Achievement place: The teaching-family model

Wolf, Montrose M.; Phillips, Elery L.; Fixsen, Dean L.; Braukmann, Curtis J.; Kirigin, Kathryn A.; Willner, Alan G.; Schumaker, Jean B.

doi:10.1007/bf01555232

Cited by 97 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The scales used do not refer to the program but rather to important features of the youths' daily lives--wherever they happen to be living them. Additionally, previous research on the TFM demonstrated its positive influence on social skills--especially as they pertain to relationships with adults (e.g., Kifer, Lewis, Green, & Phillips, 1974;Phillips et al, 1974;Wolf et al, 1976). Such skills can have a bidirectional influence--just as youths can be the architects and victims of a coercive process, they can also be the architects and beneficiaries of a noncoercive process (Patterson, 1982;Patterson et al, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Perhaps the most prominent and prevalent of the family style residential programs is the Teaching-Family Model (TFM), originally called the Achievement Place Model, which has been described more completely elsewhere (e.g., Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & Wolf, 1974;Wolf et al, 1976). Briefly, in the TFM a married couple lives in a large domestic home with six to eight adolescents.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In the past 20 years, however, some programs have made changes in their methods and goals with an eye toward improving life in placement. These programs have moved away from the traditional training school format with mostly custodial shift-work staff and moved to a smaller group-home format with a family-type atmosphere and trained staff who live with the youths (e.g., Christian, Hannah, & Glahn, 1984;Fixsen et al, 1978;Lerman, 1975;Lundman, 1984;National Institute of Mental Health, 1971;Small & Alwon, 1988;Wolf et al, 1976). Thus the programs purport to correct past problems (problems that presumably have contributed to the negative beliefs mentioned above--cf.…”

Section: Sense Of Controlmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A longitudinal evaluation of prevalent negative beliefs about residential placement for troubled adolescents

Friman

Osgood

Smith

et al. 1996

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the validity of five prevalent negative beliefs about residential placement, we followed adolescents from a residential program and a comparison group at 3-month intervals for 4 to 8 years. This residential program in the Midwest uses the Teaching-Family Model in which six to eight adolescents live in a family-style environment. The interviews included five scales reflecting youths' views about important aspects of their lives in placement: (1) Delivery of Helpful Treatment, (2) Satisfaction with Supervising Adults, (3) Isolation from Family, (4) Isolation from Friends, and (5) Sense of Personal Control. Hierarchical linear modeling allowed us to estimate group differences while controlling for developmental trends, demographic factors, and prior differences between groups. The two groups were equivalent on all scales before the study. During the following placement, however, the treatment group's ratings were significantly more positive than the comparison group on four of the five scales and approached significance on the fifth. These findings suggest that negative beliefs about life in residential placement for adolescents may not apply to all programs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Sense Of Controlmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A longitudinal evaluation of prevalent negative beliefs about residential placement for troubled adolescents

Friman

Osgood

Smith

et al. 1996

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Frensch & Cameron, 2002;Hair, 2005), one model of group care, the Teaching-Family model, is a notable exception. Originally developed at Achievement Place in the 1970s (Wolf et al, 1976), the Teaching-Family model is a behaviorally-oriented approach that integrates family-style living, youth self-government and a token economy for teaching social skills (Friman, 2000;Larzelere, Daly, Davis, Chmelka & Handwerk, 2004). In Teaching-Family group homes, 6-8 youth live in a large home with live-in houseparents who provide consistent supervision and maintain a family-like environment through relationshipbuilding.…”

Section: Evidence For Family-style Group Care's Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing outcomes for youth in treatment foster care and family-style group care

Lee

Thompson

2008

Children and Youth Services Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group care programs are often criticized for producing poor outcomes, especially in light of community-based alternatives like treatment foster care that have a stronger evidence base. In this study, data from Girls and Boys Town were used to compare outcomes of youth in treatment foster care (n=112) and group care (n=716) using propensity score matching, a method that can minimize selection bias in nonrandomized designs. Eighteen background covariates were used to develop propensity scores for the likelihood of receiving treatment foster care rather than group care. Several matching methods generated balanced samples on which the outcomes were compared. Results found that group care youth were more likely to be favorably discharged, more likely to return home, and less likely to experience subsequent placement in the first six months after discharge. Legal involvement and residing in a home-like environment at follow-up did not differ. Positive outcomes for group care youth suggest that family-style group care programs may promote effectiveness. Keywordstreatment foster care; family-style group care; propensity score matching Prevailing wisdom in systems of care for youth promotes a philosophy of least restrictive and community-based care (Stroul & Friedman, 1986). A growing body of evidence suggests that specialized foster care settings like treatment foster care (Chamberlain & Reid, 1991;Fisher & Chamberlain, 2000) are more effective and cost-efficient than group care (Chamberlain & Reid, 1998;Eddy & Chamberlain, 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 1999). In a continuum of care, group care often serves youth whose needs surpass the capacity of traditional family foster care, but are not acute enough to warrant inpatient hospitalization (CWLA, 2004). With the emergence of treatment foster care as a possible alternative to group placements, questions about the continued broad use of group care are increasing (Barth, 2005).Despite widespread questions about youth safety during care (Barth, 2002) and equivocal outcomes following care (Hair, 2005;Wells, 1991), group care programs are prevalent. In this article, the term group care will be used interchangeably with residential care to label programs Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptChild Youth Serv Rev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 January 1. Published in final edited form as:Child Youth Serv Rev. 2008 ; 30(7): 746-757. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript that provide services 24-hours a day to...

show abstract

“…Lee and Thompson (2008) compared treatment group care and treatment foster care outcomes when group care was provided using a consistent model, the Teaching-Family model (Larzelere et al 2004;Wolf et al 1976). While Chamberlain's research benefitted from randomized assignment of youth to treatment group care or treatment foster care, in the absence of randomization, Lee and Thompson (2008) used propensity score matching to create matched samples of youth.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Outcomes for Youth Served in Treatment Foster Care and Treatment Group Care

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Achievement place: The teaching-family model

Cited by 97 publications

References 9 publications

A longitudinal evaluation of prevalent negative beliefs about residential placement for troubled adolescents

A longitudinal evaluation of prevalent negative beliefs about residential placement for troubled adolescents

Comparing outcomes for youth in treatment foster care and family-style group care

Comparing Outcomes for Youth Served in Treatment Foster Care and Treatment Group Care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About