Family & Corrections Network

The Fourth North American Conference on the Family & Corrections

Table of Contents

October 10-12, 1993 Quebec City, Quebec, Canada

THE FSP FAMILY/COMMUNITY SUPPORT MODEL: NATURAL SUPPORT NETWORKS

Comment assurer le soutien familial aux ex-delinquants?

Kathy Selber, Director of Professional Practicum

Toni Johnson, Field Specialist

Michael Lauderdale, Clara Pope Willoughby Centennial Professor

School of Social Work, The University of Texas at Austin

Le FSP Family/Community Support Model (modele de soutien familial et social) est une adaptation des reseaux de soutien naturel et il vise a favoriser la transition des liberes conditionnels dans la collectivite par la prestation de services sociaux aux familles des ex-detenus avant que ceux-ci soient liberes et la continuation des services pendant environ six mois apres la mise en liberte. Le programme pilote est un programme de recherche et de demonstration base a Austin (Texas) et concu pour evaluer l'efficacite respective de plusieurs interventions aupres des familles, des ex-detenus et des organismes de services sociaux. Le programme porte expressement sur la mise en action d'organismes et de structures communautaires pour favoriser la readaptation. Y sont affectes deux MSSW a plein temps ainsi que des BSW et MSSW stagiaires charges de fournir des services aux familles et d'intervenir aupres des organismes. Le programme en est a sa troisieme annee d'application, et les donnees actuelles montrent une reduction de 15 a 20 p. 100 de la recidive dans la population touchee et un cout par client de peut-etre 10 p. 100 du cout de l'incarceration. On cherche a etendre l'application du programme a d'autres collectivites du Texas. Les resultats ont de l'importance pour les liberes conditionnels, les services correctionnels communautaires et la formation universitaire dans les domaines du travail social, de la psychologie, de l'administration publique, etc.

Changes in values and behavior are best kept in place by the existence of social networks that affirm the changes through support, vigilance and consistency. Whether it be team sports, religious groups, successful corporations or therapeutic communities, the role of social networks is well-established in maintaining changes in behavior and values (Lauderdale, 1983). Nowhere is the difficulty in establishing or maintaining socially relevant behavior more apparent than in the criminal justice field. Among the significant issues that continue to plague criminal justice efforts are the high rates of recidivism in behaviors of released offenders that eventuate in reincarcerations. Recidivism with alcohol and substance abuse in spite of intensive treatment efforts in correctional facilities is commonplace. Indeed both national data and state of Texas figures routinely indicate recidivism rates of approximately 50 percent (Beck and Shipley, 1989).

Faced with ominously high levels of recidivism; yet aware of the potential benefits coming from forming or activating natural support networks, the School of Social Work of the University of Texas at Austin in collaboration with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's Institutional and Pardons and Parole Divisions developed a specific plan to identify and activate natural support networks for ex-offenders being released from Texas prisons. The program, termed the Family Support Program (FSP) which receives its funding from the Texas Governor's Office of Criminal Justice identifies voluntary client families to receive a variety of supportive, educational and therapeutic services beginning several weeks before the release of a family member from prison. These services which include assistance in locating financial services, social services, counseling, employment services and supportive associations are designed to increase the family's skills in coping with the needs of the ex-offender and improving the ability of the family to locate and utilize community social agencies and employment opportunities. The findings from this effort, FSP, are presented in this paper. A discussion of the pertinent literature that supports the concepts of FSP is included.

Theoretical Basis for the Intervention Model (Natural Support Networks)

The formative and enduring impact of the immediate social situation upon human behavior is well established throughout the behavioral and social science literature. As early as Triplett (1908) in the United States and Simmel (1902) in Europe observations were provided about the impact of close group associations upon individual behavior. The work and influence of the sociological leaders, Park and Burgess in Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s (Thrasher, 1927; Shaw, 1930, 1931; Zorbaugh, 1929; Whyte, 1943; Shaw and McKay, 1972) firmly established the role of the family, peer associations and the neighborhood in directing behaviors and the part such structures played in the generation of deviant behavior. By the 1960s theory and empirical work were available to direct interventions into such local social structures. Directions and findings on how to change or modify the attitudes and behaviors of individuals were available through the contributions of dozens of researchers and practitioners including Moreno (1934), Sherif (1936, 1953, 1963, 1965), Lewin, Lippitt and White, (1939), Hill (1965), Polsky (1965), Strodtbeck (1954), Lauderdale (1967) and Blake and Mouton (1969).

Additionally, important were the works of Merton (1975), Cloward and Ohlin (1960), Miller (1958), Blau and Blau (1982) and in more recent years Stark (1987), Cohen and Machalek (1988) that related deviant or criminal behavior at the level of the individual and small group to larger social and cultural contexts (Lauderdale, 1980). Important among these contributions were observations that related crime patterns to specific ecological niches and how these niches related to broader social norms and structures (Lauderdale and Inverarity, 1984; Lauderdale, et. al., 1990).

In more recent years family, peer group associations and the local neighborhood continue to be concepts important to explaining the occurrence and repetition of criminal behavior. Warr and Stafford’s examination of the influence of delinquent peers (1991), Simons and Gray’s interpretation of delinquency with black males (1989), and a rapidly growing and important literature coming from the examination of family function and child abuse (Loeber and Strouthamer-Loeber, 1988; Laub and Sampson, 1988; McCord, 1981; Rosen, 1985; Garbarino, 1988; Spearly and Lauderdale, 1983; Mann, Lauderdale and Iscoe, 1983; Spence, 1983) all emphasize the importance of family and community concepts in understanding rates of violence and deviation.

The important conclusion that is drawn from examining social networks or social groupings and both illegal behavior and the treatment of behavior is the powerful role that the networks play in determining what an individual will do. The full application of this information still has scant development or application in criminal justice.

Efforts directed specifically at persons upon release from incarceration point to the efficacy of working with families and the immediate community support system. Studies indicated that those offenders most likely to re-integrate into the community successfully have a strong family support system (Leclair, 1978; Wilson, 1980; Wilson, Lenihan and Goolkasian, 1981; Mata, Quiroga, Chism and Ayala, 1982; Hairson, 1988).

Yet continuation of family support is often challenged by the significant number of problems that arise during the inmate's incarceration and upon release which cause further deterioration of the family system. Moreover typical families are not knowledgeable about the problems faced by the released inmate, and are unaware of the types of services that the ex-offender will require. Some of the concerns facing families are loss of wages and legal fees posing further financial hardships; emotional stress presented by the stigma of the inmate’s return to the family; the need to readjust family roles and responsibilities and adjusting to the return of the perpetrator in such cases as abuse and incest (Glaser, 1964; Gottfredson, Neithercutt, Nuffield and O’Leary, 1973; Lauderdale and Inverarity, 1984).

Need for Interventions with Families, Peer Groups and Communities

Both practice and theory support the efficacy of achieving and maintaining changes in values and behavior via mobilization of local support networks. The urgency for using such promising interventions with a criminal justice population is made clear by the size and characteristics of the persons moving through the system today. Nationwide there are more than 9 million individuals processed through jails and in excess of 700,000 offenders incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Correctional facilities combined with probation and parole service represent one of the largest and most costly social services born by the nation (Lauderdale, 1993). In addition, the nation's criminal courts and prisons report that half of those persons moving through the systems at any given time have prior criminal convictions (Beck and Shipley, 1989; Senna and Siegel, 1990). While almost a century of scientific work supports the notion of individual behavior being strongly impacted and often determined by family and community norms and structures, focused efforts in the use of such concepts have been sporadic in the last two decades. Rather the energies of the criminal justice system have focused upon enforcement, apprehension and incarceration. Indeed to some extent the success of such emphases has now produced a continuing flood of persons leaving the prison system typically shorn of the traditional family and community ties that support productive and lawful conduct. Clearly a continuing crisis is in effect from the demands on the criminal justice system and the system’s inability to stem the high rate of repeat offenders. Reconnecting and re-energizing these ties of family and community are important factors in improving the rates of successful rehabilitation.

What is needed are efforts that depart from the instituitonal trends now in place and that seek to provide clear alternatives to the strategy of recent years. This paper reviews one such effort begun two years ago through a collaboration of several state agencies in Texas. In the Summer of 1991 the School of Social Work through two faculty members, Michael Lauderdale and Kathryn Selber, initiated an effort with two elements of the state's criminal justice system, the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice and the Pardons and Parole Division: an innovative program to apply scientific insights about change and maintenance of change of attitudes and behavior to ex-offenders preparing to leave prison. The program termed the Family Support Program (FSP) is entering its third year of funding from the Pardons and Parole Division in September of 1993. This paper will examine how the program was created and the successes and continuing challenges encountered.

Dimensions of the Texas Population

Rates and characteristics of crime in Texas are representative of much of the nation though Texas has a higher rate of incarceration and capital punishment than the national average. Sharing a thousand mile border with Mexico crime and corollaries such as smuggling and drug usage have dimensions that extend beyond state and national borders. Additionally this border and Texas history ensure as well highly heterogeneous populations and communities. The ethnic mix of the population includes Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans and Anglos. Hispanics (mostly Mexican-Americans) are the most numerous and fastest growing minority, but African Americans are the only minority group substantially over-represented in prison populations.

In the 1990 U.S. Census Texas had a population of 16,986,510 with these ethnic subgroups:

Major Ethnic Groups in Texas

Group %

Anglo 49.5

Am Indian 0.4

Black 11.9

Asian 1.9

Hispanic 25.5

Other 10.8

Change in the Texas criminal justice population is characteristic of national trends and for a recent representative year of 1990 had these aspects:

In that calendar year a total of 45,357 inmates were received to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Institutional Division and a total of 37,921 were released from this division.

At the end of 1990 there were a total of 72,146 offenders under parole supervision in Texas.

In 1990 a total of 33,181 inmates were released under parole supervision.

In 1990 the Texas Department of Criminal Justice calculated that 51.2% of the inmates in the on-hand population at a given point in time had previously been confined.

Such large numbers of persons scheduled for prison and the high rates of repeat offenses have produced severe pressures in the state and various efforts both to deal with crime, its costs and recidivism. Faced with high levels of recidivism; yet aware of potential benefits from forming or activating natural support networks, the School of Social Work developed a program for working with ex-offenders and their families. The uniqueness of this model lies in the special qualities of the partnership between the participating state agencies as well in the comprehensive, systemic design of services for families.

The project couples the resources of three agencies which bring differing perspectives on the problems within the criminal justice field. The governor's office represents the policy making arm of the partnership. The state department of criminal justice represents the service delivery system aspects of the partnership. The university community contributes an objective, neutral vehicle with a focus on evaluation and less "vested" in any particular view of the problem area. In addition, the school of social work's internship program for both bachelor's and master's level students provides opportunities for student interns to work and train, under the supervision of professional staff, within the criminal justice field. This unique approach to service delivery emphasizes innovation and evaluation instead of routine approaches. Thus the setting is one that encourages examination of approaches to dealing with such clients and provides a setting for innovation.

After two years of operation the program has provided services to 323 ex-offenders and their families. The following describes and analyzes the findings from this innovative program including: the mechanism for inter-agency collaboration; the faculty-based field unit model of service delivery; curriculum innovations in field education; client, agency, and student/staff evaluations of the services delivered; unique group intervention models with this population; and research findings on the impact of the program on recidivism and community reintegration.

Parameters of The Family Support Program (FSP)

Service Goals and Eligibility

The overall goal of the demonstration aspects of the Family Support Program (FSP) is to enhance the natural support systems for the offenders and their families in order to positively impact the re-integration of the offender into the community. The program targets inmates who will be released to Travis County to live with a family member. Family is defined as any significant other, relative or non-relative, to whom the inmate is being released. A broad section of offenders have been included as eligible. Clients are not screened on the basis of offense, (except psychiatric illnesses requiring hospitalization), age, gender, ethnicity, education, or income levels. Participation in FSP is voluntary; both the inmate and the family must agree to participate. Inmates are identified by the Texas Department of Corrections’ transitional case managers. These managers are responsible for making decisions around the management of parolee conditions. If the inmate agrees to participate, the referral comes to the Austin District Parole Office where the Austin parole officer and/or FSP staff complete the pre-parole investigation and explains the program to the family. If the family agrees to participate, then the case comes to the FSP staff for initiation of services.

FSP services are short-term; the length of the service is from six to twelve sessions over a two-three month period. Work with the family may begin in the pre-release phase which is ninety days before the expected release date of the inmate.

Demonstration Services to Family Units

Four types of social services characterize the service delivery strategy. These include: 1) case finding and intake; 2)individual and family services; 3)group services; and 4)outreach and community services. Intake services include contacts to recruit families into service, handling inquiries, and determining eligibility. Case finding can also include involvement with parole offices to review potential cases which may have followed a non routine-process to the office.

Individual and family services include supportive and educational counseling with the parolee only, the family only, or the parolee and the family together. An assessment is completed with both the family and the parolee stressing the comprehensive needs of the client system. The assessment includes such needs as: legal, economic, housing, medical, psychological, transportation, employment, and social. A service plan is then developed and monitored throughout the remainder of the client's involvement in services. The majority of individual and family services are delivered in a home-based format in order to heighten client participation and successful engagement of the family unit.

Group services are broad-based and have included both inmates and family members. A number of different groups have been piloted and include: a mutual aid support group for women; a mutual aid support group for male offenders; a women's and children's drop-in group during parolee reporting periods; a mutual aid support group for family members and ex-offenders together; a drop-in group for ex-offenders; and a children's group. Group services are designed to enhance the offenders' reintegration through providing information, support, and education for successful coping and problem solving. These services are located in the FSP offices or in a "neutral" community site which facilitates access. All groups offer child care to increase family involvement and participation.

Outreach and community building services are also provided. These services which include presentations to agencies, advocacy and educational campaigns on behalf of clients are designed to identify and bridge gaps in services for this target group. Since ex-offenders are generally not a preferred client population by many traditional service agency, advocacy and building supportive relationships with service providers is a much needed activity. Outreach activities have also included newsletters to families and inmates to disseminate information about services and to maintain contact with client systems.

Research and Evaluation Design

The overall research goals for the project include identifying what services work best for what type of client groups in order to positively impact reintegration and thus lessen recidivism. The project has both process and outcome measures (formative and summative) of program effectiveness. Examples of process measures include: the number of inmate referrals to FSP, the number of intervention plans prepared and completed, the number of community referrals made and completed, and the number of family units completing the program. The main outcome measure is the rate of recidivism for FSP ex-offenders compared to a control group of non-FSP ex-offenders. Clients enter the control group when FSP caseloads are full and receive only group services.

Follow-up includes a survey completed by the staff via client contact and a review of records completed by the parole officer. The survey of the family members and parolee collects a range of information about the employment status, living conditions, community resource linkages, support given to the parolee by the family, identification of un-met needs and primary life concerns, financial status, and other data. A comprehensive view of the family unit -both parolee and family members— is obtained. The parole officer also completes a survey concerning parole conditions, employment, reporting conditions, and substance abuse. A client satisfaction survey is also a part of follow-up.

Model Innovations

The uniqueness of this model lies in the special qualities of the partnership between the participating state agencies as well as in the comprehensive, systemic design of services for families. The project is a result of the joining of resources of three agencies which bring differing perspectives on the problems within the criminal justice field. The Governor's Office-Criminal Justice Division represents the policy making arm of the partnership. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division represents the service delivery system aspects of the partnership. The university community contributes an objective, more neutral vehicle with a focus on evaluation and less "vested" in any one particular view of the problem area. In addition, the School of Social Work's internship program for both bachelor's and master's level students provides opportunities for student interns to work and train, under the supervision of professional staff, within the criminal justice field. This unique approach to service delivery emphasizes innovation and evaluation instead of routine approaches.

An additional aspect of FSP has been the participation of representatives of the state agencies in an Advisory Council to the project. Membership is drawn from parole officers, state level policy makers and researchers, and university faculty. The Advisory Council meets regularly and reviews policies and service delivery strategies. This has been a key factor in maintaining smooth working relationships between entities which have historically not communicated about the complexity of the issues in their charge. Within this organizational environment, programmatic directions have been set which emphasize family and community participation and support.

Results of the Family Support Program at the End of Two Years of Operation

The Family Support Program was designed as a research and demonstration program to seek to identify which family and community supports were potentially available to assist in re-integrating ex-offenders into their communities. During the first two years of the project much as been learned about the characteristics of the ex-offenders, the ex-offenders' families, the responsiveness of the community and community agencies, the selection of undergraduate and graduate students to work with this population and the supervision and direction of such a program.

Demographic Characteristics

Texas is the fourth most populous state in the United States and has several minority populations. It is one of the most rapidly growing states with sizable increases coming from the resident population, migration from other states and immigration particularly from Mexico and other countries of Latin America. Dealing with ex-offenders involves dimensions of the state's population growth and ethnic complexity.

Ethnicity

With 31 female and 292 male ex-offenders having participated in the Program the gender ratio parallels the state's institutional ratios of women to men and is also similar to national ratios. The most numerous minority population is Mexican American and the next largest, African American. However the persons involved in FSP are not proportional ethnically to either the state's population or the local county, Travis. As is true nationally, minorities, in this case Blacks or African Americans, are over-represented in the FSP service population. This has long been a matter of concern in the criminal justice system and the extent of the overrepresentation of Blacks in the criminal justice population is characteristic of the FSP service population. This table and the following charts compare ethnic distributions in Travis County to the FSP population.

Ethnicity Comparisons

Travis County FSP Population

Numbers % Numbers %

Anglo 353276 64% 61 19%

Black 75211 14% 163 51%

Hispanic 123985 22% 97 30%

These data illustrate the importance of having staff and students in the FSP effort that can work effectively with minority populations, particularly African Americans. Indeed an important aspect of the Program has been the efforts to involve community agencies and institutions in African American neighborhoods in assisting these families as well as increasing access of the families to all community social agencies.

Educational Achievement

Education and employment readiness levels give some indication about how urgent family and community supports are for this population to initially survive when first released, successfully find jobs and achieve self-sufficiency. Travis County like most of the state has a limited and not expanding number of unskilled and semi-skilled jobs while jobs for the college-educated and professional continue to expand. Thus successful entry into the job market in the county is highly dependent upon educational level. The following data summarize education preparation of the ex-offenders.

Education Preparation of FSP Clients

Educational Level Numbers at this level

0-6 Years 12 4%

7-9 Years 102 33%

10-11 Years 71 23%

High School Grad 31 10%

GED 55 18%

Technical School l8 3%

Some College 28 9%

While Texas has always suffered from high rates of school dropouts, the decline of agriculture, oil exploration and construction as employment sources exacerbates problems around low rates of school completion and academic achievement. Indeed in Texas as for the rest of the United States job creation that has solid incomes and benefits occurs only in fields where substantial education is required, usually education at the college level or higher. Fully sixty percent of the clients have less than a high school education and only twelve percent have some education beyond high school. With scant family and community resources, little employment background, few marketable skills and a highly competitive job market the likelihood of deviant behavior for the ex-offender is high. As the following graph makes clear most of the clients served by the FSP do not have educational levels that will provide entry to adequate jobs.

Crime Profiles

The arrest and citation profiles of the ex-offender population indicate that burglary, drugs, robbery and larceny theft are the most frequent and typical crime. The median number of arrests per ex-offender is 10 arrests with property crimes and drugs accounting for two thirds of the arrests. With few family and neighborhood supports and inadequate educational and job skills this population supports itself through property crimes. With the mean age of ex-offenders at approximately 26 years, the large number of arrests and data from individual histories provide a pattern of ten or more years of criminal activity for the average ex-offender.

Alcoholism and other drug abuse are characteristic of the majority of the backgrounds of the ex-offenders. An important referral effort of the FSP activities has been securing treatment resources and working to maintain client involvement in treatment programs.

Impact of FSP on Recidivism, Cost and Manpower

The FSP data to date indicate that approximately 25 percent of the clients respond well to the support services activated or strengthened within families and the community. Twenty percent of the clients soon drop from the services and appear to move into other quarters than those to which they immediately returned to upon release from prison. The remainder, about 55 percent make initial use of the services but terminate activity with the Program in 3 to 4 months. Comparing the FSP service population to a matched or control group not participating with FSP 80% of the FSP participants are identified as being on a "Normal Reporting" status as with 66% in the control group. The difference between the two is statistically significant at greater than the .01 level suggesting a clear cut benefit to the FSP efforts.

Cost savings to reducing recidivism and subsequent re incarceration are great. For the latest fiscal year Texas spends an average of $45.70 daily to house an inmate and the average length of sentence is 1.9 years. This yields an annual cost of $31,692. The projected savings of the reduced recidivism rate from the FSP clients are $1,647,984. Texas which now incarcerates almost 100,000 persons in the prison system and thousands more in jails stands to save hundreds of millions of dollars if means can be found to significantly reduce recidivism.

During the two years of the program funding $375,000 have been awarded and eight bachelor level students have received stipends while being placed in the program and have graduated. Twenty MSSW level students have been supported by stipend and completed their internship in the program. Five of the graduates are now working in the criminal justice field and represent an important dimension of the program to increase the number of trained professional social workers in criminal justice efforts.

Summary

Three clear facts have emerged after two years of program operation. One fact is that family and community support services are urgently needed, but the typical ex-offender has few existing family ties. Neighborhood resources for this population are scant and the typical ex-offender or his family have little ability to locate and access available resources. Clearly substantial efforts are needed in every community to assist ex-offenders in locating and using community resources to continue rehabilitation and return to solid social functioning. Assisting the ex-offender's family is one important strategy in making resources more available. To date about 25 percent of the ex-offenders do have some level of viable family resource and the addition of the social work services provided through FSP substantially assists the family in accessing available services.

The second fact is the majority of ex-offenders do not have any family resources to assist them. There is no home available for them to return to and often there is only a single parent that simply has an overburden in securing her or more rarely his own support. Supported living arrangements must be secured for this group of ex-offenders to have much impact on reducing subsequent recidivism.

The third fact is that after three months many perhaps most clients still have great struggles in maintaining behavior that keeps them clear of encounters with law enforcement and the criminal justice system. While there are initial crises that occur upon release, for most of these persons there is not a substantial lessening of problems for many months. The majority of these persons have such substantial educational, occupational and social functioning deficits that many months are required before the ability to become self-supporting is achieved. With little sign of improvements in school performance, no likelihood of job creation for unskilled and semiskilled employment and a prison population that has grown from 22,000 to 90,000 in twenty years and may at the current rate of sentencing reach 300,000 in the next decade there is an urgent need to find alternatives to what now exists. The Family Support Program is most effective with the approximate one fourth of the situations presented where a viable level of family support can be found. Where some family structure exists, the extension of social work services to build upon such resources pays clear dividends in rehabilitation and reduced recidivism. Much more intensive services such as half-way houses and longer duration of services for alcohol and drug problems, education, job training and job placement are indicated for half or more of the ex-offenders. Typically these cases involve persons where there is no or minimal levels of viable family support. Such services, though, as these data suggest are likely to be successful and far less costly than reincarceration.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ayala, H., Quiroga, H., Mata, A. and Chism, K. "La familia-ensenante: evaluacion del modelo in Mexico en terminos de reincidencia en su aplicacion a una muestra de ninos inhaladores de solventes industriales," (The teaching-family: evaluation of the model in Mexico in terms of recidivism in its application with a sample of young inhalers of industrial solvents), Acta Psicologica Mexicana, I,2, 1982

Allen, H., et. al. Probation and Parole in America, New York:, The Free Press, 1985

Beck, A. and Shipley, B. Recidivism of Young Parolees, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1987.

Beck, A. and Shipley, B. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989.

Blake, R. and Mouton, J. The Managerial Grid, Houston: Gulf, 1969.

Blau, J. and Blau, P. "The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan structure and violent crime," American Sociological Review 147, 1982.

Cloward, R. and Ohlin, L. Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955.

Cohen, L. and Machalek, R. "A general theory of expropriative crime: an evolutional ecological approach," American Journal of Sociology 94, 465-501, 1988.

Glaser, D. The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964.

Gottfredson, D., Neitercutt, M., Nuffield, J. and O'Leary. V. Four Thousand Lifetimes: A study of time served and parole outcome, Hackensack, N. J.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1973.

Hairston, C. "Family ties during imprisonment: do they influence future criminal activity," Federal Probation, 52, 48-53, 1988.

Hammersley R., Forsyth A. and Lavelle T. "The criminality of new drug users in Glasgow," British Journal of Addiction, 85 1583-94, 1990.

Hill, W. Hill Interaction Matrix, Los Angles: Youth Studies Center-USC, 1965.

Lauderdale, M. Community Planning, New York: Volt Information Sciences, 1967.

Lauderdale, M. Burnout, San Diego: University Associates, 1983.

Lauderdale, P. "Indigenous alternatives to modern law and punishment and other forms of domination of nature," 207-25 forthcoming in Domination, Knowledge and Forms of Living, edited by A. Sociologist, 21, 29-40.

Lauderdale, P. and Inverarity, J. "Rationalization of economy and bureaucracy: the regulation of opiates," Journal of Drug Issues, 14, 567-78, 1984.

Laub, J. and Sampson, R. "Unraveling families and delinquency: a reanalysis of the Gluecks' data," Criminology 29, , 355-80, 1988.

Leclair, D., "Home furlough program, effects of rates of recidivism", Criminal Justice Behavior, 5, 249-59, 1978.

Lerman, P., Community Treatment and Social Control, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R.., "Patters of aggressive behavior in experimentally created 'social climates,' " Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 1939; 271-99.

Loeber, R. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M., "Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency," in Crime and Justice, vol. 7, eds. Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Mann, P., Lauderdale, M., and Iscoe, I. "Toward effective community-based interventions in child abuse," Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol 14, No. 6, 729-42, 1983.

McCord, J., "Family relationships, juvenile delinquency and adult criminality," Criminology 29, 397-419, 1991.

Merton, R. Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1975.

Miller, W. "Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency," Journal of Social Issues, 14 (3), 5-19, 1958.

Moreno, J. Who Shall Survive, Washington, D.C.;, Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co., 1934.

Polsky, H. Cottage Six, New York: Russell Sage, 1962

Mata, A., Quiroga, H., Chism, S., and Ayala, H. "Programa de rehabilitacion para ninos y adolescentes farmacodependientes," (A rehabilitation program for children and adolescent drug abusers), Memorias de la Primera Reunion sobre Investigacion y Ensensanza,Mexico City: Instituto Mexican de Psiquiatria, 1982.

Richter, S., Brown S. and Mott M. "The impact of social support and self-esteem on adolescent substance abuse treatment outcome," Journal of Substance Abuse 3, 371-85, 1991.

Roche, D. "Psychology, society and the management of addiction," Irish Journal of Psychology, 10, 82-99. 1989.

Rosen, L. "Family and delinquency: structure or function", Criminology 23, , 355-80, 1988.

Selber, K. and Lauderdale, M. A Community Model for Post Institutional Treatment of Offenders. forthcoming.

Senna, J. and Siegel, L. Criminal Justice, St. Paul: West Publishing, 1990.

Shaw, C. The Jack-roller, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930.

Shaw, C. The Natural History of a Delinquent Career, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931.

Shaw, C. and McKay, H. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (rev. ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972.

Sherif, M. The Psychology of Social Norms, New York: Harper and Bros., 1936.

Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.. Groups in Harmony and Tension, New York: Harper and Row, 1953.

Sherif, M. and Sherif, C.. Reference Groups, New York: Harper and Row, 1964.

Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. (Eds.) Problems of Youth: Transition to adulthood in a changing world, Chicago: Aldine, 1965.

Siddall J. and Conway G. "Interactional variables associated with retention and success in residential drug treatment," International Journal of the Addictions, 23, 1241-54, 1988;

Simmel, G. The Web of Group Affiliations (trans. from 1902 edition by K. H. Wolff), New York: The Free Press, 1955.

Simons, R. and Gray, P. "Perceived blocked opportunity as an explanation of delinquency among lower-class black males: a research note," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26, 90-101, 1989.

Spearly, J., and Lauderdale, M. "Community characteristics and ethnicity in the prediction of child maltreatment," International Journal of Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 7, 91-105, 1983.

Spence, R. "Social support and the probability of teenage pregnancy," Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1983.

Stark, R. "Deviant places: a theory of the ecology of crime," Criminology 25, 893-911, 1987.

Strodtbeck, F. The family as a three-person group, American Sociological Review, 19, 22-29, 1954.

Thrasher, F., The Gang, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963.

Tripplet, F., "The effect of group pressure on judgment," as cited in Sherif, M. and Sherif, C., An Outline of Social Psychology, New York: Harper 1956, 1896.

Warr, M. and Stafford, M. "The influence of delinquent peers: what they think or what they do," Criminology 29, 851-66, 1991. Whyte, W. F. Street Corner Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943.

Wilson, C., Lenihan, K. and Goolkasian, G. Employment Services of Ex-offenders, Washington, D.C.: U.S. government Printing Office, 1981.

Wilson, J. "What works? Revisited: new findings on criminal rehabilitation," The Public Interest, 61, 3-17, 1980.

Zorbaugh, H. The Gold Coast and the Slum, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929.