A family intervention model based on: Trotter C (2013) Collaborative Family Work – a practical model for working with families in the human services, Allen and Unwin, Sydney Project funded by Australian Research Council Linkage Grant and NSW Juvenile Justice and Monash University Professor Chris Trotter, Director Monash University Criminal Justice Research Consortium 1
Family are one of the most important factors in young offending The YLSI analysis of risk factors places it alongside prior offences, substance abuse, peer relations, education and employment, and personality type as major determinants of re-offending Family issues most commonly identified criminogenic need (Bonta et al 2008) - more often than drug use for example. Most frequently discussed in supervision 2
Analysis of case management files found that: recidivism was significantly lower when POs (1) engaged with clients and (2) managed family problems Young people were twice as likely to offend if family problems were not addressed 3
Family interventions for young offenders - average reduction in recidivism 20% and 52%. (Meta-analysis by Lipsey and Cullen 2007) Dowden & Andrews (2003) meta-analysis of the effectiveness of 38 family interventions - effective, if based on effective practice principles; 4
1. Clear structure 2. Easily learnt 3. It is a partnership model 5. Several positive evaluations – Dandenong CC, Dept of Police and Emergency Services, Vic Youth Justice (Trotter 2010). 6. Based in family home 7. Continuity with supervision and informs supervision 5
Based on earlier work by William Reid, Gerald Patterson, Epstein and Bishop and Alexander and Parsons Adds a pro-social dimension and more recent principles of effective practice with offenders to those models Consistent with what works principles (e.g. Trotter 2005, Andrews and Bonta 2010) 6
1. Role and Ground Rules 2. Identify Issues 3. Decide what to work on first 4. Goals 5. Explore the issue 6. Strategies 7
This project examines the effect of collaborative family work on juvenile offenders, focussing on both family relationships and recidivism. Act Now Together Now Strong (ANTS) 8
45 undertook ANTS 15.26 average age 36% previous custody. 21/44 (48%) identified as indigenous (in one case this was unclear). 21.7 YLS/CMI medium to high risk offences – e.g. break and enter, robbery, assault, car theft, contravening Apprehended Violence Order, and malicious damage. 9
5.1 Average number of participants 2 workers 3.1 family members. 10
200 plus ANTS sessions over 5 years 11
41 primary clients, 34 mothers, 12 fathers, 12 brothers, 7 grandmothers, 6 sisters, 3 step mothers, 2 family friends 1 stepfather. 12
42 juvenile justice officers, 8 juvenile justice counsellors, 18 case managers from Mission Australia 2 workers from justice health, 20% of the workers identified as indigenous. 61% of the workers were female and 39% male. 13
14
15
16
1. Pretty bad: We fight a lot and don’t speak to each other 2. Not Good: Sometimes we talk to each other nicely, but not often 3. 3. OK: We get through our issues but it could be better 4. Good: Basically things are ok, we talk things out most of the time 5. Really Good – no fights and we all get on well 17
Table 1 Family Functioning Evaluations Family Family Family meeting meeting meeting 1 3 5 N 91 94 67 Mean 2.7418 3.3144 3.7500 18
Family Family Family Family meeting meeting meeting meeting 2 3 4 5 N 30 52 46 52 Mean 2.2000 2.5769 2.7674 3.5827 19
Very unhelpful 1 1.6% Unhelpful 0 0.0% Neither helped nor harmed 1 1.6% Helpful 25 39.7% Very helpful 36 57.1% (n = 62, 27 families) 20
Much worse 0 0.0% Worse 0 0.0% About the same 5 8.2% Better 21 34.4% Much Better 35 57.4% (n=61) 21
Much worse 0 0.0% Worse 0 0.0% About the same 4 10.8% Better 21 56.8% Much Better 12 32.4% (n=37) 22
Very unhelpful 0 0.0% Unhelpful 1 1.6% Neither 5 7.9% Helpful 23 36.5% Very helpful 34 54.0% (n = 63) 23
Worse 0 0.0% About the same 5 11.7% A little better 7 8.4% Much Better 46 76.7% No longer present 2 3.3% (n=60) 24
5/31 completed 16% 6/14 drop out 43% 17/46 declined 37% 10/40 not offered 25% 25
Completed Count 11 20 % within Final 35.5% 64.5% status Started but not Count 2 12 completed % within Final 14.3% 85.7% status Offered and Count 11 35 declined % within Final 23.9% 76.1% status Not offered Count 12 28 % within Final 30.0% 70.0% status 26
Completed 14 mths Started, not completed 7 mths Declined 8 mths Not offered 10 mths 27
Completion by Age 11-13 2/4 50% 14 4/9 44% 15 8/14 57% 16 8/9 89% 17 8/8 100% 18 1/1 100% 28
Completed 2/17 12% Started 0/1 0% Declined 7/17 29% Not offered 7/13 35% 29
Started ANTS 0/7 (0%) Not given ANTS 11/26 (42%) Sig .009 30
Completed 20.2800 25 8.45340 Started but not completed 21.1000 10 7.62234 Offered and declined 25.5366 41 6.12004 Not offered 21.6250 32 9.01880 31
1.00 23.8039 51 7.87660 2.00 21.5000 56 7.72952 32
The ANTS program was extremely helpful for our family. We have not had any other program as good” Thank you T and M. A very worthwhile program to participate in. You have given us renewed strength to keep on going. You have helped our family regroup. The ANTS program has given us hope that our family will survive despite the current trials and that there are people willing to help. T and M were a great team and really made each member of our family feel a part of the group discussion” – A Mother 33
Really great; the family needed it.. I was at a stage to give up and had lost the energy to continue. We had tried lots of helplines and gotten no help so I was keen to give ANTS a go. - Having the facilitators there to talk about how the persons offending effected everyone
I enjoyed everyone talking without the confrontation that went on before - all conversations were argumentative…I feel everyone steps back and thinks about it". The controlled environment of ANTS gave the family an opportunity to express their thoughts and also gave me the chance to listen to the children and see how responsible they are in how they approach things. 35
After the first meeting me and my older son looked at each other and commented that we didn’t think ANTS would be any good but by the third week I was right into it. It gave me an avenue to be able to speak... everyone was able to speak without being interrupted. In the past when we tried to speak my son would become stressed and angry and walk away. 36
I was worried at first as the family has done so many family interventions in the past. By the second week of the program I could see the difference in the behaviour of the children. They are still using things they learned. 37
It was good but too long a break…it stuffed everything up. This disrupted the flow and ANTS could have helped to work through issues which arose during this time. 38
39
At the beginning of the ANTS program K wouldn’t listen. The family had communication issues and the goal was to improve their communication. Father is the patriarch and he dominated the family. Mother was timid & wouldn’t speak up. At the conclusion of the ANTS program the mother was speaking up, the father was communicating and not dictating which not only surprised us but made the siblings happy. They developed into a strong family unit. 40
I felt that this was an extraordinary / outstanding ANTS service for this family. A lot of families are similar where communication is yelling or screaming - they had been turned away again and again from services. No one listens to me. Negotiation between family members and opening up the ability to communicate is very helpful. 41
When we introduced the strengths cards it was a turning point for the family as for the first time they had heard each other say positive things about the other. 42
The mother liked the fact that we went to their home to do ANTS as previously they had counselling away from the home and it was not the same 43
The visual tools of placing the ANTS on the chart was useful as the family could see where they were and where they had come from and that things were improving. Reinforcing was also useful. 44
Recommend
More recommend
