Differential Association: A Tool

By Frank Sullivan, Rod Chapin and R.G. Whittemore

Introduction There is evidence that formal correctional

treatment may only increase the possibility of recidivism among youthful offenders. It appears, however, that limited exposure of the young or naive offender to the prison environment may be a deterrent to future criminal activity. A simple confrontation with the reality of institutionalization may be of assistance in discouraging the unsophisti- cated individual from further criminal activi- ties, and in motivating the offender into making necessary adjustments in his behavior toward becoming a productive member of society.

Those individuals who are interested in changing the behavior of both adult and juvenile delinquents may recognize the title of this article as an expansion of the hypothesis developed by Cressy. Based on Cressy’s theory and the later modification by Slack, the current program utilized these differential theories of association and triad therapy in working with juvenile delinquents in an insti- tution in a relatively small western city. Cressy identified five major principals of change: (1) If criminals are to be changed, they must

be assimilated into groups which empha- size values conducive to law-abiding be- havior and concurrently alienated from

groups emphasizing values conducive to criminality.

(2) The more relevant the common purpose of the group to the reaffirmation of crim- inals, the greater will be its influence on the criminal members’ attitudes and values.

( 3 ) The more cohesive the group, the greater the members’ readiness to influence oth- ers and the more relevant the conformity to the group norms.

(4) Both reformer and those to be reformed must achieve status within the group by exhibition of pro-reform or anti-criminal values and behavior patterns.

( 5 ) The most effective mechanisms for exert- ing group pressure on members will be found in groups so organized that crimi- nals are induced to join with non- criminals for the purpose of changing criminals.

The above principals are, apparently, the basic theses that were used and further ex- panded by Slack in his article entitled The Theory of Triads which appeared in print some seven years after Cressy. Slack very clearly explained the difference between the dyad theory (i.e. two people involved) and the triad theory (i.e. three people involved). The change role within the triad was seen by Slack

November 19821 Juvenile & Family Court Journal 43

Frank Sullivan, Rod Chapin and R. G. Whittemore

as the most important change. Slack and his wife were successful in using this technique in a training school in Alabama.

This article reflects a program which devel- oped in the belief that this triad therapy approach would work with juvenile delin- quents who were not confined as they were in Slack’s program. We believe, however, that there are a number of factors which are dif- ferent in this program and use some of the best of both Cressy’s theory and Slack’s program.

The purpose of the current program is to present a picture to the youthful offender of the future realities within an institution if the offender continues with his present behavior. We believe that the picture of reality serves to dull or to destroy the promise that is often associated with certain types of illegal activ- ity. Diversion from delinquent and non-delin- quent (status offenses, etc.) behavior is the ultimate goal of this program.

Procedure A program involving five inmates from the

Northern Nevada Correctional Center was initiated on April 28, 1978. Four of these inmates were in prison on murder charges and one was in prison on a sales of controlled substance charge. The junior author of this article had pre-selected these inmates for final approval by the juvenile authority. Each of these five inmates (hereafter referred to as consultants) met with a chosen juvenile and his probation officer on a Monday evening for one to two hours. This original “triad” concept involved the juvenile, consultant and probation officer in what was conceived as a COMMUNICATION process. The original planning was for each juvenile to meet for at least four individual sessions during which the consultant could try to help the juvenile assess the futility of continuing his atypical behavior. It became apparent that the pres- ence of the probation officer in the session was sometimes a deterrent to progress. Ap- parently, the consultant felt that there were areas in the communication process that they were not equipped to handle when the proba- tion officer was present. The probation officer perceived the development of the communi-

cation process to be of less value than a “real- ity therapy”approach used in a CONFRON- TATION session.

It soon became apparent that there was no one format useful with each juvenile as some juveniles were noticeably affected by one ses- sion while others revealed little change after five sessions. The program has actually devel- oped into a “dyadic” process involving the juvenile and consultant in a confrontation session based on the reality of being incar- cerated.

The mechanics of each session start with an identification of the juvenile by the probation officer. The reader should know that the pro- gram has no control over the apprehension of an individual juvenile and the subsequent referral of that juvenile to the facility by the arresting officer or the complainant. The greatest number of juveniles in the program came through the intensive supervision unit which deals with multiple offenders and/ or the juvenile who needs a degree of supervision not commonly found on regular probation caseloads. Background information on the juvenile or personal discussion by the pro- bation officer about the juvenile is made available to the consultant who (with the probation officer) can then make a tentative decision about the approach to be used. The approach may be communication, confronta- tion or a combination of both. The com- munication approach uses the acceptance, understanding, communication mode of Tyler. The confrontation approach is basi- cally a clean, forceful explanation of what prison is like, the mistakes the consultant has made leading him to prison and the parallels in the juvenile’s current behavior.

The juvenile and consultant are introduced by the probation officer who may stay for the first (and sometimes only) session. After the session is over, all personnel (consultants and probation officers) meet in a group session. These sessions are important learning expe- riences for both the consultant and probation officer. The value of that session is examined and a decision is made as to future sessions for the juvenile. If future sessions are war- ranted, a format for them is developed includ- ing such items as ultimate goals and behaviors

44 Juvenile & Family Court Journal/ November 1982

Differential Association

for the juvenile to engage in prior to the next session. The consultant completes a report which may be considered by the probation officer. If the juvenile is seen on succeeding sessions, the consultant uses the report as a “progress made” instrument.

Results N o claim is made that the following

research was set up on the basis of an experi- mental design. There are a number of inter- esting observations which can be made in comparing the “triad” group with Compari- son Group 1 (juveniles referred during the same period as the “triad”groupjuveni1es but not seen by the consultants) and with Com- parison Group I1 (other juveniles in the master list of youth referred any time since

1970 when the current record-keeping was adopted). Groups were paired by randomly choosing the juveniles for comparison groups I and 11 by selecting the juveniles on the basis of first letters of the individual’s last name.

As Table 1 reveals, there appears to be no harmful element of bias in the age of individ- uals when they were first referred. In other words, the “triad” program did not involve clients who were handpicked at the age of 17 years and 3 months to make the program look good or allow the termination of the juvenile a t 18 years of age. A considerable number of these individuals fall in the general age brack- et of 15 or 16 which is reflective of the total clientele of the Washoe County Probation Department. Thus, there appears to be no skewing of the age distribution of juveniles except as that skewing actually exists.

Table 1 Age Triad Comparison Group I Comparison Group I1 12 I 2 6 13 3 8 7 14 I4 1 1 17 15 27 23 24 16 25 22 32 17 26 22 12

0 18 2

98 98 98 - - - 10

A review of Table 2 reveals no noticeable difference of the year of entry on the referral card for each juvenile. Because of the inten- sive nature of the program, it appears obvious that the number of referrals for those individ-

uals in the “triad” program is considerably greater than either of the two comparison groups, both of which had an identical num- ber of individuals.

We are very much interested in the changes

Table 2 Age Triad Comparison Group I 1970 I 0 1971 3 0 1972 9 2 1973 11 2 1974 19 9 1975 40 13 1976 70 11 1977 200 24 1978 275 65

103 103 1979

73 1 229 - -

Comparison Group I1 0 0 1

10 17 28 45 65 50 23

239

November 19821 Juvenile & Family Court Journal 45

Frank Sullivan, Rod Chapin and R. G. Whittemore

in behavior that developed in terms of the Of particular importance were the decreases arrest records of the juveniles involved and in offenses against person and property. the reasons for the referral. An examination These offenses include (but are not limited to) of Table 3 reveals the change that is taking assault, armed robbery, grand larceny and place in the juveniles who were in the “triad” burglary. That there appears to be some posi- program. (It should be noted that figures for tive factor at work in the “triad” program is two successive years are shown. The docu- supported by the uniformly negative results mentation was repeated to support consis- appearing in Comparison Group I. Because tency of the results.) In post-experience, the this group is paired directly with the “triad” total number of referrals decreased with an group in terms of time, the results appear important decrease in each of the categories. particularly relevant to the “triad” program.

Table 3 Comparison of Frequency and Nature of Referrals

1st Year 2nd Year Change Pre Post Pre Post

TRIAD GROUP Person 29 1 47 13 + (decrease Property 276 23 271 61 + i n number) Victimless 13 3 38 19 +

323 63 290 110 + Status

641 90 646 203 - _ _ - -

COMPARISON GROUP I Person 1 7 8 18 - (increase Property 41 64 42 70 - i n number) Victimless 2 5 7 3 7 - Status 35 112 36 81 - - ---

79 188 93 206 COMPARISON GROUP I1 Person 0 2 7 5 Property 75 22 88 30 f

Victimless 1 0 1 5 7 + Status 106 33 100 27 + ----

182 57 210 69 When one considers Comparison Group 11, gram has ranged from vocal dislike to a rather the previous euphoria concerning the “triad” casual acceptance to a wholehearted belief program is somewhat tempered as referrals in that the program is intensely valuable to three of four categories decreased. Even here, them. All professionals have been pleasantly though, there is room for optimism in refer- surprised at the number ofjuveniles who have ence to the “triad” program. The juveniles in asked for continuing sessions. We have been the “triad” program decreased their referrals extremely careful in guarding against a type for person and property offenses to a greater of “hero” worship which could easily develop degree than did their counterparts in the in some juveniles. The juveniles are not Comparison Group 11. When one considers allowed to contact the consultants outside the the significantly greater number of referrals sessions at the juvenile hall. for the “triad” group, the decrease appears One of the very interesting results of this more meaningful. program has been the noticeable change in

The general reaction on the part of the the inmate consultants. We had originally not juveniles who have been involved in the pro- known that anybody had spoken about this

46 Juvenile & Family Court Journal/ November 1982

Differential Association

phenomenon, but Cressy had when he devel- oped the general contention that when Crim- inal A tries to help Criminal B, Criminal A changes most, In this program, we really did have a Criminal A, but the Criminal B was the juvenile delinquent. It soon became apparent that involvement in this program had a very salutory effect on the inmate consultant who, perhaps for the first time, saw some meaning in his life. Each of the inmate consultants has made a commitment to the program (to the point of refusing monetarily rewarding as- signments inside the prison), been adamant in his desire for anonymity, revealed an effect on his lifestyle and revealed a genuine protective- ness about the program. An obvious corollary to this increased enthusiasm and involvement on the part of the inmate consultant has been a sharp increase in the number of individual inmates who wish to become involved in the program. The program has been deliberately kept within manageable bounds (i.e. no more than five consultants at a time), but certainly it has not lacked for volunteers. We recognize that there are tangible, meaningful rewards (pardon and parole board action, better job assignments, the chance to be “outside,” etc.) that exist, but no promise of such reward is given. The selection of the consultant is fairly simple. An inmate is proposed for considera- tion by the prison authorities. Regardless of his crime, the inmate must have been cleared for minimum custody (transportable without restraints). This individual is interviewed and his official file is studied by the authors. The inmate consultant is then approved by the director of prisons and placed on the list. It should be noted that compatibility with the existing team of consultants is of prime importance. It may be of interest to the reader to learn what has happened to the inmate consultants in the program. Of the five origi- nal consultants, all have been released to society with no further arrests. One directs a small corporation, one works on an off-shore oil rig, one works for the state of Nevada’s data processing department, one works at a juvenile facility and one works in a social agency. Of the next five in the program, three were paroled. However, one of these three absconded and is currently on escape status.

The remaining two were identified as being unsuited for the program and were reassigned within the prison. Of the next five consul- tants, one realized that he could not contrib- ute to the program and was released from it. His replacement was a valued member of the program but lost his position because of inappropriate behavior at the prison. The current group consists of three persons with life sentences for murder, one with a 20-year sentence for sales of controlled substances and one for armed robbery.

It ought to be pointed out that certain problems have developed for the probation officers. We find that there are certain hurdles for the probation officer in the change ses- sions. The probation officer is set apart from his peers and is not really representative of society, which the juvenile can easily under- stand. The probation officer is not easily copied by the juvenile because the probation officer has the training, authority and pay for what he is doing. The probation officer has control over the juvenile’s life (school, job, associates, etc.) and the involvement in the “triad” program is only one dimension of that control. Certainly, the probation officer is not similar to the inmate consultant. It appears that rapport might be difficult between the probation officer and the consultant but we have not found this. This is a very difficult balancing act that takes place wherein the X (consultant) must be identified by the P (juvenile) as retaining many similarities to himself, while at the same time accepting the dictum of the N (probation officer) to “shape up.” This program deals with the changes in roles within the therapy session with the hope that the changes suggested by the consultant will generalize to the lifestyle of the juvenile outside the session. As Slack has suggested, the most effective rehabilitation does not depend on cognitive or “insight” learning, but on low level memorization, imitation and doing as you are told.

Discussion It should be clear to the reader that this

program is quite different from the Juvenile Awareness Project Help (Scared Straight) at

November 19821 Juvenile & Family Court Journal 47

Frank Sullivan, Rod Chapin and R. G. Whittemore

the Rahway Prison in New Jersey. We also feel that this program is much different from the results of the follow-up study done by Finckenauer. That experimental study con- trolled for age, race, sex and delinquency probability and presented null hypotheses centered around a change in attitude or a change in behavior. That study found that the juveniles who went to Rahway did not change their attitudes toward law, justice, authority or punishment, as compared to the juveniles who did not go to Rahway. Finckenauer also found that a significantly higher proportion of the juveniles who did not attend the project did better in terms of subsequent offenses than did the group which attended.

The current program attempted to match for age, race and sex. “Delinquency probabil- ity” was not a factor as all juveniles in this study were “delinquent” by definition. This is an ongoing program with several unanswered questions. Contrary to published reports of “instant success” the authors caution that the true value of the program may not appear for several years. Much criticism has been di- rected to the Rahway experiment and per- haps to programs of a nature similar to the one described in this paper. However, this does not decrease the importance of attempt- ing to change the behavior of juvenile delin- quents prior to potential adult incarceration. In spite of all the difficulties that we have encountered and uncertainty as to the long- term results, we are firmly convinced that this and similar programs must be implemented at every opportunity. This program is only a TOOL to be used by probation officers. It does not replace any other mutual agency contact, but complements the whole proba- tion process much as a square complements a carpenter’s saw.

We have presented this information on the basis of currently available records. We have attempted to explain how we compared indi- viduals and have made every effort to present the information in acceptable fashion. The reader should know that we tried to answer questions as to whether our populations were different or whether there was a difference in the probation officers and their process of referrals to the “triad” program. The authors of this article would be more than happy to share some of the basic fundamentals with interested persons. It becomes patently clear to professionals in the area of corrections that such a program would not have been possible without the wholehearted cooperation of the director of the department of prisons. Much preliminary exploration has to be done be- tween the agencies involved and rather strict rules and regulations have to be mutually agreed upon and the cost-benefit ratio clearly discussed before programs of this nature are implemented. We do not know why this pro- gram appears to be working, but we believe there is evidence that suggests this tool works. Further research and documentation is being undertaken.

Aulhors ’ addresses: Frank Sullivan Chief Probation Officer

Rod Chapin Chief of Intensive Supervision Unit

Dr. Robert G. Whittemore (formerly chief psychologist, Department of Prisons, State of Nevada, Carson City, Nev.) Wittenberg Hall P.O. Box I 1 I30 Reno, NV 89520

48 Juvenile & Family Court Journal/ November 1982