326

Group Treatment Strategies inJuvenile Correctional Programs*

ROSEMARY C. SARRI

Associate Professor, School of Social Work, University of MichiganB.A., 1946, M.S.W., 1955, University of Minnesota; Ph.D. (Sociology and

Social Work), 1962, University of Michigan

ROBERT D. VINTER

Associate Dean and Professor of Social Work, School of Social Work,University of Michigan

A.B. (Psychology), 1943, Trinity College; M.S.W., 1947, Columbia UniversitySchool of Social Work; Ph.D. (Social Psychology), 1957, Columbia University

Direct and indirect approaches to group intervention recentlyutilized by juvenile correctional agencies, including closed in-

stitutions, minimum security or work camps, courts, and de-tached worker and street-gang programs in open communityagencies, are examined to identify their distinguishing featuresand to assess their usefulness.

Direct group methods are classified into three categories:group education, group counseling, and group therapy. Indirectmethods are divided into institutional management and milieutreatment. Each method is examined with reference to variablesrelevant to the entire range of treatment: goals, change targetsand program focus, client characteristics, staff characteristics androle patterns, and evaluation of outcomes.

Since each approach presents certain advantages when em-ployed appropriately and when integrated into a larger agencystrategy, the paper suggests conditions which might determinethe effectiveness of any selected approach. Mentioned here arethe necessity of specification of individual change goals, the useof peer groups as a means for change, the selection of properlytrained personnel, and the integration of services within an

agency.

* An earlier version of this papei was pre-sented at the 90th Annual Forum, National

Conference on Social Welfare, May 24, 1963,and at the 72nd Annual Meeting, Ohio Wel-fare Conference, October 1962, Cincinnati.

327

HE BASIC TASK of correctional serv-Tices for juvenile offenders is to re-socialize clients whose behavior andvalues deviate from those which are

legally and socially acceptable. A prin-cipal problem for all correctional

agencies and other organizations re-

sponsible for changing people is thatof devising effective and efficient meth-ods for causing change and for stabil-izing it beyond the period of agencyservice.iNew means of treatment are sought

by personnel in all of these organiza-tions, who have become increasinglydissatisfied with traditional methodsand increasingly skeptical of the ba-havioral theory that most offendersare emotionally maladjusted and,therefore, in need of intensive indi-vidual therapy. Sociologists who havestudied the interpersonal dynamics ofjuvenile delinquency stress that theremust be intervention in the deviantsubculture or peer group for success-ful rehabilitation to be attained.2

Everywhere we see a heightened ap-preciation for the potentials of thesmall group and the development ofnew tactics for realizing these poten-tials through group treatment proce-dures.

In this paper we will describe andexamine some of the group methods

employed in correctional agencies.3Although not meant to be comprehen-sive, this review will analyze methodsoffered in a variety of agency con-

texts including closed institutions,minimum security or work camps,courts, and detached worker and street

gang programs of open communityagencies. Our attention will be con-fined to utilization of the group for

explicit treatment purposes, ignoringits many other uses for recreational,academic, work, or dormitory pur-poses.

Direct Group MethodsThere are two principal methods of

group treatment, direct and indirect.The former includes group education,group counseling, and several types ofgroup therapy. Indirect or socialmilieu methods include institutional

management and other forms of en-vironmental manipulation.4

1 See R. D. Vinter, "The Analysis of

Treatment Organizations," Social Work, July1963, pp. 3-15; and M. Zald, "The Correc-tional Institution for Juvenile Offenders: AnAnalysis of Organizational Character," SocialProblems, Summer 1960, pp. 57-63.

2 See R. Cloward, et al., Theoretical Stud-ies in Social Organization of the Prison

(New York: Social Science Research Council,1960) ; L. E. Ohlin and W. E. Lawrence,"Social Interaction among Clients as a Treat-ment Problem," Social Work, April 1959,pp. 3-13; H. Polsky, Cottage Six (New York:Russell Sage Foundation, 1962); and A. K.

Cohen, Delinquent Boys: The Culture of theGang (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955). Atten-tion in this paper is focused on correc-

tional programs for juveniles, but it is our

observation that similar problems are facedin adult correctional settings. The latter

agencies may be more seriously disabled intheir rehabilitative efforts because of the

powerful countereffects of informal inmatesocial relations built around values andnorms of solidary opposition to the official

system.

3 More than 110 publications on grouptreatment approaches were reviewed in the

preparation of this paper, with particularemphasis given to the 1955-63 period. No

attempt was made at a comprehensive re-

view ; nevertheless, the relatively large num-ber of publications included provides a rea-sonable basis for tentative judgments aboutgroup treatment methods.

4 For comparative and analytic purposesit was necessary to draw distinctions amongthe several types of group treatment meth-ods. For example, the same author may referto a given program as both group counsel-ing and group therapy. We recognize thatthe distinctions which we have drawn are ar-

bitrary and do not represent a consensus

about the appropriate nomenclature to beused in defining group treatment ap-proaches.

328

Among direct methods, the use ofgroups for educational purposes ap-pears to have existed longest in thecorrectional field. In this category areorientation programs to communicate

policies and rules to clients, classes insocial adjustment, citizenship train-

ing, and parent education. Tech-

niques employed are largely didacticwith little or no concern for clients’attitudes and specific problems, sinceit is assumed that they have a com-mon need for acquiring the generalinstructional content.

The second category of direct meth-ods, &dquo;group counseling,&dquo; is the meth-od most frequently referred to in

reports of group treatment. The serv-ice is typically provided to formallycomposed client groups ranging insize from five to fifteen members anddirected by lay or nonprofessionalstatic 5

Included in the third category,&dquo;group therapy,&dquo; are group psycho-therapy, social group work, and &dquo;guid-ed group interaction,&dquo; all of whichare typically utilized for smaller

groups of clients. Although grouptherapy and group counseling haveoverlapping goals, the most significantdifference between the two appears tobe the training of personnel who ren-der the service: we include under

group therapy only those services pro-vided by professionally trained per-sonnel - psychiatrists, psychologists,and social workers. Further, through

review of the literature, certain basicdifferences among the group therapiescan be identified. Group psychother-apy is most frequently directed towardintrapsychic or personality change,the development of insight, and so

forth.6 The group is viewed primarilyas a special context for treatment, andthe crucial relations are those betweenthe therapist and each client. Social

group work and guided group inter-action, however, are directed more to-ward attitudinal and behavioral

changes, and the group is viewed asboth a means and a context for treat-ment.7 Thus, in the latter approachesthere is more explicit concern withgroup phenomena and the manipula-tion of conditions within the group sothat it can act as a potent influencetoward change for its members.

Social Milieu ApproachesSocial milieu approaches have re-

cently come to the correctional field

from the &dquo;therapeutic milieu&dquo; con-

cept, developed in residential treat-

ment of the mentally ill. In this area adistinction must be made between in-stitutional management and milieu

treatment: in the former, selected as-

pects of institutional organization and

5 See N. Fenton, et al., Explorations in theUse of Group Counseling in the County Cor-rectional Program (Palo Alto, Calif.: PacificBooks, 1962), for a discussion of group coun-seling programs in California. Staff members

generally are not professionally trained; in-

stead, selected personnel receive brief butintensive in-service training and continuingsupervision from professional staff. Groupcounseling services are offered in both insti-tutional and community settings.

6 See L. D. Penny, "Group Psychotherapywith Boys," Proceedings of the National As-sociation of Training Schools and JuvenileAgencies, 1959, pp. 178-84.

7 For a discussion of social group work

practice principles, see R. D. Vinter, "TheEssential Components of Social Group WorkPractice" (Ann Arbor: University of MichiganSchool of Social Work, 1959, mimeo.), andG. Konopka, "The Social Group Work Meth-od : Its Use in the Correctional Field," Fed-eral Probation, March 1956, pp. 25-30. SeeL. McCorkle, A. Elias, and F. L. Bixby, TheHighfields Story (New York: Henry Holt,1958); and L. Empey and J. Rabow, "TheProvo Experiment in Delinquency Rehabili-tation," American Sociological Review, Octo-ber 1961, pp. 679-96, for discussions of

guided group interaction.

329

routine are involved, whereas, in thelatter, the manipulation of the totalenvironment is sought. Polsky, Gros-ser, and Ohlin and Lawrence have

emphasized the importance of appre-hending the various ways in whichsocial forces and environmental fac-tors within the institutions often op-erate to negate direct treatment meth-ods.8 Some correctional institutionshave drastically altered certain oftheir modes of operation to permitgreater manipulation of environmen-tal factors in the interest of treatment;for example, by reassigning profes-sional staff, such as social workers, topositions where they have direct re-

sponsibility for cottage life and can

exploit all aspects of the living unit.Our own research has documentedsome of the problems encountered insuch total manipulation and some ofthe disadvantages when it is not

achieved 9

Social milieu methods in commu-

nity agencies include efforts to modifyagency structure or local neighbor-hood and community conditions so

that they will be supportive of treat-ment goals. The importance of thesefactors has long been emphasized, butlittle demonstrable success has beenachieved.10

Group Treatment Patternsand Variables

It is difficult to assess the extent towhich group treatment methods incorrectional agencies are actually be-ing employed today, because, al-

though there is a relatively extensiveliterature on many aspects of the sub-

ject, little systematic information hasbeen reported about the quantity,types, and quality of services. The

only general facts are those reportedin the McCorkle and Elias survey ofall public correctional institutions in

the United States in 1950 and .1~,lÍnin 1959.11 Mccui kle and Elias noughtto determine the extent of use of

group therapeutic methods, but theydid not explicitly define group ther-apy and left the respondents free todecide which treatment methods theychose to report.The type of treatment most fre-

quently reported was defined as

&dquo;group counseling.&dquo; During the 1950-59 decade it appeared to have becomethe principal treatment method in

many institutions. Only one-third ofthe institutions reported that grouptreatment was conducted by psychia-trists, psychologists, or trained socialworkers. Instead, administrators re-

lied largely on nonprofessional staff,who received in-service training in

group methods.

McCorkle and Elias found no de-finitive patterns with respect to thetypes of clients chosen for group treat-

8 See G. Grosser, "The Role of InformalInmate Groups in Change of Values," Chil-dren, January-February 1958, pp. 25-29;Polsky, op. cit. supra note 2; and Ohlin andLawrence, supra note 2.

9 R. Vinter and M. Janowitz, et al., TheComparative Study of Juvenile Institutions:A Research Report (Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan, 1961).

10 For a review of community delinquencyprograms in which various environmentalfactors have been considered see M. Goldand J. A. Winter, A Selective Review ofCommunity-Based Programs for PreventingDelinquency (Ann Arbor: Institute for So-cial Research, October 1961); see also R. K.Merton, "The Social-Cultural Environment

and Anomie." in H. L. Witmer and R Ko-

tinsky (eds.) , New Perspectives for Researchon Juvenile Delinquency (Washington, D. C.:Children’s Bureau Publication No. 356,1956) , pp. 32-33.

11 For results of two surveys of group treat-ment in juvenile correctional institutions, seeL McCorkle and A. Elias, "Group Therapyin Correctional Institutions," Federal Proba-tion, June 1959, pp. 57-63.

330

ment, and seldom any uniform pro-vision of it for all clients. Sixty percent of the institutions reported fiveor fewer therapy groups. Althoughinstitutional personnel seemed con-

cerned about outcomes, less than one-fifth of the institutions made any ef-fort to evaluate group treatment pro-grams objectively.The use of group treatment meth-

ods has expanded even further sincethe publication of the McCorkle andElias study. However, administratorsare now seeking more definitive state-ments about the utility of variousmethods of group treatment with dif-ferent types of offenders and in variedagency contexts so that more rationalselection of treatment methods can bemade.We will now proceed with a com-

parative analysis of some group treat-ment strategies. In examining eachapproach we will consider certain va-riables relevant to the entire range of

group treatment: goals, change tar-

gets and program focus, client char-acteristics, staff characteristics and rolepatterns, and evaluation of outcomes.

Comparative Group StrategiesGROUP EDUCATION

When the &dquo;training school&dquo; philos-ophy was dominant, group educa-tional methods were used extensivelybecause the principal goal was to trainoffenders in obedience and sociallyapproved behavior. Vestiges of this

philosophy remain today in orienta-tion programs, in citizenship training,and occasionally in parent educationgroups.12

Because the task of group educationis perceived as one which involves the

imparting of specific information, dif-ferences in client characteristics and

group size are relatively unimportant.Clients often see little connection be-tween the group sessions and theirown life situations. Seldom is there

any explicit concern with the mobili-zation of group forces, and interac-tional processes are not utilized to

achieve or sustain changes in clients’attitudes and behaviors.

Staff characteristics and training areof minimal concern; only training incontent sufficient to give the requisiteinstruction is required. Group educa-tional approaches are seldom effectivebecause little attention is given to mo-tivating clients toward the desired

change goals. Frequently, informalclient relations are forcibly sup-pressed, with such undesirable conse-quences as social alienation or, in aninmate system, solidary opposition tostaff goals.Schein’s descriptive analysis of indoc-

trination programs in Chinese Com-munist prisoner-of-war camps high-lights some of the consequences of acomprehensive group educational pro-gram employing physical and socialforce to attain its ends.13 Schein sug-gests that there are important simi-larities between those camps and juve-nile correctional services which have

implications for treatment organiza-tions.

GROUP COUNSELING

Group counseling is probably themost prevalent group treatment ap-proach in institutional settings andjuvenile court programs.14 A wide

12 Similarities are apparent in group ori-

entation programs in correctional institutionsand the indoctrination of soldiers in basic

training.

13 See E. H. Schein. "Interpersonal Com-munication, Group Solidarity and Social In-

fluence," Sociometry, June 1960, pp. 148-61;see also Schein, et al., Coercive Persuasion

(Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Tech-nology, 1960).14 At least one state has developed an ex-

331

range of activities is incorporated un-der the label. The service is providedby various staff members, profession-ally trained and otherwise, dependingupon agency goals and organizationalstructure. Two general goals seem tocharacterize group counseling services:positive group support and re-educa-tion. The diversity of approach be-comes apparent when we examine themore specific objectives, which include( 1 ) providing information about theagency and its purposes; (2) assistingclients in the perception and accept-ance of social reality; (3) encouragingfuller expression of feelings and atti-tudes ; (4) providing positive groupexperiences and meaningful interper-sonal relations with peers and adults;(5) enhancing the self-esteem of theclients.

Although all of these may be statedas objectives for a given group, re-

ports from practitioners suggest thatin actuality certain objectives are em-phasized arbitrarily, without regard toclients’ particular characteristics andsituations. Again, as we noted in edu-cational groups, there is an assump-tion that the goals and content of theapproach are appropriate for all cli-ents. Group counseling has been triedin a variety of settings and with a va-riety of clients. We have, however,little information about the relativeeffectiveness of this method for cer-

tain types of clients, since client char-acteristics, although identified, havenot been used as controls in evalu-

ating outcomes. Several practitionerssuggest that group counseling is more

effective with clients already able tocommunicate effectively and with firstor minor offenders; however, such as-sertions are generally based on sub-jective evaluations. Furthermore, the

goals pursued by nonprofessionalstend to be relatively superficial anddiffuse, while the techniques tend tobe overly specific. Much emphasis is

placed on detailed consideration of

techniques to be employed by the

worker, and outlines of strategy fre-

quently resemble a cookbooklCounseling groups range in size

from eight to ten members, and theymeet at least once a week. Where theservice is provided by nonprofessionalpersonnel, the period of treatment is

relatively brief, averaging less thanfour months. In contrast, profession-ally trained workers generally reportservice of a year or more.15

Positive results from group counsel-

ing programs directed by nonprofes-sionals have been reported. Wherethere has been systematic evaluation,however, the results have been disap-pointing, if comparisons are madewith group therapy programs or pro-fessional group counseling.Walker, Vogt, and others have em-

phasized the importance of clear de-lineation of the worker’s role and

goals.16 They are in general agreement tthat the service must be rendered bya professional worker capable of in-

tegrating his dual status as authorityfigure and treatment agent. They alsopoint to the necessity of defining goals

tensive program of group counseling in com-munity and institutional settings for bothadults and juveniles. The majority of the

personnel are untrained, but receive in-serv-ice training and supervision from psychia-trists, psychologists, and social workers. See

Fenton, et al., op. cit. supra note 5.

15 V. Lincoln, "Group Counseling with

Girls," Proceedings of the National Associa-tion of Training Schools and Juvenile Agen-cies, 1959, pp. 170-77.16 See G. J. Walker, "Group Counseling in

Juvenile Probation," Federal Probation, De-cember 1959, pp. 31-38; H. Vogt, "GroupCounseling in Probation," Federal Probation,September 1961, pp. 49-54.

332

in terms of those specific attitudes andbehaviors directly relevant to the cli-ent’s life outside the group. Walker

emphasizes group discussions whichare &dquo;feeling-centered and problem-solving&dquo; and the creation and main-tenance of a nutrient atmosphere forsharing common problems, but hedirects little attention to exploitationof the treatment potential of the

group. The difficulty in group coun-seling is the tendency to seek changesin the attitudes or behavior of theclient which have little connection

with, or only tangential relevance to,his immediate life situation and hisbehavior in the community.

GROUP THERAPY

The third type of direct grouptreatment was designated as &dquo;grouptherapy.&dquo; Included in this categoryare group psychotherapy, &dquo;guidedgroup interaction,&dquo; and social groupwork. The principal basis for distin-guishing between these and othermethods is that the service is rendered

by a professionally trained person-a psychiatrist, a social worker, or apsychologist-an arbitrary distinctionbut useful for discussion. A second

major difference is in the nature ofthe goals sought for individual clients.Group Psychotherapy.-Group psy-

chotherapy is probably the oldest ofthe group therapeutic methods usedin correctional settings, although allare of recent origin. Initially it was

adapted, as a treatment procedure forjuvenile offenders, from clinical prac-tices in mental health agencies. Thistransfer led to a perception of delin-quents as emotionally disturbed. Thusemphasis was placed on the resolutionof psychic disorders while sociologicalfactors were largely ignored.l7

Although many authors assert thatgroup psychotherapeutic methods

bring positive outcomes for certain

types of clients, Grosser and othershave argued that these methods areinappropriate for the treatment ofmost delinquents.18 They believe thatthe genesis of delinquency is identi-fication with a subculture whose val-ues deviate from those of the largersociety. Therefore, to foster integra-tion into the peer group or to helpthe delinquent overcome a sense ofisolation is not a crucial rehabilitativetask.In individual psychotherapy the

central importance of the therapist-client relationship is emphasized;even in group psychotherapy, this re-lationship remains the principalmeans of treatment, with the other

participants serving primarily as fa-

cilitating agents. The literature re-

veals no recognition of group forcesand other conditions which can bemodified to enhance treatment effects.Events occurring within the thera-

peutic session are viewed as the im-

portant ones, while outside events areviewed as significant only insofar as

17 For discussions of group psychothera-peutic methods in correction, see R. Geerts-

ma, "Group Therapy with Juvenile Proba-tioners and Their Parents," Federal Proba-

tion, March 1960, pp. 46-52; M. Hersko,"Group Psychotherapy with Delinquent Ado-lescent Girls," American Journal of Ortho-psychiatry, January 1962, pp. 117-23; H. A.

Illing, "Group Psychotherapy and GroupWork in Authoritarian Settings," Journal ofCriminal Law, Criminology, and Police

Science, November-December 1957, pp. 387-93 ; A. B. Smith, L. Berlin, and A. Bassin,

"Group Therapy with Adult Probationers,"Federal Probation, September 1956, pp. 15-

21 ; N. Tolman, "Approaching the Institu-

tionalized Female through Group Therapy,"Federal Probation, June 1961, pp. 34-40; andPenny, supra note 6.

18 See Grosser, supra note 8; and D. R.

Cressey, "Contradictory Theories in Correc-

tional Group Therapy Programs," Federal

Probation, June 1954, pp. 20-26.

333

they provide material for analysis. If,as Ohlin and Lawrence suggest, a cru-cial problem in the treatment of de-linquents is that of devising a treat-ment approach which can bring aboutthe strongest adherence to conven-

tional values, traditional group psy-chotherapy is certainly not the mostexpeditious strategy.19 Many practi-tioners have recognized some of its

inadequacies and subsequently modi-fied certain traditional elements. Un-

fortunately, few of these modificationshave involved goals or basic proc-esses or anything other than mere

techniques. The focus is still on the

development of insight, the ability toform relationships, and the resolutionof internal conflicts.

In a recent study of correctional in-stitutions, we observed that grouppsychotherapy contributed little to at-tainment of change goals and, indeed,that it actually increased negativeclient attitudes toward these goalsand the staff.2° Our findings suggestsome of the reasons why this programwas not effective. First, therapists in-teracted with client members of their

groups almost exclusively in the ther-apy section, where relations were

structured and formalized. Secand,the content of group sessions was un-related to daily life or to the prob-lems of clients as they perceived them.Third, the group served only as a con-text for therapist-client exchanges;there was no attempt to mobilize itsforces to achieve client change.Fourth, the group experiences did notfacilitate meaningful interpersonal re-relationships relevant to other aspectsof institutional life.Some practitioners who have modi-

fied basic features of the psychothera-peutic process report quite differentresults. Geertsma states that the devel-

opment of insight becomes a second-ary aim and successful interventionoccurs when the group develops intoan effective means for dealing withattitudes toward authority, discipline,school, adolescent culture, and adultsociety.21 As participants reach agree-ment about appropriate problemareas for transaction, the group be-comes a strong instrument of socialcontrol and serves to enforce behav-ioral conformity to group norms andstandards. Geertsma suggests that if

group therapy is to engage the mem-bers effectively, the worker must de-liberately concern himself with thecreation of those group conditionswhich facilitate interaction and alloweffective social controls to develop.Guided Group Interaction. - The

Highfields Project and the Provo Ex-periment, experimental group treat-

ment programs that have recentlyevoked much interest and discussion,22were formulated on the basis of as-

sumptions quite different from themethods we have considered. The

principal treatment technique, guidedgroup interaction, was developed inan attempt to apply a sociologicaltheory of delinquency to treatment.

We will examine the Provo program,which is similar to that of Highfieldsbut involves an additional element,the provision of supportive help aftera period of intensive treatment.

Essential to the Provo program isthe assertion that effective interven-tion must encompass the total social

system in which treatment operates.

19 Ohlin and Lawrence, supra note 2.20 Vinter and Janowitz, et al., op. cit. supra

note 9.

21 See Geertsma, supra note 17.22 See McCorkle, Elias, and Bixby, op. cit.

supra note 7; and Empey and Rabow, supranote 7.

334

Since delinquency is viewed primarilyas a group phenomenon, the task ofrehabilitation becomes one of usingthe group to change shared delinquentvalues and attitudes. Juvenile offend-ers in small groups experiment withnew modes of behavior and make de-

cisions about one another, their peers,and their families.23 Empey and Ra-bow assert that an effective treatment

program must involve the decision-

making process utilized by the delin-quent in his usual community envir-onment.

Some sociological theorists assert

that delinquency is a normal adaptiveresponse to an environment wheredeviant values are supported. In con-

trast, Empey and Rabow agree withthose who suggest that delinquentshave been socialized in a culture dom-inated by a middle-class morality, thatthey are aware of conventional stand-ards, and that they are ambivalentabout their delinquent behavior,maintaining numerous rationaliza-tions by which to &dquo;neutralize&dquo; 1t.24

This ambivalence, Empey and Rabowbelieve, may be used as a vehicle for

effecting change, through a programwhich makes conventional and delin-

quent alternatives clear and leads of-fenders to question the utility of theirdeviant behavior and to perceive forthemselves the value of conventionalalternatives.

In this approach, change is soughtthrough involving the members in anintensive group experience which is

specifically focused on the analysis ofindividual members’ problems and,secondarily, on work habits and workperformance in conventional jobs.There are few formal demands onclients other than that they appeardaily for work on their jobs and par-ticipate in the group sessions. The

ambiguity resulting from the lack ofclear-cut requirements produces anxi-ety among clients, causing them to

turn to the group for help. The peergroup is expected to help each boysolve his problems, establish sanctionsfor his behavior, enforce these sanc-tions, and help decide such matters asthe date of his release. The staff andother officials retain residual author-

ity to be exercised if the client doesnot involve himself in the group, orif the group is unwilling or unableto handle a situation. Clients are pre-sented with the alternative of partici-pation in this entire experience or

transfer to the state training school.During a subsequent period of sup-portive involvement the client con-

tinues to meet occasionally with hisgroup, and efforts are made to helphim secure regular employment or fur-ther education.

The explicit goals of the Provo pro-gram are (1) to juxtapose clearly forclients socially approved and delin-

quent behavioral alternatives, (2) to

induce them to question the utility ofdelinquent alternatives, and (3) to

guide them toward identification withsocially approved values and norms.The peer group is the primary changetarget, and the program relies on theuse of group discussion, informal cli-ent interaction, and jobs as vehiclesfor changing attitudes, values, andwork habits. Integral to the total ex-periment is a five-year systematic eval-uation and a comparison with a con-trol group composed of clients as-

23 Clients in the Provo program are "ha-bitual" offenders, fifteen to seventeen yearsold, who are randomly assigned by the courtfrom two categories of offenders: those as-

signed for probation and those assigned forcommitment to the state training school.

24 G. Sykes and D. Matza, "Techniques ofNeutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,"American Sociological Review, December

1957, pp. 664-69.

335

signed to other conventional types ofcorrectional treatment programs.Of all the treatment methods dis-

cussed thus far, &dquo;guided group inter-action,&dquo; as exemplified in the pro-grams at Highfields and Provo, rep-resents the most thoroughgoing at-

tempt to grant authority and auton-omy to the peer group and to use it

explicitly as the primary agent oftreatment. It is also distinguishablefrom other methods in its deliberate

attempt to create ambiguity and in-duce anxiety.

Incomplete knowledge of certain

aspects of the Provo program handi-

caps our analysis of it. Empey andRabow describe the role of the prac-titioner, but provide insufficient or in-consistent information about exactlywhat he does with clients, individual-ly and in the group, during the en-tire period of treatment.25 Further-

more, we question whether a peergroup can sustain itself over a periodof several months as an effective re-

habilitative tool without the contin-uous active intervention of the prac-titioner.

Despite these uncertainties, this

strategy highlights three very impor-tant elements in any group treatment

program. First, there must be concernabout the total system of treatment.Second, the peer group can be exploit-ed as an effective treatment agent.Third, clients’ attention must be di-rected toward dealing realisticallywith the social environment in which

they live and work.Social Group Work.-During the

past decade, social group work in ju-

venile coi rectional programs has de-

veloped markedly. The rise in the

number of professionally trained

group workers in correctional settingshas been accompanied by clarificationof this treatment approach. Althoughgroup workers are also employed inclosed institutions, work camps, and

juvenile courts, we will examine the&dquo;detached worker&dquo; or &dquo;street gang&dquo;program since this setting providessome contrast to the types of agenciesconsidered thus far. Agencies and

workers in &dquo;street gang&dquo; programstypically maintain some independenceof law enforcement agencies, sinceclients often have negative responsesto these agencies.Group strategies have been devel-

oped in numerous cities for workingwith street corner groups to combat

delinquency and to treat individualoffenders.211 Work with street gangsactually began over thirty years agoin Chicago under the direction ofClifford R. Shaw. At that time, em-

phasis was placed on indigenous lead-ers and institutions, while today thereis greater reliance on professionalworkers and on involvement of manyagencies to coordinate efforts. It is

generally assumed that the delinquentbehavior of a street corner group is

generated by a complex of individual,group, and community forces. The

worker’s primary goal is generally to

25 A somewhat more detailed descriptionof the role of the worker is contained in the

Highfields report, but even there it is diffi-cult to ascertain the patterns of his inter-vention. See McCorkle, Elias, and Bixby, op.cit. supra note 7.

26 For a discussion of different approachesto work with street corner groups, see E. G.

Ackley and B. R. Fliegel, "A Social Work

Approach to Street Corner Girls," SocialWork, October 1960, pp. 27-32; P. Lerman,"Group Work with Youth in Conflict," SocialWork, October 1958, pp. 71-78; New YorkCity Youth Board, Reaching the FightingGang (New York: New York City YouthBoard, 1960); and C. V. Richard, "Findinga Focus for Work with Hostile Youth

Groups," in Social Work with Groups (NewYork: National Association of Social Workers,1958).

336

modify these forces so that antilegaland antisocial acts will diminish. Oth-er goals include the redirection of be-havior into more socially acceptablechannels, provision of more satisfyinginterpersonal relations with peers andadults, vocational counseling, and re-ferral of individuals who require spe-cialized treatment. Beyond the comergroup itself, there is sometimes pur-sued a larger goal, the modification ofcommunity conditions so as to en-

hance legitimate opportunities for

delinquents.Agencies and workers involved in

street gang programs have minimalcontrol over many conditions oftentaken for granted in other correction-aJ agencies. Street gangs are usuallywell organized at the time of theworker’s initial intervention; he cando little to determine the size of the

group, background characteristics ofmembers, and changing patterns of

participation. He can also achieve

only limited regulation of individualand group relations with other groupsin the community.

In gang programs the change targetand program focus are likely to bemore concerned than other correction-al agencies are with modifying the

group and its social relations. The

peer group is the primary target ofchange. Although the worker attemptsto develop meaningful relationshipswith clients and relies heavily on in-terpersonal influence, he also seeksto modify group structures and proc-esses so that these will facilitate theattainment of his goals. Thus, hetries to engage the group in less de-structive activities, to change its fight-ing norms, and to weaken authori-tarian control by the leaders. He alsoseeks to modify the group’s relationswith other groups and with commu-

nity institutions.27 Lerman stresses

the importance of translating general-ized concepts and directives into morespecific practice principles if workwith delinquent gangs is to be moreeffective. Although he believes thatsocial group work services should be

primarily directed at individuals andsmall groups, he emphasizes the needfor diagnosis and intervention at theindividual, group, or neighborhoodlevel.&dquo;

Although not all personnel in streetgang programs are social workers, thebasic orientation is that of social

group work. Role patterns and tech-niques of workers are seldom explicit-ly defined, and great versatility is re-

quired.&dquo;Despite some attempts to assess the

outcomes of detached worker pro-grams, little information exists on theincidence of law-violating behaviorafter the worker’s activity has beenformally terminated. Primary empha-sis has been placed on group-levelchanges, with less concern for assess-ment of individual problems andcharacteristics. However, even where

priority is assigned to reduction of

gang fighting and similar collective

disturbances, there remains a concernabout individual deviancy and lawviolation. Thus, Jereczek has recom-mended the formulation of more ob-

27 Walter Miller points out that groupswith social group workers achieved a rela-

tively high status vis-à-vis other street cor-

ner groups. In addition, group workers were

perceived by adolescents differently than

other welfare workers or authority figures.See W. B. Miller, "The Impact of a Commu-nity Group Program on Delinquent ComerGroups," Social Service Review, December1957, pp. 390-406.

28 Lerman, supra note 26.29 The New York City Youth Board has

attempted to identify the characteristicmodes of operation in working with street

corner groups. Op. cit. supra note 26.

337

jective indices of delinquency prone-ness, initially as a basis for individualdiagnosis and treatment planning,and later as criteria for evaluation.80Gibbons, too, has argued for differen-tiated diagnostic models and treat-

ment principles.31 Since the ultimateaim of all correctional treatment isstabilized individual change, greaterattention to individual characteristics

appears necessary.Both guided group interaction and

social group work require explicit useof the group as a means of treatment.Formal descriptions of the former ap-proach assert a marked differencefrom the latter in the role and task ofthe worker.s2 In social group workthe worker is much more active in thedefinition of goals and in the con-

tinual manipulation of group condi-tions to facilitate goal attainment.

Social Milieu ApproachesPolsky, Grosser, and Ohlin and

Lawrence have described some of the

negative and unanticipated conse-

quences for juvenile correctional in-stitutions when informal peer rela-tions are ignored, circumvented, or de-liberately suppressed by staff.33 Theinformal system cannot be wholly sup-pressed and, unless it is incorporatedas an integral feature of the treatment

strategy, its pressures will impede re-habilitative efforts. To circumvent this

problem, Polsky and others have sug-gested a basic modification in the or-ganizational structure of authorityand in the deployment of professionalpersonnel. This proposal calls for theintegration of authority by assigningresponsibility for both managementand treatment to the professional so-cial worker within each living unit.Such a structure offers greater possi-bility for coordination of efforts of allstaff working directly with clients.

Craig and Novick have described theimplementation of similar organiza-tional changes in two state trainingschools.34

Our observations suggest that thesocial group worker, because of hisorientation and training, is particular-ly well qualified for such a positionas unit director.m He is far better

equipped to handle the role strainswhich result from dual responsibilityfor treatment and management. Ordi-

narily, when these primary tasks arelodged in separate administrative

units, this conflict presses directly onthe untrained cottage parent.One of the seven institutions which

we studied over several years made adeliberate effort to restructure the

roles and tasks of group workers and30 See G. Jereczek, "Gangs Need Not Be

Delinquent," Federal Probation, March 1962,pp. 49-54. Austin has also pointed to the

necessity of explicit individual and groupgoals; see D. Austin, "Goals for Gang Work-ers," Social Work, October 1957, pp. 43-50.

31 See D. C. Gibbons, "Some Notes on

Treatment Theory in Corrections," SocialService Review, September 1962, pp. 295-305.

32 In the actual conduct of "guided groupinteraction," however, there is evidence thatthe practitioner also assumes a more centraland active role.

33 See Polsky, op. cit. supra note 2, Grosser,supra note 8, and Ohlin and Lawrence,supra note 2.

34 See L. P. Craig, "Reaching Delinquentsthrough Cottage Committees," Children,July-August 1959, pp. 129-34; and A. G.

Novick, "Training School Organization forTreatment," Proceedings of the National As-sociation of Training Schools and JuvenileAgencies, 1958, pp. 72-80. They also discussproblems of staff acceptance and resistanceto the structural modifications.

35 See H. Polsky, "Changing DelinquentSubcultures: A Social Psychological Ap-proach," Social Work, October 1959, pp. 3-15;A. Cohen, "Use of Group Process in an In-stitution," Social Work, October 1956, pp.57-61.

338

cottage staff in a manner similar to

that which we have described.36 Laterobservation of the program indicatedthat the restructuring had positiveconsequences for staff and clientsalike. However, because of long-stand-ing traditions, commitments, and ide-ologies, such reorganization is not

easily accomplished. Furthermore, it

requires continuing effort by the ex-ecutive and the entire staff to main-tain a deliberate treatment focus inall facets of the program. Even with

foresight and the best intentions,problems arise and unanticipated con-sequences occur. It is one thing toconceptualize the &dquo;therapeutic milieu&dquo;and quite another to implement it inthe daily operations of an institution!

General Considerations

Group treatment methods offer nomagical solution for the problem ofchanging legal offenders. On the otherhand, each approach seems to presentcertain advantages when appropriate-ly employed and integrated into a

larger agency strategy. The task, then,is to determine more precisely whento employ a specific group methodand how to incorporate it into an

agency’s general design and organ-ization.The economy of group methods is

sometimes argued in their favor.When the objective is simple impart-ing of information to clients, the useof groups is undoubtedly economical.However, for continuing or intensivetreatment, how group and individualtreatment procedures compare in costsand staff time has not been sufficientlystudied. We are skeptical about asser-tions that all group treatment meth-

ods, when adequately integrated in a

total treatment strategy, are more eco-nomical.

Questions aie frequently askedabout the types of clients with whomgroup treatment methods are most ef-fective. Are they more effective withless serious offenders? Vljith chronicoffenders? Or with institutionalizedclients? There are no definitive an-swers. Considering the variety of

agencies and the broad range of clien-tele that have received group treat-

ment services, there is little to indi-cate that such treatment cannot be ef-fective with any type of client underspecific conditions and for certain pur-poses. In evaluative studies whereclient characteristics have been con-

trolled, consistent relationships haveseldom been established between thesecharacteristics and successful or unsuc-cessful outcomes. Some evidence ex-

ists, however, to suggest that grouppsychotherapeutic methods are inef-

fective with lower-class delinquents,because these procedures require con-siderable verbal ability, internalized

conflict, and high potential for devel-opment of insight about one’s atti-

tudes and behavior.Can group treatment with delin-

quents be provided by nonprofession-ally trained staff; and, if so, underwhat conditions? Our research andseveral other evaluative studies sug-gest that group treatment can best be

accomplished by professionals with

knowledge of individual and groupdynamics and of sociocultural condi-tions, plus skill in the use of such

knowledge with delinquents. Nonpro-fessional personnel can participate intreatment efforts most effectively un-der close professional supervision.The peer group can be employed

as a potent means or context for treat-ment. Sociological theories of delin-

quency clearly indicate that deliber-36 Vinter and Janowitz, et al., op. cit. supra

note 9.

339

ate guidance of group forces is neces-sary if we are to intervene effectivelyin delinquent subcultures and altertheir antisocial attitudes, values, andbehaviors. We must challenge the be-lief that group processes unguided bya skilled worker are somehow self-cor-

recting or that mere participation ina group is therapeutic. We must alsopoint to the limited gains to beachieved when the method is directed

only toward group level change,rather than toward stabilized individ-ual change as well. Group treatmentunder the direction of a skilled work-er has much to offer, but the workermust be concerned with both individ-ual and group treatment goals sincehis ultimate aim is stabilized andtransferable change of individual con-duct.

One of the most pressing problemsthroughout the correctional field isthe lack of systematic evaluation of

existing and emerging programs. Theliterature is filled with detailed re-

ports of personal experiences; broadgeneralizations, without valid bases,are frequently made about the appli-cability of these experiences to othersituations. We advocate systematicevaluation in which prestated goalsand criteria provide concrete criteriafor assessment of change. Programsmust be planned and implementedwith respect to those goals, and clientsassigned randomly or strategically de-pending upon the controls one can

impose. Lastly, there must be specificevaluation of the achievement of de-fined goals.

Conclusions

The guidelines we are now able topropose are suggested as conditionswhich determine the effectiveness of

any particular approach selected forimplementation.37

First, goals must be concretely spe-cified for each client who will receivethe service. Only through such speci-fication can the appropriate groupmethod be selected, conducted, andevaluated. Not all goals are equallyrelevant for every client, and differ-ential client characteristics should notbe ignored in planning the effort.

Second, the peer group of clientscan be used as an effective means for

change, particularly when the be-havior or conditions of clients whichshould be changed are themselves theproduct of peer group or subcultureforces. The potentials of the groupcan be realized only by deliberate

management of group forces and con-ditions. The conditions and character-istics of the group may operate for oragainst treatment goals, but their ef-fects can never be neutralized or sup-pressed.3$

Third, transactions within the

group, if they are to be meaningful,must focus on real client problemsand circumstances, as perceived andexperienced by the clients. Effectivetreatment cannot occur where the ac-tivities within the group ignore theclients’ contemporary life outside the

group. Group treatment processescannot be isolated or segregated fromother areas of the client’s life.Fourth, the treatment group will

develop as a more powerful means ofchange as clients can be involved indefining their own change goals, as

37 For a similar set of principles, see D.

Cressey, "Changing Criminals: The Applica-tion of the Theory of Differential Associa-tion," American Journal of Sociology, Sep-tember 1955, pp. 116-20.38 See L. McCorkle and R. Korn, "Re-

socialization within the Walls," The Annals,May 1954, pp. 362-69, for a discussion of

some of the problems encountered in imple-menting a program in a correctional insti-tution.

340

they become committed to the changeprocess, and as they can secure sig-nificant rewards through their par-ticipation.39

Fifth, the group treatment effortmust be integrated into a largeragency design. It t cannot succeedwhen uncoordinated with other

phases of the agency program, or

when these are moving in contrarydirections. Its success is more likelywhen additional and indirect meansare developed to enhance the forcesfor change.

Sixth, each of the several group

treatment methods poses certain re-

quirements for staff knowledge andcompetence. Those methods whichcall for specialized training cannot beutilized by persons without such train-ing, except at the risk of adverse con-sequences.

Seventh, the social milieu ap-proaches present greater problems indesign and execution than the directmethods, perhaps greater than an

agency can manage at a given time. Aswe have indicated, however, the directmethods are unlikely to succeed un-less certain organizational arrange-ments can be effected to support them.By and large, the requirements ofboth direct and indirect methods arethe same, and successful treatment ismost likely when both approaches areemployed.

39 See D. Cartwright and A. Zander (eds.) ,Group Dynamics: Research and Practice

(Evanston, Ill.: Row Peterson, rev. ed., 1960).Small group research has much to offer to-

day about how group structures and processescan be manipulated and with what effects.