Research Note : Delinquency Typologies and Correctional Treatment

Reed Adams*

The Stonewall Jackson Project North Carolina Board of Juvenile Correction

The field of corrections is faced with handling increasing numbers of offenders of all types and ages.( 1) There is ample evidence to indicate that the increase in crime exceeds that which could be ex- pected from a growth in population.(3) As our society is becoming more urban, deviant behavior is likely to affect more individuals than ever before.(3) The recidivism statistics of all types of offenders re- inain high.(4) Because of facts such as these, the Stonewall Jackson Project originated as an effort to learn more about the correctional process and to increase correctional efficiency. Specifically, the project was designed to empirically assess a segment of Don Gibbons’( 5 ) delin- cpency typology treatment model, that of “predatory gang delinquent,” “casual gang delinquent”-both treated by group therapy, and “behavior problem delinquent”-treated by individual therapy as the most efficient diagnostic entity-treatment method combination. Collateral hypotheses concerned the comparison of custodial methods and treatment methods, professional supervision of A.B. level personnel in treatment roles, the dynamics of social change in an institution when “clinical” treatment is introduced, diagnosis of delinquency typologies by A.B. level personnel and the use of professional consultation with A.B. level cottage parents.

Background This paper reports the establishment of a research and treatment

project at Stonewall Jackson Training School in Concord, North Caro- lina, designed to operate from July 1968 to January 1970. The school, part of the system of the North Carolina Board of Juvenile Correction, is the oldest and one of the largest (315 students) in the state. For sixty years, it has provided educational, vocational and custodial services to male youths ranging in age from about 13 to 18. The organizational and social structure, and program content, is typical of traditional state training schools.( 6 )

The project began with a vague concept of a “treatment” program involving group counseling with a built-in research design, and with a search of the correctional literature. Valuable assistance was provided by the National Clearinghouse of Mental Health Information at the

‘Mr. Adams, principle researcher, is now with the Department of Criminology, Florida State University.

51

National Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C., which provided a computer search of its literature around our central topics. As there was reliable evidence to indicate that the application of treatment measures to a broad range of offender ‘is, at best, an inefficient means of producing behavior change,( 7) that the use of typologies showed real promise(8) and that there does not now exist a comprehensive set of delinquency typologies which have been adequately verified empirical- ly,(9) the decision was made to devote the research primarily to an assessment of delinquent typologies. Gibbons’ typologies were selected because they are current, have been the subject of only one other ex- periment,( 10) and because they are sufficiently clear and inclusive as to allow them to be used diagnostically by A.B. level personnel. An extensive review of the literature allowed us to reach several conclusions which we feel are unequivocally established by previous research:

1. Routine, traditional types of custody or surveillance without a program specifically designed to produce behavioral change, as repre- sented by the control groups in the reviewed research projects, is at best, the least efficient of the available forms of correctional handling, in institutions and in community agencies.

2. No one form of treatment can be used effectively for all types of delinquency. The blanket application of a single form of treatment is often better than no treatment at all, but it runs’the risk of achieving little lasting effect with some offenders and of doing harm to others.

3. The most efficient approach to correctional goals, which promises dramatic returns, is the identification and classification of offender types, followed by the correct form of treatment, adequately applied.( 11)

Design Three of Gibbons’ delinquent typologies, the “predatory gang de-

linquent” (Type’ I ) , the “casual gang delinquent” (Type 111) and the “behavior problem delinquent” (Type IX ), were selected for study be- cause it was felt they represented the two basic schools of criminological causation-the sociological and psychological-and because they would be available within our population. Gibbons theorizes the “casual gang delinquent” and the “predatory gang delinquent” as maintained in their delinquency by group forces, and that behavior modification can best be achieved by a dynamically similar process, group counseling. He theorizes the “behavior problem delinquent” to be delinquent because of internal psychological problems, so that individual psychotherapy would be most appropriate.

One of the cottages, described above, was converted to a treat- ment unit. Three new men, rather than a man and wife team, were hired. In contrast to the established counselors who were high school graduates or less, two of the new men were A.B. level personnel and the

52

third was a part-time student near the A.B. Some of the old living quarters in the cottage were converted into office space and counseling rooms. This new unit houses most of the research population, and is the location for the treatment proper, but in terms of the general re- quirements and regulations of the cottage life program and organiza- tional structure of the institution, it is essentially similar .to the other cottages. .

A research design, given in Figure I, was selected that would allow assessment of any changes that might occur because of differences between living in the new treatment unit and living in the general population. Also, the design will allow for an assessment of both types of counseling for all three typologies and provide control groups.

FIGURE I

RESEARCH DESIGN

DIAGNOSIS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL TEST

TYPE I (or 111, or IX)

J Treatment Unit

G. ' c. 1 N!C.

I 'i' I General PoDulation

G. ' C. l A N . h

i I i 1 Psychological Test Psychological Test

and and

Recidivism Check Recidivism Check

G. C. = Group Counseling I. C. = Individual Counseling N. C. = No Counseling

53

The number of subjects in the research at any one time, their cottage location and type of treatment is shown in Figure 11. When the variables of cottage location and type of treatment are considered together, there are fifteen possible combinations for each typology. As subjects are released, new subjects will be selected to take their places so that by the end of the project, the total number should be between 200 and 300.

FIGURE I1

DISTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Predatory Gang Caszial Gang Behavior Disorder Delinquent Delinquent Delinquent

Group Treatment Counseling N = 2 N = 2 = 2 Unit

Group Counseling N = 2 N = 2

General N = 2 ~opu~nt ion

~~

Individual Treatment Counseling N = 2 N = 2 N = 2 Unit

Individual General Counseling h : = 2 N = 2 N = 2 Population

No Treatment Counseling N = 2 N = 2 N = 2 unit

N O General Counseling N = N = 2 N = 2 Population

In order to increase the number of subjects passing through the research, only those with two to six months commitment time remaining are being included. Also, this will allow for an assessment of various lengths of time spent in treatment. The Jesness Inventory is administered to each subject at the time of selection and again at the time of release from the institution. The police records of each subject in his local community, and the records of the parole agency will be checked one year after release.

Diagnosis

When a subject is released from the research, one of the institution’s A.B. level social workers will select a replacement according to a check- list developed from Gibbons’ description of each typology. If, on the basis of this and the social worker’s clinical impression, the subject is a

54

true typology, the subject will be referred to a child psychiatrist. If the psychiatrist verifies the diagnosis, the subject will be placed in.research. Records are being kept of this process so that a t the end of the project, assessment can be made of the typologies amenability to ready diagnosis by A.B. level personnel. Our experience so far indicates that we may expect to find a high degree of agreement between the diagnosis of the psychiatrist and the A.B. level personnel.

Treatment Each typological grouping will receive the type of treatment postu-

lated by Gibbons as the most appropriate, plus two other types. For ex- ample, the “casual gang delinquent” should theoretically respond best to group counseling. Within subsample comprised of all “casual gang delinquents,” one third will receive individual counseling, one third will receive group counseling and one third will receive no counseling. Each typology and both types of cottages are represented equally in the counseling groups and in the treatment caseloads assigned to the in- dividual counselors. Monday and Friday mornings have been designated as treatment times. At those times, the subjects are taken to the treat- ment unit rather than their regular vocational trades, and spend half the day there. There are two counseling groups of six subjects and two cotherapists which meet twice a week. Each subject in individual coun- seling is seen for one half hour once per week.

Gibbons has postulated that the individual psychotherapy of of- fenders should be handled only by clinical psychologists or psychiatrists. Our position on this matter is that there is not now, nor is there likely to be in the future, sufficient numbers of professional workers to supply all the necessary treatment and that our best alternative is to develop the available nonprofessional staff.( 12) For this purpose, we secured the services of three A.C.S.W. social workers and one child psychiatrist( 13) who will provide didactic supervision to the five therapists-the three new cottage parents mentioned above, and two social workers on the staff of the institution. Of these five therapists, three are at the A.B. level, one at the near A.B. level and one at the A.M. level. For purposes of didactic supervision around the correctional handling of the treatment unit’s cottage life program, a psychiatric social worker from the local mental health clinic meets with the three cottage parents (male, A.B. level and almost A.B. level personnel) for approximately one half day per week. For purposes of didactic supervision around the operation of group therapy, a psychiatric social workei, an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina School of Social Work, whose background is in group work with delinquents, meets with the group therapist ap- proximately every two weeks. Didactic supervision around the individual therapy is provided by a social worker of the North Carolina Depart-

55

ment of Public Welfare and a child psychiatrist of the Cabarrm County Mental Health Clinic who meet with the individual therapist approxi- mately every two weeks. After the first nine months of the project, these therapists’ roles will be reversed to balance therapy skills be- tween the two approaches.

Staff

Resistance to innovation in corrections,( 14) indeed, in most social systems, is a recognized phenomenon which can have disastrous effects on a new program.( 15) The therapists, including the new staff mem- bers, experienced some negative social sanctions, as did some of the students transferred to the new unit. In addition to limited support, suspiciousness and hostility were evident. Part of this stemmed from an almost complete lack of understanding of what the project was meant to accomplish, the methods used and why it was begun. There was some basic norm conflict concerning the ultimate function of the institution, fear over a loss of control over the students and fear that the worthiness of traditional methods of “helping” students was being challenged. Ef- forts to combat this included the development of a very detailed re- search and treatment manual which described the theoretical basis for treatment, the research design, including a number of explicit hypotheses, the review of the literature, a description of the ‘treatment techniques, a description of the typologies, the anticipated statistical treatment of the data, the mechanical operation of the project and the job requirements of each member of the project staff in considerable detail. Small group discussions were held, at which time the manual was distributed. These steps seemed to lessen resistance but not completely. The effectiveness of those methods appeared to be greatest with those staff members who were the greatest psychological distance from the project.

Results

The project began July 15, 1968, and is due to run for 18. months, so that final publication will probably be some time in 1970. At that time, the fifteen (for each typology) possible combinations of treatment and cottage assignment will be assessed as to differences in Jesness In- ventory Scores( 16) and recidivism rates. Attention will be paid to the process of professional supervision of A.B. level personnel and the im- pact of the project on the staff and student social structure, plus other variables mentioned in the body of this paper. Our impressions so far have been favorable. Staff and students alike have responded in the expected manner, with the apparent result that behavior norms and personal values and skills have changed in a healthy direction.

0 4 0 0

56

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Reed. A Correction41 Demonstration Project and An Empirical -Eualuation of Don Gibbons’ Delinquency Typologies. North Carolina Board of Juvenile Correction, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1968.

:\dams, Stuart. “The Pilot Intensive Counseling Organizational Project,” SociOhgy of Punishment and Corrections. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.. 1962.

Benjamin, Judith. Pros and Cons: New Roles for NowProfessionok in Corrections. New York: National Committee on Eniployment of Youth, 1965.

Christensen, Ronald A. “Population Projections for Correctional Subsystems, Ap- pendix B.” Task Force Report: Corrections-The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement a d Administration of Justice. Washington, D.C.

Cressey, Donald. “Sources of Resistance to the Use of Offenders and Ex-offenders in the Correctional Process, Offenders as Correctional Manpower Resources, Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, June 1968.

Gibbons, Don C. Changing the Lowbreaker: The Treatment of Criminuls and De- linquents. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prenticc-Hall, Inc., 1965.

Cuttman, Evelyn S. “Effects of Short-term Treatment on Boys in Two California Youth Authority Institutions,” Research Report No. 36, Department of the Youth Authority, Sacramento, Culifomia, 1963.

Hoover, John Edgar. Crime in the United Stutes-The Uniform Crime Reports- 1966. United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., 1967.

Jesness, Carl F. The lesness Inoentoq Deoelopment und Validation, The California Department of the Youth Authority, Research Report No. 79, Sacramento. Calif.

Jones, James A. “The Nature of Compliance in Correctional Institutions for Juvenile Offenders,” The Journol of Research in Crime und Delinquency, 1, No. 2 (July 1964).

Kntzenbach, Nicholas DeB., Chairman. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. A Report by the President’s Commission on Low Enforcement and Administru- tion of lustice. Washington, D.C., February 1967.

Lohman, Joseph. The Sun Francisco Project-Research Report No. 12. The Uni- versity of California, 1967.

Rulienfeld, Seymour. T pobgical Approaches to Delinquency Control: A Status Report. National Ciaringhouse for Mental Health Information, N.I.H. Wash-

967 (to be comdeted in late

Warren, Marguerite. After Five Years: Report of the Community Treatment Project. Sacramento: California Youth Authority, 1967.

NOTES

1. Ronald A. Christensen, “Population Projections for Correctional Subsystems, Ap- pendix B,” Task Force Report: Corrections-The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (Washington, D.C., 1967), pp. 213-15.

2. Nicholas DeB. Katzenbach, Chairman, The Challenge of Crime in a Free So- ciety-A Report by the President’s Commission on Low Enforcement and Ad- ministrution of lustice (Washington, D.C., February 1967), p. 30.

3. Ibid., p . 28-29. 4. John Eigar Hoover, Crime in the United States-The Uniform Crime Reports-

1966, United States Deparbnent of Justice, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 2-4, , “The Nature of Compliance in Correctional Institutions and James A.

for Juvenile Of enders,” The l o u m l of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1, No. 2 (July 1964), 84.

5. Don C. Gibbons, Cha ing the Lawbreaker: The Treatment of Criminals and

I”” Delinquents ( Englewoo 3 Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965).

57

6. “Juvenile Institutions,” Crime and Delinquency, 13, No. 1 (January 1967), 82-83. 7. Stuart Adams, “The Pilot Intensive Counseling Org,mizational Project,” So-

ciology of Punishment and Cvrrections (New York: John Wile and Company, 1962); or Joseph Lohman, The Sun Fruticisco Project-Reseurcf: Report No. 1 2 (The University of California, 1967).

8. Marguerite Warren, After FiGe Years: Report of the Community Trentnrent Project ( Sacrnmento, Calif.: California Youth Authority, 1967).

9. Seymour Rubenfeld. Typologicul Apprvuches to Delinquency Control: A Stutrrs Report, National Clearinghouse for Mental Health Information, N.I.H. (Wash- ington, D.C., 1967).

10. Probation Depnrtment, Adult Division, San Mateo County, California, The Sun Mateo County Typohgicul Trecitmctnt Study, 1967.

11. Reed Adcams, A Correctional Demonstration Project und fin Empiriccil Evalcrution of Don Gibbons’ Delinquency Typologies ( Raleigh, N.C.: unpublished research report and manrial of procedures, North Carolina Board of Juvenile Correction, 1968).

12. Judith Benjamin, Pros urul Cons: New Roles for Non-Professionuls in Corrections, National Committee on Emplo,yment of Youth (New York, 1965).

13. Stephen Ginn, M.D., Christopher Colins, ACSW, Cabarrus County, North Ciiro- lina hlental Health Clinic; Janice Hough, ACSW, University of North Curolinii School of Social Work; ;ind Fred Thompson, ACSW, North Carolina Depirtmcnt of Public Welfare. These professionid personnel have given assistance in the lxoject.

14. Donald Cressey, “Sources of liesistance to the Use of Offenders and Ex- offenders in the Correctional Process,” Offenders us Correctionul Munpowcr Resources, Joint Commission on Correctionnl Manpower and Training (June 1968).

15. Evelyn S . Guttmnn, “Effects of Short-term Treatment on Boys in Two California Youth Authority Institutions,” Reseurch Report No. 36 ( Sacrumcnto, Ciilif.: Department of the Yoiith Authority, 1963).

16. Carl F. Jesness, The lesness lnoentvry Development untl Vulidutioti ( Siicra- mento, Calif.: The Califomiii Department of the Youth Authority, Rcsearch Report No. 79).

58