Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Wilderness Therapy History and Literature Review Michael Heckendorn, M.Ed., NCC May 2011
History of Wilderness Therapy
There have been a growing number of programs under the title of wilderness therapy, but
it still lacks a concrete definition (Russell, 2001, p. 1). Wilderness therapy encompasses many
different areas including challenge courses, adventure therapy, and wilderness experience
programs (WEPs). No matter the case, wilderness therapy is a therapeutic program based on
Kurt Hahn’s idea that “learning through doing was not primarily developed to facilitate the
mastery of academic content or intellectual skills; rather, it was oriented toward the
development of character and maturity” (Bacon & Kimball, 1993, p. 117). Hahn was the
founder of one of the first wilderness therapy programs named Outward Bound, a program for
at risk adolescents, and one of the first people to encourage experiential education (Bacon &
Kimball, 1993). He spent most of his time applying this philosophy towards an educational
experience rather than a psychological or therapeutic one. People interested in this field took
hold of the “Hahnian” approach to therapy.
Most wilderness therapy programs incorporate 5 components: (1) a group process,
mainly for adolescents, (2) a series of challenges which incrementally increase in difficulty and
appear to be risky, (3) are conducted in an unfamiliar environment, i.e. wilderness, (4) contains
one on one therapeutic techniques for the students involved, and (5) has varied lengths
depending on the program (Russell, 2001, p. 2). In addition to this and unique to wilderness
therapy programs is that they are licensed by a state agency, are supervised by a licensed
mental health practitioner, have trained staff in areas of counseling and substance treatment,
conduct a post-evaluation of treatment to determine the effectiveness of the program, and
families work with aftercare services among other things (Russell, 2001, pg. 2). All these
processes are conducted in the wilderness with use of safe activities including but not limited
to backpacking, mountaineering, rock climbing, high ropes challenges, and white water rafting.
After talking to Tony Issenmann, a Primary Therapist at a wilderness program called
Second Nature, he explained that there are two main styles for wilderness therapy (personal
communication, October 18, 2014). The first style is called a base camp model for wilderness
therapy. This would mean that the clients who are admitted to the different programs would
have a single base camp where they would sleep every night. Throughout the day, they would
do different activities ranging from day hikes to high ropes courses. The second style Tony
mentioned was a nomadic model. A nomadic model is where there is no base camp and you
carry everything on your back everyday. With this style of wilderness therapy, the clients are
challenged through every part of their day. Chances for therapeutic interventions are not then
limited to what happens in therapy sessions, but can occur by any activity throughout the day.
Literature Review
Adolescents have been a growing demographic in need for therapy. The American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reports that major depression strikes about one in
twelve adolescents (Weissman, 1999). With that statistic in comparison to the population of
adolescents in the United States, there are 53,736 adolescents facing major depression in the
US (US Census, 2000). That is only major depression. Adolescents face many more problems
beyond depression as well.
In an article posted by the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs
(NATSAP; n.d.) it mentions that suicide is the fourth leading cause of death for five to fourteen
year olds and that “5% or an estimated 2.7 million children are reported by their parents to
suffer from definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties, problems that may interfere
with their family life, their ability to learn, and their formation of friendships” (para. 4).
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2010),
10% of youths in America aged twelve to seventeen are currently using illicit drugs and that
14.7% of 12-17 year olds are consuming alcohol. In 2008, 16% of all violent crime arrests and
26% of all property crime arrests were committed by juveniles. There were 2.11 million
juvenile arrests made in 2008 alone (Puzzanchera, 2009, p. 1). The adolescent demographic is
one in need of serious help. Following is many research studies done on wilderness therapy
and its effectiveness to change adolescents behaviors.
The empirical research on wilderness therapy’s effectiveness is a limited subject. Past
findings on the effectiveness of wilderness therapy has brought about mixed conclusions
(Jones, Lowe, & Risler, 2004, p. 65). There has been some evidence that wilderness/adventure
therapy has no significant advantage over any other alternative or traditional therapy styles
(Jones et al., 2004, p. 65). For example, findings from a 2007 questionnaire from 252
adolescent parents found that after the wilderness therapy program brought about a significant
improvement (p<.001) in adolescent behavior in the areas of communicating with parents,
anger management, participation in house chores, following house rules, emotional problems
and substance use (Harper, 2007, p. 394).
Another research study, this time done on juvenile sex offenders, also showed the
effectiveness of wilderness therapy compared to different therapy models. By matching each
participant in the wilderness therapy program with a different participant in a separate
program, the researchers, Gillis and Gass (2010), found a significant difference between the
programs.
A large sample size of 15,311 participants allowed for the research to be non-biased or
skewed. Each participant was an adolescent in different juvenile treatment facilities
(wilderness therapy was compared to two other programs in the state) and upon their release,
they followed them for three years to determine if they “recidivated to DJJ or to the adult
system” (Gillis & Gass, 2010, p. 25). Their research showed that 3 years after the participants
entered the wilderness therapy program, their recidivism rates were much lower than what the
other two programs showed. 81.1% of the wilderness therapy participants did not get rearrested
in the three-year period while 65.3% of Georgia’s Youth Development Centers’ participants did
not. Only 19% of the wilderness therapy participants were rearrested within three years
compared to 34.8% of Georgia’s Youth Development Centers’ participants (Gillis & Gass,
2010, p. 27).
This can be compared to Elizabeth Roe’s philosophy as to why wilderness therapy is so
effective amongst adolescents:
In our technologically-advanced world, slowing down the pace can have beneficial
effects on a person’s well-being. This is especially true for at-risk youth who not only
must deal with the fast pace of life in general, but also must contend with the changes
wrought by a transitional period in their own lives, from that of a child to a young
adult. (Roe, 2009).
Research conducted by the National Association of Therapeutic Schools and Programs
(NATSAP) surveyed nearly 1000 youth which were admitted to one of nine programs. These
nine programs were all private, out-of-home, licensed, therapeutic programs focusing on
adolescents. Each program offered group, individual, and family services, but the amount of
each varied from program to program. A survey was given to both parents and students at
admission and at discharge. These surveys assessed the adolescent’s “treatment history,
psychotropic medication use, legal record, grade point average, matriculation in school,
communication with family members, compliance with rules, relationship quality, drug use,
and alcohol use” (Behrens, 2006).
Parents post discharge survey overwhelmingly found a “strong positive effects of
treatment on internalizing problems (i.e., depression, anxiety, attention), problematic external
behaviors (i.e., aggression, rule breaking), and overall functioning” post treatment (Behrens,
2006). She also states “the change in adolescent functioning, measured over the course of
treatment, was found to be clinically significant.” Behrens (2006) found that “Almost all
correlations were significant at p<.001. These correlations were positive and significant, but
weak in magnitude with correlation values only at .23-.34.
All of these thus far have proven that wilderness therapy has a statistically significant
impact on mental health, recidivism rates, and family functioning. Other sources show that
there is no difference between wilderness therapy compared to other types of therapy.
Laurie Meyers (2007), a staff member for the Monitor on Psychology publication,
reviews a case where a sixteen year old died at a wilderness therapy program. A hearing on this
boy’s death was held by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Education and Labor
where they, “released a report detailing thousands of reports of abuse--and in some cases
death--at residential treatment programs for troubled youth from 1990 to 2007” (Meyers, 2007,
para. 3). After a survey of over seven-hundred participants that were enrolled in a wilderness
therapy program, she
“received reports of amateur psychological interventions and treatment,
medications administered or stopped without medical supervision, weeks of
enforced isolation, deprivation of food, sleep and shelter in response to rule-
breaking and youth being transported to the facilities without their consent,
sometimes in handcuffs and leg chains” (para. 12).
This information doesn’t disprove the significant difference of wilderness therapy programs,
but it does prove the dangers as well as the fact that not all programs are the same.
In addition to Jones et al.’s (2004) study showing that there is no difference between
recidivism rates of participants in wilderness therapy programs and group therapy programs,
Lee Gillis, an associate professor of psychology at Georgia College, goes at length about how
most research done on wilderness therapy isn’t well compiled. He states that, “there is still no
one clearly defined and researched method of conducting therapy with adventure activities”
(Gillis, 1995, para. 31). He goes on to say that many of the ‘statistically significant’ research
findings aren’t actually significant because of small sample size or low effect score. According
to Weston and Tinsley (1999), the average effect score for wilderness therapy programs is .31.
To have a statistically significant effect score according to Pearson’s R correlation, it needs to
be at least a .5. Weston and Tinsley go on to say, “the work is still plagued by serious
methodological limitations, which include the use of small convenience samples, the failure to
isolate independent variables, the use of simplistic methodologies, and the absence of
appropriate comparison or control groups” (p. 36).
A research study done showing no significant advantage for wilderness therapy was done
by Jones et al. (2004) which examined thirty-five male children and adolescents in wilderness
therapy programs compared to children and adolescents who participated in group home
programs. His panel study contained a control group, which is unlike many research articles
done for wilderness therapy. He based his research off of recidivism rates for the adolescents
examined by a search done through the juvenile system in Georgia.
There were two main hypotheses that Jones et al. (2004) studied and they were: “young
persons who participated in wilderness programs would have lower rates and severity of
recidivism than those in group home programs and demographic variables would differ for
young person who commit re-offenses when compared to those who do not commit re-
offenses” (p. 59). Twenty-four males participated in the wilderness therapy programs while
eleven males participated in residential group/contract home programs.
After a chi-square analyses, 25% of the wilderness group had committed a new offense
six months following release from treatment compared to 27.3% of the group home program.
An ANOVA analyses tested the two groups on number of new re-offenses within 12 months of
the program. Both the ANOVA and chi-square analyses found no significant difference
between the two means on recidivism rates. The overall findings of the study “indicated that
there were no significant differences between the recidivism rates for the participants in
wilderness programs and those who were placed in group home programs” (Jones et al., 2004,
63).
The question of statistical evidence of the effectiveness of wilderness therapy is still up
for debate. What can be concluded from many of these articles is that wilderness therapy works
as well as or better than other traditional therapeutic modalities.
References
Bacon, S. B. & Kimball, R. (1993). The wilderness challenge model. In R. D. Layman, S.
Prentice-Dunn, & S. Gabel (Eds.) Residential and inpatient treatment of children and
adolescents. (pp. 115-135). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Behrens, E. & Satterfield, K. (2006). Report of findings from a multi-center of youth outcomes
in private residential treatment. Canyon Research & Consulting, Inc. Retrieved from
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:DSi7HzxdD7kJ:www.natsap.org/Behrens
.doc+Report+of+Findings+from+a+Multi-
Center+Study+of+Youth+Outcomes+in+Private+Residential+Treatment&hl=en&gl=us
&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiWR0DAqyk_M07E8-
4dGGimRtvD0qcbMmi_pkV64npG1mjvfG1vms7Ray2Z-
EmHZN14yzmioAGPEIhIt8pHcWkwaFQTJPkOrAab5WqgxHItODH2kyViT_10b40Q
E53O96g2VzXe&sig=AHIEtbQoP-8HGoW0HrDyiqc46jTtGGzX6A
Gillis, H. L. (1995). If I conduct outdoor pursuits with clinical populations, am I an adventure
therapist? Journal of Leisurability, 22.
Gillis, H. L., & Gass, M. A.(2010) Treating juveniles in a sex offender program using
adventure-based programming: A matched group design. Journal of Child Sexual
Abuse, 19(1), 20-34
Harper, N., & Cooley, R. (2007). Parental reports of adolescent and family well-being
following a wilderness therapy intervention: An exploratory look at systemic change.
Journal of Experiential Education, 29(3), 393-396. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Jones, C. D., Lowe, L. A., & Risler, E. A. (2004). The effectiveness of wilderness adventure
therapy programs for young people involved in the juvenile justice system. Residential
Treatment for Children & Youth, 22(2), 53-67. doi:10.1300/J007v22n02_04
Meyers, L. (2007). Dangerous discipline. Monitor on Psychology, 38(11), 16. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec07/dangerous.aspx
(n.d). The need for effective treatment. NATSAP. retrieved from
http://www.natsap.org/pdf/The%20Need%20for%20Effective%20Treatment.pdf
Puzzanchera, C. (2009). Juvenile arrests 2008. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf
Roe, E. (2009). Wilderness therapy for adolescents: Utilizing nature to effect change in youth.
Journal of Therapeutic Wilderness Camping, 8(1).
Russell, K. C. (2001). What is wilderness therapy?. Journal of Experiential Education, 24(2),
70. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2010). Results from the 2009
National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Volume I. Summary of National Findings
(Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-38A, HHS Publication No. SMA 10-
4586Findings). Rockville, MD.
U.S. Census Bureau, 110th Congressional District Summary File (100-Percent), Matrices P13
and PCT12.
Weissman, et.al. (1999). Depressed adolescents all grown up, JAMA.1999 281, 1701-13
Weston, R. & Tinsley H. E.A. (1999). Wilderness adventure therapy for at-risk youth. Parks &
Recreation 1999;34:30–39.