Atlas›Domain XVI · Historical, discredited & harmful›Guide 095
Guide XVI-095

Peer-group interventions for conduct disorder

A 20 · L 74 · M 618 interventions in the Trinity explorer
Client cardCompare
[source: …] where a claim comes from[uncertain] not confirmed in a primary source[synthesis] the writer's reconstruction

1. Introduction

Version followed: peer-group interventions for conduct problems, as debated in the peer-contagion ("deviancy training") literature as stated by Dishion, McCord and Poulin (1999) and Dodge, Dishion and Lansford (eds., 2006); the counter-evidence of Weiss et al. (2005), Lipsey's review for the Duke panel and Lochman et al. (2015); and NICE CG158 (2013, updated since) for current recommended care. This guide covers the psychotherapist's own work: recognising when aggregating young people with conduct problems carries risk, choosing and safeguarding formats, and helping young people and families affected.

"Peer-group interventions for conduct disorder" is not one therapy but a delivery format: placing young people with antisocial behaviour together in groups (group counselling, adolescent-only skills groups, group homes, special classes, camps, detention). The concern is iatrogenic: in groups of high-risk peers, young people may reward each other's rule-breaking talk and behaviour, so the intervention can increase the problems it targets. The 1999 American Psychologist paper by Dishion, McCord and Poulin reported that adolescent-only groups in a randomised prevention trial were followed by more problem behaviour than control at one- and three-year follow-up, while parent-only groups did best [source: ULaval news, 1999; Dishion et al., 1999, citation verified via NCSBY]. Lilienfeld (2007) placed peer-group interventions for conduct disorder on his provisional list of potentially harmful therapies [source: Lilienfeld 2007, abstract on the APS page; list placement uncertain: not verified].

The harm finding is contested. A meta-analysis of 66 studies (115 treatment groups) found peer-group treatments were, if anything, less likely to produce negative effects, and that the risk "may at present be overstated" [source: Weiss et al., 2005]. Lipsey's review of roughly 375 studies for the Duke panel found no evidence that working with antisocial youth in groups worsened later delinquency [source: Youth Today report, c. 2006; uncertain: secondary, unverified; Lipsey's paper itself not verified]. Later trials point to moderators: a randomised comparison of group and individual delivery of Coping Power found both formats helped, but children with low inhibitory control did worse in groups on teacher ratings [source: Lochman et al., 2015]. NICE CG158 itself recommends a child-focused group cognitive-behavioural problem-solving programme for 9 to 14-year-olds, alongside parent training and multimodal family-focused care [source: NICE CG158]. A working position consistent with both sides of the evidence is therefore not "never use groups" but "know when aggregation is risky, and build structure, adult leadership and family involvement into any group" [synthesis].

2. Framework

This framework sets out the phases of the psychotherapist's work, with the history of the debate in outline [synthesis, organised from the sources cited].

Historical phases of the debate (outline)

  • 1930s to 1970s: the Cambridge-Somerville Youth Study, a Massachusetts delinquency-prevention programme set up by Richard Clarke Cabot, followed boys for decades; Joan McCord's midlife follow-up found the treated group generally fared worse than controls (more repeat offending, earlier death, alcoholism, stress-related and mental illness) [source: Northeastern Global News, 2026]. Dishion et al. (1999) linked part of this to peer aggregation [uncertain: the summer-camp mechanism is reported in the 1999 paper and not independently verified].
  • 1999: Dishion, McCord and Poulin publish "When interventions harm", naming deviancy training as the mechanism [source: NCSBY; ULaval news].
  • 2005 to 2006: counter-reviews (Weiss et al., 2005; Lipsey for the Duke panel; a Cannabis Youth Treatment Study analysis by Kaminer, Burleson and Dennis finding no contagion) and the Duke volume edited by Dodge, Dishion and Lansford, which cites studies showing harm and lists alternatives [source: Weiss et al., 2005; Youth Today; JAAPL review, 2008].
  • 2010s: trials testing moderators (Zakriski et al., 2011, residential treatment; Lochman et al., 2015, group versus individual delivery) [source: those papers].
  • Current guidance: NICE CG158 (published March 2013; updated 2017, 2021 and 2024) recommends manualised parent, carer, child-group and multimodal programmes with supervision and outcome monitoring [source: NICE CG158]. NICE lists an April 2026 exceptional surveillance document [uncertain: not verified; check the guideline page for current status].

Phases of the psychotherapist's work

  1. Recognition and assessment. Goal: identify whether a young person is in, or being referred to, an aggregated programme, and assess individual susceptibility (age, self-regulation, existing deviant peer ties, peer rejection). Move on when the format question and risks are clear.
  2. Format decision and planning. Goal: choose with family and young person between family-focused, individual and group options in line with NICE CG158. Move on when the young person's assent and the carer's consent are recorded and safeguards are written into the plan.
  3. Delivery safeguards and monitoring (if a group is used, or the young person is already in one). Goal: structure, adult leadership, limited unstructured peer time, routine outcome measures. Move on, or change format, according to monitored outcomes.
  4. Repair and family work (where a young person deteriorated or was harmed in an aggregated setting). Goal: stabilise, re-engage family and prosocial peers, address any exploitation or victimisation.
  5. Advocacy and follow-up. Goal: raise placement and programme-design concerns with schools, care and justice services; review outcomes over time.

Session counts are those of the programmes NICE names: for example, group parent training typically 10 to 16 meetings of 90 to 120 minutes for parents of children aged 3 to 11; child-focused group problem-solving typically 10 to 18 weekly meetings of 2 hours for ages 9 to 14; multimodal interventions such as multisystemic therapy typically 3 to 4 sessions a week over 3 to 5 months for ages 11 to 17 [source: NICE CG158, recs 1.5.1 to 1.5.14]. For the assessment and repair phases above, session number and length follow the client's needs and the setting [synthesis].

3. Guiding principles

  • First, do no harm applies to format, not only content. Practical meaning: ask "who will this young person spend time with, and what will they reward?" before any group referral [source: Lilienfeld 2007 abstract; Dishion et al., 1999].
  • Hold the evidence as contested. Practical meaning: tell families that some studies found harm from grouping and large reviews did not; base the decision on the individual young person [source: Weiss et al., 2005; Youth Today; JAAPL review].
  • Family focus first for conduct problems. Practical meaning: parent or carer training and multimodal family-focused programmes come before adolescent-only groups [source: NICE CG158; Dishion et al., 1999 via ULaval news].
  • Individual susceptibility matters. Practical meaning: young people with low self-regulation, younger age or few deviant ties so far may be more vulnerable to group contagion; consider individual delivery for them [source: Lochman et al., 2015; Weiss et al., 2005 caveats].
  • Structure and adult leadership. Practical meaning: keep groups structured, adequately staffed and adult-led; minimise unsupervised peer time [source: Dodge, Dishion and Lansford 2006 via JAAPL review; Youth Today].
  • Watch group-level deviant talk. Practical meaning: a group in which rule-breaking talk is common can undo individual gains; monitor and act on it [source: Zakriski et al., 2011].
  • Use manualised, evaluated programmes with supervision. Practical meaning: deliver only programmes with a developer's manual evaluated in a trial, with supervision using direct observation and routine outcome measures [source: NICE CG158, recs 1.1.7, 1.5.x].
  • Medicines are not the routine answer and are not yours to change. Practical meaning: NICE advises against routine pharmacological management of behaviour problems; any medicine question goes to the prescriber [source: NICE CG158, rec 1.6.1].
  • Placement decisions are clinical decisions. Practical meaning: prefer individual foster or family-type placements and small, well-staffed units over group placement where possible [source: JAAPL review of Dodge et al., 2006].
  • Safeguarding comes first. Practical meaning: group settings can expose young people to bullying, exploitation and recruitment into offending; follow local child-protection procedures [synthesis].
  • Consent and assent. Practical meaning: explain format options to carers and young people in plain terms and record both consent and the young person's assent [synthesis].
  • Avoid moralising. Practical meaning: describe peer processes as learning processes, not character flaws of the young people [synthesis].

4. Intervention inventory

The interventions below are the psychotherapist's own work; steps not drawn from a cited source are marked [synthesis].

4.1 Building evidence literacy on peer aggregation

  • Purpose / when: before designing, delivering or referring to any group for young people with conduct problems; when supervising others who do.
  • Steps: (1) Know the harm case: adolescent-only groups in a randomised trial were followed by more problem behaviour than control, and parent-only groups did best [source: ULaval news on Dishion et al., 1999]; the Cambridge-Somerville follow-up found worse midlife outcomes in the treated group [source: Northeastern Global News, 2026]. (2) Know the counter-case: Weiss et al. (2005) found little support for iatrogenic effects; Lipsey's review found no evidence of harm from group work with antisocial youth [source: Weiss et al., 2005; Youth Today for Lipsey, uncertain: secondary, unverified]. (3) Know the moderators: low inhibitory control (Lochman et al., 2015), high group-level deviant talk (Zakriski et al., 2011), unstructured settings (Youth Today summary of points of agreement). (4) Know current guidance: NICE CG158 recommendations [source: NICE CG158]. (5) Keep a one-page summary of both sides for families and colleagues [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Researchers disagree about how risky groups are. What most agree on is that unstructured time with other young people who are in trouble is where the risk is highest."
  • Watch for: overstating either side ("groups always harm" or "groups are fine"). It is working when your formulation and referral letters name the format risk and the individual moderators.

4.2 Screening a programme or referral for aggregation risk

  • Purpose / when: a school, care or justice service proposes a group, unit, camp, special class or group placement for a young person with conduct problems.
  • Steps: (1) Ask who else attends: all high-risk peers, or a mix [source: JAAPL review of Dodge et al., 2006; Weiss et al., 2005 found no significant difference between mixed and homogeneous groups, with few mixed groups studied]. (2) Ask about structure, staffing ratio and adult leadership [source: JAAPL review]. (3) Ask how much unsupervised peer time there is (waiting, breaks, travel, free time) [source: Youth Today, points of agreement; synthesis on the examples]. (4) Ask whether the programme has a developer's manual evaluated in a trial and supervision with outcome monitoring [source: NICE CG158]. (5) Ask whether parents or carers are involved [source: NICE CG158; Dishion et al., 1999 via ULaval]. (6) Record the answers and your view in the notes [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Before I can recommend this, could you tell me how the sessions are run, how many adults are present and what happens in the free time around them?"
  • Watch for: programmes that rely on peers confronting or frightening each other (see 101 Scared Straight and juvenile awareness programmes and 102 Boot camps for conduct disorder). It is working when referrers start giving this information up front.

4.3 Assessing the young person's peer context and susceptibility

  • Purpose / when: at intake and before any format decision.
  • Steps: (1) Map current friendships: prosocial, rule-breaking, online contacts [synthesis]. (2) Note whether the young person is rejected by mainstream peers or not yet tied to rule-breaking peers, groups the review authors flag as possibly more vulnerable [source: Weiss et al., 2005, caveats]. (3) Assess self-regulation and impulse control from history, teacher and parent report, and validated measures you are licensed to use [source: Lochman et al., 2015 on inhibitory control as moderator; synthesis on method]. (4) Note age and developmental level [source: Weiss et al., 2005, marginal age effect; NICE CG158 age bands]. (5) Screen for co-occurring difficulties (ADHD, learning needs, trauma, substance use, mood problems) and refer for specialist assessment where indicated [source: NICE CG158 assessment recommendations; synthesis on wording]. (6) Screen for exploitation and safeguarding concerns (4.12).
  • Example language (illustrative): "Who do you spend most of your time with? What do they think is funny or impressive? What happens when you do something they don't like?"
  • Watch for: relying only on the young person's account; gather carer and school information with consent. It is working when the formulation states who the young person's peers are and how susceptible they appear.

4.4 Choosing the format: individual, family or group

  • Purpose / when: after assessment, before starting care.
  • Steps: (1) Start from NICE CG158: parent or carer training for ages 3 to 11; child-focused group problem-solving for ages 9 to 14; multimodal family-focused care such as multisystemic therapy for ages 11 to 17 [source: NICE CG158]. (2) For a child with low inhibitory control, weigh individual delivery of an evidence-based programme, which produced greater teacher-rated improvement in that subgroup [source: Lochman et al., 2015]. (3) Where a group is chosen, plan the safeguards in 4.6 to 4.9. (4) Explain the reasons to the family and record them [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Both group and one-to-one versions of this programme have helped children. For some children who find it hard to put the brakes on, one-to-one seems to work better. That's why I'm suggesting it for now."
  • Watch for: choosing a group mainly for cost or waiting-list reasons without safeguards; Weiss et al. (2005) note cost and access benefits must be weighed against risk. It is working when the chosen format matches the assessed moderators.

4.5 Referring to family-focused alternatives

  • Purpose / when: for most children and young people with conduct problems; when an adolescent-only group is proposed.
  • Steps: (1) Identify local services offering NICE-recommended programmes: group or individual parent training, foster carer or guardian training, multimodal interventions [source: NICE CG158]. (2) Check that they use a developer's manual evaluated in a trial and have supervision with outcome monitoring [source: NICE CG158]. (3) Consider family-based preventive approaches such as the Family Check-Up, developed by Dishion to change parent-child interaction patterns [source: ASU News, 2018]. (4) Make the referral with your assessment summary and agree who coordinates [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "The approaches with the strongest backing for problems like these work with you as parents as well as with your son. I'd like to refer you to one."
  • Watch for: parents hearing the referral as blame; frame it as the most effective route. It is working when carers engage and report changes at home.

4.6 Composing a group safely (when a group is used)

  • Purpose / when: a clinician delivering a NICE-type child-focused group or another group with young people who have conduct problems.
  • Steps: (1) Use only a manualised programme evaluated in a trial, at the age range NICE specifies [source: NICE CG158]. (2) Where possible include prosocial peers or limit the proportion of highly antisocial members; the Duke volume reports fewer antisocial behaviours when high-risk boys were placed with nondeviant peers [source: JAAPL review of Dodge et al., 2006]; note that Weiss et al. (2005) found no significant mixed versus homogeneous difference [uncertain: evidence on composition is thin]. (3) Consider individual delivery for children with low inhibitory control [source: Lochman et al., 2015]. (4) Avoid placing a young person not yet involved with rule-breaking peers in a group of established offenders [source: Weiss et al., 2005 caveats; synthesis]. (5) Ensure enough adult leaders for the group [source: JAAPL review on staffing; synthesis on application].
  • Example language (illustrative), to a referrer: "I can take him into the group, but I'd like the group to include some children referred for other reasons, and a second leader."
  • Watch for: groups built from one detention unit or one exclusion list. It is working when group-level rule-breaking talk stays low (4.7).

4.7 Recognising and redirecting deviant talk in session

  • Purpose / when: throughout any group with young people who have conduct problems.
  • Steps: (1) Notice when members laugh at, admire or build on stories of rule-breaking, and when prosocial comments are mocked; the Duke volume describes peers rewarding deviant acts and punishing normative behaviour in groups [source: JAAPL review of Dodge et al., 2006]. (2) Treat high group-level deviant talk as a clinical risk, since it predicted higher-than-expected aggression at treatment end in residential treatment [source: Zakriski et al., 2011]. (3) Redirect to the session task without giving the story an audience; reinforce prosocial contributions; use the programme's own behaviour-management structure [synthesis]. (4) Record and review in supervision [source: NICE CG158 on supervision; synthesis on content].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Let's park that story. What I'm interested in is what you could have done differently, and what that would have got you."
  • Watch for: leaders unintentionally joining in the laughter; a few members dominating. It is working when rule-breaking stories stop drawing an audience.

4.8 Reducing unstructured peer time around the group

  • Purpose / when: when planning logistics of any group, camp or unit.
  • Steps: (1) Identify unsupervised time: arrival, waiting, breaks, transport, after the session [synthesis]. (2) Keep it supervised or minimal; the parties in the 2006 debate largely agreed that unstructured settings are risky [source: Youth Today]. (3) Arrange collection by carers where possible [synthesis]. (4) Discourage arranging contact between members outside the programme where it is likely to be unsupervised, while respecting the young people's rights [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative), to carers: "Could you collect her straight after the session? The time just before and after is when most of the trouble starts."
  • Watch for: new friendships between members that lead to offending together. It is working when carers and young people report no new group-based incidents.

4.9 Routine outcome monitoring and early warning signs

  • Purpose / when: throughout any intervention, especially groups.
  • Steps: (1) Use routine outcome measures and direct observation in supervision as NICE advises [source: NICE CG158, rec 1.1.7]. (2) Collect carer and teacher reports, since in Lochman et al. (2015) teacher ratings showed the group-individual difference [source: Lochman et al., 2015]. (3) Agree in advance what deterioration means (more incidents, new rule-breaking friends, exclusion, police contact) and what you will do (review format, switch to individual or family work) [synthesis]. (4) Review the individual against the group's trajectory [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Every few weeks I'll ask you and school how things are going. If things get worse rather than better, we'll change the plan."
  • Watch for: improvement at home but deterioration at school, or the reverse. It is working when deterioration is caught early and the plan changes.

4.10 Psychoeducation for parents and carers about peer influence

  • Purpose / when: when discussing format, when a young person is already in a group setting, or when carers ask for "a group to sort him out".
  • Steps: (1) Explain that young people learn from what peers reward, and that some studies found groups of high-risk peers increased problems [source: Dishion et al., 1999 via ULaval news; JAAPL review]. (2) Say plainly that other large reviews found no harm, so the plan rests on their child's needs [source: Weiss et al., 2005; Youth Today]. (3) Emphasise what carers can do: supervision, knowing where and with whom the young person is, consistent discipline and warmth, which the Duke volume names among solutions [source: JAAPL review]. (4) Offer referral to parent or carer training [source: NICE CG158].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Teenagers copy what gets them respect from friends. Your part, keeping track of where he is and who with, is one of the most powerful things in his recovery."
  • Watch for: carers hearing this as being told they caused the problem. It is working when carers can describe their own role in the plan.

4.11 Collaborating with the young person and obtaining assent

  • Purpose / when: before and during any intervention.
  • Steps: (1) Explain the options and the reasons in age-appropriate language [synthesis]. (2) Ask what the young person thinks a group would be like and who would be there [synthesis]. (3) Record carer consent and the young person's assent or objection; where the young person has capacity or competence under local law, follow the rules for their own consent [synthesis; check local law]. (4) Revisit assent if the format changes [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "There's a group and there's one-to-one. I'll tell you why I think one-to-one fits you better right now, and then I want to hear what you think."
  • Watch for: a young person choosing a group because friends from the same unit will be there; explore this openly. It is working when the young person can say why the plan was chosen.

4.12 Safeguarding in and around group settings

  • Purpose / when: whenever young people with conduct problems are placed together, in groups, units, schools or residential care.
  • Steps: (1) Ask directly about bullying, threats, pressure to offend, carrying items for others, being given money or gifts, and online contact with older people [synthesis]. (2) Treat signs of exploitation, recruitment into offending, sexual exploitation or abuse as child-protection concerns and follow your local procedures and mandatory reporting duties (in the UK, the local authority children's social care or police; in the US, child protective services under state law) [synthesis; check local procedures]. (3) Inform the programme lead where a risk arises within the programme, unless doing so would increase risk to the child [synthesis]. (4) Document what was disclosed, what you did and who you told [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "Has anyone in the group or at the unit asked you to do something you didn't want to? You won't be in trouble for telling me."
  • Watch for: sudden money, new phones, missing episodes, older associates. It is working when concerns are reported promptly and the young person stays engaged.

4.13 Working with a young person who deteriorated after a group or placement

  • Purpose / when: a young person whose behaviour worsened during or after a group programme, unit or group placement.
  • Steps: (1) Take a careful history of what changed and when, including new friendships formed there [synthesis]. (2) Avoid blaming the young person or the earlier service; frame deterioration as a known risk of some peer settings [source: Dishion et al., 1999; synthesis on framing]. (3) Move to individual and family-focused care in line with NICE CG158 [source: NICE CG158]. (4) Help the young person identify and build prosocial peer contacts and activities [source: JAAPL review on prosocial programmes; synthesis on method]. (5) Screen for mood problems, substance use and suicide risk (see section 5) [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "It sounds like the unit put you in with people who got respect for things that are now getting you in trouble. Let's work out what you want from friendships now."
  • Watch for: loyalty to peers from the setting; shame. It is working when contact with rule-breaking peers falls and new activities start.

4.14 Family work after group residential or care placements

  • Purpose / when: looked-after or previously placed young people; families reuniting after a placement.
  • Steps: (1) Find out the placement history; the Duke volume reports that young people with histories of abuse and disorganised attachment did better in individual foster placements than in group settings [source: JAAPL review of Dodge et al., 2006]. (2) Offer or refer for foster carer, guardian or parent training adapted to the care setting [source: NICE CG158, recs 1.5.7 to 1.5.10]. (3) Coordinate with the young person's social worker [synthesis]. (4) Attend to trauma and attachment needs through appropriate services [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative), to a foster carer: "The training is about what you do day to day with her. It's been adapted for foster families."
  • Watch for: placement breakdown; a return to group placement by default. It is working when placement stability improves.

4.15 Advocacy on placement and programme design

  • Purpose / when: when schools, care or justice services plan to group young people with conduct problems.
  • Steps: (1) Put your concern in writing, citing both sides of the evidence and the NICE recommendations [source: NICE CG158; Weiss et al., 2005; JAAPL review]. (2) Propose alternatives the Duke volume lists: avoiding group placement unless no option exists, small family-type units with high supervision, minimal contact with rule-breaking peers, adult mentoring, prosocial school programmes [source: JAAPL review of Dodge et al., 2006]. (3) Ask that outcomes be monitored if a group goes ahead [source: NICE CG158; synthesis]. (4) Keep the request evidence-based and non-adversarial [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "There is evidence on both sides, but grouping young people with similar difficulties carries a recognised risk. I'd ask that he be placed in a mixed class with a named adult mentor."
  • Watch for: advocacy that reads as criticism of individual staff. It is working when services adjust placements or add safeguards.

4.16 Responding when a colleague or service runs a risky aggregated programme

  • Purpose / when: you see a programme that groups high-risk young people without structure, supervision or monitoring, or one that uses peer confrontation or intimidation.
  • Steps: (1) Raise it first with the colleague or programme lead, informally and with the evidence [synthesis]. (2) If unresolved, take it to your clinical supervisor or service lead, and use your organisation's governance or safeguarding route; serious concerns about a registered professional go to their professional or regulatory body [synthesis]. (3) If you hold more than one role with the young people (for example group leader and report writer for a court), consider APA Ethics Code Standard 3.05 on multiple relationships [source: APA Ethics Code]. (4) If a child is at risk, follow child-protection procedures at once (4.12). (5) Never provide, supervise or refer to programmes that use intimidation or peer confrontation of young people (see 101 and 102) [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "I'm concerned that the group has no second leader and a long unsupervised break. Could we look at the research on this together?"
  • Watch for: rifts with colleagues; keep to the evidence. It is working when safeguards are added or the format changes.

4.17 Working with a family drawn to tough peer-based programmes

  • Purpose / when: carers who want a "tough" group, camp, boot camp or prison-visit programme to shock or straighten out their child.
  • Steps: (1) Acknowledge the carers' fear and exhaustion [synthesis]. (2) Explain the risks of aggregating high-risk young people and of confrontational formats, cross-referring 101 and 102 [source: Dishion et al., 1999 via ULaval; JAAPL review]. (3) Offer an alternative with evidence, such as parent training or multimodal family-focused care [source: NICE CG158]. (4) Leave the door open if the family still chooses the programme, and plan follow-up and safeguarding [synthesis].
  • Example language (illustrative): "I understand you want something strong to happen. The strongest approaches we know of work with the whole family, and I can help you get one."
  • Watch for: the family feeling dismissed. It is working when the family chooses an evidence-based option or agrees to monitoring.

4.18 Supervision and fidelity

  • Purpose / when: for anyone delivering a group or individual programme for conduct problems.
  • Steps: (1) Ensure supervision is built into routine work, resourced and monitored [source: NICE CG158, rec 1.1.7]. (2) Use direct observation such as session recordings, routine outcome measures and adherence checks [source: NICE CG158]. (3) Add group-process review: deviant talk, member mix, unstructured time [source: Zakriski et al., 2011; synthesis on application]. (4) Ensure staff are trained and competent for the developmental levels they work with [source: NICE CG158, recs 1.1.1 to 1.1.2].
  • Example language (illustrative), in supervision: "Let's watch the clip where the group laughed at his story. What happened next, and what could the leader have done?"
  • Watch for: supervision that reviews only content delivery. It is working when group process problems are spotted and corrected early.

5. Handling problems

  • The only service available is a group of high-risk peers. Response: accept it only with safeguards (4.6 to 4.9), add carer involvement, set a review point with outcome measures, and document the risk discussion; Weiss et al. (2005) note that cost and access benefits can justify groups if the evidence is weighed [source: Weiss et al., 2005; NICE CG158; synthesis on the plan].
  • A group's rule-breaking talk is escalating. Response: increase structure and adult presence, review composition, consider moving the most affected members to individual sessions; high peer deviant talk predicted worse aggression outcomes in residential treatment [source: Zakriski et al., 2011; synthesis on responses].
  • A child with poor self-control is getting worse in a group. Response: switch to individual delivery of the same evidence-based programme where available [source: Lochman et al., 2015].
  • Colleagues dismiss the harm evidence, or treat it as settled. Response: present both sides (Dishion et al., 1999 and the Duke volume; Weiss et al., 2005 and Lipsey) and the moderators; agree a monitoring plan rather than argue in principle [source: as cited; synthesis on approach].
  • Carers will not engage in parent training. Response: explore barriers (time, shame, past experience of services), offer individual parent training if a group is the obstacle, and consider multimodal home-based care for adolescents [source: NICE CG158 on individual formats; synthesis on barriers].
  • Non-adherence: the young person stops attending. Response: ask what happens at the group from their point of view, including any intimidation; re-plan the format if needed [synthesis].
  • Rupture: the young person feels the therapist is against their friends. Response: acknowledge the friendships matter, separate the people from the behaviour, and repair by asking what the young person wants from friends [synthesis].
  • Overwhelm or distress in a young person or carer. Response: slow down, focus on safety and one concrete next step; refer for assessment of co-occurring mental health needs [synthesis].
  • Suicide or self-harm risk. Young people with conduct problems who are in crisis, excluded or in custody need standard risk assessment; follow safe-messaging principles (no method detail), involve carers and crisis services as local protocols require, and give crisis contacts: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline (US) and Samaritans 116 123 (UK and Ireland) [synthesis].
  • Questions about medication. NICE advises against routine pharmacological management of behaviour problems in conduct disorder [source: NICE CG158, rec 1.6.1]; refer any question about starting, stopping or changing a medicine to the prescriber and do not advise on it yourself [synthesis].
  • Exploitation or abuse emerges in a group or placement. Response: follow child-protection procedures and mandatory reporting at once (4.12) [synthesis].
  • A court or justice service mandates a group programme. Response: you cannot override the order; provide your assessment, recommend safeguards and family involvement, and monitor outcomes [synthesis].
  • The family wants a confrontational or "scare" programme. Response: see 4.17 and cross-references 101 and 102 [synthesis].
  • Guidance may have changed. NICE CG158 has been updated several times and an April 2026 exceptional surveillance document is listed; check the guideline page before relying on recommendations [uncertain: not verified].

Sources

← Previous · XVI-094DARE drug-education programmesNext · XVI-096 →Relaxation training for panic-prone patients