Wilderness Therapy History and Literature Review Michael Heckendorn, M.Ed., NCC May 2011

History of Wilderness Therapy

There have been a growing number of programs under the title of wilderness therapy, but

it still lacks a concrete definition (Russell, 2001, p. 1). Wilderness therapy encompasses many

different areas including challenge courses, adventure therapy, and wilderness experience

programs (WEPs). No matter the case, wilderness therapy is a therapeutic program based on

Kurt Hahn’s idea that “learning through doing was not primarily developed to facilitate the

mastery of academic content or intellectual skills; rather, it was oriented toward the

development of character and maturity” (Bacon & Kimball, 1993, p. 117). Hahn was the

founder of one of the first wilderness therapy programs named Outward Bound, a program for

at risk adolescents, and one of the first people to encourage experiential education (Bacon &

Kimball, 1993). He spent most of his time applying this philosophy towards an educational

experience rather than a psychological or therapeutic one. People interested in this field took

hold of the “Hahnian” approach to therapy.

Most wilderness therapy programs incorporate 5 components: (1) a group process,

mainly for adolescents, (2) a series of challenges which incrementally increase in difficulty and

appear to be risky, (3) are conducted in an unfamiliar environment, i.e. wilderness, (4) contains

one on one therapeutic techniques for the students involved, and (5) has varied lengths

depending on the program (Russell, 2001, p. 2). In addition to this and unique to wilderness

therapy programs is that they are licensed by a state agency, are supervised by a licensed

mental health practitioner, have trained staff in areas of counseling and substance treatment,

conduct a post-evaluation of treatment to determine the effectiveness of the program, and

families work with aftercare services among other things (Russell, 2001, pg. 2). All these

processes are conducted in the wilderness with use of safe activities including but not limited

to backpacking, mountaineering, rock climbing, high ropes challenges, and white water rafting.

After talking to Tony Issenmann, a Primary Therapist at a wilderness program called

Second Nature, he explained that there are two main styles for wilderness therapy (personal

communication, October 18, 2014). The first style is called a base camp model for wilderness

therapy. This would mean that the clients who are admitted to the different programs would

have a single base camp where they would sleep every night. Throughout the day, they would

do different activities ranging from day hikes to high ropes courses. The second style Tony

mentioned was a nomadic model. A nomadic model is where there is no base camp and you

carry everything on your back everyday. With this style of wilderness therapy, the clients are

challenged through every part of their day. Chances for therapeutic interventions are not then

limited to what happens in therapy sessions, but can occur by any activity throughout the day.

Literature Review

Adolescents have been a growing demographic in need for therapy. The American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that major depression strikes about one in

twelve adolescents (Weissman, 1999). With that statistic in comparison to the population of

adolescents in the United States, there are 53,736 adolescents facing major depression in the

US (US Census, 2000). That is only major depression. Adolescents face many more problems

beyond depression as well.

In an article posted by the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs

(NATSAP; n.d.) it mentions that suicide is the fourth leading cause of death for five to fourteen

year olds and that “5% or an estimated 2.7 million children are reported by their parents to

suffer from definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties, problems that may interfere

with their family life, their ability to learn, and their formation of friendships” (para. 4).

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2010),

10% of youths in America aged twelve to seventeen are currently using illicit drugs and that

14.7% of 12-17 year olds are consuming alcohol. In 2008, 16% of all violent crime arrests and

26% of all property crime arrests were committed by juveniles. There were 2.11 million

juvenile arrests made in 2008 alone (Puzzanchera, 2009, p. 1). The adolescent demographic is

one in need of serious help. Following is many research studies done on wilderness therapy

and its effectiveness to change adolescents behaviors.

The empirical research on wilderness therapy’s effectiveness is a limited subject. Past

findings on the effectiveness of wilderness therapy has brought about mixed conclusions

(Jones, Lowe, & Risler, 2004, p. 65). There has been some evidence that wilderness/adventure

therapy has no significant advantage over any other alternative or traditional therapy styles

(Jones et al., 2004, p. 65). For example, findings from a 2007 questionnaire from 252

adolescent parents found that after the wilderness therapy program brought about a significant

improvement (p<.001) in adolescent behavior in the areas of communicating with parents,

anger management, participation in house chores, following house rules, emotional problems

and substance use (Harper, 2007, p. 394).

Another research study, this time done on juvenile sex offenders, also showed the

effectiveness of wilderness therapy compared to different therapy models. By matching each

participant in the wilderness therapy program with a different participant in a separate

program, the researchers, Gillis and Gass (2010), found a significant difference between the

programs.

A large sample size of 15,311 participants allowed for the research to be non-biased or

skewed. Each participant was an adolescent in different juvenile treatment facilities

(wilderness therapy was compared to two other programs in the state) and upon their release,

they followed them for three years to determine if they “recidivated to DJJ or to the adult

system” (Gillis & Gass, 2010, p. 25). Their research showed that 3 years after the participants

entered the wilderness therapy program, their recidivism rates were much lower than what the

other two programs showed. 81.1% of the wilderness therapy participants did not get rearrested

in the three-year period while 65.3% of Georgia’s Youth Development Centers’ participants did

not. Only 19% of the wilderness therapy participants were rearrested within three years

compared to 34.8% of Georgia’s Youth Development Centers’ participants (Gillis & Gass,

2010, p. 27).

This can be compared to Elizabeth Roe’s philosophy as to why wilderness therapy is so

effective amongst adolescents:

In our technologically-advanced world, slowing down the pace can have beneficial

effects on a person’s well-being. This is especially true for at-risk youth who not only

must deal with the fast pace of life in general, but also must contend with the changes

wrought by a transitional period in their own lives, from that of a child to a young

adult. (Roe, 2009).

Research conducted by the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs

(NATSAP) surveyed nearly 1000 youth which were admitted to one of nine programs. These

nine programs were all private, out-of-home, licensed, therapeutic programs focusing on

adolescents. Each program offered group, individual, and family services, but the amount of

each varied from program to program. A survey was given to both parents and students at

admission and at discharge. These surveys assessed the adolescent’s “treatment history,

psychotropic medication use, legal record, grade point average, matriculation in school,

communication with family members, compliance with rules, relationship quality, drug use,

and alcohol use” (Behrens, 2006).

Parents post discharge survey overwhelmingly found a “strong positive effects of

treatment on internalizing problems (i.e., depression, anxiety, attention), problematic external

behaviors (i.e., aggression, rule breaking), and overall functioning” post treatment (Behrens,

2006). She also states “the change in adolescent functioning, measured over the course of

treatment, was found to be clinically significant.” Behrens (2006) found that “Almost all

correlations were significant at p<.001. These correlations were positive and significant, but

weak in magnitude with correlation values only at .23-.34.

All of these thus far have proven that wilderness therapy has a statistically significant

impact on mental health, recidivism rates, and family functioning. Other sources show that

there is no difference between wilderness therapy compared to other types of therapy.

Laurie Meyers (2007), a staff member for the Monitor on Psychology publication,

reviews a case where a sixteen year old died at a wilderness therapy program. A hearing on this

boy’s death was held by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and Labor

where they, “released a report detailing thousands of reports of abuse--and in some cases

death--at residential treatment programs for troubled youth from 1990 to 2007” (Meyers, 2007,

para. 3). After a survey of over seven-hundred participants that were enrolled in a wilderness

therapy program, she

“received reports of amateur psychological interventions and treatment,

medications administered or stopped without medical supervision, weeks of

enforced isolation, deprivation of food, sleep and shelter in response to rule-

breaking and youth being transported to the facilities without their consent,

sometimes in handcuffs and leg chains” (para. 12).

This information doesn’t disprove the significant difference of wilderness therapy programs,

but it does prove the dangers as well as the fact that not all programs are the same.

In addition to Jones et al.’s (2004) study showing that there is no difference between

recidivism rates of participants in wilderness therapy programs and group therapy programs,

Lee Gillis, an associate professor of psychology at Georgia College, goes at length about how

most research done on wilderness therapy isn’t well compiled. He states that, “there is still no

one clearly defined and researched method of conducting therapy with adventure activities”

(Gillis, 1995, para. 31). He goes on to say that many of the ‘statistically significant’ research

findings aren’t actually significant because of small sample size or low effect score. According

to Weston and Tinsley (1999), the average effect score for wilderness therapy programs is .31.

To have a statistically significant effect score according to Pearson’s R correlation, it needs to

be at least a .5. Weston and Tinsley go on to say, “the work is still plagued by serious

methodological limitations, which include the use of small convenience samples, the failure to

isolate independent variables, the use of simplistic methodologies, and the absence of

appropriate comparison or control groups” (p. 36).

A research study done showing no significant advantage for wilderness therapy was done

by Jones et al. (2004) which examined thirty-five male children and adolescents in wilderness

therapy programs compared to children and adolescents who participated in group home

programs. His panel study contained a control group, which is unlike many research articles

done for wilderness therapy. He based his research off of recidivism rates for the adolescents

examined by a search done through the juvenile system in Georgia.

There were two main hypotheses that Jones et al. (2004) studied and they were: “young

persons who participated in wilderness programs would have lower rates and severity of

recidivism than those in group home programs and demographic variables would differ for

young person who commit re-offenses when compared to those who do not commit re-

offenses” (p. 59). Twenty-four males participated in the wilderness therapy programs while

eleven males participated in residential group/contract home programs.

After a chi-square analyses, 25% of the wilderness group had committed a new offense

six months following release from treatment compared to 27.3% of the group home program.

An ANOVA analyses tested the two groups on number of new re-offenses within 12 months of

the program. Both the ANOVA and chi-square analyses found no significant difference

between the two means on recidivism rates. The overall findings of the study “indicated that

there were no significant differences between the recidivism rates for the participants in

wilderness programs and those who were placed in group home programs” (Jones et al., 2004,

63).

The question of statistical evidence of the effectiveness of wilderness therapy is still up

for debate. What can be concluded from many of these articles is that wilderness therapy works

as well as or better than other traditional therapeutic modalities.

References

Bacon, S. B. & Kimball, R. (1993). The wilderness challenge model. In R. D. Layman, S.

Prentice-Dunn, & S. Gabel (Eds.) Residential and inpatient treatment of children and

adolescents. (pp. 115-135). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Behrens, E. & Satterfield, K. (2006). Report of findings from a multi-center of youth outcomes

in private residential treatment. Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc. Retrieved from

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DSi7HzxdD7kJ:www.natsap.org/Behrens

.doc+Report+of+Findings+from+a+Multi-

Center+Study+of+Youth+Outcomes+in+Private+Residential+Treatment&hl=en&gl=us

&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiWR0DAqyk_M07E8-

4dGGimRtvD0qcbMmi_pkV64npG1mjvfG1vms7Ray2Z-

EmHZN14yzmioAGPEIhIt8pHcWkwaFQTJPkOrAab5WqgxHItODH2kyViT_10b40Q

E53O96g2VzXe&sig=AHIEtbQoP-8HGoW0HrDyiqc46jTtGGzX6A

Gillis, H. L. (1995). If I conduct outdoor pursuits with clinical populations, am I an adventure

therapist? Journal of Leisurability, 22.

Gillis, H. L., & Gass, M. A.(2010) Treating juveniles in a sex offender program using

adventure-based programming: A matched group design. Journal of Child Sexual

Abuse, 19(1), 20-34

Harper, N., & Cooley, R. (2007). Parental reports of adolescent and family well-being

following a wilderness therapy intervention: An exploratory look at systemic change.

Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 393-396. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Jones, C. D., Lowe, L. A., & Risler, E. A. (2004). The effectiveness of wilderness adventure

therapy programs for young people involved in the juvenile justice system. Residential

Treatment for Children & Youth, 22(2), 53-67. doi:10.1300/J007v22n02_04

Meyers, L. (2007). Dangerous discipline. Monitor on Psychology, 38(11), 16. Retrieved from

http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec07/dangerous.aspx

(n.d). The need for effective treatment. NATSAP. retrieved from

http://www.natsap.org/pdf/The%20Need%20for%20Effective%20Treatment.pdf

Puzzanchera, C. (2009). Juvenile arrests 2008. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf

Roe, E. (2009). Wilderness therapy for adolescents: Utilizing nature to effect change in youth.

Journal of Therapeutic Wilderness Camping, 8(1).

Russell, K. C. (2001). What is wilderness therapy?. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(2),

70. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2010). Results from the 2009

National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of National Findings

(Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-38A, HHS Publication No. SMA 10-

4586Findings). Rockville, MD.

U.S. Census Bureau, 110th Congressional District Summary File (100-Percent), Matrices P13

and PCT12.

Weissman, et.al. (1999). Depressed adolescents all grown up, JAMA.1999 281, 1701-13

Weston, R. & Tinsley H. E.A. (1999). Wilderness adventure therapy for at-risk youth. Parks &

Recreation 1999;34:30–39.