1 / 18

Does Family Intervention Work for Delinquents? Results of a Meta-Analysis

Does Family Intervention Work for Delinquents? Results of a Meta-Analysis. Craig Dowden and D.A. Andrews Maria Giovenco Radford University. Purpose.

byron
Télécharger la présentation

Does Family Intervention Work for Delinquents? Results of a Meta-Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Does Family Intervention Work for Delinquents? Results of a Meta-Analysis Craig Dowden and D.A. Andrews Maria Giovenco Radford University

  2. Purpose • To explore the effectiveness of family interventions for young offenders, while paying special attention to the concerns raised by Latimer (2001), regarding the impact of methodological rigor on this relationship • Exploration of the roles of the principles of risk, need, and general responsivity in determining the effectiveness of family interventions

  3. Issues to Consider • How an effective treatment program for youth offenders is measured • Risk • Need • General responsivity • How an effective method is measured • Random assignment • A large sample size (N>100) • A follow-up length longer than 1 year • A program evaluator independent of the program

  4. Dependent Measure • Recidivism Rate

  5. Literature Review • Methods • Latimer’s study (2001) • Broader correctional rehabilitation literature (Dowden, 1998) • Studies • 38 were usable

  6. Studies to Include • 53 tests of the effectiveness of family intervention in reducing young offender recidivism were derived from the 38 studies used

  7. Inter-Rater Reliability • Most of the meta-analysis raters agreed with what is correct to include in a good study

  8. Coding For Treatment Variable • 0-Inappropriate service • 1-Weak service • 2-Promising service • 3-Most promising service

  9. Coding for Methodological Quality • Weakest • Fewer than 3 of the elements • Strongest • 3 or 4 of the elements

  10. Overall Results 95% Confidence Interval

  11. Potential Moderators • Type of treatment variable • Inappropriate service • Weak service • Promising service • Most promising service • Methodology used • Random assignment • A large sample size (n>100) • A follow-up length longer than 1 year • A program evaluator independent of the program

  12. Mean Effect Size for Each Level *p<.05 **p<.01

  13. Mean Effect Sizes for Each Level of Type of Treatment ***p<.001

  14. Mean Effect Size by Methodological Rigor

  15. Type of Treatment at Each Level of Methodological Quality Methodological Quality **p<.01

  16. Type of Treatment for Each Indicator of Methodological Quality *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

  17. Conclusions • Programs that adhere to the principles of risk, need and general responsivity continue to obtain significant mean reductions in recidivism even when evaluated under the strictest of methodological conditions • Family intervention programs must focus on criminogenic familial needs of young offenders, such as increasing family affection/communication and the monitoring/supervision practices of parents

  18. Recommendations • Additional research is necessary in the broader correctional treatment literature • More female offenders need to be studied

More Related