Professor Chris Trotter, Director Monash University Criminal Justice - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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

• ffend if family problems were not addressed

6

 Family interventions for young

• ffenders - 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

 1.

Clear structure

 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

• f 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 meet 1 Family meet 3 Family meet 5 N 91 94 67 Mean 2.7 3.3 3.7

24

Family meeting 2 Family meet 3 Family meet 4 Family meet 5 N 30 52 46 52 Mean 2.2 2.5 2.7 3.5

25

 Very unhelpful

1 1.6%

 Unhelpful

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%

 Worse

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%

 Worse

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%

 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

36

complete_notcomplete_offeredanddeclientd * re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS Crosstabulation re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS Total no yes complete_notcomplete_offer edanddeclientd did not complete/ offered and declined Count 23 35 58 % within complete_notcomplete_offer edanddeclientd 39.7% 60.3% 100.0% complete Count 17 15 32 % within complete_notcomplete_offer edanddeclientd 53.1% 46.9% 100.0% Total Count 40 50 90 % within complete_notcomplete_offer edanddeclientd 44.4% 55.6% 100.0%

37

months to reoffending from start of ANTS complete_notcomplete_off eredanddeclientd Mean N

• Std. Deviation

did not complete/ offered and declined 4.55 38 5.755 complete 7.94 18 7.182 Total 5.64 56 6.386

38

complete_notcomplete_offeredanddeclientd * re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS Crosstabulation re-offend within 2 years of starting ANTS Total no yes Complete_notcomplete_offer edanddeclientd did not complete/ offered and declined Count 12 23 35 % within complete_notcomplete_offer edanddeclientd 34.3% 65.7% 100.0% complete Count 9 4 13 % within complete_notcomplete_offer edanddeclientd 69.2% 30.8% 100.0% Total Count 21 27 48 % within complete_notcomplete_offer edanddeclientd 43.8% 56.3% 100.0%

P .033

39

Entry YLSI score (BOCSAR 12 mth data) complete_notcomplete_off eredanddeclientd Mean N

• Std. Deviation

did not complete/ offered and declined 24.5510 49 6.70529 complete 20.6154 26 8.45731 Total 23.1867 75 7.54212

40

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

 15 yo girl in custody following violent

• ffences 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
• ur 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

44

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.

45

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.

46

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.

47

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.

48

49

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.

50

I felt that this was an extraordinary /

• utstanding 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

• pening up the ability to communicate is

very helpful.

51

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.

52

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

53

The visual tools of placing the ANTS

• n 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.

54

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.

55

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.

56

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.

57

These 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.

 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

58