25 page paper about Family Based Crime Prevention

Family Based Crime Prevention

Sample Presentation CCJ 340 Spring 2015

 Our research could not turn up a concrete consensus definition on this topic. So, we define Family Based Crime Prevention to include any and all programs that involve using the family, family unit, relatives, or legal guardians to prevent at risk or already delinquent offenders from falling into a life of crime.

THE CONCEPT  Family Based Crime Prevention targets family risk factors and seeks to

correct/Insulate them.  Such Factors are : Poor child-rearing, poor supervision, inconsistent/harsh

discipline, etc.  In keeping with this concept, Family Based Crime Prevention programs

administered by psychologists often get grouped into other programs like parent management training, functional family therapy, or family preservation (see Wasserman and Miller, 1998, pp. 199-201).

Mostly Primary in nature but can be found in the secondary level of prevention

Goal

 Barring the presence of very adverse circumstances, Family Based Crime Prevention programs attempt to modify social incidents in family environments so that children are rewarded somehow for displaying appropriate or prosocial behaviors and are rebuked somehow for displaying inappropriate or antisocial behaviors.

 Consequently, programs of this sort that are distributed by other health professionals (e.g. nurses) are classically less behavioral—they are predominately occupied with the task of distributing advice and guidance to parents.

Facets, Limitations, & the Current Trend

 As of now, a meta-analysis of all available Family Based Crime Prevention programs is unavailable.

 Our textbook, Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, reviews what the authors consider to be the most important family based programs with regards to specified criteria.

 One the biggest problems with reviews is the obvious caveat that several of these programs are multi-modal (including many different elements, factors, etc.)—as much a hindrance as a help, this makes it monumentally difficult to evaluate the characteristic outcome of any certain (family or non-family) aspect.

 As of recent years, a main objective has been to renew Lawrence W. Sherman’s review (1997). His review—due to a deficiency in time—was based largely on secondary sources (Yoshikawa, 1994; Tremblay and Craig, 1995; Wasserman and Miller, 1998). Chapter 3 of the class textbook utilizes Sherman’s original review as a springboard, but it still aims to stand alone— showcasing a brand new review based on the author’s previous research on family-based delinquency and crime prevention (Farrington and Welsh, 1999).

Methodology  Now, an evidence based advance to policy and

practice in criminal justice needs to uncover from past high quality review studies whether or not Family Based Crime Prevention programs work—as well as how to amalgamate the results into making conclusions based on these programs.

 “Family risk factors have a major effect on crime” (Sherman, 1997). These distinct programs directly tackle those risk factors; these are programs that combine home visitation with parental maintenance that emphasizes preschool education cuts down on crimes perpetrated by minors when they grow up.

Methodology Cont.  As of now, “much more is known about making families better at

child-raising than about preventing family violence” (Sherman, 1997). According to Welsh (2007), 5 types of programs are have been found to be effective at dealing with family risk factors. See Next Slide

 “The basic structure of family-based prevention programs depends on strategic choices regarding public safety, budgetary, and political consequences (Sherman, 1997).”

 Accordingly, there are universal and targeted programs. Universal applies to all despite any risk factors. Targeted programs have two distinct subheadings; ‘selective’ and ‘indicated’. Selective has to do with families or individuals that have been acknowledged as being high risk that are accessible or necessary to obtain a service proposed to prevent the onset of harm (Sherman, 1997). The subsequent type of target program, ‘indicated’, explores the possibility of stopping children who are previously in a mess with law enforcement (Sherman, 1997).

Family-based Prevention Programs

Home visitation Programs Parent education plus day care/preschool

programs Clinic-based parent training plus child training

programs School-based child training plus parent

training programs Home/Community parent training programs Multi-systemic Therapy Programs

Targets at-risk parents and/or children Produces desirable outcome results Lower rates of child injuries, Child abuse &

neglect, and self-reported arrests Treatment duration varies Five months to two years

Randomly assigned participants and varying sample sizes Developmental Theory

Prenatal/Early Infancy Project Three Broad Objectives Outcome of pregnancy Quality of care Life-Coarse Development

 Initial Sample of 400 Women Selective -> Before Thirteenth Week of Pregnancy

 Outcomes

 Instead of changing the child’s behavior, this program focuses on changing the behavior of the parent. This program helps the parents acquire actual parenting skills.

 This program emphasizes different areas such as communication skills, knowledge of child development, behavior management strategies, and discipline.

 It has been proven that parent training programs can be effective but the differences in content and delivery methods were not examined (Bernal et al. 1980; Western et al.2004).

11

 Parent involvement in the preschool programs is crucial for the child’s development.

 Parents participation would include volunteering in the classroom, interactions with the teacher and staff

 Some parents are so overcome with personal issues including unemployment, illness or other financial worries to bother with participating in their child’s life at school

 Parent’s involvement can influence a child’s academic performance, motivation, self-esteem and engagement in social relationships (Fuller and Kagan 2000; Garcia -Coll and Magnuson 2000; Garbarino and Ganzel 2000).

12

 The link between Parents and School can begin as early as infancy, babies are left in the care of a daycare while the parents go to work

 It has been proven that the link between parent and preschool can help the parent find employment, reduce welfare dependency and increase time between giving birth

 School-family outreach to train parents of problem children could be an effective means of preventing delinquency in certain areas

13

Table 3.3

 The critical features of 7 clinic based parent training plus child training programs are recapped in full detail in Table 3.3 of our textbook (pg. 36).  Every one of the programs were completed in the United States. The age of the children at the beginning of treatment varied significantly, from age 2 to age 14.  Programs originated from indicated and selective samples. Sample size was rather analogous across the 7 programs; it ranged from a high of 119 to a low of 52 children/young people, and the sample retention rate was reasonably high. However, the sample retention rate of 3 cases (Kazdin, Siegel and Bass, 1992; Long et al, 1994; Dishion and Andrews, 1995) could not be precisely discerned.

Clinic Based Parent Training plus Child Training Cont.

 The length of the record to appraise treatment effects progressed beyond the evaluation at the time of program end (immediate effect) for only 3 programs (Szapocznik et al, 1989; Long et al, 1994; & Dishion and Andrews, 1995).

 This, though, has a lot to do with 3 other programs (Webster-Stratton,

Kolpacoff and Hollinsworth, 1988; Spaccarelli, Cotler and Penman, 1992; Webster-Stratton and Hammond, 1997). These programs utilized a wait- list control group which took delivery of a delayed intervention.

 Treatment duration was quite limited—no intervention lasted longer than

6-8 months.  Many different variations of parent & child training were exploited; this

includes video tape modeling by Webster-Stratton, Kolpacoff and Hollinsworth (1988) and problem solving skills training by Kazdin, Siegel and Bass (1992), as well as structural family and individual psychodynamic child therapy by Szapocznik et al. (1989).

 Five programs arbitrarily allocated subjects to treatment or control groups or, in the case of Kazdin, Siegel and Bass (1992), multiple treatment conditions.

 A time lag recruited matched control group was

applied by Long et al. (1994).  The study by Dishion and Andrews (1995) included,

as part of afterward follow up, a quasi-experimental, no treatment control group to its starting randomized-controlled design—this trimmed down its SMS (Maryland Scientific Methods Scale) from a level 5 to a level 4.

Clinic Based Parent Training plus Child Training—What’s New.

I. Combining Parent and Child Training for Young Children with ADHD; Carolyn Webster-Stratton, University of Washington (Seattle, WA). March 2011

II. Abstract: Efficacy of the Incredible Years parent and child training programs is credited in children diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) but not among young children whose primary diagnosis is Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

III. A randomized control trial was conducted that evaluated the combined parent and child program interventions among 99 children who were diagnosed with ADHD (ages 4-6).

Clinic Based Parent Training plus Child Training—What’s New (cont.)

I. ADHD in young children mark substantial risk for later ODD, which in turn, present risk for Conduct Disorder (CD) that is early-onset (Beauchaine, Hinshaw, and Pang, in press; Campbell, Shaw, & Gilliom, 2000).

II. Early-onset CD exacts enormous costs on society in terms of adolescent school drop-out, delinquency, substance abuse and dependencies, & interpersonal violence.

III. To make matters worse, early-onset CD ranks among the most refractory of all psychiatric conditions, with interventions becoming increasingly less effective and more expensive if delayed until late childhood or adolescence (Offord & Bennet, 1994).

IV. These results imply that one effectual means of preventing CD may be to target preschool children with ADHD before more grave conduct problems have soared.

V. Unfortunately, one restriction of the ADHD treatment-outcome literature is that relatively small research has been performed with samples of children under age 7.

Targets wide range of children who show a variety of risk factors for anti-social behavior and thus later on delinquency Subjects range in age from 5/6 to 12 Treatment duration lasts from ten weeks to six

years

Targeted disruptive boys from low SES neighborhoods Treatment lasted two years Two Components Home-based parent training School-based child training

Outcome Lower self-reported rates of delinquency

Multisystemic Therapy, Evidence Based Crime Prevention

 Table 3.6 (pg. 46) in our textbook sums up the essential facets of 5 multisystemic therapy (MST) programs.

 All of them were carried out in the United States of America. Each one was based on a different sample of adjudicated youths or youths approved for emergency psychiatric hospitalization.

 At the start of the treatment cycle, the common age of the participants was between 13 and 15 years of age.

 The home, school, or community (e.g. recreation center) were the main settings for interventions.

 Sample size extended from 84 to 176 individuals, and the sample retention rate was very high for three of the five programs (Borduin et al, 1995; Henggeler et al, 1997, 1999) for which it could be precisely calculated.

 Follow-up length (post-intervention) to assess treatment effects ranged 6 months to 4 years.

 Treatment duration was very consistent across all 5 of the programs.

Multisystemic Therapy Conclusion, Evidence Based Crime Prevention

 The MST method of treating serious antisocial behavior in youth provides strong evidence of effectiveness.  Ongoing testing of MST (Henggeler, 1998)

offers to give an even stronger evidentiary base to contribute to policy and legislation for this important subgroup of the offending population.

Multisystemic Therapy for Juvenile Offenders, 2012. This was a treatment that aimed its crosshairs at multiple factors linked to anti-social juvenile behavior.

 Randomized controlled trials show a substantial decrease in the amount and severity of criminal behavior by juvenile offenders; please note, effectiveness may depend decisively on (1) close adherence to the intervention’s key attributes and (2) the population/setting in which it is put into practice.

 MST is a treatment for juvenile criminals that utilizes a combination of empirically-based treatments (e.g. cognitive behavior therapy, behavioral parent training, functional family therapy) to confront many variables (i.e. family, school, peer groups) that have been revealed to be factors in juvenile behavior.

 Masters-level therapists provide MST at the youth’s home and community locations (e.g. school, recreation center).

 Therapists are available to the minor and his/her family 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

 Each therapist has a small caseload (between one and five families).  On average, the treatments last for four months, with the

therapists spending several hours per week with the minor and his/her family.

What Works

1. Four of the six categories of Family Based Crime Prevention programs were effective in preventing child behavior problems, delinquency, and other related outcomes.

2. home visitation, parent education plus daycare/preschool, school-based child training, and multisystemic therapy (MST).

3. Programs of these 4 groups were of the highest caliber methodologically, conceptuality, and in delivery.

What Does Not Work

1. the family based program category of home/community parent training was concluded to be ineffective.

2. With the exception of 2 out of the 5 programs in this category, all cited either no effects for the outcomes of interest or in the case of the program by McCord (1978), harmful or iatrogenic effects (see also Dishion, McCord, and Poulin, 1999) for experimental compared to control particpants.

What is Promising 1. One of the six program categories was decided to be

promising: clinic-based child training plus parent training. 2. Mixed results from the seven programs coupled with, for

the most part, very little follow-up to assess the effects of treatment led to the author’s (our textbook) decision to cite this category of family-based programs as promising.

3. The reason why these programs are rated this way is because of the authors’ opinion that this is much closer to the high end of the promising classification, largely because of the successes won by the high quality parent training interventions developed by Carolyn Webster- Stratton.

What is Unknown

1. No programs were identified as being of unknown effectiveness.

References 1) Bernal et al. 1980; Western et al.2004 2) Fuller and Kagan 2000; Garcia -Coll and Magnuson 2000; Garbarino and Ganzel 2000 3) Lancaster, J., & Ngo, P. (2010). CCJ 4934. Family-Based Crime Prevention Programs:

Parental Delinquents, 17. 4) Olds et al,. (1986,97,98) 5) Policy, C. f.-B. (2012-215). Multisystemic Therapy for Juvenile Offenders. Retrieved from

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy: http://evidencebasedprograms.org/1366- 2/multisystemic-therapy-for-juvenile-offenders

6) Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2002). Evidence- Based Crime Prevention. New York, NY: Routledge.

7) Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., Mackenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising. Washington D.C.: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.

8) Webster-Stratton, C. (2011). Combining Parent and Child Training for Young Children with ADHD . J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol, 14.