Program Profile: Social Problem-Solving Training (SPST) in a Juvenile Detention Setting

This intervention was designed to help adolescent males in detention with interpersonal stress and conflict. The program is rated No Effects. There were no statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms, recidivism, social problem-solving, anger response, anger control, and inward expression of anger. However, the treatment as usual control condition was found to have a statistically significant reduction on outward expression of anger, a result in the other-than-expected direction.

A No Effects rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s) and may result in a negative outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Program Theory

Social Problem-Solving Training (SPST) was a cognitive–behavioral intervention designed to teach youth how to cope with interpersonal stress and conflict. The program was implemented in detention centers in the State of Connecticut. Many cognitive interventions target deficiencies in social information-processing, which refers to the mental steps that are taken when faced with a social situation before deciding on the appropriate behavioral response. Cognitive–behavioral programs that target aspects of social information-processing have been seen as potential approaches for improving social problem-solving and reducing recidivism for youth in contact with the justice system (Pardini 2016).

SPST was a brief, manualized training based on the social information-processing model. This model targets the nature and causes of interpersonal conflict by delaying youth’s responses to conflict, increasing their understanding of how preconceived biases may influence decision-making during conflicts, and generating alternative solutions to problems. The goal of SPST was to increase youth’s social problem-solving skills and reduce depressive symptoms, anger, and recidivism rates.

Program Components

SPST consisted of 10, 1-hour small group sessions delivered by trained correctional officers in youth detention facilities. The sessions were guided by the Viewpoints manual (Guerra, Moore, and Slaby 1995; Guerra and Slaby 1990; Guerra and Williams 2012), which was adapted for use in a detention setting. The group leader used a Viewpoints teacher’s manual to deliver the intervention, and Viewpoints workbooks were given to each youth. Both the teacher’s manual and the workbooks were structured to follow a 10-session format that was designed to address the nature and causes of interpersonal conflict. The manuals given to the youth contained multiple activities and assignments tailored for the practice of eight problem-solving steps: 1) Is there a problem?; 2) Stop and think; 3) Why is there a conflict? Get the facts; 4) Identify personal goals and decide what you want; 5) Think of solutions; 6) Look at the benefits and consequences of various courses of action; 7) Choose what to do; and 8) Evaluate your results and self-performance.

In addition to teaching problem-solving skills, the intervention focused on teaching basic social skills such as cooperation and communication, perspective-taking, cognitive self-control, and education about emotions. The main techniques used in the Viewpoints manual included didactic education, in-session writing assignments, role-playing, and guided discussion.

SPST was also designed with a high turnover rate in mind, which allowed new participants to join the intervention at any time and still learn techniques taught during previous sessions. Each of the 10, 1-hour sessions included a 15-minute recap about the essence of social problem-solving. For youth already receiving the intervention, this recap provided an opportunity to review previously learned material. For youth new to the intervention, this recap provided an opportunity to learn material previously discussed. The majority of time spent in sessions was dedicated to covering a specific step in the social problem-solving process. The guided discussions provided an opportunity to incorporate events from the lives and thoughts of participating youth when reviewing the material from the manual. At the end of each session, youth were asked to integrate the detailed discussion of the specific step with the general sequence of social problem-solving.

Study 1

Haeffel and colleagues (2017) used a randomized control design to examine whether the Social Problem-Solving Training (SPST) intervention could decrease depressive symptoms in a sample of detained adolescent youth in the Connecticut Youth Detainee Program. Participants were adolescent males recruited from March 2006 through June 2008 through three pretrial state-run detention centers who met the following inclusion criteria: 1) had a court order to stay in the facility for at least 14 days, 2) had the ability to understand and fluently reply in spoken English, 3) had parental and youth consent to participate, and 4) had a minimum reading proficiency equivalent to grade 4. Adolescents were excluded from the study if they had a prior diagnosis of severe intellectual disability or psychosis; had extreme scores on the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version 2, which measures psychological disturbances and suicidal ideation; or were under the guardianship of child protective services.

The sample of study participants (n = 296) were all male, were on average 15 years old, and were mostly from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds. With regard to race/ethnicity, 48 percent were African American, 30 percent were Hispanic, 18 percent were white, 2 percent identified as other race/ethnicity, and 2 percent did not report. There were no statistically significant differences between study participants on any of the baseline variables, including age, ethnicity, Child Depression Inventory score, or fluid intelligence. Those in the treatment group (n = 118) received the SPST intervention. The number of sessions attended by the youth in the treatment group ranged from 1 to 14, with an average of 5.4. Those in the control group (n = 178) received treatment as usual (TAU) delivered by the participating corrections officers, which consisted of psychoeducational support groups in the areas of life skills, physical health and hygiene, orientation to detention services, anger management, and substance abuse prevention.

An analysis of covariance was conducted predicting the impact of SPST on an adolescent’s depressive symptoms. Data on depressive symptoms were obtained from the Child Depression Inventory, a 27-item self-report questionnaire that measures depressive symptoms that occurred within the past 2 weeks. Responses on the items ranged from 0 to 2, with a higher score indicating greater symptom severity. The Child Depression Inventory score at baseline was used as a covariate in the analysis. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

Study 2

Hein and colleagues (2020) used the same study sample from Study 1 (Haeffel et al. 2017) to assess the impact of the SPST on measures of recidivism, social problem-solving, anger response (state anger), anger control, and anger expression. All participants were adolescent males, incarcerated at one of three participating detention centers in Connecticut, during the periods of recruitment. Individuals with missing data on any of the Delinquency Reduction Outcome Profile (DROP) scales or State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2nd Edition (STAXI-2) scales, measuring state anger (i.e., a temporary state of anger invoked by a specific situation) and trait anger (i.e., the stable predisposition to react to a wide range of situations with anger), were excluded from this analysis (i.e., listwise deletion). This resulted in a final sample size of 118 youth in the treatment group, who received the SPST intervention, and 171 youth in the control group, who received treatment as usual.

There was a small but statistically significant difference in measures of anger response (state anger) and inward anger expression between the treatment and control groups at baseline, which indicated that youth in the control group scored higher, on average, on the state anger and inward anger expression subscales of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2nd Edition (STAXI-2), compared with those in the treatment group. No statistical adjustments were made for these differences. There were no other statistically significant baseline differences between the treatment and control groups with regard to any other variables, including race/ethnicity and age.

The outcomes of interest were recidivism, social problem-solving skills in the context of detention, social problem-solving skills in the context of home or other settings in which the youth might be on probation, social problem-solving skills in total, anger response (state anger), inward anger control, outward anger control, inward anger expression, and outward anger expression. Recidivism was a binary variable that indicated whether an individual committed at least one offense within one year and within two years of release from detention (the CrimeSolutions review of this study focused on recidivism two years after release from detention). Recidivism was assessed using official court records of the Connecticut juvenile justice system and the adult court system. The remainder of the outcome measures were assessed before the intervention (i.e., T1, as soon as possible after consent) and after the intervention (i.e., T2, before release). Hypothetical questions from the DROP, a situation judgment inventory, were used to measure social problem-solving. Youth were asked to imagine themselves in the context of detention, or in a setting in which they were on probation. They were then presented with a scenario that involved conflict in the suggested setting (e.g., “Imagine that you are at the detention center. You are at recreation and another person starts calling you names and making fun of you.”). They were then asked to rate seven possible responses based on a scale from 1 (very bad choice) to 7 (very good choice). Items from a 57-item self-report questionnaire, STAXI-2, were used to create scales for the following outcomes: 1) State Anger, 2) Anger Expression-In; 3) Anger Expression-Out; 4) Anger Control-In, and 5) Anger Control-Out. Cross-tabulation and chi-squared tests were conducted to compare recidivism rates among participants post-detention. A series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests was conducted to analyze the effects of the intervention on social problem-solving and anger. The study authors did not conduct subgroup analyses.

The Viewpoints manual (Guerra, Moore, and Slaby 1995; Guerra and Slaby 1990; Guerra and Williams 2012) was given to each participating correctional officer leading a Social Problem-Solving Training (SPST) group. The manual consisted of 10, 1-hour sessions constructed to follow a specific format and to be conducted in small groups in a detention setting. A Viewpoints workbook was given to each juvenile detainee (Haeffel et al. 2017; Hein et al. 2020).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile: