Provo Experiment

Theory and Process

The Provo program was theoretically guided. Delinquency was viewed as resulting from the lack of legitimate opportunities available to lower-class youth. These youth were believed to share the same desires (e.g., money, social status) as nondelinquent, upper-class youth but were less able to achieve those goals through legitimate means (e.g., employment, family support). To achieve the goals, the lower-class youth turned to a variety of illegitimate means, including involvement in delinquency. Eventually, a social system of delinquent groups was spawned from this pool of youth who had conventional goals but no legitimate opportunities.

To counter this system, the Provo program provided youth with legitimate employment opportunities in various city and county capacities (e.g., parks, streets). The employment opportunities were intended to provide delinquent youth with the resources (e.g., money, skills) necessary to achieve their goals without returning to a delinquent lifestyle.

Additional elements were also incorporated. With the exception of the employment component, however, a lack of formal structure was a centerpiece of the program. The program was guided by unstructured activities and a reliance on group-centered change within the peer group. Youth who entered the program were immediately exposed to an environment without structure other than mandated daily attendance at the program grounds and expectations of hard work on the job. Youth were given the option of attending group counseling sessions, which consisted of the youth and adult counselors sitting, possibly talking, but with no predetermined focus.

This lack of formal structure served an important function. Individual youth became anxious at the unfamiliar lack of structure, eventually turning to the peer group for support. Under the theoretical framework on which the project was developed, the peer group was deemed the primary mechanism of delinquent involvement. Youth were believed to engage in delinquent activities as part of their involvement in a social system that included values, beliefs, and rationalizations supporting such activities. Consequently, to reduce youth's involvement in delinquent activities, the social system supporting such activities needed to be replaced with an equally viable peer group that did not favor such activities. Once the youth involved in the program began looking to one another for support, the groundwork was set for creating a new prosocial peer group.

Program administrators reported that the youth responded well to this unstructured environment. While the youth were given considerable latitude in determining the course of the program, an informal structure became evident quite early. When adults involved in the program played an inactive role by refusing to answer questions posed by the youth or offer any direction for the session, the initial counseling session amounted to nothing more than the youth silently sitting around. However, when the counseling session was held the next day, the youth became uncomfortable at the silence. Following a suggestion by an adult in attendance, the youth began talking about the circumstances and consequences of their prior delinquent activities. As time progressed, the youth became more open about their experiences, eventually realizing some sort of group cohesion with other members and resulting in the positive peer group intended by the program.

...