EQUIP peer-helping programme

1. Introduction

Version followed: the residential EQUIP programme of Gibbs, Potter & Goldstein (1995), with its Implementation Guide (Potter, Gibbs & Goldstein, 2001), as described in the Dutch/Flemish/US implementation-integrity studies (Helmond et al., 2014, 2015). The 30 equipment-meeting titles are taken from the school version, Teaching Adolescents to Think and Act Responsibly: The EQUIP Approach (DiBiase, Gibbs, Potter & Blount), because the 1995 book's own session list is not drawn on [uncertain: the residential titles may differ slightly]. Not followed: the adult version (Responsible Adult Culture, Potter, Gibbs, Robbins & Langdon) and the Spanish school version EQUIPAR.

EQUIP is a multi-component group programme, not a single therapy: a Positive Peer Culture (PPC) mutual-help group (Vorrath & Brendtro, 1985) into which a cognitive-behavioural skills curriculum adapted from Aggression Replacement Training (ART) is inserted. It is written for antisocial or behaviour-disordered youth (roughly 12 to early 20s) in juvenile correctional and residential units; school and intellectual-disability adaptations exist. [source: Helmond et al. 2015; EUDA Xchange; Kent SAFER-IDD]

Theory of change: antisocial youth have three linked limitations (the "three Ds"): delays in moral judgement (immature, egocentric reasoning), distortions (self-serving thinking errors that excuse harm) and deficiencies in social skills. First the group is motivated to take responsibility for helping its members (a positive peer culture in which helping is high-status); then it is equipped with the skills to help: anger management and correcting thinking errors, social skills, and mature moral decision-making. Youth change by helping others and being helped, and the peer group's mature majority confronts members' immature reasoning ("disequilibration"). [source: Research Press TOC; Helmond et al. 2015; Gibbs 2003; OJP abstract of Gibbs et al. 1995]

2. Framework

Overall format [source: Helmond et al. 2015; Helmond et al. 2014; EUDA Xchange]

Closed or semi-open small living-unit group with one trained group leader ("trainer" in Dutch studies, "coach"/group leader in US texts); method coaches support trainers. Group size is not stated in the sources; PPC groups are traditionally about 7 to 9 youths of the same sex [uncertain].
At least 3 mutual help meetings + 2 equipment meetings per week; each meeting 1 to 1.5 hours (Dutch integrity standard: minimum 60 minutes). Meetings are "sacred": they are not cancelled or shortened for unit convenience.
30 equipment meetings in three strands of 10: anger management and correcting thinking errors; social skills; social decision making. Interleaved, the curriculum takes about 10 weeks; one way is to split the social skills strand across both weekly equipment meetings and pair it with the other two strands.
A shared language (problem names and thinking-error labels) is used by youth and all unit staff around the clock, not only in group.

Phase 1: Motivating (building the helping culture)

Goal: establish a group that owns the task of helping its members; introduce problem names, thinking errors and the self-monitoring log; turn negative leaders towards helping.
Format: mutual help meetings only, for the first few weeks. [source: OJP abstract, Gibbs et al. 2008]
Move on when (criteria are [synthesis]; the sources say only "after a few weeks"): most members report problems and thinking errors honestly in their own words; members can name a thinking error in another member's account; the group can complete a meeting without the leader taking over; a positive majority is visible in group decisions.

Phase 2: Equipping (skills curriculum within the helping group)

Goal: give the group concrete tools so its help is competent.
Format: equipment meetings replace mutual help meetings on one or two days a week; mutual help continues on the other days. [source: OJP abstract of Gibbs et al. 1995]
Strand order within a week is flexible; within each strand the 10 sessions are sequential (each builds on the previous). [source: Research Press TOC]

Phase 3: Consolidation and ending [synthesis; the school version has a "Final Session and Conclusion" (Research Press TOC)]

After the 30 sessions, continue mutual help meetings; use equipment skills in them (e.g. ask which skill a member could have used).
Criteria for completion or discharge are set by the facility, not the programme; useful markers: member helps others unprompted, self-reports problems before being confronted, uses skill steps in real incidents on the unit.

Meeting structures (phases checked in the MIPIE integrity instrument) [source: Helmond et al. 2014]

Mutual help: introduction → problem and thinking-error reporting → awarding the meeting → problem and thinking-error analysis and resolution → summary.
Anger management: introduction → introducing content → instructing content → summary.
Social skills: introduction → introducing the skill → showing (modelling) → trying → discussing → practising → summary.
Social decision making: introduction → introducing the problem → cultivating mature morality → remediating moral developmental delay → consolidating mature morality → summary.

3. Guiding principles

[source: Gibbs 2003; Gibbs et al. 1996 abstract; Helmond et al. 2014, 2015; OJP abstracts; where marked, synthesis]

Help, not "being helped". The group's job is helping its members; frame every task as "how can the group help", never "what's wrong with you". Practical: address requests to the group's helping role.
Accountability without permissiveness. Youth hold real responsibility, but harmful behaviour is never excused. Practical: you give responsibility back, but you never let a harmful act be relabelled as acceptable.
Positive potential. Each youth is assumed capable of mature reasoning and helping. Practical: look for and use the mature voice already in the room, including in the youth you are confronting.
Use the positive majority. Even antisocial groups usually reach mature majority positions. Practical: build from the majority's mature reasons before tackling immature ones (SDM Phase 2 before Phase 3).
Disequilibration through peers, not lectures. Change comes when a youth's immature reasoning meets a better peer argument. Practical: ask questions and set members against the reasoning, not against the person; avoid preaching.
Common language. Problem names and thinking-error labels are shared and used by all staff. Practical: label a behaviour with the agreed term on the unit the same way it is labelled in group.
Meetings are sacred. Practical: protect frequency and duration; cancellations erode the culture faster than any single bad meeting.
Social perspective-taking. Most interventions ask the youth to take the victim's or other person's view. Practical: a default question is "what was it like for the other person?"
Confront with concern. Confrontation is a form of caring. Practical: pair every challenge with a stated reason why the group cares about this member [source: strategy named in Gibbs et al. 1996 abstract; meaning synthesis].
Stay with the structure. Each meeting type has fixed phases; integrity is the vehicle of effect. Practical: use the phase list as your in-session checklist and self-rate after the meeting (the SDM leader checklist does this) [source: Gibbs 2003; Helmond et al. 2014].
Staff culture mirrors youth culture. Part 2 of the 1995 book covers developing a positive staff culture. Practical: staff model helping, own their mistakes and avoid power struggles [source: OJP abstract; practical meaning synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

All example language is illustrative unless quoted with a citation. The 1995 manual's scripts, logs, worksheets and problem situations are copyrighted: obtain them from the publisher (Research Press) and use the steps below as orientation, not replacement.

4A. Shared language and self-monitoring (used in every meeting and on the unit)

A1. Problem names

Purpose: give youth and staff a common, non-shaming vocabulary for the behaviour to be changed, so that members can report and spot problems quickly. EQUIP uses a list of 12 potential problems inherited from PPC. [source: Kent SAFER-IDD; Helmond et al. 2014]
The list (from PPC/EQUIP literature; check against the manual) [uncertain]: Low Self-Image; Inconsiderate of Self; Inconsiderate of Others; Authority Problem; Misleads Others; Easily Misled; Aggravates Others; Easily Angered; Stealing; Alcohol or Drug Problem; Lying; Fronting (putting on a false front or act).
Steps: (1) Introduce the list in the first mutual help meetings, one or two names at a time, with a plain definition and an everyday example from the unit. (2) Ask each youth to pick the names that fit their own history. (3) From then on, reports and staff feedback use these names. [synthesis]
Example language (illustrative): "Which of the problem names fits what happened at lunch?" / "You called it 'joking'. Which problem name would the group give it?"
Watch for: youth using names as insults ("you're Easily Angered"); reframe to describing behaviour. It is working when youth name their own problems first and the names appear spontaneously in unit talk.

A2. Thinking errors (self-serving cognitive distortions)

Purpose: identify the thoughts that let a youth harm others without guilt. Four categories [source: EUDA Xchange; GHAPS handout; Helmond et al. 2014]:
- Self-Centred: my views, wants and feelings are the only ones that count, or count most.
- Minimizing/Mislabeling: treating harm as no big deal or calling it something acceptable.
- Assuming the Worst: reading hostile intent into others, expecting the worst outcome, believing no one (including me) can change.
- Blaming Others: placing responsibility for my act on others, a group or circumstances.
- Gibbs treats Self-Centred as the primary distortion and the other three as secondary ones that rationalise it [uncertain: from Gibbs's wider writing, not stated in the sources].
Steps: (1) Teach the four labels with a short example each. (2) For any reported problem, ask which thinking error came before or with the act. (3) Ask for a replacement, responsible thought. (4) Formalised in anger management session 3 (A-M3 below).
Example language (illustrative): "You said 'he had it coming'. What thinking error is that?" / "What would a responsible thought have been at that moment?"
Watch for: labelling by rote with no replacement thought. Working when youth catch their own error in the moment and when others' errors are pointed out in group (a responsiveness item in integrity ratings).

A3. Problem and Thinking Errors Log

Purpose: daily self-monitoring that feeds the reporting phase of mutual help. [source: named in Gibbs et al. 1996 abstract; format unknown]
Steps: (1) Youth records each problem episode: when, what happened, problem name, thinking error, what they did after. (2) Staff prompt entries after incidents on the unit. (3) The log is brought to mutual help and read from in reporting. [synthesis; use the manual's form]
Example language (illustrative): "Before tonight's group, put the hallway argument in your log, with the thinking error."
Watch for: empty logs (treat as a problem for the group, not a staff sanction); logs naming only others' faults (Blaming Others). Working when entries become honest and self-initiated.

4B. Mutual help meeting

Run at least three times a week, about 60–90 minutes. Phases from the MIPIE integrity checklist [source: Helmond et al. 2014]; steps within phases [synthesis] unless cited.

B1. Introduction and review

Purpose: open the meeting, link to the last meeting, restate the group's helping task.
Steps: (1) Leader reviews the previous meeting's content (an adherence item) and asks how the member who had the meeting is doing. (2) Restate ground rules (one speaker, no put-downs, what is said stays). (3) Hand the meeting to the group.
Example language (illustrative): "Last time the group helped Dion with his Authority Problem. Dion, how did it go with staff this week? Group, what did you see?"
Watch for: the leader monologuing. Keep it under five minutes.

B2. Problem and thinking-error reporting

Purpose: every member reports problems and thinking errors since the last meeting, building honesty and giving the group material. [source: Helmond et al. 2014; Kent SAFER-IDD]
Steps: (1) Go round: each member names their problem(s) with the problem name and the thinking error, briefly. (2) Members may add problems they saw in another member ("checking" the report). (3) No problem-solving yet; just collect.
Example language (illustrative): "Report like we practised: what happened, the problem name, the thinking error." / "Does anyone see something Marcus left out?"
Watch for: "I had no problems" from everyone (a sign of a negative code of silence: see Section 5); detailed storytelling that eats the meeting. Working when reports are short, owned and accurate.

B3. Awarding the meeting

Purpose: the group decides which member's problem most needs the group's help today; one member receives the meeting. [source: Helmond et al. 2014]
Steps: (1) Ask the group who needs the meeting most and why. (2) Let members argue briefly; the decision should rest on seriousness and readiness to work, not popularity. (3) The group confirms the choice; the chosen member agrees to work. (4) The leader intervenes only if the choice dodges an obvious serious problem. [synthesis]
Example language (illustrative): "Who does the group think needs the meeting tonight, and why that person?"
Watch for: always awarding to the same low-status member, or avoiding the most powerful member; rotating by turn rather than need. Working when the group awards to serious problems, including those of leaders.

B4. Problem and thinking-error analysis and resolution

Purpose: the group helps the awarded member understand the problem, its thinking errors and its effect on others, and agree a plan. [source: Helmond et al. 2014]
Steps: (1) Member tells the full episode. (2) Group asks questions to get the facts and the thinking behind them. (3) Group identifies the thinking errors and the problem names, then the impact on the victim or others. (4) Group asks the member for a responsible alternative thought and action. (5) Agree a concrete plan, with named members who will help on the unit. (6) Leader stays mostly in the background, prompting the group with questions rather than solving it [uncertain: leader role in this phase from PPC tradition, not stated in the sources].
Example language (illustrative): "Group, what questions do you need answered to help him?" / "Who was hurt by this, and how?" / "What can he do differently, and who will help him do it?"
Watch for: pile-on or shaming; members colluding with excuses; the member "agreeing" without engagement. Working when the member re-tells the episode with the other person's view included and peers volunteer real help.

B5. Summary

Purpose: the leader consolidates what was learned and praises helping. [source: Helmond et al. 2014; content synthesis]
Steps: (1) Summarise the awarded problem, the errors identified, and the plan. (2) Name specific helpful acts by members during the meeting. (3) Note any unaddressed problems to hold for the next meeting or the unit.
Example language (illustrative): "Tonight the group helped Kay see the Blaming Others in her story. Jordan, asking her how her sister felt really helped. The plan is..."
Watch for: generic praise. Specific praise of helping behaviour is the core reinforcer of the culture.

4C. Culture-building strategies (used across all meetings)

Named as PPC/EQUIP strategies in Gibbs, Potter, Goldstein & Brendtro (1996) [source: OJP abstract]. The article itself is not drawn on, so the descriptions below are [synthesis] based on the names and the PPC tradition (Vorrath & Brendtro, 1985) [uncertain].

C1. Reversing responsibility

Purpose: return to the youth or group the problems they try to hand to staff.
Steps: when a youth asks staff to fix, judge or rescue, turn the question back to the group's or the youth's responsibility.
Example language (illustrative): "What does the group think should happen here?" / "You're asking me to sort out your fight with him. How can the group help you two sort it?"
Watch for: reversing in a way that abandons a youth facing real danger or bullying; safety issues remain staff responsibility.

C2. Confronting with concern

Purpose: challenge harmful behaviour while making clear it is done out of care.
Steps: state what you saw; state why it matters for the youth or others; state that the group wants them to do well.
Example language (illustrative): "I'm saying this because I don't want you back here next year: what you did to Sam was Aggravates Others."
Watch for: confrontation turning into hostility; coach members to confront in the same way.

C3. Checking

Purpose: keep the group honest and attentive by asking members to check what was said or done.
Steps: ask the group to verify a report, a claim or whether a member's response was helpful.
Example language (illustrative): "Does the group buy that account?" / "Check it: was that comment helping or hurting?"
Watch for: checking that becomes interrogation.

C4. Relabeling

Purpose: strip the glamour from antisocial acts and attach status to helping (e.g. bullying named as weakness or cowardice, helping named as strength).
Steps: whenever a youth describes harm in prestigious terms, restate it in accurate, unflattering terms; describe helpful acts as strong and mature. Also the content of anger management session 1.
Example language (illustrative): "Picking on the new kid isn't tough. It takes no strength to hurt someone smaller. Standing up for him would take strength."
Watch for: relabelling the person rather than the act.

C5. Turning bullies into positive leaders

Purpose: use a high-status negative youth's influence for helping rather than fighting it head-on.
Steps: acknowledge their influence; challenge them to use it to help; give them visible helping tasks; praise publicly when they do.
Example language (illustrative): "You've got a lot of influence in here. The group needs someone strong to help Lee stay out of fights. Can you take that on?"
Watch for: the youth using the role to control others; monitor and check with the group.

4D. Equipment strand 1: Anger management and correcting thinking errors (10 sessions)

Session titles: school version [source: Research Press TOC]. Fixed phase structure for every session: introduction (review last session and log) → introduce content → instruct content (varies) → summary [source: Helmond et al. 2014]. The strand links distorted thinking to anger and teaches control and reduction of anger [source: Helmond et al. 2015]. The content inside each session below is [synthesis] built from the session title and the ART anger-control lineage; follow the manual where it differs.

AM1. Evaluating and relabeling anger and aggression

Purpose: shift how the group values anger and aggression: from strength and respect to weakness and loss of control; motivate interest in control.
Steps: (1) Ask members to list what they gain and lose from aggressive acts. (2) Weigh short-term gains against costs to self and victims. (3) Relabel: aggression as being controlled by others, control as strength. (4) Close with the idea that the next sessions give tools.
Example language (illustrative): "If someone can push your button and make you swing, who's really in control?"
Watch for: bravado and laughter; use the positive majority. Working when members start voicing costs themselves.

AM2. The mind's key role in anger; monitoring mind and body; reducing anger

Purpose: show that anger follows from what you tell yourself about an event, not the event alone; teach early-warning body signals.
Steps: (1) Take a recent incident; separate the event, the thoughts (mind), the body signals and the consequences. (2) Members list their own body cues (heat, fists, jaw, heart rate). (3) Introduce the idea that catching mind and body early allows reducing anger. (4) Homework: log one incident with event, thought, body cue.
Example language (illustrative): "Same bump in the hallway: one guy shrugs, one guy fights. What's different is in here [points to head]."
Watch for: youth insisting the event "made" them angry; return to the two-people-same-event contrast.

AM3. Monitoring and correcting thinking errors

Purpose: connect the four thinking errors to anger and practise replacing them.
Steps: (1) Review the four errors (A2). (2) Take members' logged anger incidents; identify the error in the angry thought. (3) Group generates an accurate, responsible replacement thought. (4) Practise saying the correction aloud.
Example language (illustrative): "'He's disrespecting me on purpose': which error? What else could be going on?"
Watch for: Assuming the Worst is usually the main fuel for reactive anger; Self-Centred and Blaming Others for instrumental aggression.

AM4. Relaxation techniques for reducing anger

Purpose: give physiological "reducers" to lower arousal quickly.
Steps: (1) Teach and practise in group: slow deep breathing, counting backwards, calming imagery [uncertain: specific reducers from ART lineage, not confirmed in the sources]. (2) Each member chooses one to use at their first body cue. (3) Role-play a provocation and have the member use the reducer.
Example language (illustrative): "When you feel your jaw lock, that's your signal: three slow breaths before anything else."
Watch for: giggling or refusal to try (normalise, keep practice short); youths with trauma may find eyes-closed imagery unsafe: offer eyes-open options [synthesis].

AM5. Self-talk: thinking ahead to consequences and Think of the Other Person (TOP)

Purpose: teach two powerful self-instructions: thinking ahead to what will happen if I act on anger, and TOP (taking the other person's perspective). [source: Research Press TOC for the techniques' names]
Steps: (1) Model aloud a provocation with thinking ahead ("If I hit him, I lose my home leave"). (2) Model TOP ("What's he going through? How would this look from his side?"). (3) Members rehearse both in role-plays of their own logged triggers.
Example language (illustrative): "Say it out loud first, then quietly: 'If I do this, then...' and 'What's it like for him?'"
Watch for: consequences only to self; push for consequences to others too, which feeds AM9.

AM6. Achieving constructive consequences

Purpose: move from not reacting to actively getting a good outcome when angry, e.g. by stating a concern calmly so the problem gets solved.
Steps: (1) Contrast destructive and constructive consequences of the same incident. (2) Teach a calm, specific, non-blaming statement of what you want. (3) Role-play. Links to social skill SS1 (Expressing a complaint constructively).
Example language (illustrative): "What outcome do you actually want here, and what would get you it?"
Watch for: constructive statements delivered with hostile tone; video or peer feedback on tone.

AM7. Self-evaluation

Purpose: teach youths to judge their own handling of anger afterwards and coach or reward themselves.
Steps: (1) After a role-play or real incident, member rates what they did well and what to improve. (2) Teach self-praise for success and self-coaching for next time. (3) Group checks the evaluation for honesty.
Example language (illustrative): "Grade yourself on that one. What went right? What would you do differently?"
Watch for: all-or-nothing self-ratings; build balanced appraisal.

AM8. Reversing

Purpose: have the youth look at their own part in provoking others' anger: how I aggravate others, and taking others' complaints about me seriously rather than reacting. [uncertain: meaning of "reversing" in this session inferred; compare C1]
Steps: (1) Ask members to identify how they provoke or aggravate others. (2) Role-play a peer's complaint about the member; member practises listening and owning their part. (3) Link to the problem name Aggravates Others.
Example language (illustrative): "Flip it: what did you do that got him heated?"
Watch for: reversal turning into self-blame for being victimised; reversing applies to one's own provocations.

AM9. Victims and victimizers

Purpose: connect members' aggression to the harm it causes victims; identify the thinking errors a victimizer uses. The integrity checklist asks whether the trainer has the group name the victimizer's thinking error. [source: Helmond et al. 2014]
Steps: (1) Present a victimisation scenario (or use members' experiences of being victims). (2) Group identifies the victimizer's thinking errors and the victim's experience. (3) Members connect this to times they were the victimizer. (4) Discuss repair.
Example language (illustrative): "What was the victimizer telling himself? What did the victim go through that night and the next week?"
Watch for: many members have been victims too; acknowledge it without letting it excuse their own victimising; watch for distress (see Section 5).

AM10. Grand review

Purpose: consolidate the whole anger strand into one sequence members can use.
Steps: (1) Members recall each tool in order: monitor mind and body, correct thinking errors, reduce, self-talk (thinking ahead, TOP), constructive consequences, self-evaluation, reversing, victim awareness. (2) Each member applies the full sequence to one real incident in role-play. (3) Group gives feedback.
Example language (illustrative): "Walk us through the whole chain on what happened Saturday, step by step."
Watch for: members who skip steps under pressure; assign that step as their focus in mutual help.

4E. Equipment strand 2: Social skills (10 sessions)

Skill titles: school version [source: Research Press TOC]. Each skill is broken into a short sequence of behavioural steps (skillstreaming tradition from ART) [source: Helmond et al. 2014, 2015]. The manual's own step lists are not drawn on; the step sequences under each skill below are [synthesis] and should be replaced by the manual's.

SS0. Teaching procedure for every skill

Purpose: turn each skill into practised behaviour. Phases [source: Helmond et al. 2014]: introduction → introducing the skill → showing (modelling) → trying → discussing → practising → summary.
Steps: (1) Introduce: define the skill, ask when members needed it. (2) Show: leader (ideally with a co-leader or a prepared youth) models the steps aloud on a realistic scene, including the "thinking" steps spoken aloud. (3) Try: a volunteer acts out the steps with a scene from their own life; the leader prompts steps as needed. (4) Discuss: group gives feedback step by step (which steps were done, how it felt for the other actor). (5) Practise: further members try, ideally every member once. (6) Summary and real-life assignment: each member names when they will use it before next session; report back in mutual help. [steps within phases: synthesis from the skillstreaming format]
Example language (illustrative): "Watch which steps I do, and especially what I say to myself." / "Group, which steps did Rae nail? Which ones did she skip?"
Watch for: role-plays played for laughs; keep scenes short and specific. Working when youth report using the skill on the unit.

SS1. Expressing a complaint constructively

Purpose: raise a grievance (e.g. with staff or a peer) without aggression. Use after AM6.
Steps (illustrative): calm down first; identify the problem and how you contributed; decide whom to tell and when; state the problem specifically and calmly; suggest a solution; acknowledge the other's view (TOP).
Example language (illustrative): "I've got a problem with how phone time was split today. Can we work out a fair way?"
Watch for: complaint turning into accusation.

SS2. Caring for someone who is sad or upset

Purpose: practise noticing and responding to another's distress (perspective-taking).
Steps (illustrative): notice signs; think whether and how to approach; ask and listen; show you care; offer help or company.
Example language (illustrative): "You seem down since the call. Want to talk, or just sit?"
Watch for: youths who mock this as weakness: relabel caring as strength.

SS3. Dealing constructively with negative peer pressure

Purpose: resist peer pressure to do harm.
Steps (illustrative): think about what the others want and why; think ahead to consequences for you and others; decide; state your choice clearly; suggest something else; walk away if needed.
Example language (illustrative): "Nah, I'm not doing that. I'm going to play ball, come if you want."
Watch for: links to problem name Easily Misled.

SS4. Keeping out of fights

Purpose: avoid physical confrontation.
Steps (illustrative): stop and calm down (reducers); think ahead to consequences; think of other ways out; choose and do the best one.
Example language (illustrative): "This isn't worth my level. I'm out."
Watch for: real safety threats on the unit; staff must act on them.

SS5. Helping others

Purpose: build the helping role at the centre of EQUIP.
Steps (illustrative): notice someone may need help; think about how to help; ask; help; check it helped.
Example language (illustrative): "Want me to go over the homework with you?"
Watch for: "help" used to control. Working when helping shows up in mutual help reports.

SS6. Preparing for a stressful conversation

Purpose: plan ahead for a difficult talk (court, family, staff).
Steps (illustrative): imagine the situation and your feelings; imagine the other's feelings (TOP); plan what to say; anticipate their response and yours; choose the best approach.
Example language (illustrative): "Before you see your mum Sunday, let's rehearse what you want to say and what she might say back."
Watch for: catastrophic predictions (Assuming the Worst).

SS7. Dealing constructively with someone angry at you

Purpose: respond to another's anger without escalating.
Steps (illustrative): listen openly; keep calm (reducers); think about their view; acknowledge it; respond with a calm statement or solution.
Example language (illustrative): "I hear you're angry about the remote. Tell me what happened from your side."
Watch for: members using this to dismiss legitimate anger at them (link to AM8 Reversing).

SS8. Expressing care and appreciation

Purpose: voice positive feelings appropriately.
Steps (illustrative): decide whether the person would like to know; choose time and place; say it in a friendly, specific way.
Example language (illustrative): "Thanks for backing me up in group yesterday. That meant a lot."
Watch for: embarrassment; practise brief, low-key versions first.

SS9. Dealing constructively with someone accusing you of something

Purpose: handle accusations without aggression or lying.
Steps (illustrative): stay calm; think about what was said and whether it is true (partly true?); if true, own it and repair; if not, explain calmly and suggest how to check.
Example language (illustrative): "I didn't take it. You can check with staff where I was at four."
Watch for: denial when it is true (Lying, Blaming Others).

SS10. Responding constructively to failure

Purpose: respond to a setback without giving up, blaming or lashing out.
Steps (illustrative): say what happened; consider why it happened, including your part; think what you could do differently; make a plan to try again.
Example language (illustrative): "I didn't get the job placement. Next time I'll prepare the interview questions with my mentor."
Watch for: Assuming the Worst ("I'll never make it") and Blaming Others.

4F. Equipment strand 3: Social decision making (mature moral judgement, 10 sessions)

Goal: move members from immature, self-centred moral reasoning to mature reasoning based on mutual relationships and others' perspectives. Each session uses a short written problem situation that usually has a responsible answer, though peer norms (e.g. against "ratting") make it feel like a dilemma; members answer the situation's questions beforehand (decision: positive, negative or can't decide, plus reasons). [source: Gibbs 2003; Helmond et al. 2014]

SDM0. Preparation and introduction

Steps: (1) Hand out the problem situation a day ahead; members circle decisions and write brief reasons. (2) Tally the group's decisions before the meeting so you know the positive majority and the dissenters. (3) Open with ground rules. [steps 1–2 from the standard SDM format: synthesis/uncertain; ground rules: Gibbs 2003]
Watch for: members who could not read the situation; read it aloud.

SDM1. Phase 1: Introduce the problem

Purpose: ensure everyone understands the situation and relates it to their life. [source: Gibbs 2003]
Steps: ask a member to state the problem; ask whether similar things have happened to members; note real-life parallels.
Example language: "Who can tell the group just what Jerry's problem is?" (leader checklist question, Gibbs 2003). Then (illustrative): "Has anything like this happened to anyone here?"

SDM2. Phase 2: Cultivate mature morality

Purpose: establish the mature moral atmosphere first, from the positive majority. [source: Gibbs 2003]
Steps: ask members who made positive decisions for their reasons; write them on a flip chart; highlight the most mature (relationships, trust, others' feelings, what society needs) over the merely self-protective ("you'd get caught").
Example language (illustrative): "Most of you said he should talk his friend out of it. Why? Let's get the reasons on the board." / "Which of these reasons is the strongest one?"
Watch for: the leader supplying the reasons; draw them from members.

SDM3. Phase 3: Remediate moral developmental delay

Purpose: challenge immature reasoning through peers. [source: Gibbs 2003; Helmond et al. 2014]
Steps: (1) Invite members with negative decisions to explain; record their reasons separately and publicly. (2) Invite the majority to respond. (3) Use the mature thinkers to challenge the less mature. (4) Probe: perspective-taking and universalising questions; clarify unclear members; draw out quiet ones; ask "can't decide" members to weigh both sides.
Example language: "What would the world be like if everybody did that?" and "How would you feel if you were Bob?" (Gibbs 2003).
Watch for: delayed members can seriously undermine group culture; Phase 2's mature atmosphere is the main defence (Gibbs 2003). Disequilibration (a member's reasoning losing to a better argument) is the intended effect; do not "rescue" by lecturing.

SDM4. Phase 4: Consolidate mature morality

Purpose: convert majority positions into unanimous group decisions and reasons. [source: Gibbs 2003]
Steps: seek consensus on the positive decision and best reasons; circle them on the chart as the group's decision; praise the group.
Example language: "Any strong objections if I circle that decision as the group decision?" (Gibbs 2003). Then (illustrative): "Good work: you reasoned like people others can trust."
Watch for: forced unanimity; record a holdout's objection and return to it in mutual help.

SDM5. Summary and leader self-evaluation checklist

Purpose: close and audit fidelity. The leader completes an 11-item checklist after each session covering the four phases plus general items, e.g. all members involved, every serious comment given some constructive value, "should" statements reinforced as strong. [source: Gibbs 2003; checklist reprinted from Potter et al. 2001; not reproduced here]
Steps: summarise the group decision and reasons; complete the checklist alone or with a method coach; note members to follow up.

SDM6. The problem situations

School-version sequence [source: Research Press TOC]: Scott's; Jerry's and Mateo's; Jeff's; Angelo's and Sabrina's; Greg's and Lamar's; Duane's; Joe's; Katie's; James's; Stephanie's; supplementary: Carmen's, Enzio's, Emilio's, Carly's, Big Bear's. Residential (1995) situations differ in part [uncertain]. Themes include, for example, persuading a friend not to ride in a stolen car and whether to tell on a friend who deals drugs (Gibbs 2003). Use the manual's texts; do not write your own unless adapting with care.

4G. Assessment and optional enhancement

G1. Social Reflection Questionnaire

Moral-judgement measure printed in the school version's appendix [source: Research Press TOC]. Use pre/post to track moral reasoning maturity; items not reproduced. Other outcome measures used in studies (e.g. How I Think questionnaire for thinking errors) [uncertain: HIT not in the sources].

G2. Offence re-enactment: perpetrator then victim (enhancement)

Purpose: deepen victim perspective-taking in violent offenders. Described as an optional, more intensive "social analysis" add-on in which offenders re-enact their offence first as perpetrator, then as the victim. [source: OJP abstract of Gibbs et al. 2008; procedure details not described: steps below are synthesis]
Steps (synthesis): only after the group culture is established and the member consents; assess trauma history first (many offenders were victims); plan with the member; run with a trained co-leader; brief re-enactment without graphic or humiliating content; switch roles; debrief feelings and thinking errors; plan repair; check in on the unit afterwards.
Example language (illustrative): "Now you're him, standing there. What are you feeling? What are you thinking about the guy in front of you?"
Watch for: dissociation, shame spirals or re-traumatisation; stop and ground. Do not use in groups without strong safety and supervision.

5. Handling problems

Sources address programme-level failures (integrity) and, in SDM, delayed members undermining culture; almost everything else below is [synthesis] for a clinician delivering the programme.

Programme-level (sourced) [source: Helmond et al. 2014, 2015, booster study; EUDA Xchange]

Low implementation integrity is the most documented problem. In Dutch facilities, about half of prescribed meetings were planned, around a quarter to a third of observed meetings were cancelled, meetings averaged 45 rather than 60+ minutes, and only a third to a half of content criteria were delivered. Response: protect a fixed timetable that unit routines cannot override; treat meetings as sacred; track frequency, duration and phase adherence weekly; self-rate with the phase lists (Section 2) and the SDM checklist; aim for the provisional 60–80% integrity range the integrity researchers suggest.
Rotating, unselected trainers. Most Dutch trainers were rotating rather than steady after a three-day course. Response: assign a stable leader per group, select for interest and skill, provide method-coach supervision, and arrange annual follow-up training (recommended by implementers).
Unclear management ownership. Response: management participates in training and owns cancellations and staffing; parents and social-care staff are briefed so the common language extends beyond the unit.

Group- and client-level [synthesis unless marked]

Negative peer culture / code of silence (everyone reports "no problems", sneering at helpers): name it as a group problem; ask the group what it costs them; use relabeling (silence as protecting harm, not loyalty); find and praise the first honest reporter; meet privately with the negative leader and offer a helping role (C5); do not move to equipment meetings until honest reporting appears.
Delayed members dominating SDM: do Phase 2 thoroughly before Phase 3 so the mature majority is established (Gibbs 2003); ask the majority, not you, to respond; if the majority itself is negative on a situation, slow down, probe with perspective-taking questions and record reasons without endorsing them [uncertain: guidance for a negative majority not seen in sources].
Resistance in the individual ("group is stupid", minimal answers): reverse responsibility ("what would make it worth your time?"); identify the thinking error in the resistance itself; give a small, achievable helping task; avoid power struggles in front of peers.
Pile-on, scapegoating or humiliation: stop the process; restate confronting with concern; ask each confronter to say what they want for the member; protect the target and debrief privately. Do not award the meeting to the same low-status member repeatedly.
Deviancy training risk (youth teaching each other antisocial methods or glamorising offences): keep the structure tight; interrupt war stories and relabel; focus accounts on thinking errors and victims, not methods.
Overwhelm, trauma disclosure or acute distress (likely in AM9, G2, SS6 involving family): pause, ground, offer a break with a staff member; follow up individually the same day; agree with the youth what is shared in group; refer for individual trauma-focused care where indicated. Disclosure of abuse triggers the facility's safeguarding procedure.
Suicide or self-harm disclosures: treat as a clinical priority outside the group process: same-day risk assessment by a qualified clinician using local protocol, safety planning, and lethal-means counselling (secure or remove means on the unit); never let the group "handle" it alone.
Non-adherence (empty logs, no real-life practice): make the log part of reporting; ask the group to help the member, not punish; simplify the format; staff prompt logging right after incidents.
Ruptures with the leader (youth feels set up, shamed or treated unfairly): acknowledge your part openly (model reversing and owning); repair privately and, if it happened in group, briefly in group; return to the helping frame.
Staff not using the common language or responding punitively on the unit: brief all shifts on problem names and thinking errors; agree scripts for labelling incidents; address staff culture (Part 2 of the 1995 book) [source: OJP abstract for topic].
Low literacy, intellectual disability or autism: shorten material, read situations aloud, use pictures and concrete scenes, more repetition and role-play; an adapted EQUIP is used with offenders with learning disabilities and/or autism [source: Kent SAFER-IDD; adaptation details not described].
New members joining an established group: pair with a senior member as helper; brief them on problem names before their first meeting; let them observe reporting before being awarded a meeting.
Girls' groups and mixed settings: EQUIP was run in separate female groups in the Dutch study [source: Helmond et al. 2015]; adapt scenarios to members' realities (relational aggression, exploitation) [synthesis].

Sources

Sources: