practical model for working with families in the human services, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
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
A family intervention model based on: Trotter C (2013) Collaborative Family Work – a
Project funded by Australian Research Council
Professor Chris Trotter, Director Monash University Criminal Justice Research Consortium
1
Family are one of the most important factors in
The YLSI analysis of risk factors places it alongside
Family issues most commonly identified
Most frequently discussed in supervision
2
Analysis of case management files found that: recidivism was significantly lower when POs
Young people were twice as likely to offend if
3
Family interventions for young offenders -
Dowden & Andrews (2003) meta-analysis of
4
1.
Clear structure
2.
Easily learnt
3.
It is a partnership model
5.
Several positive evaluations – Dandenong CC, Dept
Justice (Trotter 2010).
6.
Based in family home
7.
Continuity with supervision and informs supervision
5
Based on earlier work by William Reid, Gerald
Adds a pro-social dimension and more recent
Consistent with what works principles (e.g.
6
7
This project examines the effect of
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
21.7 YLS/CMI medium to high risk offences – e.g. break and enter, robbery,
9
5.1 Average number of participants 2 workers 3.1 family members.
10
11
41 primary clients, 34 mothers, 12 fathers, 12 brothers, 7 grandmothers, 6 sisters, 3 step mothers, 2 family friends 1 stepfather.
12
13
14
15
16
1. Pretty bad: We fight a lot and don’t speak
2. Not Good: Sometimes we talk to each other
3.
4. Good: Basically things are ok, we talk
5. Really Good – no fights and we all get on
17
Table 1 Family Functioning Evaluations Family meeting 1 Family meeting 3 Family meeting 5 N 91 94 67 Mean 2.7418 3.3144 3.7500
18
Family meeting 2 Family meeting 3 Family meeting 4 Family meeting 5 N 30 52 46 52 Mean 2.2000 2.5769 2.7674 3.5827
19
Very unhelpful
Unhelpful
Neither helped nor harmed 1
Helpful
Very helpful
20
Much worse
Worse
About the same
Better
Much Better
21
Much worse
Worse
About the same
Better
Much Better
(n=37)
22
Very unhelpful
Unhelpful
Neither
Helpful
Very helpful
(n = 63)
23
Worse
About the same
A little better
Much Better 46
No longer present
24
5/31 completed
6/14 drop out
17/46 declined
10/40 not offered
25
Completed Count 11 20 % within Final status 35.5% 64.5% Started but not completed Count 2 12 % within Final status 14.3% 85.7% Offered and declined Count 11 35 % within Final status 23.9% 76.1% Not offered Count 12 28 % within Final status 30.0% 70.0%
26
Completed
Started, not completed
Declined
Not offered
27
28
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%
Completed
Started
Declined
Not offered
29
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
2.00
32
The ANTS program was extremely helpful for our
Thank you T and M. A very worthwhile program to
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
35
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.
36
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
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.
37
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.
38
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.
39
40
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.
41
I felt that this was an extraordinary /
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
very helpful.
42
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.
43
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
44
The visual tools of placing the ANTS
could see where they were and where they had come from and that things were improving. Reinforcing was also useful.
45
There 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.
46
We 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.
47
A 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.
48
These are very complex families- any progress of meeting the issues is a big
to do this. It worked well and we could do it.
Research indicates that work with families lowers
Ground breaking work in NSW JJ shows that YJOs
Nearly all families report that it is helpful or very
Nearly all workers report that it is helpful or very
Initial recidivism data suggests it may have great
49