Archived Content Contenu archivé - Public Safety Canada 9110.p71 f5 no.2... · Contenu archivé...

ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Contenu archivé

L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous.

This document is archival in nature and is intended for those who wish to consult archival documents made available from the collection of Public Safety Canada. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided by Public Safety Canada, is available upon request.

Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et fait partie des documents d’archives rendus disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique Canada fournira une traduction sur demande.

Hy 9110 .P7f F5

I

no.?

GROUPE DE RECHERCHE SUR L'INADAPTATION JUVÉNILE

UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL

THE HUMAN RESOURCE

A Description of the Treatment Staff of Shawbridge Youth Centers

Final Report No. 2

by

Marge Reitsma and Ron Brill

June 1978

BOYS' FARM RESEARCH PROJECT

Directeur: Marc LeBlanc, Ph.D. (Crim.)

0 P '71

P.7.5 ,

LIURARY PMI= 0:3. THE SOLICITOR,

MAR 4 1913t

Dlet.loTt-'QUE MINIS•IRE DU SOLLICITEUR GMRAL

THE HUMAN RESOURCE

A Description of the Treatment Staff

of Shawbridge Youth Centers/

Final Report No. 2

by

Marge Reitsma and Ron Brill

June 1978

This research is funded by:

Le Ministère des Affaires Sociales du Québec

Le Ministère du Solliciteur Général du Canada

Shawbridge Youth Centers Foundation

The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors

and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding groups

or the agency under study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to sincerely thank those individuals who

have made this report possible. Thanks to the personnel of

Shawbridge Youth Centers who willingly answered the many

questionnaires and who participated in the interviews so that

we could gain an understanding of the persons who work with

troubled and delinquent youth.

Special thanks to our colleagues for their invaluable

assistance; to Bruce Duncan for analyzing the data, to

Marc LeBlanc and Elizabeth Harvie for their support and

suggestions, and to Joann Jones for her excellent typing and

preparation of the report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 1

CHAPTER I - Personality Characteristics and Professional Orientations of SYC Staff 9

SYC Staffing Patterns 12 Data Collection and Staff Samples 14 General Background Characteristics 19 Palmer's Classification of Worker Characteristics 24

Hunt's Classification of Worker Characteristics 51 General Behavior Characteristics 56 Stability of Worker Characteristics 64 Chapter Summary and Conclusions 73

CHAPTER II - Matching in Practice 78

Differences between the Worker Positions in the Three Settings 81

Comparisons of Teams within Settings 93 Matched Worker-Youth Relationships 99 Worker-Youth Matching: I-Level Theory 101 Worker-Youth Matching: Conceptual Level Theory 108

CHAPTER III - Selection of and Caring for "Good" Staff ....II]

Selection of "Good" Staff 118 "Care for the Caregivers" 139 Overall Summary and Conclusions 149

REFERENCES 159 APPENDICES 165

List of Appendices

Page

1. Description of Instruments 166

(a) Position Qualifications 167

(b) A Brief Description of the I-Level

Classification System 169

(c) Research Interview Protocol 173

(d) Scale Items used to Assess SYC Workers' Personality Characteristics and Professional

Orientations 176

(e) Description of Staff Intervention Subscales 181

2. Characteristics of SYC Staff: Initial Measurement • 184

3. Characteristics of SYC Staff: Second Measurement 199

4. Analysis of Significant Differences between the

Characteristics of SYC Staff at I1 and 1

2 214

5. Summary of the Significant Differences at 12 between

the SYC Staff in Different Settings, Positions,

and Teams on Background and Personal Characteristics •. 230

6. SYC Staff Ratings on the "Treater-Matching" Interview Scales 236

7. SYC Staff Ratings on the Staff Intervention Scales 249

8. SYC Youths' Satisfaction with their Workers 25 8

9. Staff Turnover 261

10. Distribution of Workers and Youth in each Unit by 263

11. Comparison of the Characteristics of High and Lower

Conceptual Level SYC Staff

12. Comparison of the Characteristics of Versatile and Non-

Versatile SVC Staff 275

13. Comparison of the Characteristics of Stayers and

Leavers

I-Level and Conceptual Level

270

280

I NTRODUCT I ON

2

No matter how comprehensive the conceptual ideas and physical

resources of a social service agency are, it is the people who are

the most important resource. In a residential and community-based

agency such as Shawbridge Youth Centers, which services youths

considered delinquent or unmangeable, the workers are expected to

carry out the strenuous, often paradoxical task of controlling,

caring, and treating difficult youth. Winnicott (1964, 1970)

believes that "the essential skill in residential treatment lies

in the workers' ability to create a way of living for a group of

individuals" (cited in Berry, 1975, p. 118), while the focus of

experienced practitioners who usually work from a community base

"commonly develop treatment-programs on the shared assumption that

the nature and quality of their relationship to a client is

essential to the process and outcome of treatment" (Palmer, 1963,

vii). Although the staff in the residential and community

settings of SYC may bring different skills and orientations to

their work, it is the Agency's ability to select good staff and

care for them that will make treatment of youth possible.

What makes a person a good worker with youth? In 1962,

Walther studied the characteristics of people working in

institutions for youth who are considered delinquent and emotionally

disturbed. The supervisory personnel in 45 short- and long-term

American institutions were first asked to describe their sub-

ordinates in reference to 30 different qualities a , and then to

evaluate their employees' proficiency with children and with staff.

a A list of these 30 position qualities can be found in Appendix 1.

1,000 employees were rated.

3

Walther found that all the characteristics did relate to good

work with children and staff.

The composite profile is not necessarily descrip-tive of any individual group workers nor is it necessarily descriptive of the most desirable combination of factors for any given institution.

The profile is offered as a generalized summary of the relationships that most frequently tend to be associated with superior proficiency with children and staff.

The composite superior group worker in this study would be a male under 55 years of age with a college degree. He would have an inquiring, open mind. He would remain calm and poised under pressure and would be able to keep emotional or personal interests from influencing decisions. His attitude would be enthusiastic, constructive, optimistic, and loyal. He would have a knowledge of the functional skills needed to carry out the duties of his job. He would be self-reliant, taking new developments in stride. He would display assured bearing and have inner securities. He would receive loyalty and cooperation from others. He would be able to manage and motivate others to full effectiveness. He would have an open mind. He would have been employed in the institution for less than eight years. (Walther, 1962, 78, 79.)

Two important findings of this study were: in the first

place, Walther demonstrated that staff characteristics can be

reliably and efficiently measured; secondly, certain characteris-

tics are related to good work with children. Walther hypothesized,

however, that not all these characteristics could or should be

found in one person or position, as diffèrent types of people

are needed to do different types of jobs. Thus, the question is

not only who are the good staff, but which staff are good for

which types of children undpr which conditiong.

It has long been recognized that workers have different

strengths and vulnerable points, and this should be taken into

4

account in the selection, placement, and supervision of staff

(Adams and Hopkinson, 1964; Bettleheim, 1950; Bowlby, 1953;

Jung, 1964; Palmer, 1963, 1967; Silverman, 1967). Ted Palmer, in

his work with the California Community Treatment Project (CTP)

from 1961 to 1973, has intensively explored how, to.differentiate

and measure the worker characteristics that relate to the most

effective treatment of different youth types (Palmer, 1963, 1965,

1967a, 1967b, 1968 -a, 1968b, 1973).

To "match up" worker and youth characteristics so that

treatment and control needs of troubled and delinquent youth are

effectively met, Palmer felt that three conditions must be ful-

filled: (a) the worker's personality must bring out a positive

response and a general acceptance by 'the youth; (b) the worker's

natural style of interacting and intervention must be appropriate

to the youth's needs; and (c) the characteristics of the youth

should please and satisfy the worker.

Matching workers' and youths' characteristics can affect

youth behavior change measured by parole failures, number of

arrests and convictions, and type of offense. . In his experimental

research comparing the parole failure of youths matched to their

parole agents to the parole failure of youth assigned to regular

agents, Palmer found that experimental youths had a 30 percent

failure rate of parole, while control youths had a failure rate

of 64 percent within 15.49 months of community expOsure (1967a,

p. 32) a• Experimental youths were on the small caseloads of

a The difference was significant: X

2 = 60.53; df = I; 2.‹.01.

5

specially matched workers who had access to extensive supervision

and training. Control youths were part of the large caseloads

of agents offering regular types of probation/parole services.

Both experimental and control youths had the same parole agent

for a minimum of 15 months.

A second finding supporting the value of matching workers and

youth was that the failure rate during 15 months' parole follow-up

was 43 percent for experimental youths who were not closely

matched, and only 19 percent for the youths who were closely

matched to their workers. Both grouPs of youth had been handled

by CTP agents, using CTP methods and program facilities. The

•difference was significant beyond the .01 level (Palmer, 1968a,

p. 12).

More recently, Palmer (1977a, h) re.analyzed the effectiveness

of matching youth to agents in relation to number of arrests

during approximately 6.8 years of community exposure. Most

experimental youth had fewer arrests than control youth, both

during time on parole as well as after discharge, although worker

matching and CTP treatment approaches were more effective for

some youth types than for others.

When Boys' Farm and Training School (later known as

Shawbridge Youth Centers) adopted an important re-orientation in

treatment philosophy and organizational structure in 1968, careful

selection of good staff and matching workers to appropriate youths

6

(and units) became one of the initial ten goals set out by

Wylie and Hanna (1971, P. 5, 27). This goal was based on

Palmer's rationale that:

workers at given points in their personal and professional development would probably have areas of greater and lesser ability, and of

differential interest as well. [Therefore], it appeared plausible to regard the idea of matching-up certain workers with certain youths as being, at base, simply one way of capitalizing upon the special talents, sensitivities, and areas of greatest concern on the part of the workers and of minimizing possible effects of

the worker's areas of lesser sensitivity, talent, and relative disinterest on certain kinds of

problems. (1967a, p. 8)

In 1975, Boys' Farm was still believed to have a policy that

matched personnel to youths. The Batshaw Committee reported that

the differential treatment philosophy at Boys' Farm "implies

careful selection of staff and the diagnosis of the children by

the Sullivan, Grant, and Grant criteria. Staff and children are

then matched for optimal therapeutic effect" (Batshaw Report,

1975, P. 10 35).

In the fall of 1975, the Provincial and Federal Governments

and the Boys' Farm Foundation funded a Research Team from Le

Groupe de Recherche sur l'Inadaptation Juvenile (GRIJ) a to research

the evolution of the treatment programs at Shawbridge Youth

Centers (SYC), and to analyze possible reasons for youth change.

As "matched" staff and appropriate milieu characteristics are

considered the two main elements of SYC's treatment approach,

youth change would be analyzed in relation to different milieu

and staff characteristics.

a A research institute which is sponsored by the Université de

Montréal, P.Q.

7

In order to understand the characteristics of SYC workers

and their contributions to youth change, this report first

addresses the following questions:

1. What are the personality characteristics and professional

orientations of SYC staff during 1976 and 1977?

2. Are the strengths of the personality characteristics

and professional orientations of SYC workers maximized, and the

weaknesses minimized? That is, are workers differentially

assigned and "matched" to the appropriate setting, unit, and

youths?

Although the impact of matching SYC workers and youths on

youths' personality and behavior change is not analyzed in this

reporta , the worker characteristics that affect more immediate

concerns such as turnover, versatility, and youths' general

satisfaction are explored. Furthermore, environmental conditions

such as clarity of job expectations, supervision, team cohesive-

ness, and leader support, which contribute to the effectiveness

of SYC staff, are discussed. Therefore, this report goes on to

answer one more question:

3. What worker characteristics and environmental conditions

would increase the probability of staff working effectively with

troubled and delinquent youth?

a See Brill, R., Factors Related to Client Change, Final Report

No. 5, 1978.

8

By answering these three questions it is possible to learn

(a) how much SYC has fulfilled the specific staffing needs

inherent in its commitment to differential treatment, and (h)

what factors would increase the effectiveness and efficiency of

individuals selected to work at Shawbridge Youth Centers.

CHAPTER

Perso.nality Characteristics and

Professional Orientations of SYC Staff

10

Shawbridge Youth Centers, formerly known as Boys' Farm, have

cared for wayward and delinquent boys for 70 years. In the last

eight years, and especially the last two years, this agency has

greatly expanded in size, complexity, and scope of responsibilities.

It now has the mandate to care for and treat 250 youths between

the ages of 12 and 18, of whom 210 are boys and approximately 40

are girls. The agency provides residential, group home, and

community services in its 17 treatment units. There are three

locked facilities (two short-term, one long-term), five open

residential units, six group homes in the greater Montreal

community, two city centers for day-care and casework, and one

short-term community detention facility. Centralized educational,

recreational, food and maintenance services are part of the agency's

residential services.

Boys' Farm management endorses a philosophy of differential

treatment which is based primarily on the Interpersonal Maturity

Classification system (Sullivan, Grant and Grant, 1957; Warren,

1966) and the experimental research completed by Ted Palmer from

1961 to 1973 in the California Treatment Project. Hunt's

Conceptual Level Matching Model (1971) was also introduced to

supplement I-Level theory and practice. In brief, these theories

claim that (a) youths, workers, and treatment units need to be,

and can be, differentiated into groups, and (h) that differential

treatment is more effective than non-differential treatment.

Il

To implement differential treatment principles, Boys' Farm

management (Wylie and Hanna, 1971) made a commitment to (a)

consistent classification of youths, (b) differential placement

of youth, (c) differential development of programs, and (d)

careful selection and differential placement of staff.

In addition to an appreciation of Boys' Farm's mandate,

resources, and treatment philosophy, an awareness is necessary

of the many changes that have occurred at Boys' Farm during the

time of the Research Project, from September 1975 to June 1978.

Among others, the following changes have been identified:

1. Assumption of detention responsibilities for most angibphone

youth both prior to and following court hearings)

2. Assumption of treatment and detention responsibilities

for Anglophone girls adjudicated as delinquent or in need of

protection)

3. Creation of seven new units in addition to existing

eleven units.

4. Forty percent increase in staff complement)

5. Several rearrangements of regional and provincial "tables"

which shape the jurisdiction, policies, and procedures of provincial

social agencies)

6. Many revisions of agency procedures concerning admission,

transfers, runaways, and case management; by May 1978, a

complete update of the Agency's Policy and Procedure Manual was

made;

12

7. Move of management and chief administrative services

from the residential campus in Shawbridge to a downtown Montreal

office;

8. Change of agency's name from 'Boys' Farm and Training

School to Shawbridge Youth Centers (SYC)3 and

9. Beginnings of policy and procedure reorientation in

compliance with the new Youth Protection Act (Bill 24), effective

April 1, 1978.

SYC Staffing Patterns

Management

The upper management group is made up of the directors of

Residential Group Life, Community Services, Finance and Maintenance,

Personnel, and Professional Services, supervised by the Executive

Director, a man who has run the agency since 1968. Formerly, the

directors of Group Life and Community Services supervised the

centralized educational program, but in September 1977, the

Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal took over this

responsibility. Management is responsible to a Board of Directors

as legislated in Bill 48, an act in respect to Health Services and

Social Services, 1971.

There are also three intermediate management positCons:

Residential Treatment Supervisor of Open Units, Residential

Treatment Supervisor of Closed Units, and the Supervisor of Group

Homes. However, these positions do not seem as determinate as

other upper management positions: no one filled these positions

1 3

in May 1978, and the positions themselves were under review.

Residential Teams

A coordinator, who holds an undergraduate university degree,

heads a team made up of six child care workers and one and two-

fifths night supervisors. The closed units have two more child

care positions than the open units. Two open cottage teams also

have a community-oriented caseworker. Each team works with 10 to

14 youths; one of the five open unit teams and one of the closed

units are responsible for girls.

Community Teams

The two city project centers are staffed by caseworkers who

have undergraduate or graduate degrees in the social sciences.

Each worker is responsible for 10 to 12 youths, both boys and

girls. A Community Treatment Supervisor supervises each team. In

this report, the position "supervisor" includes cottage and group

home coordinators and the Community Treatment Supervisors.

Group Home Teams

Full-time houseparents form the nucleus of a group home team.

Each team is responsible for six to eight youths. At the beginning

of the research, a relief set of houseparents and a coordinator

(who supervises another home as well) were also part of the four

group home teams in existence. After a time, a group home case-

worker and then a child care worker (who replaced one of the

relief houseparents) were added to the teams. During the project

one group home closed down and three homes opened up; of the six

homes, four became co-educational.

14

Other Services

Two full-time and one part-time nurse, as well as a part-time

doctor, staff the campus medical center. There had been a

consulting psychiatrist until 1977, but after he left no one

replaced him. Community and group home youths generally use

community health, educational, and recreational services.

SYC has two school centers. On the residential campus, 20

teachers, some having special education degrees, provide schooling

to 60 to 80 youths. In the city, five teachers provide classes

four days a week to 20 to 30 youths. In addition, a program

specialist has recently set up a work training program for six to

eight youths.

Finally, four recreation counsellors provide daily classes

and evening supervision to campus youths.

Data Collection and Staff Samples

The measures chosen to describe the personality characteristics a

and professional orientations of SYC staff include: (a) Social

and Professional Identity Questionnaire, (h) Byrne's Health and

Opinion Survey (1961), (c) Jesness' Staff Preference Survey

(1972-74), (d) Paragraph Completion Test measuring Conceptual

Level (Hunt, 1978), (e) Palmer's Treater-Matching Interview and

Rating Inventory (1967a), and (f) the Staff Intervention

Questionnaire (Ménard, Cusson, and LeBlanc, 1974).

a Due to limited research resources, the closed unit, upper management and central services staff were not included in the research.

15

The rationale behind choosing these measures, especially

Hunt's Conceptual Level and Palmer's Interview and Rating

Inventory, was based on the conceptual relevance as well as the

documented validity and reliability of the instruments a .

Therefore, after describing background characteristics such as

education, experience, mobility, and general personal adjustment,

we aim to capture the constellation of personality traits that are

most relevant to SYC's specific staffing needs.

In the first place Palmer's classification system identifies

worker types which best "match" the delinquent youth types as

classified by the I-Level Diagnosis. (As complementary data, we

have included Jesness' simple pen-and-paper questionnaire which

tries to identify a worker's preference for the approach appropri-

ate to a specific I-Level subtype in order to see if there is a

correlation between a worker's self-rated preference and observer

ratings of his suitability according to Palmer's system.) Secondly,

even though SYC is more explicitly committed to differential

selection of staff in the context of Palmer's classification

system, the introduction of Hunt's Conceptual Level classification

system into SYC's youth assessment process in 1972 makes the

classification of SYC staff on this dimension also relevant and

interesting. This is especially true given the strong validity

and reliability of the Paragraph Completion Test (which measures

Conceptual Level), and the research documenting the value of

a Conceptual Level: Gardiner and Schroder, 1972; Hunt, Butler,

Noy, and Rossor, 1978. Palmer's Interview and Rating Inventory: Grenny, 1971; Palmer, 1967a.

16

matching up workers' and youths' need for structure.

Palmer's, Jesness', and Hunt's measures attempt to predict

variations in workers' characteristics which are relevant to the

treatment interactions between themselves and youths in their

care. The Staff Intervention Questionnaire, our final measure,

tries to capture what SYC workers actually do in their regular

interactions and interventions with youth.

The original research proposal (LeBlanc, Hanna, and Brill,

1975) proposed that all SYC staff be tested at the beginning and

end of the project on these six measures. The purpose of the

two testing points was not only to describe the personality

characteristics and professional orientations of staff, but also

to establish whether or not this profile changed over time. The

determination of constancy or stability in staff characteristics

was considered essential so that it would be clear whether or not

the staff input influencing youth change was a stable or variable

input. If staff input was relatively stable, and if the milieu

input into youth change was also relatively stable, and if youth

types did not change much, it would be possible to explain youth

change (or lack of it) in relation to specific milieu and/or staff

input.

For a variety of reasons,discussed by the director and

senior researcher of the project (LeBlanc and Brill, 1976) the

evaluative goals of the research project were changed in August

1976 to descriptive and exploratory ones. One consequence of this

r.eorientation was to collect information on staff at

17

points in time on only four of the six measures. The Staff

Intervention Questionnaire and the time-consuming interview

scored by Palmer's Rating Inventory were administered only once

during the course of the project.

Table 1 summarizes how many workers filled out which measures

at what points in time. The Total Staff Sample is made up

of several smaller samples on which different data were collected

at different points in time.

The subsequent sections describe in the first place the

general background characteristics of SYC staff based on the

results of the Social and Professional Identity Questionnaire

and Byrne's Health and Opinion Survey using the Total Sample of

workers. Next, Palmer's method of classifying worker character-

istics is used to describe 72 workers (Sample 2) followed by a

description of workers' self-stated preferences for treatment

approaches based on the Total Sample's responses to Jesness'

Staff Preference Survey. Again using the Total Sample, workers

are described according to Hunt's classification system. The

final measure, the Staff Intervention Questionnaire, surveyed 64

workers' and supervisors' ratings of daily interactions and

interventions (Sample 4).

Chapter I ends with a presentation of a statistical analysis

comparing the characteristics of T 1 staff (Sample 1) with those

of T 2 staff (Sample 5) in order to determine the constancy of

SYC's worker profile.

18

Measures

TOTAL March 1976 - Oct. 1977

137

Table 1

Summary of Measures, Staff Samples, and Testing Dates

Sample Date

1 March 1976 Social & Professional Identity Ques. 64 (T 1 ) Byrne's Health & Opinion Survey (R-S) 60(4) a

Jesness' Staff Preference Survey 63(1) Hunt's Classification of Workers (CL) 62(2)

64

II 2 Sept. 1976 Palmer's Classification of Workers 72 March 1977

II 3 In Between Social & Professional Identity Ques. 18 T 1 & T 2 Byrne's Health & Opinion Survey (R-S) 9(9)

Jesness' Staff Preference Survey 11(7)

II Hunt's Classification of Workers (CL) 11(7)

18

II 4 April 1977 Staff Intervention Questionnaire - Self 61(3)

- Observer 64

II O 64

5 Oct. 1976 Social & Professional Identity Ques. 8 0 ( 1 2 ) Byrne's Health 6 Opinion Survey (R-S) 69(11)

II Jesness' Staff Preference Survey 72(8) Hunt's Classification of Workers (CL)

71(9)

80

• Social & Professional Identity Ques. 137 Byrne's Health & Opinion Survey (R-S) 114(23) Jesness' Staff Preference 122(15) Hunt's Classification of Workers (CL) 121(16) Palmer's Classification of Workers 72(65) Staff Intervention Questionnaire - Self 61(76)

- Observer 64(73)

Numbers in parentheses indicate missing cases.

Includes Samples 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. As the same 25 people are included

in both Samples 1 and 5, the Total Sample is calculated as follows:

64 (s.1) + (18 (s.J) + 8o(s.5) 25 = 137.

19

General Background Characteristics

SYC staff as a group could not be easily characterized; that

is, it is not a homogenous group. Two-thirds of the staff are

male. Almost one-third are single and a few are divorced. The

age averages from 22 to 38, with a mean of 30.3 years. Over

three-quarters of the staff had permanent employment before they

were engaged by SYC. Of those who had been previously employed,

approximately 60 percent worked in the health and social services

field. SYC's Personnel Department supplied data concerning the

workers years of related experience a which ranged from 0 to 18

years with a mean of 4.7 years.

Almost 80 percent of SYC staff have completed post-secondary

studies. This stands in contrast to the 55.3 percent of the

personnel in 62 reception centers in Quebec who have some certifica-

tion (Batshaw Report, 1975, Annexe 3). Of those SYC staff who are

certified, one-quarter hold a CEGEP diploma in either Special Care

Counselling or. Child Care Work, while approximately one-third of

the staff group have undergraduate degrees, generally in the social

sciences field. The remaining individuals have either graduate

degrees in social work, counselling, or psychology, or certifica-

tion from the legal, medical or teaching professions. One-quarter

of the staff are either studying for a CEGEP diploma or an under-

graduate degree, while almost one-half of the workers have

a Based on number of months a person held a permanent position in

a hospital, social service, teaching, or supervisory work, plus

half the number of months the person worked in other types of jobs.

20

Characteristic Percent Mean SD

Demographic Male Female

66.4 33.6

35.0 57.7 7.3

Single Married Divorced/Separated

1

78.1 21.9

61.1 38.9

4.7 3.63

22.6 26.3 32.1 12.4 6.6

72.3 10.9 12.4 4.4

45.3 54.7

Table 2

Background and Social Characteristics of SYC Staff a

Age in Years 30.3 8.19

Employment Previously Empl.

,Not Previously Empl.

Previous Related Empl. No Previous Related Empl.

Yrs. of Related Experience

Education No Diploma/Degree CEGEP Undergraduate Graduate Other

Certification Program None CEGEP Undergraduate Graduate

Staff Development Courses Participa tedb Did not Participate

Work History at SYC Months with SYC 22.3 24.13 Months in Present Unit 11.8 12.61 Previous Units .9 .87 Previous Positions .6 .81

a n 137

Staff who participated during the last six months.

21

participated in staff development courses in the last six months.

Types of courses taken: 1-Level Classification Training, Parent

Effectiveness Training, Reality Therapy Workshops, as well as

undergraduate psychology, sociology, social work, and management

courses.

Staff stay with the Agency a little less than two years,

although the variability of stay is very high (SD 24.13 months).

SYC staff's average length of stay is a little less than the 2.9

years .Vinter (1976) reported in his study of 749 institutional

staff, while the Quebec Batshaw Report found that 71 percent of

the frontline staff in 62 institutions have worked in their

present agency less than three years. Although persons may stay

with SYC for two years, their average length of stay in any one

unit is less than one year. Again the range is very high (SD

12.61 months). Almost half of the staff group previously worked

in another unit and held another position.

In summary, SYC staff as a group are relatively young, well

educated, mobile, and experienced. However, this profile must be

tempered by a recognition of the variations in background

characteristics.

Res•onse to Anxiet and Measure of Ad'ustment

Another background characteristic can be deduced from

workers' responses to Byrne's Health and Opinion Survey (1961,

1964), a 120-item True and False questionnaire, which produces a

score placing an individual on the Repression-Sensitization scale.

22

I

Byrne found that individuals may be placed along a Repression-

Sensitization continuum with respect to their characteristic

response to threatening stimuli. Avoiding mechanisms such as

denial, projection, and rationalization are characteristic of

individuals on the repressing end of the scale while approaching

mechanisms such as intellectualization and constant worrying are

found among persons scoring on the sensitizing end of the scale.

It was considered important to understand how SYC workers would

respond to anxiety and stressful stimuli and how this response

would affect interactions with youth, colleagues, and supervisors.

Furthermore, this measure gives an indication of overall

personality adjustment or maladjustment. Feder (1967) and Byrne

citing his own and his colleagues' work (1964, pp. 195, 196 and 199)

concluded that very high sensitization is correlated with

emotional disturbance, while repression with healthier osvcholoalcal

functioning.

1.

Hi

Persons with predominantly repressing reactions to stress and

those persons with predominantly sensitizing approaches to anxiety

operate differently. Therefore, in a team situation, workers

with either one of these styles have different strengths as well

as different problems in anxiety-provoking situations. For

example, Krohne (1970) and Krohne and Schroder (1972) found that

repressers searched for significantly less information than

sensitizers or non-defensive subjects under stress conditions.

Furthermore, repressors process less information when the ambiguity

of the stimulus situation is increased. On the other hand, although

sensitizers actively seek information in stressful situations,

2 3

their form of defense markedly reduces their ability to integrate

the information under arousal conditions. Non - defensive persons

were found open to and could integrate information in different

situations of increasing environmental complexity.

Another difference between sensitizers and repressers that

Baldwin (1974) found is that sensitizing people talked more about

personal and social problems in therapy, while repressers presented

vocational and educational concerns. Furthermore, repressers

expected more structured, formal sessions than sensitizers who

considered spontaneous talking and self-disclosure important in

psychotherapy.

Table 3

Frequency Distribution on the Repression-Sensitization Scale

of Byrne's Normative and the SYC Staff Samples

Normative Sample a SYC Staff

Score Range

100-109 3 .2 o 0

90- 99 14 1.1 o o •

80- 89 4 0 3.1 o o

70- 79 76 5.7 1 .9

6 0 - 69 115 8.2 0 0

5 0 - 59 185 14.2 5 4.4

4 0 - 49 238 18.2 4 3.5

30- 39 269 20.6 18 15.8

20- 29 221 16.8 38 33.3

Io- 19 123 9.4 34 29.8 o- 9 20 1.5 14 12.3

n 1,304 114 — M 42.25 23.39

SD 20.10 12.25

n

a Byrne, Barry, and Nelson, 1963, p. 327.

24

Table 3 states that three-quarters of SYC staff have a

predominantly repressing reaction to stress situations, while only

one person has a sensitizing score higher than Byrne's average

range. Generally then, SYC staff are on the "more healthy" end of

the R-S scale.

However, SYC staff with low R-S scores or higher R-S scores

may respond differently to the same situation and therefore need

distinctive supervision. For example, those workers who can

absorb, avoid, or "repress" a fair amount of stress may sometimes

need to examine the information that provokes anxiety in order to

effectively change a situation. Too much repression or aLsorption

decreases openness to important information. On the other hand,

those workers who continually look for information, and worry,

talk, and "sensitize" to every piece of "news" need to slow down

so that they can integrate and use information rather than overload

themselves.

Palmer's Classification of Worker Characteristics

Having briefly described the general background characteris-

tics of the total SYC staff sample, we can now look in depth at

the personality characteristics and professional orientations of

parta

of this total sample. This section presents results based

on Palmer's method of classifying worker characteristics into

"subtype specialists" àppropriate for effective treatment of the

live I-Level youth .subtypes b . The method . was influenced by a

a Sample 2, n 72.

Appendix 1 contains a brief description of the five youth types.

2 5

number of studies with probational/parole officers and psycho-

therapists (Grant & Grant, 1959; Palmer, 1963; Sundland & Barker,1962)..

Interview and Rating Procedure

The instrument used to identify the original subtype

specialists was a two to three hour semi-projective interview

which was then independently rate'd by two raters on 138 weighted

items which made up 23 separate scales. By 1967, the instrument

was standardized and statistical comparisons were made within

and between 34 CTP staff (who worked with a caseload of 10 to 12

youths) and 16 regular California Youth Authority parole agents

(who had regular caseloads of 40 to 60 youths). Five worker types

were identified and Table 4 gives the distribution of youth sub-

types and worker subtype specialists in CTP from 1961 to 1967.

Table 4

Distribution of Youth Subtypes and Specialists

in The California Treatment Project from 1961 to 1967a

Youth Specialists Subtype n.

%

1-2 17 6 9.

Cfm 43 15 9

Mp 40 • 14 8

Cfc 26 9

Na 77 27 • 6

Nx 55 19 • 11

Other 29- 10

Total 287 100 34b

a Palmer, 1967a,23-28, 31-32.

Nine workers were matched to more than one subtype.

1

1

1

1

In 1971, SYC began using the formal matching procedures as

developed by CTP, to select workers for its first community-based

treatment unit in Montreal. The GRIJ Research Team decided to

adapt the CTP interview schedule and to score the interviews on the

105 items of the revised Rating Inventory (Palmer, 1968; Howard,

1972) a . All full-time, frontline staff and supervisors working

in the five cottages, six group homes, and two project centers of

SYC from September 1976 to March 1977 were interviewed. The

community workers who had been "matched" upon hiring were not re-

interviewed provided their scores and rating sheets were available.

Information was collected on 72 workers, 17 of whom had been previ-

ously rated upon hiring.

Each interview was tape-recorded. The interviewer relistened

to the tape and used the information to rate 104 a items; this

process was repeated independently by another rater. Seven tapes

were also rated by a third person. The total process of inter-

viewing, rating, second-rating, and scoring took from 12 to 15

hours per subject.

The first 35 items of the rating inventory are rated on a

5-point scale from far more to far less than the average person

of the same sex. The next 18 items use the same 5'-point scale

but in comparison to the average probation/parole/helping agent

of the same sex. An absolute 5-point scale froM very true to very

untrue is used for the next 32 items. The final 19 items use an

71------7 a The interview schedUle and the 105 items from the Rating Inventory.

are in Appendix 1.

We dropped one item from the inventory as there was not enough information in most interviews to rate it.

27

absolute 4-point scale. Obviously, this rating system is compli-

cated, with much room for subjectivity, especially as the meaning

of the items and the reference groups are not completely clear

or standardized. This is one of the limitations of the instrument,

in addition to the time and training needed to master the interview

schedule and rating scheme. Therefore, the two independent

ratings and a high inter-rater reliability are prerequisites to

minimizing the vagaries of this instrument. a

Findings on 72 SYC Staff

Tables 5 and 6 present the percentage of SYC workers who were

matched or mismatched to specific subtypes, and the percentage who

were matched to more than one subtype. Matching means that a

worker's weighted scores on the 104 items of the rating inventory

produced a final score that indicated a significant openness and

ability to work with a certain 1-Level youth subtype. A mismatch

means that the score was low on a scale, signifying a marked

inappropriate orientation for effective work with a youth type.

Original and revised criteria for a match and a mismatch for each

youth type are presented in Appendix 6, Table A. As only two of

the 72 workers were matched to Mp/Cfc's according to Palmer's

original cutoffs, the criterion was lowered in order to include 11

more workers. Three of the five mismatch cutoffs were raised in

order to take the distribution of SYC's staff scores into account.

Almost one-third of the 72 workers were matched to dependent,

immature, conforming youth (1 2 and Cfm), while one-quarter were

mismatched. Even with a lowered criteria, only 18.1 percent of

a On 38 interviews we had a significant correlation on the five

pairs of final subtype scores, and on 91 out of the 104 pairs of

items (Appendix 6, Tables B and Cl. The original independent ratings were not available on the remaining interviews.

Matched Intermediate Mismatched n % n % n % _ Subtype

28

the staff were matched to the power-oriented youth (Mp, Cfc), but

41.6 percent were mismatched. For each of the higher maturity

subtypes, less than one-fifth of the sample were matched.

However, twice as many workers were mismatched to Neurotic-Anxious

youth than to Neurotic Acting-Out youth.

- Table 5

Percentage of SYC Workers with Working Styles

Matched or Mismatched to I-Level Youth Subtypes

Level 2 Youth (! 2) 22 30.6

Immature Conformists (Cfm) 20 27.8

Power-Oriented (Mp g Cfc) 13 18.1

Neurotic Acting , Out (Na) 14 19.4

Neurotic-Anxious (Nx) 11 15.3

32 44.4

36 50.0

29 40.3

46 63.9

39 54.2

18 25.0

16 22.2

30 41.6

12 16.7

22 30.5

72

Before proceeding further, it must be re-iterated that

treater-matching developed in CTP under special conditions:

experienced workers, low caseloads, broad support services, and

intensive training and supervision. One Nx specialist said that

although he was matched to 10 Nx youth, he was not matched to

working with 25 Nx youth a . Although the concept of matching

workers to youth, that is, keeping pace with youths' needs, is

relevant under different conditions, the CTP treater-matching

definitions and criteria need modification for different settings

and working conditions. For example, what defines a good match

Personal conversation with Jim McHale, March 28, 1977.

29

for a residential worker in a unit for 14 Cfm youth or for a case-

worker with 25 and not 12 youth? Modifications of the matching

cut-offs were tried for the CTP workers in a residential unit

during the third and final phase of the CTP research, and in

a conversation with Palmer , he said it was possible to select a

reasonably good worker type by sllghtly lowering the original

criteria.

Secondly, it must also be pointed out that although matching

workers to youths may be highly desirable, it may be even more

important and probably more feasible to avoid mismatches.

Therefore, it is recommended that when each of the matched worker

types are described in the following pages on the interview

personality characteristics and professional orientation scales,

the opposite description or low scores on the relevant scales

should be kept in mind.

Table 6 demonstrates that 41.7 percent of SYC workers were

not matched to any youth type; almost 20 percent were matched to

one type and 40 percent were matched to more than one subtype.

Table 6

Percentage of SYC Workers Matched to More than One Youth Subtype

Ntimber of Matches

0 30 41.7 1 14 19.4 2 22 30.6

3-5 6 8.3

72 100.0

a October 17, 1977.

Subtypes.

30

Even though it would be desirable to select workers who are matched

to more than one subtype, for the purposes of describing each of

the different types of matched SYC workers, a breakdown was made

of their predominant match as shown in Table 7. Thus, out of 42

matched workers, there were eight individuals appropriate for 1 2

youths, 11 matched to the Immature Conformist youth, 8 at least

moderately suitable for work with Mp and Cfc youth, 6 Na

specialists, and 9 Nx specialists. In eight cases, workers were

equally well matched to two subtypes. The match chosen was •based

on an evaluation of the workers' complete interview profiles.

Table 7

Percentage of Matched Workers by Strongest Match

I2

8 19.0

Cfm 11 26.2

Mp/Cfc 8 19.0

Na 6 14.3

Nx 9 21.5

SYC Matched Workers

In the original rating inventory, 138 items broke down into

23 personality and professional orientation scales. Palmer

analyzed the differences between worker specialists on both the

items and scales. The revised inventory, which we used to rate

and compare matched workers, was made up of 105 items and 21 scales.

Figure 1 contains a brief description of the scales: A list of

the items making up each scale can be found in Appendix 1.

31

Figure 1

Personality Characteristic and Professional Orientation Scales

1. SOCIALLY DESIRABLE QUALITIES include characteristics such as pleasantness, friendliness, patience, self-confidence, and resourcefulness.

2. ATTRIBUTES MOST ADOLESCENTS WOULD LIKE include a sense of

humour and quickness, an ability to talk their language; "been around"; an enjoyment of youths' activities.

3. By a QUICK, SHARP MENTALITY is meant a quality of inquisitive-

ness and originality as compared to the average person, and a broad perspective and intellectual flexibility as compared to the average person in the helping profession.

4. BOLDNESS relates to directness, outspokenness, and taking chances.

5. FORCEFULNESS connotates a strong presentation of emotions and ideas.

6. SOCIALLY UNDESFRABLE QUALITIES include stubbornness, impatience,

unpleasantness, , and à temper.

7. Covert or overt AGGRESSION refers to the threatening nature of the worker (including size and first impression); his/her competitiveness and unpleasantness, as well as involvement in conflicts with others.

8. PAST DIFFICULTIES concerns the amount of personal struggle and conflict worker feels he has gone « through and overcome.

• 5. PRESENT PROBLEMS reflects the obsen:fer's rating of the worker's anxiety, fears, self-esteem, inner peace, and resolution of personal problems.

10. MORALISTIC ORIENTATION relates to concern with.right and wrong; law and order; operates in terms of abstract standards as contrasted to expediency, pragmatics, and consensus.

11. SATISFACTION WITH WORK refers to enjoyment in work and accomplishments with youth.

12.. SATISFACTION WITH THE WORLD/AGENCY means a basic acceptance of society's values and a feeling that this country (and the agency) are general "OK" places to be in.

32

Figure 1 (Cont'd.)

Personality Characteristic and Professional Orientation Scales

13. FAMILIARITY WITH CLIENTS refers to a view of being a friend

or a Big Brother/Sister to the youth, as well as to a style

that permits the youth to set the pace in a relationship.

14. UNDERSTANDING AND DIFFERENTIATION OF CLIENTS connotates an awareness of personal emotional responses to clients; a differentiation between face value and inner meanings; and

an understanding of youths' behaviors and emotions.

15. USE OF SELF AS A FRAME OF REFERENCE pertains to a belief that youth can benefit from experiences, satisfactions, goals, and conquering •of inner problems somewhat similar to one's own.

16. The ATMOSPHERE of a relationship is based on eleffients of

trust, acceptance, consistency, explanation, and confidentiality.

17. Concern with NEGATIVE REACTIONS refers to being aware and working through angry, guilty, aggressive feelings in oneself and in the clients.

18. INNER FOCUS relates to the development of a strong "casework" relationship in order to focus on and clarify , inner feelings, and to work on anxiety and self confidence concerns.

19. A strong orientation toward CHANGE AND ACTIVITY includes a

style that prefers action, excitement and change to thought,•acceptance, and waiting.

20. FIRMNESS — FINALITY refers to an inclination for strictness• and straightforwardness, tough-mindedness, and certainty.

21. Concern with CONTROLS AND LIMITS suggests a focus on authority, rules, obedience, and consequences.

33

Of the five final subtype scores (which indicate how "matched"

an individual is to a youth type) all significantly differentiated

the workers. Out of the personality scales, 13 significantly

differentiated the five worker types. These 13 scales are:

(1) Alertness, (2) Boldness, (3) Forcefulness, (4) Socially

Undesirable Qualities, (5) Aggression, (6) Moral Orientation,

(7) Agency/World Satisfaction, (8) Familiarity, (9) Understanding

and Differentiating, (10) Atmosphere, (11) Inner Focus,

(12) Firmness, and (13) Concern with Control. The bar graphs in

Figure 2 diagrammatically present these 13 differences between

the five worker types while Table 8 gives the median scores each

worker type had on all 21 scales.

In essence, then, our research supports two of Palmer's

findings: In the first place, characteristics of workers can be

reliably identified and measured; and secondly, workers can be

differentiated from each other. Furthermore, the 13 scales

differentiating our five worker types are quite similar to the

differences Palmer found between his specialists (1967a). Thus,

the following descriptions of each worker type are remarkably

similar to his descriptions of the subtype specialists (1967b).

Besides describing. a matched worker, the characteristics

of a mIsmatched worker for each youth type is presented. These

descriptions are not based on statistical comparisOns between

matched and.mismatched workers for every subtype.. Appendix 6,

Mp

Cfm •••■•■•••■•

2

Na

Nx

8

7 ••••■

o o

I 6 0

m 5 ru

a) 11 •■■

co o

3

(3) a

171;

Cfm

1 2

Afertness

Mp Nx

• ■■■•■•■■■■

Boldness (4) 8

7

6

5

4

3

Mp 1•■■•••••11

Na

Nx

Cfm

5

4

3

2

Socially Uddesirable Qualities (6)

7

Mp

2

Na

Nx .1•■■•+, Cfm

1■••••••••••

Forcefulness (5)

5

3

2

8

7

34

Figure 2

Differences between SYC Matched Workers On Interview Scales

Matched Workers Matched Workers

, p‹.001 .

Matched Workers Matched Workers p<.001 p<. 001

a The third of the 21 interview scales.

35

Na 2 Cfm

Ille■•••■••11

Matched Workers Matched Workers p<.001 p‹.001

World Satisfaction (12) Familiarity (13)

12

Mp

Cfm

7

2

8 .2,

Na Cfm Cfm

Na

•••■•■ 5

3

Mp

8

-7 o .•■■

6 o

.0 5

0 4

,•■••

v.) 3

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Na .11.11■,

6

5

4

3

2 ■■••••■••••••••

Mp fi x

Mp 1•■■••■•1

Figure 2 (Cont'd.)


Aggression (7) Moral Orientation (10)

Matched Workers Matched Workers p<.01

9

8 •••■•••■•

7

Mx 1 2 Cfm

Mp

Na ri•••■•••■■yr

6 3 Figure 2 (Cont'd.)


0 0 ••-• -

Sc

a 1

e R

an

ge

o

- 8

I 7

6

5

3

Understanding and Differentiation (14)

Nx

2 gr'Irl

6

5

4

3 Matched Workers Matched Workers

p‹.05 p<.01

Atmosphere (16)

•■■■••••• Mp

Cfm Nx r-]

Inner Focus (18)

9

8

7

6

4

3 Matched Workers

p 05

fm

Firmness (20) Concern with Control (21)

81

Mp

Na

2 Cfm .

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

Nx

6

Figure 2 (Cont'd.)


37

0 0 •••••■

o

Sc

a 1

e

Ra

ng

e

Matched Workers p<.001 p<.001

Matched Workers

Ile 11011 MD 11111 11011 111111 us MI ea MO

Table 8

_Comparison, of the Medjan Scores of SYC Matched Workers_ on Interview Scales

Scales

Total Staff Matched 'Workers a (n=72) I - -2 Cfm Mp Na . Nx Kruskal-Wallis M SD (n=8) (n=11) .(n=8) (n=6) (n=9) XL .2.

1. Soc. Des. Quai. 62.3 11.3 64.6 68.1 70.1 70.1 73.6 5.6 0 .231 2. Attr. Adol. Like 57.8 10.7 63.6 59.0 63.5 61.5 54.2 3.76 .439 3. Alertness 6 0 .8 14.3 58.8 55. 0 65. 0 81.3 69.4 12.06 .017 4. Boldness 56.1 15.7 40.6 43.9 72.7 61.5 50.0 18.37 .001 5. Forcefulness 48.2 11.4 44.8 36.8 6 0 .4 49.9 44.3 17.93 .001 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 43.1 13.1 36.4 27.6 54.2 43.8 32.8 24.26 .001 7. Aggress. 37.7 14.2 27.1 27.8 52.9 34. 0 20.8 23.07 .001 8. Past Diffc. 61.9 16.7 71.9 62.5 61.5 71.9 74.5 4.64 .327 9. Present Prob. 41.1 16.2 50.0 42.2 25.7 31.3 33.3 9.39 . 0 52 10. Moral Or. 37.2 14.3 34.1 31.2 48.5 35.9 18.7 19.17 .00 1 11. Work Sat. 75.2 13.3 70.8 82.3 85.4 72.9 82.3 4.09 .393 12. World Sat. 51.9 13.1 53.5 62.5 52.1 35.4 48.9 17.09 .002 13. Familiarity 63.0 12.1 79.2 64.9 58.7 61.5 52.1 15.47 .o 0 4 14. Und. & Diff. 69.7 14.5 72.4 74.2 70.3 71.9 90.6 12.29 .015 15. Use of Self 64.6 14.9 76.6 58.8 61.5 57.1 71.3 3.24 .519 16. Atmosphere 78.5 8.7 79.4 85.0 74.5 81.6 85.8 13.97 .007 17. Con. Neg. Re. 57.5 10.1 55.1 55.6 64.1 58.0 60.8 3.25 .517 18. Inner Focus 73.0 13.2 80.9 78.7 75.9 69.6 85. 0 9.72 .045 19. Chg. & Act. 45.0 6.0 42.1 42.7 43.1 43.6 43.3 2.57 .632 20. Firmness 44.5 15.3 35.9 34.4 60.9 42.2 28.9 25.07 .00 1 21. Con. Control 43.1 15.5 38.2 34.5 61.8 39.1 29.5 17.32 .002

Subtype Scores

1 2 Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx

4.3 6.5 9.8 9.3 2.5 3.0 9. 0 17.06 .002

• 3.8 11.3 9.5 15.0 - 8.0 4. 0 11.1 29.33 .00 1 -5.8 10.7 - 12.5 - 12.0 7.5 6.5 - 9.7 24.50 .001

3.7 4.7 5.3 2.9 7.8 10.5 5.3 17.39 .002 -4.8 17.9 3.5 9.8 - 11.5 - 2.5 18.0 28.85 .001

CO

a Statistical analysis of the differences between the matched workers.

39

Tables E through 1, contain the figures for matched, intermediate,

and mismatched workers for each youth subtype, and comments are

made only on the more obvious differences between a matched and

mismatched worker type.

Workers appropriate to lower maturity, dependent youth (1 2 's,

Cfm's). These workers tend to be pleasant, patient, accommodating,

and non-threatening individuals who can let a lot "run off their

backs". They feel they need to protect the youth at times, and

are more interested in understanding the situation from the

youth's point of view than the right or wrong of an incident. An

easy-going, rather lenient, playful attitude characterizes their

relationship with youths. An atmosphere of trust, consistency,

and acceptance is considered essential to treatment progress.

1 2 specialists are more playful, enthusiastic, familiar and

friendly in their interactions with youth, while Cfm workers are

more retiring and "homey". Secondly, Cfm specialists are more

optimistic and satisfied with the Agency/world/culture than all

other specialists.

• According to Tables D and E in Appendix 6, workers mis-

matched to either 1 2 or Cfm youth are far more likely than matched

workers to have higher scores on the Socially Undesirable Qualities,

Aggression, Moral Orientation, Firmness, and Concern with Control

scales.

40

Workers appropriate to lower maturity, assertive, power-

oriented youth (Mp's, Cfc's). This type of worker is less likely to

be hired by SYC than any other worker type. Even with a lowered

cut-off point, only 18.1 percent of SYC staff could be seen as

moderately matched Mp workers while 41.6 percent were definitely

mismatched (Table 5). However, as only 4.6 percent of the 217

youths in SYC (1977) were diagnosed as Mp and Cfc, the need for

this worker type is not high.

An Mp worker is least like a Cfm or 1 2 worker. More than any

other specialist, he is firm, direct, bold, and forceful. He has

a higher score than others on Socially Undesirable Qualities and

Aggressiveness, although his score is average in relation to the

normal adult. On the Present Problem scale, he scores lower

than other workers. Again, more than other specialists, the Mp

worker is concerned with the rights and wrongs of the situation,

society's rules, and the importance of authority. He tends to

put some social distance between himself and his youths, especially

during the initial phase of treatment. In common with the other

workers, the Mp specialist emphasizes a working atmosphere of

trust and consistency, understands the meaning of a youth's

behaviors, and focuses on building a youth's self-esteem. The

seemingly contradictory phrase of "caring, sensitive, hard-nosed

individual" may capture the essence of an Mp specialist.

Workers considered inappropriate for power-oriented,

assertive youth score 15 to 20 points a lower than matched workers

a 51 from 0 to 100.

on the scales of Alertness, Boldness, Forcefulness, Aggression,

Socially Undesirable Qualities, Moral Orientation, and Firmness

(Appendix 6, Table F).

Workers appropriate to Higher Maturity, Assertive Youth (Na's).

In some ways Na workers share the characteristics of Mp workers:

they tend to be bright, bold, rather firm, interesting types of

individuals. However, Na workers tend to be less bold, directive,

competitive, forceful, and concerned with controls than Mp

workers, but more likely to be intellectually flexible. Further-

more, they emphasize a friendly adult relationship, avoiding a

distant authoritative stance (familiarity and atmosphere scales).

These worker différences seem to revolve around the fact that

although both Neurotic Acting-Out youth and Power-Oriented youth

tend to be assertive, independent types of individuals, the former

are of higher maturity than the latter. Hence, controls, authority,

and firmness would be more necessary for the lower maturity

children, while quick-thinking and some sharing are essential with

the higher maturity youths.

The three scales most differentiating matched from mismatched

Na workers are Socially Desirable Qualities, Alertness, and

Present Problems with the mismatched worker having lower scores

on the first two scales, and a higher mean score on the latter

scale. A number of other scales indicate trends: matched workers

tend to have higher scores on Attributes most Adolescents Like,

Boldness, Work Satisfaction, Understanding, and Differentiating,

Use of Self, Concern with Negative Reactions, and Inner Focus

(Appendix 6, Table G).

42

As only 18 out of the 105 items are weighted for the Na

subtype score, it is not surprising that few people were neither

matched nor mismatched to the Na youths, while the majority of

SYC staff (63.9 percent) would be considered intermediately

appropriate for Na youths. However, research findings show that

selection of matched, not just intermediate Na workers is vital

for effective casework with Na youths in the community (Palmer,

1977a).

Workers appropriate for higher maturity, dependent youth (Nx's).

Although 37.3 of SYC's clientele in 1977 were diagnosed as Nx,

only 15.3 percent of SYC people were matched while 30.5 percent

were considered mismatched to Nx youth (Table 5).

In many ways, Nx specialists have similar profiles to workers

appropriate for the lower maturity, dependent youth. They tend

to be retiring, non-forceful, patient individuals, who enjoy

cooperation rather than confrontation, exploration rather than

structure, and leniency rather than firmness. They, have a lower

score than all other subtype specialists on Moral Orientation,

Firmness, and Concern with Control. In contrast to the 1 2 and

Cfm worker, Nx specialists have higher scores on the Understanding

and Differentiation, Inner Focus, and Alertness scales and lower

scores on the Familiarity scale.

There are a number of scales that differentiate the matched

from the mismatched Nx worker. Matched workers have much higher

scores on Socially Desirable Qualities, Alertness, Understanding

and Differentiation, and Inner Focus scales; on the other hand,

voided, while matching a

43

they have lower scores than mismatched workers on Socially

Undesirable Qualities, Aggression, Moral Orientation, Firmness,

and Concern with Control scales (Appendix 6, Table H).

A comment is needed about the Nx workers and their low

scores on Firmness, Moral Orientation, and Concern with Control.

Palmer a has recently mentioned that the original conception of

the Nx worker had to be revised so that the control demands of the

correctional agency under which the agent worked could be met.

Therefore, it would be important for SYC to take into account a

worker's scores on the Firmness, Moral Orientation, and Concern

with Control scales as the scores could indicate his/her

orientation to control and authority. Just as important would be

the individual's openness to supervision concerning controls,

and a willingness to accept the law and authority demands of his•

or her job as an SYC worker.

Summary Comments

We have seen that although a fair proportion of SYC workers

were matched to at least one subtype, 41 percent were not matched

to any youth type. Although 15 to 30 percent of the workers

were matched to either one of the five youth types, 16 to 40

percent were mismatched. This situation implies that a SIC

youth could either have a matched or mismatched worker unless

mismatchins relatiohships were specificall

principles stressed.

Personal conversation, October 17, 1977.

44

Thus, in the next chapter we analyze whether or not the

workers with characteristics best suited to the needs of

different youth are actually assigned to the appropriate setting,

unit and caseload. Furthermore, appropriate characteristics and

assignment do not preclude the need for continual supervision and

support services and therefore these issues are discussed in

Chapter III.

Self-Rated Preferences for Treatment Approaches

Do SYC workers feel they are open to and enjoy using the

treatment approaches appropriate to the youth types they are

working with? Is there a correspondence between the orientations

and strengths of an individual as rated by an observer using the

previously described Palmer's classification system, and the self-

rated preferences and opinions of that individual, measured by

Jesness' Staff Preference Questionnaire? Answers to these

questions have conceptual and functional implications. For

example, if a person's preferences correspond closely to an

observer's ratings of strengths, it may be feasible to attempt

establishing a worker's "matchedness" in the context of I-Level

theory on the basis of a simple questionnaire rather than a

lengthy interview process. This is one area we would like to

explore in the following section.

The Staff Preference Surve/ as developed by Car! F. Jesness

(1972-1974) a was the measure chosen to explore personal preferences

- C. Jesness, Youth Centre Research Project, NRCC, Sacramento, Calif.

45

for the five a different treatment approaches appropriate to the

five major delinquent youth subtypes as determined by the I-Level

Classification system. A worker's raw scores for each of the

preferences are based on weightings given to his responses to the

60-item questionnaire. Raw scores are converted to standard

scores based on Jesness' work with a norm sample of 95 California

Correctional Institutional Staff and 88 highschool staff

(September 1974).

We labelled the five treatment approaches that Jesness

identified In the following manner:

1. "Accepting Friend" for 1 2 youth.

2. "Big Brother" for Cultural Conforming youth (Cfm).

3. "Control Structure" for Power-Oriented youth (Mp and Cfc).

4. "Behavior Reality" for Neurotic Acting-Out youth (Na).

5. "Insight Reality" for Neurotic-Anxious youth (Nx).

The first three approaches are more externally oriented, with

the focus on behaviors, environment, rules, activities, and

learning skills. The external orientation is seen as more appropri-

ate for immature, less socialized youths, while the internal

treatment style, which emphasizes understanding and personality

change, better matches the more complex, higher maturity youths.

a Actually, Jesness described six approaches. However, we

collapsed the Mp score and Cfc score into one score, as the

similarities outweighed the differences. Furthermore, this

merger would correspond to the Mp/Cfc California Treatment

Project Subtype Specialist.

External Focus Accepting Friend (for I 2 's) Supportive Big Brother (for Cfm's) Control Structure (for Mp/Cfc's)

Internai Focus Behavior Reality (for No's) Insight Reality (for Nx's)

52.3 52.2 57.3

8.6 11.2 9.2

55. 0 9.9 54. 4 9.3

46

Table 9

The Preference of SYC Staff for Treatment Approaches

Standard Approach Mean Deviation

n = 122•

Table 9 states that the total staff sample has similar scores

for the five approaches, but Figure 3 demonstrates that a certain

proportion of the workers have strong preferences for particular

approaches while other workers have weaker preferences. A strong

preference means that a worker has a score higher than 75 percent

of the norm population while a weak preference is based on a score

lower than 25 percent of the norm population (Jesness, n 183,

1974). Workers can have several strong or weak preferences at the

same time.a

In general, more workers have a strong preference than a•

weak preference for each approach. Nonetheless, there is a

variation as demonstrated in Figure 3. Approximately one-third

of the workers prefer the "Accepting Friend" approach. This means

they say they have the patience, compassion, and interest to work

a This situation occurs frequently, due to many questionnaire

items contributing to several preference scores.

46.7

60

55

Figure 3

Strength of Preference that 120 SYC Staff have for Different Treatment Appraches

11 Strong Preference Moderate Preference

Weak Preference

47

50

45

4-

4.) (f)

35' 4_ 0

0 m 30' 0

u 25 -

20 -

15

10

5

ACCEPTING FRIEND

BIG BROTHER

CONTROL STRUCTURE

BEHAVIOR REALITY

INSIGHT REALITY

Preferred Approach

/48

with youths who are seen as clumsy, helpless, aimless, demanding

attention, and slow to understand instructions. These workers

feel they need to protect a youth from the consequences of his

uncontrolled behaviors. Group activities are preferred to

individual counselling. This approach is considered appropriate

for the very primitive, unsocialized youths (1 2 )•

Workers who indicate a preference for the "Big Brother"

approach (43.4 percent) like to work with average, dependent

youths, who are not highly delinquent, Also, these staff would

not be frustrated working with those youth who have little

ability to verbalize their problems or who seem to have no

apparent aim in life. Clinically, this supportive, directive

approach is seen as beneficial for the Immature Conformist youth

(Cfm).

Thirty-eight percent of the workers prefer situations where

the structure is clear and the limits are tight while only 13

percent did not like this approach. Relationships are more

formal at first and the focus is on behaviors and consequences.

Some of these workers agree that they can deal with persons who

are emotionally disturbed and tend to repeatedly manipulate

people and situations. Other "Control-Structure" oriented workers

like dealing with group-oriented youths 'w ho are rather composed

and keep their problems to themselves.

Almost onerhalf of the workers prefer both the "Behavior

Reality" and "Insight Reality" approaches, while only 14 percent

49

do not prefer these approaches. Although the establishment of a

relationship with a youth who can verbalize somewhat and who has

some insight is important to both internal treatment approaches,

the workers who score high on the Behavior Reality orientation

prefer relating to the type of youth who acts independently and

at times aggressively. Individual counselling, in which

confrontation and shared decision-making concerning daily behaviors

and future plans occurs, is fundamental to this approach.

On the other hand, workers who prefer the Insight Reality

approach feel they can operate in a permissive climate with

youths who are very verbal and questioning. These workers tend

to see delinquent youths as emotionally disturbed and in need of

a lot of attention, encouragement, and a chance to talk. Neurotic-

Anxious youths are seen as best benefitting from this type of

approach.

In summary, more SYC workers have preferences for the

Behavior Reality, Insight Reality and Big Brother approaches,

than for the Control-Structure and Accepting Friend approaches.

Nonetheless, at least one-third of the workers prefer each

approach, and not more than one-quarter of the group do not prefer

each approach. Therefore, on the whole, over 75 percent of SYC

workers say that they prefer, or at least do not mind the

different approaches considered appropriate for the five I-Level

delinquent subtypes. This raises at least one important question:

Cana worker concretely implement his preference? The findings

Approach Appropriate for 1 2 Cfm Mp/Cfc Na

SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Matched Workers

Nx

50

suggest that most of SYC staff would be open to trying the treat-

ment approaches and interventions appropriate for the major SYC

youth types. a Whether or not this openness is capitilized upon

will depend on the caseload/group assignment, the supervision,

training, and support of the environment in which a worker finds

himself.

A second question posed at the beginning of this section

concerned the correspondence between an individual's self-rated

preferences and his ratings on the subtype score scales emerging

out of Palmer's classification system. To address this question,

Table 10 presents the mean preference scores of the SYC subtype

specialists.

Table 10

SYC Matched Workers' Preferences for Treatment Approaches

1 2 8 48.5 6,8 51.4 9.5 53.4 7.6 51.4 4.3 54.4 9.4

Cfm 11 52.7 8.9 52.3 11.6 48.5 8.8 59.5 13.0 51.8 18.0

Mp/Cfc 8 49.8 11.4 44.1 20.9 58.1 7.9 54.9 12.6 50.6 6.8

Na 6 51.8 9.7 48.3 5.2 57.8 10.6 50.3 12.5 50.7 13.1

Nx 9 54.1 9.0 51.4 11.4 54.2 5.8 57.1 8.2 >6.8 u2

The trends in Table 10 do not suggest any correspondence

•• o. It

between.observel's' ratings of matchedness and self-rated

a Cfm 22.6 2 ; Na = 32.7%; Nx = 37.3%; Other 7.4% (n 1. 217,

Harvie and Brill, 1978).

51

preferences, except for Mp workers. The four remaining matched

worker groups do not have very high scores on the preference

appropriate to the youth type to which they are matched. Although

the Nx workers do have a relatively high score on the Nx preference

scale, they also score high on the 1 2 , Cfm, and Na preferences.

Therefore, it is unlikely an individual worker's preference score

can reliably predict his appropriateness to an 1-Level youth type,

(except to Mp's) as determined by Palmer's method of "treater-

matching". One implication of our findings is that Jesness' Staff

Preference Survey cannot substitute for, or predict the outcome of

Palmer's more time-consuming method determining worker strengths

and weaknesses.

Hunt's Classification of Worker Characteristics

When SYC added the measure of Conceptual Level, refined and

researched by Hunt (1971, 1977, 1977-78), to the intake assessment

process of youths at SYC, in effect, a second classification of

youths and potentially of staff as well, was introduced into the

agency. As 1-Level theory classifies delinquent youths according

to their different motivations, response patterns, and treatment

needs, which can be matched by Palmer's five subtype specialists,

so too Conceptual Level theory differentiates individuals

according to their needs for structure and clarity for which a

parficular milieu and teacher/counsellor approach is appropriate.

As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the Conceptual Level

measure was chosen to assess staff characteristics because like

52

Palmer's classification of worker characteristics, it also captures

relevant to SYC's a constellation of personality traits that is

specific staffing needs.

Definition and Research Findings

"Conceptual Level is a characteristic based on a developmental

personality theory (Harvey, Hunt, and Schroder, 1961) that

describes persons on a developmental hierarchy of increasing

conceptual complexity, self-responsibility, and independence"

(Hunt, 1977-78, p. 78).

Persons lowest in CL are seen as being poorly socialized, egocentric, impulsive and cognitively simple. At the next stage, they are dependent on authority, compliant and concerned with rules. At the third level, they are independent, questioning and self-assertive. Finally, persons highest in CL are inter-dependent, empathic and cognitively complex. (McLachlan, 1974, p. 25)

Lower CL workers generally accept that certain cultural

norms and standards determine how an individual should behave.

Perspectives are limited and decisions are more categorical.

According to McLachlan, the overall style of a lower CL therapist

is directive, while the approach of the higher CL therapist is more

non—directive (1974). Heck and Davis (1973) found that high CL

counsellor trainees expressed a significantly higher level of

empathy toward clients than low CL trainees. In another study,

Murphy and Brown (1970) found that high CL teacher trainees were

much more likely to give positive rewards for students' searching

and hypothesizing while low CL trainees were more likely to give

directions and criticize.

53

As Conceptual Level indicates how a person interacts with

people, as well as his accessibility to situations and experiences,

CL gives an important clue to a person's needs, whether he be a

student, a teacher, a delinquent youth, or a child care counsellor.

In brief, research indicates that lower CL youth and adults profit

and learn most from a more structured, well-defined milieu/approach,

while high CL persons benefit from an environment promoting

independent exploration (Brui, 1977; Hunt, 1971, 1977-78;

McLachlan, 1974).

terms of the.needs of SYC youth, 31.7 percent of the 189

youth in October 1977 (Harvie and Brill, 1978) had very low

Conceptual Level scores and therefore would need a great deal of

structure and support in order to survive and grow. It is

essential to provide the appropriate environment for these youth,

especially as the lowest CL youth tend to be more maladjusted

and fail more miserably than do higher . CL youth •in an inappropriate

milieu (Brill, 1977; Brill and Reitsma, 1978).

One element of the environment is the worker-youth relation-

ship. A Neurotic-Anxious youth with a low CL would theoretically

benefit more from a clearly defined, somewhat directive therapeutic

relationship, while a higher CL Neurotic-Anxious youth could

profit Ifrom a less structured environment and exploratory type of

relationship. Thus, it would be instructive to ascertain the

effects of matching SYC workers to their youths in terms of CL

Matching Theory. To date, most research on CL matching has been

54

in terms of matching students, youths, clients, teacher trainees

to the appropriate environment. However, Carr (1970) and

McLachlan (1974) have explored the beneficial effects of matching

clients to their therapists in terms of CL. McLachlan reported

that after initial detoxification, 77 percent of the alcoholics

who were matched both to the style of their therapist and the

aftercare environment were fully abstinent after one year

following treatment. When clients were mismatched to the

therapist and aftercare milieu, only 38 percent recovered. (Five

therapists averaging 4.2 years experience in group therapy and

94 patients were involved in this study.)

In the final report on factors relating to youth change,Brill

(1978)analyzes the differential effectiveness of matching SYC

workers to youth in terms of the Conceptual Level matching model.

It would be an important issue for further research to explore

the effectiveness of matching workers to appropriate training and

supervision situations.

Instrument and Results

. To arrive at an individual's Conceptual Level score, two

ratersa

independently score a person's written reactions to

topics such as rules, criticism, au.thority, uncertainty, and dis-

agreement, using the Conceptual Level Scoring Manual as developed

by Hunt, Butler, Noy and Rosser (1978). An average is taken of

a .Our inter-rater reliability on 83 pairs of scored adult responses

was r = .74; on 189 pairs of scored youth responses, r = .88.

c.%) Score Range n CL Stage

55

the five a topic scores to produce the final CL score.

Table Al

Conceptual Level of SYC Staff

Unsocialized 0- .84 0 0 Norm-Oriented .85-1.65 30 24.8 Exploration-Oriented 1.65-2.10 69 57.0 Independent 2.11-2.89 22 18.2 Interdependent 2.9 + 0 0

n 121

Table 11 demonstrates that SYC staff are divided into three

of the five stages of conceptual development. Over half of the

stafffàll into the middle Exploration-Oriented stage of conceptual

development: these workers rely less on rules and standard

expectations and have begun to tentatively formulate personal

values. Twenty-four percent of the workers are in the Norm-

Oriented stage and are relatively , compliant and unquestioning of

basic social values and norms, even though they may sometimes

rebel against authority and standard expectations. The remaining

staff (18.2 percent) are in the assertive, self-defined

Independence-Oriented stage. The mean •CL of the complete group is

1.86. Hunt etal (1978) reports that the mean CL of 16 adult

groups including university students, teacher trainees, and

graduate students ranged from a low of 1.55 to a high of 2.05.

Therefore, the SYC staff mean CL does not differ much from the

mean of several other adult samples.

a The topic, "What I think about parents", had been dropped from

the original six topics.

56

In summary, according to both Palmer's and Hunt's classifica-

tions of worker characteristics, SYC selects different types of

staff. Whether or not SYC capitalizes upon the benefits of this

differential selection of workers by the appropriate assignment

and placement of workers is the topic of Chapter II.

General Behavior Characteristics

The previous sections described the personality characteris-

tics and professional orientations of SYC staff from a variety

of perspectives. Having established what the staff are like, it

• is time to explore what frontline workers actually do, keeping

in mind that the personality characteristics described influence

the manner in which an individual interacts with troubled and

delinquent youths. Yet, it is also important to recognize that

an individual worker's behavior is not only a product of who he

is, but also what is expected of him, and what resources are

available to him. Therefore e this section provides in the first

place a description of what SYC workers say they do and what their

supervisors think they do. Secondly, the findings provide a

basis for a beginning discussion in this chapter (and expanded

upon in Chapter III) concerning characteristics of the environment

in which SYC staff work.

The Instrument

For the Boscoville Evaluation Research Project a , Ménard, _

Cusso.n, and LeBlanc (1974) developed an instrument which attempted

to evaluate the quality of the interactions and interventions that

a Boscoville is a Centre de Réadaption for approximately 100

francophile delinquents.

57

occur regularly between workers and youths. Bélanger (1977)

discusses the theoretical background, the reliability, and the

validity of the instrument. In a summary report on the

Boscoville milieu, Cusson (1977) says that despite the limitations

of the Staff Intervention instrument, that is, the range possible

in interpreting the meaning of each item and the lack of standards

to rate against, the instrument measures what it proposed to

measure. The results may not validly demonstrate the quality of

interventions, but they do indicate that Boscoville staff live

up to their expectations of themselves and each other, and that the

staff follow the treatment principles that guide them (Cusson, 1977,

p. 19). In our experimentation with the instrument, we hoped to

collect information on what SYC workers emphasize in their work, the

quality of work, and a correlation between the perceptions of

supervisors and frontline workers about the level and type of

treatment interactions and interventions occurring in SYC units.

Moronval, Reitsma, and Brill translated and adapted the 111

item L'intervention des Educateurs questionnaire to SYC

conditions. The Staff Intervention Questionnaire (March 1977)

consists of 97 items each rated on a 7-point scale from never to

always. The items composed the following 17 scales a :

I. KNOWLEDGE: Well informed of youth needs and appropriate treatment interventions; ability to communicate in writing.

2. RELATIONSHIP: Ability to engage in quality relationships . .

3. MOTIVATION: Ability to interest youth in reaching objectives.

a Appendix I contains a more complete description of these 17

scales.

58

4. INDIVIDUALIZATION: Adapts goals and methods to youth

capabilities and interests.

5. SUPPORT: Gives appropriate help and encouragement.

6. VALUES: Approves and encourages appropriate behavior

and progress.

7. JUSTICE: Gives fair consequences for inappropriate

behavior.

8. INDIFFERENCE: Has excessive tolerance for unacceptable

conduct.

9. AUTONOMY: Encourages initiative and independence.

10. WORK WITH THE GROUP: Creates harmonious environment for youth; mediates conflict; integrates youth into group.

11. AUTHORITY: Controls the situation; is obeyed by youth.

12. FREE TIME: Organizes special activities; assists youth in structuring free time.

13. RESPONSIBILITIES: Appropriately delegates responsibilities; aids in meeting tasks.

14. PUNCTUALITY: On time when required.

15. TEAM WORK: Shares with and supports team members; assists team in achieving team goals.

16. GROUP MEETINGS: Effectively directs and participates in group meetings.

17. CHILD CARE: Organizes meals, wake-ups, etc, in a treatment perspective.

Findings

In the spring of 1977, 61 frontline workers e filled out the

self-rating form of the Staff Intervention Questionnaire, and 12

supervisors completed observer ratings. Table 12 gives SYC staff

scores as well as the scores of the Boscoville staff (May 1975).

Sample 4. (See Table 1)

ea MS MS 1111111 MI 11011 BM 011111 MS MI 111011 110111 MS MI UM OM 110111

Table 12

The Staff Intervention Self - and Observer Ratings of SYC and Boscoville Staff

SYC - 1977 Boscoville - 1975 a Self Observer (n=61) (n=64)

Self Observer (n=44) . (n=100)

SD M SD M SD M SD

Work with Individuals Knowledge 7.39

b 1.23 7.03 .94 8.19 1.16 7.74 1.28

Relationships 7.77 .93 7.91 1.02 7.75 1.25 7.44 1.39 Motivation 7.69 .91 7.59 .89 8.20 1.23 7.43 1.42 Individualization 7.46 1.18 7.45 1.18 8.02 1.13 7.63 1.35 Support 7.29 .89 7.26 1.21 7.92 1.16 7.62 1.22 Values 8.59 .98 8.05 1.05 8.63 .93 8.31 1.25 Justice 7.54 1.06 7.47 1.25 7.98 1.00 7.03 1.03 Indifference 2.83 1.31 2.27 1.33 1.66 .97 2.26 1.38 Autânomy 7.65 .92 7.73 .99 7.63 1.27 7.41 1.34

Work with Living Environment Work with Client Group Authority Free Time Activities Responsibilities Punctuality Team Work Group Meetings c Child Carec

7.58 1.06 7.56 .91 7.88 1.45 7.41 1.53

7.42 1.02 7.56 1.17 8.38 1.02 8.10 1.41

6.93 1.68 7.13 1.89 7.68 1.46 7.85 1.30

7.94 1.00 7.91 1.14 8.30 1.23 7.58 1.29

8.25 1.81 8.18 1.88" 9.42 1.22 8.78 1.76

7.25 1.06 7.09 1.24 7.42 1.83 6.85 1.72

6.89 1.98 6.95 1.87 7.07 2.02 6.88 1.84

7.75 1.74 7.95 1.25 7.95 1.18 8.01 1.15

à Bélanger, 1977, p. 130, 131.

- Range is from 1 . to Not applicable to community caseworkersin SYC.

6 0

In general, SYC workers and their supervisors scored fairly high,

averaging between 7 and 8 out of a scale of 10. The Value scale

(which says that workers support and encourage youth who do well)

and the Punctuality scale were given the highest ratings by SYC

staff, while the lower ratings were given to Organizing Free-Time

Activities, Group Meetings, and Team Work scales. On the whole,

SYC workers and supervisors rated themselves somewhat lower than

did Boscoville staff.

The standard deviations per scale of both SYC and Boscoville

staff would suggest that there is a range in the quality of worker

interventions. Based on an overall assessment of the scores a

person gave himself or his employee on the 17 scales, three

levels of quality were established. Approximately one-quarter of

the staff fell into the lower level of quality, that is, their

individual scale scores were mainly lower than 7; one-half of the

staff were in the medium range from 7 to 8; and one-quarter of

the workers zonsidered themselves and were considered by super-

visors to be in the high quality level (>8). The difference

between self and observer groupings of quality appears negligible

(See Figure 4).

Can one conclude that there are some good workers, some

medium workers, and some poor workers? Unfortunately, this is not

self-evident. The difficulty in interpreting the data comes when

one examines the correlation between the observer and self-rating.

The correlation on all the scales was very low to almost non-

existent. Even though statistically seven out of the 17 scales

illîSelf (n=61)

Observer (n..:64)

27 .6 23.1

55

50

45

50.8 50.7

M 40 4-1

te.. 35 o

o .30 1

25 C O 20

a 15

26.2

21.5

1 0

5

High (Scores?.:8)

Medium (Scores 7 — 8)

. Lower (Scorese7)

6 1

Figure 4

SYC Staff Range of Quality on Staff Intervention Scales

OVeRALL RATINGS

had significant côrrelations . (Appendix 7, Table 1), not one

correlation was higher than .5. What does it mean? It suggests

that although the self-rating and observer scores in Table 12 and

Figure 4 seem similar, there is not a predictable correspondence

between how an individual worker rates himself and how he is

rated by his supervisor. For example, two supervisors consistently

rated their workers lower than the workers did themselves, while

two other supervisors consistently rated their workers higher. A

second example: one supervisor rated one employee very high on

62

all the scales, while the worker rated himself very low on all

but one scale; the same supervisor gave another employee much

lower ratings, while that worker gave himself high scores.

Discussion

Although self and observer scores on the subscales are quite

high, which could be interpreted as reasonably quality work, the

very , low correlation between self and observer ratings suggests

that SYC workers and supervisors are not rating themselves and

• each other from a common viewpoint. For example, a worker may

believe he has a good relationship with a youth while a super-

visor does not think so; both the worker and supervisor are•

measuring a nebulous task by different standards. It appears that

SYC workers broadly interpret what their jobs are and how to do

them.

Two other pieces of, evidence support this hypothesis.

the first place, the Staff Task Questionnaire, which was answered

by 53 frontline staff in April 1976, asked workers how they saw

their primary responsibilities, their approaches to particular

treatment tasks, and the time they allocated to certain responsi-

bilities. The range of answers was remarkable. For example,

team approaches to preparation for new clients ranged from no or

minimal preparation, to comprehensive, specific procedures. The

Staff Tasks report (Reitsma and Brill, 1977) concluded that there

was considerable variability in the conception of treatment and

the specificity of treatment methods, both within and between

teams.

ri

63

Secondly, in August 1976 the GRIJ Research Project concluded

that the "current state of the program development at the Boys'

Farm and Training School was so variable from one living unit to

another as to make continued applications of the stated research

model to the total set of programs not worthwhile" (LeBlanc and

Brill, 1976, p. 5). The major structural changes needed to provide

treatment services to anglophone girls and detention services to

both boys and girls exacerbated even further the problems of

maintaining stable program variables. This variability between

and within units made scientific evaluative research impossible

and the Research Project changed its focus from evaluation to

description and exploration.

In summary, the changed focus in the research project

(August 1976), the conclusions of the Staff Tasks report

(September 1977), and the results of the Staff Intervention

Questionnaire all point to the considerable variability that

exists among the SYC workers and supervisors in their perceptions

concerning the definition of treatment tasks and the level at which

they are carried out.

Given this variability and discrepancy in perceptions we

conclude that our information does not really indicate what SYC

workers do with youths. Although this variability in perceptions

about treatment tasks may be a logical outgrowth of a focus on

(a) different youths need different approaches, and (h) the

individual units and/or workers are the primary treatment

A4

resources and thereby quite autonomous, the amount of variability,

persisting over time and existing between a worker and his direct

supervisor, is disconcerting. What are the common standards and

reference points in treating youths? Can too many opportunities

for creative, flexible and autonomous action give rise to

inconsistencies and confusion? Can workers effectively treat

and control youths when they are not very sure what is expected

of them?

These questions raise troubling issues. A differential

treatment agency needs different types of staff to do different

types of jobs. The challenge lies in discovering, communicating,

and acting on the specified knowledge of what are the different

types of staff and jobs. In this first chapter we have reported

on the results of instruments that were designed to identify and

differentiate types of staff, and we conclude that SYC does hire

specific types of different staff. The next chapter explores

whether these different types of staff are then assigned to the

setting, unit, and caseload that their personal characteristics

and professional orientations are best matched to. The final

chapter picks up these issues about specificity or variability

in job expectations, as one of the conditions in a working

environment that can promote, or hinder, effective work with youth.

Stabilit of Worker Characteristics

.Total Agency

Before completing this chapter it is necessary to ascertain

the stability of SYC worker characteristics so that the staff

71.9 28.1

37.5 56.3 6.3

30.2 8.23

75.0 25.0

58.3

41.7

5.1(1) a 3.82

71.8 14.1 9.4 4 . 7

No

No

51.3 48.7

1 65

1

Table 13

Comparison of SYC Staff between 1 1 (March 1976) and T 2 (October 1976)

on Background and Personal Characteristics

Characteristic

T 1 (n = 64) T 2 (n 80) Sign.

SD SD Diff.

17.2 29.7 32.8 9.4 10.9

I Demographic Male Female

II Single Married Div./Sep.

II Age in Yrs.

Employment Prev. Empl. II Not Prev. Empl.

Prev. Related Empl'. No. Prev. Related

Empl.

Yrs. Related Exp.

Education No Diploma/Degree CEGEP Undergraduate Gradua te Other

II Certification Program . None CEGEP Undergraduate - Graduate

62.5 No 37.5

35.0

60.0 No 15.0

31.3 8.13 No

80.0 No 20.0

60.0 No

40.0

5.5 3.77 No

20.0 27.5 32.5 13.7 6.3

73.7 7.5 12.5 6.3

1

1 II Staff Devel. Courses

Participated 42.2 Did not .participate 57.8

1 1

No

1 Cont'd....

Work History at SYC Mos. with SYC Mos. in Present Unit Prey. Units Prey. Positions

Pref. for Treatment Approaches

Accepting Friend Big Brother Control Structure Behavior Reality Insight Reality

27.6 26.4 25.5 27.1 .001

14.6 13.3 13.1 13.8 <.001

.7 .9 .8 .9 No

.6 .8 .6 .9 No

49.8(2) 8.5 52.8(8) 8.5 ‹.10

51.0(2) 12.6 51.6(8) 9.3 No

53.3(2) 8.3 53.6(8) 8.2 No

55.8(2) 11.1 54.5(8) 10.3 No

54.4(2) 10.2 54.5(8) 8.4 No

a

66

Table 13 (Cont'd.)

Comparison of SYC Staff between Ti (March 1976) and 1 2 (October 1976)

on Backriround and Personal Characteristics

T1 (n .-... 64) T 2 (n 80) Sign.

SD M SD Diff.

Factors Influencing Style

Conceptual Level 1.99(1) .38(1) 1.85(9) .29 <.01 Repression-Sensitization 21.9 (4) 11.7 (4) 23.6(11) 12.31 No

Number,s in parentheses indicate missing cases:

Characteristic

67

contribution to youth change can be reliably interpreted. Although

we could not collect and compare all six measures over time, it

is still feasible to draw inferences about the change or

stability of the SYC staff profile from the statistical comparison a

of four instruments which tap 20 personal and background

characteristics of the 64 people at T. (Sample 1) and the 80

individuals at T 2 (Sample 5).

Table 13 presents the results and demonstrates that there

were significant differences over time on only three of the 20

variables. In general then, 1 2 staff were flot that different

than T 1 staff except T 2 workers were newer both to their units

and the agency than were T 1 workers; secondly, the 12

staff group

had a lower Conceptual Level score.

Having established the relative stability of the characteris-

tic profile of the total SYC staff group, it is still necessary

to determine the constancy of the profiles of worker characteristics

in the three settings ; four positions, and thirteen teams.so that

we can go on in Chapter 11 to describe and compare workers in the

different settings, positions, and teams. Tables 14 and 15

summarize the significant changes occurring over time.

Settings

There were few changes in the characteristics of the workers

in each of SYC's three treatment settings from March 1976 to

October 1977. Both residential and group home staff were newer .

0 Non-parametric analysis of two independent groups; Chi-square

for nominal data and Mann Whitney U for interval data.

_*

_* _ *

68

Table 14

Summary of Significant Differences between T1 and T2 on the Background and Personal Characteristics of the SYC Staff

in Three Settings and Four Positions

Setting Position

Characteristic Res. Comm. G.H. CCW CW Hp Sup

Demographic Sex Marital Status(Divorced) Age

Employment History Prey. Empl. Related Prey. Empl. Yrs. Related Ex.

• .Education Qualifications • Certification P.rog. Staff Dey. Courses

Work History at SYC Mos. with SYC Mos. in Pres. Unit Prey. Unit Prey. Positions

Preferences for : Treatment Approaches Accepting Frien.d. Big Brother. Control-Structure' Behavior Reality Insight Reality

Conceptual Level Repression-Sensitiz-ation

-*** -* _* _*** _*** _** * _*** 4.* 4.*

Note. Data on characteristics for each group . at 1 1 and 12 can be found in Appendices 2 and 3; analysi.s of difference in

Appendix .4.

d increase from 1 1 to 12 while — = a decrease.

b *** K.001; ** p<.01; *p<A5; no star p<.10.

6 9

at 12

and spent less time with the agency and in their present

positions than I1

staff. At 12

residential workers were signfi-

cantly more involved in staff development courses, while the

biggest change in the group homes was the increase in staff

numbers from T1

to T2 • There were four group homes at T

I

staffed by 18 workers, while at T 2 , 28 staff made up the teams

of six group homes. Furthermore, each group home at T 2 had an

attached caseworker, while this was not the case at 1 1 . Despite

the change in staff numbers, there was a significant change on

only two out of 20 variables: months in present unit and number

of units worked in. There also were only two significant changes

in the workers from the community setting: lower scores on

Conceptual Level and preference for Behavior Reality treatment

approach.

Positions

On 20 characteristics, child care workers, caseworkers,

houseparents, and supervisors changed on few variables. Child

care workers changed on the same four variables as had workers in

residence while caseworkers changed on the same two variables as

had workers in the community. Also e caseworkers were less likely

to be separated . or divorced at 1 2 than were caseworkers at T1

. In

addition to the changes in group home workers previously

mentioned, houseparents also changed on two preferences for treat-

ment epproaches: at T2

houseparents were Significantly more

open to the Accepting Friend approach and somewhat more open to

the Insight Reality approach. Lastly, 12 supervisors were newer

70

to the agency and to their present unit than were T i supervisors.

The only other significant change from T 1 to 1 2 was the supervisors'

marital status: three of the 11 supervisors at T 1 were single

and none were divorced or separated, while at 12 there were no

single supervisors,and three of the ten were separated or divorced.

Teams

A brief glance at Table 15 will demonstrate that in the five

residential teams, two community teams, and two group home teams a

there also was very little change from T. to 1 2 . Changes included:

the workers in all but one residential team had spent significantly

less time in their present unit at T 2 as compared to T

1; team 3

workers participated in more staff development courses than

previously; team 4 workers had lower Repression-Sensitization

scoresatT 2 ;team 5 workers had significantly lower Conceptual

Level and significantly higher Repression-Sensitization scores at

12 ascomparedtoTocommunity team 6 workers had a lower mean

Conceptual Level score than previously; team 7 workers had a

higher preference score for the Accepting Friend treatment

approach; at T 2 group home 10 had members who were quite new to

their jobs; on the other hand, the mean length of stay of the

team 11 workers had doubled from I1

to T 2' and their preference

score for the Insight Reality approach appropriate for Neurotic-

Anxious youths had significantly increased over time.

a Three group homes had not been open at Tl; four positions were

vacant in the fourth group home at 1 2, so it was not included in T1 and 12 comparison.

-

_** _** _** _**•

No T 2 Data

II

II

_*

+ *

+ *

Conceptual Level

Repression-Sensitization

I.

II • _** _*

Note.

a

* * *

.111111111111111111111111111.111111110111•11111111111111111111111111111111111311111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Table 15

Summary of Differences between T 1 and T2 on the Background and Personal Characteristics of•SYC Staff TeamS within each Setting

Residence Community

2 3 4 5 67 Group Homes

10 11 Characteristic

Demographic Sex Marital Status

Age

Previous Employment Related Prey. Empl. Yrs. Related Exp.

Qualifications Certification Program Staff Devel. Cources

Work History At SYC Months with SYC Months in Present Unit Prey. Units Prey. Positions

Preference for Treatment Approaches Accepting Friend Big Brother Control Structure • Behavior Reality Insight Reality.

Data describing characteristics of each team at T1 and T2 can be found in Appendices 2 and 3;

analysis of difference over time is in Appendix 4.

increase from T1 to 1 2 while — = a decrease.

= p<.001; ** p<.01; * p<.05; no star = p<.10.

t-tests 1 2

72

Individual Change Over Time

There were 25 workers who were in the Aoencv at

both T1 and T

2• Did these workers change? Obviously, their

background characteristics would be similar and they would have

stayed with the Agency for 18 months longer. Therefore of the

seven characteristics that may have changed it is i nterest i ng

that on Conceptual Level, the staff at T 2 had significantly lower

scores than they did at T 1 , but their Repression-Sensitization

scores had increased. Although this staff group had collected

more experience with youth, and had remained in the Exploration

stage of conceptual development and in the "normal" range of

response of anxiety, their significantly lower CL scores and

higher R-S scores could indicate that these workers' increased•

sense of anxiety and use of sensitizing defence mechanisms against

stress may have lessened their ability to differentiate and

integrate information.

Table 16

• Individual Change Over Time

Characteristic M SD M SD t df p

Conceptual Level . 2.03 .33 1.91 .31 2.12 24 .044

Repression- Sensitization(l) a 21.42 0.29 26.71 12.35 -3.07 23 .005

Preferences for . Treatmeni Approaches:

Accepting Friend 50.0 8.5 50.2 8.6 - .11 24 .912 Big Brother 50.7 10.0 47.9 8.1 1.64 24 .113 Control-Structure 52.9 9.5 54. 0 8.0 - .63 24 .535 Behavior Reality 56.6 13.0 57.3 11.4 - .3 0 24 .768 Insight Reality 54.4 10.5 55.2 7.7 - .38 24 .708

a Number in parenthesis indicates a missing case.

73

This interpretation will remain at the level of an hypothesis

until further research verifies or refutes it. However, Krohne's

and Schroder's research discussed earlier (1970, 1972) would

indicate that this hypothesis is quite feasible. That is,

individuals who are more likely to sensitize and worry have a

harder time integrating information, especially while under stress.

It is more than curious that both the T 2 staff group and the

staff who stayed with the Agency have a significantly lower

ability to conceptualize and integrate information, and a higher

tendency a to sensitize and worry about anxiety-provoking situations

than did T 1 staff. Whether or not these are personality changes

and/or responses to environmental characteristics is worth debating.

Summary Comments

Despite minor variations, one can conclude that during an 18-

month period there was relative stability in the characteristic

profile of the total agency staff groups, as well as in the

profile of the workers in each of the positions, settings and

teams of SYC. Given this stability we can assume staff input

into youth change can be reliably analysed.

The T 1 and T 2 comparisons suggest three other conclusions. In

the first place, T 2 staff have not been with the agency and in

their units as long as T 1 workers. This would imply that the

agency has hired a fair amount of new, albeit not differenttypes

a s ighly significant increase in R-S scores of the 25 staff who staYed from T1 .to 12 but only. a non-significant upward trend in the shole group from Ti to 1 2.

7 1

of people in the last year and one half. Secondly, both the

workers who have remained with the agency and those who have

recently been hired have a significantly lower ability to con-

ceptualize and integrate information, and a higher tendency to

become anxious. This turnover:A:if, staff and undesirable change in

the characteristics of workers who stayed could imply an unfortunate

reaction to agency working conditions. The many changes which had

taken place in the agency during the past two years, as mentioned

previously, may have increased workers' general anxiety and

confusion, and overloaded normal coping mechanisms. A third

conclusion is that as a group, SYC staff have not "developed" very

much. Many new staff were hired (who had similar characteristics

to those individuals who left) and therefore overall experience

and education levels of the staff remained the same. The few

workers who remained gained experience but they also became less

effective conceptually and in handling stress. Should not this

lack of staff development and growth be questioned? Is the quality

of staff inadequate to the job and therefore many leave? What

effect does training, supervision, and other environmental factors

have on staff development or lack of it? We hope to look more

carefully at these important questions in Chapter

Ehmter_Summary and Conclusion

The staff of Shawbridge Youth Centers in the years 1976 and

1977 could'be considered of relatively high quality. Three-

quarters of the staff have formal certification, mostly in the

social sciences discipline. Three-quarters of the staff were

.75

previously employed, the majority in related employment. Average

years of related experience is quite high, approximately five

years. One-quarter of the staff are involved in obtaining

certification, and almost one-half of the workers have participated

in staff development courses in the last six months. Workers

remain with the agency approximately two years, and in their

present units only one year.

The majority of the staff have an openness to the treatment

approaches appropriate for the Shawbridge Youth Centers' types of

youths. Three-quarters of the staff were either average or above

average in their ability to conceptualize and integrate information.

Response to anxiety and stress was normal. Over 50 percent of SYC

staff have a significant openness to, and ability to work with at

least one I-Level youth subtype according to treater-matching

concepts and ratings. Almost 40 percent of the staff have the

ability to work with two subtypes. Regular treatment interventions

with youth were judged to be of medium or high quality by three-

quarters of the frontline workers and their supervisors.

This general profile has remained relatively stable over an

18-month period. Therefore staff input into youth change could be

considered relatively constant and thereby measurable in a valid

manner. However, inherent in this picture of stability is the lack

of development in the SYC staff group, either because of staff

turnover and/or reactions to a undn-developing" working environment.

Besides the stable and moderately high level of SYC workers'

personality.and professional qualities, the other feature which

76

characterizes the staff group is heterogeneity. Some workers have

much education; others have little. Some individuals have had

experience working with youth; others have not. Some workers

prefer to work with primitive, immature children; others do not.

Some workers are "matched" to Neurotic-Anxious youth, others are

mismatched. Some staff have sensitizing defenses against anxiety;

others have repressing defenses. Some workers enjoy group work

and do it well; others prefer individual counselling. Some workers

are bold and assertive; others are mild-mannered and retiring.

And, the list of variations could go on.

Given the speçific staffing of a differential treatment

organization, it is hoped that the workers hired would not make

a homogeneous group. SYC's staffing policy clearly endorses

hiring individuals with different "worker styles" (Wylie and Hanna,

1971, p. 5) and we have found that SYC does indeed hire different

types of staff. Whether or not this differential selection is

according to the needs of the youth population is less clear. For

example, although one-third of the youth are classified as Neurotic-

Anxious, only 15 percent of the workers hired are matched to this

subtype while 30 percent were mismatched.

Not only is planned selection of certain types of individuals

implied in SYC's staffing policies, appropriate assignment is as

well. If, however, inappropriate assignment occurs, the

selection of different types of staff will only result in

indiscriminate, even unfortunate differences at the unit level.

For example, if a worker prefers to work with Neurotic Acting-Out

youth and has some ability to do so, but is placed in a unit for

77

immature, conforming youth, his possible strengths are thwarted

and a mismatch could occur. As there are indications in this

first chapter that the different types of staff that SYC hires

may not be directly in relation to the characteristics and needs

of SYC clientele (especially in the context of I-Level theory),

careful attention to appropriate assignment, that is "matching",

and avoiding inappropriate assignments is especially important.

Thus, Chapter II explores whether or not the heterogeneity of SYC

worker characteristics is capitalized upon.

CHAPTER 11

Metching in Practice

79

It is of importance to note that matching staff

to type of youth relates to the entire cottage staff treatment team. That is, in addition to their specialized skills of child care, education, or social work, all staff in a particular cottage

must also have the appropriate treater style

(Wylie and Hanna, 1971, p. 27).

This quotation clearly illustrates SYC's intent in 1971 to

differentially select and "match" workers to the appropriate

residential unit. In the following years, the policy of worker

matching extended to include the new units in the community and

group home settings as well.

Matching can be defined as the appropriate assignment of a

worker to a situation and client type which maximizes the worker's

personality and professional strengths and minimizes his weaknesses.

At SYC, this appropriate assignment can take place at the general

level of setting and unit as well as at the more specific level of

caseload assignment.

At the general level, the practice of matching at SYC is

explored by examining information which may support two hypotheses:

1. Workers in the three settings are different from each

other.

2. Workers in the teams within each setting are different

from each other.

At the more specific worker-youth level, confirmation is sought

for two more hypotheses:

3. Workers in each team have the characteristics appropriate

to the youths in their unit.

80

4. Individual workers have the characteristics appropriate

to the youths on their caseloads.

The matching of youths and workers at the team and individual level

is explored in the context of I-Level theory, to which SYC is

explicitly committed, and in the context of the Conceptual Level

Matching Model as well.

It is necessary to make two comments concerning the data

used to examine these four hypotheses. In the first place, as

the stability of the characteristic profile of workers in the

settings, positions, and units was established in the last

section of Chapter I, the most recent data available on workers can

now be used to statistically a compare groups of workers. This

data includes 12

information on four measures (20 variables) as

well as information from the interview ratings (26 variables) and

the Staff Intervention Questionnaire (17 variables).

Secondly, workers' self-rated scores, and not the observers'

scores from the Staff Intervention Questionnaire are included in

the analysis. The ratiOnale for this decision is that workers

made more differentiations between how they carried out one task

as compared to another, than did supervisors who rated workers

generally good, medium or poor on all tasks.b

Thus, comparing

a Non-parametric tests used which compare two or more small and

independent groups: Chi-square and Fishers' Exact Test of Significance analyzed nominal data; One-Way ANOVA analyzed interval data.

Table B in Appendix 7 indicates that on a Spearman's correlation matrix between intervention scales using observers' ratings, 119 of 136 pairs correlate significantly (p<.05). Table C presents a

correlation using self-ratings: 92 of 136 pairs correlate significantly.

8 1

workers' scores on the 17 Intervention scales would bring out more

differences between staff groups than would comparing observers'

scores.

Differences between the Worker Positions in the Three Settings

The staffing pattern illustrated in Table 17 indicates that

residence is made up predominantly of child care workers; all

but two of the workers in the community setting are caseworkers,

and 19 out of 28 workers in the group home setting are houseparents.

This means one type of position dominates each setting, and the

supervisor position is common to all three settings. Therefore,

it is not surprising that a similar pattern of differences occurred

between the workers in each setting and in each position, and

that the pattern of differences is more pronounced by posjtion

than by setting a . Thus, it is more appropriate to concentrate on

describing and comparing the workers in each of the four positions

than on the workers in the three settings.

Table 17

Staffi .ng Patterns in.Three SYC Settings at 1 2

Position Residence Setting

Community Group Homes

Child Care Workers Caseworkers Houseparents Supervi sors

Total:

30 0 0

,3 12 6

0 0 19

5 2 3

38 14 • 28

See Appendix 5, Tables A and B; Appendix 6, Tables I . and J.

82

The following sections describe the four positions, high-

lighting the many differences between them. Tables 18 and 19

contain a summary of the 37 characteristics out of a possible 67

variables that significantly differentiated the four positions.

Child Care Workers (CCW's)

Of the 30 CCW's at T 2' a slight majority were men. One-half

were single, the other half were married. More CCW's were single

than were workers in other positions; also, they were younger.

Over four-fifths of the CCW's had been employed before coming to

SYC; of these, 68 percent had held related types of jobs. Years

of related experience was 4.5, which was less experience than

caseworkers or supervisors had. Seventy percent of the CCW's

were formally certified; 40 percent held a CEGEP diploma, while

the remainder had undergraduate or other degrees. More CCW's

were studying for certification than were individuals in other

positions. Even though significantly more counsellors participated

in staff development courses at T 2 than at T fewer CCW's

participated in courses than did caseworkers or supervisor. CCW's

have remained with the agency a little less than two years, and

in their present unit approximately one year; furthermore, CCW's

have worked in fewer other units and positions than had caseworkers

or supervisors.

CCW's were predominantly in the exploration stage of

Conceptual development with a mean CL score of 1.79. Their

average was similar to the houseparents' score, but significantly

83

Table 18

Summary of the Significant Differences

between the Characteristics of Four SYC Staff Positions at 1 2

CCW Hspt CW Sup Sign.

(n.30) (n.19) (n.21) (n.10) Level

Background %. Single % Married % Sep./Div.

Age in Years

% Prey. Empl. % Related Empl. Yrs. Related Exp.

% No Degree/Diploma % CEGEP % Undergraduate % Graduate % Other

5 0 . 0 31.6 38.1 0.0

5 0 . 0 63.2 61.9 70. 0 <.01

0.0 5.3 0.0 30.0

28 . 7a 35.5 30.4 33.4 <. 0 5

83.3 94.7 61.9 8 0 . 0 ‹.10

68. 0 26.3 76.9 87.5 <.01

4.5 4.3 6.6 8.5 ‹.01

3 0 . 0 36.8 0.0 0.0

40.0 36.8 14.3 0.0

23.3 15.8 57.1 4 0 . 0 .001

0.0 5.3 23.8 5 0 . 0

6.7 5.3 4.8 10.0

% Not studying for Certification 63.3 73.7 85.7 8 0 . 0

% Studying for CEGEP 10.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 .10

% Studying for Undergraduate 23.3 10.5 4.8 0.0

% Studying for Graduate 3.3 0.0 9.5 20.0

% Participated in Staff Devel. 46.7 21.1 76.2 70.0 .01

Mos. with SYC 20.6 12.5 39.8 34.6 .001 Mos. in Present Unit 11.8 7.8 20.7 10.8 .05 Prey. Units .6 .5 1.1 1.4 . 0 5 Prey. Positions .3 .2 1.1 1.5 .001

Factors Influencing Style: Conceptual Level 1.79 1.72 1.93 2. 0 7 ‹.05

Approach Preferences: Control-Structure 55.7 50.5 52.3 57.3 <.1 0

Note. A complete 'profile of the positions andthe statistical enalysis can be found in Appendices. 3 and 5.

a If not in percentages, figures in the table are means; the standard

deviations can be found in Appendix 3.

8.0 Not

8.1 Relevant 7.0 6.9 6.8 8.8 8.6

(.10 (.05 <.10 <.10 (.01 (.01 (.05

7.5 7.3 7.9 7.6 7.6 7.8 8.3

7.2 8.1 8.o 7.7 6.0 7.5 9.5

84

Table 19

Summary of Significant Differences between the Four SYC Positions on Interview and Intervention Scales

CCC Hspt CW Sup Sign.

Characteristic (n=28) (n=11) (n=23) ( 11 =10) Level

Interview Subtype Score: 12 6.3 a - 1.0 6.0 8.2 <..05 Cfm - .8 3.0 9.3 9.5 <.10 Na 4.5 .7 6. 0 5.5 <.001 Nx -12.0 -17.0 8.0 6.0 (.001

Interview Scales:

Social. Des. Quai. Alertness Social. Undes. Quai. Pres. Problems Moral Orientation Work Satisfaction Und. & Diff. Atmosphere Con. Neg. Re Inner Focus Firmness Con. Control

56.9 56.9 68.9 68.9 ‹.001

52.9 5 0 .8 66.7 61.3 ‹.001

51.6 43.7 37.5 39.6 <.05

53.8 34.3 33.2 33.9 ‹.001

37.5 49.2 28.1 32.7 (.01

74.3 70.8 81.8 81.3 (.10

62.5 62.5 75.8 76.6 <.001

76.4 77.2 81.2 84.2 110

55.4 54.9 6 0 .8 52.6 <Jo

75.3 59.8 8 0 .8 77.5 <.01

46.9 44.3 37.5 35.9 (.05

43.2 55.6 36.2 37.5 <:05

(n=28) (n=10) (n=21)

Intervention Scales:

Individualization Autonomy Wk. Group Authority Free Time Responsibility Punctuality

Note. A complete profile of the positions and the staOstical analysis can le found in Appendices 6 and 7.

a Figures for interview and intervention scores are medians.

8 5

lower than the supervisors' and caseworkers' scores. All

positions scored similarly on the Repression-Sensitization scale.

Of the five treatment approaches determined by the Jesness

Preference Survey, only one differentiated slightly between the

four positions.

A good many of the interview ratings differentiated between

the four positions. On the subtype score the only similarity

between positions was on the Mp scores. CCW's had intermediate

scores on the 12 and Na scales while on the Cfm scales, CCW's

had lower scores than the other four positions. CCW's mean score

on the Nx scale approached the average mismatched cut-off which

is -12; also CCW's had a significantly lower score on this scale

than did caseworkers or supervisors. On the interview personality

scales, counsellors scored around average or above on the Work

Satisfaction, Present Problems, Understanding and Differentiation,

Atmosphere, and Inner Focus scales, but had lower scores than

caseworkers or supervisors. A reverse trend was noted on the

Firmness and Concern with Control scales: CCW's, although average

in relation to the general parole/helping person, had higher scores

than caseworkers and supervisors.

Of the seven Intervention scales that clearly differentiated

between positions, - CCW's gave.themselves significantly higher

ratings than did the caseworkers and houseparents on the

organizing Free Time activities scale, but lower than both

positions on the promoting Autonomy scale. On the Individualizing

86

Responsibility, Authority, and Working to create a harmonious

Client Group s'cales, CCW's and houseparents rated themselves

higher than did caseworkers.

Houseparents

In many ways houseparents had similar personality character-

istics to the child care workers, although background character-

istics were dissimilar. More houseparents than CCW's were

married, and they tended to be older. Like CCW's, almost all the

houseparents had been employed before coming to SYC; the difference

is that one-quarter of the houseparents worked in related jobs

compared to 68 percent of the CCW's. Educational background and

present study program were similar between the two groups.

However, houseparents were less likely, than all other staff

positions to have engaged in staff development courses in the last

six months. Furthermore, houseparents have stayed with the agency

for only a year and in their present unit approximately eight

months. They were less likely than all other positions to have

worked in other units or in other positions.

On factors influencing worker style, houseparents had a

similar profile to child care workers on the Conceptual Level and

Repression-Sensitization dimensions. Houseparents also had

similar preferences as CCW's did for four of the five Jesness

treatment approaches.

Table 20 shows that houseparents were less likely than the

other positions to be matched to any of the youth subtypes and

Counsellor (n . 28) Matched Intermediate Mismatched

Houseparent (11) Matched Intermediate Mismatched

Caseworker (n-23) Matched Intermediate Mismatched

Supervisor (n=10) Matched Intermediate Mismatéhed

35.7 21.1 7.1 14.3 3.6

35.7 46.4 53.6 71.4 57.1

28.6 32.1 39.3 14.3 39.3

9.1 9.1 9.1 0.0 13.5

36.4 63.6 54.5 63.6 16.2

54.5 27.3 36.4 36.4 70.3

30.4 39.1 34.8 34.8 30.4

56.5 43.5 21.7 52.2 56.5

13.0 17.4 43.5 13. 0 13.0

40.0 50.0 20.0 20.0 30.0

50.0 50.0 40.0 70.0 6 0 . 0

10.0 0.0 40.0 10. 0 10.0

87

more likely to be mismatched. Also, compared to workers in other

positions, houseparents had significantly lower mean scores on the

I2'

Na, and Nx subtype scales.

Except for five scales, houseparents and CCW's had similar

profiles on the 21 interview personality scales. Houseparents

Table 20

Percentage of Staff in Four SYC Positions Matched or Mismatched to the I-Level Subtypes

Subtype

Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx

said they were less likey to have had Past Difficulties, and

were observed to have fewer Present Problems than the CCW's.

Houseparents were more likely than all other positions to have

higher scores on the Moral Orientation and Concern with Control

scales, even though their scores fell in the middle range of

Position

88

the scale. Finally, houseparents were less likely than other

positions to focus on inner feelings and issues.

Houseparents gave themselves higher ratings than did CCW's

and CW's on the Authority and Work with the Group scales from the

Staff Intervention Questionnaire. The Work with the Group scale

means the houseparents felt they contributed to creating a

harmonious living environment and helped the youths to get along

with each other. However, houseparents felt they spent much less

time and energy than CCW's organizing free time activities. In

comparison to community caseworkers, houseparents believed they

had less ability , to individualize treatment goals and responsi-

bilities according to a youth's needs and interests.

Caseworkers (CW's)

A slight majority of caseworkers were married and their

• average age was 30. Fewer caseworkers than other positions had

worked before coming to SYC but of those who had worked, three-

quarters worked in related jobs. Years of related experience was

6.6, an average higher than that of CCW's and houseparents, but

lower than the supervisors' average years of experience. All

caseworkers had some certification, predominantly undergraduate

degrees in the social sciences. One-quarter had graduate or

other degrees. Very few caseworkers were presently studying for

further formal certification, although three-quarters had

participated in staff development courses in the last six months.

Caseworkers remained with the Agency for a relatively long time,

averaging three years. They stayed with their unit approximately

89

two years, and were more likely than CCW's and houseparents to

have had experience in another SYC unit and position.

Caseworkers had a mean Conceptual Level score that was

higher than that of the CCW's and houseparents, and lower than

the supervisors' mean score. CCW's Repression-Sensitization

score and preferences for different treatment approaches were

similar to other positions.

On the interview *ratings, caseworkers had significantly

higher scores than other positions on all subtype scales except

the Mp scale. One-third of the caseworkers were matched to each

youth subtype, while less than one-fifth were mismatched to

any of the five subtypes. Caseworkers had higher scores than

CCW's and houseparents on the Work Satisfaction, Understanding and

Differentiation, Atmosphere, Inner Focus, and Concern with Negative

Reaction interview scales, while on the Firmness and Concern with

Control scales, CW's had lower scores.

On the Intervention Scales, caseworkers rated themselves

lower than CCW's on the Work with the Group, Organizing Free

Time, and Authority scales; they had higher scores than either

CCW's or houseparents on the INdividualization, Autonomy, and

Responsibility Scales.

Supervisors

Supervisors stood out as a group. They were older than

caseworkers or CCW's,•and a little younger than houseparents.

Only one supervisor was a woman. Before coming to SYC, most

9 0

supervisors had worked in related jobs and they had more years

of related experience than all other positions. One-half of

the supervisors had graduate degrees in the social sciences,

while the other half had undergraduate or other degrees. Few

supervisors were continuing their formal studies at T 2 , but

three-quarters had participated in staff development courses in

the last half year. Supervisors at 12

have been with the Agency

approximately three years but only one year with their present

unit. This is significantly different than the supervisors at T 1

who had been with the agency approximately four years and in their

present unit slightly less than two years. More than all other

positions, supervîsors at both T 1 and T 2 tended to have experience

in other SYC units and positions.

Asa group, supervisors had more ability to conceptualize

and integrate Information and act independently than workers in

other positions, A good proportion of the supervisors were

matched to at least one of the subtypes on the interview ratings

while few were mismatched, except to Power-Oriented youths. On

the 21 interview personality scales, supervisors had a remarkably

similar profile to the caseworkers.

Discussion

The many statistically significant differences discovered

between the characteristics of the chief position in each of

SYC's three treatment settings confirm the first hypothesis:

differential selection and assignment occurs at the general level

of setting.

91

It remains to confirm the appropriateness of the character-

istics. That is, are the characteristics of the counsellors in

residence, the houseparents in group homes, and the caseworkers

in community appropriate to the characteristics of the youths in

each setting? Strangely enough, this seems to be a "non-issue"

as, contrary to expectations, there are few differences between

the youths in the three settings. Harvie and Brill (1978) report

that only five of the 41 personality and behavior measures which

describe SYC clientele indicate significant differences between

the youths in the three settings. Of these five differentiating

variables, four are related to age: current age, age upon

admission, length of stay, and grade equivalent.

This is a puzzling situation. On the whole, residential,

group home, and community youth are fairly similar while the

workers in each setting are different. Why? What are the criteria

for youth movement from one setting to another? Is age the main

placement criterion? Are youths transferred because they "can't

stay forever" and they "look ready"? Are the differences between

the workers in the positions intended to "match" youth character-

istics or to meet job demands?

Evidence would suggest that the differences between position

characteristics are more related to job demands than to youth

characteristics. For instance, counsellors and houseparents said in

both March 1976 and April 1977 a that they emphasized parenting,

group living, environmental and authority concerns, while

a Staff Tasks Report, Reitsma and Brill, 1976; Staff intervention

Questionnaire, 1977.

92

community caseworkers stressed individual relationships and

autonomy issues. Moreover, the job descriptions of the positions

state that residential counsellors and group home houseparents

have 24-hour daily care concerns for a group of youths living in

one place, while community caseworkers coordinate the activities

and development of several youths who live either independently,

in foster/group homes, or in their own homes. From these indica-

tions one may conclude that the tasks of the main positions in

each setting are quite distinct.

Therefore, it is highly probable that the differences found

between the staff in SYC's three settings resulted from a selection

procedure designed to differentiate staff types appropriate to the

job demands of a setting, and not necessarily to the characteristics

of the youth in that setting. Moreover, a differential staffing

policy intending to match the needs of youth in each setting would

not have beeen relevant, as the characteristics of the youth

populations in the three settings were quite similar.

93

Comparison of Teams within Settings

In looking at the data which could confirm the second

hypothesis concerning the differences between characteristics of

teams within each setting, we find the opposite type of lag

between the implementation of two official policies. This time,

there were differences between the types of youth characteristics

in the various units within settings •(Harvie and Brill, 1975,

Appendix 6), but there were almost no differences between the

worker characteristics of the teams in residence and group homes.

The exception is that there were differences in the characteristics

of both youths and workers in the two community units.

Residential Teams

Of the 63 variables included in the statistical analysis

comparing the five residential teams, only five significantly

differentiated the teams. A slight difference was noted on two

other variables (see Table 21). As it was not possible to

collect complete information on team 2 workers at T 2 due to a

crisis situation in that unit, the comparison between some of the

1 2 characteristics will be between 4, not 5 teams.

The many similarities between the teams do not suggest any

clear pattern of selection or assignment according to differential

selection principles, although there were variations between the

teams, which included the following: (a) team 3 workers have

remained with their present unit much longer than either team 1

or 2 workers, and somewhat longer than team 4 or 5 workers; (b) at

T 2 both teams 1 and 5 had a higher preference score than teams 3

or 4 for the two internal types of treatment approaches, Behavior

94

Table 21

Summary of Significant Differences

between the Characteristics of Five SYC Residential Teams

Characteristic

Residential Teams Sign. 1 2 3 1, 5 Level

Background at 1 2 a :

Mos. with present unit 8.7 2.6 18.5 12.1 11.1 <.05

Approach Preferences at T 2 a :

Behavior Reality 57.7 - 45.8 47.6 57.6 ‹.01 Insight Reality 63.2 - 53.0 49.1 54.9 <.05

Factors Influencing Style at T 2 a :

Repression-Sensitization

Interviewb :

Present Problems • Atmosphere

15.3 - 21.0 13.6 34.4 <.01

• 48.6 55.8 37.5 37.5 58.3 <J 0 86. 0 73.8 70.2 79.2 84.9 ‹.05

Interventionb

Relationship 8.2 8. 0 8. 0 6.5 7.6 (.10

Note. A complete profile of the teams and the statistical analysis can be found in Appendices 3, 5, 6 and 7.

a Means given; standard deviations can be found in Appendix 3.

Medians given.

Reality and Insight Reality; (c) team 5 had a Repression-

Sensitization mean score at 12

that was not only higher than the

other teams, but also within the upper quarter of the SYC

distribution on the R-S scale (see Table 3); (d) teams 2 and 5

had higher than average scores on the Present Problem Interview

scale, while teams 3 and 4 had lower than average scores; and

finally, (e) teams 1 and 5 workers demonstrated more concern for

the importance of establishing an atmosphere of trust, consistency,

and confidentiality in their relationships with youth than did the

workers from the other three teams.

95

Community Teams

Although SYC supports the differential selection and plce-

ment of staff, it is only in the community project centers as of

1971 that specific selection procedures have been used in order

to achieve this goal. A community worker must be "treater

matched" to either Na or Mp/Cfc youth types (assigned to one unit)

or Nx or Cfm youth (assigned to second unit). Secondly, a

preference is given to workers who will give a time commitment

of at least two years to the Agency. Hence, it is not surprising

that the workers in the two project centers differed significantly

from each other on all of the five subtype scores and on 10 of

the 21 interview scales, although on the 20 background variables,

they differed on only one characteristic.

On the interview subtype scores, team 6 workers had•

significantly higher mean scores on the 1 2 , Cfm,and Nx scales.

On the interview personality characteristics and professional

orientation scales, team 6 workers were rated as having more

current troubles (although less than the average person), a

higher concern for establishing an atmosphere of trust and

confidentiality, and a greater concern for dealing with inner

feelings and issues than did team 7 individuals. On the other

hand, team 7 workers were considered bolder, more forceful, firmer,

more aggressive, stubborn, and competitive than team 6 workers.

Furthermore, team 7 workers had a greater concern with the right

and wrong of an issue and society's standards than did team 6

workers.

£.05 <.01 <.001 (.01 <.05

5.5 - 3.5

6.5 9.5

- 6.5

10.0 15.0

-13.8 2.7

13.0

<.01 (.01 <.10 <.05 <.01 <.01 c.05 <.01 <.01 <.01

73.8 54.9 41.7 49.5 25.0 42.2 75.2 70.4 53.1 39.8

44.7 38.0 29.2 25.0 41.6 21.9 84,9 84.2 28.2 28.7

8.5 8.3 7.2

7.2 6.4 6.0

<.05 4.05 <.10

96

Table 22

Summary of Significant Differences

between the Characteristics of Two SYC Community Teams

Characteristics Commu_nity Teams Sign.

6 7 Level

Background at T a

2 ' Previous Units

Subtype Scoresb

:

12 Cm Mp Na Nx

Interview Scalesb

:

Boldness Forcefulness Soc. Undes. Quai.

Aggress ion Present Problems

Moral Or. Atmosphere Inner Focus Firmness Con. Control

Interventionb

:

1 .3 3(1 .4 ) 1.00(1.0) 4.05

Support Authority Free Time

Note. A complete profile of the teams, and the statistical analysis can be found in Appendices 3, 5, 6 and 7.

a Means given; standard deviation in brackets. Medians Oven.

97

1 1

1

• 1

1

Background at T 2a :

Mos. in present unit

Subtype Scoresb :

Mp

Interview Scales:

Aggression Moral Or. World/Ag. Sat.

6.8 14.0 - 13.3 5.0 5.7 i.10

-5.0 -7.5 5 -9.5 -22.5 -3.0 4.10

30.6 34.7 54 • 9 37.5 31.9 40.3 C.10

34.4 37.5 57.8 34.4 36.5 46.9 Z.10

58.3 47.9 43.8 54.2 40.3 62.5 4.05

Characteristic Group Home Teams

10 11 12 13 14 Sig. Level 15

a

Three of the 17 Staff Intervention scales significantly

differentiated the two teams. Team 7 workers rated themselves

higher than did team 6 on the Support (which means giving youths

appropriate help and encouragement for treatment goals), Authority,

and Organizing Free Time Activities.

In esummary, although the background and personal character-

istics of team 6 and team 7 workers were similar, the many

significant differences between the two teams on the interview

subtype scores and personality scales indicate that SYC does

differentially select workers for its community teams. Further-

more, there is some evidence that the workers in each team

believed they interacted with youth differently.

Group Home Teams

Table 23 indicates that only one variable significantly

Table 23

Summary •of Significant Differences between the

Characteristics of Six SYC Group Home Teams

Note. A complete profile of the teams and the statistical analysis can be found in Appendices 3, 5, 6 and 7.

Means given; standard deviations in Appendix 3, Table J. Me4lans given.

98

differentiated and four other variables slightly differentiated a

between group home teams. Thus, it is evident that differential

selection and assignment of specific types of individuals for

each group home does not occur in SYC group homes.

Summary and Discussion

The above description of the significant differences between

the teams of workers within each setting partially confirms and

partially refutes hypothesis number two: differential selection

and assignment of workers does occur in the community settings,

but not in the residential or group home settings.

This lag between policy and practice seems directly related

to the specific actions taken by management to implement its

matching policies. That is, using Palmer's instruments to

identify and differentiate worker characteristics to hire SYC

community caseworkers has resulted in selecting specific and

different types of workers for SYC's two project centers.

Selection procedures for residential counsellors and group home

houseparents are less specific and sophisticated. It is not clear

why specific procedures are not at least attempted in these two

settings. Given the shorter time counsellors and especially house-

parents remain with a un i t b, SYC management probably concentrated

on filling the positions quickly in order to keep programs afloat,

rather than carefully selecting and differentially assigning workers

a 46 instead of 63 variables are included in this analysis as the 17 intervention scales were omitted due to the small number of respondents in each team.

Turnover of staff is discussed more thoroughly in Chapter III.

99

to appropriate units. Furthermore, for the group homes, there was

no "waiting list" or "reserve bank" of individuals willing and

able to take on the demanding houseparent job. Finally, SYC

management also became committed to expansion and co-educational

policies within the last two years. It is likely that implementa-

tion of these policies pre-empted a focus on policies such as

specific matching selection procedures for child care workers and

houseparents.

Nonetheless, SYC is specifically committed to a matching

policy in all its settings. We found that practice lags far

behind this policy in the residential and group home settings.

This becomes more evident as the information relating to specific

worker-youth matching, that is, hypotheses three and four , are

examined.

Matched Worker-Youth Relationships

SYC management and frontline personnel stress the

importance of the worker-youth relationship as an essential

vehicle for promoting youth growth and change (Batshaw, 1975;

Reitsma and Brill, 1977a; Wylie and Hanna, 1971; Wylie, 1972). •A

"matched" worker-youth relationship means that the worker's

personality, interaction style, and personal desires balance and

keep pace with the needs and demands of a particular youth.

While the matched worker-youth relationship is considered

important in each of the three treatment settings of SYC, the job

expectations of residential counsellors, houseparents in group

100

homes, and community caseworkers are not the same. Therefore,

the chief worker in each setting gives a different emphasis and

brings varying resources to the worker-youth relationship.

In the open residential units, each youth is assigned to a

primary child care counsellor (CCW). The CCW insures the youth's

personal clothing and hygiene needs are met, and he (or she) helps

to create and implement the residential part of the youth's treat-

ment plan. As the responsibilities of the CCW's are manifold

and often group-centered, the relationship a primary CCW builds

with the two or three youths he has assigned to him, can vary from

week to week, and from counsellor to counsellor.

Although a group home youth has more regular contact with

his houseparents than with the group home caseworker (or assigned

community worker), agency policy and practice, especially in the

last year, considers the caseworker as the primary worker.

Therefore, we do so as well in our analysis.

Both the community and group home caseworkers design and

coordinate •the treatment and control plan for 8 to 12 youths, who

may be working or going to school, and who may be living

independently, at home, or in a foster/group home.

The next two sections examine whether or not worker-youth

relationships follow matching principles, first in the context of

I-Level theory, and secondly according to the Conceptual Level

Matching Model. After clarifying matching criteria, each section

begins with a presentation of the predominant youth type in each

101

unit over the last 18 months, and the number of relevant matched

workers. This information explores team matching (Hypothesis No. 3):

that is, are most workers in a unit matched or mismatched to the

type of youth generally admitted to that unit.

Given a high degree of team matching, the likelihood that a

particular youth is matched to his primary worker increases.

Therefore, the subsequent sections also include data on individual

matching of a youth to a worker (Hypothesis No. 4). The sample

used to discuss individual matching is made up of 45 residential

youths and 54 community youths. These youths have completed after

September 1975 at least two batteries of personality and behavior

measures during their stay in one setting (for instance, initial

assessment and transfer testing). Secondly, each youth must

have had the same worker longer than four months; if the youth had

more than one worker, the most significant worker was chosen as

the primary worker for this analysis. a

Worker-Youth Matching: 1-Level Theory

Criteria for Matching

Matches and mismatches in the context of 1-Level theory are

determined by whether or not an individual's interview ratings

meet the criteria established by Palmer and Howard on each of the

five youth subtype scales. We have slightly revised these criteria

to take into account the distribution of SYC workers' scores (see

Appendix 6, Table A). A worker is matched to a youth type if his

a A youth's first worker in a setting is considered the primary

worker if the youth had that worker for 60 percent of his stay; the second or third worker would be considered the primary worker if the youth had that worker for 70 to 80 percent of his stay.

102

subtype score is higher than a minimum cut off; he iS mismatched

if his score is lower than another cut-off.

To illustrate what an I-Level "match" entails, following is

a brief description of how a matched worker interacts with a youth

classified as Neurotic Acting-Out.

An Na youth likes to be treated as an adequate, independent,

cool" adolescent. As authoritarian, formal, or mothering types

of adults do not validate his self-image, this youth would either

avoid, manipulate, or attack these types of adults. Despite the

youth's portrayal of adequacy, he or she senses an inner turmoil

consisting of the usual adolescent urges which are intensified by

neurotic, ambivalent feelings of inadequacy, anger, and guilt.

This turmoil can build up and erupt, especially under stressful

situations. The severity of the youth's acting-out will be in

relation to the intensity of his inner feelings and the external

provocation.

A matched Na worker will respect and honour the youth's self-

image of adequacy. The worker presents himself as someone

interesting and worthwhile, who does not need to control or

mother the youth, but enjoys a friend-adult relationship. This

worker must also enjoy and be able to quickly capitalize on

crisis situations, whether they be small or large, such as when

the youth acts out or fails to measure up to his own standards.

These situations become openings for the worker to make himself

useful and important to the youth; successful, positive resolutions

103

of these crisis situations will enable the youth and worker to

develop a deeper, more therapeutic relationship.

Team Matching

An examination of Table 24 (and Tables A, B and C in

Appendix 10) indicates that SYC's policy of matching workers and

youth is borne out in practice in its community units, but not

in its residential or group home units.

Residence. In Unit 1, the major youth type was Nx. Only one

of the seven workers was a matched Nx worker, while three were mis-

matched. In Unit 2, most of the boys were Na's, and one worker

was Na matched while another was. mismatched to this youth type.

For Cfm youths in Unit 3, the team had one worker whose inter-

view scores indicated a Cfm match and one worker whose scores

indicated a mismatch. It is difficult to establish what type of

worker or workers are appropriate for Unit 4 as three types of

youths were found in this unit at T p and then at 1 2 there had been

a significant change in the types of youth assigned to this unit.

More Unit 4 workers were matched to the Na and Mp type of youth,

while only one was matched to the dependent, lower maturity youth

type. Finally, at both T 1 and 1 2 the majority of the girls in

Unit 5 were classified either Na or Nx. Not one of the workers

(all interviewed before January 1977) was matched to the Na youth

type, while two were mismatched; only one worker was matched to

the Nx youth and two were mismatched.

Community.. In contrast to a residential youth, a community

youth was much more likely to have a matched than a mismatched

Predominantb

Youth Type No. of Workers

Relevant Workers c Matched Mismatched Unit

7

7

7

Residence

1

2 Na

3 Cfm

4 Mixed

1 3

1 1

•1 1

0 2 1 2

7 5 7

Na Nx

10

11

4 12 4

13

4 2 14 4 1

4 1 15 4 1

0 1 0 2

0 2

0 2

Na Nx

Mixed

Na Nx

Mixed

Na Nx

Na Nx

104

Table 24

Matching of Workers and Youth in SYC Units: I-Level Theory a

Community

6

7

Nx 9 4 0 Cfm 9 7 0

Na 7 5 0 •

Gr'oup 'Homes

For more specific data see tables in Appendix 10.

From February 1976 to October 1977.

From September 1976 to March 1977.

105

worker. Youths in unit 6 at both T 1 and 12

were classified either

Cfm or Nx. Of the nine workers in team 6, seven were matched to

the Cfm youth type and four to the Nx youth type; not one worker

was mismatched to either type.

In the second community unit, 30 percent of the youths at 1 1

were classified as Nx and in all likelihood would have had a mis-

matched worker, as three of the workers in Unit 7 were mismatched

to Nx youth. However, at 1 2 three-quarters of the youths were

classified as Na's and five of the seven workers were matched to

this youth type while none were mismatched.

Group Homes. Each of the six group homes cared for at least

two youth types and there was a significant difference in the types

of youth sent to Unit 13 at T1

as çompared to T 2 . On the whole,

the coordinators, houseparents, and group home caseworkers were

more likely to be intermediate or mismatched than matched to

the youth type found in their . homes. The exception would be

Unit 13 at 12

(see Table C in Appendix 10).

In summary, as with Hypothesis Two so Hypothesis Three is

partially confirmedeld partially refuted: workers in residential

and group home units are just as likely to be mismatched as matched

to the main youth types in their units; on the other hand, the

majority of community workers are matched or intermediate to

their unit's clientele.

106

Individual Matching

Information concerning Hypothesis Four convincingly confirms

what the three previous sections have been indicating: in two of

SYC's three treatment settings, the practice of matching workers

and youths lags far behind the policy.

Table 25

Individual Worker-Youth Matching: I-Level Theory

• Worker-Youth Residence Community and Group Homes

a Total

Relationship -n % n . %

Matched Intermediate Mismatched

Total:

6 15 19 47.5 15 37.5• 40 100

24 44.4

30 55.5

0 0.0

54 100.0

30 31.9 49 52.1 15 15.9

94 100.0

Analysis by settings was not possible due to variations in the assignment of who was a group home youth's primary worker. During the first year of the project it was the community caseworker; in the remaining time either a group home caseworker or later an "independent" caseworker became the primary worker.

Almost one third of all the youths in our total sampleb

had

matched workers, and 16 percent had mismatched workers. Just

under one-half of the community or group home youths had a

matched worker, while none had a mismatched worker. However, in

residence, twice as many youths had a mismatched worker (37.5 percent)

• than a matched worker (15 percent).

This sample is not necessarily representative. Total research client sample is 246. Of these, 141 clients had completed two batteries of tests within the same setting after September 1975. Then, 47 more clients had to be excluded as these youths did not have one primary worker during their time under care.

107

Summary and Discussion

In the context of I-Level theory, the differential assignment

f individual workers to a specific team (Hypothesis Three) and to

certain youths (Hypothesis Four) occurred in only two of SYC's

13 open treatment units.

Given that workers selected for residence and group homes

need group management, daily caring, and team work skills, in

addition to individual counselling and casework abilities, it

may be more feasible to avoid inappropriate assignment of workers,

as to insure optimum, appropriate assignment. Unfortunately,

this was not the case. There were workers mismatched to the main•

youth type in both residential and group home units. Secondly,

although group home youths may not have lived in units staffed by

matched houseparents, they had a good chance of being •assigned to

a group home or community caseworker who was either matched or

intermediate. However, residential youths not only lived in

units staffed by all types of workers, who may or may not have

been appropriate, but also one-third of , the residential youth had

primary counsellors whose personality characteristics and

professional orientations were markedly inappropriate to their

needs, according to I-Level theory.

This situation conclusively illustrates that matching

policies, in the context of I-Level, are not implemented in the

selection and assignment of SYC's residential and group home

workers. Furthermore, the opposite is more prevalent in residence:

that is, mismatching is more prevalent than matching.

108

Before changing either its matching staff policies or

practices, it would be advisable for SYC management to re-examine

the value of Palmer's staff matching in relation to other staff

selection characteristics and criteria that may be more feasible

or desirable, especially for residential counsellors and group

home workers. For instance, in the next section, we find that

youths in all settings are more likely to have a primary worker

matched on the Conceptual Level dimension, than mismatched. Given

this situation, it is essential to explore the dimension and effect-

iveness of the Conceptual Level Matching Model, in comparison to

and in complement with the I-Level model, on youth change. Brill

(1978) begins this exploration in his report on factors contributing

to youth change. Secondly, in Chapter Ill of this report, some

basic characteristics that affect a worker's ability and attitude

to learning and implementing the approaches appropriate to several

types of youths are described. These characteristics are more

easily determined than the Palmer matching information. If

matching in all three settings was still considered essential, the

focus should be on avoiding inappropriate worker-unit or youth

placements as well as finding appropriate, "good matches".

. Worker-Youth Matching: Conceptual Level Theor

• Criteria for Matching

In terms of Conceptual Level theory, a "match" between

personality types is not as well-defined. The essence of a match

between two individuals would mean "getting on each other's

wavelength". Theoretically, this happens more easily and frequently

if the values, orientations, and needs of the teacher-student or

109

counsellor-client are not too far apart. For example, a counsellor

who enjoys teaching and guiding in a patient, simple, repetitive

way gets along better with the youth who needs repetitive, simple

guidance than with a youth who needs challenging and exciting

confrontation.

We would therefore hypothesize the matching of workers and

youth in terms of Conceptual Level theory in the following way:

a match occurs when a worker is one CL stage higher than the

youth for whom he is responsible; if a worker is two stages

higher, or lower than the youth, a mismatch occurs; if the worker

and youth are in the same stage of Conceptual development, an

intermediate positive relationship is possible. Figure 5 illustrates

this hypothesis.

Team Matching

According to the above proposed criteria, more matches than

mismatches in worker-youth relationships could have occurred in

all the units as demonstrated by Figure 6. Therefore, Hypothesis

Three concerning the appropriateness of a team's characteristics

to the youths in its unit is partially confirmed.

Most units had some Norm-oriented workers (Stage B) who

could match up with the Stage A youths, as well as Exploration-

oriented workers (Stage B-C) who could match up with Stage B

youths. Eight units had a few higher Conceptual Level youths

(Stage B-C's) while six units had the appropriate Independence-

oriented staff (Sta g e C). The types of mismatched relationships

A B B-C

Low CL

1/.1

1:›1 H 1g

A B B-C

Low CL 8

Worker

Youth

1g

B B-C

Low CL

A B B-C

Low CL

Worker

Youth

1g

A B B-C

High CL

Worker

Youth

Low

Low CL High CL

1 JO

Figure 5

Hypothetical Youth-Primary Worker Matching in Context of Conceptual Level Matching Model

Matched Relationships

Intermediate Relationships

Mismatched Relationships

A B B-C

1 A B-C

2 A

3 A B-C

4 A B-C

1 5 BC B-C

2 B-C B-C

6 p-c

r-A B-C

iii

Figure 6

CL Stage Distribution a of SYC Youths and Workers

Unit

CL Stage Distribution of Youth (Feb. 76 to Oct. 77)

CL Stage Distribution of Workers (Mar. 76 to Oct. 77)

Residence

Community .

B-C

Group Homes

10

11

B-C

1B-1 B-C Cont'd...

1 13

A

A

A

BC

A

B-C

B-C

B-C

B-C

B-C

112

Figure 6 (Cont'd.)

CL Stage Distribution a of SYC Youths and Workers

Unit

CL Stage Distribution of Youth (Feb. 76 to Oct. 77)

CL Stage Distribution of Workers (Mar. 76 to Oct. 77)

12

14

1 5

a See Appendix 10, Tables D, E, and F for exact distribution.

Change in youths' CL scores from T i to T , , but not significant.

Significant change in workers' CL Scores from 7 1 to T 2.

113

that could occur would be, for example between the Stage A youths

in Units 6 and 7 and the higher Stage C staff. However, the

negative effects of this type of mismatch may be circumvented, if

the worker uses his ability (inherent in his higher Conceptual

Level) to both clearly see the needs of the Stage A youth and

adopt the suitable treatment approach.

Individual Matching

The data in Table 26 confirm that one-half of the youths in

residence and community were matched to their workers, while only

11.1 and 16.7 percent respectively were mismatched. In large

measure this information supports Hypothesis Four, that is, SYC

workers had the appropriate characteristics and approaches for

the youths in their caseloads in the context of the Conceptual

Level theory.

Table 26

Indiyidual Worker Youth Matching: CL Theory

Worker Youth Relationship

Community & Residence Group Homes Total

% n %

Matches Intermediate Mismatches

Total:

22 48.9 23 42.6 45 45.5

18 40.0 22 40.7 4 0 40.4

5 11.1 9 16.7 14 14.1

45 54 99

Char Summary and Conclusion

Appropriate assignment of workers who have been differeniially

selected is the second part of the staffing requirement of a

differential treatment agency. Having established in theprevious

114

chapter that different types of staff were selected by SYC in

1976 and 1977, this chapter explored the appropriate assignment

or "matching" of workers at the general level of setting (Hypothesis

One), unit level (Hypothesis Two), and at the specific level of

worker-youth relationships (Hypotheses Three and Four).

Workers were different between the three settings and thus

Hypothesis One was confirmed. However, the Differential assign-

ment that occurred at the setting level appeared more related to

meeting the different task demands of the counsellor, houseparent,

and caseworker positions, than matching the characteristics of

residential, group home, or community youth, as there were few

differences between the youths.

The evidence concerning the differences of workers within

settings and their appropriateness to their unit's clientele

partially confirmed and partially refuted Hypothesis Two, Three,

and Four. Within the community setting, the differential and

appropriate assignment of workers to the clientele was both a

policy and a practice. This situation occurred in the context of

the 1-Level and Conceptual Matching Models. As one-half of SYC

youths are helped by community workers, we conclude that matching

of workers to youth characteristics affected a good proportion of

SYC youth. However, in group homes and even more in residence,

there was not a clear pattern of differential worker assignment

to units. Although almost one-half of the residential and group

home youth had a matched primary worker in the context of CL

theory, twice as many residential youths had mismatched rather

than matched workers in the context of I-Level theory.

115

In conclusion, SYC's policy of differential selection and

matching workers is differentially implemented. In the community

units, practice pretty well "matches" SYC's staffing policies.

In group homes and residence, a substantial lag is observed, more

soin relation to the predominant I-Level classification of youths

and workers, than in relation to the subsidary Conceptual Level

classification system.

One may well ask what is the staffing policy in residence

and group homes? Why is Palmer mismatching so prevalent in

residence? What criteria are used to select a worker for a unit?

How does each team assign a worker to a youth? Our findings

suggest that these questions do not have reliable answers. In

residential and group home units, differential staffing exists on

a position basis. Besides the two community teams, the remaining

SYC teams look more similar to each other than different. This

situation is contrary to official policy. However, it is

interesting that when we focus on Conceptual Level as the classifi-

cation and matching model, we see that within each unit there

are youths and workers at different stages of accessibility. In

effect, this means the SYC staffing situation as it existed in

1976 to 1977 would theoretically have satisfied the CL Matching

Model. In other words, practice lagged behind official staffing

policy using Palmer's classification and matching criteria, but

was congruent with a possible policy based on Hunt's classification

and Matching Model.

116

Yet, the most important question remains unanswered. How

important is "matching" workers to youth by either Palmer or Hunt

criteria? This report began with evidence concerning the

relevance of this specialized worker matching in a community case-

work setting, given low caseloads, available resources, supportive

training and staff stability. Even if all these conditions are

met (and we see later in this report that they are not), how

important is worker-youth matching in either group homes or

residence? Is residential treatment primarily a holistic environ-

mental approach or an individual worker-youth approach? What is

the importance of a matched milieu for a residential youth?

Truly, "matched" environments and "matched" worker-youth relation-

ships would be ideal. However, which would be the priority?

Finally, if it were not feasible to select and assign "matched"

workers in SYC's residential or group home setting, what other

criteria should be used in staff selection? These, and other

issues, are the subjects of the next chapter and of Brill's•

final report which has been referred to several times.

CHAPTER III

Selection of and Caring for "Good" Staff

118

Adequate staffing policies and practices of a differential

treatment agency would consist of three components: (a) selection

of a pool of competent and compassionate workers; (h) differential

selection and assignment of workers with characteristics "matched"

to certain jobs and youth types; and (c) creation and maintenance

of a supportive working environment for staff.

The previous chapter of this report discussed the second,

more specialized component of these staffing policies: differential

selection and assignment of specific worker types. Now it is

important to look at some basic personality characteristics that

would be relevant in the initial stage of staff selection. How

can "good", effective workers be identified? The last component

of an adequate staffing policy also needs examination. What is

a supportive working environment for staff and how can it be

created? This final chapter attempts to provide a few answers

to these two questions.

Selection of "Good" Staff

Staff Turnover

The children who come to SYC often have had troubling,

inconsistent, and unstable backgrounds. They have a strong need

to be cared for by stable, mature adults who are committed to

seeing them through". Although SYC workers may want to commit

themselves to a long term involvement with the youths on their

caseloads, the turnover rate illustrated in Table 27 suggests

that unfortunately many workers resign or transfer after a

ri o

UM UM MI MI 011111 11111111 Oat all IMO MI UM OM IMF MO 11/0 UM MU

Table 27

SYC Staff Turnover from March 1976 to October 1977

Group

Workers who Transferred or

Resigned

Original Workers at T 1

New Workers who Workers Hired

a Transferred or Workers

Between1

& T 2 Resigned at T 2

Total by Position 64 50 78.1 94 28 29.8 80 Counsellor 27 22 81.5 35 10 28.6 30 Houseparent 14 14 100.0 32 13 40.6 19 Caseworker 12 6 50.0 16 1 6.3 21 Supervisor 11 8 72.7 11 4 36.4 10

Residential Teams 33 27 81.8 43 11 25.6 38 1 7 6 85.7 5 0 0.0 6 2 7 7 100.0 11 4 36.4 7 3 7 4 57.1 5 0 0.0 8 4 7 6 85.7 11 3 27.3 9 5 5 4 80.0 11 4 36.4 8

Community Teams 13 7 53.8 8 0 0.0 14 6 9 5 55.6 5 0 0.0 9 7 4 2 50.0 3 0 0.0 5

Group Home Teams 18 b 16 88.9 43 c 17b 39.5

28c

9 3 3 100.0 Closed

10 5 5 100.0 10 5 50.0 5

11 6 4 66.7 5 1 20.0 6

12 5 4 80.0 3 2 66.7 2

13 Not included 9 3 33.3 6

14 Not open 10 4 4 0 . 0 6

15 Not open 9 3 33.3 6 1 i a 18 new positions added - , 1 b - , One supervisor coordinates two homes. He is counted in each home and once in the total. 1.0 c

Three supervisors coordinate six homes.

120

relatively short stay in a unit. Over three-quarters of the

original workers in our sample (March 1976 a ) had left their units

by October 1977. Furthermore, of the 94 workers who were hired

to fill the empty positions (and the 18 new positions) during

this 18-month period, one-third had either resigned or transferred

by October 1977. The turnover rate on a yearly basis would be

between 50 and 60 percent.b

Is this turnover rate "normal" for a social service agency?

British (Monsky, 1963; Tollen, 1967; Williams' Committee, 1967;

Berry, 1975), American (Vinter, 1976), and Canadian (Batshaw, 1975;

Cusson, 1977) studies indicate that staff turnover rates of

residential and community staff working with children is between

25 and 35 percent each year. This means that SYC's turnover rate

of its frontline and supervisory staff in the open residential,

group home, and community settings seems higher than "normal"

during the last 18 months.

Before pursuing what worker and/or milieu characteristics

contributed to this high turnover, two pieces of evidence

indicating the unfortunate effects of this situation • should be

mentioned. In the first place, of the 141 youths in our sample

that completed two batteries of personality and behavior measures

a Included are workers from two units who had been measured in

July 1977.

See Table A in Appendix 9.

121

while in one setting, one-third did not have a primary worker a

for longer than four months. Because workers transferred or

resigned, a substantial number of these youths had two or three

workers, each for several months.

Figures 7 and 8 present the second piece of evidence: In

residential units with higher staff turnover, fewer youths were

satisfied with their workers. Youths' satisfaction was based on

the percentage of youths in a unit who responded positively to

several questions from the Unit Milieu Questionnaire (Légendre,

1975). This questionnaire was administered five times to

residential and group home youths during the research's data

collection period. The relevant questions asked a youth if he

liked his worker, if he got along with his worker, and if his

worker helped him to change. Our findings show that the youths

in Unit 3 (which had the lowest staff turnover) were twice as

satisfied with their workers than youths from Unit 2 (which had

the highest staff turnover). The relationship between youths'

satisfaction and worker turnover followed a similar pattern in the

other three units.

What does this all mean? Creating an appropriate treatment

environment and establishing healthy relationships with youths

takes time and consistency. Predictability, stability, safety,

a A primary worker is the person with chief responsibility for

coordinating and implementing a youth's treatment plan.

4 2

3.0 _ o

— 2.5_ cr) 0 a_ I- 2.0 H a.

1.5_

o 1 _

ni a)

Figure 7

Residential Youths' Satisfaction with their Workers a (March 1976 to October 1977)

122

94.9

82.6

69. 6 67.2

47.5

100

90

80

• 70

o • 6o >- t4 • 50

4o

30

1 5

a Residential Units

Tables A and B in Appendix B contain specific figures.

3

Figure 8

Workers Needed to Fill Residential Positions (March 1976 to October 1977)

2.6

2.1 2.1

1 . 9

1 5 11 2

Residential Units

3

1.8

1 23

and continuity of care for both workers and youths can only

occur if the same workers and supervisors remai , n in their

positions for at least a certain amount of time. Turnover of

staff, especially high turnover of staff, makes it difficult to

establish treatment environments and relationsh4s conducive to

long-term growth and change. Thus, it is important to know what

are the characteristics of the staff who are able and willing to

remain in a unit working with adolescent, delinquent, and troubled

youth, and secondly, what environmental characteristics help

people stay.

Characteristics of Stayers and Leavers

In the first place, a statistical analysisa was made comparing

the characteristics of the 31 staff who had stayed in a unit more

than two years ('the Stayers") and the 25 staff who had left

within a year ("the Leavers").

Although there were not many significant differences between

the two groups, a few of the differences are important. More

Stayers were married than Leavers; secondly, more Leavers were

divorced or separated. Twice as many Stayers participated in

staff development courses in the last six months compared to

Leavers. Although Stayers were in their mid-thirties while

Leavers were in their late twenties, this difference did not

approach significance (p < .120). However, stayers had signifir

cantly more related work experience than Leavers had.

a Using Chi-square for nominal data and Mann-Whitney U for inter-

val data.

38.5(3) a 15.7

78.4(3) 12.8

5 5.1 (3) 12.3

51.2(11) 15.9

67.3(11) 16.0

46.1(11) 13.3

<.05

<.05

124

Table 28

Summary of the Significant Differences between the Characteristics of SYC Staff who Stay with a Unit

Two Years or More and Those who Leave Before a Year

Characteristics

Stayers Leavers

(n=31) (n=25) Sign. SD M SD % Level

Marital Status Single 35.5 4o Married 65.3 4 0 ‹.10 Div./Sep. 3.2 20

Education Took courses in Last 6 months 61.3

Did not take courses in Last 6 Months 38.7 68

Work Experience Mos. Related Exp. 93.2 49.1 37.2 35.4 <!.001 Mos. with SYC 54.1 29.5 13.2 13.8 ‹.001 Mos. with present

unit 32.7 16.3 7.2 3.4 (.001 Units worked in

previously .9 .9 .5 .9 <.05

32 <.10

Interview Scales (10 to 10 0 ) Present Problems Work Satis. Agency/World

Satis.

Intervention Scales (1 to io) Justice Group Meeting

7.6( 8) 1.0 6.6(2 0 ) .9 <.10 7.7(16) 1.9 4.2(23) 1.2 ‹.05

Note. Complete listing of the characteristics of Stayers and Leavers

---- and the analysis of difference can be found in Appendix 13.

a Numbers in parentheses indicate missing cases.

125

Three of the 21 interview scales significantly differentiated

the two groups. Stayers were significantly less anxious and

uptight than Leavers who had as much anxiety and present problems

as the average adult. Workers who stayed with SYC

units were more satisfied and optimistic about the world and

society, as well as about the Agency itself. In fact, Stayers

enjoyed their work far more than the average parole/helping agent,

and significantly more than staff who left.

In summary, if SYC wants to hire individuals who will in all

likelihood remain for approximately two years in a unit, older,

experienced, mature, and settled individuals should be considered.

Reasons for leaving. People do not work in a vacuum. A

person's behavior and work is a product of the interaction between

his characteristics and abilities, and the environment in which

he lives and works. Was there something in the working environment

at SYC that made it more difficult for individuals, especially

those with certain characteristics, to remain? Why did so many

people resign or transfer?

Two senior supervisors, a personnel officer, and a researcher

were asked to choose one of five broad reasons why 78 staff either

transferred or resigned in the 18-month period. Table 29 presents

the results. Of the 60 staff who resigned, a third left for

something new, either another job, a study program, or another

lifestyle. Another third left to get away from an untenable or

unhappy situation, a few due to health and personal problems or

because of poor pay, while others resigned because of personnel,

• MI MI MI • MS MI OM ill Ole IIIIIIII all OM MI MI

Table 29

Most Important Reason SYC Staff Transferred or Resigneda (March 1976 to October 1977)

Poor Health; Personnel Agency Fired or

New Job; School; Poor -Pay Conflicts; Pressured N Another Lifestyle Benefits Had it" to Leave Do Not Know

n % n % n % n % n % _ _ - _

Total Agency • Resignations Transfers

78 31.5 4 0 .4 6 0 20.8 34.7 18 10.7 59.4

8.8 11.3

7.0 11.7

1.8 10.0

18.3 23.5 10.8 13.8 8.6 11.0

15.3 25.5 10.1 16.8 6.8 11.3

3. 0 16.7 .7 3.9 1.8 10.0

Residential Teams 38 15.5 40.6 3,3 8.8 8.3 21.8 6.3 16.7 4.6 12.1 Resignations 29 8.8 30.5 3.0 10.3 7.3 25.2 5.6 19.2 4.3 14.8 Transfers 9 6.7 74.5 .3 3.3 1.0 11.1 .7 7.8 .3 3.3

Group Home Teams 33 10 •30.3 5.5 16.7 9 27.3 4.5 13.6 4. 0 12.1

Resignations •25 7 28. 0 4 16.0 7 28. 0 4.5 18. 0 2.5 10.0 Transfers 8 3 37.5 1.5 18.7 2 25.0 0 0 1.5 18.7

Community Teams 7 6 85.7 1 14.3 Resignations 6 5 83.3 1 16.7 Transfers 1 1 100.0 0 0

a Based on average of two or three raters.

1 27

agency, or job conflicts and pressures. One-sixth of the workers

were asked to leave because of their unsuitability. That leaves

unknown reason for 11.3 percent of the staff group. Of the 18

staff who transferred rather than resigned, almost 60 percent

transferred because they wanted or were offered a new job, while

one-quarter transferred away fron untenable situations.

Not only is there a striking difference between the rate of

turnover in the community teams as compared to the residential

and group home teams (Table 27), but also between the reasons

why residential and group home staff left compared to community

workers. The latter were far more likely to leave "to" a new job,

school, or other lifestyle, while residential and group home

workers were just as likely to get "away" from an unsatisfactory

situation, as to.go "to" another one.

In conclusion, SYC's relatively high turnover of staff has

some negative effects on youths and programs. Although the

turnover rate is related to certain personality characteristics

of individuals, evidence suggests that environmental factors are

also involved. Furthermore, general working conditions may have

been problematic, not only for the younger, less experienced or

"put together" workers in residence and group homes, but also for

those 25 experienced individuals who remained with the agency

throughout the research period. These people had a lower ability

to conceptualize and integrate information at the end of the

project than at the beginning, while they had a higher tendency

to worry and become anxious (Table 16). As it is very unlikely that

128

25 people went through similar personality changes •at the same

time, what was happening in the environment to create this change?

Were working conditions not supportive enough for SYC workers,

especially those in residence or group homes? Which environmental

factors can be related to staff turnover? Before discussing

those environmental aspects that seem to affect staff's ability

and willingness to stay and do a good job, certain other worker

characteristics relevant to hiring competent, "good" workers are

described.

Higher Conceptual Staff

In the first chapter, a brief synopsis was given of the

research findings defining, describing and comparing individuals

on the Conceptual Level dimension (CL). To date, these findings

are very interesting and would indicate the value of further

analysis of the differences between high and lower CL individuals.

Our data, summarized in Table 30, demonstrate that the Conceptual

Level dimension might indeed assist in identifying flexible,

mature workers.

•

Out of a total of 121 workers, 22 individuals had high

Conceptual Levels (scores> 2.1) and 30 workers fell into the

lower Norm-Oriented group (scores L 1.65). The mean CL score of

the high CL group was 2.41 (SD r. .19), while the mean score of the

lower CL group was 1.46 (SD = .17).

The two groups were similar on age, sex, marital status, and

employment h sistory. Forty percent of the lower CL workers held

no formal qualifications compa'red to 4.5 percent of the other group)

33.3 66.7

129

Table 30

Summary of the Significant Differences between the Characteristics of High and Lower Conceptual Level SYC Staff

Characteristics

High CL Lower CL (n=22) (n=30) Sign.

% M SD % M SD Level .1■•■■

40.0 26.7 16.7 6.7 10.0

73.3 16.7 10.0 0.0

Qualifications No Diploma/Degree CEGEP Undergrad. Gradua te

Other

Certification Program None CEGEP Undergrad. Graduate

Staff Devel. Courses a Participated Did not participate

Wark HIstory at SYC Mos. with SVC. Mos. in present unit

Approach Preference Behavior Real ity

Interview Scales Soc. Des. Quai. Alertness Past Difficulties Present Problems Und. & Diff. Inner Focus Mp Subtype Score Na Subtype Score

4.5 18.2 45.5 31.8 0.0

81.8 0.0 9.1 9.1

63.6 36 .4

39.2 23.7

25.5 14.1

56.9 10.5

67.9 c 14.3

67.8 18.3

68.3 14.8

32.8 15.5

76.0 15.3

79.3 12.9 - .7 9.2

7.1 4.7

<.10

<JO

24.3 21.7 <.05

13.6 12.6 <.01

50•5 9•7 <•05

57.8d

10.8 <.05

53.4 11.3 (.10

59.1 12.9 <.10

50.8 15.3 <.01

66.2 11.3 <: 10

72.0 12.6 <.10

- 8.5 12.6 (.05

1.2 4.3 (.01

Noté. Data on other characteristics comparing High and.Lower CL Staff can be found in Appendix 11.

a In the last six months.

Missing cases 1.

Missing cases in all interview scales for High CL cases = 7. d

Missing cases in all interview scales for Lower CL cases = 11.

130

and high CL staff were much more likely than lower CL workers to

have an undergraduate or graduate degree. Although twice as many

high CL workers had engaged in staff development courses in the

last six months, more lower CL workers were engaged in formal

certification programs.

Even though the former analysis comparing Stayers and

Leavers did not find a statistical difference on their Conceptual

Level scores, this present analysis states that high Conceptual

Level workers remain significantly longer both in their present

unit and with the agency than did lower CL staff.

Although lower Conceptual Level workers scored somewhat

lower on Jesness' internally focused preferences,

their mean score on the Behavior Reality Approach, considered

appropriate for Neurotic Acting-Out youth, was significantly lower

than the mean score of the higher CL staff.

Ratings of Palmer's interview scales strongly suggest that

higher Conceptual Level staff, although not necessarily "matched"

to specific youth types, are more open to the approaches appropri-

ate for every I-Level youth subtype. On all subtype scales,

high CL staff had higher scores than lower CL workers, and signifi-

cantly higher scores on the Mp/Cfc and Na subtype scales.

On the personality and professional orientation scales, four

scales significantly differentiated between the two groups of

staff, while four other scales made somewhat less significant

differentiations. High CL staff were_more likely than the lower

131

CL staff (and more likely than the average adult) to have

socially desirable qualities such as patience, pleasantness,

considerateness, self-confidence, and sensitivity. Furthermore,

the raters considered the former group to be sharper, more

inquisitive, and more intellectually flexible than the latter

group. Lower CL staff saw themselves as having as many problems

in their past as the average person, and were seen by the raters

to have an average amount of anxiety and concern over the present

and the future. This stands in contrast to the higher Conceptual

Level staff who saw themselves as having had more than the average

amount of personal problems to overcome in their past, while the

raters saw them in the present as being less anxious and more self-

confident than the average adult. Finally, on two professional

orientation scales, High CL staff were more likely than lower CL

staff to focus on youths' inner emotional needs and desires. Also,

high CL staff were more able to differentiate between behavior•

and emotional changes in youths, between rejecting youths'

behavior and rejecting the youth, and not interpreting people's

words and behaviors at face value. Although the higher CL staff

had the higher scores on these Inner Focus and Understanding and

Differentiating scales, both groups of workers were rated somewhat

higher than the average probation/parole agents.•

In summary, our findings suggest that higher CL persons are

"pretty together", sharp individuals who are open to learning

and integrating a range of information, which may not be congruent

with their own beliefs and knowledge. This capacity enables them

to see and tolerate the differences between youths, and respond

132

appropriately to their needs. Secondly, our findings indicate

that higher CL staff would be more versatile in their approaches

to all I-Level youth subtypes. A lower CL worker may have the

direct and consistent style appropriate for .a certain type of

youth; however, it may be somewhat difficult for him to change

this style when important modifications are necessary. Although

higher CL workers may not specifically "match" the needs of the

youth types to whom they are assigned, they are more able than

lower CL staff to mold and learn the approaches necessary for

the different types of youth in their charge. Not only are they

open to the learning that is necessary, they are willing to

remain in a unit and with the Agency long enough in order to learn

what is necessary and appropriate.

Versatile Staff

In addition to understanding the relevance of the Conceptual

Level dimension to the identification and selection of "good"

workers, it would be interesting to recognize the characteristics

of "good" workers according to Palmer's method of classifying

workers. To do so, the characteristics of those 11 workers

who were matched to two or more 1-Level youth subtypes and not

mismatched to any (the "Versatile" workers) were compared to the

characteristics of those 16 staff who were mismatched to two or

more subtypes and not matched to any (the "Non-Versatile" workers).

Table 31 presents the many significant differences between these

two groups.

133

Table 31

Summary of the Significant Differences between the Characteristics of Versatile and Non-Versatile SYC Staff

Characteristics

Versatile Non-Versatile (n=11) (n=16) Sign.

SD M SD Level.

Conceptual Level 2.2(1) a .4 1.9(1) .3 4 05

Mos. Related Experience 70.5 28.7 41.4 33.0 <.01 Units worked in previously 1.4 1.1 .3 .6 <.01 Mos. with SYC S 41.8 19.8 22.6 13.4 <.05

Interview Scales Socially Des. Qualities Attributes Adol. Like Alertnèss Socially Undes. Qualities Aggression Pres. Problems Moral Orientation

• Work Satisfaction Understanding & Diff. Atmosphere Inner Focus Con. Neg. Re. Firmness Con. Control

75.6 8.2 50.3 8.1 401

66.5 10.4 52.2 8.1 <Al

73.4 14.5 49.2 8.4 ‹.001

37.5 9.2 52.7 12.4 <01

28.4 12.4 48.2 12.7 401

31.4 17.2 50.2 15.1 <.01

28.7 11.2 47.8 16.4 401

82.6 11.6 65.9 15.4 401

80.1 12.3 52.5 12.1 4001

84.7 6.2 71.6 10.1 4001

78.8 8.9 61.4 15.3 401

60.9 9.7 52.4 7.8 Ç 0 5

39.8 10.5 55.3 17.4 <.01

36.2 9.2 52.6 •17.7 <.01

Interview Subtype Scores

12 9.4 3.8 - 2.9 6.4 <.001 Cfm

0 9.5 7.3 -. 4.1 14.4 <.001

Mp/Cfc 1.9 8.4 ••• 9.5 9.4 <.01 Na 8.5 4.0 - .4 3.'3 (.001 Nx 8.9 12.1 -24.9 15.2 (.001

Intervention Scales Relationship , Responsibility

8.2(4) a .9 7.3(5) .5 <.05 8.6(4) 1.2 7.4(5) 1.1 <.05

Note. Data on other characteristics comparing versatile and non-versatile staff can be found in the tables of Appendix 12.

Numbers in parentheses indicating number of missing cases.

134

First of all, Versatile staff had a significantly higher

Conceptual Level mean score than Non-Versatile staff had. This

finding would support the notion suggested above that an individual's

CL score would help predict his ability to work with several

types of youths.

The more Versatile workers had almost six years of related

experience in comparison to the three and a half years of the

other group; the former group have remained longer than the latter

with SYC, and have had experience in more than one SYC unit.

As our present definition of versatility has been derived

from an individual's interview subtype ratings, the many signifi-

cant differences between the Versatile and Non-Versatile workers

on the interview scales is not surprising. On the five subtype

scale scores, Versatile workers score significantly higher than

Non-Versatile staff. Furthermore, 14 out of the 21 interview

scales differentiate between the two groups.

Versatile workers tended to be patient, interesting, sensitive,

and quick-thinking. They were not stubborn, manipulative,

threatening, or competitive. The raters considered these workers

to have less anxiety than the average person and more than the

average self-assurance and confidence. On the professional

orientation scales, Versatile workers had a pragmatic, innovative

approach to their job, and were less concerned than both the

Non-Versatile workers and the average parole/probation officer in

telling the youth whdt to do, using their authority with youth,

135

and being concerned with laws and rules. Versatile workers were

significantly more concerned with creating an atmosphere of

consistency, trust, confidentiality, understanding, and acceptance,

and with focusing on the youth's inner needs and desires as well

as on negative feelings such as guilt, anger and aggression than

were Non-Versatile workers. The latter were fairly satisfied

with their work, while Versatile workers were very satisfied, far

more so than the average parole/probation officer.

Only two out of 17 self-rated intervention scales differen-

tiated between the two groups of workers. Versatile workers rated

themselves as having a better relationship with their youths and

said they gave more appropriate responsibilities and assistance

to their youths than did Non-Versatile workers.

Summary and Implications

Our findings indicate that a number of measurable background

and personality characteristics would be relevant to the selection

and keeping of competent, versatile workers. The most important

characteristics include:

1. less than average personal anxiety;

2. higher than average ability to conceptualize and integrate information;

3. relevant educational background and continuing interest in staff development;

4. experience in the social services field;

5. above average satisfaction and pleasure in work as a helping agent.

Other relevant characteristics that could be considered are:

6. marital status as one indication of an individual's possible mobility;

136

7. socially desirable qualities such as patience,

sensitivity, and resourcefulness;

8. ability to understand the subtle and motivating dynamics

of youths' behaviors;

9. intellectual creativeness;

10. comfortability with innovative approaches to helping.

Characteristics that may be relevant to the treatment aspects

of a SYC worker's job, but potentially problematic to the control/

authority aspects of this job, are a less than average concern

with firmness, directness, structuring youths' experience, and

conforming to society's expectations of rights and wrongs. It is

interesting that higher CL individuals did not score below

average on these characteristics, while the versatile specialists

identified by Palmer's Classification System did so, Clear

expectations, regular supervision, and a worker's openness to

execute both aspects of his job would reduce the problematic

nature of these "treatment-not-control" professional and personal

orientations.

Is it possible to economically identify these ten worker

characteristics? Furthermore, are people with these characteris-

tics "so special" that there are not many around to hire?

The first five and most of the remaining relevant characteris-

tics can be identified from a regular job application form (for

educational and work background), the 20-minute Paragraph Completion

Measure (measuring Conceptual Level), and a one- to two-hour

interview (measuring personal anxiety, self confidence, and work

satisfaction as well as sensitivity, resourcefulness, and

137

creativity). The interview protocol found in Appendix 1 would

be a useful format for this selection interview. If more

detailed information is desired, the Palmer's rating inventory

could be used to rate an individual on various other characteris-

tics which are relevant to general, competent work. These

ratings also provide specific information about a worker's

suitability for intensive work with certain I-Level youth subtypes.

For valid ratings, this instrument demands trained raters and two

independent ratings on each individual. Both the initial training

and the ongoing need for two independent ratings entail a substantial

time and financial commitment (10-13 hours, per interview).

Given a commitment and the expertise to identify at least

some of these ten character clusters can the agency find people

with them? Obviously it would be harder to find persons with all

the ten characteristics than to locate individuals with at least

a few of them. Generally, SYC hires a more educated, experienced

type of worker than do provincial reception centers in general

(Batshaw, 1975). Of SYC's workers in 1976 and 1977, only one-

quarter were considered in the quite experienced, flexible, higher

Conceptual Level, "Staying" category. Even fewer workers were

identified as very versatile specialists who interestingly enough

had a professional orientation to their work that emphasized the

treatment aspects above the control demands of their jobs. Figure

9 clearly illustrates the decreasing availability of staff types

when more special characteristics are sought. However, given the

undesirable consequences of SYC's high turnover rate on youths'

satisfaction and growth, and the pressure on management to

138

Figure 9

Rough Distribution of Staff Types

Very versatile specialists

Good, experienced and flexible workers

Most SYC staff (1976-1977)

Most staff in provincial reception centers

\\\\\\\ • •

•

General population

continually find people to fill empty positions may it not be wiser

to search more carefully for specific individuals who are "pretty

together", relatively experienced, educated, self-confident, and

conceptually flexible and independent?

Finally, the personality characteristics identified as

relevant to the selection of good staff also indicate how to

Ilwork with the worker". For, no matter how excellent are the

workers who have been selected, their ability to remain and to do

an efficient, effective job with children in large measure depends

on the environment in which they work.

139

"Care for the Caregivers"

In her extensive exploration of the children and "caregivers"

in 44 English residential places, Berry (1977) concluded that the

milieu in which caregivers find themselves both directly and

indirectly affect how the staff work with children. Furthermore,

she writes:

the personal qualities of caregivers apparently matter less than the availability of supportive experience within the work situation — a hopeful finding since it is obviously easier to provide the latter than to attempt to change the former. (p. 144)

Three aspects of the SYC work situation are discussed:

clarity of job expectations, supervision services, and team

characteristics.

Clarity of Expectations

Knowing what one is expected to do is an essential ingredient

of an efficient, goal-oriented, and satisfying working environment.

If workers do not know, or know only vaguely what they are supposed

to do, they can become confused, frustrated, and ineffective.

Obviously, this does not mean every situation needs a defined

response; however, general standards, values, objectives, and

routines need to be clear and accepted.

Two pieces of evidence collected by the research suggest

that there was a considerable variation in the clarity and

specificity, treatment standards, objectives, and routines at the

individual unit and worker level.

140

The first piece of evidence comes from the Staff Tasks

report (Reitsma and Brill, 1977) which discussed what SYC workers

saw as their chief responsibilities and how they carried out these

responsibilities. The report was based on a compilation and

summary of responses to a semi-structured questionnaire.

We found that the variation of responses increased in relation

to the specificity of the questions. All workers placed a priority

on providing youths with opportunities for growth and change;

custody and controlling behavior was listed by only seven out of

the 53 respondents. Residential workers stressed unit structure

and activities while community workers more often rhentioned

family and court work as important responsibilities. When asked

how these responsibilities are specifically carried out, and what

proportion of time is allotted to each, the variation in answers

increased. Our conclusion at the time was that:

The range in answers that workers gave to how much

time they spent in certain tasks may stem from

real diversity within and between teams, or from a

remarkable diack of clarity and awareness of how they

break their responsibilities into time commitments. (Reitsma and Brill, 1977, p. 42)

A year later, more evidence emerged to indicate the

considerable variation in clarity of expectations. Workers and

their supervisors were asked to rate the quality of their regular

interventions with youth on the Staff Intervention Questionnaire.

As previously mentioned, although overall scores seemed similar,

there was little to no correlation between observer and self

ratings. There was very little correspondence between a supervisor's

and a worker's interpretation and evaluation of routine treatment

141

tasks such as treatment planning, writing reports, group work,

planning activities, etc.

Our interpretation of these two findings would be that

although SYC staff endorse similar long-range goals and dreams,

at the individual unit and worker level great variation exists

over objectives and interpretations of expectations. Is this

variation a result of unclear expectations or poorly communicated

and interpreted expectations? Whatever the case, the variation

can contain the seeds of flexibility and creativity as well as a

potential for confusion, inconsistencies, and discord in staff's

working environment, especially if supervision is infrequent and

non-directed.

Supervision

Staff need relatively frequent opportunities for both formal

and informal consultation and sharing. In effect, when staff are

listened to, and supported, and helped to solve their

professional and at times personal problems, then they in turn

will listen to, support, and help youths. How caregivers are

cared for determines how the youths are cared for. Berry (1977)

found that this was very much the case in her study of 44

residential institutions. The residential workers in the more

positive and good enough units were far more likely to have

opportunities for internal and external consultation than did

workers in the more negative units.

142

Do SYC workers have adequate opportunities for consultation

and sharing? Once again, variation exists between units and

settings both in quality and quantity of supervision. Although

most workers in all but one SYC team said they received at least

some supervision in March 1976 (see Table 32), residential workers

in April 1978 were not very satisfied. In our analysis of 30

child care workers' responses a to the adequacy of supervision,

37.3 percent of the CCW's felt supervision was adequate or at

least good enough; the remaining 63.3 percent said supervision

occurred infrequently and was of inadequate quality.

Furthermore, the focus of supervision varied greatly. In

March 1976 workers said supervision ranged from spontaneous, non-

directional talking to specific discussion of treatment issues

about youths and personal and professional growth (Reitsma and

Brill, 1977, p. 30). Two years later, counsellors were saying

that: "Supervision has improved greatly, but I would like to

see more direct, personal supervision"; "Supervision has been very

inconsistent because of many changes in personnel"; "Supervision

is irregular and of inconsistent quality".

In summary, opportunities for consultation and sharing in

supervision varied considerably over time and between units.

Residential workers were least satisfied. The important point

is that even though management may believe that workers are given

supervision, a substantial proportion of workers do not feel they

a Questionnaire given out in May 1978 by the Child Care Counsellors

Committee, E. King, Chairman.

1 43

receive it. It is likely that both management and frontline

personnel do not have common expectations about supervision.

For instance, a workermay not feel an informal "chat" is super-

vision. Secondly, supervision may not be reaching some workers

as the approach is inappropriate. Throughout this report

comments have been made concerning the personality characteristics

of a worker which indicate how best to "work with the worker". A

lower Conceptual Level worker needs much more directive, advice-

giving supervision than a high Conceptual Level individual who

would benefit more from creative, mutual exploration supervision.

Table 32

Amount of Time Spent in Supervision (March 1976) a

Hours of Supervision each Month

Team No. of

Respondents Mean Median Range

Total 39 8.9 6. 0 o-4 0

Residence 1 6 9 7.5 3 - 30 2 6 o o o 3 5 6 6 4- 8 4 6 2.7 1.5 o- 8

Community 6 5 9 8 4-13 7 3 6 6 4-8

Group Homes

9 10

2 20 20 16-24 4 19 9 8-4o

Source: Reitsma, 1976, p. 30.

144

An individual who tends to "repress" or absorb information needs

guidance to examine, not avoid the implications of anxiety-

provoking information. Baldwin's research (1974) would also

indicate that repressers expect fairly formal, structured, task-

focused supervision sessions. On the other hand, a person who

worries and "sensitizes" needs assistance in integrating

information rather than overloading. Therefore, for the working

environment to be supportive to staff, there needs to be

adequate supervision conducted in a style appropriate to the

needs and expectations of each worker.

Team Characteristics

Job expectations and supervision are two of the more "formal"

aspects of an individual's working environment. As SYC's

organization is decentralized and the units are fairly autonomous,

an individual's working milieu is substantially influenced by the

atmosphere, cohesiveness, and supportiveness of his team. This

is especially true for residential and group home workers, as

good team work is essential in 24-hour group living situations.

Five times SYC teams were asked to characterize their team

milieus on Moos.' and Humphrey's Group Environment Scale (1974).

The items of the questionnaire make up ten scales which are grouped

into three dimensions: Relationship, Personal Growth, and System

Maintenance and Change. In Environments Facilitating Change, Brill

(1978a) describes the scales and the findings in detail. For our

purposes, Table 33 summarizes the overal team atmosphere in each

of SYC's five residential units. (At the time of writing, analysis

of the data on other SYC teams was not available.)

111.1 1111111 MS IIle OM MI all am ire 1•1111 Me OM

Table 33

Overall Working Milieu of SYC Residential Teams

Team

Scale 1 2 3 4 5

SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Relationship Cohesion Leader Support Expressiveness

8.2 2.0 5.4 3.3 8.5 1.5 8.3 1.6 7.8 2.0

6.9 2.5 4.9 3.7 8.3 1.6 8.5 1.0 7.9 1.1

6. 0 1.4 5.6 2.2 7.1 1.4 6.1 1.9 6.4 1.7

Personal Growth Independence 7.5 1.6 6.7 1.5 7.5 1.2 7.7 1.5 7.6 1.0 Task Orientation 8.2 1.7 7.4 1.9 8.2 1.3 8.0 1.0 7.2 1.5 Self-Discovery 4.2 1.7 4.7 2.6 5.5 2.3 5.5 1.4 5.7 1.9 Anger and Aggression 2.9 2.2 6.4 2.0 3.3 1.7 3.5 2.1 5.0 2.0

System Maintenance Order & Organization 7.4 2.3 5.0 2.7 7.1 2.0 6.0 2.3 4.9 2.5 Leader Control 4.5 1.7 2.9 2.0 4.3 1.4 3.9 1.7 4.7 2.3 Innovation 5.1 1.8 5.1 1.8 4. 0 2.8 5.8 1.9 7.4 1.2

No. of Administrations

No. of Respondents

5 4 5 5 3

37 27 4 0 42 26

146

The working milieu of all the teams was characterized by high

Task Orientation, that is, a priority was placed on getting the

job done. The goal of personal growth and discovery was rated as

much less important. The freedom to act independently and in an

innovative way was average to above average in all the teams.

On the relationship dimension of Cohesion, Leader Support,

and Expressiveness, it is striking that Team 2, who had the least

favourable scores and the greatest variability in scores

(indicating marked changes in the working atmosphere and/or

differences in team members' perceptions) was the team that had

the highest turnover of staff. Conversely, Team 3 members

consistently rated their working milieu as supportive and cohesive;

their overall scores on the relationship scales were higher than

the other teams and they had the lowest runover rate. Figure 10

clearly illustrates this relationship.

Two other characteristics of the team's milieus are worth

noting: the two teams with the higher order and organization

scores had the lower anger and aggression. A relationship

between high anger and aggression (which indicates that hostile

feelings and criticisms are openly expressed) and lower order

and organization in a milieu has been previously noted by Duncan

and Brill (1977) in their study of group home milieus. It is

feasible that workers (and youths) become more dissatisfied and

critical when team purposes and processes are unclear and contra-

dictory.

High

Low

2 3 1 4

Figure 10

Rough Presentation of Relationship between Supportive Team Milieu and Turnover a

147

Team

Supportive Working Milieu

• , Turnover

a For Team Milieu data see Table 33; for Turnover figures see

Table 27 and Figure 8.

Although our information cannot prove a causal link between

non-supportive working milieu and low staff morale or high

turnover, the various pieces of data strongly suggest that

residential workers are more likely to remain in a unit, and both

they and their clients will be more satisfied if the working

environment is reasonably orderly, purposeful, challenging, and

supportive. Satisfaction does • ot necessarily lead to effective

i48

treatment. However, youth and staff dissatisfaction and high

staff turnover will certainly not promote effective treatment

conditions for SYC youths.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, and IMPLICATIONS

149

Summary

Shawbridge Youth Centers cares for 250 anglophone delinquent

boys and girls in its residential, group home, and community

center facilities. The Agency's philosophy of differential

classification and treatment of youth, as influenced primarily by

the 1-Level classification system, and secondarily by the

Conceptual Level Matching Model, has led to a clearly specified

policy of selecting different staff types and "matching" worker

and youth personality characteristics.

This research on staff characteristics aimed to learn to

what extent SYC fulfills the specific staffing needs inherent

in its commitment to differential treatment, and what factors

would increase the effectiveness and efficiency of individuals

selected to work for the Agency. The following five points

summarize our findings:

(1) Description of Staff. During 1976 and 1977, 137 individuals

filled the supervisor, community caseworker, residential child care

counsellor, and group home houseparent positions in SYC's 13 open

treatment uni ts. Generally, SYC hired young, reasonably qualified

and relatively mobile men and women. Three-quarters of the workers

had formal certification, mostly in the social science discipline.

One-quarter of the group was involved in obtaining certification;

almost one-half had participated in staff development courses in

the last six months.

Seventy-five percent of the workers were previously employed

before coming tb SYC; of these, the majority held jobs in the

150

"helping" profession.

SYC workers remained with the Agency approximately two years,

and in their present units, only one year.

The majority of the workers had an openness to the treatment

approaches appropriate for SYC youth types as measured by the

Jesness' Staff Preference Study. Over 50 percent of the workers

were average in their ability to conceptualize and integrate

information and experience as rated by Hunt's measure of

Conceptual Level; one-fifth were above average. Response to

anxiety and stress was normal for the vast majority of workers

(using Byrne's measure of Progression-Sensitization).

(2) Staff Change and Development. When the characteristics

of the SYC staff working in March 1976 were compared with those

of individuals working in October 1977, the statistical analysis

indicated only minor changes in the composite profile of the

staff group. That is, workers' levels of education, experience,

general aptitude, personal preferences, and time with the Agency

had not changed. One interpretation of these findings is that

overall there was minimal professional development in the SYC

staff group. A second interpretation is that turnover of workers

at SYC was quite high. Further examination indicated both

interpretations are correct. Staff turnover was high, and the

changes in the individuals who remained were not positive; in

fact, these workers' ability to conceptualize and handle stress

had decreased significantly over time.

151

(3) Appropriate Assignment of Staff. The second aspect of

SYC's staffing policy, that is, the appropriate assignment of

selected staff according to youth needs and job demands, was

partially implemented. Although many significant differences in

personality and professional characteristics were noted between

the chief staff position in each setting (child care counselors in

residence, group home parents in group homes and community workers

in project centers), there were few differences between the teams

within two of the three treatment settings. Only the two community

teams had distinctive and different worker profiles.

When the appropriateness of worker assignment to particular

youths was examined in the context of 1-Level theory, we found

that almost 50 percent of the community and group home youths

had matched workers; the remaining youths had "in-between"

(unmatched) workers and none had a mismatched worker. However,

only 15 percent of residential youths had matched primary workers,

while 30 percent had mismatched ones.

This picture changes substantially if worker appropriateness

is considered in the light of Hunt's theoretical Conceptual Level

Matching Model. Then, almost 50 percent of the youths had matched

workers and less than one-fifth were in mismatched relationships.

Another important and disturbing finding was that one-third

of the sample youths did not have a primary worker for longer

than four months. That is, these youths either had several

workers for various periods of time, due to case transfer or

15 2

worker turnover, or they did not stay in a unit long enough to

make a significant connection with a worker. (This excludes the

change of workers that usually occurs when a youth transfers

from residence to a group home or community setting.) The factors

that lead to this situation need attention, especially as an

important tenet of SYC's treatment philosophy is the quality of

the individual relationship between a youth and 'his/her worker.

Staff turnover and program changes prevent almost one in three

youths from participating in this essential aspect of treatment.

(4) Characteristics of "Good" Workers. Besides examining the

implementation of SYC's special staffing policy, an exploration

was conducted into general factors influencing individual's work

with SYC's youths. In the first place, a comparison of several

types of staff groups helped to isolate certain personal and

professional characteristics which could be useful in the

selection of basically "good" workers. An interrelated set of

characteristics were found which included the following:

( 1) Less than average personal anxiety;

( 2) Higher than average ability to conceptualize and

integrate information;

( 3) Relevant educational background and continuing

interest in staff development;

( 4) Experience in the social services field;

( 5) Above average satisfaction'and pleasure in work as a

helping agent;

153

( 6) Marital status as one indication of an individual's

possible mobility;

( 7) Socially desirable qualities such as patience,

sensitivity, and resourcefulness;

( 8) Ability to understand the subtle and motivating

dynamics of youths' behaviors;

( 9) Intellectual creativeness;

(10) Comfortability with innovative approaches to helping.

(5) Factors Influencing Turnover Rate. One marked and

disconcerting characteristic of the complete SYC staff group was

the turnover rate. Over three-quarters of the workers who were

with the Agency in March of 1976 had either transferred or resigned

before October 1977. Also, one- third of the people hired to

fill vacant and new positions had also left or transferred before

October. Turnover was higher in the residential and group home

settings than in the community.

To help explain the high turnover rate, we explored both

personality and environmental influences. The analysis of the

personality and professional differences between "Stayers" and

"Leavers" indicated that if the Agency wants to hire individuals

who will in all likelihood remain for approximately two years in

a unit, experienced, mature l ligh CL , personally confident, and

optimistic individuals should be considered.

154

The environmental influences which appeared to have some

effect on staff stability and satisfaction included (a) regular

supervision in a style appropriate to a person's needs and

learning patterns; (h) clear job expectations and principles of

treatment; and (c) a supportive, cohesive, task-oriented working

milieu. High turnover, low staff morale, and low youth satisfaction

(which has been related to higher self-reported delinquency by

Brill and Reitsma, 1978) were more prominent in units with minimal

supervision and an inconsistent, relatively unsupportive team

atmosphere.

Conclusions and Implications

(1) Staff Selection. Shawbridge Youth Centers hires reasonably

qualified individuals who stay for one to two years in a given

treatment unit. Certain characteristics have been identified

that could reliably predict workers who are basically competent,

and capable of working for relatively long periods of time with at

least several types of youths.

These findings have obvious implications for the selection

and supervision of SYC staff. Some of these characteristics can

be identified by existing selection procedures. Other

characteristics, such as a person's conceptual ability, can be

deduced from the results of the 20-minute Paragraph Completion

Measure. As conceptual ability was significantly related to

personal maturity, flexibility, and job stability of the persons

in our sample, this instrument would be a most helpful addition

to the selection procedures. Secondly, a shortened version of

155

Palmer's interview protocol and personality ratings would also

provide assistance in selecting competent, durable workers. The

more time-consuming specialized interview and rating procedures

would obviously give in-depth, specific "matching" information

in the context of I-Level theory.

(2) Caring for Staff. Not only do the findings have

implications for the selection of staff for SYC (and for other

treatment agencies), but the information also indicates how to

care for the caregiver". Good staff can be identified and

appropriately assigned. That is only the first step. People

cannot do an adequate, effective job if they are not cared for

and supported. Elements of good care include: regular supervision

in a manner appropriate to the individual; clarity of job

expectations and of treatment principles; a supportive, cohesive

team environment; and opportunity for professional and personal

development. As'ideal or even adequate staff cannot always be

found, especially when there is pressure to fill a position, it

is of particular importance that the working environment for

existing and future SYC staff be given close attention. Further-

more, changes in the working envi ronment will have a more

immediate impact, while the effects of a revised selection

procedure will be experienced at a later date.

(3) Staff Matching. One of the three theoretical pre-

requisites of the differential treatment process for maladjusted,

delinquent youth is the appropriate selection and assignment of

specific staff types. This is SYC's staffing policy.

15 6

Although the Agency makes no claims to match staff with

clients using CL theory, it is quite interesting to note that a

far greater percentage of youths in all units had a theoretically

matched worker according to this scheme than according to the I-

Level model. Appropriate assignment of "specialist" staff

according to the I-Level theory occurs in SYC's community treatment

unit, but not in the residential or group home units. Although

50 percent of the youths are served in the community units,

theoretically the more "needy", severely maladjusted youths who

require a stabilizing, "turning around" experience are put into

the residential units. Rather than having "matched" workers,

during the past two years residential youths were more likely to

have either an unmatched worker, or one considered very

inappropriate to their needs (from the point of view of I-Level

theory).

It is important to recognize that this report has not evaluated

the usefulness of matching by either of these two theoretical

models. This evaluation is reported in Brill's report on

Factors Contributing to Client Change (1978). As well as comparing

the relative merits of matching workers to clients using these

models it also looks at the usefulness of matching clients to

the program environment rather than to individual workers. Even

without these results, this report suggests there are many aspects

of SYC policy regarding selection and supervision of its staff

which need to be immediately addressed.

157

In conclusion, it is evident that there exists grave problems

at SYC with regard to several aspects of hiring, placement, and

maintaining suitable staff to deal with their delinquent clients.

Rather well qualified staff are hired but do not stay; the very

best are placed with those youths who should theoretically need

them the least. In the residential and group home settings, it

seems clear that the working conditions contribute very

substantially to the high turnover rate, which may in turn be

reflected in high client dissatisfaction and further program

instability. Some implications are abundantly clear: satisfaction

among staff and clients must be increased and turnover must be

substantially decreased.

An immediate increase in the amount and specificity of guidance

and coordination for staff regarding all aspects of treatment

activities would appear to be imperative. Over the longer term,

creation of teams composed of the most versatile, conceptually

complex individuals available would appear to facilitate team

functioning as well as to heighten each team's ability to work

with a variety of youths — especially those who are most maladjusted.

We suggest that although the specialized selection and

matching of staff is an admirable goal, it is an unrealistic and

inappropriate goal if basic selection and working environment

issues are not addressed. In our opinion, the conscientious

selection, development, training, and "caring for" competent

individuals is a more feasible and important objective at this

158

point in SYC's existence. We recommend Shawbridge Youth Centers

take smaller steps in designing and implementing its staffing

policies. Walking comes before running.

il

1

REFERENCES

160

REFERENCES

Adams, S., and Hopkinson, C. aj Eveluation of the Intensive Supervision Caseload Project (Report No. 12). Los Angeles: County Probation Department, May, 1964.

Baldwin, B. A. Self-Disclosure and expectations for psychotherapy

in repressors and sensitizers. Journal of Counselling

Psychology, 1974, 21, 455-456.

Batshaw, M. (President). Rapport du Comité d'étude sur la

réadaptation des enfants et adolescents placés en centre d'accueil (vol. 2 et Annexe 3a). Québec, P.Q.: Ministère des Affaires Sociales, Novembre, 1975.

Bélanger, P. L'intervention des éducateurs à Boscoville (Rapport No. 17). Montréal: Université de Montréal, Groupe de Recherche sur l'inadaptation Juvénile, Août, 1977.

Berry, J. Daily Experience in Residential Life. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975.

Bettelheim, B. Love is Not Enough. London: Collier-MacMillan,

1950. .

Bowlby, J. Child Care and the Growth of Love. London: Penguin

Books, 1953.

Brill, R. Effects of Residential Program Structure and Conceptual

Level in Treatment of Delinquent Boys, Unpublished

doctoral dissertation. University of Toronto, 1977.

Brill, R. Environments Facilitating Treatment (Final Report No. 4). Montreal: Université de Montréal, Groupe de Recherche sur l'Inadaptation Juvénile, 1978.

Brill, R. Factors Related to Client Change (Final Report No. 5). Montreal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, in process.

Brill, R.,and Reitsma, M. Action-Research in a Treatment_AmmI for Delinquent Youth (Final Report No. 1). Montreal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, May, 1978.

Bryne, D. Repression-Sensitization as a dimension of personality.

In B. A. Maher (Ed.) Pro ress in Ex erimental Personality Research Vol. 1), New York: Academic

Press, 1964.

Bryne, D., Barry, J., and Nelson, D. Relation of the revised Repression-Sensitization scale to measures of self-

description. Psychological Reports, 1963, 13, 323-334.

161•

Carr, J. E. Differentiation similarity of patient and therapist and the outcome of psychotherapy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 76, 361-369.

Cusson, M. Boscoville: Portrait d'un milieu de rééducation (Rapport technique No. 15). Montréal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, Novembre 1977.

Dinnage, R., and Kellmer, M. L. Residential child care: Facts and Fallacies. New York: Humanities Press, 1967.

Feder, C. Z. Relationship of Repression-Sensitization to Adjustment Status, Social Desirability, and Acquiescence Response Set. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31, 401 - 406.

Gardiner, G. S., and Schroder, H. M. Reliability and validity of the Paragraph Completion Test: Theoretical and Empirical Notes. Psychological Reports, 1972, 31, 959-962.

Grant, J., and Grant, M. Q. A group dynamics approach to the treatment of nonconformists in the Navy. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1959, 322, 126 - 135.

Grenny, G. W. The Relationship of Treater Personality to MtIbods of Bqhm1.21- 011ageu_FLIjambLofjpifferential Treq1Me.M.1_111_1lig_Iliit2=1.§_ID.M.11_AMIL2.111.Y. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Berkeley: University of California, 1971.

Harvey, O. J., Hunt, D. E., and Schroder, H. M. Conceptual

Systems and Personality Organization. New York: Wiley, 1961.

Harvie, E.,and Brill, R. Client Characteristics (Report No. 3) Montreal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, March, 1977.

Harvie, E., and Brill, R. Final Report on Client Characteristics

(Report No. 3). Montreal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, 1978.

Heck, E. J., and Davis, C. S. Differential expression of empathy in a counselling analogue. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 1973, 20, 101-104.

Hunt, D. E., Butler, L. F., Noy, J. E., and Rossor, M. E. Assessing Conceptual Level by the Paragraph Completion Method. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971.

162

Hunt, D. E. Matching Models in Education: The Coordination of

Teaching Methods with Student Characteristics. Toronto:

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1971.

Hunt, • E. Conceptual Level Theory and research as guides to

Educational Practice. Interchange, 1977-78, 8(4), 78-90.

Jung, C. G. Man and His Symbols. New York: Doubleday & Company,

Inc., 1964, 58-66.

Krohne, H. W. The influences of defense mechanisms on complex

information processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Princeton, N.J.: University of Princeton,

1970.

Krohne, H. W., and Schroder, H. M. Anxiety Defense's Complex Information Processing. Unpublished Manuscript, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University, 1972.

LeBlanc, Hanna, W., and Brill R. An Evaluation Study Proposal of a Differential Treatment Program at the Boys' Farm and Training School. Shawbridge, March, 1975.

LeBlanc, M., and Brill, R. Revised Boys'Farm Research Project. Document submitted to Boys'Farm Management. Montreal: August, 1976.

-

Legendre, G. Méthodologie d'analyse de la structure des groupes

à Boscoville (Rapport No. 9). Montréal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, 1975.

McLachlan, J. F. C. Therapy strategies personality orientation and recovery from alcoholism. Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal, 1974, 19, 25-30.

Ménard, R. Identité des éducateurs de Boscoville (Rapport technique

No. 4). Montréal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, Août, 1974.

Monsky, S. F. Staffing of local authority residential homes for children. The Social Survey. 1963, 200-205.

Moos, R. J., Meel, P. M., and Humphrey, B. Combined Preliminary Manual: Family, Work and Group Environment Scales. Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 1974.

163

Murphy, P. D., and Brown, M. M. Conceptual systems and teaching

styles. American Educational Research Journal, 1970,

7, 529-540.

Palmer, T. Types of Probation Officers and Types of Youth on

Probation: Their Views and Interactions. Los Angeles:

University of Southern California, Youth Studies

Center, 1963.

Palmer, T. Types of treaters and types of juvenile offenders.

Youth Authority Quarterly, Fall 1965, 18(3).

. Personality Characteristics and Professional

Orientations of Five Groups of Community Treatment

Project Workers: A Preliminary Report on Differences

Among Treaters. California: Community Treatment

Project, 1967a.

Palmer, T. Relationships between Needs of Youngsters and

Characteristics of Treaters: Illustrations of Factors

which Bear Upon Matching. Paper presented at the

National Meeting of the Big Brothers of America,

Anaheim, California, June 21, 19671).

Palmer, T. An Overview of Matchint in the Communit Treatment

Project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of

the Western Psychological Association, San Diego,

California, March 30, 1968a.

Palmer, T. Revision by Howard, G. Rating Inventory for the

Selection and Matching of Treatment Personnel,

California: California Treatment Project, 19684,1972.

Palmer, T. The Group Home Project (Final Report). California

Youth Authority and National institute of Mental

Health (Grant No. MH 14979), 1972.

Palmer, T. The community treatment project in perspective:

1961-1973. Youth Authority Quarter1/, 1973, 26(3).

Palmer, T. Recent Research Findings in I-Level. Paper presented

to the International Differential Treatment Association, Rensellerville, New York, March 28, 1977a.

Palmer, T. Matching of Workers and Clients: Some Observations

on Dynamics. Presentation at the I.D.T.A. Conference,

Rensellerville, New York, March 29, 19776.

Palmer,

164

Reitsma, M., and Brill, R. Staff Characteristics (Report No. 2). Montréal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, December, 1977.

Reitsma, M., and Brill, R. Staff Tasks,(Report No. 1). Montréal: Université de Montréal, GRIJ, September, 1977.

Silverman, J. Personality Trait and "Perceptual Style" Studies of the Psychotherapists of Schizophrenic Patients. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1967, 145, 5-15.

Sullivan, C. E., Grant, M. Q., and Grant, J. D. The Development of Interpersonal Maturity: Applications to Delinquency. Psychiatry, 1957, 20, 373-385.

Sundland, R. M., and Barker, E. N. The orientations of psycho-

therapists. J. Consult. Psychol., 1962, 26, 201-212.

Vinter, R. D., cd. Time Out - A National Study of Juvenile Correctional Programs. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections, 1976.

Walther, R. The Evaluation of Youth Workers in Institutions for Juvenile Delinquents. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Denton, Texas, January, 1962.

Warren, M. Q. Interpersonal Maturity Level Classification: Juvenile. Diagnosis and Treatment of Low, Middle and High Maturity Delinquents. Sacramento, California: Department of Youth Authority, 1966.

Williams Committee. Caring for people: staffing in residential homes (National Council of Social Service Report). London; Allen g Unwin, 1967.

Wylie, R. An Alternative to Institutional Expansion (Boys' Farm and Training School, Shawbridge, Que.). A report prepared for a program approval submitted to the Department of Social Affairs, Que., April, 1972.

Wylie, R., and Hanna, W. Treating Delinquent Youth: The Boys' Farm (Shawbridge) Develops an I-Level Program. Review of the Childhood and Youth Welfare Services, March, 1971, 11(1).

APPENDICES

List of Appendices

Page

1. Description of Instruments 166

(a) Position Qualifications 167

(h) A Brief Description of the I-Level Classification System 169

(c) Research Interview Protocol 173

(d) Scale Items used to Assess SYC Workers' Personality Characteristics and Professional Orientations 176

(e) Description of Staff Intervention Subscales 181

2. Characteristics of SYC Staff: Initial Measurement 184

3. Characteristics of SYC Staff: Second Measurement 199

4. Analysis of Significant Differences between the Characteristics of SYC Staff at T . and T 2

214

5. Summary of the Significant Differences at T 2 between the SYC Staff in Different Settings, Positions, and Teams on Background and Personal Characteristics 230

6. SYC Staff Ratings on the "Treater-Matching" Interview Scales 236

7. SYC Staff Ratings on the Staff Intervention Scales 249

8. SYC Youths' Satisfaction with their Workers 258

9. Staff Turnover 261

10. Distribution of Workers and Youth in each Unit by I-Level and Conceptual Level 263

11. Comparison of the Characteristics of High and Lower Conceptual Level SYC Staff 270

12. Comparison of the Characteristics of Versatile and Non- Versatile SYC Staff 275

13. Comparison of the Characteristics of Stayers and Leavers 280

APPENDIX 1

Description of Instruments

166

1. Acceptance

2. Accomplishment

3. Acuteness

4. Administration

5. Attitude

6. Capacity

7. Creativeness-

8. Dependability

9. Drive

10. Flexibility

POSITION QUALIFICATIONS a

1 67

Gains confidence of others; earns respect.

Effective use of time. Amount of work produced.

Mentally alert. Understands instructions, explanations, unusual situations and circumstances quickly.

Organizing own work and that of others. Delegation, follow-up, control of position activities.

Enthusiastic, constructive, optimistic, loyal.

Mental depth and breadth; reservoir of mental ability.

Original ideas. An inquiring mind. Fresh approaches to problems.

Meets schedules and deadlines. Adheres to instructions and policy.

Works with energy. Not easily discouraged. Basic urge to get things done.

Adaptable. Adjusts rapidly to changing conditions. Copes with the unexpected.

Analysis & Judgement---Critical observer. Breaks problems into components; weighs and relates; arrives at sound conclusions.

11. I 12. Breadth of Knowledge---Range of interests. Use of information

and concepts from other related fields.

Developes competent successors and replacements.

14. Human Relations Skill--Ability to motivate people and get them to work together.

15. Intellectual Ability---Ability to solve problems, adapt to new situations, analyze.

16. Personal Characteristics The total of temperament characteristics

bearing on job functioning.

a Walther, 13()2, 102-103.

13. Developing Others

29. Verbal Facility

30. Vision

168

POSITION QUALIFICATIONS (Cont'd.)

17. Position Performance---1-10w well the individual carries out

the duties of present job.

18. Self-Confidence Assured bearing. Inner security.

Self-reliant. Takes new developments

in stride.

19. Self-Control Calm and poised under pressure.

20. Technical Knowledge The knowledge of functional skills

needed to carry out position

requirements.

21. Initiative Self-starting. Prompt to take hold

of a problem. Sees and acts on new

opportunities.

22. Leadership Receives loyalty and cooperation

from others. Manages and motivates

others to full effectiveness.

23. Motivation Has well planned goals. Willingly

assumes greater responsibilities. Realistically ambitious.

24. Objectivity Has an open mind. Keeps emotional

or personal interests from influencing decisions.

25. Planning Looking ahead. Developing programs

and work schedules.

26. Quality Accuracy and thoroughness. High

standards.

27. Sensitivity Has a "feel" for people; recognizes

their problems. Quick to pick up

"the way the wind is blowingTM. Is

considerate of others.

28. Socialness Makes friends easily. Works "comfortably" with others; has sincere interest in people.

Articulate. Communicative - generally

understood by persons at all levels.

Has foresight; sees new opportunities.

Appreciates, but not bound by tradition or custom.

169

A Brief Description of the 1-Level Classification System a

The classifications which are used at the Boys' Farm are one

part of the Sullivan, Grant, and Grant theory of individual

development (1957). This theory distinguishes seven levels of

increasing interpersonal maturity, known as "1-Levels". Most

adolescent delinquents are at either a second (1 2 or lower), third

(13 or middle) or fourth (I

4 or higher) level of matui-ity. Each

1-Level refers to the dominant ways an individual interprets his

envi ronment.

Additional distinctions within each of the three main 1-Levels

differentiate noteworthy ways in which delinquent youths

express their underlying needs when interacting with their external

environment. In all, nine delinquent subtypes were established.

Each subtype appears to be associated with certain broad,

recurring patterns of development during childhood and adolescence.

Thus, in the case of any given youth, delinquency is viewed as an•

expression of one of the nine broad patterns of need-responde

development. In general, then, each of these classifications is

used as a way of focusing-in on "where the client is at", both in

terms of his overall development and that of his outstanding or

distinguishing modes of adaptation to his environment.

The following is a capsule account of the 1 2 , 1 3 , and 1 4

maturity levels, together with the nine respective subtypes.

a This account is paraphrased from: Palmer, T. B. "California's

Community Treatment Project in 1969 : An Assessment of its Relevance and Utility to the Field of Corrections. d Prepared for the U.S. Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, 1969.

• 17 0

Maturity Level Two (1 2 ): An individual whose overall devel-

opment has not progressed beyond this level views events and

objects primarily as sources of short-term pleasure or else

frustration. He distinguishes among individuals largely in terms

of whether they give or withhold, he has little conception of

interpersonal refinement beyond this. He has a very low level of

frustration -- tolerance together with a poor capacity to under-

stand many of the basic reasons for the behavior or attitudes of

others toward him. The delinquent subtypes are:

1. Asocial, Aggressive (Aa) - often responds with active

demands, open resistance, "malicious mischief", or verbal and

physical aggression when frustrated by others.

2. Asocial, Passive (Ap) - often responds with passive

resistance, complaining, pouting, or marked withdrawal when

frustrated by others.

I

Maturity Level Three (I3): More than the 1 2 an 1

3 individual ig '

IIrecognizes that aspects of his behavior have a good deal to do with

whether or not he will get what he wants from others. An 1 youth 3

interacts primarily in terms of oversimplified rules and formulas. It

He only dimly understands the feelings and motives of other

individuals. More often than the 1 4 he assumes that peers and

'

II adults operate on a rule-oriented or intimidation/manipulation

I/ ("power") basis. The delinquent subtypes are:

1. Immature Conformist (Cfm) - usually fears and responds

with strong compliance and occasional passive resistance to peers

and adults whom he thinks have "the power" at the moment. He sees

171

himself as deficient in social "know how", and usually expects

rejection.

2. Cultural Conformist (Cfc) - likes to think of himself as

delinquent and tough. He typically responds with conformity to

delinquent peers or to a specific reference group.

3. Manipulator (Mp) - often attempts to undermine or

circumvent the power of authority figures, and/or usurp the power

role for himself. He typically does not wish to conform to peers

or adults.

Maturity Level Four (1 4 ): More than the 13

, an 1 4 individual

has internalized one or more sets of standards in terms of which

he frequently attempts to judge the behavior and attitudes of

himself as well as others. He recognizes the interpersonal

interactions in which individuals attempt to influence one another

by means other than promises of monetary reward, compliance,

manipulation, etc. He shows moderate to much ability to understand

underlying reasons for behavior and has some ability to respond

to complex expectations of others on a moderately long-term basis.

The delinquent subtypes are:

1. Neurotic, Acting-Out (Na) - often makes active attempts

to deny and distract himself as well as others from his conscious

feelings of inadequacy, rejection, or self-condemnation. He

sometimes does this by verbally attacking others or by "gaming"

and conning.

172

2. Neurotic Anxious (Nx) - frequently manifests various

symptoms of emotional disturbance -- psychosomatic complaints,

etc. -- which result from conflicts produced by feelings of failure, ,

e

3. Situational-Emotional Reaction (Se) - responds to

immediate family, social, or personal crisis by acting-out --

although his childhood and pre-adolescent development seem fairly

normal in most respects.

4. Cultural Identifier (Ci) - expresses his identification

with an anti-middle class or with a non-middle class value system

by occasionally acting-out his delinquent bel iefs and/or by

"living-out" in commonly unacceptable ways. Often sees himself

as competent and, sometimes, as a leader among peers.

These subtype classifications have undergone continuous

operational and conceptual refinement since 1961. While many

CTP youths show few changes in I-Level over a period of years,

change from one level to the next higher level is not at all rare

— at least among I2

1 s and I3

1 s. The treatment plan and overall

operation must be flexible enough to reflect changes and growth

which take place among youths — in I-Level and otherwise — while

in the program.

inadequacy, or conscious guilt.

173

Research Interview Protocol a

SYC Research Project

1. What basic goals, and what kind of intermediate or secondary goals, do You set for yourself when working with youngsters?

2. What Boys' Farm policies, practices, and modes of organiza-

tion are you most satisfied with - in that they seem to facilitate your work and the achievement of your goals - and which ones you are the most dissatisfied with - in that they seem to interfere with your work and the achievement of your goals?

3. What policies and procedures of your unit facilitate your work and which ones hinder the achievement of your goals?

4. I would like you to think of the best and worst supervisors

you have ever had or known. Would you briefly describe what these individuals were like and also tell me why you think one was the best and the other the worst?

5. (a) What would you say a youngster does and does not have a right to expect from you?

(h) How about the community - police, probation, and so on - what does it have and not have a right to expect from you?

6. What do you regard as the most crucial factors contributing to the development and persistence of delinquency?

7. What do you regard as the key ingredient(s) involved in bringing about a youngster's behavioral or attitudinal change in a positive direction?

8. What are the broad outlines and methods involved in your treatment-approach with most youngsters? That is, what general strategy (or strategies) do you usually prefer to follow, and what basic techniques do you find to be helpful in carrying out this strategy?

9. How is your approach influenced by your work and responsibil-ities to the client group as a whole?

a Palmer, T. Open-Ended Interview Schedule with Parole Agents.

CTP, 1961, 1967. Revisions by M. Reitsma and R. Brill, July, 1976.

174

10. What are the general strategies and methods involved in

your team's treatment approach with most clients?

11. How do you see your approach and methods in relation to

those of the rest of the team?

12. The next two or three questions will try to get at certain differences encountered by nearly everyone who works with

youngsters. The first question is: What kind of youngsters

do you find the easiest to work with? ... Why do you think

they are easiest to wurk with? ... And what basically do you

do or not do with these youngsters - as a result of their

being easier to work with - that you do differently with other

individuals?

13. What kind of youngsters do you find the most difficult to

work with? Again, why do you think this is so? And what basically do you do or not do with these youngsters - as a

result of their being more difficult to work with - that you do differently with other individuals?

14. Are there other groups or types of youngsters whom you have

encountered in your work who seem to require rather definite modifications so far as your general approach or goals are concerned?

15. What qualities and characteristics (personal, educational,

and so forth) do you feel are really essential for doing a

good job as a CCC, CW, Coordinator, Houseparent?

16. I would like you to think of the individual whom you consider the worst CCC, CW, Coordinator you have ever known.

Would you briefly describe that person and tell me why you would say he (or she) was the worst.

Note. As you probably can see, one of the things this interview is working toward involves getting a fairly detailed or well-rounded picture of SYC workers, and of yourself, as a functioning personality. You'll notice that most of the questions thus far - and some of the questions later on - concentrate on how you as an individual relate to your work, on your professional views and approaches, and so on. Now to help me get another kind of perspective on you as an individual and on the experiences of individuals who go into this kind of work, I'm going to ask some questions which have a somewhat different and in some ways more personal focus.

175

17. What aspects of your upbringing, your adolescence, your

academic training, and so on, do you see as contributing to

your work as a helping person? Would you share a little

about your upbringing, your childhood and adolescence?

The themes? The issues?

18. In what main ways would you compare or contrast your own adolescence to that of the youngsters you usually work with? The second part of this question is: Do you think some of these similarities and/or differences (that you mentioned) have influenced the way you work with these individuals - the approaches you use or the goals that you work toward?

19. How or why did you enter this type of work? What are the main satisfactions you find in your work? What are the main dissatisfactions?

20. What do you consider to be the chief factor - professional, personal, or otherwise - that limits you in your work, so far as your goals with youngsters are concerned? And how do you see this as actually influencing the work that you do?

21. What do you feel was the most difficult treatment-decision you ever had to make, and what was it that made that decision especially difficult?

22. What do you feel was the poorest treatment-decision you ever made - or theone that you regretted most later on - and how did it come about?

Note. Now the tone will be on some broader ideas and goals.

23. Professionally, what plans or goals do you have for the future?

24. In the years that you've been a CCC, Social Worker, CW, Coordinator, do you feel that you as a person have changed in ways that you might not have changed if you had not been a CCW, CW, Social Worker, or Coordinator?

25. If you were head of the Ministry of Social Services, what overall changes would you want to see brought about as far as the services for delinquents was concerned? Just as an example, could you rough-out the type of long-range plans and/or perhaps the kind of immediate plans and priorities that you might think most seriously of trying to establish?

26. What are the needs and wants of most youth, and generally, how do you feel society, parents, community, satisfy the wants and needs of most youngsters?

176

Scale Items Used to Assess SYC Workers' Personality Characteristics and Professional Orientationsa

1. Socially desirable qualities

- pleasant (VS unpleasant) - friendly (VS unfriendly) - affected (VS unaffected) - patient (VS impatient) - interesting (VS uninteresting) - self-confident (VS lacking in self-confidence) - resourceful (VS helpless) - sensitive (VS misses meanings) - feels comfortable with youngsters (VS feels ill at ease)

2. Attributes most adolescents like

- has sense or humor (VS humorless) - has "been around" (VS rather sheltered) - enthusiastic (VS bored) - quick, sharp mentality (VS intelligent but cautious, more

roundabout) - understanding of youths' wortd; can talk their language; is

"up" on things (VS is not) - enjoys youths' activities (hobbies, sports, etc.) (VS not

very interested in them)

3. Quick, sharp mentality

- inquisitive (VS uninquisitive) - conceptually original (VS unoriginal, imitative) - intelligent - intellectually flexible (VS intellectually rigid) - has a broad perspective (VS does not)

4. Boldness •

- outspoken (VS reticent to express his views) - direct (VS indirect) - would "shoot the works" if he felt it necessary

5. Forcefulness

- overdramatizes (VS underplays) - conveys quaLity of force, ardour (VS passive, lethargic) - conveys sense of haste, urgency, impatience (VS ease,

leisure, calm) - typically makes relative or qualified statements (VS

absolute or unconditional statements) - displays emotional ups and downs (VS stability of moods) - rapid pace of speech (VS slow pace of speech)

a Paimer, T., and Howard, G. Items of the Rating Inventory for

the Selection and Matching of Treatment Personnel. CTP, 1968, 1972. Revisions by M. Reitsma and R. Brill, July, 1976, and were discussed with and approved by Palmer, October 18, 1977.

177

6. Socially undesirable qualities

- stubborn (VS pliable) - pleasant (VS unpleasant) - modest (VS immodest) - tactful (VS tactless) - has a temper (VS does not) - patient (VS impatient)

7. Covert/overt aggression

- friendly (VS unfriendly) - competitive (VS non-competitive) - aggressive (VS is not) - "asks for" submission from others (VS does not) - "asks for" conflict from others (VS does not)

- manipulates youths/clients (VS does not) - deprives youths/clients of things they want (VS does not) - vindictive, retaliative in relations with youths/clients

(VS is not) - threatening (VS non-threatening)

8. Past personal difficulties

- sees self as having overcome much personal struggle, conflict (VS not much)

- sees self as having gone through much personal struggle, conflict (VS not much)

9. Present personal troubles

- frightened (VS is not) - feels anxiety about his own life (VS does not) - self-depreciating (VS is not)

10. Moralistic orientation a

- has moralistic approach to job (VS pragmatic, expedient approach)

- wants to protect youths/clients against society (VS protect sociéty against youths/clients)

- views his role as: Policeman - rater's view of role: Policeman

11. Satisfaction with work

- enjoys his work (VS does not) - satisfied with his work (VS frustrated) - feels his work is or can be of value (VS disillusioned

with its value)

a Omitted item re Effect of Religious Beliefs due to insufficient

evidence base for a rating.

178

12. Satisfaction with agency/society a

- basically satisfied with own society (VS basically dissatisfied)

- critical of middle-class standards (VS accepting) - expresses dissatisfaction with the agency (VS expresses

satisfaction)

13. Familiarity with clients

- treats youths/clients in familiar manner (VS professionally dignified manner)

- views his role as: Friend - views his role as: Big Brother (or Big Sister) - sets the pace in interactions with youths/clients (VS

youths/clients set the pace) - rater's view of role: Friend - rater's view of role: Big Brother (or Big Sister)

14. Understanding and differentiation of clientsb

- differentiates between rejecting youths'/clients' behavjor and rejecting the youth/client as a person (VS does not differentiate)

- aware of his emotional reactions to youths/clients (VS not aware)

- feels, generally, people can be believed, taken at face value (VS does not)

- differentiates between behavioral and emotional changes in youths/clients (VS does not)

15. Use of self as a frame of reference c

- considers his adolescence similar to that of youths/ clients with whom he works (VS considers it different)

- giving known pleasures is a basic motivation for working with others

- believes youths need goals, experiences, emotional satisfactions similar to his own

-" assumes" youths really need to conquer "inner problems" similar to his own

a The original scales No. 12 Satisfaction with the World and

No. 20 Satisfaction with Agency were combined. When the original 138 item inventory was reduced to 105 items in 1972, two items remained to contribute to scale No 12, and only one item to scale No. 20.

b c Conceptually, two items (Nos. 99 and 100) from the original

scales Lack of Professional Sophistication, Self-Discipline (the title was reversed in our revised version) appeared more appropri-ate to the scale Use of Self which had only two items in the 1972 rating inventory. This re-arrangement of items permitted a clearer distinction between understanding youth and disciplining the use of one's own experiences and convictions in working with youth.

179

16. Concern with atmosphere

- explains why things are done or not done (VS does not) - has concern for creating proper atmosphere for the

relationship - tries to build youths'/clients' trust in himself/herself

- believes in importance of "confidentiality" (as a

significant factor in treatment or change) - accepts youths' feelings - believes in importance of "consistency" (as a significant

factor in treatment or change)

17. Concern with negative feelings

- believes in importance of working with anger (as a significant factor in treatment or change)

- believes it is crucial to work with "guilt" in treatment

- believes it is crucial to work with "aggression" in treatment

- believes it is crucial to work with "sex" in treatment

- "Contempt": Explicitly verbalizes, or otherwise manifests concern with, theme/concept of "contempt"

- "Defiance": Explicitly verbalizes, or otherwise manifests concern with, theme /concept of "defiance"

18. Inner Focus

- focuses upon youths/clients doing things (VS upon thinking about things)

- believes in importance of working with "anxiety" (as a

crucial factor in treatment or change)

- tries to clarify youth's striving§ and needs; increase self-

understanding. - tries to work with inner, emotional needs or desires

- believes in importance of building youths' self-confidence

(as a significant factor in treatment or change)

- tries to develop strong dependency relationships

lg. Firmness and final ity

- exacting (VS easy-going) - has tolerance for ambiguity (VS demands certainty)

- touch-minded (VS tender-minded)

- strict (VS lenient)

20. Orientation toward change and activity

- interested in adventure and excitement

- interested in security - prefers to move slowly with youths/clients (VS prefers to

move quickly) - focuses upon youths/clients doing things (VS upon thinking

about things) - important for him to feel youths/clients improve (VS not

important) - resigned to agency working conditions (VS trying to change

working conditions) - expects rapid, major (relatively permanent) changes in

youths in connection with treatment

1 No. 3.

180

20. Orientation (Cont'd.)

- believes in importance of "time" in developing a desirable

working relationshipa

21. Concern with authority and controls

- uses his authority with youths/clients (VS does not)

- tells youths/clients what to do and what not to do (VS does

not) - concerned with youths/clients as individuals (VS concerned

with laws and rules)

- "Obedience": explicitly verbalizes, or otherwise manifests

concern with, theme/concept of "obedience"

- "Punishing": explicitly verbalizes,or otherwise manifests concern with, theme/concept of "punishing"

a The original scale No. 13, Personal Involvement with

Youngsters, had only two items7-177777-177TD-7777737-7ontributed to the Moral Orientation scale. The remaining item (No. 52),

"Important for him to feel youth is improving" fitted into the Orientation toward change and activity. Therefore, we dropped original scale

181

DESCRIPTION OF STAFF INTERVENTION SUBSCALES

WORK WITH INDIVIDUALS

This section includes nine categories: knowledge, relationships, motivation, individualization, support, values, justice, indifference, and autonomy.

(1) Knowledge means the worker knows the problems and capabilities of the clients and he/she is aware of the effect of his/her interventions on the clients. This dimension also relates to the worker's ability to trans-mit this knowledge to other workers via clinical reports, unit logs, clinical files, etc. (10 items)

(2) Relationships. The worker is engaged in quality inter-personal relationships with the youth. He/she gets along well with the youths, is loved and respected by them, and can communicate easily with them,(10 items)

(3) Motivation. The worker is able to get the youths to pursue and to reach their goals. "Motivation" consists in convincing the youth to engage ina process that will lead him/her to real changes. This assumes that the worker trusts in the capabilities of the youths to change. (7 items)

(4) Individualization. The worker gives goals to the youths that are adapted to their levels of development, their capabilities, their interests and their problems. (5 items)

(5) Support. This includes the help and assistance of the worker who advises and directs the youth in his/her efforts to change. Furthermore, support means the worker's interventions are given at the right moment, answers the needs of the clients concerned, and produces the results hoped for. (9 items)

(6) Values. The worker approves and encourages the boys and girls who behave well, and who show progress toward their goals. (3 items)

(7) Justice. The "fair" worker is even-handed toward the

inappropriate behavior of the youths and establishes

consequences for inappropriate behavior. (6 items)

(8) Indifference. The behavior of the worker shows excessive tolerance towards unacceptable conduct. (3 items)

(9) Autonomy. The worker's interventions favour initiative,

autonomy, and independence in the youths. The staff

member lets the clients decide for themselves as often as possible and does not assist them when he/she feels they can overcome difficulties on their own. (9 items)

WORK WITH THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT

There are six scales that apply to community,

group home and cottage workers: work with the client and

his/her group, authority, free time activities, responsibilities, punctuality, and team work. Group meetings and child care needs are the two scales that apply more to residential workers in the group home and cottage units.

(10) Work with the Client and His/Her Group. The worker contributes to creating harmonious relationships among the youth in his/her living environment. He/she helps the youth to integrate into a group and get along with friends. He/she mediates conflicts and motivates the boys and girls to become more interdependent with one another and their friends. (7 items)

(11) Authority. The youths obey this worker. He/she can keep control of the situation during shifts, outings, etc.

(7 items)

(12) Free Time Activities. During evenings or weekends the worker organizes special activities. Secondly, he/she integrates these activities into the treatment goals of the youths. (4 items)

182

1 83

(13) Responsibilities. The worker gives responsibilities to the youths who can handl? them, and he/she helps them in exercising their responsibilities. (3 items)

(14) Punctuality. The worker is on time when attendance is required. (1 item)

(15) Team Work. The worker shares his/her skills, knowledge, suggestions and experience with the team. He/she supports the team process and helps to focus on the goals. (8 items)

(16) Group Meetings. The staff member directs and participates in group meetings in a valuable way. (2 items)

(17) Child Care Needs. The staff member organizes meals, wake- ups, and bedtimes well, and uses these times in a treatment-relevant way. (3 items)

a

1 I.

I

Appendix 2

Characteristics of

SYC Staff : Initial Measurement — March e 1976 (T1)

184

Table A

Sex of SYC Staff at T i

1 85

male Female Group N n

Total by position 64 46 71.9 18 28.1

Counsellor 27 21 77.8 6 22.2 Houseparent 14 7 50.0 7 50.0 Caseworker 12 8 66.7 4 33.3 Supervisor 11 10 90.9 1 9.1

Residential Teams 33 26 • 78.8 7 21.2

1 7 6 85.7 1 14.3 2 7 7 100.0 0 0.0 3 7 5 71.4 2 28.6 4 7 6 85.7 1 14.3 5 5 2 40.0 3 60.0

Community Teams 13 9 69.2 4 30.8

6 9 6 66.7 3 33.3

7 4 3 75.0 1 25.0

Group Home Teams 15 a (3)b 9 60.0 6 40.0

9 0 (3)

10 5 3 60.0 2 40.0

11 6 4 66.7 2 33.3

19 5 3 60.0 2 ' 40.0

a One supervisor coordinates two homes. He is included in each home and once in the total.

Numbers in parenthesis indicate missing cases.

186

I

Table 8

Marital Status of SYC Staff at T 1

1/

Single Married _U-5-S145.9-D:e II % A Group

Total by position 64 24 37.5 36 56.3 4 6.3

Counsellor 27 12 44.4 13 48.1 2 7.4 Houseparent 14 2 14.3 12 85.7 0 0.0 Caseworker 12 7 58.3 3 25.0 2 16.7 Supervisor 11 3 27.3 8 72.7 0 0.0

Residential Teams 33 14 42.4 16 48.5 3 9,1

1 7 2 28.6 5 71.4 0 0.0 2 7 2 28.6 4 57.1 1 14.3 3 7 3 42.9 4 57.1 0 0.0 4 7 4 57.1 2 28.6 1 14.3 5 5 3 60.0 1 20.0 1 20.0

Community Teams 13 7 53.8 5 38.5 1 7.7

6 9 6 66.7 2 22.2 1 11.1 7 4 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0

Group Home Teams 158 (3P 2 13.3 13 86.7 0 0.0

9 0(3) 10 5 0 0 5 100.0 0 0.0 11 6 2 33.3 4 66.7 0 0.0 12 5 0 0 5 100.0 0 0.0

a One supervisor coordinates two homes, He is included in each home and once in the total.

b Numbers in parenthesis indicate missing cases.

I I

187

Table C

Age in Years of SYC Staff at T 1

------------ Standard

Group N Mean deviation

Total by position 64 30.2 8.23

Counsellor 27 29.4 8.01 Houseparent 14 29.8 10.58 Caseworker 12 30.2 5.31 Supervisor 11 32.6 8.67

Residential -reàms 33 30.1 7,68

1 7 29.9 9.97 2 7 32.7 10.45 3 7 30.4 6.02 4 7 27.3 6.23 5 5 30.4 4.56

Community Teams 13 29.0 7.35

6 7

Group Homes Teams

9 28.3 8.37 4 30.5 5.06

15a(3)b 28.8 8.34

9 0(3) 10 5 25.6 7.02 11 6 35.8 7.14 12 5 26.6 9.76



188

Table D

Previous Employment of SYC Staff at T 1

Previously Not Previously Emaloy,ed Emeoyed

Group 71-


Counsellor 27 21 77.8 6 22.2 Houseparent 14 a 57.1 6 42.9 Caseworker 12 10 83.3 2 16.7 Supervisor 11 9 81.8 2 18.5

Residential Teams 33 26 78.8 7 21.2

1 7 5 71.4 2 28.6 2 7 6 85.7 1 14.3 3 7 5 71.4 2 28.6 4 7 5 71.4 0 , 28.6 5 5 5 100.0 0 0.0


6 7

Group Home Teams

9 7 77.8 2 22.2 4 3 75.0 1 25.0

15 8 (3) b 9 60.0 6 40.0

9 0(3) 10 5 3 60.0 2 40.0 11 6 4 66.7 2 33.3 12 5 3 60.0 2 40.0

a One supervisor coordinates two homes. He is.included in each home and once in the total. •


Table E

Previous Related Employment of SYC Staff at T 1

--------------------------------------------------------------- Related Non-Related

Emaloyment Group N .,0

189




1 5 3 60.0 2 40.0 2 6 2 33.3 4 66.7 3 5 4 80.0 1 20.0 4 5 2 40.0 3 60.0 5 5 5 100.0 0 0.0


6 7 4 571 3 42.9 7 3 3 100.0 0 0.0

Group Home Teams 9 8( 3 )b 5 55.6 4 44.4

9 0(3) 10 3 3 100.0 0 0.0 11 4 2 50.0 2 50.0 12 3 1 33.3 2 66.7



.•••••

Standard Mean Deviation Group

Total by position

Counsellor Houseparent Caseworker Supervisor

Residential Teams

Table F

Years of Related Work Experience of SYC Staff at T 1

19 0

63(1) a 5.1 3.82

27 3.9 2.94 13(1) 3.3 3.19 12 6.3 4.72 11 8.4 3.14

33 4.6 3.09

1 7 4.2 3.10 2 7 4.6 4.22 3 7 6.0 3.04 4 7 2.9 1.77 5 5 5.4 2.70


6 9 6.1 4.56

7 4 8.8 4.83

Group Home Teams 14b(4) 4.2 4.52

9 0(3)

10 5 3.2 3.59

11 5(1) 7.3 5.66

12 5 4.4 6.43

a Numbers in parenthesis indicate missing cases.

b One supervisor coordinates two homes. He is included in each home and once in the total.

Table G

Educational Qualifications of SYC Staff at T1

19 1

Group

No Diploma . Under or De .aree CEGEP Graduate Graduate Other

N n Yo- D D n n

Total by position 64 11 17.2 59 29.7 21 32.8 6 9.4 7 10.9

Counsellor 27 8 29.6 8 29.6 9 33.3 0 0.0 2 7.4 Houseparent 14 3 21.4 5 35.7 4 28.6 0 0.0 2 14.3 Caseworker 12 0 0.0 2 16.7 6 50.0 2 16.7 2 16.7 Supervisor 11 0 0.0 4 36.4 2 18.2 4 36.4 1 9.1

Residential Teams 33 8 24.2 10 30.3 12 36.4 1 3.0 2 6.1

7 3 42.9 3 42.9 1 14.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 7 2 28.6 2 28.6 3 42.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 7 2 28.6 4 57.1 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 7 1 14.3 1 14.3 5 71.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 40.0 1 20.0 2 40.0

Community Teams 13 0 0.0 2 15.4 4 30.6 5 38.4 2 15.4

6 9 0 0.0 2 22.2 3 33.3 4 44.4 0 0.0 7 4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 25.0 1 25.0 2 50.0

Group Home Teams 15a (33J2 13.3 6 40.0 5 33.3 0 0.0 2 13.3

9 0(3) 10 5 1 20.0 4 80.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 6 1 16.7 2 33.3 1 16.7 0 0.0 2 33.3 12 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 80.0 0 0.0 1 20.0

a One supervisor coordinates two homes. He is included in each home an:lance in the total.

13 Numbers in parenthesis indicate missing cases.

Table H

Certification Program of SYC Staff at T i

192

Group No Program CEGEP Undergrad Graduate

N 771 D D 5 n

Total by position 64 46 71.9 9 14.1 6 9.4 3 4.7

Counsellor 27 18 66.7 7 25.9 1 3.7 1 3.7 Houseparent 14 9 64.3 2 14.3 3 21.4 0 0.0 Caseworker 12 10 83.3 0 0.0 1 8.3 1 8.3 Supervisor 11 9 81.8 0 0.0 1 9.1 1 9.1

Residential Teams 33 23 69.7 7 21.2 1 3.0 2 6.1

1 7 2 28.6 3 42.9 1 14.3 1 14.3 2 7 4 57.1 2 28.6 0 0.0 1 14.3 3 7 5 71.4 2 28.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 7 7 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 5 5 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Community Teams 13 11 84.6 0 0.0 1 7.7 1 7.7

6 9 7 77.8 0 0.0 1 11.1 1 11.1 7 4 4 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Group Home Teams 15 a(3P 10 66.7 1 6.7 4 26.7 0 0.0

9 0(3) 10 5 3 60.0 0 0.0 2 40.0 0 0.0 11 6 3 50.0 1 16.7 2 33.3 0 0.0 12 5 5 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0



19 3

Table I

The Participation of SYC Staff at T 1 in Development Courses

During the LastSix Months

Took Couses Did not take Courses Group


Counsellor 27 4 14.8 23 85.2 Houseparent 14 7 50.0 7 50.0 Caseworker 12 9 75.0 • 3 25.0 Supervisor 11 7 63.6 4 36.4


1 7 2 28.6 5 71.4 2 7 2 28.6 5 71.4 3 7 2 28.6 5 71.4 4 7 1 14.3 6 85.7 5 5 0 0.0 5 100.0


6 7

Group Home Teams

9 6 66.7 3 33.3 4 4 100.0 0 0.0

15 8 (3) 13 8 53.3 7 46.7

9 0(3) 10 5 3 60.0 2 40.0 11 6 5 83.3 1 16.7 12 5 1 20.0 4 80.0



19 4

In Present Unit Total Time at SYC Mean SD Mean SD

I

1

9 19.7 20.24 43.6 44.83 4 17.8 10.78 35.5 20.64

6 7

Group Home Teams 15 a (3) 13 8.1 6.41 14.7 20.24

Table J

Number of Months Staff Have Worked for SYC at T1

I/

Group

Total by position 64 14.6 13.27 27.6 26.44

Counsellor 27 14.7 12.57 24.3 17.13 Houseparent 14 9.1 8.25 9.4 8.21 Caseworker 12 16.4 17.83 35.9 40.03 Supervisor 11 19.6 13.64 50.0 25.72

Residential Teams 33 14.9 13.31 26.9 20.62

1 7 12.1 4.78 27.3 17.00 2 7 16.9 8.75 24.9 17.81 3 7 25.4 16.22 41.0 26.27 4 7 14.7 17.35 21.6 14.52 5 5 2.0 0.0 17.0 24.75

Community Teams 13 19.1 17.41 41.1 38.15

9 0(3) 10 5 10.8 9.39 16.8 20.89 11 6 7.8 5.34 18.8 26.57 12 5 5.2 1.09 19.0 29.69



r."

Table K

Work History of SYC Staff at T1

19 5

Group

Previous Previous Units Positions Woryed In Mean SD Mean SD

Total by position 64 .59 .77 .69 .85

Counsellor 27 .33 .48 .63 .69 Houseparent 14 .14 .36 .07 .27 Caseworker 12 .92 .79 .92 1.08 Supervisor 11 1.45 .93 1.36 .92

Residential Teams 33 .51 .67 .76 .83

1 7 .71 .49 1.00 .82 2 7 .29 .76 .57 1.13 3 7 .57 .79 .86 .69 4 7 .71 .76 .71 .76 6 5 .20 .44 .60 .89

Community Teaffis 13 1.08 .95 1.00 1.00

6 9 1.00 1.00 1.11 .96

7 4 1.25 .96 .75 1.05

Group Home Teams 15 ae . 33 .62 .27 .59

9 0(3)

10 5 .20 .45 .20 .45

11 6 .50 .84 .33 .82

12 5 .60 .89 .60 .89



a One supervisor coordinates two homes. He is included in each home and one in the total. o - Numbers in parenthesis indicate missing cases.

MI OM alle 11110 en Mil 111101 1111111 ill, OM II» OM all, allt 1113

Group Home Teams 1413 (4) 49.2 9.0 53.7 13.5 50.7 5.7 53.6 9.8 52.1 7.8

9 0(3)

10 5 50.2 11.6 52.8 13.2 47.8 5.3 55.8 9.5 56.4 9.8

11 5(1) 50.6 9. 7 48.4 9.2 52.0 6.6 54.0 13.7 48.0 5.7

12 5 49.8 9.3 60.6 15.6 53.4 4.4 47.0 8.3 51.2 5.2 _ .0 aN

Table L

Preference Scores of SYC Staff For Different Treatment Approaches atT i

Accepting Supportive Control Behavior Insight Friend Big Brother Structure Reality Reality

Group N SD SD SD M SD M SD

Total by position 62(2) a 49.8 8.5 51.0 12.16 53.3 8.3 55.8 11.1 54.4 10.2

Counsellor 26(1) 51.2 8.3 52.5 9.8 54.0 6.9 51.8 8.4 55.1 9.5 Houseparent 13(1) 48.3 8.3 53.3 13.9 55.1 10.2 52.1 6.3 48.8 8.8 Caseworker 12 45.8 7.9 42.0 14.6 49.6 7.9 67.3 10.8 57.0 10.4 'Supervisor 11 52.9 9.1 54.7 12.0 53.6 9.4 57.2 13.3 56.6 11.9

Residential Teams 32(1) 51.6 8.2 52.9 10.1 53.9 7.2 52.1 8.1 55.6 9.6

1 7 51.9 10.3 54.3 13.2 54.0 8.3 50.3 8.7 54.1 10.9 2 6(1) 51.8 9.7 52.2 5.2 55.0 5.4 52.5 8.2 56.3 8.6 3 7 51.0 9.7 56.0 14.3 54.6 7.8 49.7 7.9 56.0 11.1 4 7 49.6 4.8 48.7 3.7 53.7 9.4 49.9 7.0 54.6 8.8 5 5 54.6 7.2 53.8 10.7 51.6 5.6 60.4 5.9 57.8 11.8

Community Teams 13 46.8 9.1 44.5 16.5 50.4 8.6 68.3 11.2 57.7 11.4

6 9 49.6 9.0 49.0 11.2 46.4 5.5 68.7 10.7 61.9 10.5 7 4 40.5 6.4 34.5 23.6 59.3 7.8 67.5 14.1 48.3 7.5


The supervisor who co-ordinates two homes is counted in each home and once, in the total.

mu am es me se en us MU ere an tug es am me as me ea en ell

Table M

Mean Scores and Frequency Distribution of S.Y.C. Staff on Conceptual Level at T

1

Stage Orientation Group Norm Exploration Indepen,dence

N M Sb N % N % N % ----------------------------„ Total by position 63(1)d 1.99 .38 11 17.5 35 55.6 17 26.9

Counsellor 27 1.87 .31 7 25.9 15 55.6 5 18.5 Homeparent 13(1) 1.86 .39 4 30.8 7 53.8 2 15.4 Caseworker 12 2.21 .31 0 0.0 7 58.3 5 41 • 7 Superviser 11 2.24 .39 0 0.0 6 54.5 5 45.5

Residential teams 1 2 3 4 5

33 1.95 .37 7 21.2 18 54.5 8 24.3

7 1.85 .51 3 42.8 2 28.6 2 28.6

7 1.74 .32 2 28.6 4 57.1 1 14.3

7 2.08 .19 0 0.0 4 57.1 3 42.8

7 1.99 .40 2 28.6 4 57.1 1 14.3

5 2.14 .31 0 0.0 4 80.0 1 20.0

Community Teams 13 2.20 .26 0 0.0 6 46.2 7 53.8 6 9 2.21 .19 0 0.0 4 44.4 5 55.6

. 7 4 2.19 .43 0 0.0 2 50.0 2 50.0

Group e Home Teams 14(4) b 1.98 .45 2 14.3 9 64.3 3 21.4 9 0(3)

10 5 1.89 .41 . 1 20.0 3 60.0 1 20.0 11 5(1) 1.99 .64 1 20.0 3 60.0 1 20.0 12 5 2.05 .24 0 0.0 4 80.0 1 20.0

l-0

198

1

I

Table N

Mean Scores and Frequency Distribution of SYC Staff on the Repression Sensitivation Scale at T1

Group

Distribution Lower_25% Middle_50% lJauer_25%

N M SD n g n D

Total by position 60e 21.9 11.7 15 25.0 34 56.7 11 18.3

26(1 22.8 14.2 6 23.1 15 57.7 5 19.2

12(2) 20.5 9.2 4 33.3 6 50.0 2 16.7

11(1) 21.6 7.4 1 9.1 9 81.8 1 9.1 11 21.3 12.0 4 36.4 4 36.4 3 27.3

Residential Teams 31(2) 21.3 13.9 9 29.1 17 54.8 5 16.1

1 7 17.7 15.1 4 57.1 2 28.6 1 14.3 2 6(1) 18.5 8.5 1 16.7 4 66.7 1 16.7 3 7 20.4 8.3 2 28.6 4 57.1 1 14.3 4 6(1) 33.0 21.3 0 0.0 4 66.7 2 33.3 5 5 17.0 9.1 2 40.0 3 60.0 0 0.0

Community Teams 13 24.6 8.6 1 7.7 9 69.2 3 23.1

6 9 26.3 9.0 1 11.1 6 66.7 2 22.2

7 4 20.8 7.2 0 0.0 3 75.0 1 25.0

Group Home Teams 13b e 23.3 7.5 2 15.4 8 61.5 3 23.1

9 0(3)

10 5 21.4 8.1 1 20.0 4 80.0 0 0.0

11 4(2) 22.0 9.8 1 25.0 2 50.0 1 25.0

12 5 28.4 4.6 0 0.0 2 40.0 3 60.0


One supervisor coordinates two homes. He is included in each home and once in the total.


I

Appendix 3

Characteristics of

SYC Staff : Second Measurement — October, 1977 (T2)

199

Table A

Sex of SYC.Staff at T 2

----------------------

200

Group Total Male Famale

n n




1 6 4 66.7 2 33.3

2 7 6 85.7 1 14.3 3 a 6 75.0 2 25.0 4 9 5 55.6 4 44.4 5 a 3 37.5 5 62.5


6 7

Group Home Teams

9 5 55.6 4 44.4 5 3 60.0 2 40.0

28 a 18 64.3 10 35.7

10 5 2 40.0 3 60.0

11 6 5 83.3 1 16.7 12 2 2 100.0 0 0.0 13 6 4 66.7 2 33.3

14 6 4 66.7 2 33.3 15 6 4 66.7 2 33.3

a Three supervisors coordinate six homes. They are counted with each home and once in the total.

Group

Table B

Marital Status of SYC Staff at T2

Total 5i.ule Married Divorced/SeD %

201

Total by position 80 29 36.2 47 58.7 4 5.0

Counsellor 30 15 50.0 15 50.0 0 0.0 Houseparent 19 6 31.6 12 63.2 1 5.3 Caseworker 21 8 38.1 13 61.9 0 0.0 Supervisor 70 0 0.0 7 70.0 3 30.0

Residential Teams 38 15 39.5 21 55.3 2 5.3

1 6 1 16.7 4 66.7 1 16.7

2 7 4 57.1 2 28.6 1 14.3

3 8 3 37.5 5 62.5 0 0.0

4 9 3 33.3 6 66.7 0 0.0

5 8 5 62.5 3 37.5 0 0.0

Community Teams 14 6 42.9 7 50.0 1 7.1

6 9 4 44.4 4 44.4 1 11.1

7 5 2 40.0 3 60.0 0 0.0

Group Home Teams 28a 7 25.0 20 71.4 1 3.6

10 5 0 0.0 5 100.0 0 0.0

11 6 1 16.7 4 66.7 1 16.7

12 2 0 0.0 2 100.0 0 0.0

13 6 2 33.3 4 66.7 0 0.0

14 6 2 33.3 4 66.7 0 0.0

15 6 2 33.0 4 66.7 0 0.0


■•■••••

Group Standard

Mean Deviation

Table C

Age in years of SYC Staff at T 2

202


Counsellor 30 28.7 4.47 Houseparent 19 35.5 13.19 Caseworker 21 30.4 7.03 Supervisor 10 33.4 5.60

Residential Teams 38 28.9 4.35

1 6 27.6 4.58 2 7 30.4 1.72 3 8 28.0 3.59 4 9 28.4 4.16 5 8 29.8 6.65


6 7

Group homes Teams

9 31.6 35.6

28 a 33,9

7.02 9.26

11.37

10 5 26.2 4.44 11 6 38.7 8.94 12 2 35.5 13.44 13 6 33.7 21.59 14 6 29.8 2.23 15 6 35.3 11.86

■••••


Croup

203

Table D

Previous Employment of SYC Staff at T 2

..... ------------ ..... --------- Previously Nat Previously

Total Employ.ed_ _Employed__ n Yo-

........

Total by position 80 64. 80.0 16 20.0


Residential Teams 38 31 81.6 18.4

1 6 5 83.3 1 16.7 2 7 7 100.0 0 0.0 3 8 5 62.5 3 37.5 4 9 8 88.9 1 11.1 5 8 6 75.0 2 25.0


6 9 5 55.6 4 44.4 7 5 3 60.0 2 40.0

Croup homes Teams 28 a 25 89.3 3 10.7

10 5 4 80.0 1 20.0 11 6 5 83.3 1 16.7 12 2 2 100.0 0 0.0 13 6 6 100.0 0 0.0 14 6 6 100.0 0 0.0 15 6 5 83.3 1 16.7


I/ 204

Table E

Previous Related Employment of SYC Staff at 1 2

1/ Related Non-Related

Total Employment Employment . . Group n %-

...... .....

Total by position 65 39 60.0 26 40.0 11

Counsellor 25 17 68.0 8 32.0 Houseparent 19 5 26.3 14 73.7

11 Caseworker 13 10 76.9 3 23,1 Supervisor 8 7 87.5 1 12.5

Residential Teams 31 22 71.0 9 29.0 11

1 q 3 60.0 2 40.0

2 7 5 71.4 2 28.6 II

3 5 4 80.0 1 20.0

4 8 6 75.0 0

4 25.0

5 6 4 66.7 2 33.3 I/


6 5 3 60.0 2 40.0 II

7 3 3 100.0 0 0.0

Group Home Teams 26 11 42.3 15 57.7 11

10 4 2 50.0 2 50.0

11 6 1 16.7 5 83.3 11

12 2 2 100.0 0 0.0

13 6 4 66.7 2 33.3

14 6 3 50 ..0 3 50 0 0

15 5 2 40.0 3 60.0 11

a Three supervisors coordinate six homes, They are counted 11 with each home and once in the total.

11

1


Table F

Years of Related Work Experience of SYC Staff at 1 2

205

Group Standard

a Mean Deviation

Counsellor , 30 4.5 2.59 Houseparent 19 4.3 2.58 Caseworker 21 6.6 • 4.94 Supervisor 10 8.5 4.07

Reeidential Teams 38 4.9 2.54

1 6 4.5 • 1.27 2 7 4.7 2.57 3 8 5.6 3 4.65 4 9 4.7 2.35 5 8 4.9 2.61

Community teams 14 8.8 5.25 6 9 7.5 4.87 7 5 11.3 5.55

Group Home Teams 28a 4.6 3.53 10 5 1.9 .89 11 6 6.6 5.61 12 2 9.8 10.61 13 6 4.1 1.94 14 6 4.9 2.93 15 6 6.1 3.43

a Three supervisiops co-ordinate six homes. Th dy are counted with each home and once in the total.

1 1

No Diploma De.uree CEGEP

Total -- --- N n %

11 Graduate Graduate Other

% D % D % -------------- -------

Group %

Under-

206 1

Table

Educational qualifications of SYC Staff at 1 2

Total by Position 80 16 20.0 22 27.5 26 32.5 11 13.7 5 6.5

1 Counsellor Houseparent Caseworker Supervisor

30 9 30.0 12 40.0 7 23.3 19 7 36.8 7 36.8 3 15.8 21 0 0.0 3 13.6 12 57.1 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 40.0

0 0.0 2 6.7 1 5.3 1 5.3 5 23.8 1 4.8 II 5 50.0 1 10.0

Residential Teams 38 1 6 2 7 3 8 4 9 5 8

Community Teams 6 7

Group Home Teams 28a 10 5 11 6 12 2 13 6 14 6 15 6

9 23.7 13 34.2 11 28.9

1 16.7 3 50.0 2 33.3

3 42.9 1 14.3 2 28.6

3 37.5 3 37.5 1 12.5 0 0.0 4 44.4 4 44.4

2 25.0 2 25.0 2 25.0

7 25.0 7 31.8 9 32.1

1 20.0 2 50.0 1 25.0

1 16.7 1 16.7 4 14.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2130.0

2 33.3 2 33.3 1 16.7

1 16.7 0 0.0 1 16.7

2 33.3 2 33.3 1 16.7

37.9 2 5.3 le 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 14.3 1 12.5 0 0.0 1 11.1 0 0.0 II 1 12.5 1 12.5

5 35.7 1 7 0 1 II 2 22.2 0 0.0 3 60.0 1 20.0

3 10.7 2 7 0 1 1 25.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 II 1 16.7 0 0.0 2 33.3 2 33.0 0 0.0 1 16.7 II

14 0 0.0 2 14.3 6 42.9

9 0 0.0 2 22.2 5 55.6

5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 20.0

a Three supervisors co-ordinate six homes. They are counted with each home and once in the total.

1

Table H

Certification Program of SYC Staff at T 2

207

Group Total No

17-r-ogr,a n r---Ir

CEGEP Undegrad. Graduate -------- -------- n % • n % n %

Total by Position 80 59 73.7 6 7.5 10 12.5 5 6.3

Counsellor 30 19 63.3 3 10.0 7 23.3 1 3.3 Houseparent 19 14 73.7 3 15.8 2 10.5 0 0.0 Caseworker 21 18 85.7 0 0.0 1 4.8 2 9.5 Supervisor 10 8 80.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 20.0

Residential Teams 38 26 68.4 3 7.9 7 18.4 2 5.3 1 6 4 66.7 0 0.0 2 33.3 0 0.0 2 7 6 85.7 1 14.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 8 4 50.0 2 25.0 2 25.0 0 0.0 4 9 7 77.8 0 0.0 1 11.1 1 11.1 5 8 5 62.5 0 0.0 2 25.0 1 12.5

Community Teams 14 10 71.4 0 0.0 1 7.1 3 21.4 6 9 6 66.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 33.3 7 5 4 80.0 0 0.0 1 20.0 0 0.0

Group Home Teams 28a 23 82.1 3 10.7 2 7.1 0 0.0 10 5 3 60.0 1 20.0 1 20.0 0 0.0 11 6 6 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 2 2 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 6 4 66.7 1 16.7 1 16.7 0 0.0 14 6 6 100.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 6 5 83.3 1 16.7 0 0.0 0 0.0

a Three supervisors co-ordinate six homes. They are counted with each home and once in the total.

Total Took Courses Did_Dot_ e Courses Group


Table I

The Participation of SYC Staff at T2 in Development Courses Durirvg the Last Six Months


Residential Teams 38 18 47.4 20 52.6 1 6 1 16.7

J 63.3 2 7 3 42.9 4 57.1 3 8 6 75.0 2 25.0 4 9 5 55.6 4 44.4 5 8 3 37.5 5 62.5

Community Teams 14 11 78.6 3 21 -.4 6 9 7 77.8 2 22.2 7 5 4 80.0 1 20.4

Group Home Teams 28 a 12 42.9 16 57.1 10 5 2 40.0 3 60.0 11 6 4 66.7 2 33.3 12 2 2 100.0 0 0.0 13 6 1 16.7 5 83.3 14 6 2 33.3 4 66.7 15 6 3 50.0 3 50.0

a Three supervisors co-ordinate six homes. Threy are counted with each home and once in the total.

208

Table J

Number of Months Staff Have Worked for SYC at 12

1.•••••L•••••••••,•••

2 09

Group In_present Unit Total Time at SYC

Mean SD Mean SD

Total by position 80 13.1 13.76 25.5 21.06

Counsellor 30 11.8 10.10 20.6 20.07 Houseparent 19 7.8 6.34 12.5 11.30 Caseworker 21 20.7 20.06 39.8 38.01 Supervisor 10 10.8 12.48 34.6 25.73

Residential Teams 38 10.9 9.50 21.2 18.87 1 6 8.7 8.43 16.2 14.70 2 7 2.6 3.05 10.0 12.78 3 8 18.5 13.67 32.4 22.87 4 9 12.1 8.40 18.8 15.25 5 8 11.1 3.04 26.3 21.72

Community Teams 14 26.2 23.14 51.9 42.23 6 9 56.1 52.60 24.7 25.23 7 5 44.2 12.33 29.0 21.24

Group Home Teams 28a 9.4 7.89 18.0 18.77 10 5 6.8 2.95 8.2 3.03 11 6 14.0 11.59 27.3 32.94 12 2 17.5 10.61 50.2 57.28 13 6 13:3 9.07 19.0 12.62 14 6 5.0 2.37 17.3 12.74 15 6 5.7 5.24 18.7 17.30

a Three supervisors co-ordinate'six homes. They are counted with each home and once in the total.

Group

Table K

Work History of SYC Staff at T 2

Previous Units Worked In Mean SD

Previous Positions Mean- -§D

210

Total by Position


80 .64 .85

30 .30 .47 19 .21 .42 21 1.09 .94 10 1.50 1.08

.79 .89

.60 .77

.47 .51

1.05 1.16

1.40 .84

Residential Teams 38 .50 .73 .74 .86 1 6 .67 1.21 .67 1.21 2 7 .43 .79 .57 .79 3 8 .63 .74 .63 .52 4 9 .33 .50 .56 .73 5 8 .50 .53 1.25 1.04

Community Teams 14 1.43 1.09 1.21 1.25 6 9 1.22 1.20 1.33 1.41

7 5 1.80 .84 1.00 1.00

Group 'Homes Teams 28a .43 .63 .64 .68 10 5 .0 .0 .40 .55 11 6 .83 .75 .67 .82 12 2 1.0 1.41 1.00 1.41 13 6 .67 .89 .83 .75 14 . 6 .33 .52 .83 .75 15 6 .33 .52 .83 .75

a Three supervisors co-ordinate six homes They are counted with each home and once in the total.

Accepting Friend

. (for 1;•-

Supportive Big Brother ForCfm

Control Structure eor MpPfc)

SD

Behaviora1

-11.U.1-4I-X-- içi For Na)

Insight Reality iVor Nx5

SD Group

OM Ili IBM IIIIIII OM Ili ell all MI IBIS ill «I 1111. Ma MD MI all UM all

Table L

Preference Scores of SYC Staff For Different Treatment Apprceches at T2

Total by Position 72(8) a 52.8 8.5 51.6 9.3 53.6 8,2 54.5 11.3 54.5 8.4

24(6). 54.9 7.2 53.2 9.0 55.7 8.1 52.9 7.3 54.4 8.5 18(1) 53.7 8.0 52.9 7.8 50.5 5.9 54.6 5.7 55.0 8.4 21 49.7 9.3 48.1 10.4 52.3 9.1 57.7 1:.9 54.2 8.9 ((1) 52.3 9.7 53.0 9.1 57.3 8.8 51.2 5.7 54.2 8.3

Residential Teams 31(7) 55.2 7.8 53.6 9.5 55.3 7.8 51.6 7.3 54.3 8.9 1 6 54.7 6.1 55.3 7.2 49.3 9.2 57.7 5.9 63.2 9.7 2 0 (7) 3 8 57.9 8.8 56.1 7.2 57.0 4.5 45.8 E.2 53.0 6.7 4 9 55.1 8.2 49.7 10.9 57.7 8.2 47.6 E.4 49.1 4.8

8 52.9 7.9 54.3 11.4 55.3 7.9 57.6 7.0 54.9 9.9

Counselor Houseparent Casewmrker Supervisor

Community Teams 6 1

Group Home Teams 10 11 12 13 14 15

14 50.4 8.9 48.6 10.4 55.0 12.1 58.1 11- .8 52.1 9.0

9 50.6 10.1 48.6 11.7 51.3 12.3 58.9 11.8 55.0 8.8

5 50.0 7.2 48.8 8.8 61.6 9.4 56.9 E. 46.8 7.4

27(1)b 51.2 8.6 50.9 8.2 50.9 5.4 56.0 5.7 55.9 7.5

5 49.0 8.6 51.0 6.6 50.6 4.5 50.8 7.6 56.4 9.8

6 53.0 7.9 50.3 5.9 49.5 8.1 56.0 - .3 60.7 8.7

2 51.0 18.4 45.5 16.3 55.3 6.4 57.5 :-.8 52.0 0.0

5(1) 48.0 7.1 52.6 10.2 51.8 3.5 54.2 5.4 53.6 6.1

6 53.8 8.5 55.8 8.1 49.3 4.0 56.7 7.8 57.0 6.4 6 52.0 10.5 47.3 6.3 54.2 5.0 58.3 7.6 52.0 4.

a The numbers in parathesis indicate missing cases bThree supervisors co-ordinate six homes. They are counted with each home and once the total.

Table M

Mean Scores and Frequency Distribution of S.Y.C. Staff on Conceptual Level at T2

Group Stage Orientation

.11 11rm C.e2lerA.UP.E1 Sb

a

Total by position 71(9) a 1.85 .29 21 29.6 38 53.5 12 16.9 Counsellor 24(6) 1.79 ..32 9 37.5 11 45.8 4 16.7 Houseparent 18(1) 1.72 .23 8 44.4 9 50.0 1 5.6 Caseworker 21 1.93 .26 3 14.3 4 66.7 4 19.0 Supervision 8(2) 2.07 .33 1 12.5 4 50 3 37.5

Residential teams 31(7) 1.84 .34 11 35.5 14 45.2 6 19.4 1 6 1.93 .31 1 16.7 4 66.6 1 16.7 2 0(7) 3 8 1..77 .41 4 50.0 3 37.5 1 12.5 4 9 1.98 .26 2 22.2 4 44.4 3 33.3 5 8 1.69 .32 4 50.0 3 37.5 1 12.5

Community teams 13(1) 1.94 .22 1 7.7 9 69.2 3 23.1 6. 8(1) 1.95 .19 0 0.0 6 75.0 2 25.0

7 5 1.92 .28 1 20.0 7 ,«J 60.0 1 20.0

Group home teams 27(1) b 1.81 .28 9 33.3 15 55.6 3 11.1

10 5 1.73 .23 2 40.0 2 60.0 0 0.0

11 6 1.96 .44 2 33.3 2 33.3 2 33.3

12 2 2.15 .28 0 0:-.0 1 50.0 1 50.0

13 5(1) 1.83 .09 0 0.0 5 100.0 0 0.0

14 6 1.78 .32 3 50.0 2 33.3 1 16.7

15 6 1.78 .19 2 33.3 4 66.7 0 0.0

Number in parentheses indicate missing cases.

Three supervisors co-ordinate six homes; they are counted with each home and once in the total.

N)

N)

11111 111111 en ale 813 •111 MS 11111 11111 al MU 11111 INN MS OS Inn 11M1

213

Table N

Mean Scores and Frequency Distribution of SYC Staff on the Repression-Sensitization Scale at T 2

Distribution Total Lower 255 Middle .5.o% !beer 25%

Mean SD n n %-

Total by Position 69(11) a 23.6 12.31 16 23.2 34 49.3 19 27.5

Counsellor 22(8) 23.2 14.29 4 18.2 14 63.6 4 18.2 Houseparent 18(1) 20.6 10.93 6 33.3 9 50.0 3 16.7 Caseworker 21 24.7 8.07 3 14.3 10 47.6 8 38.1 Supervisor 8(2) 28.6 18.06 3 37.5 1 12.5 4 50.0

Residential Teams 28(10) a 22.2 14.49 8 28.6 15 53.6 5 17.9 1 4(1 15.3 6.98 1 25.0 3 75.0 0 0.0 2 0(1 3 8 21.0 15.63 3 37.5 4 50.0 1 12.5 4 8(1) 13.6 5.01 4 50.0 4 50.0 0 0.0

a 34.4 14.41 0 0.0 4 50.0 4 50.0

Community Teams 14 27.0 11.51 2 14.3 6 42.9 6 42.9 6 9 26.7 8.11 1 11.1 4 44.4 4 44.4 7 5 27.6 17.27 1 20.0 2 40.0 2 40.0

Group Home Teams 27(1) b 23.2 10.18 6 22.2 13 48.1 8 29.4 10 5 31.0 11.1 0 0.0 3 60.0 2 40.0 11 6 24.8 11.23 1 16.7 3 50.0 2 33.3 12 2 34.5 3.53 0 0.0 0 0,0 2 100.0 13 5(1) 25.6 2.70 0 0.0 4 8.0 1 20.0 14 6 17.2 8.04 2 33.3 3 50.0 1 16.3 15 6 19.8 10.72 3 50.0 1 16.7 0 33.3

aNumbers in paratheses indicate missing cases

b Three supervisors co-ordinate six homes. They are counted with each home and once in the total.

Group

Appendix 4

Analysis of Significant Differences Between the Characteristics of SYC Staff at T 1 and T 2

21 4

Chi—Sguare

x 2 df

Mann Wbitney Characteristics

3037.0 2030.5

.008

.368

215

Table A

A Summary of the Significant Differences Between T i and T 2 - on the Background and Personal Characteristics of Tofal SYC Staff

Demographic Sex Marital Status Age

Education Qualifications Certification Program Staff Develop. Courses

Work History at SYC Months at SYC Months in Present Unit Previous Unit Previous Positions

Preference for Treatment . Approaches

Accepting Friend Bib Brother Control Structure Behavior Reality Insight Reality

.950 1 .329

.270 2 .874 2595.5, .582

2714.5 .925

2.589 4 .629

1.968 3 .579

.624 1 .429

3331.0 .024

4732.5 .000

2521.0 .367

2681.0 .805

1953.0 .058

2296.5 .579

2339.5 .798

2514.0 .628

2350.5 .833

Previous Employment Previously Empl. .283 1 .595 Related Previous Empl. .000 1 .997 Yrs. of Related Experience

Factors Influencing Worker Style Conceptual Level Repression .—Sensitization

-Klote. Data describing the staff at T., and T, on each of the characteristics can be found i the tàbles of Appendices 2 and 3.

Table B

A Summar9 cif the Significant Differences Between T 1 and 11 9 on the Background and Personal Characteristics of Residentiai Staff

Chi=Sguare

X 2 Mann Whitney

Characteristics df


1.389 1 .239

.561 2 .756

1 1

.000 1 .997

.221 1 .638 628.0 .991

1.147 4 .887

5.961 3 .113

4.212 1 .040 1 862.0

1152.5 642.0 645.5

373.5 456.5 443.5 509.0 544.0

602.0 454.5

.007

.000

.851

.807 1

.090 II

.585

.469

.857 III

.505

1 .224 .885 1

216

645.0 .835 I/

Previous Employment Previously Empl. Related Previous Empl. Yrs. of Related Experience



Preference for Treatment Approaches


Factors Influencing Worker Style Conceptual Level Repression—Sensitization

•■■•■../I0

Note. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ih the tâbles of Appendices 2 and 3.

1 1 1

Characteristics Chi=Sguare

X 2 df

Mann Whitney

217

Table C

A Summarm of the Signiricant Differences Between T1 and 12

on the Background and Personal Characteristics of Community Staff

Demographic Sex .156 1 .693 Marital Status .154 2 .926 Pige 81.5 .447

Previous Employment Previously Empl. .655 1 .418

Related Previous Empl. .664a Yrs. of Related Experience 77.0 .334






1.400 3 .706

1.182 2 .564

.212 1 .645

85.0 131.5 87.0 76.5

7 0.5 85.0 77.0

141.5 128.0

.550

.121

.596

.297

.200

.548

.333

.045

.151

135.5 .030

81.5 .448

-Klote. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ih the tables of Appendices 2 and 3.

a . Fisher's Exact Test of Significance.

178.0 .413

259.0 .054

180.0 .896

214.5 366.0 142.5 192.0

.909

.000

.049

.577

162.0 212.5 192.0 157.0 138.5

.456

.512

.934

.374

.158

218

Table D A Summary of the Significant Differences Between T1 and T 2

on the Background and Personal Characteristics of Group Home Staff

Characteristics


Chi=Sguare

x2 df

.003 1 .957

1.466 2 .480

Mann Wbitney

151.0 .132

Previous Employment Previously Empl. 3.447 1 .063 Related Previous Empl. .089 1 .765. Yrs. of Related Experience

Education Qualifications Certification Program Staff Develop..Courses





3.376 4 .497

3.145 2 .208

.113 1 .737

ilote. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ifi the tàbles of Appendices 2 and 3.

Demographic Sex 1.337 1 .248 Marital Status 2.313 2 .315 Age 383.0 .724

Previous Employment Previously Empl. .038 1 .846 Related Previous Empl. .015 1 .903 Yrs. of Related Experience 386.5 .767

Education Qualifications .954 3 .813 Certification Program 5.986 3 .112 Staff Develop. Courses 5.279 1 .022





375.0 .335

275.0 .827

555.5 728.5 424.5 418.5

;016 .000 .729 .789

227.5 285.5 259.5 283.5 341.5

.Q99

.605

.306 ,577 .563

Characteristics Chi=5_guare Mann Wbitney

df x2

219

Table E

A Summary of the Significant Differences Between T 1 and T 2 on the Background and Personal Characteristics of Chiid Care Counsellors

-.1Çlote. Data describing the staff at T i and T on each of the characteristics can be found ifi the tables of Appendices 2 and 3.

1

1 Mann Wbitney Characteristics

Chi=§_guare

X 2 df

.041 1 .839

2.295 2 .317 93.5 .149


4.753 1 .029

.014 1 .905 104.0 .289

2.714 4 .607

.747 2 .689

1.876 1 .171

146.5 240.0 79.5

124.0

.622

.000

.014

.024

68.0 .048 11

111,5 .824

147.0 .227 II

89.5 .264

72.5 .071

154.0 .138

116.5 .719

220 1

Table F A Summary of the Significant Differences Between Ti and T 9

on the Background and Personal Characteristics of Houseparents


Education Qualifications 'Certification Program Staff Devplop. Courses





ilote. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ih the tables of Appendices 2 and 3.

Chir:Sguare

X 2 df

Mann WbitDey Characteristics

150.5 .619

142.5 .831

221

'able G A Summary of the Significant Differences Between T 1 and 1 2

on Background and Personal Characteristics of Caseworkers






Accepting Friend " Bib Brother Control Structure Behavior Reality Insight Reality


.004 1 .948

5.239 2 .073

1.051 1 .305

.069 1 .793

2.756 3 .431

.149 2 .928

.135 1 .714'

122.5 207.5 123.5 119.0

105.0 108.0 111.5 196.5 153.5

.619

.010

.622

.504

.257

.308

.373

.032

.536

203.0 .018

88.0 .154

ilote. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ih the tàbles of Appendices 2 and 3.

222

1

83.5 102.0 54.5 54.0

.045

.001

.970

.941

61.5 .646

59.5 .751

1

52.5 .818 I/

50.0 .969

42.0 .568 II

64.5 .253 II

53.0 • 788

55.0 .362

35.0 .456

Table H A Summary of the Significant Differences Between T i and T 2

on the Background and Personal Characteristics of Supervisors

Chi=Sguare Mann Whitney Characteristics

x2

Demographic Sex .453 1 .501 Marital Status 6.033 2 .049 Age

Previous Employment Previously Empl. .203 1 .652 Related Previous Empl. .335 Yrs. of Related Experience






df

4.741 3 .192

1.348 2 .509

.024 1 .887

-Klote. Data describing the staff at T i and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ih the tà.bles of Appendices 2 and 3.

223

Table K

Summaru of the Significant Differences Between T i and T 2 on the Background and Personal Characteristics of the Team 3 Staff

Characteristics Chi=Sguare Mann Wbitney

X 2 df p Demographic a

Sex .769 Marital Status .769 Age 34.0 .486

Previous Employment Previously Empl. .573 Related Previous Empl. .778 Yrs. of Related Experience 33.0 .562






1.282 3 .733

2.054 2 .358 .100

38.5 50.5 33.0 26.5

15.0 26.0 18.5 36.0 37.0

.224

.008

.504

.847

.127

.815

.269

.351

.285

47.0 .028

31.5 .684

i■lote. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ih the tàbles of Appendices 2 and 3.


1

1


.40

.249 19.0 .185

22 11 1

.Table L Summary of the Significant Differences Between T 1 and T 2

on the Background and Personal Characteristics of the Team 4 Staff

Mann Wbitney Characteristics


)(2 df

a .231

2.939 2 .230 25.5 .523 I/






3.719 3 .293

1.778 2 .411 .121

41.5 54.5 35.5 40.5

18.0 33.5 26.5 32.5 39.0

.289

.011

.641

.278

.148

.831

.593

.914

.413

28.5 .719

43.0 .012

Note. Data describing the staff at T i and T, on each of the characteristics can be found i the tàbles of Appendices 2 and 3.

a Fisher's Exact Test of Significance. 1

Characteristics X 2 df p

225

labia M

Summary of the Significant Differences Between Ti and r 2 on the Background and Personal Characteristics of the Team 5 Staff

Chi=Sguare Mann Wbitney

Demographic Sex .751 a Marital Status 1.91 2 .385 Age 21.0 .883

Previous*Employment Previously Empl. .359 Related Previous Empl. .273 Yrs. of Related Experience 25.5 .414






3.846 4 .427

2.438 2 .196

11.0 34.0 12.5 14.0

22.5 19.5 14.5 24.5 23.0

.187

.029

.249

.299

.713

.941

.419

.505

.658

36.0 .017

6.5 .048

«Klote. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found the t.àbles of Appendices 2 and 3.

a Fisher's Exact Test of Significance.

Characteristics Chi :::Sguare

X 2 df

Mann Whitney

.859

.248

.854

.702

38.5 53.5 38.5 36.5

.755

.894

.451

.129

.162

37.0 42.0 32.0 57.5 56.0

.50 a

1.067 2 .587 33.5 .536

.309

.689 34.0 .566

226

Table N Summary of the Significant Differences Between T i and T 2









1.167 2 .558

2.077 2 .354 .500

61.0 .016

38.5 .859

■••■•••

-Note. Data describing the staff at 1- , and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ifi the tà.bles of Appendices 2 and 3.


Chi=§„guare

X 2 df

Mann Whitney Characteristics

.401

.240

.496

.228

8.5 18.0 9.5 7.0

3.0 6.5 9.0

18.0 17.0

.040

.206

.462

.248

.288

4;525 15.5 .34 81.0

227

Table 0

Summary of the Significant Differences lietwoon T 1 and 1 2 on the Background and Personal Characteristics of the Feam - 7 Staff

Demographic a Sex .50 Marital Status .50 Age 8.5 .396

Previous Employment Previously Empl. .50 Related Previous Empl. 1.00 Yrs. of Related Experience 8.5 .401






2.00 2 .368 .50 .50

i-Jote. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ih the tàbles of Appendices

2 and 3.


Chi±:§guare

X 2 df

Mann Whitney Characteristics

.596

.01

.513

.317

15.0 25.0 10.0 15.0

.834

.915

.523

.665 1.000

11.5 13.0 9.5

14.5 12.5

228

Table P Summary of the Significant Differences Between T 1 and T 2



a .50

1.00 7.0 .246

Previous'Employment Previously Empl. Related Previous Empl. Yrs. of Related Experience


Work History at SYC Months at SYC Months in Present Unit Previous Unit ' Previous Positions




.50

.286 15.0 .590

2.667 3 .446

1.333 2 .513 .500

16.5 .396

7.0 .251

içlote. Data describing the staff at T, and T, on each of the characteristics can be found ifi the tàbles of Appendices 2 and 3.



a .500

1.333 2 .513 13.0 .400

14.0 29.0 13.0 13.0

.515

.067

.338

.382

14.5 14.5 19.0 14.5 2.0

.927

.926

.463

.925

.016

229

lable

Summary of the Significant Differences Between T 1 and T 2


Characteristics Chi=Sguare

x2 df

1_11D-LM—Wi.t.DeX

Previous Employment Previously Empl. .500 Related Previous Empl. .333 Yrs. of Related Experience 16.0 .748





4.133 3 .247

4.0 2 .135 .500

Factors Influencing Worker Style Conceptual Level 16.0 .855 Repression—Sensitization 9.5 .593

••••■••••••••••••••■••••••■■••••■••••••■.

'fiote. Data describing the staff at T, and T on each of the characteristics can be found ih the tables of Appendices 2 and 3.

a • Fisher's Exact Test of Significance.

Appendix 5

Summary of the Significant Differences at T 2

Between the SYC Staff in Different Settings,

Positions, and Teams on Background and Perso-

nal Characteristics

230

Demographic Sex Marital Status Pige

2 .897 4 .567

1.81 .171

.22 2.94

Table A

Summary of Significant Differences Between Residential, Group Home and Community Staff at T2, on Background and Personal

Characteristics

C111-1Uare ANOVA -------- Characteristic X

2 df F a

23 1

Previous Employment Previous Employment 6.14 2 .046 Related Previous Employment 5.69 2 .058 Yrs. of Related Experience 7.85 .001

Education Qualifications Certification Program Staff Development Courses

11.75 8 .163

10.87 6 .093

5.20 2 .074

Work History at SYC Total time at SYC Time in present unit Previous units worked in Previous positions

Preferences for Treatment Approaches 12 Cf ni Mp/Cfc Na Nx

Factors influencing Worker Style Conceptual Level Repression—Sensitization

10.07 .0001

9.56 .0002

2.07 .133

8.99 .0003

2.34 .104

1.56 .219

2.30 .108

2.40 .098

.94 .936

.82 .447

.72 .489

Note. Data describing the staff groups on each of the characteristics can be found in the tables of Appendix 3.

232

1.20 .046


4.09 3 .251

21.08 6 .002

Table B

Summary of Significant Differences Between SYC Counsellors, Houseparents, Caseworkers and Supervisors at T2 on Background

and Personal Characteristics

Chi Square

Characteristics X df a

Previous Employment Previous Employment 7.08 3 .069 Related Previous Employment 13.7 3 .003 Yrs. of Related Experience 4.60 .005

Education Qualifications 39.85 12 .0001 Certification Program 15.33 9 .082 Staff Development Courses 13.82 3 .003

111

Work History at SYC Total time at SYC 4.68 .005 Time in present unit 3.53 .019 Previous units worked in 3..7l .015 Previous positions 12.56 .000

Preferences for Treatment Approaches 1 9 1.57 .206 Cfm 1.45 .236 Mp/Cfc 2.30 .088 Na 1.15 .336 Nx .04 0 991


3.72 .015

.87 .460

Note. Data describing the four positions on each of the characteristics can be found in the tables of Appendix 3.

4.53 4 .339

8.00 8 .433 .49 .740

4.08 4 .395

.61 4 .962 .20 .935

Table C

Summary of Significant Differences Between the Five SYC Residential Teamsat T2 on Background and Personal Charac-

teristics

233

Characteristics Chi Square

df e

One—Way ANOVA

r-------


Previous Employment Previous Employment Related Previous Employment Yrs. of Related Experience



11.98 16 .745 11.14 12 .512 5.33 4 .255

1.73 .166

3.47 .018

.91 .469

.2517 .907

Preferences for Treatment Approaches 12 .53 .662 Cfm .76 .525 Mp/Cfc 1.67 .198

• Na 4.99 .007 Nx 3.97 .018


1.39 .267

5.01 .008

Note. Data describing each of the teams on the charac-teristics can be found in the tables of Appendix 3.

Fischers Exact One—Way Test or Chi—Square ANOVA 77 df F — R Characteristics

.657 .73 2 .696

.86 .873

.657

.357 1.75 .127

3 .162 2 .169

.725

5.14 5.55

Table D

Summary of the Significant Differences Between the Two SYC Community Teams at 1 2 on Background and Personal Characteristics

234

■••••• •••••••■•••••

Demographic Sex Marital Status Pige




.24 .633

.11 .752

.21 .018

.89 .362

Preferences for Treatment Approaches 12 .01 .916 Cfm .00 .968 Mp/Cfc 2.59 .133 Na .08 .779 Nx 3.08 .105

Factors Influencing Worker Style Conceptual Level .05 .820 Repression—Sensitization .02 .891

••••••

Note. Data describing the teams on each of the characteristics can be in the tables of Appendix 3.

One—Way ANOVA_

.99 .444


3.39 5 .640 7.57 10 .670

1.24 2.09 .30

1.34

.322

.100

.908

.279

Table E

Summary of the Significant Differences Between Fice SYC,

Croup Home Teams at T2 on Background and Personal Charac- teristics

235

Chi Square Characteristics




2.78 5 .734

5.51 5 .357 1.54 .236

20.71 20 .415

7.18 10 .708

5.97 5 .309

Preferences for Treatment Approaches 12 .32 .893 Cfm .90 .496 Mp/Cfc .88 .507 Na .46 .799 Nx 1.16 .357


.96 .461

2.01 ..113

Note. Data describing the group home teams on each of the characteristics can be found in the tables of Appendix 3.

APPENDIX 6

SYC Staff Ratings on the "Treater-Matching" Interview Scales

(September 1976 to March 1977)

236

+9 - 7 +9 0 +22 to -25

+29 to - 35 +35 to -44 +19 to -24 +44 to -52

+11 - 4

5 - 9

+8 - .5

+14 -14

1 2

Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx

+11 - 7 +13 - 9 +8 -6 +14 -14

Youth Type Scale Range Agreement within 10 2 of the Scale Pearson r n.

92% +22 to - 25

84% 79% 87% 90%

.00001

.00001

.00001

.00005

.00001

1 2 Cfm +29 to - 35 Mp/Cfc +35 to - 44 Na +19 to - 24 Nx +44 to '.52

.826

.743

.653

.587 :819

mil ilia MI III* Mt MU ILIM IMO We ILIN IMP

Table A

Criteria Used for Matching Workers to Youth Type In the Context of I-Level Theory

Youth Type Range of Scale

Original Cut-Offs a

Match Mismatch Present Research Cut-Offs

b

Match Mismatch

a See Ted Palmer, Guide to The Scoring and Interpretation of the "Form 3" Inventory, California

Treatment Project, 1968.

In taking the frequency distribution of our population on each of the scales into account, some

modifications were made in the cut-off points for matching and mismatching.

Table B

Correlation Between Two Independent Raters on the Subtype Scores of 38 Interviews

Table C

Correlation between Two Independent Raters on the 105 Items of the Rating Inventory

for the Selection and Matching of Treatment Personnela

Item Pearson's r Sig. Level Item Pearson's r Sig. Level Item Pearson's r Sig. Level

1 .598

2 .537

3 .499

4 .825

5 • 479

6 .519

7 .350 o .442

9 .413

10 .439

11 .56o

12 .712

13 .683

14 .406

15 .517

16 .179

17 .672

18 .474

19 .803

20 .586

21 .682

22 .643

23 .549

24 .481

25 .337

26 .360

27 .271

28 .259

29 .523

30 .725

31 .518

32 .582

33 .695 34 .454

35 .315•

.001 36 .423 .004 71 Did Not Score

.00i 37 4 99 .00t 72 .52 0 .001 Am 38 .438 .003 73 .159 .171 .001 39 ' .710 .001 74 .607 .001 .001 4o .209 .104 75 .289 .039 .001 41 .553 Am 76 .403 . 00 6 .016 42 .665 .001 77 .482 . 001 .003 43 .487 .001 78 .312 . 0 28 .005 44 .6 00 .001 79 .354 .015 .003 45 .403 . 00 6 8 0 .515 .001 .001 46 .325 .023 81 .774 .001 .001 47 .729 .001 82 .525 .001 .001 48 .655 . 001 83 .176 1 T46 .006 49 .682 .001 84 .130 .21 8 .001 50 .542 . 001 85 .449 .002

.141 51 .534 .001 86 .439 . 00 3

.001 52 .243 .071 87 .569 .001

.001 53 .584 .001 88 .390 .008

.001 54 .549 .001 89 .644 .001

.00t 55 .555 .001 go .315 .027

.001 56 .627 Am 91 .513 .001

.001 57 . 0 86 .305 92 .162 .166

.001 58 .299 .034 93 .193 .123

.001 59 .637 .001 94 .509 .001

. 0 19 6 0 .605 .001 95 .465 .002

.013 61 .234 .070 96 .375 .01 0

.0 5 0 62 .647 .00t 97 .539 .001

.0 58 63 .741 .001 98 .542 . 001

.001 64 .531 .001 99 .441 .003

.001 65 .709 .001 too .521 .001

.001 66 .613 .001 101 .206 .108

.001 67 .445 . 00 3 102 .378 .010

.001 68 .644 . 001 103 .181 .138

.002 69 .688 .001 104 .404 .006

.027 70 .578 .001 10 5 .358 .014

a Analysis based on 38 interviews.

um en me mg an am mot rt, am as es es is me es or ae

mil INN ON MI lie UM IOU UM 11111, 111•1 OM MO MN um we mu ion

Table D

Comparison of SYC Staff Matched and Mismatched to 12 Youth on Interview Scales and Subtype Scores

Scales

Matched Intermediate Mismatched (n=22) (n=32) (n=18) M SD M SD M SD

1. Soc. Des. Quai. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Present Prob. 10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. 18. Inner Focus 19. Chg. & Act. 20. Firmness 21. Con. Control

68.7 10.7 63.6 9.9 52.8 10.6

61.7 9.9 58.1 12.1 52.5 9.3

65.0 14.8 63.6 14.8 50.4 11.3

49.2 15.5 60.6 17.5 56.5 16.8

42.5 8.9 51.5 11.4 49.4 14.1

30.8 8.0 46.2 11.6 52.4 11.3

24.9 9.0 39.7 12.6 50.2 11.6

64.2 15.2 64.3 18.3 55.2 19.2

40.9 17.7 40.5 15.9 42.6 17.9

28.4 9.1 35.7 13.4 50.5 14.8

79.5 12.6 76.3 14.9 68.1 15.7

53.9 12.5 50.9 16.1 50.9 14.9

69.8 12.9 60.9 10.5 58.7 13.9

76.7 12.7 72.7 11.4 55.7 14.5

69.9 15.1 63.7 16.4 61.7 13.6

83.5 7.7 79.4 7.6 70.9 10.9

58.2 12.1 57.7 10.2 56.6 10.5

81.3 8.6 74.1 11.9 61.1 15.3

42.9 5.5 45.3 7.5 47.1 7.3

32.8 9.7 44.1 15.9 57.5 15.0

33.7 10.2 41.2 14.5 57.3 13.9

Subtype Scores

1 2 10.5 2.1 5.0 3.3 - 4.9 4.1 Cfm 12.8 4.1 2.1 8.4 - 6.6 8.9 Mp -10.3 8.5 - 2.8 11.7 - 5.2 9.5 Na 4.8 4.6 4.0 4.6 1.7 4.7 Nx 9.8 10.4 - 3.8 13.1 -24.3 16.2

%.S3

Table E

Comparison of SYC Staff Matched and Mismatched to Cfm Youth on Interview Scales and Subtype Scores

Scales


(ne.20) (n=36) (n=16) M SD M SD M SD

Soc. Des. Quai. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Pres. Prob.

10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. 18. Inner Focus 19. Chg. & Act. 20. Firmness 21. Control

70.2 11.4 62.7 9.1 52.1 10.5

58.9 11.4 57.0 10.8 58.2 12.3

65.0 15.6 61.9 14.5 52.8 13.5

48.6 15.9 56.2 16.2 65.2 17.5

41. 0 6.9 48.1 11.4 57.6 12.4

29.3 7.4 43.5 9.2 59.2 8. 0

23.3 8.3 37.3 9.9 56.9 6.2

6 0 .3 18.3 65.9 16.0 55.1 19.8

36.9 17.5 41.1 15.5 46.6 18.1

28.6 8.7 36.5 13.7 49.6 16.4

82.1 12.9 73.7 13.8 70.1 17.4

57.1 12.2 49.3 14.7 51. 0 16.4

63.3 13.9 65.0 11.7 58.2 13.4

79.1 14.1 69.7 12.6 57.8 12.8

64.8 16.1 67.9 15.7 59. 0 13.3

84.8 7.1 78.8 7.5 70.2 10.9

54.9 10.5 58.4 10.8 59.1 11.0

80.5 9.7 73.3 13.2 63.2 15.3

42. 0 6.9 44.9 5.9 48.9 7.7

31.6 10.7 42.9 12.6 62.5 14.9

34.5 11.9 41.2 14.1 57.3 14.5

Subtype Scores

1 2 Cfm Mp Na Nx

9.2 3.4 4.6 5.2 2.9 6.5

14.5 3.4 3.6 5.2 - 11.8 5.3

-10.9 8.9 - 6. 0 9.5 1.6 11.4

3.3 4.9 4.6 4.4 2.2 4.9

11.6 10.6 - 4. 0 13. 0 -26.8 12.8 N.)

wilit tout Mt MI MI. OW* tile ella 1.11> Mil MI tag er

UN MI OM II» -.1118 Ili UM Mill UM MIR Milli OM IMP OM RI Me am UM IOW

Table F

Comparison of SYC Workers Matched and Mismatched to Mp/Cfc Youth on Interview Scales and Subtype Scores

Scales


(n=13) (n=29) (n=30) M SD M SD M SD

I,■■■

1. Soc. Des. Quai. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Pres. Prob. 10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. 18. Inner Focus

15. Chg. & Act. 20. Firmness 21. Control

65.4 12.4 61.7 11.0 60.0 11.5

65.7 13.5 59.1 9.5 53.1 9.3

70.2 17.3 58.4 10.9 58.9 16.3

74.5 13.4 58.9 13.4 45.2 13.5

58.2 10.3 52.0 11.6 40.3 7.3

50.0 11.8 46.6 13.2 36.9 12.0

45.3 16.6 42.2 13.7 30.6 11.6

62.5 22.2 63.3 17.7 60.2 16.4

26.6 14.7 43.1 15.3 45.6 16.1

41.6 15.1 40.6 15.9 31.9 12.8

8 0 .8 12.9 75.6 15.3 72.5 15.2

46.8 15.1 53.9 13.2 52.1 15.7

58.2 11.9 64.5 11.7 63.8 14.1

71.9 11.4 70.3 14.2 68.1 17.1

65.4 15.6 65.6 17.3 64.4 14. 0

77.5 10.1 78.5 9.1 79. 0 10.2

63.1 10.1 58.9 9.4 53.9 11.3

73.4 12.5 71.9 13.3 73.9 15.6

46.3 5.8 46.2 7.7 43.4 6.6

55.5 12.5 47.5 15.3 35.9 15.6

49.6 15.1 47.1 14.3 36. 0 15.1

Subtype Scores

12 2.5 6.1 3.7 7.3 5.4 6.0 Cfm - 3.6 5.7 1.4 10.4 7.8 8.7 Mp 10.6 6.0 - 3.4 4.1 - 14.9 6. 0 Na 8.o 4.6 4.2 3.4 1.4 4.5 Nx - 8.3 15.3 - 8.4 17.7 .3 19.0

Table G

Comparison of SYC Workers Matched and Mismatched to Na Youth

on Interview Scales and Subtype Scores

Scales


(n.14) (n.46) (n=12) M SD M SD M SD

1. Soc. Des. Qual. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress.' 8. Past Diffc. 9. Pres. Prob.

10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. 18. Inner Focus 19. Chg. & Act. 20. Firmness 21. Control

72.3 11.1 62.5 9.9 50.5 8.9

67.1 11.9 57.4 8.9 48.6 10.8

73.4 17.9 59.8 12.4 49.8 11.1

64.5 20.7 56.2 14.8 45.9 17.3

51.8 13.1 48.2 11.6 44.1 11.3

41.8 12.2 43.5 13.7 43.4 14.5

34.9 16.8 38.6 13.8 38.9 15.8

67.4 17.5 62.2 18.3 54.7 15.1

30.7 18.0 41.4 15.1 52.4 15.2

33.7 14.5 37.4 15.1 40.4 15.6

80.7 11.8 76.6 13.7 63.5 17.7

42.9 12.9 53.9 12.7 54.5 19.8

66.5 11.6 63.9 12.3 55.9 14.7

76.1 12.4 70.7 13.6 58.3 17.4

69.6 15.8 65.2 15.5 59.3 14.5

81.5 9.2 78.5 9.3 75.1 11.1

61.8 10.0 58.2 10.3 50.0 10.3

15.2 10.7 74.8 13.2 64.0 17.8

45.8 6.7 45.2 7.3 43.5 6.5

46.2 14.3 42.6 16.8 47.4 18.8

40.6 12.9 43.2 15.7 44.6 19.1

Subtype Scores

12 6.8 5.8 4.5 6.2 0 7.5 Cfm 3.9 11.3 3.4 9.9 1.3 11.4 Mp 4.7 11.1 - 6.1 7.5 -16.3 9.8 Na 9.8 2.5 3.7 2.8 - 3.3 2.5 Nx 1.1 15.7 - 3.7 17.1 -15.7 21.4

BIM et 111111 MI OM UN IN 11111111 IBM Ma in1, gin Ind MS MIL III I»

Mil all 1111111 111111t 11111i 11111111 O. OBI OM OM Ill& MN OBI

Table H

Comparison of SYC Workers Matched and Mismatched to Nx Youth on Interview Scales and Subtype Scores

Scales


(n11) (n=39) (n=22) M SD M SD M SD

1. Soc. Des. Qual. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Pres. Prob. 10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. 18. Inner Focus 19. Chg. & Act. 20. Firmness 21. Control

74.5 9.7 64.3 9.2 52.9 9.9

58.1 10.6 58.4 11.8 56.5 10.8

72.3 16.4 63.3 13.7 50.6 10.5

51.7 16.9 54.3 16.5 61.4 18.0

44.5 6.7 46.1 11.1 53.9 13.8

30.9 7.2 39.4 11.1 55.9 9.6

23.5 8.9 33.8 11.3 52.5 10.0

66.5 19.4 64.3 16.9 55.7 17.8

34.5 12.7 39.9 16.9 46.6 17.4

21.9 9.4 34.2 11.1 50.1 13.7

81.4 13.3 76.6 1 3. 0 69.7 17.5

50.8 9.9 51.4 13.9 53.2 17.9

57.9 14.1 66.8 11.9 58.9 12.1

87.5 9.0 73.5 10.1 55.7 12.2

69.2 17.2 66.6 15.1 6 0 .2 14.8

86.1 6.3 80.5 7.6 71.3 10.0

61.4 7.6 57.8 11.2 55.3 11.1

84.5 8.2 77.0 10.1 60.3 13.7

b2.4 7.1 43.8 6.1 48.6 7.2

27.8 10.3 4 0 .9 12.8 57.8 15.3

27.7 9.6 4 0 .2 13.4 55.3 13.4

Subtype Scores

12 8.5 4.6 6.7 4.3 - 2.4 6.1 Cfm 12.1 5.8 7.2 6.9 - 8.4 7.2 Mp - 6.9 7.2 - 6.4 10.9 - 3.7 11.6 Na 5.5 4.2 4.4 4.7 1.5 4.5

• Nx 19.7 5.1 .5 9.6 - 26.3 10.2

Scales

Kruskal - Wallis x2

Community (n.18)

Residence (n=36)

Group Home (n=20)

1. Soc. Des. Quai. 2. Attr. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Present Prob.

10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. g Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. Re. 18. Inner Focus 19. Chg. g Act. 20. Firmness 21. Con. Control

59.5 57.8 55.7 54.9 47.4 47.6 38.5 68.8 50.0 37.2 74.8 51.4 65.6 69.8 65.0 79.2 55.5 75.3 45.4 47.2 43.3

63.9 55.1 60.4 48.8 48.4 41.1 38.4 58.3 36.3 39.9 70.8 50.6 59.4 70.2 62.8 79.4 55.6 70.1 44.9 43.5 46.0

67.7 59.0 61.7 55.4 45.8 32.8 28.6 68.8 34.5 29.7 82.5 55.6 62.2 74.6 60.6 84.8 55.9 80.7 45.9 35.9 33.3

5.76 .056

1.33 .514

5.27 .072

1.86 .394 .38 .826

5.85 .054

2.99 .224

1.70 .426

11.33 .004

6.10 .o47

7.53 .023

1.59 .450

2.01 .366

4.04 .133 .42 .811

2.45 .294

1.41 .493

2.69 .261

5.34 .069

6.21 .045

6.64 .036

Table I

Comparison of the Median Scores of SYC Residential, Group Home, and Community Staff on Interview Scales

Subtype Scores


6.9 2.2

-6.3 4.1 -5.5

2.0 6.0 -7.5 2.2

-8.5

8.3 10.0 -7.3 5.0 8.5

6.15 5.10 .01

2.96 7.17

.o46

.082

.993

.228

.028 e-

ma el ire de Ile - - 111111 ill Me Mg 01111 MI ale 11111

Ma 11111111 Ina Mal UN IBM OS Ilia MN OM en Ma MI Mt INS

Table J

Comparison of the Median Scores of SYC Counsellors, Houseparents, Caseworkers, and Supervisors on Interview Scales

Scales Counsellor Houseparent

(n=28) (n=11) Caseworker

(n=23) Supervisor

(n=10) Kruskal -Wallis

Xz

1. Soc. Des. Quai. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Present Prob.

10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. Re. 18. inner Focus 19. Chg. & Act.

20, Firmness

21. Con. Control

56.9 58.3 52.9 54.4 48.9 51.6 39.6 68.2 53.8 37.5 74.3 53.8 67.0 62.5 65.0 76.4 55.4 75.3 45.0 46.9 43.2

56.9 57.6 50.8 55.4 50.0 43.7 39.3 56.2 34.3 49.2 70.8 51.0 60.4 62.5 60.6 77.2 54.9 59.8 44.5 44.3 55.6

68.9 54.7 66.7 55.8 47.4 37.5 31.6 63.4 33.2 28.1 81.8 54.0 60.4 75.8 57.2 81.2 60.8 80.8

42.8 37.5 36.2

68.9 58.3 61.3 51.8 45.5 39.6 28.5 73.5 33.9 32.7 81.3 46.5 61.4 76.6 64.6 84.2 52.6 77.5 42.9 35.9 37.5

19.32 .000

.90 .825

21.81 .000 .71 .916 .64 .887

8.59 .035

6.14 .105

3.49 .321

21.56 .000

13.17 .004

6.30 .098 .26 .968

5.44 .142

21.62 .000

1.05 .790

7.61 .055

6.85 .077

14.03 .003

3.79 .284

8.04 .045

9.49 .023

Subtype Scores


6.3 - 1.0 6. 0 8.2 10.68 .014 - .8 3.0 9.3 9.5 6.48 .091 - 8.0 - 6.3 - 7. 0 - 5.5 1.72 .633

4.5 .7 6.0 5.5 12.93 .005 -12.0 - 17.0 8.0 6. 0 19.32 .000

Team 1 (n-7) Scales

Table K

Comparison of the Median Scores of Five SYC Residential Teams on Interview Scales

Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Team 5 Kruskal-Wallis (n=7) (n=7) (n=8) (n=7) X 2

1. Soc. Des. Quai. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Present Prob.

10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. Re. 18. Inner Focus 19. Chg. & Act. 20. Firmness 21. Con. Control

63.2 59.4 55.0 49.5 46.5 31.3 34.7 68.8 48.6 38.5 80.8 58.3 68.8 71.9 58.1 86.0 55.4 70.8 45.2 38.3 39.5

55.6 52.9 55.0 55.8 47.9 47.9 47.2 72.9 55.8 32.8 67.3 45.8 60.4 71.9 65.0 73.8 55.6 73.5 45.2 54.7 41.3

65.3 62.5 50.0 45.9 38.9 43.8 38.9 70.3 37.5 59.8 81.3 50.0 68.8 60.9 65.3 70.2 55.0 71.0 47.7 44.8 45.3

65.3 60.4 65.0 64.2 52.7 48.9 38.4 54.2 37.5 36.5 75.0 51.4 60.4 78.1 57.2 79.2 55.2 80.8 44.5 54.4 45.5

52.1 55.7 55.0 57.1 47.9 56.7 47.2 62.5 58.3 32.3 72.2 45.8 60.4 71.9 67.2 84.9 66.5 88.8 45.9 36.5 4o.8

5.72 .221

4.95 .293

4.10 .392

6.45 .168

1.08 .897

1.56 .817

1.74 .784

1.58 .812

8.29 .082

3.23 .52o

7.59 .108

5.89 .207

5.06 .281

4.14 .387

1.59 .809

10.51 .033

7.53 .111

6.29 .178

2.18 .703

2.61 .626

3.99 .407

Subtype Scores

12 8.5 cfm 7.5 Mp/Cfc - 10.5 Na 4.0 Nx - 3.5

6.5 5.5 3.5 7.8 2.39 - 2.5 .5 4.5 2.5 2.02 - 6.5 -10.5 - .5 - 9.5 6.12

3.5 3.5 7.0 1.0 6.18 -10.5 -10.5 - 2.5 o .82

.663

.731

.191

.186

.936

ts.)

Cr•

MI OM 11111111 1018 0111 1111111 OM BIM MI OM en MI MI , 1111«, RIO all

Scales Team 6 (n=9)

Team 7 (n=7)

Kruskal - Wal lis X2

1. Soc. Des. Quai. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness 5. Forcefulness 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Present Prob. 10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity 14. Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. Re. 18. Inner Focus 19. Chg. & Act. 20. Firmness 21. Con. Control

66.7 52.6 62.5 44.7 38.0 29.2 25.0 64.6 41.6 21.9 82.3 54.7 62.5 75.0 74.1 84.9 55.8 84.2 40.9 28.2 28.7

70.8 70.8 77.5 73.8 54.9 41.7 49.5 71.9 25.0 42.2 87.5 54.2 62.9 75.0 58.8 75.2 61.0 70.4 44.1 53.1 39.8

11022 .314

2.53 .111

2.54 .111

8.52 .004

4.52 .034

3.66 .o56

5.69 .017 .07 .784

6.97 .008

6.57 .010 .18 .668

1.25 .264 .07 .791 .05 .831 .48 .490

3.84 .o5o

1.37 .243

8.49 .004

2.04 .153

9.81 .002

8.47 .004

Subtype Scores

1 2 Cfm Np/Cfc Na Nx

5.5 - 3.5

6.5 9.5

- 6.5

10.0 15.0

-13.8 2.7 13.0

5.67 .017

7.57 .006

11.12 .001

8.47 .003

6.19 .013

IMO ell MU MI alla MI MO INIMI Mr OM lime 11111111 11111111

Table L

Comparison of the Median Scores of Two SYC Community Teams on Interview Scales

Table M

Comparison of the Median Scores of Six SYC Group Home Teams

on Interview Scales

Scales Team 10 (n=3)

Team 11 (n=4)

Team 12 (n=4)

Team 13 (n=4, )

Team 14 Team 15 Kruskal-Wallis (n=4) (n=4) x2

1. Soc. Des. Quai. 2. Att. Adol. Like 3. Alertness 4. Boldness

5‘. Forcefulness 6. Soc. Undes. Quai. 7. Aggress. 8. Past Diffc. 9. Present Prob.

10. Moral Or. 11. Work Sat. 12. World Sat. 13. Familiarity

14 • Und. & Diff. 15. Use of Self 16. Atmosphere 17. Con. Neg. Re. 18. Inner Focus 19. Chg. & Act. 20. Firmness 21. Con. Control

65.3 62.5 47.9 63.9 54.2 65.3 2.22 .817

72.9 50.7 47.9 57.3 52.1 56.3 7.57 .182

62.5 62.5 46.3 52.8 55.8 63.8 6.82 .234

52.5 49.2 57.9 45.8 44.7 57.5 1.87 .867

43.8 39.6 46.9 47.9 35.4 54.2 7.94 .159

35.4 4 0 .6 52.1 40.9 38.8 45.1 8.40 .135

30.6 34.7 54.9 37.5 31.9 40.3 10.13 .072

68.8 56.3 56.3 68.8 50.0 54.2 4.08 .537

37.5 29.2 45.9 30.0 45.8 34.7 3.44 .632

34.4 37.5 57.8 34.4 36.5 46.9 9.52 .090

79.2 70.8 77.1 73.6 58.3 68.8 6.50 .260

58.3 47.9 43.8 54.2 40.3 62.5 11.94 .036

72.9 60.4 58.3 58.3 60.4 52.1 5.86 .321

71.9 73.9 48.5 68.8 59.4 70.6 2.03 .845

70.0 65.3 53.8 72.7 51.3 44.1 6.89 .229

80.0 83.5 73.5 75.8 75.6 74.4 .89 .971

50.2 66.3 53.8 55.0 43.9 55.8 8.91 .113

85.6 70.2 62.8 66.0 75.2 52.9 3.14 .678

40.9 41.9 50.6 45.9 41.1 44.5 8.23 .144

42.2 41.9 57.8 40.6 38.5 55.2 8.95 .111

40.5 46.0 60.0 47.7 36.1 48.0 7.46 .188

Subtype Scores


10.2 2.5 - 2.5 - 1.5 5.0 1.3 8.70 .122

8.5 7.0 - 11.0 - 1.5 9.5 - 3.0 7.87 .164

- 5.0 - 7.5 .5 - 9.5 -22.5 - 3.0 10.79 .056 r.›

4.5 3.5 2.5 1.0 - 1.5 1.5 4.94 .423

2.5 - 3.5 -32.5 - 6.5 -14.0 -21.5 4.82 .438

411111111 111111 , 1111111 MIN all al 1111111 IMO tilt MI tali IIIIIIIII MIS MI

2 49

Appendix 7

SYC Staff Self Ratings on the Staff Intervention Scales

April 1977

Table A

Correlation Between SYC Self and Observer Ratings on the Staff Intervention Questionnai -re

25 0

/

Scales Pearson's r

1-<- 1-_1-0711 -------------- ---- -- .062 .315

Relationships .262 .019

Motivation -.042 .375

Indiv. -.117 .194

Support -.141 .141

Values -.039 .381

Justice .061 .312

Indifference .259 .021

Autonomy .046 .365

Work with Client Group -.165 .217

Authority .295 .012

Free Time activities .361 .004

Responsibilities .146 .139

Punctuality .409 .0005

Team Work .005 .484

Group Meetings .406 .008

Child Care .276 .038

10. Work with group

11. Authority

12. Free Time

13. Responsibility 14. Ponctuality 15. Team Work

16. Group meeting •

17. Child Care

.5 .6 .5 .1 .6 .5 .4

.6 .4 .2 .4 .6 .3

.3 .2 .4 .6 .2

.1 .4 .5 .4

.1 .0 .2

.5 .2

.1

1111111 Ilia IMO 1111. IMO OM MO Ili OM Oil 1111 ale lie Ole MI OM Mt On

Table B

Spearman's Correlation Between SYC Staff Observer Scores on the Scales of the Staff Intervention Questionnaire

Scale 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Knowledge .6 .7 .E .8 .4 .7 .4 .5 .6 .4 .5 .6 .1 .7 .4 .3 2. Relationship .6 .5 .7 .2 .7 .4 .5 .5 .6 .4 .6 .0 .6 .4 .4

3. motivation .7 .7 .5 .7 .6 .5 .6 .5 .7 .5 .1 .7 .5 .4 4. Individualization .9 .4 .8 .4 .6 .5 .5 .4 .6 .0 .8 .6 .1 5. Support . .4 .8 .5 .7 .6 .5 .5 .7 .0 .8 .6 .3 6. Values .3 .6 .4 .6 .2 .3 .4 .2 .3 .4 .2

7. Justice .4 .7 .6 .5 .5 .7 .1 .6 .5 .4 8. Indifference .4 .7 .5 .5 .4 .2 .4 .5 .4 9. Autonomy .4 .3 .3 .7 .0 .4 .5 .3

Note. 119 of 136 pairs are correlated significantly <.05. Nine subscales do not correlate significantly with Punctuality; seven scales do not correlate significantly with Child Care.

N.)

Table C

Spearman's Correlation Between SYC Staff Self Rating Scores on the Scales of the Staff Intervention Questionnaire

Scale 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

1. Knowledge .4 .6 .6 .6 .4 .3 .2 .4 .3 .2 .3 .5 .1 .4 -.0 .3

2. Relationships .4 .5 .6 .4 .3 .1 .5 .6 .5 .3 .4 .1 .5 .2 .3

3. Motivation .6 .7 .5 .4 .3 .3 .5 .3 .4 .5 .1 .6 .2 .4

4. Individualization .7 .5 .5 .2 .5 .6 .3 .3 .5 -.0 .7 .2 .3

5. Support .5 .5 .3 .4 .6 .5 ".5 .4 -.0 .6 .3 .5

6. Values .3 .3 .5 .6 .3 .2 .4 .2 .5 .0 .3

7. Justice .4 .5 .4 .3 .0 .4 .1 .6 .1 .1

8. Indifference .1 .2 .5 .2 .1 .0 .4 .1 .2

9. Autonomy .4 .2 .0 .6 .2 .3 -.0 .2

10. Work with group .6 .4 .3 -.0 .6 .5 .5

11. Authority .3 .1 .0 .6 .6 .3

12. Free Time .2 -.1 .5 .5 .5

13. Responsibility .0 .4 .0 .1

14. Ponctuality -.0 .0 .1

15. Team Work .5 .2

16. Croup Meeting .2

17. Child Care

Note: 92 out of the 136 pairs correlate significantly <.05.

\JI

en MN IBM 11111111 MO IS Me ISO OM Mt 11111111 111111 11113 111111 411111 OS MS all

Al MI MI OM MI MIS IBM 111111 MI OM all MI MS US Mal 11111 MU ant 111111

Table D

Comparison of the Median Self RatingsSYC Staff in the Three Treatment Settings on the Staff Intervention Scales

Scale Residence Community Group Home (n=31) (n14) (n=16)

Knowledge 7.7 7.9 7.6

Relationship 7.7 8.0 8.1

Motivation 7.6 7.9 7.9

Individualization 7.6 8.1 7.5

Support 7.4 7.4 7.5 Values 8.4 8.4 9.3

Justice 7.4 7.6 8.1

Indifference 2.8 3.3 2.6 Autonomy 7.2 8.1 8.1

Work with Group 7.6 7.2 7.9

Authority 7.6 7.2 7.6

Free Time 7.5 6.8 6.6

Responsibility 7.8 8.8 7.9

Punctuality 8.3 8.5 9.1 -

Team Work 7.2 7.4 7.5

Group Meeting 7.4 - 6.5

Child Care 7.9 - 8.1

Table E

Comparison of the Counsellers', Houseparents', and Caseworker& Median Self Ratings on the Staff Intervention Scale

Counsellers Houseparents Caseworkers Kruskal - Wullis Scale (n:29) (n=10) (n=22) X2

Knowledge 7.6 6.7 7.7 .56 .754

Relationship 7.8 8.3 7.6 2.92 .232

Motivation 7.6 7.9 7.9 2.32 .314

Individualization 7.5 7.2 8.0 4.96 .084

Support 7.3 7.1 7.5 1.13 .569

Values 8.3 9.3 8.8 3.30 .192

Justice 7.5 7.3 8.1 1.71 .426

Indifference 2.5 2.9 2.7 .26 .879

Autonomy 7.3 8.1 8.1 7.45 .024 ,

Work with Croup 7.9 8.0 7.0 5.03 .081

Authority 7.6 7.7 6.9 4.71 .095

Free Time 7.6 6.0 6.8 9.81 .007

Responsibility 7.8 7.5 8.8 10.20 .006

Punctuality 8.3 9.5 8.6 6.08 .048

Team Work 7.2 7.4 7.3 3.19 .203

Group Meeting 7.4 7.1 - .24 .887

Child Care 8.0 8.6 - 2.13 .344

■.n

MI OM MI I» IN Ole MO MO Me OM OW Mg 111111 1111111 IMO 1110 ISM

11111 Mg MIR MS MID Ole OM MO OM III MI UM US IMO OM CO INS OM

Table F

Comparison of SYC Residential Tees. Median Self Ratings on the Staff Intervention Scales

Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Team 5 Kruskal-Wallis (n=7) (n=5) (n=7) (n=6) (ne.6) X 2 P ----------------------------------------------

Knowledge 8.0 8.2 6.9 7.1 7.9 .329 .5i1

Relationship 8.2 8.0 8.0 6.5 7.6 8.78 .067

motivation 8.1 7.9 6.9 7.6 7.5 2.58 .630

Individualization 7.7 8.3 7.0 5.9 7.3 4.04 .400

Support 7.5 7.6 7.0 7.0 7.0 3.58 .467

Values 8.3 8.9 8.2 8.2 8.9 2.75 .599

Justice 7.5 7.5 7.5 6.6 7.4 1.81 .770

Indifference 2.7 2.8 2.3 3.1 3.7 6.70 .152

Autonomy 6.9 8.0 7.2 6.5 7.7 5.77 .217

Work with Group 8.1 8.3 7.4 6.9 7.7 3.86 .426

Authority 7.9 8.1 7.6 7.6 6.8 5.54 .237

Free Time 7.2 8.8 7.4 6.9 7.3 5.10 .277

Responsibility 7.2 8.3 7.7 7.3 8.1 4.62 .329

Punctuality 7.5 8.6 8.1 7.8 8.8 2.01 .733

Team Work 7.3 8.1 7.2 7.1 7.0 5.45 .244

Group meeting 7.7 6.2 6.3 6.2 5.8 3.30 .509

Child Care 8.2 8.5 7.7 7.8 7.8 5.52 .238

Scale

Table G

Comparison of the SYC Community Teame Median Self Ratings on the Staff Intervention Scales

Team 6 Team 7 Kruskal-Wallis Scale (n=8) (n=6) X2

Knowledge 7.8 8.1 -1.04 .301 Relationship 7.9 8.5 - .98 .328 Motivation 7.5 8.3 -1.24 .217 Individualization 7.7 8.6 -1.36 .173 Support 7.2 8.5 -1.95 .051 Values 8.3 9.2 - .73 .466 Justice 7.6 7.6 - .65 .515 Indifference 4.1 2.2 -1.23 .217 Autonomy 8.2 8.1 - .07 .948

Work with Croup 7.1 7.9 - .07 .948 Authority 6.4 8.3 -2.34 .019 Free Time 6.0 7.2 -1.65 .099 Responsibility 8.8 8.9 - .14 .893

Punctuality 8.6 7.1 .14 .892

Team Work 6.9 8.3 -1.30 .193

Croup Meeting _ _ - - -

Child Care - - - -

1.1111 eon MO «II is se Milt MN Me Ili Mg OM UM I» MP Ill. OM

Me es as UM IMO all all OM INS 111111 MI Mt OM UN IMO OM

Table H

Comparison of the SYC Croup Home Teams' Median Self Ratings on the Staff Intervention Scale a

Team 10 Team 11 Team 12 Team 13 Team 14 Team 15 Scale (n=2) (n=3) (n=3) (n=2) (n=3) (n=3) Kn-Owledge 5.8 7.5 Relationship 8.3 8.5 7.1 9.1 7.3 7.8 Motivation 7.3 8.1 7.6 9.1 7.9 7.8 Individualization 7.8 8.7 6.3 7.5 7.7 8.0 Support 7.5 7.6 6.5 8.1 7.6 6.9 Values 9.4 8.4 6 .3 10.0 9.4 9.(3 Justice 6.9 9.2 7.5 7.7 7.2 8.6 Indifference 1.4 1.8 1.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 Autonomy 8.3 8.1 6.9 7.9 7.4 8.3 Work with Croup 7.9 8.8 6.4 8.9 7.6 7.6 Authority 7.0 8.4 7.1 8.1 7.1 7.9 Free Time 6.3 6.5 5.7 8.8 5.8 5.8 Responsibility 7.5 7.9 6.6 8.9 7.2 8.3 Punctuality 9.3 8.6 8.9 10.0 8.9 9.7 Team Work 6.8 9.0 7.7 8.9 7.1 7.5 Croup Meetin 4.2 8.3 7.1 7.9 6.6 6.7 Child Care 8.9 8.1 5.6 8.4 9.4 6.9

a * No statistical tests run due to small number of respondents.

APPENDIX 8

SYC Youths' Satisfaction with their Workers

258

Table A

• SYC Residential and Group Home Youths' Satisfaction a

with their Workers at Five Points in Time

259

Time Youth Very Very No

n k Sat. Sat. 50/50 Dissat. Dissat. Response ..... (80-100)" (60-79) • (4n-59) (20-39) (0-19)

March

1976 69 39.1 36.2 8.7 8.7 4.3 2.9

June

1976 34 c 52.9 32.4 5.9 2.9 2.9 2.9

Oct. 1976 68 44.1 25.0 19.1 4.4 4.4 2.9

April 1977 64 39.0 28.1 17.2 10.9 3.1 1.6

Oct. 1977 76 36.8 35.5 14.5 9.2 2.6 1.3

Over ,- all 311 41.1 31.5 13.8 7.7 3.5 2.3

a Numbers are in percentages.

Score range.

Few group home youth answered any questionnaires during the June

administration.

10

1 4.3

30 16.7 14.3

16.7 33.3 42.9

6.7 11.1

12.5

6.5

60 30.8 25.0

6.7

12.5

36.4 9.1

260

Table B

Residential Youths' Satisfaction with their Workers over Five Administrations 1

Unit

Very Dis- Very Dis- No Satisfied Satisfied 50/50 Satisfied Satisfied Response II

Unit 1 1st 15 73.3 a 13.3 6.7 2nd 9 55.6 33.3 3rd 6 83.3 16.7 4th 8 62.5 12.5 12.5 5th 8 37.5 25 37.5

Overall 46 63.0 19.6 10.9

Unit 2 1st 10 10 30 30 10 10 10 2nd 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 3rd 10 20 40 20 10 10 4th 9 11.1 33.3 22.2 22.2 11.1 5th 8 37.5 25 12.5 25

Overall 40 17.5 30 20 17.5 10 5

Unit 3 1st 15 33.3 2nd 13 69.2 3rd 8 62.5 4th 11 100 5th 11 54.5

Overall 58 62.1 32.8 1.7 1.7

Unit 4 1st 13 30.8 30.8 7.7 15.4 7.7 7.7 2nd 9 44.4 44.4 11.2 3rd 11, 36.4 18.2 18.2 9.1 18.2 4th 10 10 60 10 10 10 5th 12 41.7 25 16.7 8.3 8.3

Overall 55 32.7 34.5 10.9 9.1

Unit 5 3rd 10 60 4th 6 33.3 5th 7 28.6

Overall 23 43.5 26.1 21.7 4.3

1.7

9.1 3.6

4.3

APPENDIX 9

Staff Turnover

261

New Workers

Original Workers Group Ti

New Workers , Who

Transfer/Resign

Workers Who

Transfer/Resign

Table A

Movement of SYC Staff Groups from March 1976 to March 1977

tsa

Residential Teams 33 19 57.6 25 4 16.0 1 7 3 42.9 2 0 2 7 5 71.4 5 o

3 7 2 28.6 3 o 4 7 5 71.4 6 2 33.3 5 5 4 57.1 9 2 22.2

Community Teams 13 3 23.1 5 0

6 9 2 22.2 2 0

7 4 1 25.0 3 0

Group Homes 18 a 14 77.8 13 6 46.2

9 3 3 100.0 Home Closed

Io 5 5 100.0 7 5 71.4

11 6 4 66.7 3 i 33.3 12 5 2 4 0 . 0 3 o

Total Agency 64 36 56.3 43 10 23.3

a One supervisor coordinates two homes. He is counted in each and once in the total.

Me Ole MID IMO MI MID MI 1111118 al ON Mill 1111111 OM OM Mgt IMO MI URI 11111111

APPENDIX 10

Distribution of Workers and Youth In each Unit by I-Level and Conceptual Level

263

Table A

Distribution of Youth I-Level Subtype and Worker Type in SYC Residential Units

N.)

Youth Subtype in % Unit Time n I 2/Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx Other

Worker Type (Sept. 76 to mar. 77) I 2 /Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx M I MM M I MM M I MM M I MM

1 1 18 16.7 83.3 2 10 100.0

2 1 14 85.7 14.3 2 14 92.7 7.1

3 1 15 86.7 13.3 2 15 66.7 6.7 20.0 6.7

4 1 13 23.1 46.2 30.8 2 12 58.3 25.0 8.3 8.3

5 1 9 11.1 55.6 33.3 2 11 36.4 45.5 18.2

7 3 22 0 4 3 151 133

7 043 05 2 151 133

7 151 2 05 2 50 05 2

8 1 6 1 341 341 06 2

7 3 22 043 05 2 14 2

Note. M r. Matched; I Intermediate; MM Mismatched

a Significant change in youth subtype distribution from T 1 to T 2.

OM MS IMO Mill OM IMP OM MI OM OBI Mk ire en or as

VII MI all MS SIM UM UM en Ina Ina MS fin MIS re es MI an US

Table B

Distribution of Youth Subtype and Worker Type in SYC Community Units

Youth Subtype in % Unit Time n 1 2/Cfm Mp/Cfc

Na Nx Other

Worker Type (June 76 to Sept. 77) I2/Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx M I MM M I MM M I MM M I MM

6 1 45 33.3 4.4 4.4 57.8 2 56 30.4 1.8 3.6 64.3

7 1 28 10.7 57.1 32.1 2 41 7.3 12.2 78.0 2.4

9 7 20 02 7 1 53 45 0

7 1 33 5 20 5 20 1 33

Note. M = Matched; I = Intermediate; MM = Mismatched

a Change in youth subtype distribution from T 1 to T 2 .

Table C

Distribution of Youth Subtype and Worker Type in SYC Group Home Units

Worker Type (Nov. 76 to March 77) Youth Subtype in % 1 /Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx

Unit Time 12/Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx Other n M

2 I MM M 1 MM M 1 MM M 1 MM

1 1

10 1 7(1) 2 2 6(1)

1 4 50.0 50.0 2 5(1) 40.0 40.0 20.0

12 1 4(1) 50.0 50.0 2 6 50.0 50.0

13 b 1 5 20.0 80.0 2 4 50.0 50.0

14 1 Not open 2 7 57.1 42.9

15 1 Not open 2 8 37.5 62.5

28.6 71 .4

16.7 83.3 3(1)1 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 3 0

4 040 11 2 130 040

4 01 3 211 031 0??

4 22 0 0 22 0 4 0 1 2 1

4 220 0 04 0 22 112

4 121 130 031 11 2

Note. M Matched; 1 -.2 Intermediate; MM ...: Mismatched


Change in youth subtype distribution from T 1 to T 2 .

NJ

Mill INS 111111 INS 1111111 MI Mil OM Me 11111111 Mil OM MO an as au an se

7 28.6 57.1 14.3 - No Data -

2 1 10(4) 20.0 80.0 2 13(1) 23.1 76.9

MI INS WI MO Ile MI Mal MS MI UM OM 1111111 Re MI US OM MO OM UM

Table D

The Residential SYC Youth and Workers at T 1 and T 2 in Different Conceptual Level Stages

Youth CL Stage in % Worker CL Orientation in % A B B to C Norm Exploration independence

Unit Time n (0-.8) (.9-1.6) (1.7+) n (<1.b (1.66-2.1) ( ?2.1) _ 1 1 15(3) a 26.7 73.3 7 42.8 28.6 28.6

2 9(11) 22.2 66.7 11.1 6 16.7 66.6 16.7

3 1 15 60.0 40.0 7 57.1 42.8 2 15 40.0 60.0 8 50.0 37.5 12.5

4 1 11(2) 72.7 27.3 7 28.6 57.1 14.3 2 12 50.0 50.0 9 50.0 37.5 12.5

5 1 9 44.4 44.4 11.1 5b 80.0 20.0

2 9(2) 22.2 33.3 44.4 8 50.0 37.5 12.5


b . . Significant change in mean CL of staff from T 1 to 1 2 •

Table E

Distribution of the Conceptual Level Stages of SYC Youth and Staff in Community Units at T i and T2

OD

Youth CL Stage in % Worker CL Orientation in %

A B B to C Norm Exploration independence

Unit Time n (o - .8) (.9 - 1.6) (1.7+) n (<1.41) (1.66 - 2.1) (>2.1)

6 1 30(18) a 30.0 66.7 13.3 9 0.0 44.4 55.6 2 42(14) 33.3 59.5 7.1 8(1) 0.0 75.0 25.0

1 25(10) 24.0 60.0 16.0 4 0.0 50.0 50.0 2 35( 6) 31.4 54.3 14.3 5 20.0 60.0 20.0

7


UM Ili 111111 IMO MO UM IMO 11111111 Ole MO IMO IMO OM OM fall OM

UM WM 1•11 SIM MIS UM MI MI MI Mil IIIIII UM MI MI 01111 UM IRO ill Me

Table F

Distribution of the Conceptual Level Stages of SYC Youth and Workers in Group Homes at T 1 and 12

Youth in CL Stage in % Worker CL Orientation in % A B B to C Norm Exploration Independence

Unit Time n (o-.8) (.9-1.6) (1.7+) n (<1.4) (1.66-2.1) ( n. 1) _ "

10 1 7(1) a 14.3 85.7 5 20.0 60.0 20.0 2 7 14.3 85.7 5 40.0 60.0

11 1 4 25.0 25.0 50.0 6(1)20.0 60.0 20.0 2 6 33.3 66.7 6 33.3 33.3 33.3

12 1 3(2) 33.3 66.7 5 80.o 20.0 2 4(2) 25.0 50.0 25.0 2 50.0 50.0

13 1 5 8 0 . 0 20.0 - No Data - 2 4 75.0 25.0 5(1) 100.0

14 I Not Open 2 7 14.3 85.7 6 50.0 33.3 16.7

15 1 Not Open 2 8 25. 0 5 0 . 0 25. 0 6 33.3 66.7


APPENDIX 11

Comparison of the Characteristics of High

and Lower Conceptual Level SYC Staff

270

Characteristic dr p

•


18 81.8 20 66.7 .81 1 .368

4 18.2 10 33.3

[:

6.52 3 .089

3.55 1 .059

111 271

Table A

Comparison of the Back ground and Personal Characteristics of High and Lower Conceptual Level S.Y.C. Staff

Lower CL _Chi=S.guare •

Single 8 36.4 9 30.0 Married 14 63.6 20 66.7 .91 2 .635 Sep/Div. 0 0.0 1 3.3

Employment PreV. Empl. Not prev. empl.

16 72.7 25 83.3

6 27.3 5 16.7 .34 1 .561

Prev. related emp1.10 No prey. " tt 6

62.5 15 57.7

37.5 11 42.3 .00 1 .988

Education No diploma/degree 1 4.5 12 40.0 CEGEP 4 45.5 8 26.7 Undergraduate 10 31.8 5 16.7 17.26 4 .002

Graduate 7 18.2 2 6.7 Other 0 0.0 3 10.0

•Certification program

None 18 81.8 22 73.3 CEGEP 0 0.0 5 16.7 Undergrad. 2 9.1 3 10.0

Graduate 2 9.1 0

Other 0

Staff development courses

Took courses 14 63.6 10 33.3

Did not courses 8 36.4 20 66.7

272 1 1

Table A (continued)

---------- II

h_CL.._ Lower C .4. IgD_Ozilibit,D.e4. Characteristics - (ng227- --5--.:30T

M Sp M SO U P- II

Demographic 11 Age 28.2 6.7 31.3 7.5 398.0 .207

Employment

Mos. Related Exp. 75.6 38.2 60.4 32.5 248.5 .131 II

Work History at SYC Mos. with syc 39.2 23.7 24.3 21.7 200.5 .016 II Mos. in present

unit 25.5 14.1 13.6 12.6 159.5 .002 Prey. units .9 .9 .7 .8 304.0 .605

II Preferences for Treatment approaches Accepting Friend 52.5 9.2 52.9(l a 8.1 328.0 .863 II Big Brother 50.1 15.6 53.0(1 7.6 348.0 .578 Control Structure 53.0 8.6 53.1(1 7.2 314.0 .924 Behavior Reality 56.9 10.5 50.5(1) 9.7 207.0 .032 II Insight Reality 57.3 9.2 54.8(1) 8.4 262.0 .273

Factors Influencing II Style

Conceptual Level 2.4 .2 1.5 ...2 0 .000 II Repression-.

Sensitization 20.4 10.5 25.5(2) 15.9 354.5 .363

_ II a Numbers in parentheses indicate missing cases.

II

II

II

II

11

Table B

Comparison of High and Lower Conceptual Level SYC Staff on Subtype Scores and Interview Scales

273

Subtype Scores High CL Lower CL Cri=15) (n=11) Mann-Whitney

so

Iz 6.0 7.5 4.4 4.5 56.0 Cfm 5.4 11.6 3.1 9.2 66.5 Mp/Cfc - .7 9.2 -9.5 12.6 40.5 Na 7.1 4.7 1.2 4.3 24.5 Nx 1.9 20.9 -6.8 13.8 57.7

.167

.406

.029

.003

.194

Interview Scales

1. Soc. Des. Qua1. 67.9 14.3 57.8 3.3 44.0 .046

2. Att. Adol. Like 61.5 12.7 56.2 10.9 59.5 .231

3. Alertness 67.8 18.3 53.4 11.3 46.5 .061 4. Boldness 58.8 16.8 54.5 1.6.6 75.0 .697 5. Forcefulness 49.4 9.7 48.1 13.2 70.5 .531 6. Soc , Undes.

Qual. 41.9 16.1 45.6 13.4 95.0 .515 7. Aggress. 35.1 18.7 37.5 11.1 92.0 .622 B. Pest. Di rfc. 68.3 14.8 59.1 12.9 49.5 .077 9. Present. Prob. 32.8 15.5 50.8 15.3 131.0 .011 10. Moral Or. 33.9 16.0 36.4 11.9 94.0 .549 11. Work Sat. 81.4 13.3 77.6 10.2 61.5 .271 12. World Sat. 50.8 9.6 52.7 18.7 88.5 .754 13. Familiarity 62.9 10.4 65.5 8.3 92.5 .602 14. Und. & Diff. 76.0 15.3 66.2 11.3 47.0 .064 15. Use of Self 67.7 14.9 62.8 12.6 70.5 .533 16. Atmosphère 80.9 12.0 78.5 9.1 62.0 .287 17. Con. Neg. 58:5 9.7 59.6 12.9 80.5 .917 18. Inner Focus 79.3 12.9 72.0 12.6 50.0 .092 19. Cg. & Act. 45.4 5.3 44.3 6.5 79.5 .876 20. Firmness 42.6 16.6 47.9 11.0 104.0 .263 21. Con. Control 43.1 17.8 43.2 16.7 92.5 .604

274

11

Table C

11 Comparison of High and Lower Conceptual Level SYC Staff on the Staff Intervention Scales (Self Rating)

II _Hi .gh_Cl.. Lower Cl.. Mann Whitney

Scales (ne 10) (n el3) 11 M SL M SL U P

11 Knowledge 7.7 .9 7.2 1.7 53.5 .473 Relationship 7.9 .7 8.2 .7 76.0 .493 Motivation 7.9 .6 7.7 1.0 50.0 .350

11 Individualization 7.6 1.4 7.5 1.4 63.5 .925 Support 7.6 .6 7.4 .8 56.0 .575 Values 8.6 .9 8.9 .9 80.0 .339

11 Justice 7.9 1.1 7.6 1.0 55.5 .553 Indifference 2.3 1.5 2.8 1.4 47.5 .274 Autonomy 7.9 1.2 7.9 .8 62.5 .876 Work with group 7.6 1.1 8.1 .8 75.0 .321 II Authoity 7.8 .9 7.6 1.1 50.0 .505 Free Time 7.7 1.5 6.7 1.9 47.0 .261

Responsibility 8.2 .9 7.8 1.0 52.0 .410 II Punctuality 8.7 1.3 8.0 2.5 59.0 .694 Team Work 7.4 1.0 7.3 1.4 67.5 .875

1 Group Meeting 7.5(qa 1.2 6.7(9 2.2 37.5 .588 Child Care 8.3(3 1.2 8.2(2 1.5 39.0 .963

II

a Numbers in parentheses indicate missing cases. 11

II

II

11

II

II

APPENDIX 12

Comparison of the Characteristics of Versatile

and Non-Versatile SYC Staff

275

276

1 Table A

Comparison of the Background and Personal Characteristics II of Versatile and Non-Versatile a S.Y.C. Staff •

Versatile Non-versatile Chi-Square 11

------- - -

Characteristic N % N % 'Xl df P-

Demographic: Male

9 81.8 11 68.8 .099 1 .753 11

Female 2 18.2 5 31.3

Single 4 36.4 5 31.3 II Married 6 54.5 9 56.3 .122 2 .941 Sep./Div. 1 9.1 2 12.5 IIEmployment: Prey. Empl. 8 72.7 9 56.3

.217 1 642 Not. prev. empl. 3 27.3 7 43.8 .

II Prey , related empl. 6 75.0 5 55.6 b

.33

No prev. " " 2 25.0 4 44.4

Education: II No diploma/degree 0 0.0 4 25.0 CEGEP 2 18.2 2 12.5

II Undergraduate 6 54.5 8 50.0 3.82 4 .430 Graduate 2 18.2 1 6.3 Other 1 9.1 1 6.3

II

Certification Program: None 9 81.8 13 81.3 II CEGEP 0 0.0 1 6.3 Undergraduate 1 9.1 2 12.5 2.21 3 .529 Graduate 1 9.1 0 0.0

II Other 0 0.0 0 0.0

Staff Development II Courses:

Took Courses 7 63.6 4 25.0 2.59 1 .108 Did not courses 4 36.4 12 75.0

II- - - -- -

a Versatile workers are "treater-matched" to two or more youth I-levelll subtypes and not mismatched to any; non-versatile workers aré mismatched to two or more youth subtypes'and not matche4 th- any.

h IIFisher's Exact Test of Significance.

1

8.9 11.6 6.1 7.8 6.2

50.8(9 7.9 53,7(2 12.1 55.7(2) 4.9 53.5(1 9.3 54.7(2 8.3

90.0 74.5 50.5 99.0 83.5

.471

.890

.143

.225

.716

Table A (continued)

277

Characteristics Versatile, Non-versatile Crow)

si SD • rt'ann-Uhitnéy

p

Demographic:

Age 29,2 :-- 4.2 26.6 9.9 113.0 - .214

Employment:

Mos. Releted Exp. 70.5 28.7 41.4 33.0 140.5 .009

Work History at SYC: Mos. with SYC 41.8 19.8 22.6 13.4 139.0 .012 Mos. in present

unit 24.1 19.5 20.0 12.5 91.5 .863 Prey. units 1.4 1.1 .3 .6 140.0 .004

Preferences for treatment approaches: Accepting Friend 53.2 Big Brother 53.3 Control Structure 52.5 Behavior Reality 58.0 Insight Reality 55.8

Factors Influencing Style:

Conceptual Level 2•2(1) a .4 1.9(1) .3 111.5 .042 Repression - Sensitization 23.4(2) 10.1 17.4(3) 7.0 81.5 .124

a Numbers in brackets indicate missing cases.

278 1

Table

Comparison Between Versatile and Non-Versatile S.Y.C. Staff on Subtype Scores and Interview Scales

Versatile Non-versatile (N=11) (N=16) Mann-Whitney

FYl SD m Sp U P11

Iz 9.4 3.8 -2.9 6.4 169.0 .000 Cfm 9.5 7.3 -4.1 14.4 153.5 .001 Mp/Cfc 1.9 8.4 -9.5 9.4 146.5 .004 Na 8.5 4.0 -. .4 3.3 166.5 .000 Nx 8.9 12.1 -24.9 15.2 168.5 .000

Subtype Scores

Interview Scales

1. Soc. Des. Qual. 75.6 8.2 50.3 8.1 176.0 .001 2. Att , Adal. Like 66.5 10.4 52.2 8.1 152.0 .001 1 3. Alertness 73.4 14.5 49.2 8.4 165.0 .000 4. Boldness 64.2 16.1 56.1 15.3 107.5 . e5 5. Forcefulness 48.7 10.0 48.9 13.4 84.5

. 863 II 6. Soc. Undes. 1ua1. 37.5 9.2 52.7 12.4 28.0 .003

7. Aggress. 28.4 12.4 48.2 12.7 24.0 .002 8. Past Diffic.. 68.2 19.5 57.0 16.4 119.0 .120 II 9. Present Prob. 31.4 17.2 50.2 15.1 35.5 .009 10. Moral Or. 28.7 11.2 47.8 16.4 29.0 .004 11. Work Sat, 82.6 11.6 65.9 15.4 143.0 .006 II 12. World Sat. 46.2 9.9 50.8 14.8 70.5 .385 13. Familiarity 63.9 11.3 58.3 12.0 118.5 .132 14. Und. and Diff. 80.1 12.3 52.5 12.1 165.5 .000 II 15. Use of Self 66.9 18.3 58.3 13.1 114.0 .199 16. Atmosphere 84.7 6.2 71.6 10.1 158.0 .001 17. Con. Neg. 60.9 9,7 , 52.4 7.8 132.0 .029 18. Inner Focus 78.8 8.9 61.4 15.3 143.0 .007

II 19. Chg. and Act 45.0 7.3 48.7 6.9 68.0 .323 20. Firmness 39.8 10.5 55.3 17.4 37.0 .012 21. Con. Control 36.2 9.2 52.6 17.7 31.0 .005 II

il

Scales (n =7) (n11)

Table C

Comparison of Versatile and Non-Versatile SYC Workers on Staff Intervention Scales (Self Ratings)

279

Versatile Non-Versatile Mann-Whitney

-§n m - sb- .....

Knowledge ' 7.7 1.0 7.4 1.5 42.0 .751 Relationship 8.2 .9 7.3 .5 63.5 .022 Motivation 7.9 .9 7.5 1.1 42.0 .749 Individualization 7.2 1.2 7.1 1.5 40.5 .855 Support 7.5 .9 7.0 .9 45.5 .525 Values 8.4 .7 8.1 1.2 43.0 .672 Justice 7.8 .9 7.2 .9 54.0 .157 Indifference 2.3 1.2 2.1 .7 35.0 .742 Autonomy 7.9 1.1 6.9 1.2 53.5 .173 Work with Croup 7.3 .9 7.5 .9 30.0 .625 Authority 7.8 1.2 7.6 .7 46.5 .258 Free Time 6.9 1.1 7.2 2.1 35.5 .784 Responsibility 8.6 1.2 7.4 1.1 61.0 .039 Puntuality 8.2 1.9 8.9 1.1 30.5 .442 Team Work 7.3 .7 7.4 1.0 34.5 .713 Croup Meeting 7

•9(4) - .6 7.2(2) 1.8 11.0 .633

Child Care 7.9(3) 1.1 7.3(2) 3.0 13.0 .926


Appendix 13

Comearison of the Characteristics of Stayers

28 0

Stayers Lea vers Chi-Square

X 2 df Characteristics

Table A

Comparison of the Background and Personal Characteristics between SYC Staff Who Stay Longer that Two Years in a Unit

and Those Who Leave Within a Year

281


24 77.4 14 56.0 2.01 1 .156

7 22.6 11 44.0

Single 11 35.5 10 40.0 Married 19 61.3 10 40.0 4.92 2 .085 Sep/Div. 1 3.2 5 20.0

Employment Prey, Empl. 23 74.2 10 76.0 Not prey. empl. 8 25.8 6 24.0

Prey, related emp1.13 56.5 11 57.9 No prey. " " 10 43.5 8 42.1

.02 1 .877

1 .823

Education No diploma degree 4 12.9 8 32.0 CEGEP 11 35.5 5 20.0 Undergraduate 10 32.3 6 24.0 4.33 4 .363 Graduate 4 12.9 3 12.0 Other 2 6.5 3 12.0

Certification Program None 22 71.0 17 68.0 CEGEP 4 12.9 4 16.0 Undergraduate 3 9.7 4 16.0 2.17 3 .539 Graduate 2 6.5 0 Other 0 0

Staff Development Courses

Participated 19 61.3 8 32 Did not 3.65 1 .056

participate 12 38.7 17 68

282

Table A (continued)

Stayers Leavers Characteristics (n=31) (ns,25)

Mann-Whitney 11

M SD M SD u p ----

Demographic 11 Age 35.5 9.2 28.9 5.7 293.0 .120

Employment II Mos. Related Exp. 93.2 49.1 37.2 35.4 115.0 .000

Work History at II SYC

Mos. with SYC 54.1 29.5 13.2 13.8 44.0 .000 Mos. in present unit 32.7 16.3 7.2 3.4 37.5 .000 II Prev. units .9 .9 .5 .9 276.5 .044

Pref. for Treat. II Approaches Accepting Friend 51.1(1 a 9.0 52.5i6 8.1 315.5 .528 Big Brother 49.2(1 9.8 51.1(6 11.2 319.5 .476

II Control Struct. 55.4(1 7.9 53.7(6 7.1 230.0 .257 Behavior Reality 55.7(1 11.8 57.3(6 7.3 327.0 .385 Insight Reality 53.8(1 7.5 55.8(6 8.5 316.0 .519

II Factors Influencing Style Donceptual Level 2.0 .4 1.9(5) .3 245.0 .209 II Repression- Sensitization 24.3(1) 13.8 21.9(9) 8.9 233.0 .872

11

a. Numbers in parentheses indicate missing cases.

283

Table B

Comparison Between SYC Staff who Stay in a Unit Longer Than Two Years and Those who Leave Within one Year on

Subtype Scores and Interview Scales

Stayers ------n'avers Mann-Wbitney, (n=28) (ne..,14)

Subtype Scores M sià M SD U --P

4.7 7.1 4.9 4.9 185.0 .768

3.2 11.7 6.6 13.6 214.0 .631

-3.7 10.5 -8.8 10.9 153.5 .256

4.8 4.9 2.1 5.5 146.0 .181

-5.2 17.9 -4.5 17.2 191.0 .894

Interview Scales

1. Soc. Des. Qual. 63.8 10.3 59.2 10.1 142.5 .153 2. Pitt. Adol. Like 59.5 11.4 56.1 8.6 148.0 .198 3. Alertness 61.3 15.2 56.6 10.3 162.0 .363 4. Boldness 54.7 16.7 54.9 14.5 217.0 .575 5. Forcefulness 48.9 11.1 50.4 12.8 216.5 .583 6. Soc. Undes. Qual. 44.3 13.7 43.0 14.3 191.0 .894 7. Aggress. 38.5 15.1 36.4 14.3 182.0 .709 8. Past. Diffic. 63.8 15.6 63.4 14.7 201.0 .892 9. Present Prob. 38.5 15.7 51.2 15.9 284.5 .018 10. Moral Or. 38.2 15.1 37.3 11.9 192.5 .925 11. Work Sat. 78.4 12.8 67.3 16.0 112.5 .025 12. World Sat. 55.1 12.3 46.1 13.3 114.0 .028 13. Familiarity 62.6 12.4 59.9 11.3 172.5 .529 14. Und. & Diff. 69.9 12.2 67.9 17.1 178.0 .630 15. Use of Self 64.2 13.0 67.9 16.1 223.0 .471 16. Atmosphere 78.6 10.1 82.2 6.9 229.5 .371 17. Con. Neg. 56.3 8.7 57.2 10.2 202.5 .862 18. Inner. Focus 71.7 12.4 76.6 11.4 240.0 .240 19. Chg. & Act. 45.5 5.5 43.9 6.7 154.0 .262 20. Firmness 46.2 16.0 42.4 15.3 175.0 .574 21. Con. Control 44.4 14.2 40.0 14.8 172.5 .531

Iz Cfm Mp/Cfc Na Nx

SOL.GEN CANADA LIS SIBLIO 284 II

1 1 1

Table

Comparison Between SYG Staff Who Stay in a Unit Longer Than Two Years and Those Who Leave Within one Year on

the Staff Intervention Scales (Self Ratings) 1

Scales

Stayers Leavers Mann-Whitnu

(n=23) (n:5) SD m SD U

Knowledge 7.5 1.1 7.5 1.2 59.0 .928 Relationship 7.9 .7 7.5 1.1 486 .588 II Motivation • 7.6 .9 7.5 .8 51.5 .717 Individualization 7.6 1.2 6.9 1.3 38.0 .240

II Support 7.3 .8 7.0 .6 47.5 .546 Values 8.6 .7 8.4 .8 53.5 .805

II Justice 7.6 1.0 6.6 .9 27.5 .070

Indifference 2.7 1.1 3.3 1.2 39.0 .260 II Autonomy 7.7 .9 7.2 1.2 42.5 .365

Work With croup 7.6 1.1 7.1 .7 41.5 .399 111 Authority 7.6 1.0 6.9 .9 32.5 .159

Free Time 7.2 1.6 6.5 .9 36.0 .195 Responsibility 8.0 .8 7.6 1.3 45.0 .443 II Punctuality 7.8 2.2 8.3 ,',' 1.6 63.5 .709 Team Work 7.3 .9 6.8 1.2 40.0 .289 II Group Meeting 7•7(8) a 1.9 4.2(3) 1.2 2.0 .049

Child Care 8.0(8) 1.2 8.1(3) 1.4 15.5 .939 I

1 a. Numbers in parentheses indicate missing cases.

LIBRARY MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR

MAR 4 1982

.BILIOTILIÈQUE 1)13 S.OILICITEUR GÉNÉRAIJ

1

11V Reitsma, Marge 9110 Thelluman resource .P71 F5 no.2

Date Due

Archived Content Contenu archivé - Public Safety Canada 9110.p71 f5 no.2... · Contenu archivé...

Documents

Transcript of Archived Content Contenu archivé - Public Safety Canada 9110.p71 f5 no.2... · Contenu archivé...