, values, and achievement. In D. C. McClelland, A. L. Baldwin, U. Bronfenbrenner. & F. L. Strodtbeck (Eds.), Talent and society. New York: Van Nostrand, 1958. Thomas, G. A. Community oriented evaluation of the effectiveness of child caring institutions. Athens, Georgia: Regional Institute of Social Welfare Research, University of Georgia, 1975. Vinter, R. D., Newcomb, T. M., & Kish, E., (Eds.), Time out: A national studv of juvenile correctional progrnms. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan School of Social Work, 1976. Wolfgang, M., Figlio, R., & Sellin, T. Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1972. Wolins, M. Group care: Friend or foe. 3 In M. Wolins (Ed.), Successful group cure. Chicago: Aldine, 1974.
of Texas
at Arlington
This study examines aspects of institutional life that influence, for better or worse, the treatment of adolescent residents. Psychosocial development of 802 youths was measured by four indices, internality, self-concept, opportunism and number of deviant signs. Subjects were interviewed while placed at fourteen residential and five alternative day treatment programs. An analysis of 200 youths’ developmental progress after two to five months of treatment showed slight positive changes among institutional residents and negative changes among day treatment youths. Canonical correlation analysis of measures suggested three main types of programs: the positive program which produced the most mature youths, the poorly staffed facility which went with delinquent personality development, and the underfinanced but caring program which seemed to foster more disturbed personality profiles.
Currents of instability and change are flowing through the whole area of residential institutions for troubled youths in this country. Managers of new and old institutions alike are Jeanne .P. Deschner, Ph.D., Graduate School of Social Work, Box 19129,
University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, 76019. This study was supported by Grant No. 90-C-636, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Child Development, Research, Demonstration and Evaluation Grants, Washington, D.C. The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Hector E. Ayala, Ph.D. in the conduct of this study. 271
Deschner
272
changing programs, changing clientele, and all too often, ciosing facilities. Such changes reflect public dissatisfaction concerning results of institutional treatment, funding crises. increased governmental regulations, lawsuits, or several of these pressures at once. Administrators deciding about what to retain or to scrap can obtain little help from social science research in identifying the aspects of institutional Iife that make a difference, for better or worse, in the treatment of adolescents. The individual program evaluations that have been made pubtic lack a common approach that would make comparisons with other programs possible, even when the methodology used is sound enough to render the results believable. The critical aspects of institutional living in general will emerge only through comparative studies of different programs. The few previous studies that included a number of different adolescent treatment institutions evaluated in the same manner are described briefly in the following. Previous
Comparative Studies
Wolins (1974) examined five institutions for youths in other countries. Al1 provided long-term treatment and enjoyed reputations of being uriusually successful. intellectual achievement and psychological maturity of each group of institutionalized youths were compared with scores of their peers who lived at home. The institutionalized boys and girls scored the same on psychoiogical maturity but lower on achievement, except in israel. There the institutionalized youths actually scored higher on several psychological maturity measures. The three most successful institutions, Wolins found, all prepared their residents to join the local adult community by teaching the particular cultural and behavioral norms of that community. Thomas (19iS) studied all of the child welfare institutions in a single southern state which provided N-hour care for children and youths. In this study also, cognitive and social skills of residents were compared with non-institutionalized classmates. Thomas found nonsignificant differences between institutional and comparison senior high students. Among younger residents, institutional treatment seemed moderately
Institutional Programs for Youths
273
favorable for those who stayed more than a year. Children improved best in cognitive skills at stable, structured facilities. Only two of the 32 institutions studied were able to take in poorly adapted residents and induce such large positive gains in social functioning that they caught up to the noninstitutionalized comparison group. The two facilities were described only as “highly community oriented.” Moos (1975) reported an assessment of the social environment of 112 programs in 28 juvenile correctional facilities. Data from several thousand inmates was used to derive normative scores for nine subscales of the Correctional Institutions Environment Scale {CIES). No outcome variables were measured, so the six different types of institutional social environments found could only be compared with staff perceptions, or with “ideal” profiles. Moos reported an outcome study of one small experimental program showing strong correlations between developmental progress and an environment high in involvement, autonomy, and clarity, but this result was not replicated at a second program. Braukmann, Kirigin, and Wolf (Note 1) compared recidivist offense rates for youths treated at six teaching-fairy group homes with youths placed in three comparison group homes. Offenses committed by residents of the teachingfamiiy programs dropped during treatment and remained lower after graduation. Offenses of the comparison group home youths actually rose during treatment. Consumer (i.e., resident) satisfaction ratings were strongly correlated with an absence of recidivist offenses. In particular, the higher the youths rated their group home staff on fairness, concern, effectiveness, and pleasantness, the less likely they were to commit offenses. Vinter, Newcomb, and Kish (1976) surveyed a stratified sample of 42 youth correctional institutions in 16 states. This was largely a descriptive study rather than a comparative evaluation like the first four studies. However, the authors did note that youths who were institutionalized for over nine months tended to become “hardened,” but only at institutions which had a large group of veteran residents. Finally, the Child Welfare League of America commissioned Mayer, Richman, and Balcerzak (197’7) to carry out a
Deschner
274
national survey of group residential care for children and youths. Results were descriptive only and were based on interviews with staff, administrators and alumni rather than the residents themselves. A long-term evaluation was attempted through interviewing a sample of institutional alumni, who seemed to be about as successful in adult life as their homereared contemporaries. Unfortunately this study did not identify which aspects of institutional life might have affected later adult adjustment. The six comparative studies tend toward the same conclusion: that institutional treatment helps some adolescents, harms others, and leaves the majority unaffected as to psychosocial development. Since the institutions also provide for the basic necessities and preserve their charges from the dangers of street life, a lack of harmfulness might be seen as sufficient justification for continuing such placements in the future. Youth Institutions Studied The present study was designed as a search for institutional and individual predictors of the developmental progress of youths in residential treatment. Therefore the approximately thirty institutions approached for participation included a cross-section of public and private facilities around the state of Texas. Only half of those contacted ultimately participated. Two refused because their board of directors raised questions about outside interviewers seeing their charges. Others dropped out as a part of the general instability in the youth care field which has been mentioned already. Several institutions changed programs, were in the process of reorganization, or closed entirely before data could be collected. Administrators of at least three programs balked at completing arrangements because they felt that conditions within their facilities were so unsettled that the researchers would obtain a poor picture of their real program. The 14 institutions that did take part in the study all enjoyed a reputation for good quality treatment, as all the more marginal institutions had dropped out of the sample. However, in structural characteristics the 14 sites were a representative sampling of adolescent treatment institutions in the state. Some
Institutioua~ Programs for Youths
275
were large and others small. Some were privately funded and others were publicly funded, but all were dependent to some extent on public funds to balance the budget. The institutions labeled their treatment programs in different ways, including “therapeutic camping,*’ “boys’ ranch,” “group home,” “teaching-family,” “psychiatric hospital,” “correctional training school,” and “home for dependent/m+ glected children.” The actual campus programs were surprisingly similar, possibly because all had to meet the same state or possibly because of the natural licensing requirements, needs of teenagers. All youths at every program either attended school or planned activities all day long together, went on frequent weekend excursions together, and spent evenings together either in recreation or with their house parent staff. There were differences in the amount of home contact permitted the residents, which it was not possible to document for this study. There were also differences in the amounts of formal therapy offered, but all programs claimed that informd therapy was occurring throughout the day as residents and staff interacted. For comparative purposes a group of five day treatment programs operated by an urban public school system were included in the study. These programs were set up as shortterm alternatives to institutionalizatioti for junior high school status offenders. The day treatment activities were quite similar to the programs within the institution, in that the primary focus was on group activities with the goal of improved developmental adjustment, with only a secondary emphasis on academic instruction. The principal program difference, then, was the nightly return of the day treatment subjects to their original homes and peer groups.
Measuring Institutional Variables Identification of the institutional characteristics critical for study was a difficult task. The earlier comparative studies gave only vague clues, such as “community orientation,” which defied measurement, with the exception of the studies by Moos (1975) and Braukmann et al. (Note 1). Six variables measuring demographic or structural char-
Deschner
276
acteristics of the various institutions were included in this study: the size of the youth resident population at the time of the site visit, the age of the institution, the per diem costs calculated as the percentage of the total budget for each resident each day, the rapidity of staff turnover, average age of direct care staff. and the ratio of residents to house parent staff in the evenings. Rankings of each program on these variables are shown in Table 1. Social Environment Variables Moos (1975) has documented the importance of the social environment as experienced by each individual, which might be different from cottage to cottage or even from youth to youth. Four measures of the social environment were used in the present study. Two were factors found in an analysis of the Correctional Institutions Environmental Scale (CIES) and Satisfaction scale, and two were instruments created for this study. Moos (1974) devised the CIES to measure variations in different residents’ perceptions of their social milieu. The CIES Short Form was adopted for use in the present study. It consisted of 36 items relating to nine subscales: Involvement, Support, Expressiveness, Autonomy, Practical Orientation, Personal Problem Orientation, Order and Organization, Clarity, and Staff Control. The above subscales were based on earlier theories about the social environment. No attempts at empirical validation of the scales have been published by Moos. Preliminary scores from pilot data collected in this study indicated that construct validity of several of the scales was questionable. That is, the scores did not measure what the subscale title suggested. The principle environmental measure used in the Braukmann et al. evaluation was the Consumer Satisfaction Scale (Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & Wolf, 1974) which asked residents to rate their satisfaction with six areas of the institutional program: fairness, staff concern, program effectiveness. pleasantness of staff and of peers, helpfulness of the program, and overall program quality. Though the Satisfaction Scale has been used extensively in evaluations and seems to have predic-
Institutional
Programs
for Youths TABLE
277 1
Characteristics of Institutional (IT) and Day Treatment (DT) Programs
Inst. :
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mean 15 16 17 18 19 Mean
Size 230 100 50 40 40 33 30 23 16 13 11 5 5
4 42.9
28 27 21 20 19 23
Institutional (IT) programs Staff stay Age Per diem (mos.) W-s.)
Staff age
Ratios
19.2 12.1 17.3 28.1 8.0 22.3 7.1 2.0 19.3 12.0 10.5 3.6 8.2 3.1 12.3
44.3 25.6 28.3 34.4 23.0 43.1 24.0 25.0 26.6 24.9 27.0 40.2 22.0 23.7 -29.4
4.911 4.711 5.0/l 4.211 5.311 4.0/l 10.011 6.011 4.011 4.711 2.811 3.511 3.211 2.511 4.60
Day treatment (DT) programs 22.29 6.5 4 (mo.) 23.12 4.3 5 29.73 5.8 3 29.28 31.5 18 3 -32.85 - 9.5 27.46 11.5 6.6 (mo.)
-29.7 37.7 30.2 31.7 35.5 -33.0
4.011 5.411 4.211 3.3/l 3.8/l 4.1/l
88 68 2 50 6 5 6 11 8 4 2 : 5 19.1
$41.42 29.58 16f.00 50.00 18.50 23.00 32.00 24.54 17.12 37.00 25,71 28.53 36.00 40.80
tive validity’ for runaway rates at least (Fixsen, Phillips, Baron, Coughlin, Daly, & Daly, 1978), construct validity of the subscales does not seem to have been examined. Ten of the Satisfaction Scale items were added to the CIES, with the scoring changed from a seven-point rating to a yes-no response. The pilot data suggested that the two scales might be measuring the same things, so a factor analysis of all 46 items was carried out, utilizing the factoring program of Gorsuch and Dreger (1979). In the initial step six primary factors were identified among the pattern of Round One subjects’ responses to the 46 CIES and Satisfaction items. The factoring
278
Deschner
program automatically searched out the oblique rotation which maximized the independence of the factors. It also carried out a higher order analysis that revealed that all but one primary factor coalesced into a single second order factor of 24 items that accounted for 50% of the variance by itself. One strong primary factor remained outside as a second factor of six items, accounting for another 16% of the variance. Table 2 gives the items in each factor along with the item-total correiations or factor loadings. The first factor was called Good Relationships, since the majority of items discuss relationships, such as, “The staff care about the residents.” Nine items came from the Satisfaction Scale and 15 from the CIES. Three items came from the Involvement subscale. The other twelve came from every other subscale, except for Staff Control. The second factor was called Positive Program, since the common theme of all six items was a complaint About the social climate, such as, “There is very little group spirit on this unit.” A negative response was keyed as correct, meaning that the resident felt positively about the social climate. All items in the factor came from the CIES, from six different subscales. Scores for Good Relationships and Positive Program became the first two measures used in this study to compare differences in the social climates of the participating programs. Table 3 shows the average scores for each institution. Rigidity of program had been identified as one of the chief harmful aspects of institutions by Goffman (1961) and has been attacked by several researchers since then. Yet many elitist institutions for youths, such as military schools and religious training academies, are highly structured and rigid. Since institutional rigidity has never been measured, the actual direction of effect is unknown. A 25-item checklist based on one by King and Raynes (1968) was devised and administered to staff at each institution, in order to measure the amount of rigidity at each participating program. Many researchers have pointed out the effects on youths of piunging them into a highly deviant group of youths (see, for example Pobky (1962) and Vinter et al. (1976)). Some evaluators have assigned arbitrary values to various offenses in order to measure depth of inmates’ delinquency (Cowden &
Institutional Programs for Youths
279
Pacht, 1967; Handler, 1975; Lerman, 1968; Stollery, 1977). Sellin and Wolfgang (1964) made an impressive start on developing an empirical rating scale for offenses, but abandoned it later in favor of a complex tripartite scoring system that omitted all status offenses and focused on serious crimes (Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972). Yet they themselves found, in a study of Philadelphia youths, that the majority of youth offenses are status offenses. For the present study a beginning was made on developing an empirical rating index for all juvenile offenses, following the general rationale of the early Sellin and Wolfgang scale. This work will be described in detail in a forthcoming article. The values on the Depth of Delinquency Index (DDI) ranged from 1000 for murder down to 1 for a first-time truancy, IO for vandalism, and 50 for robbing $5 at gunpoint. The juvenile records for all residents in the sample who came from the two most populous counties in the state were read and all offenses scored to give a cumulative DDI score. This was only a partial sample, since some youths came from other, less populous counties. Others had no official record at all. Since it was not possible to tell whether, in fact, a youth had no prior offense record, the average level of peer group deviancy was based only on the records that were actually found. This procedure may have resulted in an overestimate of the average level of delinquency at those institutions- treating very few delinquents. (See Table 3.) Participating Youths At each institution the entire youth population was invited to participate in “a study of programs for youths.” A mass interviewing evening was arranged with a team of graduate students trained in reading the entire questionnaire aloud to small groups of youths. The reading and answering process took an hour and was followed by serving of refreshments which the team brought with them. Though participation was voluntary nearly all residents at each facility chose to take part. The original plan was to return to each site after six months to readminister the same measures to all residents, in
Deschner
280
order to assess changes after a period of institutional treatment, The first few return trips revealed that 100% turnover had taken place, despite prior information that the average length of stay was six to nine months. The rapid turnover was another indication of the unsettled conditions in youth care in the state, as was the closing of one of the participant programs (#9) just before the second visit was scheduled. Accordingly, the time interval between visits was shortened to two to four months, even though it meant that subjects had less exposure to the institutional treatment. Even with the new schedule it was possible to obtain two sets of scores for only 135 institutionalized youths and 65 day treatment participants. Six hundred other boys and girls were interviewed once, on either the first or second site visit. The twice-tested and once-tested subjects did not differ in any spstematic way on the variables of age, sex, race, prior deviance, or even length of stay. Therefore it was assumed that the change scores for the twice-tested sample were representative of the psychosocial changes among all the youths in the same programs. Subjects in the institutional treatment (IT) and day treatment (DT) samples also were comparable on every characteristic save one, as may be seen in Table 4. The average age of both groups was I4 years. In both groups 66% were boys. Nearly all youths in both groups came from non-affluent backgrounds. Average prior deviancy rates were similar. Reading skills were similarly limited in both groups. The one difference, and it may be an important one, between the institutionalized population and the comparison group was in race. The majority of youths in institutions were white while the majority in the day treatment programs were black or hispanic. TABLE 2 Item-Factor Correlations
Good relationships factor .55 .55
.ZG .48
Items This This The The
is a good program for youths. program is fair. staff are pleasant and nice to be around. staff care about the residents.
Institutional Programs for Youths
281
Table 2 (continued) .44 .44 .42 .41 .40 .40 .39 .39 .38 .37 .34 .33 .33 .33 .32
.31 .30 .30 .29 .29 .47 .42 .35 -34 .33 .31
Residents are able to express their ideas and ask questions about the program. The program is able to teach residents to get along better with other people. The residents are proud of this unit. The residents learn to get along better with their family here. The residents learn how to get along better on a job here. The residents try to learn here. Discussions in the unit emnhasize understanding personal pioblems. This is a very well organized unit. If a resident’s program is changed, someone on the staff always tells him why. The staff act on residents’ suggestions. Residents are encouraged to learn new ways of doing things. Staff and residents say how they feel about each other. The residents in the program are pleasant and nice to be around. Residents are encouraged to show their feelings. When residents first arrive on the unit, someone shows them around and explains how the unit operates. Residents have a say about what goes on here. The staff help new residents get acquainted on the unit. The more mature residents on this unit help take care of the less mature ones. Personal problems are openly talked about. Residents on this unit care about each other. Positive program There is very little group spirit on this unit. There is very Iittle emphasis on what residents will be doing after they leave this unit. The staff give residents very little responsibility. Staff are always changing their minds here. Residents rarely talk about their personal problems with other residents. Staff have very little time to encourage residents.
Deschner
282
TABLE 3 Indices of the Social Environmentat ParticipatingPrograms
Inst.
Institutional (IT) programs Positive Good rekkmships program Rigidity
Peer group delinquency
1 2 3 4 c ;
14.88 13.98 20.75 18.00 15.53 19.23
3.27 2.80 4.39 3.57 4.05 3.40
15.8 44.9 18.7 18.6 10.0 15.0
31.1 137.3 55.8 102.9 49.5 32.6
7
18.67
3.93
28.0
157.4
fz 10 11 12 13 14 Mean
22.12 15.36 20.08 17.87 19.50 12.43 19.67 17.93
4.75 3.09 3.92 3.73 3.33 2.43 4.17 3.60
20.8 12.0 12.0 .7 10.0 .7 15.9
66.9 58.5 201.0 118.7 226.0 71.0 100.7
15 16 17 18 19 Mean
Day treatment (DT) programs 17.69 2.56 19.64 2.50 20.00 3.46 14.18 3.36 18.12 3.92 17.70 3.20
145.0 86. I 176.3 102.9 56.9 113.40
Measures of Youth’s Psychosocial Development The dependent variables for this study were two positive and two negative measures of the psychosocial development of Self-Concept Scale the adolescent subjects. The Tennessee (Fitts SC Hamner, 1969) was administered, and the total p or overall self-concept score was used as a positive measure, and the number of deviant signs was taken as a measure of maladjustment. Internality was measured by a l+item scale emerging from a factor analysis of Nowicki and Strickland’s (1973) Children’s Locus of Control Scale, Strodtbeck’s ( 1958) V-Scale, and the Kiddie Mach scale of Christie and Geis (1970). The
283
Institutional Programs for Youths
TABLE 4 Characteristicsof the Youth Population at Participating Programs Institutional (IT) programs (n = 7 17) Inst. 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mean 15 16 17 18 19 Mean
Mean months n in Mean stay sampie Sex age % White % Black % Hispanic 226 176 67 22 44 33 58 34 11 12 14 6 7 9
50.9 30 15 13 11 16 16.6
CO M co
14.2 14.9 15.1
82 40 95
co M M F M co M M M F
15.8 14.7 15.6 13.6 14.9 14.4 15.5 16.3 12.0 16.0 14.2 14.7
;: 62 64 70 61 66 10 75 80 20 62.9
7 40
4 11 21 12 26 15 20 20 70 0 0 60 22.3
10
20 1 6 11 25 10 15 19 14 20 25 20 20 15.2
Day treatment (DT) programs (n = 85) co 14.0 0 69 31 M 13.8 36 50 14 co 13.8 33 33 33 CO 15.6 56 22 22 CO 14.2 50 33 17 14.2 -35.0 41.4 23.4
30.3 3.6 1.5 3.7 4.3 27.4 10.7 3.7 11.5 6.3 3.3 3.0 8.6 3.8 16.1 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.9 3.0 2.3
Internality scale included ten locus of control items and four V-Scale items, indicating that the V-Scale also measured internality and not achievement motivation as the author claimed. The internal consistency reliability for the Internality factor was -73. Though four other factors emerged, only one made up of five items from the Kiddie Mach showed satisfactory internal reliability at -55. This scale was called Opportunism and contained items like, “Sometimes you have to cheat a little to get ahead.” Like Deviant Signs, it was considered a negative developmental indicator.
Deschner
284 Changes in the Twice-Tested Sample
Changes over time among the 200 youths test.ed twice were assessed by four multivariate regression analyses, one for each dependent variable. The regression analyses permitted statistical control of the possible confounding differences between groups on such demographic variables as race, sex or prior delinquency, by the device of entering these variables into the regression equation first. If enough score differences remained after controlling for the demographic variables then the impact of institutional variables could be judged. Results of the regression analysis are given in Table 3. Changes in the two positive personality indicators are given first, followed by changes in the two negative personality indicators. One positive measure, internality, proved to be so stable over time that results were non-significant. The first columns give the pretest means for the Institutional Treatment (IT) and Day Treatment (DT) groups and the amount of change each group showed after two to five months of treatment. The next column lists the independent variables that significantly predicted differences in the amount of change. These variables were entered into the equation in a fixed order, beginning with the demographic variables of youths’ age, sex, ethnicity and length of stay. Race turned out to make a significant difference to self-concept scores, accounting for 11% of the total variance by itself (shown in the R2 column). Length of Stay had a moderate influence on each of the variables, but in a maladaptive direction (shown by the sign of the Beta coefficient). The next set of independent variables to be entered were the characteristics of the programs, including the institutional versus day treatment group comparison. The IT/DT variable had an effect on changes in all three dependent variables. Inspection of the pretest mean and mean change columns show that the youths in institutional treatment were improving slightly at the same time that the youths in day treatment were getting worse. The final independent variables to enter the regression equation were the four social environment variables. Rigidity was non-significant. Peer delinquency had a negative relation-
of signs
41.7 55.7
2.8 3.1
Opportunism IT D-I
Number deviant IT DT
7.6 5.8
303.5 306.5
2.59 10.41
-.13 .I9
Changes
IT/DT Length stay Positive program
Length stay lT/DT Peer delinquency Positive program
(None significant)
5
.I8 .21 .25
.16 .20 .23 .33
.33 .36 .38 .41
R
.03 .04 .06
.03 .04 .05 .ll
.13 .I5 .I7
.ll
R2
in Youths’ Psychosocial
TABLE
Ethnicity Length stay 1T/MGood relationships
Independent variable
Affecting
.04 -.4a
7.09 - 14.03
Mean change
Pretest mean
Internality IT DT
Self-Concept IT DT
Variables
Treatment
.03 .Ol .02
.03 .Ol .Ol .06
.ll .02 .Ol .02
R’ increase
-.17 .13 -.18
.12 --.I2 -.13 -.25
-.27 -.ll .I3 .17
Bet0
Development
5.17 3.61 3.53
4.94 3.72 3.22 5.48
20.49 12.55 9.36 8.26
F
(n = 200)
< .05 < .05 < .05
< .05 < .05 < .Ol
c .05
P
!S
Ii
g
3. if
F
286
Deschner TABLE 6 Canonical Factors Showing Relationships Between Sets of Independent and Dependent Variables Canonical Variables
Factor
1
2
3
Independent Variables Sex Ethnicity Age Stay IT/DT Institution size Per diem Staff ratio Staff stay Rigidity Peer delinquency Good relationships Positive program
.Ol -.15 .35 .07 .14 -.12 .“l -.12 .02 .24 -.28 -.05 .70
-.22 -.15 -.I7 .18 -.03 -.48 -.31 1.16 -.48 -.lO .lO -.60 .17
-.39 -.03 .19 .07 .65 -.16 -.47 -.17 -.78 -.06 -.34 .54 .02
Dependent Variables Internality Self-concept No. deviant signs Opportunism
.61 - .05 -.45 - .25
.46 -.78 -.36 .6i
.81 50 .82 5 1
.28
.07
.05
53
.26
.22
Eigenvalues Canonical Chi Square Significance
Correlations (u!!
28 1.98 -=I
.OOl
(52)
81.38 < .OOl
(36)
38.40
(22)
c.02
ship to increases in Opportunism, suggesting that delinquent youths became less opportunistic while their nondelinquent peers became more opportunistic as a result of treatment. Good Relationships had a positive relation to increases in selfconcept, while Positive Program decreased both Opportunism and Deviant Signs. These effects were mildly significant even after controlling for all the subject and external institutional differences.
Institutional Programs for Youths
287
Types of Youths and Types of Institutions In order to learn more about the relationships between independent and dependent variables, a canonical correlation analysis was carried out with scores from all 802 subjects. The procedure is similar to a factor analysis, except that the groups of independent and outcome variables are kept separate. The results are striking in that they show which institutional variables, in combination, predict which personality types. The canonical correlation analysis results are summarized in Table 6. The first and strongest pattern was of an institution distinguished only by its positive program. The youth type associated with such a facility was notably low in deviant behaviors and high in internal, self-directed attitudes. They tended also to be slightly older. Self-concept, most interestingly, was unrelated to this exemplary “good kid” pattern. The other two patterns appeared to be less strong, but still significant. One pattern was of an institution with thin staff coverage and poor relationships between staff and residents and even among residents themselves. Also associated were low per diem rates and small size. The kind of youths to be found in such troubled facilities were highly opportunistic in behavior and low in self-concept. On the positive side they scored well on internality and did not exhibit emotionally disturbed behavior. They seemed to be “delinquent” but not disturbed. The third pattern occurred at institutions marked by high staff turnover and poor funding, but good relationships between youths and staff and among youths. The youths at such places showed elevated scores on every measure, giving an unwholesome picture of adolescents acting disturbed and delinquent but thinking well of themselves at the same time. These youths tended to be boys and to have low prior delinquency scores. The good staff-resident relationships, along with low pay and high turnover, suggested programs staffed by idealistic nonprofessionals who lacked the resources to manage difficult youths or to prevent their own burnout. The close relationship seemed to make the youths feel better about themselves without making any genuine changes.
Deschner
288 Conclusions
The findings of this comparative study of different kinds of youth treatment facilities support the practice of placing severely troubled youths in residential treatment, but of certain kinds only. The unfavorable changes over time of the day treatment group, compared to the slight improvements in the total institutional group, argue that removal from the home is sometimes needed to stop the downward maladjustment spiral of troubled adolescents. The canonical analysis emphasized the importance of a social environment marked by a positive program, that is, one positively oriented toward teaching youths to function as independent adults. Youths need to learn to make their own decisions, to plan for the future, and to lean on peers rather than adult authority figures. The staff’s role is to be consistent and encouraging, rather than to form close therapeutic relationships. That high morale is a leading characteristic of such a program demonstrates that youths respond to a program that encourages them to adopt an adult orientation. In addition, this study reaffirms a finding of earlier studies, that long stays in treatment have a negative effect on adolescents. To venture a guess as to what is wrong with long residential stays, it would be that the youth loses contact with family and community and comes under the sway of a primarily maladapted peer group. Involvement of the residents in the larger community was pointed to by two of the earlier comparative studies as critical for success. Neither one measured this variable quantitatively. This study also failed to measure community involvement, although several attempts were made. None of the participating institutions were keeping the kind of records that would reveal residents’ contacts with home or community such as number of home visits, letters, phone calls or school activities. But the adverse effect of long stays does point once again to the probable importance of maintaining youths’ community contacts during their removal into residential treatment. One of the surprising findings of this study was the relationship of the self-concept scores to other factors. Selfconcept was consistently positively related to Good Relation-
Institutional Programs for Youths ships in the environment. However, it proved to have no consistent relationship to the indicators of disturbance or to internality. Either self-concept was not well measured by the instrument used, or else it bears little relation to other areas of psychosocial maturity and merely reflects, mirror-like, what others think of one, as was suggested long ago by G. H. Mead (1956). One of the chief contributions of this study was the identification of two factors, Good Relationships and Positive Program, within earlier social environment measures. Institutional rigidity also was measured, but the non-significant results indicate that the measure was poorly designed or that rigidity is not an important institutional characteristic after all. A major weakness in this study was the necessity of relying on pencil and paper measures of youths’ psychosocial maturity as the dependent variables. Staff ratings were attempted but proved to be incomplete and unreliable. Observations turned out to be too difficult to arrange in the usual institutional situation of fragile and rather uneasy relations with outsiders. Self-reports must remain suspect, however, so the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution, even though most of them agree with the conclusions of earlier comparative studies of residential treatments for youths. Reference Notes 1. Braukmann,
C. J., Kirigin, K. A., & Wolf, M. M. Achitvemnt Place: The researchers’ perspective. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., 1976.
References Christie, R., & Geis, R. L. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Cowden, J. E., & Pacht, A. R. Predicting institutional and post release adjustment of delinquent boys. Jouml of Consulting Psychology. 1967, 37, 377-381. Fitts, W. H., & Hamner, W. T. The self concept and delinquency (Monograph I). Nashville: Counselor Recordings and Tests, 1969. Fiisen, D. L., Phillips, E. L., Baron, R. L., Coughlin, D. D., Daly, D. L., 8c Daly, P. B. The Boys Town revolution. Human Nature, 1978, 1, 54-61. Goffman, E. Asylums. New York: Doubleday, 1961.
290
Deschner
Got-such, R. L., & Dreger, R. hl. “Big Jiffy”: A more sophisticated factor analysis and rotation program. Educational and Psychological :Measuremenl, 1979,39, 209-214. Handler, E. Residential treatment programs for juvenile delinquents. Soczal Work, 1975, 20, 217-222. King, R. D., & Raynes, N. V. An operational measure of inmate management in residential institutions. Social Science and ,Medicine, 1968, 2, -%I53. Lerman, P. Evaluative studies of institutions for delinquents: Implications for research and social policy. Social Work, 1968, 13, 55-64. Mayer, M. F., Richman, L. H., & Balcerzak, E. A. Group cure of children: Crossroads and transitions. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1977. Mead, G. H. George Herbert Mead on social psychology. (A. Strauss, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Moos, R. H. Correctional institutions environment scale manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1974. Moos, R. H. Evaluating cowectional and community settings. New York: Wiley, 1975. Nowicki, S., & Strickland, B. R. A locus of control scale for children.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 148-153. Phillips, E. L., Phillips, E. A., Fixsen, D. L., & Wolf, M. M. The teaching-family handbook (Rev. ed.). Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas, Bureau of Child Research, 1974. Polsky, H. W. Cottage six: The social system of delinquent boys in residential treatment. New York: Wiley, 1962. Sellin T., & Wolfgang, M. E. The measurement of delinquency. New York: Wiley, 1964. Stollery, P. L. Searching for the magic answer to juvenile delinquency. Federal Probation, 1977, 4, 28-33. Strodtbeck, F. L. Family interaction, values, and achievement. In D. C. McClelland, A. L. Baldwin, U. Bronfenbrenner. & F. L. Strodtbeck (Eds.), Talent and society. New York: Van Nostrand, 1958. Thomas, G. A. Community oriented evaluation of the effectiveness of child caring institutions. Athens, Georgia: Regional Institute of Social Welfare Research, University of Georgia, 1975. Vinter, R. D., Newcomb, T. M., & Kish, E., (Eds.), Time out: A national studv of juvenile correctional progrnms. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan School of Social Work, 1976. Wolfgang, M., Figlio, R., & Sellin, T. Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1972. Wolins, M. Group care: Friend or foe. 3 In M. Wolins (Ed.), Successful group cure. Chicago: Aldine, 1974.