A Comparison of Treatment Environments in Community-Based Group Homes for Adolescent Offenders

Abstract

Evaluations of community-based programs for delinquents have usually addressed differential outcomes or cost-efficiency, but generally ignored the treatment environments themselves. Yet milieu characteristics are important in assessing treatment quality. The present research examined several environmental dimensions in 11 group home programs. Teaching-Family programs scored significantly higher on observational and self-report measures of staff-youth relationships and interactions, staff teaching activities and disapproval of deviance, the family-likeness and pleasantness of the program atmosphere, and the extent of prosocial behavior displayed by the participants. Several of the measures were significantly negatively correlated with self-reported delinquency. The results suggest that, contrary to some stereotypes, behavioral programs can be pleasant, positive, and familylike while offering structured treatment.

What works in group care? — A structured review of treatment models for group homes and residential care

“…Studied outcomes included behavior problems, symptomatology, family functioning and parental effectiveness, academic outcomes as well as service level outcomes, such as level of restrictiveness, and number of restraints. Studies reviewed included one randomized trial (Lewis, 2005), one quasi-experimental study with an equivalent comparison group (Thompson et al, 1996), four quasi-experimental studies with non-equivalent/non-matched comparison groups (Bedlington, Braukmann, Ramp & Wolf, 1988; Kirigin, Braukmann, Atwater & Wolf, 1982; Slot, Jagers & Dangel, 1992), and three pre-posttest studies (Jones & Timbers, 2003; Larzelere et al, 2004; Slot et al, 1992). Lewis experimental study was subsequently removed from rating considerations since the study used an adaptation of the TFM within a family-based, not a group care setting.…”

“…Bedlington et al (1988) compared changes in functioning for youth placed in TFM residential homes versus youth placed in non-TFM homes. Findings were based on observer protocols that measured adult/youth interactions, teaching, intolerance of deviance, youth social behavior, pleasantness of the environment, and family-likeness and youth self-report of delinquency.…”

Core Implementation Components

“…Staff evaluation is designed to assess the use and outcomes of the skills that are reflected in the selection criteria, taught in training, and reinforced and expanded in coaching processes (e.g., Bedlington, Braukmann, Kirigin Ramp, & Wolf, 1988;Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003…”

Does Model Matter? Examining Change Across Time for Youth in Group Homes

“…Studies that have compared TFM programs with other settings have also generally found positive results on both key processes and outcomes (Bedlington, Braukmann, Ramp, & Wolf, 1988;Cohen et al, 2010;Friman et al, 1996;Slot, Jagers, & Dangel, 1992;Weinrott, Jones, & Howard, 1982). Compared with non-TFM group homes, TFM homes have greater levels of adult-youth communication and instances of adults teaching youth (Bedlington et al, 1988), higher satisfaction with supervising adults, decreased isolation from friends and family, and greater sense of personal control (Friman et al, 1996).…”

“…Compared with non-TFM group homes, TFM homes have greater levels of adult–youth communication and instances of adults teaching youth (Bedlington et al, 1988), higher satisfaction with supervising adults, decreased isolation from friends and family, and greater sense of personal control (Friman et al, 1996). Increased exposure to TFM practices (more staff interactions, length of stay, or both) has been associated with lower rates of delinquency among youth in TFM homes versus those receiving treatment-as-usual (i.e., standard probation; Cohen et al, 2010).…”