A family intervention model based on: Trotter C (2013) Collaborative Family Work - a practical model for working with families in the human ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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)
61. 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 200plus 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.
1314
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. 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
17Table 1 Family Functioning Evaluations
Family Family Family
meeting meeting meeting
1 3 5
N 91 94 67
Mean 2.7418 3.3144 3.7500
18Family 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%
25Completed 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
27Completion 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%
29Started 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
33Really 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.
35After 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.
36I 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.
37It 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.
3839
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.
40I 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.
41When 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.
42The 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
43The 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.
44There are inherent benefits from
working on 1 or 2 achievable goals
that flow on to other areas of life that
appear unrelated. For this family, the
house is now a home. M who is the
anchor of the family, has found an
inner strength to deal with A’s
behaviour – which is still challenging
at times – without resorting to the
yelling battles that happened
previously.
45We learnt very quickly that this wasn’t
going to work as we wouldn’t be able to
do the ANTS model structure. The panel
meeting was very helpful as we pulled the
pin before we did any damage. It was the
right decision to withdraw. We made
referrals to family support. The mother
was into blaming & bagging out the father
and she couldn’t see the interests of the
kids.
46A number of significant family issues and
traumas presented during the program that
were beyond the scope of both the
program and the presenters’
skills/qualifications, that have been
referred for ongoing follow up/support.
It is hard when the parents want assistance
and support and the young person does not
want to engage.
It can be a disadvantage doing the sessions
in the home because of the distractions as
it is not a contained environment.
47These are very complex families- any
progress of meeting the issues is a big
bonus. The debriefs are an essential part of
it. I struggled at first, how we were going
to do this. It worked well and we could do
it.
48 Research indicates that work with families lowers
recidivism
Ground breaking work in NSW JJ shows that YJOs
can successfully do Collaborative Family Problem
Solving with complex medium and high risk young
people and their families
Nearly all families report that it is helpful or very
helpful
Nearly all workers report that it is helpful or very
helpful
Initial recidivism data suggests it may have great
benefit for indigenous families
49You can also read
