|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The intent of this article by Davidson and Wolfred was to evaluate the outcomes of a delinquency prevention program which was implemented in a community-based residential setting and based on the principles of social learning theory.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors employed a quasi-experimental, matched pair, longitudinal design, among problem youth aged 7-17. The control subjects were generated from a pool of 300 children in a comparable nearby city, via the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. Exact matches were found for 42 of the 53 experimental subjects on the basis of gender, age (within 6 months), grade in school, major presenting problem, and date of initial contact with social services or juvenile authorities (within 1 year). The research was conducted at the CRISIS Care Center in Danville, Illinois, which was established in 1970 to provide short-term residential treatment for predelinquent or problem behavior youths. During the study, 53 youths were involved in the program (26 males) with an average age of 14.2 years. Most had below average intelligence, 45 were white and 8 were black. All had been identified by the state social welfare agency as either predelinquent, incorrigible, or a minor in need of supervision. The treatment system was based on a progressive-level token economy in which youth were provided points, contingent on their performance. These points were exchangeable for privileges such as television, snacks or money. The system included three progressive levels: 1) general behaviors such as room cleaning and getting to bed on time, which had to be completed at a 90% success rate for two weeks; 2) 90% success rate on an individualized performance program, such as problem-solving and decision-making skills which also required two weeks of success; and 3) an increase in expectations which mirrored those of the targeted discharge setting. The specific components of the program included an in-house classroom, based on a token contingency management system. Five students participated in the classroom, ranging in age from 10 to 15 years. Three reinforcement schedules were tested in the classroom, each used alone and in combination with each other, and each new condition was introduced at the beginning of the week. The schedules included: 1) tokens that were distributed as students entered the classroom; 2) tokens that were distributed on 100% performance of specific tasks; and 3) tokens that were distributed if students were on task when a buzzer sounded (at random intervals of 1-10 minutes, with an average of 5 minutes). Two independent examiners rated student performance in 10-second intervals as either on task, off task disruptive, or off task nondisruptive. In addition to these measures, data were gathered from the records of police, schools, social services, and local juvenile courts. Premeasures were gathered for the year prior to entering the program, as well as at 3-month and 9-month intervals following completion of the experiment.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
Within 18 months, 53 students successfully completed the CRISIS program in an average of 14 weeks. The conditions under ratio schedule (2) promoted the highest level of academic performance and the lowest levels of disruptive behaviors. Between-pair measures indicated that the control subjects had slightly better school attendance and tended to be in foster homes more often than experimental subjects. During the 3-month and 9-month testing periods, the control group demonstrated a significantly higher level of school attendance, significantly lower levels of contacts with juvenile authorities, and placements in correctional institutions. The overall results indicated that the CRISIS program actually encouraged the behaviors it was attempting to discourage.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors cautioned the use of social learning theory as a behavior-modification tool and suggested that further studies be conducted on the long-term outcomes of these techniques. They also encouraged researchers to examine long-term effects regarding broad issues such as delinquency and school attendance, rather than simply the specific behaviors that were targeted during treatment.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Illinois
KW - Residential Treatment
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Juvenile Treatment
KW - Community Based
KW - Delinquency Treatment
KW - Treatment Program
KW - Program Evaluation
KW - Offender Treatment
KW - Prevention Program
KW - Delinquency Prevention
KW - Behavior Modification
KW - Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
KW - Social Learning Theory |