PAINT CREEK YOUTH CENTER PROGRAM

OVERVIEW

Paint Creek Youth Center (PCYC) provides a residential program providing many intervention services to seriously delinquent youth. The youth were randomly assigned to the PCYC or treatment as usual for youth with records this serious, a regular training school. This program has not been found to have impacts on official-report or self-report recidivism.

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM

Target Population: Delinquent male teens

The PCYC  provides about 30-35 beds, has no locked doors, fences, or other such restrictions. The program consists of a Problem Oriented Record System (PORS), privileges for positive behavior and punishments for negative behavior, cognitive/behavioral training methods, daily group sessions, family group therapy, and intensive aftercare. The lack of locked doors is balanced by close staff supervision and Positive Peer Culture (a system whereby juveniles hold one another accountable for their actions; Vorrath & Brentro, 1974). The PORS is used to track problems. Family group therapy occurs twice monthly and the family joins the juvenile in their regular group therapy. Transportation is provided when necessary. The PCYC juveniles were in the residential part of the program 27 percent longer than the control youth (376 days on average versus 295 days). This does not include youth who were removed early for disciplinary reasons, which would make the difference larger (327 days on average versus 33 days).

Program Costs in 1988 dollars: $76.56 per day without aftercare - $81.74 per day with aftercare - about $29,653 per youth. The cost of the control group was $88.60 per day - about $26,137 per youth

EVALUATION OF PROGRAM

Greenwood, P.W. & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluation of the Paint Creek Youth Center: A residential program for serious delinquents. Criminology, 31(2): 263-279.

Evaluated Population: The sample consisted of detained adolescent males (N=149) in southwest Ohio. Most participants were white, 62 percent. The mean age was about 16 years old for both groups. Many youth were on probation or parole at the time of their arrest, 37 percent. Many youth were also free on the street at the time of their arrest 42 percent.

Approach: Young males were randomly assigned to the PCYC intervention group or regular training school control group. Six months after survey placement, the youths were interviewed on background information, including illegal behaviors. Other information was collected from the Department of Youth Services (DYS) files. Information was also gathered by interviews with a sample of staff at PCYC and the two control institutions (DYS). One year after the youth was released from the program, he was interviewed again and data were also gathered from DYS files.

 Recidivism was the main outcome analyzed in this evaluation. Official reports of arrest, self-reported criminal behaviors, and drug use were used to measure recidivism. The authors also noted completion rate and average length of stay.

The following specific outcomes were examined: (official-report) homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, weapons, drugs, "miscellaneous crimes," parole violations; (self-report) tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, LSD, cocaine, heroin, uppers, downers, or "other drug." The following self-report outcomes were also examined: steal or try to steal a motor vehicle, such as a car or motorcycle; steal or try to steal something worth more than $50; attack someone with the idea of seriously hurting or killing him or her; get involved in gang fights; have or try to have sexual relations with someone against their will; use force or strong-arm methods to get money or things from other people; and break or try to break into a building or vehicle to steal something or just to look around.

Results:

The PCYC youth were not significantly different from the control youth in 12-month official-report recidivism rates. They were separated by percent with any arrests and percent incarcerated at the state level. Within these two categories, the percent who committed the crimes of homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, weapons, drugs, "miscellaneous," or committed parole violations were noted. When taking into account background characteristics, there were still no significant differences. Looking at the official-report time to first arrest, there were no significant differences between the control and PCYC groups.

There were no significant differences between the PCYC group and control group on self-report recidivism. A greater proportion, although not statistically significant, of experimental youth reported committing at least one of the self-report crimes during the 12-month follow-up period compared with control youth (75 percent versus 62 percent).

Drug use did not differ significantly between the experimental and control groups (with regard to the use of tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, LSD, cocaine, heroin, uppers, downers, or "other").

SOURCES FOR INFORMATION

Greenwood, P.W. & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluation of the Paint Creek Youth Center: A residential program for serious delinquents. Criminology, 31(2): 263-279.

Vorrath, H. & Brentro, L.K. (1974). Positive Peer Culture. Chicago, Il: Aldine.

Program categorized in this guide according to the following:

Evaluated participant Ages: Mean age of 16 years old

Program components: Community-based

Measured outcomes: Behavioral problems

KEYWORDS: Adolescence (12-17); Youth (16+); Community-based; Aggression; Externalizing Problems; Conduct Problems; Violence; Delinquency (e.g., truancy, vandalism, theft, assault, etc); Alcohol Use; Tobacco Use; Marijuana Use; Illicit Drugs; Juvenile Offenders; White or Caucasian; Black or African American; Cost; Any substance use.

Program information last updated 10/29/09