Professor Chris Trotter, Director Monash University Criminal Justice Research Consortium 1
2
Project funded by Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, NSW Juvenile Justice and Monash University Based on Chris Trotter (2013) Collaborative Family Work - A Practical Guide for Working with Families in the Human Services Allen and Unwin Sydney Known as ANTS in Juvenile Justice, Youth on Track 3
4
Family are one of the most important factors in youth 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 (more often than drug use for example) and most frequently discussed in supervision (Bonta et al 2008) 5
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 109% more likely to offend if family problems were not addressed 6
Family interventions for young offenders - average reduction in recidivism 20% and 52% (Meta- analysis by Lipsey and Cullen 2007) 7
Children in detention returned to family twice as often after receiving family work Catherine Mcconnell, & Patricia Taglione (2012) Collaborating With Clients and Improving Outcomes: The Relational Re-enactment Systems Approach to Treatment Model Residential Treatment for Children & Youth , 29:103–117, 2012 8
Clear structure 1. 2. Easily learnt 3. It is a partnership model 5. Several positive evaluations –(Trotter 2013). 6. Based in family home 9
Based on earlier work by William Reid, Gerald Patterson, Epstein and Bishop and Alexander and Parsons Adds a pro-social dimension and principles of effective practice with offenders to those models (Trotter 2013, Andrews and Bonta 2010) 10
1. Role and Ground Rules 2. Identify Issues 3. Decide what to work on first 4. Goals 5. Explore the issue 6. Strategies 11
Juvenile Justice Workers offered two days training in family work JJ workers offered 6-10 sessions to client families who agreed to be involved Workers supported by de-briefing panels Young people and family members followed up after 3 months and 12 months. Recidivism data collected 12
41 undertook family work 15.26 average age 36% previous custody. 20/40 (50%) identified as indigenous 21.7 YLS/CMI medium to high risk offences – e.g. break and enter, robbery, assault, car theft, contravening AVO, malicious damage. 13
5.1 Average number of participants 2 workers 3.1 family members. 14
208 ANTS sessions over 5 years 15
41 primary clients, 34 mothers, 12 fathers, 12 brothers, 7 grandmothers, 6 sisters, 3 step mothers, 2 family friends 1 stepfather. 16
41 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. 17
18
19
20
72 young people and their families offered ANTS 31 chose not to participate. 41 undertook at least one session. 31 families completed the family sessions 92% all family members present 2.7 average sessions for 10 non-completers 6.5 for families who completed 21
5 families - moved to live outside the western region during the period of the family work. 5 families – a number of reasons for non completion, one or more of the family members did not wish to continue, felt problems dealt with, report to child protection. Of the ten families who did not complete, 4 completed 4 or more sessions. 22
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. 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 23
Table 1 Family Functioning Evaluations Family Family Family meet meet meet 1 3 5 N 91 94 67 Mean 2.7 3.3 3.7 24
Family Family Family Family meeting meet meet meet 2 3 4 5 N 30 52 46 52 Mean 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.5 25
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) 26
27
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) 28
29
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) 30
31
Very unhelpful 0 0.0% Unhelpful 1 1.6% Neither 5 7.9% Helpful 23 36.5% Very helpful 34 54.0% (n = 63) 32
33
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) 34
35
complete_notcomplete_offeredanddeclientd * re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS Crosstabulation re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS no yes Total complete_notcomplete_offer did not complete/ offered Count 23 35 58 % within edanddeclientd and declined complete_notcomplete_offer 39.7% 60.3% 100.0% edanddeclientd complete Count 17 15 32 % within complete_notcomplete_offer 53.1% 46.9% 100.0% edanddeclientd Total Count 40 50 90 % within complete_notcomplete_offer 44.4% 55.6% 100.0% edanddeclientd 36
months to reoffending from start of ANTS complete_notcomplete_off eredanddeclientd Mean N Std. Deviation did not complete/ offered 4.55 38 5.755 and declined complete 7.94 18 7.182 Total 5.64 56 6.386 37
complete_notcomplete_offeredanddeclientd * re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS Crosstabulation P .033 re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS no yes Total Complete_notcomplete_offer did not complete/ offered Count 12 23 35 % within edanddeclientd and declined complete_notcomplete_offer 34.3% 65.7% 100.0% edanddeclientd complete Count 9 4 13 % within complete_notcomplete_offer 69.2% 30.8% 100.0% edanddeclientd Total Count 21 27 48 % within complete_notcomplete_offer 43.8% 56.3% 100.0% edanddeclientd 38
Entry YLSI score (BOCSAR 12 mth data) complete_notcomplete_off eredanddeclientd Mean N Std. Deviation did not complete/ offered 24.5510 49 6.70529 and declined complete 20.6154 26 8.45731 Total 23.1867 75 7.54212 39
Entry YLSI score (BOCSAR 12 mth data) re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS Mean N Std. Deviation no 23.7727 44 8.04598 yes 22.0469 64 7.90304 Total 22.7500 108 7.96971 40
15 yo girl in custody following violent offences against her family Released with condition not to see her family Placement broke down and no options Mother agreed to family work Returned to live with mother with conditions No further offending 41
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 42
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. 44
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. 45
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. 46
Recommend
More recommend
