Wilderness Experience Programs - Reforming Delinquents or Beating Around the Bush?

• NCJ Number: 96849
• Journal: Juvenile and Family Court Journal Volume: 35 Issue: 3 Dated: (Fall 1984) Pages: 35-44
• Author(s): J Winterdyk; C Griffiths
• Date Published: 1984
• Length: 10 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The discussion addresses the general effectiveness of Wilderness Experience Programs (WEP), theoretical and methodological limitations of WEP studies, problems of coordination between researchers and WEP administrators, the 'black box' syndrome, and issues involved in following up youth who participated in WEP.

Abstract

Results of evaluations of Wilderness Experience Programs (WEP) completed in North America reviewed to identify the assumptions upon which WEP are premised and the difficulties in ascertaining from published studies the efficacy of this treatment technique. A table summarizes evaluations of WEP for delinquent populations. Differences in study results may be ascribed to methodological factors. The question arises as to the cause of the effects obtained: were the results due to WEP or to other factors? WEP evaluations tend to rely on psychological and behavioral measures to assess the impact of the wilderness experience on youths participating in programs. Studies using a control group to compare program and nonprogram differences on the psychological criteria provide mixed support for WEP's efficacy as do those focusing on recidivism. The various observations and findings raise serious questions about the efficacy of WEP despite widespread expressions of optimism about its utility and desirability as an alternative to institutionalization. Limitations of WEP studies include the failure to specify a theoretical basis for the program, a lack of coordination of information needs between evaluation researchers and program administrators, a failure to define how the actual program components work to attain their intended results, and a failure to use any followup measure or only a short-term followup period. To ensure the survival and quality of WEP, several programmatic and evaluation issues must be addressed. These are presented as a series of recommendations. Tabular data, 33 references, and 9 footnotes are provided.