Emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), as defined by Cook, Gresham, Kern, Barreras, Thorton, and Crews (2008), refers the full spectrum of students with social, emotional, and behavioral problems that do and do not receive special education (p. 132). The problematic behaviors can be of an internalizing or an externalizing characteristic--with children experiencing bouts of mild or clinical depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder (CD), oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and even non-clinical externalizing behaviors--and, largely, educational programs of the past have been unsuccessful in helping these children thrive (Cook et al., 2008; Jull, 2008). Children with EBD often have behavioral problems that lead to marked impairments in the academic performance (Nordess, 2005). On average, children with EBD receive lower grades and fail more courses with a drop-out rate exceeding 50% (Sacks & Kern, 2008). As of 2009, it was reported that students with EBD comprise 8% of all students with disabilities and the numbers are continuing to rise. Cook and colleagues (2008) confirm and expand on this claim by reporting the children with EBD are at a greater risk for poor school adjustment, for engaging in delinquent behaviors, and for adult psychopathology. This often leads the family to seek mental health services in the community. Creating a more pleasant and successful academic career is important, as children with EBD experience less than desirable social and economic outcomes, higher rates of unemployment, criminality, substance abuse, and aberrant sexual behavior (Sacks & Kern, 2008). Often times, the mental health system and the school system engage in treatment programs for these students. In Pennsylvania, this is referred to as behavioral health rehabilitative services (BHRS). Behavior Analysis & Therapy Partners (BATP) is a for-profit behavioral health agency whose clinicians serve a highly diverse population with respect to age (pre-school to elderly), diagnoses, presenting problems, and socio-economic status, including those with EBD. Depending on assignment, its BHRS division delivers treatment to children, many of whom have EBD, in the home, community, and/or school system. The BHRS are administered through a behavioral consulting process in which a behavioral specialist consultant (BSC) works with a consultee (parent, teacher, or other socializing agent) to provide services to advance a formal problem-solving model that uses applied behavior analysis (ABA) intervention specification within a targeted behavior-ecology context (Bergan & Kratchowill, 1990). The BSC helps the child indirectly by affecting the consultee. Conversely, BATP offers the services of a mobile therapist (MT) and/or a therapeutic staff support (TSS) intervene in the child's environment directly. According to Cautilli, Rosenwasser, and Clarke (2000), the MT affects behavior change by using behavioral therapy with both the individual child and the family while the TSS is a direct-care staff person who affects behavior change by providing proactive behavioral management and emotional support to the child. Both the TSS and the MT follow the treatment plan written by the BSC. BATP, like all BHRS, takes a family-focused approach in which both the families of the children and the children themselves are considered partners and experts with regards to the development and evaluation of services (Andersen-Butcher & Ashton, 2004). For BATP, this means the implementation of a parent training model and a use of siblings in the treatment, and the conjoing collaboration of the family, child, and treatment team on goal-setting. Rosen, Heckman, Carro, and Burchard (1994) found that youths who receive wraparound services appear to be satisfied with the services and are less likely to act out when they feel involved and feel that their contingency-oriented care is unconditional. …

About 5% of juvenile offenders are responsible for the majority of crimes committed by juveniles (Moffit, 1993; Mulder, Brand, Bullens, & Van Marle, 2010; Schumacher & Kurz, 2000). This group continues with their criminal careers into adulthood and evolves into committing more serious offenses (Mulder et al., 2010; Moffitt & Caspi, 2001). Conduct problems are observed early in this group of adolescents (Patterson, 2002). In fact, some of the initial behavioral difficulties are manifested and observed in children as young as two or three years of age (Keenan, 2001; Loeber and Farrington, 2000; Nee & Ellis, 2005). The peer groups of these children are exposed to their deviant attitudes and behaviors and can show a related increase in their own deviancy. Deviancy training often occurs through deviant talk and the bonding and reinforcement of such talk in other children (Snyder, Stoolmiller, Patterson, Schrepferman, Oeser, Johnson, & Soetaert, 2003). Nee and Ellis (2005) purported that for treatment to be effective, it needs to be responsive to the evolving needs of the child and, later, the adolescent. It is important that interventions for antisocial behavior be dictated by the needs of the clients and be provided at a level of intensity corresponding to the level of disruptive behaviors present. As the problems are solidified, later programs need to target the function of the antisocial behavior and often can be very intensive (e.g., Thoder, Hesky, & Cautilli, 2010). Often, the youth with more ingrained antisocial thoughts and behaviors are placed in residential treatment programs by adolescents (Barker, 1998;Underwood, Baggett-Talbott, Mosholder, & Von Dresner, 2008 ). Many of the evidenced based treatments that exist in Residential Treatment Centers (RTCs) have been normed on groups with less intense problems then residential youth (Underwood, Baggett-Talbott, Mosholder, & Von Dresner, 2008). In addition, the opportunities for youth in residential facilities to learn inappropriate behavior is high (Barker, 1998). These factors may contribute to why overall, the U.S. Surgeon General Report (1999) residential programs to be ineffective. Non-behaviorally based residential programs have shown a failure to reduce aggressive and antisocial behavior (Joshi & Rosenberg, 1997). In longitudinal study, by year seven, children discharged from publicly funded RTCs in six states in the United States were either readmitted to mental health facilities (about 45%) or incarcerated in a correctional setting (about 30%) (Greenbaum et al.,1998). That makes the rate of failure approximately 75%. The need for effective residential treatment is critical. The use of behavioral principles in more intensive programs have been found to reduce aggressive and disruptive behavior (Chen & Ma, 2007). When taken into a psychologically informed context, contingency management systems can have a powerful effect (Andrew, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendereau C Lipsey, 1999; Pealer & Latessa, 2004; Roush, 2008). …