Many residential treatment facilities and child inpatient units in the United States have been structured by way of motivational programming such as the point and/or level systems. On the surface, they appear to be a straightforward contingency management tool that is based on social learning theory and operant principles. In this article, the authors argue that the assumptions upon which point and level systems are based do not hold up to close empirical scrutiny or theoretical validity, and that point and level system programming is actually counterproductive with some children, and at times can precipitate dangerous clinical situations, such as seclusion and restraint. In this article, the authors critique point and level system programming and assert that continuing such programming is antithetical to individualized, culturally, and developmentally appropriate treatment, and the authors explore the resistance and barriers to changing traditional ways of "doing things." Finally, the authors describe a different approach to providing treatment that is based on a collaborative problem-solving approach and upon which other successful models of treatment have been based.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

30 active burglars were observed and interviewed extensively over a period of 16 months. They were asked to evaluate sites they had previously burglarized and those burglarized by others, as to their perceived vulnerability to burglary. Burglars who evaluated sites singly rated the sites more vulnerable than those same burglars when evaluating the sites in the presence of their usual co-offenders—showing a trend toward more cautious decision-making while in groups—a group polarization effect. On the other hand, self-reports indicated that burglars were more active (committed more crimes) when working as part of a group than when working alone. Their self-reported apprehension rate was 5 times greater when working in groups than when working alone, a finding which may reflect task impairment as a result of social facilitation effects.