What is the model found in the text Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth?
Dr. Arnold Goldstein and colleagues originally introduced the text Aggression Replacement Training (ART) in 1987. It was hailed as a multi-channel intervention aimed at the complex emotional, behavioral and moral developmental delays common to behaviorally disruptive and delinquent youth. Since its introduction, the model found in the ART text has accrued a strong research-base and has been demonstrated to reduce recidivism when competently delivered. This is a cognitive-behavioral, teaching/coaching model, delivered three times per week for ten weeks. The model is designed to target risk factors known to sustain problem behavior. It is composed of three distinct methods of intervention:
Ø Anger Control Training – without the capacity to control strong emotions young people find themselves unable to make clear decisions and utilize basic “people” skills in everyday situations. Through a 10-week intervention, youth learn powerful methods for decreasing physiological arousal and the defeating cognitions that sustain aggressive and impulsive behavior.
Ø Skillstreaming – a structured skill learning process that in and of itself has been demonstrated to increase the prosocial responses of its participants. Through a series of behavioral procedures and steps, participating youth acquire new methods for problem solving, dealing with peer pressure and managing previously difficult interpersonal situations.
Ø Moral Reasoning Training – enhancing the moral reasoning level of behaviorally disruptive youth is a daunting task. Simply pointing out thinking errors or giving moral rationale from an adult point of view is not very effective. Young people need to develop their own reasons for making good decisions. This model requires the facilitator to skillfully build mature moral reasoning with teens by using a series of carefully planned dilemmas and sequential thinking questions. Not only will this method work, but young people like it.
How is the model found in the ART text delivered?
Each of the modalities described above, Skillstreaming, Moral Reasoning Training, and Anger Control Training, are taught during the week for ten weeks. For example, Skillstreaming could be taught on Tuesdays, Moral Reasoning Training on Wednesdays, and Anger Control Training on Thursdays. This pattern would be followed for ten weeks.
Who is the model aimed at and how many youth can participate in an ART class/group?
The model found in the ART text has primarily been aimed at behaviorally disruptive and delinquent youth. However the model has been shown to decrease impulsivity, aggression, and other problem behaviors of participants. The model is designed for youth between the ages of 13 and 18 years of age. The group/class is best taught with 8-10 participants. The model is a start to finish curriculum. This means individual youth should not be brought in to participate after week one of the 10-week curriculum has been initiated.
How important is it to follow the model found in the ART text?
Research conducted across many evidence-based models has shown time and again that those who adhere closely to the model are most likely to achieve the best outcomes. The same is true for the model found in the ART text. In a large, randomized study conducted in Washington State researchers found, “When the ART model is adhered to, the program appears to reduce recidivism significantly and save more money than it costs…Analyses revealed that [instructors] not following the ART model did not lower recidivism rates.” www.wsipp.wa.gov/crime/JuvJustice.htm
What will the training be like and how should I prepare for the initial training?
The two-day training is a blend of lecture, procedural demonstrations and actual practice of the three modalities – Anger Control Training, Skillstreaming, and Moral Reasoning Training. The best way to prepare for the initial two-day training is to read chapters 2 through 5 in the ART text, “Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth” (Goldstein, A., Glick, B., & Gibbs, J. 1997). As mentioned the training involves practice of the procedures associated with the model; by reading these four chapters you will have a much easier time understanding what is being taught and what is required during the practice portion of the workshop.
If you would like more information on this workshop or if you have additional questions, please contact Darin Carver; darincarver@msn.com or at (801) 644-1022
February 06, 2009
January 17, 2009
Effective Implementation of Evidence-Based Models –
A Case Example Using the Model found in the Text
Aggression Replacement Training:
A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth
The Current State of Evidence-Based Practice:
“Discovering what works does not solve the problem of program effectiveness. Once models…are appropriately identified practitioners are faced with the challenge of implementing programs properly. A poorly implemented program can lead to failure as easily as a poorly designed one.” (OJJDP) http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204273.pdf
In 1999 the US Surgeon General issued a clarion call for the broad dissemination of practices shown to be effective in reducing problem behaviors among youth and children - “All too frequently, these effective programs are simply unavailable in communities. It is essential to expand the supply of effective, evidence-based services throughout the Nation.” http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/toc.html Since then the evidence-based practice movement in the US has moved far beyond a smart idea or a cutting edge effort. It has become a national social policy practice that is radically changing funding streams and organizational expectations. Legislators and policy makers are no longer willing to dump tens of thousands of dollars into the status quo. They expect results, even if they aren’t sure what those results should really look like. Nothing short of hard evidence that we are succeeding in reaching targets such as symptom reduction and recidivism reduction will suffice. Falling short has become an excuse to make deep cuts in programming and services. We are
rapidly reaching a point that administrators unwilling to adopt these practices will be viewed with contempt for squandering valuable resources.
What the Surgeon General may not have known then, and policy makers typically still don’t understand, is that implementing evidence-based practices such that the promised outcomes are realized can be a daunting task; a task often fraught with mis-steps and pitfalls that lead to poor outcomes. There was a time when practitioners believed that a program could simply be taken “off-the-shelf”, implemented, and it would achieve the same results as found in the research. There is significant evidence to the contrary. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy has produced some of the best research to date attesting to the need for quality implementation. For example, they found that when the model found in the text, Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth (ART), was implemented effectively it produced good recidivism reduction results and saved significantly more money than it cost to deliver. Interestingly, researchers also discovered several ART facilitators who implemented the model with poor fidelity and their outcomes were no better than the control group who received no services. (http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-01-1201.pdf)
What then does it take to get good outcomes when implementing an evidence-based model of intervention? What are the characteristics of implementation most closely associated with positive outcomes? What follows is a description of some of the most important factors associated with successful implementation using the model found in the ART text as an example.
What is ART?
Dr. Arnold Goldstein and colleagues originally introduced the text Aggression Replacement Training in 1987. It was hailed as a multi-channel intervention aimed at the complex emotional, behavioral, and moral developmental delays common to delinquent and behaviorally disruptive youth. Since the books introduction this model has accrued a strong research-base and has been accurately identified by various registries as an evidence-based model. http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/TitleV_MPG_Table_Ind_Rec.asp?id=292
The model is grounded in social learning theory and is classified as a cognitive-behavioral intervention. It is composed of three distinct methods of intervention that are delivered simultaneously over the course of ten weeks:
Ø Anger Control Training – without the capacity to control strong emotions young people find themselves unable to make clear decisions and utilize basic “people” skills in everyday situations. Juveniles participating in this module learn powerful methods for decreasing physiological arousal and the defeating cognitions that sustain aggressive and impulsive behavior.
Ø Skillstreaming – a structured skill learning process that in and of itself has been demonstrated to improve the behavior of its participants. It employs key behavioral strategies such as modeling, behavioral rehearsal, feedback, and generalization to help young people acquire new methods for problem solving and managing previously difficult social situations.
Ø Moral Reasoning Training – enhancing the moral reasoning level of delinquent youth is a daunting task. Simply pointing out thinking errors or giving moral rationale from an adult point of view is not very effective in altering criminal beliefs and attitudes. Delinquent youth need to develop their own reasons for making good decisions. This modality requires the facilitator to skillfully build mature moral reasoning with participants by using a series of carefully planned dilemmas and moral questions.
Successful Implementation of the Model found in the Text Aggression Replacement Training
There are certain factors important to the implementation of any model that will not be discussed in depth here, but the reader should consider these types of factors as “givens”. For example, those delivering any evidence-based model need necessary background, training, and personality traits necessary to interact with the population they a
re serving, in this case ART is typically delivered to delinquent, impulsive, and behaviorally disruptive youth. Potential ART facilitators should already have some competency in successfully establishing relationships with delinquent youth. These basic implementation factors need consideration when adopting any evidence-based practice. However the key characteristics of effective program implementation discussed here will include: program matching, quality training, monitoring and mentoring, and sustaining the program over time.
Program Matching:
Currently there are numerous “lists” of evidence-based programs available on the internet. These repositories of evidence-based practices often provide good information about the extent of research done on the model and the ease with which it may be implemented. However, those looking for model programs often fail to take into account that the program, as implemented by the developers, may not fit well within the structure of the services they provide. ART is a start-to-stop, 10-week intervention, delivered 3 times per week to groups of 6 to 8 youths. Each participating youth should receive a total of 30 hours of service over the course of the 10 week intervention. If those looking to adopt ART can only see their clientele once per week, have insufficient numbers to support a group, or need an open-ended, ongoing group, ART may not be a good match. For example, some short-term residential settings would have a difficult time implementing ART.
On the other hand, whenever an organization adopts an evidence-based practice it is almost certain that practitioners will need to alter their service structure in some way to make a “fit” for the new practice. It is somewhat like putting a highly efficient engine into a different model car. The car’s structure will have to be slightly adapted to make room for the new engine. Again, sometimes the engine simply won’t fit and program managers will need to look for a different model that has a better match. Those considering ART as a potential model for adoption should be able to have a clear understanding of what it takes to adopt and sustain the model before any type of training is undertaken.
Quality Training:
For decades, juvenile justice and human services organizations have relied on ineffective training methods for adopting new services. The most popular, and least likely to be effective, is the practice of sending staff members to a two or three day conference in which 90-minute “break out” sessions are used as an introduction to a variety of new practices. If participants understand that it is only an introduction, not a mechanism for being trained in the new practice, then the conference may serve a purpose. One step above the conference approach but likely just as ineffective, is a one or two day training in a model program but the training only involves lecture to a large audience. The agency who set up the training then hopes that those who listened will adopt the practice. This “train and hope” process has proven to be ineffective in adopting evidence-based practices. Participants may use portions of what came from the training, but likely return to “treatment-as-usual” practices. In some instances this has actually proven to create worse outcomes for the population being served.
Successfully training in the ART model requires some relevant discussion of the theory behind the model so that those delivering the intervention have some “buy-in” to the model itself. This discussion should account for only a small portion of the training. The bulk of the training process should include live demonstration of the procedures and steps associated with the model, observation of actual video-recorded ART sessions, and then hands-on practice by training participants in the steps and procedures associated with ART. This type of in depth practice requires that training groups be kept somewhat small. Effective ART training is not conducive to audiences of 40 or 50 people. An ideal initial ART training would have 12 to 20 participants and be done over the course of two or three days.
Also, training should not be viewed as a one-time event. Follow-up trainings have proven highly effective for honing skills and resolving questions that are sure to arise after the initial training. Successful follow-up trainings in ART should include additional practice of the procedures and steps for those who completed the initial training; with additional focus on moving from model compliance to model competence.
Monitoring and Mentoring:
One of the most common, yet often over-looked problems with evidence-based practice adoption is the reality of practitioner drift. Even the best intentioned practitioners tend to fall back on previously comfortable practice strategies. To counter this common problem purveyors of evidence-based practices have come up with a variety of techniques to ensure that practitioners stay true to the model. These model fidelity practices have proven critical in obtaining outcomes similar to those found in the original research.
It should be noted that staff delivering a new model may sometimes feel that monitoring is a coercive practice on the part of the model purveyor or the agency requiring such monitoring. If staff can be educated in the reasons behind the use of such monitoring tools, and if the approach is softened to reflect a more positive process such as mentoring, many of these staff objections can be reduced. Researchers have found that, “An onsite mentor is helpful not only in acquiring the specific skills of a new treatment but also in supporting persistence in behavior change efforts. Without ongoing onsite reinforcement and support, it is easy to revert to prior practice habits." (Miller, W.R., Sorenson, J.L., Selzer, J.A., & Brigham, G.S. 2006. Disseminating Evidence-Based Practices in Substance Abuse Treatment: A Review with Suggestions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. Vol. 31. pgs. 25-39.)
The practice of implementing ART should be no different than just described. ART mentor training should be part of the up-front decision making process of agencies considering adopting this model. These mentors, typically highly seasoned staff members, are provided specific tools that allow them to judge not only another ART facilitator’s compliance with the model, but his/her competence in delivering it as well. These on-site ART mentors should have access to a fidelity and competence plan so that sought after outcomes are realized as individual facilitator skill improves over time.
Sustainability:
“Even after a program is adopted, administrators can make or break a program depending on their abilities to lead and motivate other people and to articulate the vision of the program. Failure to make the necessary changes in work routine to accommodate a program or to provide adequate resources demonstrates an administrative lack of resolve to fully support the program.” (OJJDP)
Nothing is more demoralizing for staff than to be trained in a model program, develop enthusiasm for implementing the model, implement it for a short season, and then drop it due to poor planning or other foreseeable factors. By engaging in program matching, quality training, and monitoring/mentoring practices organizations will have a head start in achieving sustainability. Perhaps the greatest factor associated with program sustainability is the commitment by administrators to forge ahead in spite of structural challenges, set backs in staff turnover, and/or staff opposition to change itself. If a program administrator’s motivation is to simply provide a training because training is a requirement or to simply point out to a funder that they are doing evidence-based practices, the program is not likely to be sustained.
Aggression Replacement Training has had model program status for nearly two-decades. Far too often ART programs come and go. Demonstrating a long-term commitment to sustaining ART will begin with program managers and agency administrators taking the time to ensure that ART is a good fit for their agency, funding quality training in the model, and facilitating the development of in-house ART monitoring and mentoring. It also takes a commitment from administrators to facilitate the necessary structural changes that will reduce barriers to successful implementation of ART. When ART was sustained over time in Washington State they actually found that outcomes increased substantially because their own skill in delivering the model improved.
Conclusion
The evidence-based practice movement is poised to move to the next phase of broader dissemination by establishing clear guidelines for the successful implementation and adoption of these proven practices. As sh
own here it takes more than pulling the model “off the shelf” to create good outcomes. All too often agencies rush to adopt evidence-based practices only to find that their outcomes are vastly different than the original author’s outcomes. Failure then becomes a result of poor implementation, not a poorly designed model.
The model found in the text Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth can be successfully adopted and positive outcomes realized if organizations are committed to matching, training, monitoring, and sustaining the model over time.
For more information on this article, training in implementation of evidence-based practices, or training in the model found in the text Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth, contact Darin Carver at (801) 644-1022 or darincarver@msn.com
Aggression Replacement Training:
A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth
The Current State of Evidence-Based Practice:
“Discovering what works does not solve the problem of program effectiveness. Once models…are appropriately identified practitioners are faced with the challenge of implementing programs properly. A poorly implemented program can lead to failure as easily as a poorly designed one.” (OJJDP) http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/204273.pdf
In 1999 the US Surgeon General issued a clarion call for the broad dissemination of practices shown to be effective in reducing problem behaviors among youth and children - “All too frequently, these effective programs are simply unavailable in communities. It is essential to expand the supply of effective, evidence-based services throughout the Nation.” http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/toc.html Since then the evidence-based practice movement in the US has moved far beyond a smart idea or a cutting edge effort. It has become a national social policy practice that is radically changing funding streams and organizational expectations. Legislators and policy makers are no longer willing to dump tens of thousands of dollars into the status quo. They expect results, even if they aren’t sure what those results should really look like. Nothing short of hard evidence that we are succeeding in reaching targets such as symptom reduction and recidivism reduction will suffice. Falling short has become an excuse to make deep cuts in programming and services. We are
rapidly reaching a point that administrators unwilling to adopt these practices will be viewed with contempt for squandering valuable resources.What the Surgeon General may not have known then, and policy makers typically still don’t understand, is that implementing evidence-based practices such that the promised outcomes are realized can be a daunting task; a task often fraught with mis-steps and pitfalls that lead to poor outcomes. There was a time when practitioners believed that a program could simply be taken “off-the-shelf”, implemented, and it would achieve the same results as found in the research. There is significant evidence to the contrary. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy has produced some of the best research to date attesting to the need for quality implementation. For example, they found that when the model found in the text, Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth (ART), was implemented effectively it produced good recidivism reduction results and saved significantly more money than it cost to deliver. Interestingly, researchers also discovered several ART facilitators who implemented the model with poor fidelity and their outcomes were no better than the control group who received no services. (http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-01-1201.pdf)
What then does it take to get good outcomes when implementing an evidence-based model of intervention? What are the characteristics of implementation most closely associated with positive outcomes? What follows is a description of some of the most important factors associated with successful implementation using the model found in the ART text as an example.
What is ART?
Dr. Arnold Goldstein and colleagues originally introduced the text Aggression Replacement Training in 1987. It was hailed as a multi-channel intervention aimed at the complex emotional, behavioral, and moral developmental delays common to delinquent and behaviorally disruptive youth. Since the books introduction this model has accrued a strong research-base and has been accurately identified by various registries as an evidence-based model. http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg2.5/TitleV_MPG_Table_Ind_Rec.asp?id=292
The model is grounded in social learning theory and is classified as a cognitive-behavioral intervention. It is composed of three distinct methods of intervention that are delivered simultaneously over the course of ten weeks:
Ø Anger Control Training – without the capacity to control strong emotions young people find themselves unable to make clear decisions and utilize basic “people” skills in everyday situations. Juveniles participating in this module learn powerful methods for decreasing physiological arousal and the defeating cognitions that sustain aggressive and impulsive behavior.
Ø Skillstreaming – a structured skill learning process that in and of itself has been demonstrated to improve the behavior of its participants. It employs key behavioral strategies such as modeling, behavioral rehearsal, feedback, and generalization to help young people acquire new methods for problem solving and managing previously difficult social situations.
Ø Moral Reasoning Training – enhancing the moral reasoning level of delinquent youth is a daunting task. Simply pointing out thinking errors or giving moral rationale from an adult point of view is not very effective in altering criminal beliefs and attitudes. Delinquent youth need to develop their own reasons for making good decisions. This modality requires the facilitator to skillfully build mature moral reasoning with participants by using a series of carefully planned dilemmas and moral questions.
Successful Implementation of the Model found in the Text Aggression Replacement Training
There are certain factors important to the implementation of any model that will not be discussed in depth here, but the reader should consider these types of factors as “givens”. For example, those delivering any evidence-based model need necessary background, training, and personality traits necessary to interact with the population they a
re serving, in this case ART is typically delivered to delinquent, impulsive, and behaviorally disruptive youth. Potential ART facilitators should already have some competency in successfully establishing relationships with delinquent youth. These basic implementation factors need consideration when adopting any evidence-based practice. However the key characteristics of effective program implementation discussed here will include: program matching, quality training, monitoring and mentoring, and sustaining the program over time.Program Matching:
Currently there are numerous “lists” of evidence-based programs available on the internet. These repositories of evidence-based practices often provide good information about the extent of research done on the model and the ease with which it may be implemented. However, those looking for model programs often fail to take into account that the program, as implemented by the developers, may not fit well within the structure of the services they provide. ART is a start-to-stop, 10-week intervention, delivered 3 times per week to groups of 6 to 8 youths. Each participating youth should receive a total of 30 hours of service over the course of the 10 week intervention. If those looking to adopt ART can only see their clientele once per week, have insufficient numbers to support a group, or need an open-ended, ongoing group, ART may not be a good match. For example, some short-term residential settings would have a difficult time implementing ART.
On the other hand, whenever an organization adopts an evidence-based practice it is almost certain that practitioners will need to alter their service structure in some way to make a “fit” for the new practice. It is somewhat like putting a highly efficient engine into a different model car. The car’s structure will have to be slightly adapted to make room for the new engine. Again, sometimes the engine simply won’t fit and program managers will need to look for a different model that has a better match. Those considering ART as a potential model for adoption should be able to have a clear understanding of what it takes to adopt and sustain the model before any type of training is undertaken.
Quality Training:
For decades, juvenile justice and human services organizations have relied on ineffective training methods for adopting new services. The most popular, and least likely to be effective, is the practice of sending staff members to a two or three day conference in which 90-minute “break out” sessions are used as an introduction to a variety of new practices. If participants understand that it is only an introduction, not a mechanism for being trained in the new practice, then the conference may serve a purpose. One step above the conference approach but likely just as ineffective, is a one or two day training in a model program but the training only involves lecture to a large audience. The agency who set up the training then hopes that those who listened will adopt the practice. This “train and hope” process has proven to be ineffective in adopting evidence-based practices. Participants may use portions of what came from the training, but likely return to “treatment-as-usual” practices. In some instances this has actually proven to create worse outcomes for the population being served.
Successfully training in the ART model requires some relevant discussion of the theory behind the model so that those delivering the intervention have some “buy-in” to the model itself. This discussion should account for only a small portion of the training. The bulk of the training process should include live demonstration of the procedures and steps associated with the model, observation of actual video-recorded ART sessions, and then hands-on practice by training participants in the steps and procedures associated with ART. This type of in depth practice requires that training groups be kept somewhat small. Effective ART training is not conducive to audiences of 40 or 50 people. An ideal initial ART training would have 12 to 20 participants and be done over the course of two or three days.
Also, training should not be viewed as a one-time event. Follow-up trainings have proven highly effective for honing skills and resolving questions that are sure to arise after the initial training. Successful follow-up trainings in ART should include additional practice of the procedures and steps for those who completed the initial training; with additional focus on moving from model compliance to model competence.
Monitoring and Mentoring:
One of the most common, yet often over-looked problems with evidence-based practice adoption is the reality of practitioner drift. Even the best intentioned practitioners tend to fall back on previously comfortable practice strategies. To counter this common problem purveyors of evidence-based practices have come up with a variety of techniques to ensure that practitioners stay true to the model. These model fidelity practices have proven critical in obtaining outcomes similar to those found in the original research.
It should be noted that staff delivering a new model may sometimes feel that monitoring is a coercive practice on the part of the model purveyor or the agency requiring such monitoring. If staff can be educated in the reasons behind the use of such monitoring tools, and if the approach is softened to reflect a more positive process such as mentoring, many of these staff objections can be reduced. Researchers have found that, “An onsite mentor is helpful not only in acquiring the specific skills of a new treatment but also in supporting persistence in behavior change efforts. Without ongoing onsite reinforcement and support, it is easy to revert to prior practice habits." (Miller, W.R., Sorenson, J.L., Selzer, J.A., & Brigham, G.S. 2006. Disseminating Evidence-Based Practices in Substance Abuse Treatment: A Review with Suggestions. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. Vol. 31. pgs. 25-39.)
The practice of implementing ART should be no different than just described. ART mentor training should be part of the up-front decision making process of agencies considering adopting this model. These mentors, typically highly seasoned staff members, are provided specific tools that allow them to judge not only another ART facilitator’s compliance with the model, but his/her competence in delivering it as well. These on-site ART mentors should have access to a fidelity and competence plan so that sought after outcomes are realized as individual facilitator skill improves over time.
Sustainability:
“Even after a program is adopted, administrators can make or break a program depending on their abilities to lead and motivate other people and to articulate the vision of the program. Failure to make the necessary changes in work routine to accommodate a program or to provide adequate resources demonstrates an administrative lack of resolve to fully support the program.” (OJJDP)
Nothing is more demoralizing for staff than to be trained in a model program, develop enthusiasm for implementing the model, implement it for a short season, and then drop it due to poor planning or other foreseeable factors. By engaging in program matching, quality training, and monitoring/mentoring practices organizations will have a head start in achieving sustainability. Perhaps the greatest factor associated with program sustainability is the commitment by administrators to forge ahead in spite of structural challenges, set backs in staff turnover, and/or staff opposition to change itself. If a program administrator’s motivation is to simply provide a training because training is a requirement or to simply point out to a funder that they are doing evidence-based practices, the program is not likely to be sustained.
Aggression Replacement Training has had model program status for nearly two-decades. Far too often ART programs come and go. Demonstrating a long-term commitment to sustaining ART will begin with program managers and agency administrators taking the time to ensure that ART is a good fit for their agency, funding quality training in the model, and facilitating the development of in-house ART monitoring and mentoring. It also takes a commitment from administrators to facilitate the necessary structural changes that will reduce barriers to successful implementation of ART. When ART was sustained over time in Washington State they actually found that outcomes increased substantially because their own skill in delivering the model improved.
Conclusion
The evidence-based practice movement is poised to move to the next phase of broader dissemination by establishing clear guidelines for the successful implementation and adoption of these proven practices. As sh
own here it takes more than pulling the model “off the shelf” to create good outcomes. All too often agencies rush to adopt evidence-based practices only to find that their outcomes are vastly different than the original author’s outcomes. Failure then becomes a result of poor implementation, not a poorly designed model.The model found in the text Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth can be successfully adopted and positive outcomes realized if organizations are committed to matching, training, monitoring, and sustaining the model over time.
For more information on this article, training in implementation of evidence-based practices, or training in the model found in the text Aggression Replacement Training: A Comprehensive Intervention for Aggressive Youth, contact Darin Carver at (801) 644-1022 or darincarver@msn.com
January 02, 2009
Girls Self-Efficacy Training
A Gender Responsive Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention
For Girl’s in the Juvenile Justice System
Developed by Darin Carver, MSW
What do you get when you blend gender responsive strategies with cognitive-behavioral interventions? Girls Self-Efficacy Training (GST). GST is an exciting new program designed to match the unique response juvenile female offenders have to the risk factors for delinquency. The program is delivered three times per week, for ten weeks, to groups of six to eight girls.
GST uses a multi-modal approach with the intent of decreasing girl’s contact with the juvenile justice system by increasing their capacity to make responsible decisions. The model is grounded in current theory and research on juvenile female offender risks and needs.
It makes use of proven cognitive-behavioral strategies to reduce re-offending. The modules that make up GST are:Emotional Self-efficacy Training
This group targets impulsivity reduction by helping girl’s identify and respond effectively to negative emotional states. Successful self-soothing strategies are taught, as well as developing proficiency in responding to the negative events (triggers) that may produce such emotions.
Skill Sets for Success
In this group, behavioral procedures such as modeling, behavioral rehearsal, performance feedback, and generalization are used to teach skill sets to juvenile female offenders. The skill sets provide a gender responsive match to the risk factors for girl’s delinquency. Each of the twelve skills is designed to build self-confidence in making responsible decisions, particularly in interpersonal relationships.
Thinking for Yourself
Juvenile female offenders frequently rely on thinking errors that sustain poor decision-making and ineffective relationships. This modality provides opportunities for female participants to develop their own prosocial reasons for making responsible choices while moderately challenging ineffective thought processes.
Training for GST facilitators is delivered to smaller groups, 8 – 10, as proficiency requires actual practice of the three modalities described above. For more information on workshops and training in GST contact Darin Carver at (801) 644-1022; darincarver@msn.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)