This document was printed from the website of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC), which you can access at http://www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org/
This document was printed from the website of the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC), which you can access at http://www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org/
Type of Maltreatment: Not specified
Target Population: Boys and girls from birth to age 22. Adaptations are made to assure developmental appropriateness across exceptionality(s). The general descriptor most frequently used in the program is “troubled and troubling” because the term is considered least stigmatic and applies to children and youth along the range of needs from mild to most severe. Children who are eligible for service in other systems are often referred to the program because of their challenging behavior.
Brief Description:
Re-ED (originally Re-Education of children with Emotional Disturbance) has been reviewed by the CEBC in the area of Higher Level of Placement. Re-ED is an ecological competence approach to helping the range of troubled and troubling children and youth entering child serving systems, with their families. This philosophy-based approach refined its beliefs and practices since beginning in 1963, compiling research and evaluation studies. One recent study identified 6 elements seen as essential by Re-ED staff, significantly differing from the views of staff in more traditional programs:
Research originally tested the approach in short-term residential treatment and public school support services. Since then, agencies adapted Re-ED to a wide variety of community needs across the U.S. Some formed the American Re-Education Association; their 14 sponsoring and 11 associate members provide services in 19 states from coast to coast, in the District of Columbia and abroad.
Provisional feedback form not available in printout. Please access the website to use the form.
Wellness and strength orientation, rather than pathology based
Ecologically focused involvement
Competence-based interventions
Relationships seen as critical
Natural agents in teaching and counseling roles valued and developed
Ongoing questioning and data-based decision making
Re-ED was designed to be conducted in a group.
Re-ED has been tested for use in a group setting.
Testing references:
Valore, T. G. (2002). Sharing adventure: The group is important. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 11(2), 90-94.
The recommended group size is: 8 to 10 children or youth
Recommended intensity: Children and youth with highly challenging needs are often in day or residential settings. Those with language functioning adequate for group interaction usually have multiple 15-minute to more than an hour-long group meetings daily, each held for specific purposes (planning, problem solving, evaluation, strengths focused meetings, etc.). Other groups formed for different purposes meet regularly on differing schedules.
Recommended duration: For services without group treatment formats, durations likewise vary from days to months. The intensity of these services varies, depending on the service type, and range from a matter of days (e.g., for assessment and referral) to the calendar or school year (e.g., day treatment or intensive home treatment).
Re-ED includes a homework component.
Description: Both children or youth and parents often have behavioral goals to accomplish for themselves between meetings.
Re-ED is typically conducted in a(n): Adoptive Home, Birth Family Home, Community Agency, Foster Home, Outpatient Clinic, Residential Care Facility, and School.
Re-ED was designed with a Parent Component.
Re-ED addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms: Parents of children, often considered “troubled or troubling,” with challenging behaviors and possibly with commitment problems.
Re-ED was designed with a Child Component.
Re-ED addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms: Challenging behaviors, skill deficits or learning problems, difficulty interacting with adaptive peers, inability to function in usual child settings, own needs impacted by home and community needs, one or more concomitant problems may accompany the above requiring additional expertise.
Age range(s): 0-22
Re-ED was developed for children with developmental delays.
Re-ED has not been tested for children with developmental delays.
Re-ED was not designed for specific racial/ethnic/cultural groups.
Re-ED was not tested in specific racial/ethnic/cultural groups.
There is a manual that describes how to implement this program.
There is training available for Re-ED.
Training contact: Mark Freado, MA, Executive Director, American Re-Education Association, mdfreado@re-ed.org, 614-818-0063
Number of days/hours: The Introductory training modules usually require two days for a group unfamiliar with the program, but may be divided into 6 segments for programs needing different schedules. In general, training days/hours vary, depending on the needs of the agency, as indicated by their performance on the assessment factors, and on their own objectives for knowledge and implementation in what service type(s).
Training is obtained: Training can be obtained on-site and provided regionally, but observations in programs with coordinated activities are recommended. Some programs regularly offer training institutes at their own sites for others interested in attending.
There currently are additional qualified resources for training.
List of additional qualified resources: John Amato, MA, FamilyLinks (Pittsburgh, PA)
James Doncaster, MA, Pressley Ridge (Pittsburgh, PA)
Hughes Johnston, MA, Youth Villages (Memphis, TN)
Thomas Murdock, MA, Centerstone (Nashville, TN)
Thomas Valore, PhD, Positive Education Program (Cleveland,OH)
Bridget Walker, PhD, Washington American Re-Education Association (Seattle, WA)
The typical resources for implementing Re-ED are: Cheryl will give me this
Professional qualifications for the job held or sought, as required by the agency, service type, state and federal regulations (e.g., degrees, certifications, licenses, life experiences).
Re-ED has been reviewed and it was determined that this program lacks the type of published, peer-reviewed research that meets the CEBC criteria for scientific rating of 1 – 5 . Therefore, the program has been given the classification of "NR - Not able to be Rated. " It was reviewed because it was identified by the topic expert as a program being used in the field, or it is being marketed and/or used in California with children receiving services from child welfare or related systems and their parents/caregivers. Some programs that are not rated may have published, peer-reviewed research that does not meet the above stated criteria or may have eligible studies that have not yet been published in the peer-reviewed literature. For more information on the "NR – Not able to be Rated" classification, please see the Scientific Rating Scale.
Weinstein, L. (1969). Project Re-Ed schools for emotionally disturbed children: Effectiveness as viewed by referring agencies, parents and teachers. Exceptional Children, 35(9), 703-711.
Type of Study: Pre-test/Posttest
Number of participants: 103
Population:
Location/Institution: Nashville, TN and Durham, NC
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Participating parents rated their child’s behavior prior to Re-Ed enrollment and again at 6 and 18 months post-intervention. The scale used are the Symptom Checklist, the Social Maturity Scale and the a semantic differential measure that compares the way the child describes himself and the way the parents describe him, using a series of polar adjectives. At six months, symptoms and undesirable behaviors were rated as significantly lower than at baseline and the parents’ and child’s ratings were more in agreement. Researchers also had teachers rate children before they left school to enter Re-ED and 6 months after returning to school. Included were the Student Role Behavior Scale, and a global rating created from questionnaire and open-ended items given to the teacher on the dimensions of behavioral-emotional adjustment academic adequacy. Students were rated as significantly improved on all dimensions after the Re-ED intervention Limitations of this study include lack of a comparison group and short follow-up time.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 6 months.
Hooper, S. R., Murphy, J., Devaney, A., & Hultman, T. (2000). Ecological outcomes of adolescents in a psychoeducational residential treatment facility. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(4), 491-500.
Type of Study: Pretest/posttest, cross-sectional
Number of participants: 111
Population:
Location/Institution: The Whitaker School, NC
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Baseline measures were taken on characteristics of the participants at the start of the intervention, including measures of IQ, reading, math and language proficiency, scores on the Child Behavior Checklist, length of time in residence and number of placements. At follow-up, case managers contacted teachers and school psychologists to obtain ratings of satisfactory or non-satisfactory in the adjustment domains of legal, school, and level of care. A satisfactory rating in the legal domain was defined as no new illegal activity. Adjustment at school was defined as attendance, graduation or obtaining a GED, and level of case adjustment was defined as no unplanned hospitalization or more restrictive level of treatment after discharge. An average of 58% were functioning adequately in all three domains across the time span, with the lowest number remaining at that level by 24 months (28%). By the criterion of satisfactory function in at least two domains, between 71% (24 months) and 97% (6 months) reached the required level. The most successful students tended to be younger, female, have higher IQ and reading skills, have better scores on parent-rated internalizing symptoms and to have been discharged more recently. Limitations include a lack of comparison group and the subjective nature of satisfactory ratings across domains.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 6, 12, 18, or 24 months (each participant contacted only once.)
Fields, E., Farmer, E. M. Z., Apperson, J., Mustillo, S., & Simmers, D. (2006). Treatment and posttreatment effects of a residential treatment using a Re-education model. Behavioral Disorders, 31(3), 312-322.
Type of Study: Pretest/Posttest
Number of participants: 98
Population:
Location/Institution: Unknown
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Participants were children with at least one psychiatric diagnosis, most with ADHD, externalizing disorders, and or mood disorders. At baseline, parents/guardians completed measures including the externalizing subscale of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale (BERS) and the Child and Adolescent Services Assessment (CASA), which measures services received. Data was also collected on recent residential history, legal encounters, and a checklist of problems and functioning. Measures were repeated at discharge and at 3 and 6 months after the program and also included questions about the use of recommended services. Participants showed significant improvement on the CBCL and BERS. This deteriorated somewhat over 6 months, but continued to be significantly better than baseline. The majority of children reached and maintained scores within the normal range on the BERS and about half did so on the CBCL. For the BERS, youth who were younger, male, and from higher SES families improved most by discharge, but these variables were not related to scores taken later. Length of stay in the program did predict higher later BERS scores. The authors note that children with a shorter stay in the program were less likely to consistently receive recommended services after discharge. Conclusions from this study are limited by the lack of a comparison group.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 3 and 6 months post-discharge
Hobbs, N. (1966). Helping disturbed children: Psychological and ecological strategies. American Psychologist, 21, 1105-1115.
Walker, B., & Fecser, F. (2002). Elements of an effective Re-EDucation program for the 21st century. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 11(2), 110-115.
Valore, T., Cantrell, R., & Cantrell, M. L. (2006). Competency building in the context of groups. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 14(4), 228-235.
Hobbs, N. (1982, 1994). The troubled and troubling child: Re-EDucation in mental health, education and human services programs. First Edition, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Second Edition, Cleveland, OH: American Re-EDucation Association.
Cantrell, R., & Cantrell, M. (Eds.) (2007). Helping troubled children and youth: Continuing evidence for the Re-ED approach. Memphis, TN: American Re-EDucation Association.
Cantrell, M., Cantrell, R., Valore, T., Jones, J., & Fecser, F. (1999). A re-visitation of the ecological perspectives on emotional/behavioral disorders. In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.). The third mini-library series: What works for children and youth with E/BD: Linking yesterday and today with tomorrow. Reston, VA: The Council for Children with Behavior Disorders.
Contact name: Mark D. Freado, MA
Affiliation/Agency: American Re-Education Association
Email: mdfreado@re-ed.org
Phone: 614-818-0063
Fax: 775-261-5462
Website: http://www.re-ed.org