Predictors of Resident Role Model Status Within Therapeutic Communities

1. Predictors of Resident Role Model Status Within Therapeutic Communities Ashleigh Hodge, MSW Keith Warren, Ph.D. & Jessica Linley, MSW The Ohio State University, U.S.A.

2. Background • Residents expected to act as role models (De Leon, 2000; Perfas, 2012) • Resident stages: Learn  Practice  Model • Recognized position • Socially reinforced • Fundamental to reciprocity • For many residents, acting prosocially is new (De Leon, 1994) • Push-ups and pull-ups assist with “right living” • Limited research on resident role modeling • Existing: Staff as role models • This is an exploratory study • Q. What personal and network characteristics predict staff ratings of resident role model status?

3. Resident Demographics • Sample size: n =49 TC residents (55%) • Gender: Women • Age • Range = 20-55 years • Mean = 32.82years • Median = 31 years • Race • 87.8% Caucasian • 10.2% African American • 2.0% Hispanic (n= 49 Residents)

4. Resident Demographics • Previous incarcerations • 75.5% (n=37) had never been incarcerated before • 14.3% (n=7) had one previous incarceration • 8.2% (n=4) had 2 previous incarcerations • 2.0% (n=1) had 3 previous incarcerations

5. (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005) Methodology A B • Social Network Analysis - study of ties between a set of “actors” • Directed social network • Freeman out-degree centrality (UCINET) • How many verbal push-ups or pull-ups is participant A sending? • Participant activity (help given to peers) in the program. • Freeman in-degree centrality (UCINET) • How many verbal push-ups or pull-ups is participant A receiving? • Help received from peers in the program.

6. Methodology • What personal and network characteristics predict staff ratings of resident role model status? • Tapestry Interaction Log • Residents tracked peer interactions for 12 hours • 6 relevant activities: • Gave verbal pull-up • Gave verbal push-up • Peers chosen at meals (breakfast, lunch & dinner) • Gave verbal compliment • Archived demographic data were also collected on each participant • Role Model Questionnaire Staff Ratings • 2 weeks later • 6 Staff members, answered individually. • Randomized list of residents (control for name order bias) • “Yes” / “No” option for role model rating • Scores summed for each (range 0-6; 6 =most highly rated)

7. Results • Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test (SPSS) • # Staff who rated residents (DV) • Poisson distributed (p=.954)

8. Results • Hypothesis: The more affirmations and corrections TC residents give to their peers, the more highly they will be rated by staff as role models. • Model 1 • Sending more pull-ups  higher staff ratings • Sending more push-ups  lower staff ratings • Increase in phase  higher staff ratings

9. Results • Model 2 • Push-ups and pull-ups received measure expected peer interactions • Controlled for verbal push-ups and pull-ups received • Coefficients for verbal pull-ups and push ups sent to peers and phase are nearly identical to Model 1 & remain statistically significant • Push-ups and pull-ups received did not reach statistical significance

10. Results • Model 3 • Informal friendship network also exists • Compliments received • Chosen at meals •  not statistically significant • Coefficients for verbal pull-ups and push ups sent to peers and phase are nearly identical to Model 1 & remain statistically significant

11. Results • Model 4 • Controlled for demographical influence • Age • Race/Ethnicity • # Previous Incarcerations •  not significant predictors of role model status • Coefficients for verbal pull-ups and push ups sent to peers and phase are nearly identical to Model 1 & remain statistically significant

12. Discussion • Staff as a coherent group form judgments based on criteria indicated by behavioral measures • Verbal push-ups and pull-ups not always observed by staff • Residents who gave more corrections to peers were rated more highly by staff as role models • Staff are driven by implementable, achievable behavior • Resident program accordance –vs – Peer judgments or Resident personal characteristics • Reputation and cooperation • Role model finding and reinforcement theory • Giving push-ups is viewed as the most basic, easy task • Pushups sent rather than received. • Does not mean that it is not valuable. • Giving pull-ups is more difficult • Requires resident to identify poor behavior (self or other) • Requires resident’s willingness to face/confront that poor behavior (self or other)

13. Conclusions • Limitations • Results are preliminary • This was a pilot study with a small sample size containing only female residents • Data gathered over one day only • What’s next? • Gathering re-incarceration and graduation data of participants • Looking at the influence of work crew assignments • Implications for future research? • Proof it is methodologically possible to do social network surveys in TCs and get meaningful results

14. References • De Leon, G. (2000). The therapeutic community: Theory, model, and method. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. • De Leon, G. (1994). The therapeutic community: Toward a general theory and model. National Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph Series: Therapeutic Community: Advances in Research and Application, 144. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. • Hanneman, R. A. & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riversdale, CA: University of California, Riverside (published in digital form at http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/) • Perfas, F.B. (2012). Deconstructing the therapeutic community: A practice guide for professionals. North Charleston, SC: Create Space.