| Positive Peer Culture |
| Nas et al. (2005) |
Can EQUIP successfully alter delays in moral judgment, distortions, in social information processing, deficits in moral skills? Quasi experimental design w/treatment and non randomized comparison groups, pretest posttest No follow-up
|
3 high security correctional facilities in the Netherlands EQUIP (Equipping Youth to Help One Another”) is based on PPC and ART E: received a modified version of EQUIP + usual care C: received usual care
|
N = 108; E = 61 (31 at post), C = 47 (25 at post) Age: mean = 16.8; range = 12–21 Gender: males Race: not provided Incarcerated for having committed one or more serious crimes, awaiting sentencing, or on supervision order
|
SRM-SF: assessing moral judgment HIT questionnaire: measuring cognitive distortions (self- centeredness, minimizing mislabeling, blaming others, covert antisocial behavior/lying or stealing, overt antisocial behavior/physical aggression) IAP-SF- assessing moral beliefs and social skills under stressful circumstances
|
At post test:
Non-significant difference in change of moral judgment and social skills between groups Significant difference in reduction of self- centeredness, minimizing/ mislabeling, blaming, Significant reduction in covert antisocial behavior No significant difference between groups observed for “assuming the worst” and overt antisocial behavior
|
| Leeman, et al. (1993) |
|
|
N = 57; E = 20; C = 37 Age: mean=16; range = 15–18; Gender: male Race: 38 white, 18 black, 1 hispanic Incarcerated for parole violations and less serious felonies
|
Mediating process (SRM-SF- measuring moral judgment; IAP- SF- measuring social skills) Behavioral outcomes (institutional conduct, post-release recidivism)
|
Treatment group:
Significant gains in institutional conduct and social skills in experimental group relative to control Experimental groups recidivism rate 1/2 of control groups at 6 months after discharge, over 1/3 at 1 year follow-up Non-significant difference in moral judgment between groups
|
| Davis et al. (1988) |
|
|
N=231 delinquent youths Age: 12–18 Gender: 173 males, 58 female Race: 199 white, 11 black, 5 hispanic, 16 nat. american Adjudicated delinquent youth – some with identified psychiatric d/o
|
|
|
| Sherer (1985) |
|
|
N = 48; (E=15; C1=30; C2=10) Demographics: Mean age = 16.5 yrs, age range = 15 to 18 yrs Gang members who had volunteered for activities directed by a paraprofessional
|
MOTEC- measuring moral development (resistance to temptation, moral development, feelings after offense, judgment about severity of punishment, confession)
|
At posttest:
PPC group members scored higher on resistance to temptation and moral development PPC and control group-2 scored higher than control group-1 for feelings after offense and severity of punishment Non-significant difference observed for confession category
|
| Teaching Family Model |
| Lewis (2005) |
|
Home based intervention for families in Utah E: TFM as part of a family preservation program; intensive services for 6 months with crisis follow up C: usual care family preservation services
|
N = 150; 105 treatment, 45 controls Demographics: Mean age = 10.4 yrs, range = 3.9 to 17.3 years; 75% male; no race/ethnicity data Children w/serious behavioral and school-related problems Controls referred by school or court
|
63-item project developed questionnaire:
Child behavior Child management Family functioning Parental effectiveness
|
Post-Intervention:
Significant impact of E condition on overall youth and family functioning at both posttests No significant difference across groups for parental effectiveness/parent0child relationships due to control group’s improved score over time
|
| Larzelere et al. (2004) |
|
Boys Town Family home Program Group home with family-like treatment environment Average length of stay: 1.8 years (range: 31 days to 9.7 years)
|
N = 440 discharged youth Demographics: Mean age = 14.9 yrs, range = 8.6 to 18.6 yrs; 38% female; 60% Cauc., 20% AfAm, 10% Hispanic; 3% Nat. Am., 6% multi- ethnic Excluded youth with <31 days in care Youth referred by juvenile justice, social or mental health services, family or self
|
|
Most youth improved from intake to discharge and were functioning at levels similar to national norms at a 3- month f/up Similar improvement for girls and boys Most youth discharged to less restrictive settings, but girls had greater reduction Significant improvements in problem behaviors observed Significant reductions in DSM-III and -IV diagnosis 12 months after intake
|
| Jones & Timbers (2003) |
|
|
|
|
After TFM introduction:
|
| Thompson, et al. (1996) |
|
|
N = 581; 497 treatment, 84 controls Demographics: Mean age = 14.4 yrs (treatment), 14.7 yrs (controls); all males Followed for 8 years
|
Grade point average (GPA) Years of school completed HS diploma/GED Chance of college attendance Request for help w/homework from adult
|
Treatment group:
Reported higher GPA while in residence than after discharge- (stayed higher than controls) Years of school completed at faster rate 83% completed high school/GED vs. 69% of controls Increased chance of college attendance while in residence- decreased after discharge Received more help with homework during and after program
|
| Slot, et al. (1992) |
Determined effectiveness of cross- cultural replication of TFM Pre test post test, as well as experimental design w/treatment and non-matched and non-randomized control groups Follow-up at 6 months for Studies 1 and 2, unknown for study 3
|
|
3 separate studies:
Study 1: N = 58 Dutch youth (TFM); Mean age = 16.6 yrs, range = 14.2 to 19.1 yrs Study 2: N = 529, 50 Dutch youth (TFM), 479 Canadian youth; Mean age = not available Study 3: N = 114, 57 Dutch youth, 57 Canadian youth; Mean age = 16.4 yrs, range = 14 to 18.3 yrs
|
YEL- used in Study1: measures 3 dimensions of anti-social behavior and social competence Study 2: Offense levels Study 3: Problems, abilities for relationships outside families and for community participation
|
|
| Bedlington (1988) |
|
|
N = 241; 91 treatment, 150 controls Demographics: Mean age = 15.2 yrs (treatment), 15.8 (controls); all males Court adjudicated Followed for 2 years
|
Direct observation- measuring youth-adult interactions, proximity SRD- measuring delinquency Environmental positiveness
|
Treatment group:
Rated higher in teaching, talking, and proximity Rated higher in fairness, pleasantness, concern, and effectiveness
|
| Kirigin, et al. (1982) |
|
|
N = 192, 102 treatment, 90 controls Demographics: Age range = 12 to 16 yrs; 124 males, 68 females Youth assigned by court
|
Number of alleged offenses, % of youth involved in offenses % of youth institutionalized
|
Treatment group:
Decrease in offense rates during treatment No significant difference in institutionalization during and after treatment Consistently rated higher by youth
|
| Sanctuary Model |
| Rivard (2005) |
|
|
N = 158 Demographics: Mean age = 15 yrs, age range = 12 to 20 yrs; 63% male; Youth with history of maltreatment
|
CBCL TSCC Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale Nowicki-Strickland Locus of Control Scale Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment (peer form) Youth coping index Social Problem Solving Questionnaire
|
Treatment group:
Scored lower on measure of coping strategies that tend to increase interpersonal conflict Exhibited greater sense of personal control Reduced verbal aggression Scored better on support, spontaneity, autonomy, problem orientation, and safety at 6 months after intake
|
| Stop-Gap Model |
| McCurdy & McIntyre (2004) |
|
|
N = 50; 25 treatment, 25 control Demographics: Age range = 13 to 18 yrs; all females Presenting DSM-IV diagnosis of conduct Histories of sexual and/or physical abuse
|
|
Treatment group:
|
| Re-ED Model |
| Fields (2006) |
|
|
N = 98 Demographics: Mean age = 10.7, age range = 7 to 13; 13% female Majority diagnosed with ADHD, an externalizing disorder, or mood disorder Parent with substance abuse disorder
|
CBCL- measuring the degree of severe behavioral symptoms BERS- assesses children’s strengths (intra- and inter- personal) CASA- assesses range of services that children may use to address mental health problems (i.e. hospitalization)
|
Younger age related to substantial change during treatment Longer LOS associated with more positive outcomes Significant improvement in CBCL and BERS during treatment and significantly better at follow-up compared to intake Shorter stay indicates lower likelihood of receiving recommended services after discharge
|
| Hooper (2000) |
Addressed post- discharge outcomes of students from a program employing a formal Re-ED model Pretest posttest, cross- sectional Follow-up at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months
|
|
N = 111 Demographics: Mean age = 15, age range = 13 to 16 yrs; 67% male 85% on some type of pharmacological management 80% experienced abuse in past Mean education level of mother’s = 11th grade
|
3 domains:
Key demographics (age, race, gender, maternal education) Psychoeducational (verbal IQ, performance IQ, full-scale IQ, reading, math, writing) Social-behavioral (Child Behavior Checklist)
|
58% of students rated at performing satisfactorily across 24-month time span Nearly all students rated satisfactorily in at least one domain following discharge; 71% functioned satisfactorily in 2 of 3 domains at 24 months and 97% at 6 months Tendency for successful groups to include females, slightly younger, have higher IQ scores, better core reading and writing skills, fewer psychiatric diagnosis
|
| Weinstein (1969) |
|
|
|
Parent and teacher ratings on behavior problems, adjustment and academic functioning Measures:
|
At 6 months, reductions were noted in symptomatology and undesirable behaviors as well as improvements in social competence Teachers rated students as significantly improved on all dimensions after the Re-ED intervention
|
