THE USE 05" PER INFLUENCE
T0 COMBAT SOCIAL PROBLEMS:
A CASE STUDY OF THE OAKLAND

COMMUNITY COLLEGE CENTER FOR
ERUG STUDIES

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.
MLC'HEGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ALVIN RAYMOND GDLDMM
1974

l

m "MM

 

W «W

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE USE OF PEER INFLUENCE TO COMBAT SOCIAL
PROBLEMS: A CASE STUDY OF THE OAKLAND
COMMUNITY COLLEGE CENTER FOR DRUG STUDIES

presented by
ALVIN R. GOLDMAN

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for
EDUCATIONAL

PH.D. degree in ADMINISTRATION

 

LA

Major professor

Date November 4 , 1974

 

0-7 639

 

     

5‘ mama-av ‘3
"MG 8 SW
800K BWUERY INC.

. ' 'F’DA ~‘v BINDFRS,

 
     
  

   

Pt

'II‘
VC-

2 3 2304

ABSTRACT

THE USE OF PEER INFLUENCE TO COMBAT SOCIAL
PROBLEMS: A CASE STUDY OF THE OAKLAND
COMMUNITY COLLEGE CENTER FOR DRUG STUDIES

By
Alvin R. Goldman

The Purpose

The purpose of this Case Study was to present a
descriptive analysis of the peer influence programs of the
Oakland Community College Center For Drug Studies. These
programs Operate primarily in two areas: (1) youth who are
involved with substance abuse of a non-addictive nature, and
(2) youth who have a wide variety of social problems. Case
study methodology was used to determine whether the graduates,
drop-outs and staff have benefited from their participation

at the Center.

Methodology
limited participant observation and nonstandardized,
in-depth interviewing were the principal instruments used to
gather data. Six exploratory questions provided the basis of
the interviews. The sample of the papulation at the Center,

which consisted of the staff and a cross-section of the

Alvin R. Goldman

papulation at the Center, which consisted of the staff and a
cross-section of the graduates and drOp-outs, was given the
Opportunity to freely describe their perceptions of how the
Center For Drug Studies operated and how the programs they
were involved in effected them. All interview sessions were

recorded on audio tapes and later transcribed.

Major Conclusions
The following conclusions were derived from the
findings:

1. that both the organization of the Center and the
support system within the Center For Drug Studies
combine to provide for a successful eXperience for
those individuals who follow the programs through
to completion

2. attitude toward self-worth has shown positive im-
provement by all of the sample of graduates and
the majority of the drOp-outs

3. the program contains unique features that prove to
be effective for peer oriented supportive programs
which are created to work with substance abuse and
social problems

A. the life styles of the peOple who successfully com-
pleted the structured program at the Center For

Drug Studies showed a positive change

5.

6.

research
programs
problems

1.

2.

3.

Alvin R. Goldman

participation at the Center For Drug Studies had a
positive effect upon the drop-outs in both curtail-
ment Of drug usage and social relationships deSpite
the fact that they did not follow the program
through to completion
flatly structured organizations, using informal
peer influence, have a better chance Of performing
a positive service for drug and social related
problems than do highly structured organizations.
The study provides recommendations from which further
can be generated on this and other peer oriented
directed toward help with drug and social related
among youth and adults:
A follow-up study should be made in 3 years Of
the graduates and drOp-Outs of the first year
program at the Center For Drug Studies to determine
if they had continued their commitment.
A continuous study should be conducted with all
future graduates and drOp-Outs of the Center For
Drug Studies.
This study should be replicated in other Centers

that Operate with similar models.

’4.

Alvin R. Goldman

A similar study should be undertaken in those
school districts whose staff have undergone
training at the Center to discover whether
concepts they learned here are being put into
practice and to what degree has success been

accomplished.

THE USE OF PEER INFLUENCE

TO COMBAT SOCIAL PROBLEMS:

A CASE STUDY OF THE OAKLAND

COMMUNITY COLLEGE CENTER FOR
DRUG STUDIES

By

Alvin Raymond Goldman

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree Of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department Of Administration
and Higher Education

College Of Education

1974

COpyright
Alvin R. Goldman
1974

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the support and
cooperation of the many persons who contributed to the
successful completion of this study. Special eXpressions of
appreciation are extended to the following people:

Dr. Walter W. Scott, chairman Of the doctoral
committee, for his unshakable faith, infinite patience,
valuable suggestions, and guidance.

Professors William C. Hinds, Alexander J. Kloster,
and Harry Perlstadt for their constructive suggestions as
members of the committee.

Dr. Arthur Jalkanen and the staff of the Oakland
Community College Center For Drug Studies, whose dedication
to the eradication Of the problems plaguing today's youth
led to the creation Of a unique institution.

Finally, the author is most appreciative Of his
wife Florence, for her unselfish devotion and sacrifices and
assistance throughout the doctoral program. To his children
Stephen and Richard for their pride in their father's endeavor
and who Often relinquished valuable family togetherness time

for the sake of the project.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

LIST OF FIGURE 0 O O O O C O O O O C O 0 Vi

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O C O O O O O 1

The Purpose Of the StUdy o o o o o o O o 1
Exploratory Questions . . . . . . . . . 1
Background and Conceptual Framework . . . . 2
Justification of the Study . . . . . . . 10
General Background . . . . . . . . . . 12
Specific Background . . . . . . . . . 17
Delimitation Of the Study . . . . . . . . 19
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 21
Organizational Theory 0 o o o o o o O o 22
Rehabilitation Programs . . . . . . . . 30
Alienation o o o o o o o o o o o 36
Social Science Field Work . . . . . . . . 39
CODClUSlon O o o o o o o O o o o o 41
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Organization Of the Chapter . . . . . . . 43
Data AnalySiS o O o o o O o a “‘3
Definition of the Population . . . . . . . 53
Random Sample Selection . . . . . . . . 53
Description of the Primary Instrument . . . . 55
Field Procedures . . . . . . . 56
Initial Contact with the Director and Staff . . 58
Organization Of the Study . . . . . . . . 60

iii

Chapter

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ORGANIZATION . . .

Historical Background . .
PhilOSOphy of the Program
The Physical Setting . .
The Organization . . .
Structure of the Program Phase . .

ReSpondent' s Perceptions and Attitudes
Toward the Center 0 O o o o o o

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . .
smary o o o O o o O 0
Implications of the Study . . . .
Recommendations for Further Research .

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

109
122
123
128

129

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page
1. Graduate Student Data . . . . . . . . . 86
2. Program Withdrawal Analysis, 1971 . . . . . 100
3. Program Withdrawal Analysis January-May, 1972 . 101

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1. Center For Drug Studies Administrative
StrUCture o O o O o o o o o o o o o 68

vi

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The Purpose of the Study

The author's purpose in this case study is to present
a descriptive analysis of the Oakland Community College Center
For Drug Studies and to determine through the use of the
field techniques of observation and interview, which if any,
components of the program of the Center have been effective.
This case study will be decriptive in nature to determine
whether the individuals, both staff and clients, who have
been involved at the Center have benefited from their par-
ticipation.

gxploratory Questions

The research will be guided by the following
eXploratory questions:

1. Is it the organization of the Center or the human
support system within the Center that makes for a
successful experience?

2. Has attitude toward self-worth shown positive improve-
ment through participation in the program at the Center?

3. What facets of the program at the Center are unique?

4. DO the procedures used at the Center accomplish what
the staff set out to do as defined in their stated

goals?

5. Did those participants who reported a successful
eXperience substantially change their life styles?
6. What do individuals who failed to complete the pro-

gram cite as the reasons for their leaving the Center?

Background and Conceptual
Framework

The deveIOpment in recent years of the non-medical
abuse of drugs and other substances led to the creation of many
approaches to prevention and early intervention. While the
resort to drugs among adults as a means of alleviating personal
difficulties was hardly new, the role of drugs in stifling
emotional and social growth among the young is a new phenomenon.
The downward trend of school age usage has become a problem
of growing proportions.

Most of the programs that were instituted by school
districts and communities to stOp the rising use Of substance
among youth have proven to be totally inadequate. Instead of
providing a comprehensive program design, these programs used
fear tactics, drug/chemical information, adult "eXperts," and
large assemblies to convince large groups of school age chil-
dren that any or all drug usage was both unlawful and physically
harmful to them. Instead Of stOpping drug usage, these tactics
proved to be no deterrant to the increased eXperimentation

with drugs and other substances by youth.1

 

1L. Annette Abrams, "Introduction and Overview,"
Accountability In Drug Education (Washington, D.C.: The Drug
Abuse Council, Inc., 19735, pp. 5-7.

The failure of these programs forced educators and
community leaders to search for other approaches that could
be instituted. The evidence presented by etiological studies
of drug usage began to point out that in order for the prob-
lems of abuse to be solved, a totally new series of approaches
had to be develOped. These approaches do not deal with
Specific drugs or chemicals. Instead they concentrate upon
the whole quality of social life, involving the whole community
and the families of the clients where it is apprOpriate.

These approaches have taken several forms, with
either a medical, mental-health, vocational, or educational
emphasis. Each approach is usually designed, implemented and
supervised to reflect the views of its creator or director, so
that no two organizations are totally alike. However, the
organizations involved in working with drug users have several
common components in their structure:

1. Client rehabilitation

2. An attempt to retain close ties after a person leaves
the influence of the formal organization.

3. Extensive record keeping

4. Ceremomies

5. Clear definition of the problems created by drug usage

6. Lower echelon staff perform the therapy or training
of the participants.

7. The use of publicity in the surrounding community.

The newer type of drug prevention programs are
aimed at a wide segment Of youth. They draw in the heavy drug
user, the occasional user, the eXperimenter and a large
number of young people who feel alienated from their families,
religion, peers, and the educational system. They have mani-
fested their alienation in a variety of ways, ranging from
active delinquency to non-achievement and withdrawal from
family and friends.

Youth and young adults have turned to these newer
programs to find constructive alternatives to the problems
that have been facing them. They have found no answers to
their problems in their normal surroundings. Thus, they seek
the companionship and human interactions that the promises of
drug usage did not produce. The leading idea in these new
approaches is that the workers tend to work with their clients'
feelings and emotions, rather than with drug misuse per se.
They attempt to develOp self-support systems through the use
Of group pressure, and suggested alternatives that attempt to
help clarify the value system which the client has develOped
for himself.

The Oakland Community College Center for Drug Studies
is one organization that has been develOped to attempt to help
these youth OOpe with some of the problems that led them to

become alienated and/or turn to drug usage.

The Center for Drug Studies, in most reSpects, has
similarities with other drug abatement programs that far exceed
any unique qualities it may have. This researcher does not
claim that the selected organization is ”representative," but
feels that it contains the Specific phenomena which will aid
in the understanding of the develOpment of such programs.

This area Of study, primarily a substance abatement
program, will not be examined by the theory-hypothesis-statis-
tics type of research design. Rather, the researcher will
attempt to develOp a description Of the findings from his own
Observations and solicited from staff members, graduates and
drOp-Outs from the Center.

Specifically, this study, through the use of Case
Study Methodology, will involve the examination of the feelings
and reactions of the respondents as they attempt to describe
how they were influenced by the program at the Center.

This research is a case study of the organization,
program and effects upon the participants at the Oakland
Community College Center for Drug Studies, extending from
December, 1971, through July, 1972, the last half of the
third year of the Operation Of the Center. During this period
of time, the researcher Spent his time alternately between
Observation, interviewing at the Center and attempting to

locate and interview drop-outs at their homes.

The case study included the observation of staff

meetings, large orientation sessions, occasional small group

sessions, and formal and informal interviews of staff, visit-

ing graduates and program

A case study is
all the pertinent aSpects
ation, or an institution.
study methodology and its

a method of research, the

participants.

an exhaustive in-depth account of
of an individual, a group, a situ-
Several authors have defined case
usefulness as a research tool. As

case study has certain basic

characteristics which distinguish it from other methods or

techniques. John W. M. Rothney states:

"One commonly finds the case study listed
as one among many techniques which may be
employed in the study of persons. It is
not just one Of the techniques. It is
rather, the procedure under which all
other methods should be subsumed. Such
procedures as testing, interviewing,
reporting of behavior descriptions, and
analysis Of personal documents should be
listed under the heading of techniques
that may be employed in the collection of
data for a case study, rather than listing
the case study as one of the methods in
such an array. This is not a distinction
without a difference. NO one recommends
that any of the methods noted above should
be used in isolation, and in taking that
position they indicate that information
obtained from several sources should be
collated so that a synthetic conception
of the person can be achieved. That in

essence
study 0 “

 

is what is done in a good case

2John w. M. Rothney, Methods 911; Studying the
Individual Child (Waltham, Mass. : Blaisdell Publishing Co.,

19335, pp. vii-viii.

Carter Good states the following in reference to
the nature of the case study method:

”The case consists of the data relating

to some phase of the life history of the

unit or relating to the entire life process,
whether the unit is an individual, a family,

a social group, an institution, or a community.
The complex situation and combination of
factors involved in the given behavior are
examined to determine the existing status 3
and to identify the causal factors Operating."

Van Dalen further eXplored the use Of the case study
in seeking comprehensive information on a subject:

"In a case study, an educator makes an in-
tensive investigation Of a social unit-a
person, family, group, social institution,
or community. He gathers pertinent data
about the present status, past eXperiences,
and environmental forces that contribute to
the individuality and behavior Of the unit.
After analyzing the sequences and inter-
relationships Of these factors, he constructs
a comprehensive, intergrated picture Of the
social unit as it functions in society."

The case study may be historical and/or descriptive
in nature. It may trace the develOpment of a particular
"case” from its origin to the present: or it may be descriptive
of the present status of a situation. The case study is widely
used by guidance counselors, court workers, social workers,

medical doctors and psychiatrists. In these areas, it is

 

3Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates, Methods 9;
Research (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955),

57—7767-

“Deobold B. Van Dalen, Understanding Educational
Research (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965), p. 218.

used with a deviate phenomenon: a diagnosis is made and a
remedial program is formulated with the purpose of changing
the obnoxious or deviate behavior back to the range of pre-
ferred or accepted behavior.

The case study has been a useful tool in the past
for giving the researcher insight into a particular problem
being investigated: however, it also provides a backlog of
information from which others may draw when they are confronted
with similar circumstances. However, there should be a defi-
nite plan Of attack when doing a case study. The cycle of
complementary steps is:

1. Recognition and determination of the
status of the phenomenon to be inves-
tigated.

2. Collection Of data relating to the
factors or circumstances associated
with the phenomenon.

3. Diagnosis or identification of causal
factors as a basis for remedial or
develOpmental treatment.

a. Application of remedial measures.

5. Subsequent follow-up.5

All methods Of research have limitations: however,
the case study method of research is particularily Open for

criticism because of the likelihood of subjective judgement

Of the examiner.

 

5Carter V. Good, Introduction to Educational
Research, New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1963, p. 392.

 

While carrying on this method of research, the
researcher will find many places where personal biases enter
and where personal judgements must be made with no scientific
information to back up this judgement. The conclusion rests
heavily on these judgements: therefore, a false hypothesis
could be made on these value judgements and personal biases.

As stated by Van Dalen, the case study method of
research is exhaustive. The completeness of the study has
a direct bearing on results. If an incomplete investigation
is conducted, a bad hypothesis could result that would hurt
more than help the individual.

One of the most disappointing aspects of the case
study is that the findings of one study may not be applied

to another.6

Although many case studies will help one to
classify the behavior, it is not possible to use one hypothe-
sis Over and over again from other case studies.

In summary, the case study is used to describe the
current status of a particular occurence. This description
is viewed as the forerunner to later research projects that

will look for causal relationships or seek to determine the

effects of controls or modification in current practices.

 

6°20 Cit. ’ p. 1990

10

Justification of the Study
The increase of drug usage among teen-age youth has

generated anxiety and consternation among parents, educators
and community leaders. School personnel have attempted to
design programs to educate students as to the problems that
arise from drug usage, but remain divided over the type of
approach that will reach all students who might become involved
with drugs. Community agencies and law enforcement agencies
have created programs and passed legislation to attempt to
define and control the problem.

The result was a helter-skelter public persuasion

campaign. Agencies were created. Laws were

toughened. Narcotic squads were formed. Commissions,

committees, and task forces were set up. Conferences

were held, Speeches made, films produced, and pam—

phlets published. But, deSpite the massive harangue

about drug use, America still has a drug problem...

and there doen't seem to be a shred of evidence

that the situation is improving.7

There is a lack of definitive knowledge concerning

broad based volunteer programs which include both drug users
and non-drug users among their clientele. The use Of drugs
and other substances by high school students and younger chil-
dren is a relatively new phenomenon. Drug usage may Offer

youth a somewhat meaningful and genuine peer involved experi-

ence, something which they feel they have been unable to Obtain

 

7Richard J. Baker, ”Drug Education: Is it Doing
Any GOOd?", Ohio Schools, L (November, 1972), 12.

11

from current involvement with society. It is possible that
organizations, such as the Center For Drug Studies, might
Offer alternatives that will reinvolve youth with society.

It would seem that the primary purpose for the
existence of this type of organization is that this type of
behavior cannot be tolerated by society.

As stated, the justification for this study is
based upon the issue of drug rehabilitation and the lack of
definitive knowledge concerning the subject. In total, the
complexity of the subject goes beyond the parameters of this
inquiry which concentrates upon the peOple who were affected
by one organization: the staff, the graduates, and drop-outs,
for the purpose Of adding to the present knowledge Of reha-
bilitation programs.

The analysis of one organization in the field of
drug abatement and rehabilitation therefore can serve as a
basis for the investigation Of other organizations with
similar goals. The choice of this organization was Obvious
to the researcher, since it is the only one in existance in
this geographic area that combines the formats of both the
drOp-in-center and the structured institution.

The program Offered by the Center does not play
upon the fears of the individual that he will be stigmatized
in his own social world as having had to turn to professional

aid. The individual can work with his peers to mutually

12

solve problems that may be common to the entire group. He
remains an individual, with his own problems and his own
solutions, but group reinforcement is now transferred from
drug taking to helping to OOpe with problems without drugs.
Goffman describes this action in the following way:

Without something to belong to, we have no stable

self, and yet total commitment and attachment to

any social unit implies some sort of selflessness.

Our sense of being a person can come from being

drawn into a wider social unit: our sense of self-

hood can arise tgrough the little ways in which we

resist the pull.

It is believed by the researcher that the Center For

Drug Studies provides the conditions under which the activities
of a volunteer led drug abatement program can be studied. A
study Of the Oakland Community College Center For Drug Studies
should provide an Opportunity to increase our understanding

of such organizations.

General Background
Prior to 1950, attempts to solve the problems that
arose because Of drug abuse were primarily through law enforce-
ment and legal procedures. During the late 1950's and 1960's,
studies were undertaken to examine drug usage, primarily on

college campuses. One of these was Drugs On The College

 

Campus, by Helen H. Nowlis, part of a study conducted by the

 

8Erving Goffman, Asylums (Garden City: Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1961), p. 320.

13

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
The study primarily focused on what types of substances were
being used on college campuses, and also the frequency or
index Of drug use.9

Further studies of drug usage, indicated that drug
abuse moved into other societal areas, including secondary
schools and upper elementary grades. At that point, several
rehabilitation organizations were established nationally and
on various state and county levels.

Generally, four types of programs have been devel-
Oped to help addicts and drug users break their dependency of
drugs and to help them change their life styles. These pro-

grams can be categorized as total institutional care: clinics

for addicts: drop-in-centers and structured counseling: and

rehabilitation programs for non-addicts, users, and eXperimen-

ters.
Goffman defines total institutions as follows:

A total institution may be defined as

a place of residence and work where a
number of like situated individuals,
cut Off together lead an enclosedi for-
mally administered round of life.

Total drug abuse treatment institutions range from

 

9Helen M. Nowlis. Drugs Q3 The College Campus
(Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1969).

IOGOffman, Op. cit. . p. xiii.

14

hospitals, which Offer intensive medical, therapeutic and
rehabilitative care, to programs such as Offered by Odessey
House, and Synanon. These three programs are therapeutic
communities established to work primarily with heroin addicts.

The second prevelant type of organization designed
to help only the addict is the drug withdrawal clinic. Drugs
are used to replace the need for heroin with another drug
that will enable the addict to perform in normal society, or
slowly block the need or “craving” that is common with hard-
core heroin addiction.

The withdrawal clinics are either administered by
local communities at hOSpitals, Or through private physicians.
In either case, the addict does not place himself into a
totally closed community, but must learn to survive in the
general social situation and climate that helped lead him to
drug usage.

A third form of help available to users Of drugs
and other non-prescriptive substances is found in the form of
drop-in-centers provided by local communities, youth groups,
or'exedrug users. These organizations run their programs in
varying forms, ranging from a place for youth to gather to
receive referral information for health, drug or social prob-
lems, to centers that provide a defined program, with sched-
uled medical, social and legal advice provided on the prem-

ises.

15

A fourth type Of organization has evolved during
the past three years to help the non-addict who needs more
than a casual meeting place for help with his problems. The
program design is multi-faceted, but uses the same type of
approach as drop-in-centers to recruit many Of its participants.
But, these organizations use ties with local courts, police
departments, and school systems, to provide a place where
youth can be referred for help instead of receiving jail
sentences, probation, or removal from school. They also
provide drug research, community awareness programs and
courses dealing with drug problems, in order to provide a
comprehensive approach to drug abuse in a community. Each
participant is required to Spend only specific periods of time
per week in the formal programs.

This type of organization relies upon structured
steps to be followed by its participants: and is not designed
to work with confirmed addicts. It attempts to help the non-
addict seek alternate means Of relating to society without
the use Of drugs.

This researcher has discovered common themes that
run through the related literature concerning programs which
are designed to work primarily with drug users. These
commonalities are not unique segments of any one organiza-

tional structure, but Show the borrowing of some of the ideas

16

and concepts of another group in order to provide its own

blend of help:

1.

2.

3.

They claim to be concerned with the rehabilitation
Of their “clientele” so that they can re-enter
society and maintain the standards of society of
their own accord.

Each program is structured tO include procedures
for peOple to use for re-establishing contact if
they find themselves again ”sick," or in "trouble“
with drugs, since all types of drug programs consider
drug usage as a symptom Of other problems.

All established programs follow the typical
institutional approach of retaining records Of
their ”clientele” long after a person leaves the
program to be used as part of a statistical
analysis in annual reports to financial backers

of the program, as referral materials for further
study, or to be filed for the duration Of the life
Of the institution.

Many Of the drug rehabilitation groups that go
beyond the drop-in-center concept introduce some
type Of ceremony, created by the staff members, to
their structure. These ceremonies can take the form

of graduations, talent shows, skits, or entertainment.

17

5. Staff members and programs participants inten-
tionally gives the recruit a clear picture of
the problem that he has created for himself by
the use of drugs. Each recruit is eXpected to
make a commitment to stOp drug usage and to
remove himself from his friends and, if possible,
the immediate environment that helped lead him
to drugs.

6. Staff structure places the lowest level Of staff
in the position to perform the therapy or training
which is considered the basic part Of the program.
The upper levels of staff are then free to coordi-
nate activities and perform the functions necessary
to keep the program acceptable in the community.

7. One last commonality Of drug programs is the need
to publicize the institution in the surrounding
community through a variety of means as a possible
source for revenue.

Specific Background
In 1969, the County Board Of Supervisors, of Oak-
land County, Michigan, established a commission to study the
problem Of the rise of drug abuse among youth within the

county. The commission's report was published in What Can You

 

18

.119 About The use 21 Drugs in m: We“ The County

Commissioners then allocated $250,000 to create a Department
Of Drug Abuse Control for the county, so that new community
programs that were being develOped could be aided and
coordinated.
The Oakland Community College Center For Drug
Studies began as a direct result of the Commission's analysis
of drug abuse problems within the County. It was established,
on the Auburn Hills Campus of Oakland Community College, by
Dean Of Students, Dr. Arthur W. Jalkanen, who had served as
chairman of the County Drug Abuse Commission. The organiza-
tion Of the Center was to be based upon five components:
1. Creation of a model drug abatement program at the
Auburn Hills Campus of Oakland Community College.
2. Program presentations on a County-wide basis.
This phase was designed so that school and
community leaders could receive in-service
training both in their own communities and at
the Center For Drug Studies.
3. A series of short courses were to be designed to
help train peOple who were to become involved

in drug abuse programs.

 

11What Can You 29 About The Use 9: Drugs 13 Your
Communit ?, (Pontiac: Oakland County Board of Commissioners,
1970).

19

4. Research and development activities.
5. It was to serve as a demonstration facility
for the County.

This was the original concept of a model drug
abatement program which included a loosely structured "rap—
house” drOp-in-center. After one year of Operation, the
organization was restructured, so that emphasis was now
placed on helping both drug abusing individuals and youth
with social problems. The drOp-in-center concept was
changed to a structured, step by step program, as described

in Chapter 4.

Delimitation of the Study
This study will be limited to gathering data from
graduates, drOp-outs and staff from the Oakland Community
College Center For Drug Studies.
The study has been delimited to this organization
and pOpulation frame for several reasons.

1. The Oakland Community College Center For Drug
Studies is representative of the organizations
providing programs in drug and social rehabilita-
tion.

2. The time requirements for studying the entire

drug rehabilitation picture would be prohibitive.

20

3. It is felt by this researcher that an adequate
representative sample can be gathered from this
organization for the purpose of gathering data.

4. The delimitation of this study also enables the
researcher to conduct in detail this project
without exhorbitant expenditure.

Chapter One has described the purpose Of this
Case Study which is to present an exhaustive, in-depth
investigation of the Oakland Community College Center For
Drug Studies, through the use Of the field techniques of
Observation and interview. It has develOped the rationale
for the use of case study methodology as an effective way
to study an organization such as the Center For Drug Studies.
Chapter Two will examine current literature pertaining to

the study.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Beginning in the late 1960's, researchers began to
discuss the need for evaluation of the many drug education and
rehabilitation programs that evolved throughout the nation,
seeking to discover which formats were most successful in
helping youth who had become involved with substance misuse.
Despite the fact that some evaluation has been accomplished,
it has concentrated primarily in the area of addict rehabili-
tation. Evaluation of non-addict drug related programs is
virtually nonexistent.

Programs have been created and discarded through a
process Of trial and error. In general, the most successful
have been those that have been designed along particular
structured lines, Operating according to clearly Specified
goals, built-in measures for evaluation, and design for change.

The original design for the Oakland Community College
Center For Drug Studies borrowed heavily from several sources.
There are elements of the structure Of Synanon and Phoenix House,
with some degree of the phiIOSOphy of DaytOp Village. The
philosophies of these programs were mixed with motivational
theory components, aSpects of drop-in-centers, crisis centers

and walkein-centers. The original core concept in the design

21

22

for the Center related to a great degree to the drOp-in-center
phenomenon, as found in both the Phoenix and San Francisco

prOgramS O

Organizational Theory
This conglomeration of concepts and ideas was
further refined as the staff at the Center began to eXplore
the works of theorists who dealt with human relations. Several
theorists' writings began to have a great influence upon the
type of programs the staff was to develOp. One of the major
thrusts was to eXplore the relationship between administrative
approach and client success, primarily in an examination Of
peer pressure.
The growth of literature dealing with human relations
theory began in a formal way with Chester 1. Barnard. He did
much to lay the groundwork in this area. In Function 9; thg
Executive, Barnard presented a broad analysis of organiza-
tional leadership. He described organizations as COOperative,
complex systems of inter-related factors, with a tie between
individuals and the process of communication between them.
He presented a general picture Of:
1. the physical and biological limitations
2. the nature of coOperative action
3. the relations between formal and informal organiza-
tions

4. the problem Of incentives

23

5. the function of communication
6. sources Of authority1

While other social theorists have eXpanded upon
these points, Barnard has been considered as one of the first
major general theorists of administration and one Of the
earliest writers to place in theoretical form the prOposi-
tions that the organization, the environment and the indi-
vidual must come to terms with each other to satisfy each
others' needs.

He described organizations as a system which
embraces the activities Of two or more persons coordinating
their activities to attain a common goal. The organization
is the binding element common to all OOOperative systems,
needing two conditions for the continuance of success:

1. ”Effectiveness"-the accomplishment of the purpose

Of the organization.

2. ”Efficiency“-the satisfaction Of individual motives.
He described two types of processes that are required for
meeting these conditions:

1. those relating to the cOOperative system itself

and its relationship to its environment

 

1Chester I. Barnard. Function 9; the Executive,
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UniversIty Press, 1938).

24

2. those related to the creation and allocation
Of satisfaction among individuals
Barnard's theory centers on the concept of communi-
cation. He insists that communication determines how much
authority a leader shall exercise. Thus, communication must
be effective. He suggests rules or principles to that end:
1. The channels Of communication must be definitely
known.
2. There must be a formal channel Of communication
to every member of the organization.
3. The channel must be as direct and short as possible.
4. The lines Of communication should generally be
reSpected (procedure through channels).
5. Those who serve as communication centers
(officers, supervisors) must be competent.
6. Lbnes Of communication should not be interrupted
during the Operation of the organization.
7. Every communication must be authenticated.2

Barnard based his principles on the assumption that there are
two kinds Of equally influential authority in administration:

 

21bid., pp. 175-181.

25

1. authority of position in the hierarchy

2. authority Of competence Of leadership3
Thus, the three principle executive functions are to maintain
communication in the organization, to secure essential ser-
vices from individuals, and to formulate purpose and objec-
tives.

Barnard used the term "communion“ as the most
intangible and subtle Of incentives. He relates it to social
compatibility, but with a basic difference. To him, it is
the feeling of comfort in social relations that could be
referred to as solidarity, a mutual support in personal
attitudes. Thus, to know your peOple is even more important
than to know your organization, or to know your language.

Barnard defined leadership as authority by influence,
rather than by command. He asserts that, in terms Of accom-
plishing the objectives of a program, lower-ranked officials
may have even more actual power to determine final decisions,
than those at the tOp. To him authority is the ”willingness
and capacity of individuals to submit to the necessities
Of OOOperative systems."

He held that administration is not the product Of

the organization. TO him the function Of the executive is to

 

31bido. p. 173.

 

26

see that the decision process proceeds in an effective
manner and to make decisions only when the organization fails
to make its Own decisions. Thus, Barnard looked at the pro-
cess of administration as being the guiding of decisions

that are made in the organization. Decision making can be
looked upon as an art.

Barnard differentiated between the formal and
informal aSpects of organization. He placed greater emphasis
on cooperation as the creative process in organization than on
leadership which is influenced by such variables as the indi-
viduals, a group of followers, and the condition faced.

Daniel Griffiths, in his monograph Administrative
Theor , further develOped Barnard's theory by formulating a
set of steps that further clarify the decision-making process.
He presented a set of concepts on decision making, perception,
communication, power and authority, and formulated the follow-
ing major prOpositions:

1. The structure Of an organization is determined
by the nature of its decision-making process...
2. If the formal and informal organization
approaches congruency, than the total
organization will approach maximum achievement...
3. If the total organization is not approaching

maximum achievement, then in all probability,

27

the formal and informal organizations are
divergent...

4. If the administrator confines his behavior to
making decisions for the decision-making process
rather than making terminal decisions for the
organization, his behavior will be more accepted
by his subordinates...

5. If the administrator perceives himself as the
controller of the decision making process rather
than the maker of the organization's decisions,
the decision will be more effective...“

Griffiths views administration as a decision-
making process. He is concerned with motives of men as
individuals and for the dynamics of men in groups. He views
decision-making as the heart of organization and the process
of administration.

Further investigation into the areas of human
relations was made by Likert, who develOped a theory of man-
agement based upon the use of overlapping memberships in
many staff groups and ad hoc committees. His data supports
the contention of the human relations school that employee-

oriented supervisors achieve higher productivity among their

 

“Daniel E. Griffiths. Administrative Theor ,
(New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1959).

28

groups. Likert presents a strong case for the effective use
of groups in management as Opposed to individual supervision,
which he feels can Often limit communication and commitment
to organizational purpose, as well as decrease staff Oppor-
tunity to participate in organizational decision making.5

A brief book describing the main currents and
perSpectiveS of the field of sociology of organization was
written by Amitai Etzioni. It serves as an introduction to
the study of organizational behavior. Etzioni describes and
analyzes the classical scientific-management perSpectives,
the human relations approach and the orientation of Max Weber
and his followers. In the last section of the book, he pre-
sents a discussion of the relationships between administra—
tors and professionals and between organizational members
and their clients.6

Gellerman's description of the effect of motivation
upon the participants in his studies, eXploreS the viable
Options that management has in Specific situations to influ-

ence peOple and conditions. He holds that proper motivational

 

5Rensis Likert, New Patterns 9: Management (New
York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1961).

6Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964).

29

pressures can be used as ways to persuade people to work
harder or to reSpond in some other desired fashion. The
author demonstrates how to use the technique for the selection
of peOple for jobs, fostering theirygrowth and develOpment
and for the identification of highly capable individuals.
Gellerman also examines the role of money as an influence on
peOple and the types of management policies that can undermine
motivation or cause opposition to organizational goals.7
The distinctive outlook that develOped at the
Center For Drug Studies has been caused by a synthesis of
several theories of administrative behavior. These selections
have illustrated the direction the staff and planners of the
Center took as they develOped their informal organization.
Because Of the highly transient nature of the
clientele, a system had to be develOped to allow for this
problem. The staff develOped an approach that allowed for
quick and intense relationships. This could only be accom-
plished in an organization created around the concept that
decision-making, motivation building and human relations
would have to rest in the hands of lower echelon staff.

The program Switched from that of a drOp-in center,

 

7Saul W. Gellerman, Management by Motivation (New
York: American Management Association, Inc., 1968).

 

30

to a multi-faceted, group oriented structure, based upon the
Spread Of both informational meetings and a structured help
program for youth. Training sessions for teachers and pro-
grams designed to help adults and parents understand the
psychology Of drug abuse were introduced.

Since this case study is concerned with examining
the relationship between the staff at the Center and its
clients, the present review of literature includes a discussion
covering the areas of drug abuse rehabilitation programs,

alienation, and field work in the Social Sciences.

Rehabilitation Programs
The need to eXpand the range of research into single
purpose drug abuse treatment programs is clear. But, there
are other problems as well. For example: A

1. There is a question that arises concerning the
validity Of much of the data already gathered.

2. There is a lack of research in the field dealing
directly with peer group influence being used to
combat substance usage of the non-addict, although
the literature contains much comment concerning
the drug abuse problem.

3. Appeals for data depth are found jointly with
suSpicionS that drug abusers are less compliant
in interview and questionnaire techniques than are

non-us ers o

31

Instead, most research on non-addict drug usage
concentrates upon etiology and school community information
programs. Several of these studies are valuable to an
examination of a peer influence program, because they Offer
insight into the variety of problems that youth bring with
them for solution.

Relevant literature will be referred to through-out
the study, even though it is not included in this section.

Simmons and Winograd describe what they classify
as the hang-loose ethic: the phenomenon Of tripping out, the
psychedelic-drug scene and related activities. They suggest
that the theme Of the youth scene is irreverence toward
conventional Americana, and stressing humanism, the value of
personal eXperience, primacy of Spontaniety, rejection of
dogma, tolerance and social equality. The value of prOperty
serving as the highest value is repudiated.8

The authors hold that the lines between the youth
and conventional society are beginning to blur as many peOple
slip back and forth between drug and acceptable behavioral
practice. They consider the drug scene central to what is

happening in America, an escape from the conventional world,

 

8J.L. Simons and Barry Winograd. Its Happening,
(Santa Barbara, California: Marc-Laird Publications, 1966).

32

a “kick” Of an SXperience. Examining the several forces
producing drug interest, they note that marijuana smoking
has become the thing to do. Also, they point out that many
drug users are the children of the establishment leaders,
who are seeking a new and different inner world, and that
drug eXperienceS do change peOple.

Simmons and Winograd believe that education is a
force that helps to produce youthful drug users, due to the
role schools play in fulfilling societal demands, while
ignoring the emotional and individual needs and potentials
of the students.

Smart, Fejar and White sampled 8,865 grade 6, 7,
9, 11,13 students attending the MetrOpOlitan Toronto Schools.
Their findings indicate that males are the predominant drug
users. Students living in one parent homes, or with someone
other than parents, were reported as using drugs at a higher
proportion than students living with both parents. Their
study indicates that when grade average increases, tendency
toward drgg_use and frequency of drug use decreased. They
also point out that increases in participation in school
activities lowers the chances that drugs will be used. These
findings imply that youths who are actively involved in

activities and are performing well academically do not need

33

to use drugs to develOp a false sense of well being or as a
means to satisfy their need for social acceptance.9

The authors compared alienation and drug use with
their Older students. They describe a syndrome made up of
three components: powerlessness, social isolation, and norm-
lessness. They found that most users Of marijuana, Opiates,
Speed, stimulants, LSD and other hallucinogens did not Show
the same sense Of social isolation found with users of drugs
which are accepted in the adult world.

Blumer, in his study Of a rehabilitation pilot
project with youthful drug users in Oakland, California, holds
that dguguse i§_learned from peers and older associates in
a ggoup activity and that drug use does not necessarily sig-
nify rebellion. escape or alienation. He contends that use
Of illicit drugs is one Of the many things youth living in
drug using society learns to do. This study did not utilize
controls of any kind so that a comparison could not be made
with non-drug users. The investigation revealed that among
preteen and teenage children there is an established and
sometimes overpowering society Of drug lore, drug availa-

bility, drug sales and drug use.10

 

9Reginald Smart, Dianne Fejer, and Jim White. "The
Extent of Drug Use in Metropolitan Toronto Schools," Addictigns,
Spring, 1971, Addictions Research Foundation of Ontario.

10H. Blumer. ”The World of Youthful Drug Use,"

Addiction Center Pro’ect Re ort (Berkley, Calif. : School of
CrimIfiology, UnIversIty of California, 1967).

 

34

Quintin Yardley presents a balanced examination
Of drug use today through the eyes Of a youth. His booklet
covers several Of the factors which determine the drug eXperi-
ence through both a factual and a sociological perSpective.
The author states that people use drugs to escape or go beyond
the isolation and coldness of our society and concludes that
we must create a more humane and positive society through
examination of our own values.11

After examination Of the alienation syndrome,
Salisbury and Fertig reject the concept of alienation as a
cause of drug abuse in their study of the characteristics of
teen age drug abusers in California. To these authors, drug
users are products of our consumer society, where all members
are provided with everything they need without pressure tO
produce goods in return, either for themselves or for others.
Existence becomes goalless. Society possessed them as an
Object of interest and not an essential asset.12

Several studies have interwoven statistical reports,

program information and case studies in order to present a

clearer picture of the organization under study. One can

 

11Quintin Yardley. Another Book on Dru s. (St.
GatheringsS Ontario, Canada: 'Br—""ock "Un'1_ver-sfiy_8tgau ent Union,
Inc., 19 9 .

12Winfield W. Salisbury and Francis R. Fertig. ”The
Myth Of Alienation and Teen Age Drug Use: Coming of Age in
M383 Society,” California School Health, Winter, 1969, pp. 29-

35

find literally hundreds of references in non-drug related

areas. Equally true is the fact that hundreds of different
areas have been examined by many outstanding researchers.

Thus, this researcher has turned to reports Of the organizations
and programs that have had an influence upon the design for

the Center For Drug Studies, realizing that they deal primarily
with addict rehabilitation and causes of alienation.

The treatment program of Synanon which had a great
influence upon the structure of the Center For Drug Studies,
has been pOpularized by Lewis Yablonsky. He traces Synanon
from its beginning in 1958, going beyond symposiums and semi-
nars into a new form of therapy. Synanon introduced rehabili-
tation Of drug addicts under the guidance of those who had
been addicts themselves. The book contains many case studies
to bring to the reader detailed descriptions of the activi-
ties, structure and method Of treatment used in the program.13

Yablonsky's book is the first written on this method
of treatment for the layman. It is primarily a pOpularizing
SXposition Of the goals and methods of Synanon, which expresses
Mr. Yablonsky's admiration of a program , which because Of
its voluntary nature, created a unique approach to peOple
whose activities have been traditionally punished by imprison-

ment.

 

13Lewis Yablonsky. The Tunnel Back: S anon, (New
York, Macmillan, 1965).

36

Westman, a psychotherapist who has worked with
addicts, focuses his attention on prevention and treatment Of
ex-addicts through use of peer group support. The book ranges
in tOpics from descriptions of the black market in drugs to
case studies of marathon therapy sessions. He goes beyond
the immediate problems of addiction, to deal with the social
and cultural influences and the behavior patterns of addicts},4

In a chapter devoted to a study of Synanon, Westman
stresses that the ggoup process is the key to all effective
programs. Most of his case studies focus on hard-core
addiction and the need for treatment through therapeutic
communities. The Synanon program is compared to Alcoholics

Anonymous, from which it was derived, using both professionals

and ex-addicts to assist in the rehabilitation process.

.Alienation
Keniston eXplores the reasons why many fortunate,
talented, privileged young American males are alienated from
their society and reject its basic values. This case study
is based on a careful examination of individual subjects as
well as an appraisal Of group studies. The first section
traces common themes in the conscious and unconscious emotional

develOpment Of alienation. Thirty six Harvard undergraduates

 

1“Wesley C. Westman. The Dru Epidemic: What ti_
Means and How to Combat It (New York: The Dial Press, 1970 ).

 

37

were divided into 3 equal groups. The first group participated
in a 3-year study, in depth, of what Keniston refers to as
the “Alienation syndrome.” Group two consisted Of 12 non-
alienated students, along with a third group who Keniston
describes as not extreme in either way.15

Keniston isolates factors that help to alienate
nominally privileged youth. They are OffSpring Of viable, but
unhappy marriages, in which the mother is dominant, the father
physically, or more often, psychologically removed. The son
and mother are more than normally intimate. The youths
view their mothers as frustrated by their marriages and
possessed by highly develOped aesthetic talents.

He finds the attraction Of alienated youth to drugs
compatible with their social withdrawal and their interest
in intensifying subjective experience. These youth reject
basic American values, are apolitical and do not become
involved in organizations or long-range activities. This
work is one of the few case studies which focuses on the
drug-using student, although Keniston's emphasis is on the
basic syndrome Of alienation rather than drug use for itself.

Rosenthal and Mothner have written a book designed

to help parents understand the drug scene, what they can do

 

15Kenneth Keniston. The uncommitted: Alienated
Youth ip_American Societ , (New York, Harcourt Brace and
World, 1965).

38

when their children need help, and how they can accomplish
their goals. The authors provide the reader with a concise
analysis Of the closeness between drug problems and other
community problems.

I One particular solution that is mentioned, is
handled through a study of the two year program Of Phoenix
House, the nation's largest therapeutic community for the
treatment Of drug abuse. Phoenix House is designed for
youngsters who need a highly structured environment. These
youngsters have gone beyond the point where parent inter-
vention, or aid from self-help groups can change their pattern
Of drug usage.

The authors use case studies of several youth who
entered the program to describe the hierarchy, promotions,
rewards, demands and encounter sessions that make up the
system. They trace the involvement of the youth from drug
induced problems, to local Phoenix Centers and eventually to
Phoenix House for intensive treatment.

Rosenthal and Mothner regard drug abuse as a human
pppplem that must be solyed_in human terms. The family is
stressed as the best bulwark against drugs. When parents
cannot solve the problem alone, it is the responsibility

of communities to provide parents the means to meet their need.1

 

16Mitchell S. Rosenthal and Ira Mothner. Drugs,
Parents, and Children: The Three Way Connection, (Boston:
Houghton MIffIIn Company, 1972).

39

Social Science Field Work

Several authors have examined the various techniques
that can be used to elicit information concerning the projects
they wished to study. The roles the interviewer and reSpon-
dent take during the interview process are discussed by
Benney and Hughes, who point out the necessity Of Operation
on the premise of equality between them at least during the
length of the interview. The authors examine the process Of
the interview and the role Of the interviewer. They review
the delepment Of the interview as a type Of role playing
Situation where one person is much more an eXpert than the
other.17

Specific interview techniques are discussed by
Becker. He warns of the danger that can arise when an inter-
viewer attempts to create an eXposé'while digging into a
subject. Becker discusses how the use of an air of cynicism
by the interviewer can help him to accomplish his aims. The
interviewer's manner and role can as strongly effect what
the interviewee chooses to tell him as can the situation in

which the interview is conducted.18

 

17Mark Benny and Everett C. Hughes, "Of Sociology
and tge Interview," American Journal pf Sociolo , (July 1956)
137-1 2.

18Howard S. Becker, “Interviewing Medical Students,"
American Journal pf Sociology, 62 (September 1956) 199-201.

40

Several studies have combined the techniques of
participant Observation and in-depth interviewing to report
their findings. They have SXplored and evaluated community
structure and the changes that occured among the peOple who
lived in the areas. The studies served this researcher as
examples of how a researcher can elicit information and
report his findings.

Gans studied a group of second generation Italians
living in an inner-city Boston neighborhood, integrating and
structuring his data into a clearly stated community study.
He combined reporting and his actual observations with
several Speculative Observations, primarily in the realm Of
social psychology. He has produced a classic report Of a
participant observation study, aiding this researcher to more
clearly understand the intricate inter-relationships that
exist between peOple. through their descriptions and through
his own Observations.19

In summary, there are three bodies Of literature
which pertain to the research. The first consists of works

in the area of theory Of organizations that have had an

influence upon the develOpment of the type of approach and

 

19Herbert J. Cans, The Urban Villggers (New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962).

41

organizational structure that is found at the Center For Drug
Studies.

The second type of literature examines the relation-
ship between staff and clientele. It describes the general
background Of drug etiology, drug rehabilitation programs
that have had an influence on the structure of the original
concepts that led to the creation of the Center For Drug
Studies and provides a background into approaches of other
rehabilitation programs throughout the country.

A third body of literature found in this chapter
consists of studies describing the approaches and techniques

a researcher can use in setting up a case study.

Conclusion

There are two main aSpects that evolve from a study
of the literature dealing with drug and substance misuse.
There exists first, a large body of studies dealing with the
medical and social problems of drugs, written from several
points Of view. There are also examinations of large addict
rehabilitation and treatment centers on the east and west
coasts Of the United States. These studies emphasize the
need for peer develOped, peer oriented programs that go
beyond just removal of the usage of drugs.

Secondly, there is a lack Of studies dealing with

structured peer oriented and peer directed drug rehabilitation

42

programs that Offer help for the wide range of drug related
problems faced by youth who are not necessarily addicted to
specific drugs. This study will attempt to add to the
knowledge of this area.

Chapter II reviewed the literature concerning the
areas of organizational theory, rehabilitation programs and
field work in the Social Sciences. Chapter III will discuss

the methodology this researcher used in this study.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

As stated in Chapter I, the primary purpose of this
study is to describe the organization of the Oakland Community
College Center For Drug Studies and the effect it has upon the
individuals who have been involved in its program.

Organization Ofthe Chappgp

Described in this chapter are the methodological
components employed in this investigation. These are organized
under 7 tOpics: (1) Data Analysis, (2) Definition Of the
POpulation, (3) Sample Selection, (4) Description of the
Primary Instrument, (5) Field Procedures, (6) Initial Contact
with the Director and staff of the Center, and (7) Organization
Of the Study.

Data Anal sis

This research is exploratory in nature. It cannot
rely upon Specific hypotheses or a relatively small list Of
variables that are likely to be significant. Exploratory
research is not limited by the restrictions Of mathematical

models.

43

44

The methodological procedure employed in this study
is qualitative rather than quantitative. It is understood by
researchers using this technique that aclear presentation Of
the evidence and conclusions Of the research must be given the
reader so that he can fully understand the process that was
followed.

Qualitative research has not been as systematized

as that found in quantitative studies. The data

does not lend itself to such ready summary. In view
of this fact, evidence is assessed as the substantive
analysis is presented. This is totally based on the
fact that the reader is given greater access to the
data apd procedures on which the conclusions are
based.

Authors who deal with field work methodology differ
somewhat in their approach. There exists, however, several
commonalities in their writings which Show that a researcher
who uses this approach comes closer to the social unit under
study than with other techniques. Scott, in his article,
”Field Methods in the Study of Organizations" presents an
excellent description of the field approach, stressing the
following advantages. It: (1) enables the researcher to
retain the unitary character of the social unit under study
by Observing it under a variety Of conditions, (2) enables

the researcher to record the group processes as they occur

 

1Howard S. Becker, "Problems Of Inference and Proof
in Participant Observation,” Qualitative Methodolo , ed. by
William J. Filstead (Chicago: Markham Publ sh ng Co., 1970),
PO 1990

45

over an extended period of time, (3) contains a description
Of the social unit as seen by the members of that unit, and

(4) approximates the description Of the total environment

as seen by the member Of the social unit.2

Qualitative research at times requires that a
researcher combine several techniques depending upon his
research aims:

Because of its flexible nature, exploratory research
is not pinned down to any particular set of tech-
niques. Its guiding maxim is to use any ethical
procedures that Offers a possibility of receiving a
clearer picture of what is going on in the area of
social life. There is no protocol to be followed
in the use of any one procedure: no procedure should
be adOpted to its circumstances. Thus, it may
involve direct Observation, interviewing of people,
listening to their conversations, securing life
history accounts, using letters and diaries, con-
sulting public records, arranging for group dis-
cussions and making counts of an item if this
appears worthwhile. There is no protocol to be
followed in the use Of any one of these procedures:
the procedure should be adapted to its circumstances
:3: guidsd by judgement Of its prOpriety and fruit-
ness.

The approach to the problem Of the techniques to
follow that came closest to what this researcher used was
described by William Whyte in his The Street Corner Sociegy.

I am.not claiming that there is one best way to do
field research. The methods used should depend upon

 

2w. Richard Scott, “Field Methods in the Study of
Organizations," Handbook Of Organizations, ed. by James March

(Chicago: Rand Mc Nally Efid Company, 19 5). pp. 261-304.

3Herbert Blumer, ”Methodological Principles of
Empirical Science,” Sociological Methods, ed. by Norman Denzin
(Chicago: University of California, Aldine Publishing Co.,
1971). p. 33.

46

the nature of the field situation and of the research
problem. I simply try to fit together the findings of
the study and the methods required to arrive at such
findings...The methodology must emphasize the impor-
tance Of Observing peOple in action and get down a
detailed report of actual behavior completely divorced
from moral judgements...

I did not develOp these ideas by any strictly logical
process. They dawned on me out of what I was seeing,
hearing, doing, and feeling. They grew out of an
effort to organize a confusing welter of SXperience.

I had to balance familiarity with detachment, or else
no insights would have come. There were fallow
periods when I seemed to be marking time. At times I
had to struggle to SXplain the things that seemed
Obvious. My research underwent drastic changes during
the course of study.

I felt only if I could get to know the people and
learn their problems first hand would I be able to
gain the understanding I needed. I could SXplain the
behavior of men better when I Observed them over a
period Of time, than if I got them one point in time.
I could explain Cornerville then by telling the stories
of their individuals and groups better than I could
any other way...

As I gathered my early research data, I had to decide
how I was going to organize the written notes. In the
early stages I Simply put all notes in chronological
order, in a single folder. I realized this would not
suffice. Then I devised a rudimentary indexing system.
...I could now begin writing my study by examining par-
ticular groups in detail and then I could go on to
relate them to the community. With this pattern in
mind, I came to realize that I had much more data on
politics than I had thought.“

This researcher chose two methods of field work
research that would allow for the flexibility that is necessary
in qualitative research. These two methods were: (1) in-depth
interviewin , and (2) participant observation.

 

“William F. Whyte, Street Corner Societ (Chicago:
University Of Chicago Press, 1937;. pp: 307-30 , 324, 356-357.

4?

In-depth interviewing was chosen as the primary
instrument utilized to gather data. When combined with
participant observation, it allows the researcher to come
closer to the situation as the subject views it, than any
other form of research methodology. The intensity Of an
individual's feeling can be probed along with the intricacies
of his definition of the situation and how he relates it to
his life.

The type of interview chosen for this study is the
nonstandardized interview, where it is not necessary to elicit
the same information from each respondent. This type of
interview is used to examine a broad problem or research
question, or to eXplore.new questions as they arise, allowing
for a wider range of purpose. This type of interview does
not contain as a prerequisite the advance Specification of
all items Of information sought. Thus, it can be used at
any phase Of a study and interview content can vary from one
reSpondent to another. There also does not exist, generally,
a requirement for fixed preselection of reSpondents. The
interviewer using nonstandardized interviews has greater
freedom both in the formulation of content and in the

questioning procedures.5

 

SStephen A. Richardson, Barbara S. Dobrenward and
Daviguxlein, Ipterviewing (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1956),
pp- -55-

48

In this qualitative examination it was felt by the
researcher that a structured list of questions would be re-
jected by the reSpondent and would not allow for the flexi-
bility needed for probing the relationships existing in the
organization. For these reasons, it was determined that the
questions to be asked would be unstructured and in most in-
stances Open-ended.

There are a number of descriptions of the use Of
unstructured interview questions. One of the clearest is
stated by Backstrom and Hursh. They explained that in an
Open-end question the respondent is encouraged to talk freely
and at length about the subject broached to him. The free-
rOSponse question is eSpecially useful:

1. where the researcher has limited knowledge as
to the kind of answer a particular question is
likely to provoke,

2. where he anticipates a great range Of responses,

3. where he is interested in what the reSpondent will
volunteer on a subject before Specific prompting,

or

4. where he wants to go a little deeper into reSpon-
dent's motivation.

The second area Of research methodology chosen was

participant Observation. Among the number of descriptions of

 

6Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh, Surve
Research (Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1963),
p. 730

49

this methodology, the one by Gene best serves to describe the

approach.

He states: “I have found it more useful to classify

the approaches in terms Of difference in the actual behavior

of the researcher.” This produces three types:

1.

2.

3.

Researcher acts as Observer. In this approach
the researcher is physically present at the
event he Observes, but does not really parti-
cipate in it. Indeed, his main function is to
Observe, and to abstain participation so as not
to affect the phenomenon being studied-or at
least, to affect it no more than is absolutely
unavoidable.

Researcher participates, but as a researcher.
In this case, the researcher does become an
actual partici ant in an event or gathering,
but his partipration is determined by his
research interests, rather than by the roles
required in the situation he is studying. For
example, in social gatherings, the researcher
may try to steer the conversation to topics in
which he is SSpecially interested. In such
instances, he might be described as a 'resoarch-
participant.’

Researcher participates. In this approach, the
researcher temporarily abdicates his study role
and becomes a 'real' participant. After the
event, his role reverts back to that of an
Observer-and in this case, an analyst of his

own actions while being a real participant.

For example, he may go to a social gathering

as an invited guest and participates fully and
freely in the conversation without trying to
direct it to his own research interests. After-
wards, however, he must take notes on all that
happened, his own activities included. Needless
to say, even during the most Spontaneously real
participation he can never shed the Observer role
entirely, if only pecause he knows he will write
it all down later.

 

7Gan8. Op. Cit. . pp: 338-339

50

This researcher used a combination Of both limited
participation and non-participation. Even though he did not
join any Specific group going through the program, his pres-
ence was accepted by any group whose sessions he visited. In
many instances he was drawn into the conversation being held
by group members or staff.

According to Blumer, there are two levels that a
researcher can use as he develOps his investigation. (1)
Description: the researcher uses the accounts of the situ-
ation Offered by his reSpondents to expand upon what he has
heard, read and seen on the scene during his Observations Of
the situation. (2) EXplanation: the researcher clarifies
the observations of the respondents to gain a larger graSp
of the situation. Thus, the goal Of participation Observation
becomes a combination Of description and SXplanation, through
the eyes of both the researcher and the reSpondents.8

Since no one method can be easily adapted by a field
researcher to fit the particular problems that he might encoun-
ter while doing his study, he must be able to adjust to the
variables that might arise in his particular community, instead
of adjusting the community to fit a pro-designed instrument.

He must take into account: (1) his own personality, (2) the

 

Th ht fBHerbert Blumer, "Sociological Implications of the
oug 0 George Herbert Mead.» AESEEEEB.£22§2§l_pg'soc1010 .
WI (1966). 537. mr

51

varied personalities Of the subjects he is studying, and (3)
the closeness of rapport that can be developed between re-
searcher and subjects, and (4) the amount of time that can
be made available for the study, and then be able to explain
his procedures in such a manner so that the reader can iden-
tify the situation and findings in an intuitive manner.
These variables might be looked upon both as assets

and limitations, thus effecting the reliability and validity
of the study.

This is the problem of the empirical validity of

a measuring instrument. Does it measure what we

want it to measure? Furthermore, is it reliable

enough to measure consistently what we want it to

measure? These two terms, validit and reliabilipy,

are central to the empiric -conceptual terrelation-

ship. Reliability generally refers to the ability

Of the empirical instrument to measure consistently,

and validity bears on the ability Of the instrument

to translate into sensory-empirical Operations the

definitive characteristics of the concept.9

The true test of validity is if the reader accepts

the data. As the validity of a study improves, so does the
reliability, which serves as an extension of a researcher's
validity. Thus, through the use of the narrative form, this
researcher will allow the reader to draw his own conclusions

from the data.

 

9William M. Dobriner, Social Structures and Systems
(Pacific Palisades, California: Goodyear PuElIshing Company,
Ines . 1969). P. 43'

52

One of the most concise summaries that describes
the steps that a researcher should take to assure that the
use of participant observation has both adequate qualitative
reliability and validity was presented by Bruyn when he pre-
sented Homans' list of six points that are necessary for a
researcher to at least partially follow.

1. Time: the more time an individual spends with a
group the more likely it is that he will obtain
an accurate perception of the social meaning its
members live by.

2. Place: the closer the researcher works geograph-
ically to the people he studies, the more accurate
should be his interpretations.

3. Social circumstances: the number and variety of
social circumstances which the observer encounters
within the social structure of the community in-
crease his accuracy.

4. Language: the researcher and his subjects should
share a common language.

5. Intimacy: the greater the degree of intimacy the
researcher achieves, the greater the accuracy.

6. Consensus: confirmation that the meanings inter-
preted by the observer are correct.

This researcher feels that although formal writing
usually requires that the personal pronoun "I” not be used,
the personal involvement used in this type of research

necessitates its use. Subsequently in this chapter and

 

10Severyn T. Bruyn, The Human Pers ective in
S ciolo : The Methodology 9; Partici at on O ervation
1%figgewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc. , 1966),
p. 0.

53

suceeding chapters the writer will use the personal pronoun

“I” wherever necessary.

Qefinition of the Population
The pOpulation shall be defined as the participants,
graduates, drop-outs and staff of the Oakland Community
College Center For Drug Studies. The pOpulation of the
Center is continually changing as new people become active,
graduate or withdraw. During the period of time involved in
this study, approximately 150 persons have been involved at

the Center.

Random Sample Selection

The population of staff personnel considered in
this study is small (ten). Continual change over of lower
echelon staff allowed for contact by the researcher of these
people both as program graduates and as new members of the
organization. All staff members were selected to be inter-
viewed.

The population of participants is large and
fluctuates monthly. It could not be considered in the same
manner as the staff. It was determined by the researcher
that a sample of the graduates and drap-outs would serve
best to present a comprehensive view of the organization.

The tool used to acquire a sample and to insure

that the sample is representative of the population of

5n

graduates and drap-outs is the random sample design.
In random sampling, carefully controlled conditions
are created to ensure that each unit in the population
has an equal or known chance of being included in the
sample. To prevent the investigator from biasing the
results by exercising direct control over the choice
of units, SYTe mechanical device is employed to draw
the sample.

The closeness of this population, where all partici-
pants gather in one building for the same basic purpose,
allowed the researcher to utilize a small sample.

No Specific rules on how to obtain adequate samples
have been formulated, for each situation presents its
own problems. If the phenomena under study are homoge-
neous, a small sample is sufficient.12

Two methods of choosing a sample were used. The
first type was choosing individuals to interview by chance.
In this process, the researcher chose people to interview as
they became available. In this study, the researcher inter-
viewed staff and graduates as they happened to be at the
Center during his visitations.

The staff worked a loose schedule, which did not
always coincide with the times available to the researcher.

Due to the newness of the program, graduates drapped into

 

11020 Cit. p p. 2980

lzlbid.

55

the Center following no particular pattern. making no effort
to notify the staff in advance. The researcher relied upon
staff and graduates to point out other graduates to him.

The method for choosing drOp-outs was systematic
random sampling. This process is an effective means of
achieving a representative sample. The researcher selects
an interval and a number within that interval on a random
selection basis. He then counts off the maximum interval
number, making a selection at that time. The researcher then
carries the process through until the entire list of the total
pOpulation is exhausted. The sample size taken from the drap-

outs from this population was ten.

Qescription of the
Primaryglnstrument

The instrument used by the researcher to gain
answers to his objectives was an Open-ended interview ques-
tionnaire. The form and sequence of questions varied according
to how each reSpondent replied, but the basic content of the
questions did not alter. This process was also followed
when incomplete responses were probed. A number of questions
were asked, aiming at primarily the same information in order
to reach clearer answers.

The questions sought answers to both background and
impressions of the respondents so that possible relationships

could be established.

1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

56

Name

 

Age

 

Sex

 

Place in Program

 

How were you referred to the Center?
What effect do you feel that the Center had upon you,
a) toward family relationships
b) toward school or job
c) toward yourself?
Why did you come to the Center?
What do you feel that you accomplished at the Center?
What specific things about the Center most greatly
affected you?

The above set of questions is merely a general

guide toward the questions asked by the researcher. The use

of the flexible open-ended question provided the latitude

needed for respondents to give free expression to their

beliefs.

Field Procedures
While the major emphasis of this study revolved

around reactions of staff, graduates and dropouts, the actual

field work in this study employed five approaches:

1. Use of the Center's facilities. Much of my time,
both during the day and evenings, during a six
month period was spent at the Center enabling me

to observe and interview the people who made use

2.

3.

u.

5.

57

of the program.

Attendance at meetings and gatherings held at the
Center, mostly as an observant spectator.

Formal and informal interviewing of graduates, drap-
outs, and staff.

Use of private homes. Interviews of drOpouts from
the program were held at their homes.

Observation. I tried to learn as much as I could
about as many phases of the program as possible,
looking for unexpected leads and ideas.

Each week during the six months I observed at the

Center, large, open meetings were held, along with periodic

graduations. In attending these meetings and other public

gatherings, I usually acted as an observer.

Interviewing varied from formal to very informal.

A tape recorder was used during the interview instead of

taking notes or attempting to reconstruct the interviews at

a later time. Each respondent was asked whether use of the

tape recorder would be acceptable. The reaction varied, with

some initial hesitancy upon the part of several of the younger

reSpondents. They had never encountered taping of their own

voices, so that in several cases the interviews were inter-

rupted in order that they could hear their voices on tape.

The common reaction was total surprise, followed by complete

relaxation on their part for the rest of the interview session.

58

All information gained in relation to the tOpic

will be presented in narrative form in Chapter IV.

Initial_Contact with the
Qirector and Staff

In the present study, it was felt by the researcher

that non-acceptance by the administration of the Center would
have doomed the project to failure before it could begin.
The building used for the Center is small and in the evenings
is usually overcrowded with visitors, participants and staff.
Strangers soon learn that asking personal and intimate ques-
tions bring about suSpicion on the part of the youth.

An initial meeting was held in January of 1972,
with the director of the Center, where we explored the pos-
sibilty of doing a study of the organization of the Center
after its first year of Operation. We discussed the type of
study that would be feasible and possible methods of struc-
turing the study, so that there would be potential usefulness
of the collected data.

A second conference held in February, included the
Assistant Director and the Program Coordinator of the Center,‘
so that the nature of the research could be explained and
support could be given to the project. Materials dealing
with the structure of the program model were provided and
arrangements were made for me to meet staff members for

interviews. Valuable suggestions were provided as to

59

the program procedures, so that I could move about the Center
with ease. The directors gave solid support to the project.

Further discussion at this meeting with the staff
leaders resulted in an exchange of ideas, leading to proce-
dures to be followed concerning the interviews. It was
agreed upon that interviews would be conducted with staff
members, graduates and drop—outs.

It was also pointed out at this meeting that the
problems of the participant population at the Center did not
always revolve around drug usage. Several of the graduates
and current participants had come to the Center for help
with personality or minor psychological problems that pre-
vented them from relating with other people.

Informal meetings with the directors and staff
continued to be held during the next several months while the
research was being conducted. I received lists of both the
graduates and the drOp-outs so that I could keep a record
and check-off of those people who would not be willing to be
interviewed. One major concern of the staff leaders had
centered around the possible reluctance of the respondents
to speak freely concerning themselves and their reactions to
the Center. In order to avoid this problem, it was agreed
that I would notify each person before the interview that I

had the full c00peration of the Center's Directors, stressing

60

that there was a need for an evaluation of the program.

This action afforded me complete freedom of movement.

Organization of the Study

Through the primary use of the in-depth interview
process, this study will describe and explain the organization
of the Oakland Community College Center For Drug Studies and
attempt to determine how it effected the individuals who be-
came involved. .

Chapter II included the review of the literature
concerning the areas of rehabilitation programs, organia-
tional structure, and field work in the Social Sciences.

In Chapter III, the methodology for the study was
presented. The findings will be presented in Chapter IV.

Finally, the analysis of the findings and the

conclusions and recommendations are contained in Chapter V.

CHAPTER IV

THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

Chapter Four contains the findings of the study.
The data has been gathered according to the methodologies
described in Chapter III. The case study reports the comments
and non-verbal behavior of the reSpondents. When feasible,
direct quotations are used in reporting their comments. No
interpretation of data is provided in this chapter: the con-
clusions formulated from the information gathered will be
found in Chapter V.

All interviews were held at the Center and at the
homes of the drap-outs. Each participant was told why the
study was being conducted and was requested to be frank in
describing any aSpect he felt was ineffective or that he
disliked for any reason. Some time was spent with each
respondent in non-interview related conversation both before
the onset of the interview and afterwards.

These conversations were designed to establish a
relaxed relationship and atmOSphere. Occasionally they pro-
vided the researcher with clues regarding the line of

questioning to be followed during the interview and for further

61

62

eXploration. The amount of time Spent in these discussions
varied widely with each reSpondent.

The researcher used a prepared list of open-ended
questions for the interviews in order to assure that a direc-
tion could be followed by each reSpondent. The question
sequence was not rigidly followed, so that a continual flow
of information could be received.

In order that a comprehensive picture of the Center
For Drug Studies can be presented, Chapter Four will be
divided into six sections: 1) Historical Background, 2)
Philosophy of the Center, 3) The Physical Setting, 4) The
Organization, 5) Structure of the Program Phase, and 6)

Respondents' perceptions and attitudes of the Center.

Historical Background

Drug rehabilitation programs have evolved only in
recent years. Most of them have been designed primarily for
heroin addicts. Individual states have varied in the types
of rehabilitation programs they offer. Many different forms
and models ranging from medical and mental health treatment
to vocational or educational instruction exist. A program .
that is truly comprehensive contains all of these components
and employs personnel who have used the substances to a
high degree, such as former addicts, as counselors and group
leaders.

The design for the Center For Drug Studies had its

63

origins in a 130 page document entitled, flh§t_ggg_xgg_gg
52223,Eng,Egg,9;,Qggg§,;g_xggg_Community? This drug abuse
abatement plan was presented on March 26, 1970, to the Oak-
land County, Michigan, Board of Commissioners by its Super-
visors' Committee to Study Drug Abuse.

Concurrent with the presentation of this plan, Dr.
Arthur W. Jalkanen, Dean of Students at the Auburn Hills
Campus of Oakland Community College and chairman of the Super-
visors' Committee to Study Drug Abuse, submitted a proposal
for a Center For Drug Studies to the Board of Trustees of
Oakland Community College. This document contained the
rationale and design criteria for a self-supporting organi-
- zation to be initially Sponsored and funded by the College.
The Center would become part of the Institute for Educational
Sciences of the College.

The initial document prOposed that the Center For
Drug Studies create a drop-in center and present short
courses and short-term training programs to educators and
interested community people. The courses were designed to
cover substance abuse information, psychology of drug abuse
and treatment methods. Only the Psychology course was ever
taught. It is used basically to give parents of program
participants an understanding of their children's problems.

The program eXpanded in the next six months to

64

include a training institute to teach volunteers and profes-
sionals to work in drug abuse programs, and to Open a demon-

stration facility for the county. The demonstration facility
Operated as an unstructured ”rap" house until July 1, 1971,

when the current structured program was initiated.

PhilOSOphygfvthe Center

The goals set by the staff at the Center For Drug
Studies have evolved from a philOSOphical belief that human
beings will deal with their problems if given the Opportunity
to sit down and think about possible solutions. The program
has been defined by the staff coordinator as a ”thinking
program, where a person will rationally think his way out of
a problem area.” The primary goals claimed by the staff are
to help a person help himself stop the use Of drugs, and to
provide direction for non-drug using individuals who have
difficulty in relating to other peOple or to society. All
other goals are set by the individual.

One Of the approaches used for those participants
involved with drug usage, is a model based on concepts of
develOpmental psychology that attempts to explain the phases
of involvement that a typical drug user follows as he moves
from experimenting to becoming a continual user and abuser
Of drugs. This model views drug use on a continuum Of growth

and enables one to understand a broader construct of drug

65

use as it is currently present in our society.1

The Physical Setting

The Center For Drug Studies is located on the north-
eastern edge of the 257-acre site Of the Auburn Hills Campus
of Oakland Community College. The campus is located in Auburn
Heights, Michigan, an eastern suburb of Pontiac, one of the
state's large industrial communities. The surrounding area
is comprised of several different socio-economic levels,
ranging from lower to upper class. It has farms, interspersed
with small clusters of shopping centers, village cross road
stores, industrial Sites and new home develOpments where the
homes are in the $30,000-no,000 range. Three miles to the
northeast lies the city Of Rochester and the campus Of Oakland
University.

The building housing the Center For Drug Studies
is in an Old farm house that once had served as the college
faculty house. The building is Open four days a week from
9:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. On Fridays, it closes at 3:30 P.M.
except on graduation nights. Unless Specific needs arise,

the Center remains closed on week-ends.

 

1Arthur w. Jalkanen, "Drug Use and the Guidance
Counselor," in Cook, David R. (Ed.). Guidance for Education
in Revolution (New York: Allyn and Bacon, 1971) pp. 339-395.

66

The building is seldom empty Of people during the
hours it is Open. There is always somebody to greet you
with a "hippie" handshake. He gives his first name and asks
if the visitor can be helped. The visitor is requested to
place his name, age, and purpose Of visit on a sign-in sheet
placed on a table just inside the entrance to the house. The
staff keeps a continual check on the sign-in sheets to the
point of reminding the visitors that they had failed to sign
their names on a particular day. The sheets are not only
used to keep track of participants and visitors, but are an
important part of the records being kept on the operation Of
the Center.

Above this table is a large bulletin board covered
with pictures of past graduations. an organizational flow
chart and announcements of Center Sponsored social events.
On the other side Of the foyer is a rack filled with notices
and college announcements. The kitchen adjoins the foyer
and contains an ever-filled coffee pot and a large coke
machine.

The back Of the house contains an Office, along
with two small, former bedrooms that have been converted into
small meeting rooms, where group sessions are held. At the
front of the house are two rooms, where most of the social

and large session functions are held. In one room, an Old

67

piano and couches are placed. The other room is an extremely
large sunken living room. It is here, the only large room

in the house, where all house entertainment and large group
sessions are held. The walls are lined with comfortable
chairs and sofas, with a large fireplace and several doors
that Open to a large screened porch.

The house is small and old, not sufficient to handle
the current surge Of young people who come seeking help. Since
the upstairs rooms are used to capacity, part Of the basement
has been converted into small rooms by volunteer help. All
the materials in the house have been donated and refurbished
by the participants at the Center. Since the building is a
part of the campus, maintenance is handled by the College,

along with security checks after hours.

The Organization

Although there is an organizational structure, de-
signed by the director and approved by an administrative board,
the Center For Drug Studies is an informal organization. The
staff is paid through Oakland Community College and is reSpon-
sible to the director. Control Of the Center is in the hands.
of an eight person Administrative Board, comprised of repre-
sentatives Of the agencies that fund the Center: Oakland
Community College, Oakland County Department of Drug Abuse
Control, and the Birmingham Junior League, Dr. Jalkanen and

68

the Assistant Director of the Center.

Although the Administrative Board has the final
authority in determining policy it takes little action beyond
providing financial moral support. Its members do not inter-
fere with the Operation of the Center. Final decision making
lies with Dr. Jalkanen, although he states that many of the
decisions are mutually made by the staff.

The following flow chart is prominently displayed
in the lobby at the Center.

FIGURE 4.1-Center For Dru Studies Administrative Structure

0: an- ~ounty Birmingham " ‘ Oakland Community
Department Of Junior Lea e Colle e -
mm;Amme J

Center For Drug Studies I
Administrative Board

Director-Center Forl
Dru Studies -
6 Assistant Director A

(Supervisor)-Center
For Dru; Studies

 

 

 

 

  
   

 

 

 

  
  
 

      
 

 
  
 

   
   

Program
Coordinator

    

Coordinator
. [ _ l _ - 1 _
Oriéntation Prescription I *Articulation
Coordinator Coordinator g, Coordinator
Sta ass stants Staff assistants Staff ass stants

    

 

 

 

 

Volunteers Volunteers Volunteers
Support Committees Support Committees Support
Committees

It explains to all visitors how the staff structure Operates.
Yet, throughout my visits at the Center, I could find few

69

participants who bothered to read this chart or attempted to
differentiate between the positions held by the individual
staff members.

Dr. Jalkanen no longer meets directly with the staff
of the Center, or becomes personally involved except for
attendance at graduations or occasional visits to the house.
His direct contact is limited to teaching several courses and
weekly meetings with his assistant director. He Spends his
time divided between his position at the College and meeting
with community and school leaders who are interested in
establishing programs modeled after the Center For Drug
Studies.

To this date several communities and school systems
are in the process Of creating such programs, which will be
under their jurisdiction. It is planned that the major
connection between these new programs and the Center will be
twofold. Dr. Jalkanen will serve as an advisor and the staff
at the Center For Drug Studies will provide the nucleus for
the new staffs.

Dr. Jalkanen stated how he wanted the organization
to function:

I give them the full authority to make the house
run. I don't have any problem with them and I
meet with them very seldom. I meet with the prime
administrator very regularly. But they know the
Operational model and they know who is full time.

In other words, if Jim assigns to Darryl the house
Operation, then Darryl assigns who is going to run

70

the sessions.

But, the full-time guys don't run the sessions
unless we are short Of staff. Because the nature
Of the treatment activity is participation in
running it. SO what the part-time Staff has to

do is keep scheduling peOple in and run the sessions.
Our full-time staff does the primary things, such
as make certain the house is Open, or closed, make
certain the house is clean by assigning cleaning
functions, if necessary, and interview new peOple
going into the program.

Thus Dr. Jalkanen designed his organization so that
his full time staff was to coordinate all phases Of the program,
while the part-time staff had the direct contact with the
participants. The major difficulty that arises from this
philOSOphy is when changes occur within the part-time staff.

The staff at the Center appears to have been care-
fully chosen to carry through the design and model as planned
by Dr. Jalkanen. The current staff consists of three full
time personnel-an assistant director, a program coordinator
and a staff coordinator. There are also three part-time
staff workers. Part-time positions are added as needed.

There is no room for promotion of part-time personnel under
the present limited staff alignment.

Direct reSponsibility for the practical Operation
of the Center For Drug Studies is placed upon the assistant
director, James Evans. Jim, a 25 year old graduate Of Oak-
land University came to the Center in July, 1971, having

previously worked in the adolescent wards of several hOSpitals

71

within the county. He is a "mod" dresser, with "mutton-chap”
sideburns. Unlike the rest of the staff, he is not a graduate
Of the program. He received his training from Dr. Jalkanen.

A major part of Jim's reSponsibility is to relate
the program to the public, teach adults in various drug related
courses, attend meetings and workshOps, and to help communities
within the county develOp their programs. Another of Jim's
responsibilities is to help the other full time staff interview
prOSpective members and the participants as they move through

the phases Of the program.
Jim has definite views toward how the Center helps

its clientele:

I think that many times the fault of a lot of
institutions is that they don't feel they need
the individuals in them. You take your graduate
schools, your elementary schools. They need
students. Of course they do. Otherwise, they
wouldn't have jobs. They wouldn't have programs
or institutions. many times they don't realize
this and don't relate to the individuals they
deal with. But, they do need them, in fact, and
they should work together. SO, in this program
we always strive for OOOperation with the people
who come to us. Absolute OOOperation.

I kind of look at it that the power should be at
the lowest base, with the individuals in the pro-
gram. That's where the power is at. It is not
your benevolent monarch system. But, it's forcing
the peOple to have the power and reSponsibility.
Because, freedom also means reSponsibility. They
have the freedom, but also the reSponsibility to‘
make the program work.

In order to see that this philOSOphy is carried
throughout the staff, authority within the organization is

72

shared in all echelons. Jim believes that the staff must
provide enough freedom Of choice within the groups, so that
each group will take the reSponsibility of helping its mem-
bers. Not only must peOple be encouraged to stay, but must
be the source of new members.

The full time staff member who has the most direct
contact with the participants in the program is Darryl Daniel,
who serves as program coordinator. Darryl, a 5' 10", thin,
energetic young man Of 24, has the reSponsibility Of coordi-
nating all house activities, along with the general running
of the program. He also oversees the hiring of new staff
from graduates of the program.

Jim and Darryl work closely together. They have
the same view of what they are attempting to accomplish and
are very close friends. Darryl is careful, though, not to
extend himself into Jim's position. When questions were
asked by visitors, or by this researcher, concerning basic
organizational principles, or facts concerning the running
Of the Center, Darryl invariably referred the questioner to
either Jim or Dr. Jalkanen.

Darryl considers his position to be that of
assistant to Jim. He is a much quieter individual, who
relates quite easily with the rest of the staff and to the

participants. His casual manner and dress Openly contrasts

73

with that of Jim, so that the participants relate much more
to him than to Jim. This feeling is helped by the fact that
all of the peOple who become involved at the Center soon
learn that Darryl was one Of the first graduates Of the
Center and was hand picked by Dr. Jalkanen for his position.

The staff coordinator is Paul Keller, a 21 year
Old, intense, long-haired young man. Though the position
of staff coordinator had, until recently, been a part-time
position, Paul has had to be held back from devoting his
entire day on a voluntary basis far beyond the limited hours
for which he is paid. He is responsible for the training
of new staff, coordinating staff after they have been
assigned to sessions, occasional leading of evening orien-
tation sessions, and handling occasional Prescription groups
during the afternoon.

Paul and Jim virtually live at the Center. It
was rare not to find at least one of them in charge when-
ever I drOpped in. Their dedication to the job surpassed
that of any other staff member.

The other members of the staff work part-time,
paid on an hourly basis. They provide the actual leader-
ship to the groups as they go through the phases Of the
program. Currently, two of the part-time staff are males,

both under 21 years of age. They dress casually and blend

74

perfectly in with the youth they work with. The third
member is a young girl of 21, who alternates her time between
the Center and one of the newer community programs.

During the six months of this research, the part-
time personnel at the Center changed several times. Jim
explained the staff turnover when he stated:

The idea is that this program is a demonstration
center for other programs in the county. Where
other communities want to provide programs, we
provide staff. So all of the staff members who
have left this program, with the exception of 2

or 3 who went back to school full time, are now
working full time in other programs or directing
other programs as a vocational choice while they're
going to school.

Since it is the reSponsibility of the assistant
director to hire new staff, Jim described what he looked for
in new peOple and in the process he followed in hiring:

In some cases, they're hand picked, in other cases
there were several peOple who competed for the job.
One, I don't want a staff member who needs to be
here. That's the first criteria. I don't want
him dependent on the program. So I make sure the
guy doesn't need to be here. He has to demonstrate
that he doesn't need to be here after graduation.
Usually, I let him go afterwards for a while and
call him back to ask him what he's doing and ask
him if he would like to put some of his hours in
the Center, and if he is willing, I ask him again
what he sees the role would be.

It's something like the concept of, 'what his role
is, is more important than the job says it is.‘
Because that way you'll have a guy working on his
conscience, he's conscientiously trying to do some-
thing, instead Of saying, 'here is what is supposed
to be done, and I'm going to do it.‘ It may be
that in this job ten new things might come up that

75

you couldn't possibly write “prescriptions“ for
and he's going to do those if he sees fit. There-
fore, there is a certain working within the struc-
ture. There are certain premises and guidelines
which are set up. They follow those guidelines
and then they can set others up themselves.

These guidelines are not written in any form that
I could find. They have been alluded to several times, by
several staff members, as "human behavior” guidelines that
have been passed down by word of mouth. This may account
for the fact that several Of the staff members have a differ-
ent interpretation Of the hiring procedure. The definition
given by Tom, a former staff member who now heads up another
program within the county, differed substantially from the
one given by Jim:

We were all hired the same way. There are people
who want to put themselves out and continue to
make themselves available, and put out 150% effort.
That's how people are picked. They are picked from
the program and have a knowledge Of it. They put
out continual effort to make the program go.

Jim's hiring eXplanation did not include the fact
that all staff members have served first as volunteers. They
began by Spending extra time at the Center, answering tele-
phones, attending and speaking to large orientation Sessions,
and mingling with guests when they came to Observe at the
Center.

Jim denies that he hires people whose dependency

upon the Center is great. However, several part-time staff

76

admitted during the interviews that they had played down their
dependency in order to be hired. They had been heavily in-
volved in drug usage, or with their own personal problems
before joining the Center and continued to use their role

as a way to control their commitment to stay clean of sub-
stance usage.

The staff volunteer many hours per week. Typical
was the remark made by Paul, before his position was increased
to almost full time under the new budget:

I'm.paid for twenty hours a week, but I work for
fifty, because I feel that I'm needed here. Some-
one has to help and I live closest. I'd Spend all
my waking hours here if I felt it was necessary.

Pat, a part-time staff member stated:

Two things are expected-overwork and under-pay.
Being underpaid is not really true. Monetarily,

yes, but the rewards you get back are more than
just monetary.

Structure of the Progpam‘Phase
The structure Of the program of the Center For Drug

 

Studies is multi-faceted. The central force, or design behind
the approach used in the rehabilitation phase Of the program
of the Center For Drug Studies is the belief that peer in-
fluence is a major factor behind drug usage and deviance by
youth. If this influence is sufficiently powerful to cause
drug usage or societal rejection, it should also be influential

enough to be used to stOp continuance Of a need for drugs, or

77

to help those youth and adults who have other social and/or
parental problems. It is felt by the staff that both drug
induced problems and social/parental problems are symptoms
of problems that are common to youth today and they can both
be worked upon together.2

The term "peer-influence model" has been caused
by the staff to describe this approach. This term is not
found in current literature, though many sources describe
the influence that peers have upon each other, eSpecially
in the introduction of drug usage. Dr. Jalkanen, who first
used this term to describe his structured program, admitted
that this was a newly-coined phrase:

No, it does not exist as yet in the literature.
The whole literature component is just being
developed. I call it "Peer Impact Theory." I
even extend it farther to differentiate it from
peer counseling. The counseling component is
not really what we are using. We are really
using the peer influence on decision making.
SO, I'm pushing it way over there.

When a person comes into the Center he is inter-
viewed tO find out where he is on the "drug scene"-which
developmental stage. The same type of questioning is used
with the alienated youth, or the person who comes with per-

sonal problems. The program is eXplained to him and the

 

2The explanation Of the program structure was
adapted from the Oakland Communi College Center For Drug
Studies Annual Re ort, 1971, p. .

78

guidelines and boundaries are set. The staff explains the
fact that this is a drug program.

He will be involved at the Center for approximately
a month and go through three phases: Orientation, Prescription
and Articulation. The first thing that is stressed at both
the initial interview and at Orientation is that the program
works with “your own decision about drugs.“ The parameters
are defined. The participants are asked to conform to an
Operational set and to follow definite requirements with set
ranges Of behavior.

Basically, the program at the Center uses an
”understanding“ system. Participants come to the Center
three times a week for approximately one month.

In the initial phase, the new participants Spend
approximately one week being oriented to the house, the
structured program, to each other, and to relate to the Staff.
The staff member begins to attempt to create some cohesiveness
between the individuals, asking them to verbalize a commitment
against use Of drugs or to work on their major problems
during the program and to continue participation through all
phases Of it. It is during this time that house rules and
standards are introduced. There is no cleaning staff and
it is expected that each group helps to maintain the clean-
liness and decorum of the building, and the human relation-

ships that play such an important part of the structure

79

of this organization.

Unless several friends have come together to the
Center, each group is composed of relative strangers. Not
all peOple stay with the program during Orientation.

The lack of follow through of these people who
quit before moving to the second phase Of the program proves
to be a discrepancy in the organizational structure. The
staff has no accurate way of knowing whether the loss is
through their own inadequacies, or because of personal
frustrations upon the part of the drop-out. The lack Of
record keeping concerning these individuals also placed
limitations upon the researcher when he attempted to go
deeply into the organizational structure.

After a week Of Orientation the staff works with
them in ”prescriptive" activities, working upon the question
"what are you doing with your life?" The time period can
vary according to the progress of the group or the individuals
within the group. It is the heart Of the program and the
phase where most drop-outs occur. A person moves into
Prescription if the other members Of his Orientation group
feel that he knows the program goals sufficiently well and
sincerely wants to deal with some of the things that are
bothering him. This procedure seems to be a decision of
mutual agreement. In most cases, the entire group moves

together from phase to phase.

80

The Articulation part of the program involves
getting the participant back into school, or work, and doing
well. Various methods are used, including the use of adult
volunteers from the community who visit with the group
members before graduation. These adults form a Bpppd_pf
Review which examines each participant in Articulation to
see what his commitment is and how he is carrying it through.

The final part of the program is a "graduation"
ceremony. The student graduates by being back in school,
back on the job -- he is plugged back into society. The
"graduation" Offers him a final goal -- something to work
toward. It is a closure on the drug scene.

In each case, Prescription rules requires that
the individual must hold to his commitment and that he must
plan to contact and make prOper arrangements with the person
who is needed to help him solve his problem. This might be
the school counselor or principal, the parent, or an employer.

My research into the program shows that not one
graduate had been denied the right to return to school after
presentation of the fact that he was in the Center For Drug
Studies Program and was attempting to carry out his commitment,
although, contrary to the stated policy that each person does
his "prescription” alone, the director Of the Center has
on occasion, had to make personal appeals to school admin-

istrators.

81

However, the staff has provided no procedure to
check if a person is actually carrying through his commit-
ment. The failure to provide any type of safeguard to the
one area that is considered the most important concept Of
the program, Opens the staff to the accusation that their
efforts are not to affect a "cure," or a change in the views
of their clients, but instead, to provide nothing more
than a forum where peOple can meet, "rap" for several weeks,
and be rewarded for a successful endeavor.

Success in this type of endeavor serves to help
convince the involved youth that he can succeed in doing
something vitally important to his needs without drugs and
without someone always intervening in his behalf. There
might be a possibility that some of the things chosen as
"prescriptions" could be considered as minor incidents and
not things important enough for a Drug Center to concentrate
upon. This is a decision each reader must make for himself.
The intent is to bring peOple back into the mainstream Of
contemporary society through whatever means are necessary.

An important part Of the staff make up at the
Center For Drug Studies is the participation of the volunteers.
These volunteers come from several areas. Many graduates
wish to Spend some of their extra time at the Center. They

drOp in to handle the telephone, do various office work,

82

greet visitors at the door and help by becoming part of
the teams that present the program in large monthly evening
or public orientation sessions.

Adult volunteers come to the Center in four ways:

1. As interns from the Mental Health program at
Oakland Community College.

2. Interested women from surrounding communities.

3. Wives of men who have taken courses at the
Center.

4. Members Of the Birmingham Junior League.

Dr. Jalkanen explained the primary role of the
adult female volunteers. He uses them to balance the pre-
dominately male staff in an attempt to prevent the necessity,
at times, Of having a double staff in order to provide a
balance of male and female personnel. Their presence at
night also provides protection for the young female partici-
pants and volunteers.

These volunteers Speak very highly Of what they
believe the program is attempting to do for youth. They
also Speak in glowing terms Of their own relationships with
the peOple going through the program. Jane, one Of the
College interns whose own child was going through the
program tried to sum up her own feelings, which she claimed

represented those Of her fellow volunteers, as an ”eye-Opener,"

83

where "my own personality and beliefs were challenged. I
had to break out of my own shell and learn to accept other
peOple for what they are.” Jane felt that the volunteers
help break down the barrier that exists between young peOple
and adults by their own interest and involvement.

At the time of this study, 145 youth have completed
the program at the Oakland Community College Center For Drug
Studies and have gone through public graduation ceremonies.
According to the 1971 Annual Report, the youngest graduate
was thirteen (13) and the oldest is forty (40).3 Graduation
at the Center is an emotional affair. Civic leaders join
friends and parents of the graduates to celebrate the comple-
tion of the program. Each graduate is called up individually
to receive an engraved diploma and letters Of recommendation.

Up to 300-400 peOple attend the graduation cere-
monies, including current participants in the program and
many past graduates. Immediately after the ceremony, every-
body gathers for a brief reception, eating food donated by
friends and families of the graduates.

If the clientele of the Center were to be defined
as only the staff or graduates, a study of this organization

would be limited in scOpe. Such an examination would look

 

BIbido . Po 100

84

only at success while ignoring any problems that might
occur which would cause peOple to leave before graduation.

Thus in order to gain a comprehensive picture of
the Center, interviews with drop-outs were conducted as to
their perception of what they had seen and felt as program
participants.

Graduates of the Center have completed their formal
relationship with the organization. The first graduates came
to the Center when it was an unstructured "Rap-House" and
remained to go through the current structured program. All
individuals graduating after the first group are products
of only the revised structure. One commonality with both
of these groups has been their willingness, or need, to
revisit the Center on numerous occasions after graduation.

The peOple who withdrew also have certain common-
alities. They are primarily a younger group. They range
between 14 and 20 years of age. Since the criteria used at
the Center to classify withdrawals is that a person must
remain in the program through the orientation period, drop-
outs are reSpondents in this study left the program somewhere
in the second or third phase.

These two groups were chosen as the interview
reSpondents because they have had a better chance to feel

the full effects Of what the organization is attempting than

85

current participants. Each person in these two groups made
a final decision: either to resign or to stay at the Center.
The clientele at the Center For Drug Studies ranges
in age from thirteen to the early forties. Each participating
group has been age grouped, so that peer involvement can be
kept intact. Generally, the age groupings are 13 through
16, 17 through 20, and 21 and older. The groups are not
segregated as far as severity of drug usage or problems are
concerned, because the premise is that drug usage is only '
a symptom Of problems that are shared mutually by youth of
the same age group.

Respondent's Perceptions and Attitudes
Toward the Cents;

PeOple of different age groups tend to view their
surroundings through the light of different experiences and
precepts. This should allow a researcher to gain a wide
range of views if his reSpondents represent a sufficient
age Spread to generally represent the total pOpulation whose
lives are affected by the organization under study.

Basically, the Older graduates of the program had
been more deeply involved in substance misuse before coming
to the Center than the younger graduates. This held true
for not only the variety of substances being misused, but

also for the intensity of use. There were exceptions to

86

this, because not all of the graduates had used illicit
substances, and several very young graduates were deeply
_involved in usage before coming to the Center.

The 1971 Annual Report Of the Center For Drug
Studies reported that follow up procedures on fifty (50)
graduates who had completed the program from August through
December 15, 1971, showed only Six (6) graduates had used
any drugs or substances since graduation. These youth became
re-involved in the program. Only three (3) used substances
more than once after graduation. This gives the organization,
according to the report, an effectiveness to curtail substance
use at a level Of 94% effectiveness.

TABLE 4.1 - Gpaduate student data“

 

Graduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Used substances after graduation . . . 6
No use of substance after graduation .44
Use Of substance more than once

after graduation . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Percentage of program effectiveness . 88%
Percentage Of program effectiveness

after secondary sessions . . . . . . .94%

 

4Ibid.

_........_oP-

12.

87

The interviews held with some of the same gradu-
ates who were surveyed pointed out one factor that was not
considered by the staff. Several Of the graduates had origi-
nally exaggerated their amount Of drug use during their stay
at the Center. There was a definite need for exaggeration
on their part. They felt that in order to be successful in
their groups, they had to Show that they had problems that
were bigger and better than those Of the other members.

When asked in the survey whether they had carried
through their commitment to stay away from drugs, it was
easy for them to be affirmative. Not all of the graduates
exaggerated or falsified their problems during the group
sessions, but enough had dene so to cause the survey results
to be inaccurate.

There were certain commonalities that existed
among the users. They began using non-prescribed substances
early in high school, or while in their second year Of
junior high school, through the influence Of either a friend
who was already using drugs, or as a way to enter a group
or clique, with which they felt a need to associate. Not
all drug usage among the graduates was mild, or limited to
just one type.

Terry typified the reSpondent to whom police
action was the only thing that got her to receive help. She

88

equated being arrested with her realization that she had
“a problem.” As She stated:
I didn't think my drug using was too much Of a
problem until I got stOpped. My parents had
told me that if I wanted help, they would get
it for me. I said no. After all, I didn't
have any problems. But, after I got 'busted,‘
I decided maybe I did have a problem. The pro-
bation officer suggested I come to the Center
for direction.
I went through the program and then went down
to the probation officer and talked to him. Dr.
Jalkanen talked to him and the judge. They took
me Off probation. In fact, the judge came to my
graduation. I hear now he refers most of his
kids to the Center, even when they're not on
drugs.

Terry's effective use of the tap administrator of
the Center to help her with law enforcement officials was
only one Of the ways she found that she was helped.

Other graduates came to the Center in a different
manner. They seemed to sense their problems and turned to
the Center in an attempt to solve them. One of the most
fundamental and recurrent problems they had faced when they
had been heavy drug users was the possibility of censure by
the peOple or Official agencies with whom they were liable to
come into contact. This fear ranged from the possibility of
arrest to the many problems faced by a youth in school caught
using drugs.

Pete was one of the few addicts who the Center

89

staff had referred to a detoxification program, and then
returned for the program. He had been deeply involved with
drugs since he was 14 years Old and had been on heroin for
three years before coming to the Center. He had served
several jail sentences before he was 20 years Old, and at

the age Of 25, he had turned to the Center as a last resort.
This was not his first attempt at rehabilitation, but as he
stated, determined that it would be the “final and successful”
attempt.

Pete claimed that he had been Off of drug usage for
over five months. This is about the average length of time
that a typical graduate Of the Center can claim, since the
present program has been in existence for a year. He had
initially fought the commitment requiring drug abstainance,
using the argument that was typical of several Of the Older
graduates when they were in the early phases Of the program,
”A little bit of 'grass' won't hurt me.”

It took Pete until the middle of his involvement
in Prescription before he was finally motivated enough to
totally commit himself to non-drug usage. Pete pinned down
his change to both his intense desire for it and to the
support he was provided at the Center. He didn't look at
at the organization as a program. In fact, when the words

”structured program” were mentioned during the interview,

90

he turned instead to the concept Of effective group pressure.
He felt that he couldn't change alone. It was to him the
association with other youth who fought their problems that
gave him success.

Drug users do not live in a social vacuum. They
understand that their actions are not socially acceptable
and that there are always some peOple who would punish them
through prosecution or by attempting to remove them from the
conventional social structure. While conventional society
has regarded illicit drug usage, primarily when practiced
by teen age youth, as an attack upon its norms and values
and has shown little willingness to understand the problems
that bring about the use of drugs, the youth at the Center
feel that they have been provided support, not for drug use,
but for their need to understand their problems.

The subjects in this study who had used drugs
attempted, on the most part, to exist within a framework of
survival in a world that they totally rejected, or in one
where they felt rejection by others. Eyen when their usage
was not publicly known, they lived in a world where there
were real threats to their desired life style. It became
increasingly difficult for them to maintain the split between
the conventional involvements SO necessary to survive in

society and their drug usage activities.

91

The age Of the reSpondent was an important factor
in how he described his feelings toward how much he had been
helped at the Center. It seemed that the younger the reSpon-
dent was, the more he eXpressed the feeling that the staff
had motivated him to work on his problems, for without the
support Of the staff, whatever the problems he faced would
have remained unsolved. Eric, at the age of 1? reflects this
group. The Center has become his entire way of life. He
Spends every Spare moment that he can find in the building
associating with whoever he can, describing his love for
the Center:

PeOple here at the Center seem like my brothers
and sisters. I associate with them whenever I
can get there and stay until closing. Then I go
home to do my homework. I don't have time for
anything else. Look, they saved my life. I was
so hung up on drugs and my problems with my family
I almost killed myself. DO you realize, I'm not
even 18 yet and I thought almost every day about
dying. Then, I came here and discovered all of
these kids my own age working to straighten out
their own problems and really succeeding, I began
to really live again. They showed me that all
those things I thought were problems were not
that important. Can you imagine kids my own

age helping me? I could never have done it alone.

According to Eric, the Center Offered an Opportu-
nity to meet a peer group that was learning to use nothing
except themselves to solve some of the problems that seemed
unsolvable in the past. He was one of the many adolescents

who find their life to be lonely. When a teenager is unable

92

to fit into what would be considered as an orthodox group,
he sometimes turns to drugs as a means of finding acceptance
in other groups. It is much simpler to seek a reference
group or friends who take various substances, since one of
the prime desires of such a group is to convert new members.
It is not difficult to enter the group, or to retain member-
ship as long as the use of these substances is continued.

Even though most of the graduates during the first
year of Operation of the Center had been drug users to some
extent, there were several who came for other help. They
had turned to the organization seeking solutions to problems
that related to self image, family and/Or school. During
the interviews, these individuals stressed the fact that the
mere ability to talk with someone who would listen and offer
suggestions from their own experience was sufficient to help
them to become motivated enough to seek answers to some Of
their problems.

Mike was representative of the older graduates who
sought help at the Center for problems that had nothing to
do with drugs. He had not finished high school, but had
been accepted to Oakland Community College after completion
of the General Education Development Test. He first visited
the Center with one Of his classes.

Mike could not clearly state, even after graduation,

93

why he decided to participate in the program, except to
point out that the staff member who Spoke to his class ”hit
a chord“ with his remarks concerning family relationships
and the role each individual had to play to keep the family
together. He joined “just to see what it was all about,“
not certain what he was seeking:

First, I saw this change in me after I had been
in the program for about 3 weeks. I had no
relationship with my family, Sister, or brother.
I couldn't talk to my parents. Now, I can talk
to both of them.‘ The greatest thing was that my
parents are now both involved in the Center. My
father has taken the counseling courses and helps
out with some of the kids kind of informally.

My mother is a part time volunteer. It's helping
them to associate with kids from other families.
My grades in school now are great. I wanted a
goal, wanted to achieve something. Not my parents
telling me tO do it. I did it myself by going
through the program. You know, the Center caused
a change in my academic outlook. It's become the
type of thing where I want to learn myself. Not
just putting it Off. It's still hard to get into
study habits, because I've been out Of the habit
for so long. Like reading text books and stuff,
but I'm trying.

One Of the major points that the graduates stressed
was their inability to relate with their parents. The pro-
blem existed with both drug users and non-drug users. Their
difficulties seemed to have begun about the time they left
elementary school. The reasons for parental strife varied
from a feeling that tOO much advice or interference had
occurred, to a rejection Of help from parents when it was

needed.

94

Not all Of the reSpondents in this study expressed

a feeling Of rejection or had difficulties within the total
familial group. When pressed to discuss specific problems,
they centered more upon the father. The father figure was
variously described as being too shy or weak, domineering,
or continually drunk, so that the mother became the dominant
figure. Marge, one of the adult volunteers in the program
suggests the following:

Young peOple see an awful lot of women teachers

or mothers, and not enough of strong males who

can be of assistance to them. Maybe, they need

a group of young men who know who they are, and

are strong in themselves.
This remark could eXplain one reason for possible success
Of this organization. The staff is predominately male and
close enough to peer age to help make an impact on the indi-
viduals involved at the Center. This organizational design
was shown best through the younger reSpondents, who claimed
that their attitudes toward their families changed because
Of how they were influenced at the Center. As Jim stated:

They have learned that they must play an active

role in making their family life succeed. They

have very little to do at home. There are maids

to do the housework, lawn services to cut the grass,

and car washes to keep their cars clean. Where

these things used to be the reSponsibility Of the

family unit, they are no longer available to the

youth Of the family. So, these young peOple turned

to other areas for identification.

Tanya was one of several reSpondentS whose problems

95

were not limited to their parents. Her school grades and
peer relationships were still poor five months after her
graduation. She felt that boys were still interested in her
for just drugs and sex. She had also been trying to volun-
teer for a new drug program in her community but felt that
she was being arbitrarily ignored by the director of the new
Center for what she felt were Obsecure reasons.

Several changes in Tanya became evident a month
after our interview when we met at a graduation at the
Center. She had succeeded in becoming a volunteer and had
met a new boy there who, she felt, liked her for herself.
They Spent the evening at the graduation with hands claSped
together, ignoring most of the proceedings.

Tanya is one case where brief association at the
Center did not bring the total solutions that had been pre-
dicted by Jim. Her dependency on the program was still Ob-
vious. She still depended upon the Center or its model to
supply her with support and friends. Yet, no follow up
was made by the staff to see whether this one individual had
been entirely successful in any Of the goals that She had
stated while as a participant, or whether she had only
brought forth surface problems in her group. Darryl was
aware Of some Of her problems after graduation, including

her pleading to join the other program, but did nothing to

96

help. The only answer he Offered was, “Her problems couldn't
have been so bad, or she would have never finished the pro-
gram." The amount of success that Tanya gained from the
Center cannot be measured. She still Openly clings tO the
Center and what the peOple who associate with it have to
Offer her.

As stated earlier in this chapter, the Older respon-
dents more clearly recognized that the decisions they made
at the Center were actually internal, instead of coming from
anything Specific that occured while they were participants.

Candy, who had just turned 20 years Old was one Of
these peOple. She had been using drugs much longer than
Tanya and had five more years of seeming maturity behind her.
Her family relationship had been even poorer than Tanya's.
She left home at the age of 17, keeping only brief contact
with her parents. Her "prescription" was to try to return
home and learn to readjust her relationship with her family.
She felt that after the weeks Spent being counseled in her
group, she could now even identify where the drive to renew
the family ties had come from:

It came from within me. The Center brought it
out. Drugs did nothing for me. I got goals.
I know where I'm going. I get along with my
mother now. I didn't before the program. Now
we are close, more Open. I feel comfortable

now. My father doesn't agree with me, but we
can talk a little bit. It was all the Center,

97

if I hadn't come to the Center, I'd be in the

streets using drugs. 0n drugs everything was

bad, parents-peOple. Now I can tolerate them

at times. I don't feel wasted. I am somebody.

The comments these respondents made concerning

their family relationships also helped to point out a
problem that does not seem to be recognized by the staff at
the Center. Parents have not always been involved in the

program. Some have attended mass orientation sessions, or
have enrolled in the courses taught at the Center. But,

others, through either their own lack of interest, or the
deliberate actions of their children, have never learned the
purpose of the Center.

School eXperience has been fairly negative with
the peOple involved in this study. Most of them had poor
grades and kept away from the activities and functions that
comprise a typical school community. This did not hold
true for all reSpondents, but the deeper the individual be-
came involved in drug usage, the more he withdrew from the
conventional school society. School beyond the elementary
grades became a "drag," a place where the rules were too
strict to tolerate. Within the context of such an environment,
the individual either had to OOpe with the rules, or go his
own way, by dropping out Of school, or turning to various
substances.

ReSpondent reaction to returning to complete an

98

education varied. The females showed more interest than
the males. The younger reSpondentS talked more Of ”accept-
ing school for what it can do for me.“ Several reSpondents
had set returning to school after a lengthy absence as

part Of their "prescription.” The reasons given by the
older male reSpondents toward returning to school are not
as exhuberant as those given by the females.

The casual atmOSphere created by the staff of the
Center seems to be effective with those peOple who indicate
some ego strength to begin with. They could be more easily
motivated. They could have some idea of themselves and
where they are heading, but seem to have gotten Off the
track toward their goals as they entered their teen years.
Most of the participants in this study have expressed a
deep feeling of loneliness, SO in order to find friends or
stay in a group, they did things the others did.

Some of the participants began to feel that this
was the wrong thing to do, SO they sought help for them-
selves. They tried psychiatrists, psychologists, yoga, or
in rare cases the school counselor, or a religious leader.
But, it was not until they came to the Center For Drug
Studies that they met what they termed success.

Not every person who enters the program follows

it through to conclusion. The organization requires a

99

commitment that must last for a length of time that goes
beyond the present capabilities Of some peOple who attend
the initial orientation sessions. The program is primarily
designed to provide self help through group aid.

Records are not kept as to the name of people who
attend general orientation sessions. The Sign-in sheets are
ignored during these activities. They are on the table in
the foyer, but no staff member reminds the peOple to Sign
them. In fact, a person is not considered by the staff to
be a participant at the Center unless he has completed
Orientation.

I realize some of the pitfalls of using the organi-
zation's definition Of a drOp-Out. Without accurate records,
it is impossible to tell the type of person who does not
continue at the Center. I have lost a great deal Of insight
into what might be wrong with the organization, or with what
type Of peOple left the Center. It seems that the staff is
not concerned about the peOple who do not stay.

The 1971 Annual Report, covering the period from
July through December 1971, lists 89 participants and 16

withdrawals for various reasons:

100

TABLE 4.2 Program Withdrawal Analysis-12215

 

Change of work schedule. . . . . . 6
Moved OUT: or areas 0 o o e e o o 3
Decided to leave program . . . . . 4
Lack of interest . . . . . .

tom :2-

The vagueness of the information in Table 4.2,
leaves several questions unanswered. The records at the
Center, when compared to what the staff members had stated
in their interviews, Showed a wide variance of information.
The interview information showed that nobody attempted to
find out the underlying reasons of why the seven (7) quit.
The lack of perseverance Of the staff could be blamed upon
their lack Of eXperience and upon a total disinterest on
their part to chase down people who had quit.

It wasn't until after the first year Of Operation
had ended, that any further follow-up occurred. The job was
given to the volunteers, who contacted the drOp-Outs by
telephone. By this time, the staff had become overwhelmed
by a sharp increase in participants. The only question
that the volunteers had asked was why the drOp-Outs had quit.
NO extensive questioning was made to discover their under-
lying reasons.

The same problem occurred in the drOp-out survey

that had existed with the graduates. There had been no

 

51bid. , p. 9.

101

check for truthfulness. It was impossible to interpret
from the data the amount of drop-outs who continued drug use,
or had even offered the real reason for their withdrawal.
Another survey Of drOp-Outs occurred during the
first five months of 1972. The collected information was SO
vague, that it could only be made clear after I began to
interview the drOp-Outs and intensively question them. The
following table represents a composite of both information
collected by the staff and myself. Even with this lack Of
accurate record keeping, a much more comprehensive list of
withdrawal reasons is now available for study:

TABLE 4.3 Program Withdrawal Analysis January-May 1222

 

Employment interfered with attendance . . . . . 8
Parents forbad Center attendance . . . . . . .10

Could not keep commitment . . . . . . . . . 6
Referred to Special programs or other Centers . . 6
Gave no reason for withdrawal . . . . . . . . 4
TOO far to travel . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
More time needed for school . . . . . . . . 2
Ran away to get married . . . . . . . . . ._1_
TOTAL 39

Parental objection to participation in the program
was revealed for the first time in this collected data. NO
indication was given at the Center as to the cause of the
withdrawal of the six participants who claimed lack of
parent support. One thing that this researcher found was

102

that all six were ages 14 through 16. They were not in the:
program long enough to verify if they left because of a lack
Of commitment, a lack of tranSportation, or whether parental
pressure was the only cause.

For the first-time, it was noted that several
participants were referred to other organizations. One youth
was referred to Children's Village, and another to a mental
hospital. One addict came to the program and was referred
to RAP House, a new 24 hour therapeutic community in the
county. The Juvenile Court had referred one youth to the
Center. His lack Of attendance and participation found him
returned to the Court, which then sent him to the Oakland
County Juvenile Home.

Several Of the withdrawals came from youth who
felt that they were not sufficiently motivated enough to
need graduation from the program. They had ”prescribed”
their own goals and had succeeded in accomplishing them.

Tim, a 16 year Old youth who attended a parochial high school
and lived at the other end of the county felt that he couldn't
persuade his parents to drive him to the Center through
winter storms.

Beth, who had quit the program just before gradu-
ation felt that she had accomplished what she had set out

to do without needing a piece of paper that verified that

103

she had indeed accomplished those purposes.

Several other reSpondents who had left the program
before graduation had reacted personally to other members
of their group to the point that they used the excuse that
disillusionment toward one individual changed their whole
attitude toward the program, Susan was one person who re-
acted this way. She left the program after watching the
actions of just one member of her group:

Well, in my group, we had a real good session, I
thought. But, the thing that would happen a lot
was that you'd have to find out if everybody was
doing well. Then, you'd find out somebody had
gotten high, and would say he'd never do it again,
and maybe he'd do it again, or someone else will.
It just keeps going around like that. You know,
they act like it's so hard to quit for the life of
the program or something. So, they keep saying
I'm serious about this. They're not really, I
think. We had this one guy.in the group that was
the most outSpoken person in the group, like he
was a 'junkie' for three years and he had just got
out of jail and all this. He went on and on and
we found out that he wasn't even telling the truth
about anything he was doing.

I don't know. I really trusted him. I thought he
was the most serious one in the group. But, then,
like he drOpped out, kept drOp ing out. I guess
he had a parole Officer. I th that's the reason
he went, to get that diploma. I sort of just ran
out of enthusiasm.

Not all of the drop-outs withdrew from the program
because they felt that they accomplished their goal to stOp
the use of drugs. One young man who attributed his failure

of his junior year in high school to drug usage had joined

104

the program through a friend who had convinced him to at

least visit the Center. His SXperience at the Center

proved to be unacceptable to his needs as he stated:
Well, after a while, it just seemed that what I
thought was there, wasn't there. Lot Of peOple,
like the staff all seemed to know what they were
doing. But, they had a little plan, like to get
down on peOple as far down to make them feel rotten.
Then they'd be nice to them and bring them back up.
Then, like every night you'd go there for a session
and the same thing would happen. You know, and it
didn't just happen peOple would say what they wanted
tO say. They knew the more they talked, it would
be the quicker they got out, usually, and I was
never the one for talking a lot and they kept saying,
why don't you talk, and all this. You know, I just
couldn't see it.

Another exception to those drOp-Outs who kept their
commitment was a 17 year Old, well dressed, short hair youth
who briefly had stOpped his heavy marijuana use. Arthur had
joined the program at the insistence of his parents. He said
that he had felt that he owed them some Obligation to at
least investigate why he should stop. During the beginning
Of Articulation, Arthur began to fight with his parents. He
described that, as an act of retaliation, he walked out Of
the program and resumed smoking marijuana.

Terry was at the apartment during the interview
with Arthur. It seemed that Arthur felt he needed support
from his friend. He kept attempting to bring him into the

conversation. The program Terry had graduated from was

105

one Of the first tO be Opened using the Center's model.

Terry had been an early graduate and served as a volunteer
until he quit approximately one month before my interview.

He had quit, as he stated, ”in disgust” and had returned to
marijuana use. He felt that he had been ”cheated" by the
fact that the staff continually ”boozed” it up at their
parties, when they were telling their clients to be straight.

Both Arthur and Terry attempted to describe their
views of the program each had gone through. To Arthur, the
program and staff at the Center was full Of warmth and vital-
ity. Each person felt at home in the program, even if, in
Arthur's case, his parental feelings kept him from fully
participating. There was, in Arthur's Opinion, nothing built
into the Center that would hinder a person seeking and accom-
plishing his goals.

Terry, on the other hand, described a cold, formal
situation, where the staff talked to the groups about abstain-
ing from drugs and all other mind altering substances, while
they in turn would get ”roaring drunk" at their own parties.
He claimed that he had gone completely through his program,
fully committed. It was not until after he became, what he
considered, an integral part of the staff that he ”...saw
their hypocracy." He quit the program, rejected his commit-

ment, and returned to drug use.

106

Further investigation upon my part after the
interviews verified much of Terry's accusations. Shortly
after the time he had left the program, the supervisor Of
his Center was replaced and the program realigned to more
closely follow the pattern Of the Center.

Several peOple left the Center and returned at a
later date. Several of the respondents involved in this
study, fall into this category.

When Paul was approached, as Staff Coordinator,
to find out his reaction concerning some Of the peOple he
knew who had quit and later rejoined the program, he Spoke
at length attempting to describe what he had seen:

Yeah, I think that some don't make it in the
program. It could be possible for someone to
bullshit his way through the program and not

get anything out of it, but I don't think they
would try to do it. We had a few peOple in
Prescription who tried to do it. They admitted
they were using drugs. They couldn't do it any
more. They realized that bullshitting their way
through the program wasn't doing them any good.
To me, that represents the power of this program.
They tried to do this just tO say that this program
is full of crap. By the time they got half way

through the program they realized that they don't
need drugs.

None of the drOp-Outs participating in this study
had ever sought help for drug related problems before they
came to the Center. Many of them had not considered usage

as their problem. Instead, they felt, like several Of the

107

graduates had stated, that their problem was one Of communi-
cating with other peOple. Shyness and inability to defend
their beliefs in front of a group had led them to use
various types of substances in varying degrees.

This researcher has not been able to affirm whether
other drOp-Outs, whom he had been unable to contact would
have Offered the same general reasons for their withdrawal
from the program. It is unknown at this time whether they
left because Of a dissatisfaction with the program, or for
some reasons that had nothing to do with the Center itself.

The problem Of participant retention is faced by
the staff of the Center For Drug Studies in the same manner
that it is faced by any organization designed to help peOple
who primarily come on a voluntary basis. Staff meetings
are held weekly to evaluate participant progress. Though
continued efforts are made to devise methods to retain an
individual once he enters the program, little is actually
done because Of the belief that most of the staff have about
the fact that their clientele are involved in primarily a
self-help program. Paul summed up the feelings of the rest
Of the staff, when he said:

We offer them what we can do. We say this is
what we really can do. I'd like for you to
pitch in and give us a hand. It has to be their

decision. It's a self-help program. They must
make the decision.

108

Chapter Four contained the findings of the study.
It contained six sections that described the Center For Drug
Studies, its program and the reSpondents' perceptions and
attitudes. Chapter Five will contain the summary, conclusions,
implications Of the study and recommendations for further

StUdy e

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This study was designed to present a descriptive
analysis Of the peer influence social problems at the Oakland
Community College Center For Drug Studies through the use of
the field techniques Of Observation and Open-ended interview.
The researcher has used Case Study methodology to determine
whether the individuals who have been involved at the Center
have benefited from their participation.

Using Open-ended interviews and limited participant
Observation, a comprehensive picture was developed to seek
the answers to the following set Of exploratory questions:

1. Is it the organization of the Center or the
human support system within the Center that
makes for a successful experience?
2. Has attitude toward self-worth shown positive
improvement through participation at the Center?
3. What facets Of the program at the Center are unique?
4. DO the procedures at the Center accomplish what
the staff set out to do as defined in their

stated goals?

109

110

5. Did those participants who reported a
successful experience substantially change
their life styles?

6. What do individuals who failed to complete
the program cite as the reasons for their
leaving the Center?

Question 1: IS it the organization Of the

Center or the human support
system within the Center that
makes for a successful experience?

It is a combination of the organization and the
support system that has led to the successful eXperiences
of the graduates.

It is the organization because of the flat, flex-
ible structure built around a dedicated staff. Most of the
decisions concerning the Operation of the program are mutually
decided upon at all levels. There is a deliberate lack of
professional help. The staff is young and except for the
Assistant Director, are all graduates Of the program. They
relate with the clientele primarily because of their age
and actions.

Several characteristics which are typical Of highly
structured, pyramidical organizations do not exist at the
Center For Drug Studies. The most important of these that

are Often referred to in the literature are Specialization

of roles and tasks, the prevalence of autonomous, rational

111

non-personal rules in the organization, and the general
orientation to rational, efficient implementation Of
Specific goals.1

An example of this type of organization is the
subject-oriented school. It has a highly complex, hierarchal,
subject oriented, pyramidical structure. There is a distinct
line-staff division of both labor and approach to the clien-
tele either formally in the group sessions or informally
between sessions. Everybody is on a first name basis. Even
the assignment of groups is done by mutual agreement by the
staff.

It is the support system because the tasks created
for the participants are simple to the point of being vir-
tually non-existant. The only basic requirement for gradu-
ation is the commitment to refrain from the use of drugs
during the time of participation and even this is not
closely examined. The participants must rely upon them-
selves, aided by a group Of peers and the guidance of a
semi-trained staff member.

Participants realize that they have the ultimate

choice of remaining at the Center and continuing their

commitment, or leaving at any time. This belief is fostered

 

1For a summation of much of the literature in this
area see Peter M. Blau, Bureaurac in Modern Society (New
York: Random House) 195 .

112

by the staff, since they continually remind their groups
that they are in a self-help program.

There is high normative compliance among the
clients. An intense desire to participate in the activities
at the Center is tied to high acceptance of staff efforts.
This has led to good interaction between the lower echelon
staff and the participants.

Thus the effect that the program at the Center
For Drug Studies has upon its successful participants is
caused by both the individuals who Offer support in the
program and the organizational structure of the program.
The commitment made by each individual is only a beginning
in the progress that must be made as he continues. There-
fore, the group process becomes a major determining factor
as to the success or failure of the program.

Question 2: Has attitude toward self-worth

shown positive improvement
through participation in the
program at the Center?

Self worth Of the reSpondents has been enhanced by
positive reinforcement in three areas. There has been a
change in the social behavior Of both the graduates and
drop-outs. Attitude toward furthering their education has
improved. There has been a significant increase in family

relationships.

The reSpondents reported that except in an isolated

113

case where a drug using friend had been close Since early
childhood, new relationships were formed. The same held
true for the shy, withdrawn individuals. The group enforced
relationships at the Center showed them successful ways of
integrating into new peer groups.

Many of the respondents' views toward education
changed. The older youth, who had quit high school before
graduation, used the General Education Development Test to
enter Oakland Community College. The younger participants
used suggestions and direct help from the staff to intercede
with school personnel in order to return to school or to
gain a better understanding of how they could adapt to a
school atmOSphere.

A much clearer conception of how they Should fit
into their role within a family led several reSpondents to
reestablish ties with their parents. This was aided by the
involvement Of parents in some phase Of the total program
at the Center and by reinforcement of adult/youth relation-
ships within the groups.

Therefore the involvement Of the adults at the
Center, combined with the efforts of concerned school per-
sonnel and parents have given the participants a new look
at themselves as they have reexamined their self worth and

roles in society.

114

Futhermore the procedures devised by the staff at
the Center to help develOp attitudes toward the improvement
Of self-worth are congruent to those that have been described
in the literature as effective peer group oriented approaches.
They seem to have effectively destroyed the barriers Of
communication that are sometimes found between youth and
adults.

Question_3: What facets of the program at
the Center are unique?

The core of the activities at the Center For Drug
Studies is a three step structured, sequential program to
help individuals involved in the drug culture refrain from
usage. The steps are as follows:

Phase 1-Orientation-Orientation lasts for a week. In
that time, the individual becomes familiar with
the house, the other persons in the group, the
staff and the program.

Phase 2-Prescription-Prescription lasts a minimum of
two weeks. The group members talk among them-
selves without fear of being rejected for
what may be revealed. The individual composes
a written ”prescription” concerning a major
problem on which he wants to work. It consists
of some behavior patterns he wishes to change

or improve upon. It may be drugs or a social

115

problem with which he has been unable to
OOpe.

In terms of program Specifics, all Of the reSpon-
dents stated that this Prescription phase had the most
effect upon them. It was during this phase that reSpondents
claimed they discovered that other people cared about them.
They felt that only in the atmOSphere created at the Center
could they bring their anxieties and problems into the Open
and take an objective look at themselves.

Phase 3-Articulation-Articulation lasts one week. The
individual puts his ”prescription“ into action.
After he has successfully initiated this phase,
he will graduate.

These three structured phases, combined with
courses, a drug research activity, teacher and parent train-
ing in the psychology of drug abuse and parental involvement,
all of which have been described in earlier chapters, create
a unique atmOSphere not found elsewhere.

This type Of program approach could not effectively
work in a highly structured, formal, pyramidical organization.
The participants at the Center have turned away from highly
structured organizations because they felt that their needs
had not been satisfied. They found at the Center a peer
oriented, supportive group that provided help in the solution

116

of their social problems without the demands that had
existed elsewhere.

Question 4: Do the procedures at the Center

accomplish what the staff set
out to do as stated in their
defined goals?

The success Of the Center lies in the fact that the
defined goals have been SO broadly stated that the staff has
been able to adapt their procedures in the areas Of group
involvement techniques and peer influence to fit new clientele
bringing social problems other than drug misuse. Thus they
have been able to reSpond to other needs, such as social
alienation, without changing their program style or basic
approach.

The goals of an organization constitute one of the
most important links between it and the total social struc-
ture in which it exists. The major goal, as originally set
by the organization, is often considered by the peOple and
groups with which it interacts as its function. Therefore
the nature of the goals play a great part upon the relation-
ship between an organization and the pOpulation it serves.

The fact that this organization uses the title of
Center For Drug Studies can cause a belief that the major
goal is to study drugs. Examination of the procedures of
the Center indicates that little is done in this area. Re-

search into drug etiology and drug psychology was done only

117

during the first year of Operation. This led to the struc-
tural change from drOp-in-center to a structured peer
directed program for several types of social problems. Now,
the Center not only serves as a receiving agency for referrals
from courts, police and schools, but has become, in turn, a
referral agency for youth with problems that do not fall
within its realm.

The goals of a service organization such as the
Center are in constant need for reappraisal. There is also
a need for periodic adjustment of the relationship that
exists between the staff and its clientele. Where the
purpose calls for easily identified, readily measured items,
reappraisal and readjustment of goals may be accomplished
rapidly. This occurred at the Center when non-drug using
individuals began to seek help with their problems.

When goals call for more intangible, difficult
products to be worked with, organizations such as the Center
For Drug Studies find it more difficult to determine how to
readjust. This occurred when the staff was faced with
determining, in depth, the reasons for peOple leaving the
program before completion of all phases. This evaluation
component became one area not completely carried out.

Thus the broadening of the original goals Of the
Center caused this organization to become more highly

diversified. Its original domain had to be extended to

118

include a new kind of clientele. AS defined by Levine and
White in their study of relationships among health agencies
in a community, domain consists of “claims which an organi-
zation stakes out for itself in terms of (1) diseases
covered, (2) pOpulation served, and (3) services rendered."2
In the case of the Center For Drug Studies, a substitution
Of "subjects covered“ for ”diseases covered” allows the
definition to be expanded to this organization.

The domain of an organization identifies the points
at which the organization is dependent on inputs from its
environment. For the Center, its environment consists of
volunteers and referrals from the surrounding tri-county
area, whose ages ranged from early teens to the early forties.
The domain of the Center has been clearly recognized by
community and school authorities within Oakland County
through both financial and public support. It is the only
organization of its type in the county and is serving as the
model for other programs about to Open in several Oakland
County cities.

An unstated goal of any organization is self-

perpetuation. In order to carry out this goal the

 

2James D. Thompson, Or anizations in Action (New
York: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, 1967) pp. 26F29, citing Sol
Levine and Paul E. White, "Exchange as a Conceptual Framework
for the Study of Interorganizational Relationships,”

Administrative Science Quarterl , Vol. 5, March, 1961, pp. 583-
01.

119

organization must be judged by those in contact with it as
Offering something desirable. The staff at the Center has
succeeded so far to carry out this goal. They would not
be able to do so if they had adOpted a formal, pyramid type
of structure. The informality that has been develOped allows
for a free flowing peer directed ”structured“ program to
succeed in the eyes Of its clientele.

Question 5: Did those reSpondents who reported

a successful experience substantially
change their life styles?

 

The older reSpondents showed the greatest change
in their life styles. They had been deeply involved in
drug usage or their social difficulties. Their sense Of
alienation before becoming involved at the Center was very
severe.' They reported that it had been difficult to change
because of their deep involvement in the “counter culture”
they had joined. The life style they had turned to had been
built upon a strong rejection toward the conventions of home,
formal education or the world of work that most adults had
accepted.

Their involvement at the Center firmly led them to
believe that they could straighten out the problems that had
led them to drug usage and alienation from society. There
has been a substantial change toward better parental rela-
tionships and began to work out a better acceptance of formal

education.

120

The younger graduates have been the group that has
been most active in attempting to carry the beliefs and
program format of the Center into their communities. They
have not been entirely successful, but have succeeded in
making their peers and school administrators aware of the
existance of the Center and its goals.

While these behavioral changes, as covert as they
are, stand out, it became apparent that there were also
equally as substantial attitudinal changes. The reSpondents
expressed clearly defined changes in their belief systems
toward a better relationship with society.

It is still too early to claim that the immediate
change in life styles of the reSpondents will be permanent.
The early indications are that SO far there has been a
positive change. There was clear indication from the
respondents that the positive change in their life styles
came from both within themselves and from the support they
received at the Center. They continually pointed to peer
association in a group Situation as the procedure that
helped clarify the possible approaches they could take to
solve their social problems.

Question 6: What do youth who failed to

complete the program cite as

the reason for their leaving
the Center?

121

The peOple who left the Center before completing
all phases Of the program, including graduation, Offered a
variety of broad reasons for their action. These reasons
ranged from a feeling that they had received poor orienta-
tion, to dissatisfaction with the type and amount of help
given. Several reSpondentS were not firmly convinced as to
the need to change their current life style.

Most withdrawal from the program occured during
the Prescription phase. The reSpondents who left at this
time eXpressed an underlying dissatisfaction with the way
they felt that the groups were structured. The constant
probing by the staff was interpreted by them to be a search
for evidence that would justify existance of the program at
the unfortunate expense of the participant.

Several other respondents left after feeling that
a particular group member was lying or exaggerating his
problems. They saw no reason to remain in ”rap sessions"
where the staff would not, or could not, separate truth
from falsehood.

All of the drop-out respondents cited that the
Center had effected them enough to curtail their drug
usage to some extent and to re-think some of their problems.
In several instances graduation was the only step they had
failed to achieve. They refused to attend the graduation

because they felt that a commitment was a personal thing,

 

 

122

not to be shared at a mass public diaplay.

Thus the drOp-outs cited several reasons for their
not remaining with the program. It cannot be verified at
this time whether the partial acceptance of the commitment
fostered at the Center has been firmly held, or whether
completion of the program would have made a significant

change in their attitudes and/Or behavior.

Summary
This Case Study examined the Oakland Community

College Center For Drug Studies through the field techniques
of interview and limited participant Observation. The
interviews were based upon a set of exploratory questions
which were used to determine whether the individuals who
have been involved at the Center benefited from their
participation.

In general, the reSpondents indicated that they
did benefit from their participation. The graduates cited
that both the organization and the human support system
within the Center, through the use of peer group association
and influence, had a positive effect upon their self-worth
and life styles.

The drOp-Outs also felt the effect of what the
staff was attempting to accomplish by citing that their

life styles had shown some change. These changes ranged

123

from partial curtailment of illicit drug usage, to a complete
commitment of drug abstinence working upon their individual

problems even if they had quit the program.

Implications of the Study

This study has attempted to supplement the litera-
ture pertaining to structured peer directed drug abatement/
social problem programs. The philOSOphy of this organization
has been adapted by several communities and school systems
in the tri-county area. Personnel from these school systems
have been trained at the Center and are currently examining
the educational and social practice in their schools to see
what changes can be implanted in order to better communicate
with a larger portion of their students.

It appears that fear tactics and fact presentation
do not resolve the drug issue. If schools are going to
successfully confront this problem, educators may have to
change their attitudes and accept drug usage as a fact of
life. It also appears that social problems such as drug
usage cannot be eradicated. But, youth can be guided to
alternative non-drug oriented "highs" that can be achieved
without having to turn to chemicals.

Few teachers and administrators, to this date,
have been trained to understand the problems that lead to

either drug usage or alienation. They are also not equipped

 

any. ‘51.. ' u.

124

in the conventional classroom or school to cOpe with indi-
vidual problems or crises as they arise, especially if they
are drug related.

Drug usage is currently a teen-age phenomenon. It
has become part of the growing up process Of many of today's
youth. Whatever the causes, they know as much about drugs
and their dangers as some of their instructors.

The subject-oriented school offers little chance
for adolescents to discuss problems that are part of their
own growing process. They are faced with issues that must
be examined in depth, but they must rely upon teachers or
counselors who have time only to treat them superficially.
By current state law and school codes schools cannot provide
treatment facilities. All that can be Offered is the limited
help given by counselors and social workers.

During the years that this researcher has served
as line administrator in a public school, coordinator for
a community drug abuse prevention program in a major sub-
urban city and an educational consultant, he has seen a
variety of drug prevention programs that have been introduced
in the Detroit metrOpOlitan area. Each school system in the
area followed primarily the same approach. They initially
introduced system-wide programs of facts and scare tactics,

followed by films and Speakers. Not only were the teachers

125

and administrators untrained in knowledge concerning drugs,
but they also attempted to fit their new programs into the
current SOOpe of curriculum.

Most schools made no investigation into the prob-
lems that led their students to drug usage. No mention was
made of peer influence, the social problems that youth faced,
or the Spread of drug usage from inner city adults to sub-
urban youth. Instruction was primarily accomplished through

class sessions or school wide assemblies without an attempt

lwum 1 mmumumm‘g-nfi
."
t.

to provide individual help. Since there was no place in the
curriculum for the develOpment of alternatives, teachers
continued to look at their ”teaching” of drug abuse in the
same manner they taught anything else.

While schools were experimenting with different
types of approaches, communities within Oakland County began
to develOp programs of their own. Several of the community
based programs were co-Sponsored by the school districts in
which they were located, but none became an integral part
of the school program. The community program this researcher
develOped was representative of how a program could not be
integrated into a school system, even though much of the
financial and moral support came from school administration.

In every case these programs became informational,
attempted to open drOp-in centers, crisis centers, or Opened

telephone hot lines for the youth in their communities.

126

There was little cooperation between programs, as they vied
for money from the County to continue or expand their influ—
ence.

Gradually, several of the communities found that
their efforts were not reaching their youth. It seemed that
instead of staying in their own communities, these young
peOple were going out to the Center For Drug Studies for help.
Thus community leaders in several cities began to contact Dr.
Jalkanen to find out how they could adapt their programs to
fit his model.

The type of organization develOped at the Center
For Drug Studies offers an alternative to strict, subject-
oriented schools, where cognative instruction is offered. It
allows for the support that youth cannot get in their regular
school situation.3

The large influx of youth to the Center For Drug
Studies vividly Shows that the basic answers to their prob-
lems are not being provided elsewhere. The staff attempts,
through their peer grouping, a significant alternative to

the current social structure that is being primarily created

 

3An intensive study of the influence of schools and
society upon youth who have problems may be found in Kenneth
Keniston, Th3 Uncommitted: Alienated Youth ip American
SOCiet . OE. Cite. ppe 2-20ff0

127

by the participants themselves. What is being practiced by
these groups is a form of intervention, where alternatives
to a current way of life are examined.

One significant success of the Center For Drug
Studies that can be adapted to school situations is the ability
of a staff to develOp a youth-run organization. This would
help to define the problems fellow students are having at
school. The concept would not only be used with the drug
pOpulation, but could be expanded to help develOp alterna-
tives for students who feel alienated from the school struc-
ture.

This Spread of peer group efforts to positively
affect the student culture raises several possibilities for
future approaches school personnel can take. In order for
youth to reach other youth in an organized, concerted way,
areas would have to be provided within schools for student-
run meetings where students can serve their fellow youth.

It is hoped that this study has succeeded in adding
pertinent information to the existing literature concerning
organizations involved in peer oriented and peer directed

drug and social problem rehabilitation.

128

Recommendations for
Future Research

Within the limitations of this study, the following
recommendations are warranted:

1. Since this study was made covering the period of
1971-1972, a follow up in 3 years should be made
of the graduates and drop-outs of the first year
of the Center For Drug Studies to determine if
they had continued their commitment.

2. A continuous study Should be conducted with all
future graduates and drop-outs.

3. This study should be replicated in other Centers
that Operate with similar models.

4. A Similar study should be undertaken in those
school districts whose staffs have undergone
training at the Center to discover whether
concepts they learned here are being put into
practice and to what degree has success been

accomplished.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, L. Annette. "Introduction and Overview,“ Account-
ability in Drug Education. Washington, D.C.: The
Drug Abuse Council, Inc., 1973.

Backstrom, Charles H., and Hursh, Gerald D. Survey Research.
Chicago: Northwestern University Press, 1963.

Baker, Richard J. "Drug Education: IS it Doing Any Good?",
Ohio Schools, L, November, 1972.

Barnard, Chester I. Function pf the Executive. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938.

Becker, Howard S. “Interviewing Medical Students,“ American
Journal pf Sociolo , 2, September, 1956.

"Problems of Inference and Proof in Participant
Observation", Qualitative Methodolo , ed. by
William J. Filstead. Chicago: Markham Publishing
Co., 1970.

Benny, Mark, and Hughes, Everett C. ”Of Sociology and the
Intgrview." American Journal pf Sociolo , July,
195 .

Blau, Peter M. Bureaurac ip Modern Society. New York:
Random House, i9 6.

Blumer, Herbert. "Methodological Principles of Empirical
Science," Sociological Methods, ed. by Norman
Denzin. Chicago: University of California,
Aldine Publishing Co., 1971.

. "Sociological Implications Of the Thought of
George Herbert Mead." American Journal pf Sociolo ,
LXXI, 1966.

. ”The World of Youthful Drug Use.” Addiction Center

Pro'ect Report. Berkley, California: School of
Criminology, university Of California, 1967.

129

131

Oakland County Board of Commissioners. What Can You 23
About the Drugs ip_lour Community?. Pontiac,
Michigan: Oakland County Board of Commissioners,

1970.

Richardson, Stephen A., Dobrenwand, Barbara S., and Klein,
David. Interviewing. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,

1956.

Rosenthal, Mitchell S., and Mothner, Ira. Dru s Parents,
and Children: The Three Wa Connection. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Co., 197 u

Rothney, John W. M. Methods of Stud in the Individual Child.
Waltham, Mass: BlaiSdeII Publishifig Co., 1968.

Salisbury, Winfield W. and Fertig. Francis R. "The Myth of
Alienation and Teen Age Drug Use: The Coming of Age
in Mass Society," California School Health, Winter,

1969.

Scott, Richard W. "Field Methods in the Study of Organiza-
tions." Handbook pf_0rgmnizations. Edited by James
March. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally and Co., 1965.

Simmons, J. L. and Winograd, Barry. It's Ha enin . Santa
Barbara, Calif. : Marc-Laird PuEIications, 1966.

Smart, Reginald G., Fejer, Dianne and White, Jim. ”The
Extent of Drug Use in MetrOpOlitan Toronto Schools.”
Toronto: Addictions, Spring, 1971.

Thompson, James D. Organizatigns ip Action. New York:
Mc Graw Hill Publishing Co., 1967.

Van Dalen, Deobold. Understandin Educational Research. New
York: Mc Graw HiII Publishing Co., 19 .

Westman. Wesley C. The Drug idemic: What 13 Means and How
pp Combat it. New York: The Diai Press, 1970.

Whyte, William F. Street Corner Society. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Yablonsky. Lewis. The Tunnel Back: Synanon. New York:
Macmillan, 1965.

Yardley, Quintin. Another Book pp_ u s. Saint Catherines,
Ontario, Canada: Brock Un versity Student's Onion,
Ines. 1969s