h:mes for correctional yonths for use as study sites . bY Farbstein et al (1979) ,:v:>A brief review of i:..l’}ese nine studies>is provided below.
329 pages

510 KB – 329 Pages

PAGE – 1 ============
,ff, ,) j: ! I . I National Criminal Justice Reference Service nCJrs This microfiche was produced from ‘documents received for inclusion in’the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The r.esolution chart on this frame be used to evaluate document quality. 1.0 LI ———-“111111.25,111111.4 lJ MiCROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF ,-. __ .I” . ____ ___ , L::_ o Microfilming procedures used tel create this fiche comply with Ii the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. I. Points of view or opiriions stated in this document are. those of the author(s) and do not represent the official pOSition or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. Nationallnstitute of Justice ; States Department ofJustictB Washington, D. C;i20531 Q () “J ‘ii· .. \’ . ___ “”, . ,,-‘j 0 a; C/) ,,’ 0 0 . “,0 c: ? o ·C) C .., i:lo-..if1j .. r f. ) vi_ 0 .. t ŁŁ ti1 CfJ y l . :z r . rJ””fI:!rI -‘-J > ..A .$t -.. .. I , Z 0 ” O· CJ n t=-, > z’ ! >1 > , . . oj > r (l” l. :’ C f, I’ > tt . 0 ” ? ! C-?’._ a .

PAGE – 2 ============
D o ” vErOLOGICAL APPROACH TO ENVIRONf1ENTAL EVALU:4TION OF RESIDENTIAL TREATf1ENT HOMES ‘FOR DELINQUENT YOUTHS Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, Ph.D. c U.S. Department of Justice Nationallnslltut!’ of Justice This document ha$ been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization ori9inating it. Points bf view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this OIlft;<"Sb·gd material has been granted by . Public. Domain '5(J. S. Department of Justice to the National Criminal JUstice (NCJRS). if Further reProduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis-C sion of the owner. THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION '. NCJRS o . . Ii . " , 1 MAY 151981 . A.CQUfSIT10NS ',",' .;. . .. . _ ; j' ------------.. ' . ECOLOGICAL APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES FOR DELINQUENT. YOUTHS .0 Rajendra Kumar Ph.D. If 1 Prepared under Grant Number 78-NI-AX-0078 from ,the National tute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assista,nce' Administration, u. S. Department of .,Tustice. Points of view orvopinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice.. (\ .-,I THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATIONO, 2030 E. SUITE 116 TUCSONJ ARI ZONA 85719 .. . t , , ' PAGE - 3 ============ ,I . ;j , f I " -.. -- PREFACE The research study which foms the basis ·of the present report. was ·an 18 nonth effort starting in August, 1978 and ending in January, 1980. ginally, the study focused upon the development and testing· of an . nent of ecological data collection suitable for the environrrental tion of residential treat:ment honEs for delinquent youths. In the em, l'owever, two instruments eI1'i8rged, one for the canprehensi ve environmental evaluation and the other for the longitudinal evaluation of the m=nt. While this rep:>rt presents both instrunents, the evaluation ,insW..JllEl1t has also bee..’I’l the subject of another ,report entitled “Ecological Technique for t.1-}e Environrrental Evaluation of Correctional Residential TreatIrent Hcmes: A .HanClb::x::>k.” ‘This second reFQrt has been prepared separately for use by all those WIO are intereE1ted. in assessing the behavi.oral clinE.te and environmental features of their correctional group horres on a longitudinal basis. ‘lllanks are extended to the nenage.rrent of “Intenrountain Youth Center” and “Centers for Youth Developrrent and Achieverrent” for offering their group h:mes for correctional yonths for use as study sites . the course of the /$tudy, large number of, people O?ntributed in , neny different .,’laYs toward the successful completion of this study. contributions are gratefully acknowledged.. Tucron January, 1980 ‘. .. Rajendra K1.lItE.r Srivastava ,” ” .” . ” , ‘. “””—\\ .. ‘.’ Project Director Co-Investigator Research Assistants Adviso:ty Board IMYt; Representative CYD..2\ Representative Data Collection Supervisors Data Observers, and Interviewees ——‘ :! . Project Participants ,'”) . Rajendra K1.lItE.r SrivastaVa, Ph.D. Robert B. Bechtel, Ph.D. Marie Straw Valarie ‘lbpaz Han:y Allen, Ph. D. Erie Carlson, Ph.D. Warren Kass, Ph.D. Richard Sei te.r, Ph.D. It:>n Cohen, M.Ed. Hal Weaver, Ph.D. Dick Sexton Olris O’Keefe Ila Abernathy Ray BerlI1ett Dave Q3,rlson Ibn Cohen Dan Cole Charles Cook Lynell Cooper Bob CUsl.lII6IlO Mark Edwards Rick FinkOOnner Suzanne Frauenfeld Lisa Gray Richard Gray Joan Hall Bruce Hoeflinge.r· r::ebbie Holt Samra Laurenzo Jim McLaughlin r::ebbie r.i2nke Joe O’Reilly Ed Ritche . Marvin sam Jose Santano Marian Scully ii I r lb’, ‘ .. I I” , !

PAGE – 4 ============
., ” ” ,,··-·,,–w·;,. —–,–‘-. __ Date Collectors, etc. (cont.irl;ued) Draf.tsrren carput?r Data Consulrlmts ” SecretaJ:y, Typist LFM. Project, M:lnitor ‘ \\ ‘{ o \ ” , Alice Seward Jack Smith Jan Smith . caryl Warner Sue West John Richards Scott Dolf R:>bert Schalk Betty Katz, ‘Ph.D. Shirley Curson KaJ:en Kiefer George iii ” )} “‘-“–“””””””””–””””””””-”””’,’=,.,:-, ,..,– ________ !!””‘”-____ ;_-..-__ -..e .. _____ Ł ___ ,..–__ Ł ‘)J ,,’ CONTENTS Preface PiojectPar.t::icipants Table of Contents ” ExecutiVe Surnnary ” .i.J:o-i _____ _ TABLE OF COtlTENTS. Cha:pter :’ 1. Corrmunity Based Correctional Facilities and’ the Physical Enviroment: State ‘of Art ,,::.-Chapter 2. Ecological Technique Chapter 3. Research . Objectives, Setting and Plan Chapter 4. Ecological Variables 5. Behavior Settings in the Stucr.j HOrres Chapter 6. Needed Behavior ‘Settings ., f Chapter 7,. Ecological Evaluation Ins1:ruJ:rent: I Conprehensi ve ‘Chapter 8. Ecolog,ical Evaluation InS1:ruJ:rent: II IDngi tudinal :.,\ p 9. APplication of Iongitudinal Evaluation Instrurrent ‘\ , Chapter 10. Validity of the Interview M:thod Chapter. lL Validity of the Ecological Technique Chapter If. Reliability of the Ecological Techniqt:e Chapter 13 ‘cross-cu1 tural Validity of the Ecological Teclmique Chapter 14. ”Discrimination Ability of the’Ecological Technique Chapter 15. Eool99’ical Success Gradient \::;::’ii Chapte;” 16. Environmental Analysis and References {; iv, ” \, PAGE i ii iv 1 23 34 40 \’ 74 108 150 174 181 195 275 303 310 337, 361 410 415 476 o

PAGE – 5 ============
I \ ; , I I !.-( ‘J .. ;’-.. -.. .. TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) CONTENTS A. Ji Appendix B. Appendix c. Behavior Se”l:ting r5ata Collection Form -Evaluation Behavior setting Data Collection Fonn -Evaluation Identification of the Preliminary List of Behavior Settings and General Envil::onrrental Interview . ::) ;\ Appendix D. Behavior Setting Observation Sheet Appendix E. Data Collection Form for Validity Testing Appendix F. Behavior Setting Data: Interview Schedule for Needed Behavior SettLngs Appendix G. InforrredConsent Form for St1..1dEmts Appendix H. InfonredConsent Form for Parents Appendix I. Instructions b:) Observers for Use of Behavior Setting Observation Data Sheets . Appendix J. Observation Periods During ‘Which to Collect Observation Data ‘” : ‘ii. I’ Appendix K. Behavior Objects in tqe Study Hones ,Apfendix L. Specific Activit;i..es in;the study Hom=s Behavj.,or Setting Identification Data Form N. Environrrerri:al l?’.coblem Types ” . v c.f ;:is::: ! .-‘-4 ,.. #. :..:;, PAGE 484 507 509 533 539 544 549 :,. , ” 551 553 560 1′(> 566 571 576 578 ,0 I t ,z. _ ,.. . Ł “, .’ ., . / EXECUTIVE Introduction literatur7 has ShCMIl prisons to i:e expensive, inhUmane, PUIUtive, and totally madequate for achieving their rehabilitational goals Fssidential i”lom3s , especially for deiinquent youths, have errerged an alternative. They are comnunity based, non-punitive, relatively less expensive and rehabilitation o;riented. As . theJ.r narre suggests, they are operated as educaticinal-therar:;eutic centers. Evaluation research studies have credited them with ‘ delin;Iuents I low recidivism rates, high job placements, p:>si tj,ve soores on personality, attitude and achievement tests and good ccmnunity adjustnent. They are also ,found to l:e cost-effective and are p:>sitively by their staff and comnunity. These p:>si ti ve results may be due to a variety of factors such as staff qualifications , administrative set-up, programs and enVJ..rOnrrent.· The last factor is one of the rrost critical variables in helping an environment achieve its goals. This fact . been derronstrated by numerous I:esearch .studies within the general of IIEn:rrronmental Psychologyll in the conte.’Ct of ‘m3ny different k:irias of enVJ..ronrrents such as hospitals, psychiatric facilities, sctx;x:>ls, ·housing comnunities, offices, etc. Yet, physical of res7dential treatrrent homes for delinquent youths. along WJ.th otI;er. kinds C?f. correctional facilities has ‘l:een largely neglected. This by the fact that a review of literature revealed only 9 research studies which m=ntioned E>..nvironrrent as t.’1eir focus of evaluation. A closer examination of these studies indicated that only one of them conducted by the present autl-..or was evaluative and concerned with the physical envi.ronment while all others we;re either descriptive or were· concerned with the social rather than the phySical environrrent. This n7glect nay be due’, in part, to the lack of appropriate tools of enVJ..rOnrrental evaluation of correctional facilities. Through aoother search of correctional literature five evaluation instruments were identifi.ed all of which used the word lIenvimnrrentll as their focus. Arrong than was the farrous “Correctional Institutions Environment Scalell of MJos. N::me of them, hDI;.;ever, had anything to do with the physical environment leading to the conclusion t:..’!Jat cr2re are no envirornn:mtal tools for correctional :facilities and suggesting a need for developing such a tool. 1 .··-r· ‘”‘” -. , it,

PAGE – 6 ============
‘.b . “-i l ) . ‘ , , ” ) fie ‘:1) I -i ‘,J f! \ <;'.}( With the the eoological technique which is the focus of the present resear'cri the possihili ty that environrnentalevaluation instrurrents for other kinds of facilities nay re m::xlified for use with the residential treatn"ent hanes for delinquent yout.lis was because these tools were found deficient in the following ways: ',j 1. 'n1ey treat environm=nt and l:ehavior separately and not as a unit. .2. '!hey are not able to neasure rrany vari2lhles which are characterstic of treat:Itent environments stlCh as level of involverrent of individuals in the tasks, extent of decision making poWers, level of resp:msibili:ty, variety of activities, etc. . 3. When they consider physical environment they m:asure' structural properties and when they concentrate onpei1aviors they collect data aJ:cut individual 'subjects igrnring the critical focus of evaluating the environment as a thera:p=utic agent. 4. They are not capable of offering suggestions for nodification and nanagem:=nt of the environrrent to irrprove its therapeutiq climate. . '!he Eoological Technique The eoological technique of Roger Barker was selected for m:xlificahon for use with the residential treatment hanes for delinquent youths Ł This teclmique· not only overcorres the a1:::ove mentioned deficiencies but also brings with it some new qualifications essential for eIJ.Vironrrr;ontal evaluation. They are below: 1. It focuses up:m the environment of behavior and not on behaviors only.-2·. It oollects "T" (Transducer) ty:p= data as opposed to "0" (Operator) type data. "Til data are those natural behavioral phencmena which the researcher picks as they are and transduces them into usable form without changing them in any way. 11011 data are derived by the researcher through his o:p=rations and control over the exfer:i.nental conditions ' and the study environment and have no resemblance to what goes on in the real '-3. It focuses on nolar rather than rrolecular 1::ehaviors recuase it is the rrolar units of behavior and their synorrorphic environmental characters tics which define our everyday life. ' 4. It relies on naturalistic observation which is aided by interviews, pmtographs, examination of notices, bulletins, newspO-:p=rs, records, etc., yielding data on natural behaviors. 2 ',' \, , 5. It treats behavior and, envirollIteIlt as a unit and. not as two separate variables. . 6. It examines the total environrrent as a thera:p=utic setting by measuring behaviors in theii: environrn:=ntal OOI?;f;:ext. 7. It treasures rrany such variables which are critical for an unc.terstanding of the therapeutic value of a given envirollIteIlt such as ,;J.utonany, pressure, }?enetration, etc. . 8. It is objective and strictly behavioral and not oolored either by, the researchers' or t1:'e respondents' subjectivity. 9. It has wide generalizability and applicability across different kinds of lX>pulations and environments. 10. It provides a system of environm::mtal evaluation in tenus of enviro:rnrental assets and deficiencies as they relate to the behavioral and therapeutic outcorres. 11. ,It provides goals for envlronrrental design by providing of behaVJ.oral units called behavior settings which must oe supported by the environment. 12. It provides all the essential data, l:x:rtl.’1 behavioral and environmental, for making enviro:rnrental design decisions. 13. It provides principles for dec isions. Although the eoological technique has been used for the study and evaluation of a variety of environments such as corrmunities schools h ‘tal he . ‘ , s, usmg, churches,’ national parks, offices, supe:rma.rkets , psychiatric facilities, and oorrectional group hanes, its srope has been limited o:::nnpared to other tfachniques. The primary reason for this is that, in its classical fODn a,S described by Barker, it is a very t:i.ne consumingi’ expensive and difficult method to use and requires researchers s:p=cially trained in its use. Serre attenrots made to rrodify the technique to overcc::m: these difficulties. The rrost imFortant rrodifications were 1. The observa.tions were replaced, at leas-t:: in part, by interviews. 2. The data .record sheets wexe simplified’. . Arother rrodifica tion contemplated and inplemetrted in ti::e present study was airred at using this technique for longitudinal evaluation of environments.· . 3 “.,. -,

PAGE – 8 ============
. , , / for abuse of alcohol, drugs and solvents .Ł The average number of arrests student prior to the admission to the study banes was 5. The average stay of the students in the study hc::m3s was 14.5 C·)nths. Except for one home with 4 houseparents, ‘all others had, 2 houseparents each. ‘!he houseparents usually constituted teams. In sate cases, however, roth houseparents were· single. The hone with 4 actually had only two on duty houseparents and i:;he other were .houseparents Ł ‘!he purposes of developing and testing the ecological technique could have been accomplished by using only one heme as the research site. HcMever, 11 hornas were usro to the J:’eliabili ty of theresul ts Ł ‘!he present study required 9 different :rrethodologies aco::mplish. 9 . different objectives listed earlier. These are described separately in the context of each of the specific objectives. However, a general research plan was adopted through the data were collected for all the research obJectives J-U one operation Ł This research plan consisted of 7 phases. Phase I: Preliminaries. During this phase the first set of 7 sttrly hJrnes administered by CYDA was selected. The selection criterion was that the horres must have “”=-. correctional population. CYDA ceased operations after about 4 months at which ti:rre 4 IMYC homes were selected using the.same criterion. The rapport between the research and the study hane staff was also established by a meeting of the trM:> at the horres during which study purposes and :rrethods were explained ?..11d the research staff were to both the the houseparents. Volimteers were also souaht from the houseparents who were to act ‘as interviewers and also as observers to collect observational ecological data. Frean these volunteers those houseparents were selected to participate in the research who (1) had’l.Orked in the study horres for atleast six rroni:hs, (2) aPF•ared to l:::e rrotivated ito participate in the research and (3) had their personal tine to devote to the research. The bouseparents were selected as observers and interviewers for trM:> reasons. (1) Since they t.rlernselves worked in the norres it was convenient for them to collect observational data at any t:ilrE, even at such odd hours as midniaht or 6: 00 a .Ł m. Sunday naming. (2» They \vere familiar With·· the heme!:> -and their operations well enough m, collect’ valid infornation. 6 . Ł .,. 4G4 “,””4 .. .. Ł. -. .. _EIt!. , ,.” , . ‘I \:’ , .. ‘ ‘!he houseparents were exclusively used as interviewers. Care was taken that they had mt collected observational data on the sane hc:m= for which they were providing interview data. This was necessary to obtain observational and interview data for the sarre hare fran independent sources for the purpose of: testing the validity of the intervie\v nethod (specific objective !b. 1) to be described later. ‘!he observations were by roth the hOU$eparents and the research staff because sufficient n.umber of houseparents to collect all the observational data were:-r.ot a.vailable. ‘rne use of the reEea:rch staff this purpose was justified l:::ecause observations were used to collect data on what was going on in the horres and prior knowledge of the bones and their operations was Ilot required. During this phase floor plans of 7 CY11.’-\ horres w”ere prepared by the ‘dt’ctftsrre.n who also prepared floor plans for 4 D1YC horres later when they were selected. foliCMing instrurrents of data collection were also finalized by research staff during this phase. 1. Behavior Setting Data Collection Fonn: Comprehensive Evaluation. The instrument was pretested on 4 randomly selected houseparents. Based on the results it was m::xlified and finalized. It collected data on all the ecological variables through interviews. 2. Behavior Setting Data Collection Fonn: Longitudinal Evaluation. ‘!his instrurrent was pretested by a research assistant by using it in one horre and collecting data. Based on the resultS·, it was m::xlified and finalized. It collected data on 14 selected ea;:>lngical variables through daily observations of the study horre. 3 Ł. Identification of the Preliminary List of Be.luirior Settings and General Environmental Intervie<,.;. It was designed ito provide infol:lIE.tion fer identification of :bel'JO.v"ior Cl1-.Ld tJ'-16 oolleetioll of data on the general physical environrrental andi population features of the study hares. 4. Behavior Setting Observation Data Sheet. It was; used to collect ecological data through observations on those eooillogical variables which could l:::e observed. The instrurrent was pretested by the research staff by using it to collect data in one . heme for one hour. 5. Data CollectionFonn for Validity Testing. It was used ,to obtain judge.rnent scores on 5 selected. ecological varia.bn.es. Each variable was to be rated on a 5-point scale using defini tfuons of the variables provided by the laymen. These judgerrent scores werre to l:::e rorrelated 7 PAGE - 9 ============ / '4t ; , ; J : ' . : : ,---.'--"'=' with the scores obtained on the sane variables by the interview rrethod of the ecological technique for validity testing (specific objective lb. 3). It was also pretested by interviewing 2 houseparents who were not participating:::in any other part of the research. Judge!rent data were collected on 10 randanly selected behavior settings. No problems were encountered and the instrument was accepted as final. 6. Behavior setting Data: Interview SChedule for N=eded Behavior Settings. It was pretested by the principal investigator by intervierNing two houseparents who were not participating in any other part of the research. Data collected .on two randomly selected behaVior settings. lb problems were encountered and the instrument was considered final. Phase II: Training. Trainir.g was given to the interviewers and observers. 'lhe interviewers ware trained (1) to read the questions clearly and without errotions, (2) to record only the infonration asked for and (3) to explain the question or repeat it if the res:r;:onse was not caning. 'lhey were also instructed to understand the questionnaire and the intent of the questions thernsel ves. After verbal training they were asked to administer the questionnaire in the presence of the trainer to one houseparent who was not participating in any other aspect of the Following this the problems were discussed and the traird.ng was considered complete if the trainer was 'satisfied ,vith the interviewer-trainee's t;:erfornance. Those who could not satisfy the trainer were excluded from the list of interviewees.· Since structured interviews were ·used no interviewer reliability was needed. For the collection of observational data the observ--ers were trained in tM:> stages. 1. Discussion. During this stage each observer wClS provided ,vi th an “Observer Training-Package” . which consisted of (1) “Behavior Setting Observation Data Sheet”, (2) “Instructions to Observers”, (3) definitions of some of the tecJ:llu.cal terms, (4) list of behaVior settings to l:e observed, (5) narres and aadresses of 7 CYDA horres because they were the onlyQ!JAs on wr..ich cbge..”‘”‘V”ational data were COllected, (6) maps of these study herres, and (7), the list of observation periods. Each item in the pacl(;p.ge was thoroughly explained. ‘ 2. Individual observation practice was given to each observer in the field by the principal investigator. For ithis same behavior settings y;ere observed at the sarre tine in the Si3m3 home and data collected independently by the observer-trainee and the principal i.’1.’-‘estigator. After data colleCtion’ the b\brecams compared and the trainee was ffi3.de a\<;are of the mistakes and smggestiol)S v;ere made' . ·to correct them. The:'il.practice \va.s repeated until the tw::>data records i,:! 8 -.-,-, . , .. ., “””””‘–: . .. .. .. ., I \\ c’ ·1:··.·/rD t, tlfo [I ‘,” I ‘-‘t’:.;} f! J ‘tl ‘r0 ‘I I 0 o o. were alnost identical. After this ob::;erver reliability was detennined for which the sane practice procedure was again adopted except that after data recording the percent agreement l:etv.’een the observer-trainee and the principal investigator was computed. A ,?f 75% agreement was considered necessary observer re11ab1l1ty. All observers achieved this criterion. Training of the observer for collection of longitudinal data was accorrplished. in Ut;o stages Ł 1. Study of the handl::ook which contained exPlanations ‘Of the ecological variables and. detailed instructions to observational data on them. 2. Practice involving the trainee to collect data on 4 behavior settings ·under supervision’ of the trainer. No observer reliability was needed since there was only one observer. Phase III: Data Collection Wave 1. This phase was eli vided into three parts. 1. Identification of :Behavior Settings and Collection of Data on General Environrrental and Population Characterstics Using Inst.rum2nt No. 3 i’ Listed in Phase I Activities. The data were collected first in CYDA hones with the participation of houseparents except for examination of records which was done in CYDA headquatters. This acti vi ty was repeated for 4 IMYC homes after CYDA closed· and IMYC homes were selected. 2. Collection of Observational Data Using Instrurrent lb. 4 Listed in Phase I Activities. ‘lhe data were collected in 7 CYDA h::>rres over a period of 4 rronths. A total of 86 observation periods, each of two hour duration, were planned for each home. They were so planned that it was possible to observe the hares twice from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. and then from 3: 00 p.m. to 11: 00 p em weekdays and from 6; 00 g”IIl.:._,· U to 12: 00 midnight on weekends. 87% of all planned observations were completed. 3 Collection of Interview Data Using Instrum::mt No.1 Listed in phase I Activities. Interview data on ail the behavior settings in . existence in each of the 7 study horres were collected. Simultaneously, data were also collected on the non-existent but needed behavior.. settings using instrument ro. 6 listed in phase. I acti ‘\Tl. ?-es. By t,.”..at tine CYDA had closed and 4 . IMYC homes had been :ulcluded J.I1 the sample and the interview data were inmediately collected on using the two instruments mentioned aOOve. 9 , ,J f

PAGE – 10 ============
\ ” ‘ .Ł \ ! 1 -r I Ł “” , , \ i 1 .: ,c.’ ———=—,,——-Phase IV: Interval, Validity Testing andIDngi Cpllection. ” . An interval of three nonths was allowed between Wave I and Wave II data collection (see Phase V) to allow for reliability testing o.f the ecological technique (specific objective No.2). During this period statistical analyses for validity testing of tI:e interview were COIrg’?leted (specific objective N::>. 1), data·on Judgenent scores were· \ collected and necessary statistical operations, were :p:l.rfol:l’l’ed to test the validity of the ecological technique (specific objective No.3) Ł Addi. tional pho,tographs of the physical and behavioral properties of the study hoIreS w=re A handbook for collection <;>f longitudinal . ecological data was also finalized, following wI;ich tudinal data collected in one study bc:m= for a of objective N:>. 6). pru:ise v: Data Collection Wave II. Interview data were collected using the compreherisive ecological data collection instrurn:nt again for 2 IHYC harres. Other two IMYC hares had 1Jndergone such significant changes that their inclusion was not justified. Phase VI: Reliability Testing and Data Analysis. Wave II interview data obtained in Phase V for 2 IMYC homes were correlated with Wave I data (see Phase II+) collected from the sane 2.horres. to test the reliabiJi-M7 of the ecological technique (specific objective r .2 ‘ N::>. 2)., ffo Interview data obtained from all 11 study’ hanes in Phase III were also analyzed to compare sexually, racially, and different hares (specific objective No.7), for cross-cultural of the ecological technique (s:p:lcific objective No.4), and for enVJ.rOl1ItEIltal \ .’ , c ‘”””—,,. ‘E=cological Variables ‘.”, I 1/ Ecological evaluation is conducted in stages. (1) settings in the environrrerit. to be evaluated are identified. (2) Ecological data on t.lJe identified behavior settings are collected. The behavior settings are the units of analysis in the· ecologif,.al technique and the environment is evaluated througp. rreasurement, analysis and evaluation. In the present study the data have been collected on the following ecological variables: 1. Behavior settings defined c& those nolar behaviors, events, activities, happenings, programs, functions, e::c: with. ty . specific locations, involving popUlations behaviors using specific behavior objects at specific tirres and for s:p,ecific Number and types of behavior settings are recorded. 2.. Comrnmity location and services used by the study hones. 3. 4. 5. 6 .Ł Size of the study horres in square feet. Lesign. !i(C . .. . Phys:l.cal area and WJ. thin the study horres. Special :features and specific environmental problems. 7. ]bcal point wi thin the study· horres defined as the area on which all types of people naturally converge and within which engage variety of activities. 8. Behavior objects in use to support behavior settings. 9. Specific acti vi ties defined as tlnse b:haviors which are part of the behavior settings. analyses of the study horres objective No.9) Ł 10 = .L: .Ł ŁŁ engageiCin different behavior settings Ł Phase VII: Advisory Board Meeting and Report. A draft report, of the study was prepared and sent to the ac;1visory board members for reviev. A :rreeting of these rrernbers was called Tucson for discussion of the rep:>rt. Based on the ;r:ec:ornrrEndations and corments the report Was filli:ili.zed. 10 , . , , .-. 11.Perfo:mer/p:>pulation ratio defined as the of people \vI10 are controlling and operating a behavior setting as a ratio of the total ntmUJer of people present in it. 12. Manning defined as the difference between the size of. p:>J?ulation ‘.’ in “,,”vi th@ coptL:raipooulation size wget”ti1etasKsWI.t.l:un -a . done. This. was later dropped from because the data collected on this variable did not to be 11 , , , ; i ” ! j 1 Ł i I:

PAGE – 11 ============
I; ‘,.. I I t) ” .. ‘r . .. .. ———13. Day of the week on which settings occur. 14. Tirre.wi-t .. ‘lll.n a 24-hour period when behavior settings occur. <, ]5. Duration defined as the length of tirre for which a behavior setting lasts. \. 16. 'Occurrence defined as the number of tirres a setting occurs duririb a period of a year. -\\ 17. CCcupancy 'tine (OT) defined as the product of the nean population and m§an duration for. each behavior setting. 18. Action' Patterns defined as the characterstic behaviors exhibited within a beha'vior setting. There are 14 action patterns: aesthetics, business, eduCation, gOverI1l1'61t, nutrition, personal' appearance, philanthropy, physical health, professionalism, recreation, religion, retreat, routine,'.and social contact. Each is rated on a 10-point scale based on thel;ercent of total or used by it. . 0 .. 19. Behavior riechaniStL1s defined" as therranner or node in which behaviors are exhibited within a"'behavior setting. There are 5 behavior rrEchanisrns: affective behavior, manipulation, talking and thinking. Each is rated. on a 10-r;oiht scaleba.sed on the percent of total or used by it. 20. Penetration level defined as the level of involverre..l1t or centrality of persons wi thin or control over a behavior setting. It is measured on a 6-point scale, the higher' scorec the greai:er the penetration. 21. Leadership defined as the extent of control one person "or one group of people have over others. It is also measured on a 6-point scale, the higher the score the greater the leadership. o " . r '-"'--.. .' .. f 22e Autonomy defined as the extent to which decision rrEking powers rest .. e T-fo "9-;"me higher the score the nore the powers indicative of the autonomy with respect to decisions and actions. 23. Pressure defined as the degree to which the social and enviJ;Onrrentai, j forces cr.anpel people to participate in a behavior setting. It is rne.asuret9. on a 7-point scale, the lower the score the rrore the It is suggested that this scale be reversed so. that high scores cindicate rrore . ' rregsurem;;m.'t= a; co·' variables. . ,. . rY/ " 12 . ) :$" . . . 7. Co 24. Welfare defined as the, extent of benefit for the .students and the parents separately. It is measured on a . 4-pointscale ranging from 0 to 3 where the higher the score the ±tore the benefit. 25. General Richness Index (GRI) is a global measure whiCh considers penetration, action pattern,: behavior rrechanism, and occupancy tirre scores together. It is a treasure of the behavioral resources of a behavior setting, thehigoor the score the lTOre the resources. 26. Educati.onal-therapeutic value is defined as, the extent to which a behavior setting supports the educational, and therapeutic goals of the hate. It is m?asured on a 6-point scale ranging fran 0 to 5 where the higher the scor-e the nore the educaidonal-therapeutic value of the behavior setting. 'Excluding variable N:). 12 there are 25 variables which are part of a oomprehensive ecological evaluati.on. The longitudinal evaluation, because of itS limited scope, CQJlects data on only 14 variables whiCh are Nos. 1, 6, 10, ll, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 . The educational-therapeutic index of each. ecological variable was cetennined by asking the houseparents arout the kind of scores they considered preferable in achieving the goals of their homes. The liesJ:X)nses indicated a preference for high ecological scores suggesting that the higher the score the 1:etter education-therapeutic climate of the hOrrE with the exception of the variable "pressure" in which case the situation was reversed. and Results <::>.. ” c) Settings: ‘Ihe behavior settings in the study hOrrES w=re identified by three rreth:Xis: 1. Walk through horrE during which the houseparent related what behaviors took place in which part of the house. 2. Interviews during w’hiCh the houseparent told ·the sequence of behaviors taking place in the l10Ire ‘throughout the 24-hour period on a typical w:::>rkday, typical Saturday, and typical SUliday. He also related ‘ infrequently occurring behaviors and the’ behaviors which did rot occur j 1″1 t.h.e, -ho.Tt’e: -. , 3. Examination of bulletins, notices, calendars, student behavior records, and ne.wsletters which ;revealed other ¥mviors ta.1dngplace in the horre. 13 . a ,\ : ” ‘: IJ 11 ,.

510 KB – 329 Pages