Effects of a forestry camp experience on the personality of delinquent boys

Abstract

PROBLEMTo the extent that delinquent behavior is associated with personality variables, the use of objective-type psychological tests appears as an efficient and economical procedure for the large scale evaluation of delinquents. M~nachesi'~) and others (1. 2 ) have demonstrated clear-cut differences between delinquents and other adolescent populations using the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory (MMPI) with the PD, PA, Sc, and MA scales most effective. Personality characteristics associated with delinquent behavior can be identified in adolescents with the MMPI preliminary to contact with law-enforcement agencies. In a study of 4,000 ninth grade students in Minneapolis who were administered the MMPI, Hathaway and Monachesi ( 3 ) found that 250 boys who subsequently came to the attention of the police were significantly different from the adolescent boys who did not become delinquent on the F, PD, MF, PA, SC, and MA scales.Again using the MMPI, Caditz'l) confirmed the presence of personality differences on the PD, PA, and MA scales between unselected high school studept,s and boys committed to a state training school. Retesting both groups following a sixmonth stay at the training school by the delinquent group revealed little modification of differences between the two groups. It was noted that the PD variable, the scale deemed the one most appropriate measure of specifically delinquent traits, was particularly resistant to improvement as a result of the training school experience.The present study tests the hypothesis that a forestry camp experience will have the effect of modifying delinquent boys in the direction of becoming less like delinquent and more like nondelinquent adolescent populations. A forestry camp differs from a training school in various important respects. Typically, a forestry camp maintains a smaller population -of boys, usually not more than 35, whose activity program is oriented toward a full work day in the outdoors. Individual supervision and external controls are less than those found at the usual training school, although each boy is expected to conform to the requirements of close group living and routine job performance. PROCEDUREThe forestry camp group was drawn from boys assigned to the Cedar Creek Youth Forestry Camp at Little Rock, Washington, during a five-month period. These boys were selected from 195 cases judged delinquent by the various courts of the state and transferred to the State Reception and Diagnostic Center for juveniles where psychological tests were administered.Selection for the forestry camp is based on a minimum age requirement of 15% years, physical fitness, and a judgment that the individual is not a major security risk. Of 17 boys eventually selected for the forestry program, 15 were retested with the MMPI immediately preceding parole after an average interval of 5 months and 17 days. Failure to include the other two cases resulted from abrupt out-of-state paroles, which precluded testing. The average age of this group was 16 years, 6 months.Two other groups,...

Psychological effects of imprisonment on confined individuals.

“…This finding is even stronger evidence for the existence of maturational effects. In a later study, Caditz (1961) reported that forestry camp boys were more stable, mature, and less disturbed at the retest. However, the forestry camp boys were found to be better prognostic cases at the time of initial testing, since their pretest MMPI profiles suggested they were more emotionally stable, free of psychiatric problems, and more adult than both nondelinquent and delinquent comparison groups.…”

“…The most consistent finding among these studies was the resistance of the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd} scale to change over time. Only Caditz (1961) reported a significant reduction in Pd scale elevation; however, the mean scale score was still considered to be in the pathological range. This is an important finding because the Pd scale most accurately detects the presence of delinquent or antisocial tendencies.…”

“…Ten studies used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) as either their sole or primary measure in an attempt to determine the effects of imprisonment. Four of these studies (Caditz, 1959(Caditz, , 1961Jurjevich, 1966;Scarpitti & Stephenson, 1968) attempted to determine what impact juvenile correctional institutions had on confined delinquents. Scarpitti and Stephenson suggested that a reformatory experience was harmful to its inhabitants.…”

MMPI-A patterns of male juvenile delinquents.

“…A search of the English-language literature from 1945 through 1994 identified 23 studies reporting the mean profiles of 40 samples totaling 7,783 male juvenile delinquents. Almost all of the studies used K -corrected adult norms and concurrent designs, typically testing delinquents who had been committed to or paroled from correctional institutions for juvenile offenders (Aniol, 1973; Ashbaugh, 1953; Boone & Green, 1991; Caditz, 1959, 1961; Cornell, Miller, & Benedek, 1988; Erikson & Roberts, 1966; Gendreau, Grant, Leipciger, & Collins, 1979; Gough, Wenk, & Rozynko, 1965; Hathaway & Monachesi, 1963; Lefkowitz, 1966; Levy, Southcombe, Cranor, & Freeman, 1952; Lueger, 1983; Mack, 1969; Monachesi, 1948, 1953; Randolph, Richardson, & Johnson, 1961; Richardson & Roebuck, 1965; Rowley & Stone, 1962; Shinohara & Jenkins, 1967; Tsubouchi & Jenkins, 1969; Wenk & Emrich, 1972; Westendorp, Brink, Roberson, & Ortiz, 1986).…”

Institutional and community adjustment of delinquents following counseling.

“…2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Richard C. Sowles, Utah State Industrial School, Box 41, Ogden, Utah 84404. strated greater improvement in institutional and community adjustment for 5s receiving individual and group therapy than for those receiving no therapy, when treatment and control 5s were selected and paired on the basis of similar backgrounds and histories and then randomly assigned to treatments. In addition, improvement in pretest to posttest scores on personality measures (Caditz, 1961;Persons, 196S) and an increase in appropriate interpersonal relationships both inside and outside of the institution (Persons & Pepinsky, 1966;Shore, Massimo, & Mack, 196S) have been reported as a consequence of personalized treatment. However, other findings have been reported which emphasize a lack of therapeutic success and unresponsivity to social reinforcers with delinquents (Meyer, Borgatta, & Jones, 1965) and with adult criminal offenders classified as psychopathic (Quay & Hunt, 1965).…”