Study 1
Leeman, Gibbs, and Fuller (1993) implemented EQUIP (Equipping Youth to Help One Another) in a medium-security correctional facility for juveniles in a Midwestern state. The facility housed 200 boys between the ages of 15 and 18. From this group, the researchers drew a sample of 54 subjects—18 in the experimental condition and 36 in one of two control conditions. All boys in the institution were eligible to be in the study, with the exception of boys committed on a 90-day parole revocation. These boys were excluded due to the short duration of their stay; researchers wanted a representative sample of the institution.
The mean age of the sample was 16. Most of the subjects (38 boys) were white; the rest were African American, with one Hispanic youth. There were no significant differences between the experimental and control groups on age, ethnicity, self-reported misconduct, or severity of committing offense.
Subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental group or one of two control groups—simple and motivational. Neither control group received any programming. The motivational control group received a 5-minute motivational speech just after pretesting. This speech encouraged subjects to help other inmates by highlighting the benefits of such behavior and concluded with a challenge to control their own life and change it for the better. Aside from this motivational speech, these subjects did not receive any treatment.
Behavioral conduct was measured with archival and self-report data. Archival data was used to measure subjects’ criminal history, including committing offense, and institutional misconduct was represented by disciplinary reports. Postincarceration data consisted chiefly of parole revocation and/or institutional recommitment. Self-reported behavior was collected through surveys: Subjects completed surveys regarding preincarceration and institutional misconduct. Survey items covered delinquent behavior, such as attacking someone, breaking into a house or building, or using drugs. The institutional misconduct survey covered behavior in the previous month, such as damaging property, getting in a fight, defying staff, or using drugs.
Moral judgment was measured using the Sociomoral Reflection Measure, and social skills were measured using the Inventory of Adolescent Problems. Both of these instruments have acceptable levels of reliability and validity. Instrument items cover the importance of basic moral values such as truth, property, law, and justice.
Posttesting was administered within 7 days prior to a subject’s release from the institution. Subjects were followed up at 6 months and 12 months following release by examining any recidivism data (parole revocation or court contact resulting in recommitment). Change score, chi-square, and analysis of covariance (or ANCOVA) analysis was used to detect any differences in social skills, moral judgment, institutional misconduct, and postrelease recidivism data. No subgroup analysis was conducted.