Families, Youth and Delinquency: the State of Knowledge, and Family-based
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Programs
Adobe Acrobat version (PDF 540KB)
Julie Savignac
Research Report: 2009-1
Published by:
National Crime Prevention Centre (NCPC)
Public Safety Canada
Ottawa, Ontario Canada
K1A 0P8
Visit the Public Safety website and add your name to the NCPC Mailing
List: www.PublicSafety.gc.ca/NCPC
Catalogue number: PS4-68/2009E
ISBN: 978-1-100-11686-0
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2009
This material may be freely reproduced for non-commercial purposes provided
that the source is acknowledged.
Titles in Youth at Risk series:
Family-Based Risk and Protective Factors and Their Effects on Juvenile Delinquency:
What We Know (2008)
Family-Based Programs for Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Crime (2008)
Table of Contents
Summary
The family, as a learning, discovery and socialization environment, is a key
protective factor in the development of children and adolescents. When dysfunctional,
it is also regarded as a risk factor for juvenile delinquency.
To better address the relationship between the family, risk factors, protective
factors, juvenile delinquency and intervention with vulnerable families, this
paper is divided into two main parts.
The first part surveys knowledge about risk and protective factors associated
with families. A detailed analysis of risk factors has identified three categories
of risk factors in the family environment:
- risk factors related to family dynamics and functioning (considered proximal
risk factors),
- risk factors related to family characteristics, and
- risk factors related to the neighbourhood or area where families live.
With regard to protective factors, current knowledge is relatively limited,
but documentary research has identified the main protective factors which are
related to the family environment. The first part also contains a statistical
portrait of Canadian families affected by specific risk factors, and concludes
with a brief survey of the situation in Aboriginal communities.
The second part of the paper describes programs that aim to prevent and reduce
juvenile delinquency in the family environment. Analysis has shown that three
intervention methods are particularly effective with families:
- parental training,
- family therapy, and
- the integrated approach.
Based on research reports, longitudinal studies and evaluation summaries,
this research is intended as an initial step in extending scientific knowledge
of what are called “vulnerable families” or “at-risk families,” and
in making better use of knowledge in order to work more effectively with them.
Chapter 1
Survey of Knowledge of Risk Factors and
Protective Factors Associated With Families
It is generally accepted that the risk of developing a life trajectory oriented
towards delinquency is influenced by the number of risk factors to which a
youth is exposed.[1] By
the same token, it may be suggested that as a youth is surrounded by protective
factors, the risks of an orientation towards delinquency are diminished.
Risk Factors
Very briefly, risk factors may be described as characteristics or variables
that, when present, make certain individuals more likely than others to adopt
behaviours that can cause them harm.[2]
The risk factors related to delinquency are multidimensional in the sense
that they are manifested in more than one aspect of the day-to-day lives of
individuals. The typology generally accepted by researchers accordingly classifies
risk factors on the following basis: individual characteristics, family, school,
peers and the community.[3]
It is also accepted that the effects of risk factors vary with age.[4] For
example, in childhood the risk factors that have more of an impact are those
that exist within the family; as children grow and become more integrated into
their environment, risk factors related to peers, school, neighbourhood and
community play a more important part.[5] Risk
factors related to individual characteristics, such as hyperactivity, anxiety
and aggressiveness must be taken into consideration at all ages.
Moreover, it must be remembered that delinquent behaviour is acquired over
time in conditions that overlap and in situations presenting multiple problems.
The interaction and accumulation of risk factors increase the likelihood of
acting out,[6] not
only because the effect of risk factors is cumulative, but also because they
interact: the effects of one multiply the effects of another, and so on. For
example, parental alcohol abuse may generate family conflict, which in turn
may increase the risk of problems related to substance abuse.
According to a study by the Social Exclusion Task Force (London), at age 14,
the more family risk factors a youth displays, the more likely he or she is
to be expelled from school, to be taken in by youth protection services, or
to come into contact with the police; the relationship is particularly pronounced
in the case of the expulsion from school of youth who present five or more
family risk factors.[7]
With regard to risk factors associated with the family environment, a detailed
analysis enables us to distinguish between three subcategories:
- risk factors associated with family dynamic and functioning,
- risk factors associated with family characteristics; and
- risk factors associated with area of residence.
Table 1—Juvenile Delinquency Risk Factors Associated With the Family
According to Age of Children and Adolescents[8]
Risk Factors Associated With Family Dynamic and Functioning
Current scientific knowledge suggests that risk factors related to family
dynamics and functioning are closely associated with delinquency.[9]
Ineffective Parental Behaviour
Bad parenting practices, such as a lack of supervision, over-permissiveness,
inconsistent or overly strict discipline, a weak bond of affection and the
inability to set clear limits, represent significant risk factors for delinquency,[10] drug
use,[11] poor
academic performance,[12] and
membership in youth gangs.[13]
According to researchers, parental supervision and control[14] play
a key role in the adoption of delinquent behaviour.[15] As
LeBlanc points out, “supervision is the key variable that catalyses the
effect of all the other characteristics of family functioning”.[16]
The longitudinal Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (ESYTC) identifies
seven characteristics of parental conduct and family functioning associated
with delinquency in 15 year-olds. The most important are parental supervision,
the young person’s willingness to communicate with the parents, parent
consistency, parent-child conflict and excessive punishment.[17] The
results of the study showed that ineffective parenting at age 13 is an important
predictor of delinquency at age 15.[18]
Parental Criminality
Parental criminality is a powerful risk factor for delinquency, according
to various studies.[19]
The Pittsburgh and Cambridge longitudinal studies show that the criminality
of the father, mother, brother or sister is a good predictor of delinquency
in boys. The most important factor remains the criminality of the father: 63%
of boys with a father involved in criminal activity are at risk themselves
of being involved in such activity, compared to 30% of other boys.[20]
Having older siblings involved in crime is also a risk factor for delinquency;
this relationship is less important when the siblings are younger.
According to work by Farrington (2002), 8% of families are responsible for
43% of crime. Similar results were obtained in a study by Roché of juvenile
delinquency among 13 to 19 year-olds in France: 5% of families were responsible
for 50% of minor offences, 86% of serious offences and 95% of trafficking.[21]
Mistreatment During Childhood and Family Violence
A number of studies have confirmed that very early exposure to physical and
psychological violence is a strong predictor of physical violence towards the
victim, particularly of subsequent violence against the victim’s own
partner or children.[22]
Witnessing violence in the home is an important risk factor for aggressiveness
and delinquency in young people. According to the results of National Longitudinal
Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY), children aged 6 to 11 who have witnessed
violence in the home were twice (2.2 times) as likely to behave aggressively
as children who had never witnessed violence.[23]
Mistreatment during childhood is also a risk factor for various problem behaviours.
Studies comparing adolescents mistreated in childhood with those who were not,
show that more of the former exhibit behavioural problems[24] (running
away, dropping out of school, early pregnancy), substance abuse problems,[25] carry
weapons, exhibit delinquent behaviour, place themselves in intimidating situations[26] and
join gangs.[27]
Other studies have also shown that violence experienced at an early age is
a factor associated with running away and early departure from the family home,
which strongly increases an adolescent's risk of becoming the victim or the
perpetrator of various forms of delinquency related to homelessness.[28]
Parental Substance Abuse [29]
The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (ESYTC) showed that among
15 year-olds, having a parent who uses drugs doubled the risk that they will
do so too. On the other hand, young people whose parents drink to excess (21
units a week) are no more likely than other young people to become daily drinkers.[30]
According to the results of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY),
peer influence is a stronger risk factor than parental drinking for consumption
of alcohol by adolescents.[31]
Risk Factors Associated With Family Characteristics
In our understanding of the links between the family and juvenile delinquency,
these risk factors must be interpreted with caution: their negative effects
are sometimes derived from other factors present in the family environment,
and sometimes from a combination of several risk factors. Taken in isolation,
they are less obviously linked to juvenile delinquency than risk factors related
to family dynamic and functioning.[32]
One of the most eloquent examples of the special nature of these risk factors
is the discussions around the effects of single parenthood in the manifestation
of delinquent behaviour in youth. Single parenthood is considered a risk factor
because this family structure is often associated with a lack of supervision,
a lack of free time spent with the children, financial vulnerability, a poorer
neighbourhood, and so on. In fact, because single parenthood can easily lead
to financial insecurity and thus to a situation that is difficult and stressful
for families, it represents a family characteristic associated with risks for
juvenile delinquency.[33]
Wells and Rankin (1991) found that the connection between broken families
and juvenile delinquency is variable, depending on the situation: it is weak
or non-existent with regard to serious offences (theft, violent behaviour),
somewhat stronger with regard to drug use (particularly soft), and significant
with regard to "problem behaviours," such as running away, truancy and classroom
discipline problems.[34]
The results of the Cambridge study of juvenile delinquent trajectories showed
that while boys from broken families are more delinquent than boys from intact
families, they are not more delinquent than boys from intact but conflicted
families.[35]
Farrington (1995; 2006) suggested that the circumstances in which the family
breakdown occur and the post-separation effects are themost important factors
to consider when assessing the risk for juvenile delinquency.
Generally, boys who stayed with their mother after a separation had the same rate of delinquency
as boys from intact families with a low incidence of conflict, whereas boys
who stayed with their father or other relatives had higher rates of delinquency.[36]
With respect to family transitions,[37] the
results of the Rochester study showed clear and statistically significant connections
between the number of family transitions, the prevalence of delinquency and
drug use. Whereas 64.1% of youth who had never experienced family transition
showed signs of delinquency, the rate peaked at 90% for youth who had experienced
five family transitions or more. After adjusting for gender, poverty and parental
supervision, researchers concluded that a large number of family transitions
is significantly linked to higher delinquency and drug use rates.[38]
Risk Factors Associated With Area of Residence
Generally, living in a poorer neighbourhood doubles the risk of delinquency.[39]
A number of risk factors must be considered in relation to the area of residence:
the presence of youth gangs and young offenders, the availability of drugs
and firearms, neighbourhood crime rates,[40] poor
neighbourhood integration, a high level of disorganization, scarce availability
of resources and services, and local poverty.
Sampson (1997) proposed a framework for analysis based on social capital and
neighbourhood characteristics: the "social capital/collective efficacy model." According
to this model, parental practices are influenced by the social context in which
families live. Very poor neighbourhoods characterized by family breakdown and
a high rate of residential mobility tended to weaken social networks and exacerbate
ineffective parental practices.[41]
Similarly, Smith (2004) noted that family functioning is influenced by the
surrounding social context. Parents living in a poor neighbourhood and who
have few resources have more difficulty in steering their children clear of
deviant and at-risk behaviour.
Thus, young children living in a poor neighbourhood and growing up in a family
where parental supervision is deficient are at risk of developing delinquent
behaviour in adolescence.[42]
The Situation in Canada: A Statistical
Portrait of Risk Factors Associated With Family Dynamic and Functioning
Family Violence and Witnessing Violence in the Home
- In 2005, nearly 4 children and youths[43] out
of 10 (37%) who were victims of family violence suffered physical injury.
Boys were more likely than girls to be injured (44% compared to 33%).[44]
- In 2005, the representation of young parents was disproportionately high
among alleged killers of their own children. While parents aged 15 to 24 constituted
only 2% of all parents, they were responsible for 60% of homicides involving
babies, and 14% of homicides involving children and youths.[45]
- In 2005, according to Homicide Survey, 60 homicides were committed against
children and youths under 18; more than a third of these were committed by
a family member.[46]
- According to the 2004 General Social Survey, about 33% of the victims of
spousal violence said that their children had seen or heard the violence.[47]
- According to Transition Home Survey, between April 1, 2005, and March 31,
2006, admissions of women and children to women's shelters in Canada totalled
about 106,000.[48]
- According to the Transition Home Survey, on April 19, 2006, there were
2,912 women in transition home as a result of mistreatment; 51% of them were
accompanied by their children.[49]
Mistreatment During Childhood
- In 2003, among all the surveys consulted by researchers for the Canadian
Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS), 47% corroborated
case of child maltreatment aged 15 or under in Canada (excluding Quebec).[50]
- The incidence rate of maltreatment corroborated cases was 21.7 per 1,000
children.[51]
- Among the cases of maltreatment corroborated, a third were cases of neglect
(30%), followed by cases of exposure to family violence (28%). Physical violence
represented 24% of cases, psychological violence 15% and sexual abuse 3%.[52]
- According to a study of the incidence and characteristics of situations
of abuse, neglect, abandonment and serious behavioural problems reported
to Quebec's Youth Protection Branch (Étude sur l'incidence et les
caractéristiques des situations d'abus, de négligence, d'abandon
et de troubles de comportement sérieux signalés à la
Direction de la protection de la jeunesse du Québec - ÉIC 1998),
45% of the children for which the report of neglect proved to be justified
were living in families affected by alcohol or drug abuse:[53]
- For 41.7% of families, child neglect coexisted with alcohol or drug
abuse and spousal violence.
- For 32.2% of families, child neglect coexisted with alcohol or drug
abuse and criminal activities.
- For 31.3% of families, child neglect coexisted with alcohol or drug
abuse and mental health problems.
Parental Supervision and Delinquency
- According to the results of the Canadian version of the International Youth
Survey, the prevalence of delinquency was clearly higher among young people
who said that they had used alcohol and drugs, and whose parents exercised
little supervision.[54]
- 56% of youth who said that their parents never knew who they were with
demonstrated delinquent behaviours during the last 12 months, compared to
35% of youth whose parents did not always know, and 12% of youth whose parents
always knew who they went out with.[55]
- Youth who did not get along well with their parents showed higher levels
of delinquency.[56] More
than a third of youth who said they did not get along well with their father
or their mother showed delinquent behaviour during the last 12 months, compared
to about 20% of those who said they got along well with their parents.
Substance Abuse
- Available data on drug and alcohol abuse are rarely related to the family
context and its consequences.
- Nevertheless, the following are some results from the Canadian Addiction
Survey[57] that
illustrate a few general aspects of substance abuse problems:
- High alcohol consumption[58] is
most common among Canadians aged 18 to 24.
- A greater proportion of men than women were habitually drinking at
least five drinks per occasion (23.2% compared to 8.8%) and had at least
five drinks per occasion at least once a week (9.2%, compared to 3.3%).
- 10.5% of those taking part in the survey stated that their spousal
or family life was negatively affected by third-party drinking; 15.8% had
experienced episodes of verbal violence, and 3.2% had been struck or experienced
physical assault.
- Nearly 30% of those aged 15 to 17, and somewhat more than 47% of those
aged 18 to 19, had used cannabis in the last 12 months.
- Of those who had used cannabis in the last 12 months, 4.9% said they
had health problems and social or legal difficulties resulting from its
use.
- In the previous year, about 3% of Canadians (4.3% of men and 1.8% of
women) said they had used at least one of the five illegal drugs other
than cannabis (cocaine or crack; hallucinogens, PCP or LSD; speed or
amphetamines; heroin; ecstasy).
The Situation of Families in Aboriginal
Communities
There are few studies of the connections between juvenile delinquency in Aboriginal
youth and risk factors associated with families; this significantly limits
our level of knowledge for the effective prevention of delinquency among young
people in such communities.
Among young Aboriginal males, most of the risk factors associated with delinquency
are similar to those for non-Aboriginals: a history of criminal behaviour,
substance abuse, antisocial attitudes, and association with antisocial peers.[59] However,
we cannot say if risk factors such as "family or spousal problems" or "problems
at school or at work" apply in a similar way to Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals;
the question requires further research.[60]
With regard to family and spousal violence, the figures show that domestic
violence is more common in Aboriginal communities.[61] In
2004, 21% of Aboriginals said they had experienced some form of physical or
sexual violence on the part of a spouse in the five years preceding the survey,
compared to 6% of non-Aboriginals.[62] This
translates into a spousal violence rate among Aboriginals that is three times
higher than among non-Aboriginals.
With regard to substance abuse and alcoholism in Aboriginal communities, the
available statistics rarely make a connection with the family dimensions. The
following are some results from the First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health
Survey (RHS) 2002-2003:[63]
- Men were more likely than women to have consumed alcohol, with the highest
rates among men aged 18 to 29.
- The proportion of heavy drinkers among First Nations adults was higher
than in the Canadian population, and more pronounced among men.
- Men aged 18 to 29 used drugs most: 29.1% of respondents said they used marijuana
daily. This was followed by the use of prescription drugs, particularly codeine,
morphine and opiates.
A study of the connections between family structure and substance abuse problems
has been conducted among North American Indians and Inuit (American Indian/Alaska
Native - AI-AN).[64] The
results suggest that young people from single-parent families are more likely
to smoke tobacco and drink regularly, compared to the young people who live
with both parents. The probability of marijuana use is also higher among young
people in single-parent families, compared to those who live with their parents.
Note in this connection that Aboriginal children and young people are much
more likely to be members of a single parent family: in 2001, 35% of Aboriginal
children under 15 were living in a single-parent family, twice the proportion
of non-Aboriginal children (17%).65
Given these results, it is therefore important to continue research into the
significance of the family unit as a protective factor for Aboriginal youth.
Moreover, as Lonczak H. et al. (2007) note, more detailed studies must be conducted
to gain a better understanding of how - family structure aside - parental practices
affect substance abuse problems among Aboriginal youth.
Protective Factors
Knowledge of protective factors associated with the family is less extensive
than knowledge of risk factors; this places an important limitation on our
knowledge for the prevention of juvenile delinquency.
Protective factors inform our understanding of the characteristics and situations that protect youth
and steer them away from delinquency.[66] Protective
factors are characteristics or conditions that mitigate risks, enable reduction
of the negative impact associated with risk factors and help youth address
their situation more successfully.[67] It
may be suggested that protective factors, like risk factors, are cumulative
and interactive. For example, the negative effects of growing up in a poor
environment can be reduced by the involvement, participation and support of
parents.[68]
Table 2 below shows the main protective factors associated with families;
most are related to a good family functioning and harmonious family relations.
Readers should note that current research on protective factors is not detailed
enough to allow distinction between them based on age.
- Appropriate parenting practices have been associated with a lower incidence
of behaviour such as delinquency and drug and alcohol use.[69]
- Parental supervision, affection for the parent and consistent and continuous
discipline are the most important protective factors in promoting the resilience
of youth at risk[70] and
reducing the chances of their associating with delinquent peers.[71]
- Harmonious family relations and a good relationship with parents offer
protection against delinquency at all ages, and among boys as well as girls.[72]
- Parental support and involvement reduce the risk that youth will engage
in delinquent activities[73] or
use drugs.[74]
- When all the families living in a poor neighbourhood are compared, those
with two parents seem to have a stronger protective effect.[75] However,
single-parent families living in a safe, quiet neighbourhood are no more
at risk than other families.[76]
- Integration of families into neighbourhood life, strong social cohesion,
the availability of resources and services within the neighbourhood,[77] and
family involvement in extracurricular and school activities[78] are
also protective factors.
Table 2 — Protective Factors Associated with Family [79]
| At Every Age |
| Family Dynamic and Functioning |
Family Characteristics |
Area of Residence |
- Relationship based on family bond
- Positive support within the family
- Adequate parental supervision
- Respect for friends by parents
- Closeness between parents and children (affection)
- Consistent disciplinary methods
- Adequate parental behaviour and practices
|
- Parental level of education
- Financial stability
- Stability of the family unit
|
- Integration of families into the life of the community
- Relationships established with neighbours
- School activities involving the family
|
Chapter 2
Preventing and Reducing the Risks of Juvenile Delinquency
by Working With Families
Current knowledge shows that it is possible to reduce the negative effects
of certain risk factors, reinforce protective factors and work effectively
with youth at risk and vulnerable families. A number of studies[80] have
shown that those programs targeting risk factors contributing to crime and
victimization and promoting protective factors are effective and enable a reduction
in the incidence of crime and victimization of as much as 70% in some cases.[81]
The Scientific Approach to Preventing Delinquency
The scientific approach to preventing delinquency involves a way of thinking
and acting based on scientifically demonstrated and demonstrable facts. Through
careful and reliable evaluations, the use of this approach makes it possible
to demonstrate that there are effective ways of preventing crime. Evaluation
of the effectiveness of programs relies on the following criteria:
-
Effective Results in Preventing or Reducing Problems, Mitigating Risk
Factors and/or Reinforcing Protective Factors
Show through rigorous evaluation that the programs in place produce positive
results in reducing delinquent behaviour, mitigating risk factors or reinforcing
protective factors. This criterion is undoubtedly one of the most important
for assessing the success and effectiveness of preventive practices and
preventive effects.
-
Positive Long-Term Effects
Show that the positive effects of programs persist even after their termination,
and are apparent in the life of young people over a number of years. They
must be sustained effects.[82] This
criterion is difficult to demonstrate and assess: only longitudinal studies
can satisfy this criterion.
-
Replicability
Show that implementation of the same program in different environments
reproduces the same positive results each time.
For example, programs that have shown their effectiveness under different
social and economic conditions, with different populations and in different
contexts - urban, rural - are generally considered to be very reliable.[83]
-
Rigorous Evaluation
Without going into methodological details, it should be pointed out that
an evaluation is considered rigorous when it shows a high degree of internal,
conceptual and statistical validity and when the measuring and evaluating
instruments are scientifically based.[84]
Experimental evaluations, with or without randomization, and quasi-experimental
evaluations are the two types whose results are best with respect to internal
validity.[85]
-
Cost-Benefit Analysis
A cost-benefit analysis increasingly represents a criterion in evaluating
the efficiency of programs. It shows that the funds invested in prevention
programs are cost-effective when compared to the resulting benefits.
Cost-benefit analyses of programs put in place for youth at risk and their
families, show that some programs save taxpayers 7 to 10 times the program
cost.[86] For
example, the best programs with a good cost-benefit ratio are Multidimensional
Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), where for each dollar invested, the taxpayers
save up to $11.60; Multisystemic Therapy (MST), with savings of up to $7.70;
and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), with $7.50.[87]
Intervention Strategies: What Works With Families
For programs involving the family, three intervention strategies are considered
adequate:
- parental training programs;
- family therapy programs; and,
- integrated approach programs.
The selection criteria that guided the choice of programs[1] were
as follows:
- programs had to be family-based: the intervention strategies used had to
address both parents and young people;
- risk factors had to be associated mostly with the family environment;
- youth targeted by the programs were at risk of developing delinquent behaviour,
or had already been involved in delinquent activity;[88] and
- results had to be supported by rigorous evaluation confirming a reduction
in the risk of developing juvenile delinquent behaviour, mitigation of risk
factors or reinforcement of protective factors.[89]
Parental Training Programs
Programs based on parental education are designed essentially to improve parental
responsibility and behaviours. They seek to teach parents to use appropriate
discipline techniques, exercise balanced supervision and control, and set clear
and consistent limits for children and young people who tend not to follow
rules.[90]
Parental training generally takes place in small groups, with only parents
present. Training sessions may be held in various locations: schools, community
centres, churches, at work or at home. Sessions are led by a therapist.
Objectives
Parental training uses a structured approach designed to:
- Help parents identify positive and antisocial behaviours in their children,
and use appropriate childrearing techniques.
- Improve family relations by strengthening ties of affection.
- Improve parental skills in such areas as problem-solving, family conflict
and self-control.
Parental Training Programs
| Title |
Target Group |
Targeted Problems and Risk Factors |
Results and Rating [91] |
| Preventive Treatment Program |
Age group:
7-9 years (boys only)
Boys from disadvantaged families who present behavioural problems. |
Problems:
- gang-related activities;
- delinquency;
- substance abuse;
- aggression and violence.
Risk factors:
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- poor parental supervision;
- use of corporal punishment;
- inconsistent discipline.
|
Results:
- at 12 years old, the boys who participated in this program commit
fewer thefts, are less likely to have substance abuse problems and
are less involved in fights; and
- at 15 years old, the boys who participated in this program are less
involved with gangs, have fewer substance abuse problems, commit fewer
delinquent acts and have fewer friends who had been arrested by the
police.[92] , [93]
Rating:
- I: exemplary
- II: ns (not stated)
|
| Parenting With Love and Limits (PLL)
Also accompanies family therapy |
Age group:
10-18 years (girls and boys)
Youth who have committed a first offence/ youth at risk of adopting
delinquent behaviour/ dropouts. |
Problems:
- gang-related activities;
- delinquency;
- substance abuse;
- aggression and violence;
- academic problems.
Risk factors:
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- poor family bonds;
- family violence;
- siblings with behaviour problems;
- use of corporal punishment;
- inconsistent discipline.
|
Results:
- in the year following PLL, 85% of youth did not have a substance
abuse relapse;
- compared to a control group, PLL youth reduced their aggressive behaviour,
depression and attention deficit problems; and
- parents of PLL, compared to those of a comparison group, improved
communication with their youth.[94]
Rating:
|
| Focus on Families |
Age group:
3-14 years (girls and boys)
Targets families in which one parent is on methadone treatment. |
Problem:
Risk factors:
- parents who are involved in criminal activity or who have a criminal
history;
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- use of corporal punishment;
- inconsistent discipline;
- poor family bonds.
|
Results:
After 12 months of counselling, the Focus on Families parents, compared
to a comparison group: [93] , [95]
- reported fewer conflicts;
- were better able to ensure house rules were obeyed;
- changed their social circle;
- reported a 65% reduction in the frequency of heroin use;
- were six times less likely to use cocaine in the last month.
Rating:
|
Family Therapy Programs
Family therapy programs follow a multidimensional approach combining parental
training session, youth training session and improvement in family dynamics.
These programs are generally carried out by qualified therapists in a clinical
setting.
Family therapy targets two types of families.
First, families in which youth display emotional and behavioural problems
(emotional disorders, depression, problems at school and with friends, and
so on) but without indications of more serious behaviour (delinquency, crime,
early abuse of alcohol and drugs, and so on). This preventive therapy is designed
to treat problems before they become more serious.
Second, families in which youth exhibit delinquent behaviour and are clearly
identified or diagnosed as such. This type of therapy is designed to rehabilitate
and treat youth and their families, reduce the risk of reoffending and prevent
more serious delinquency.
Objectives
Regardless of the type of family involved, family therapy programs are designed
essentially to:
- Improve communication and interactions between parents and children, and
resolve problems that arise. [96]
- Improve family functioning.
- Improve parenting practices.
Family Therapy Programs
| Title |
Target Group |
Targeted Problems and Risk Factors |
Results and Rating [91] |
| Functional Family Therapy (FFT) |
Age group:
11-18 years (girls and boys)
Youth who present delinquent behaviour/youth currently involved in criminal
activities. |
Problems:
- aggression and violence;
- substance abuse.
Risk factors:
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts.
|
Results:
- compared to traditional justice service for youth, FFT reduces the
risk of recidivism by 50% to 60%;[93]
- after one year of counselling, the rate of recidivism in youth who
participated in the project was 19.8% versus 36% in other youth;[97]
- compared to traditional probation services for youth, residential
treatments; and therapeutic approaches, FFT obtained better results.[93]
Rating:
- I: exemplary
- II: exemplary
|
| Multi-Dimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC)
Also considered to be a program that uses an integrated approach |
Age group:
11-18 years (girls and boys)
Youth with chronic delinquent behaviour who are at risk of incarceration. |
Problems:
- delinquency;
- aggression and violence.
Risk factors:
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- parents who are involved in criminal activity or who have a criminal
history.
|
Results:
- after a 12-months follow-up, MTFC youth, compared to youth placed
in traditional placement centres, committed fewer offences (an average
of 2.6 offences versus 5.4);[97]
- after a 12-months follow-up, MTFC boys aged 12 to 17 spent 60% fewer
days in prison compared to boys placed in traditional placement centres,
used fewer hard drugs, had a lower rate of recidivism and were more
likely to return to their families;[93]
- after a 24-months follow-up, MTFC youth had better academic integration.[98]
Rating:
- I: exemplary
- II: exemplary
|
| Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) |
Age group:
8-18 years (girls and boys)
Youth who present or who are at risk of adopting delinquent behaviour.
The therapy also addresses dropouts and youth with substance abuse problems. |
Problems:
- delinquency;
- substance abuse.
Risk factors:
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- poor family bonds;
- siblings with behaviour problems.
|
Results:
BSFT is considered an effective treatment to improve behaviour problems,
reduce recidivism among young offenders and improve family relations.[95]
Rating:
- I: effective
- II: exemplary
|
| Multi-Dimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) |
Age group:
11-18 years (girls and boys)
Youth with substance abuse problems and youth who present behaviour
problems. |
Problems:
- substance abuse;
- aggression and violence.
Risk factors:
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- use of corporal punishment;
- inconsistent discipline.
|
Results:
- MDFT youth showed more positive changes (45%) than youth in regular
group therapy (32%) and youth in multi-family therapy (26%);[93]
- after one year, 70% of MDFT youth and 55% of youth who participated
in cognitive therapies stopped using drugs;[95] and
- MDFT enabled the participating families to improve their functioning
and cohesion.[95]
Rating:
- I: effective
- II: exemplary
|
| Positive-Parenting-Program (Triple P)
Also accompanies parental training |
Age group:
Youth under 16 years (girls and boys)
Youth with behaviour (or emotional) problems. |
Problem:
Risk factors:
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- depressed parents.
|
Results:
Compared to families on a waiting list to receive treatment, those who
participated in Triple P: [99]
- reduced behaviour problems in their children; and
- improved parenting practices and skills.
Rating:
|
Integrated Approach Programs
Integrated approach is based on the principle that a youth and his or her
family do not live in isolation. An effective intervention must first, replace
the family to its environment; and second, focus on risk factors coming from
several areas (for example, community, neighbourhood, school, friends, family
and the youth himself or herself); and third, develop an integrated approach
that involves participation by a number of key partners: health and social
services, education, justice, mental health, substance abuse and so on.
This is a multidimensional approach in which casework is generally coordinated
by a case manager. Depending on the project, the case manager works sometimes
directly with the family and sometimes in support of caseworkers.
According to a number of US associations, a genuinely integrated approach
must essentially satisfy the following criteria:[100]
- Intersectoral collaboration by a number of partners: youth justice, education,
mental health, health and social services, community groups and so on. An
organization must assume leadership and coordination.
- A well-developed work plan: target clientele, action and services to be
delivered, results expected and performance indicators, investments in human
and financial resources, and so on.
- Personalized treatment plans developed in conjunction with the various
services in the community to respond directly to the needs of the young people,
and provide families with advice on the process and the steps to be followed.
- Regular updating of treatment plans reflecting the young person's positive
progress and the difficulties encountered.
Objectives
Programs based on an integrated approach are designed to:
- Reduce the use of predetermined traditional treatment programs.
- Support and guide families through the process.
- Improve the care and services available for most at-risk youth.
- Combine a number of services and support networks surrounding young people
at risk in a personalized way.
Integrated Approach Programs
| Title |
Target Group |
Targeted Problems and Risk Factors |
Results and Rating [91] |
| Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST)
Sometimes classified under family therapy |
Age group:
12-17 years (girls and boys)
Youth with chronic violence problems, substance abuse problems and those
who are at risk of placement. |
Problems:
- aggression and violence;
- substance abuse.
Risk factors:
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- poor parental supervision.
|
Results:
- the reduction of recidivism rate varied between 25% and 70%;[97]
- the reduction in youth placement rates varied between 47% and 64%; [97]
- compared to youth who received traditional services, MST youth experienced
a significant reduction in criminal activity; [94]
- MST is one of the most effective programs for aggressive and antisocial
adolescents; [101]
- compared to youth in traditional placement, MST youth reduced their
rate of arrest, self-reported delinquency and the number of assaults
against other youth. [102]
Rating:
- I: exemplary
- II: exemplary
|
| CASASTART (Striving Together to Achieve Rewarding Tomorrows)
Also known as Children at Risk Also considered to be family
therapy
Also considered to be family therapy |
Age group:
8-13 years (girls and boys)
Youth at risk of being involved in criminal activities or youth who
present substance abuse problems. |
Problems:
- delinquency;
- substance abuse;
- aggression and violence;
- academic problems.
Risk factors:
- parents who are involved in criminal activity or who have a criminal
history;
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- poor family bonds;
- family violence;
- family instability.
|
Results:
After one year, youth who participated in CASASTART, compared to youth
from a comparison group:[103]
- had a lower drug use rate (56% versus 63%);
- sold drugs less frequently (14% versus 24%); and,
- committed fewer violent crimes (22% versus 27%).
Rating:
|
| Wraparound Milwaukee
Also accompanies family therapy |
Age group:
13-17 years (girls and boys)
Youth who present emotional and behaviour problems/youth who present
mental health needs. |
Problems:
- delinquency;
- substance abuse;
- aggression and violence.
Risk factors:
- parents who are involved in criminal activity or who have a criminal
history;
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- family violence;
- siblings with behaviour problems;
- use of corporal punishment;
- inconsistent discipline.
|
Results:
- pre- and post-test evaluations showed the youth involved in Wraparound
reduced their rate of recidivism and improved their performance in
school, at home and in the community; and
- after one year of counselling, there was a decrease in the rate of
violent sex offences (from 14% to 2%), offences against property (from
42% to 15%), assaults (from 20% to 5%) and offences involving firearms
(from 11% to 3%). [93]
Rating:
|
| All Children Excel (ACE) |
Age group:
6-15 years (girls and boys)
Youth who present a high risk of chronic delinquency and violence. |
Problems:
- delinquency;
- aggression and violence;
- academic problems.
Risk factors:
- parents who are involved in criminal activity or who have a criminal
history;
- poor parental supervision;
- mismanagement of family conflicts;
- poor family bonds;
- family violence;
- siblings with behaviour problems;
- use of corporal punishment;
- inconsistent discipline.
|
Results:
- an evaluation from 1999 to 2003 showed that youth who participated
in ACE attended school regularly, were accepted to high school and
improved their attitudes and behaviour at school;[104]
- among youth who present the same level of risk, those who participated
in ACE had a lower rate of recidivism (35% versus 57%); and
- over a period of 4.5 years, 86% of ACE youth did not face new charges.[105]
Rating:
|
| SNAP™ Under 12 Outreach Project (ORP)
Also accompanies family therapy and parental training |
Age group:
6-12 years (boys only)
Boys who have committed offences or who present serious behaviour problems.
Note: a program for girls, SNAP™ Girls Connection, was established
in 1996. |
Problems:
- delinquency;
- aggression and violence.
Risk factors:
- poor parental behaviour;
- poor parental supervision.
|
Results:
Compared to a control group, SNAP™ participants:[93]
- had fewer individual problems (anxiety, depression);
- improved their social skills (better relations with peers; participation
in activities);
- reduced their rate of aggression and delinquency;
- 60% of high risk children who participated in ORP did not have a
criminal record;
- showed positive skills after treatment, developed positive ties with
teachers, friends and family members and were less likely to associate
with "bad friends"; and,
- parents had less difficulty in relations with their children and
were confident that they could adequately supervise their behaviour.
Rating:
|
Key Success Factors for Family-Based
Programs
The previous results show that it is possible to work effectively with vulnerable
families to reduce and prevent the risk of juvenile delinquency.[106] Following
are some of the key success factors in these programs.[107]
A Combination of Intervention Strategies
- Current knowledge show that programs combining training session for youth
and for parents have a more significant impact on the mitigation of risk
factors and the reinforcement of protective factors than programs that target
only youth or parents.[108]
- Programs that combine diversified intervention strategies, use an integrated
approach and involve several stakeholders, have a better chance of success.
- From this point of view, to obtain better effective results, it is mainly
recommended to combine intervention in family setting and in school setting.
- Work on risk factors that can be changed (such as dynamic risk factors
rather than static ones: parenting practices, supervision, conflict management
and so on).
Program Design and Implementation
- Use a structured approach and propose a range of activities.
- Work over a sufficient period of time, particularly with high-risk families,
to generate long-term effects. Some projects fail because they are too short-lived
and do not give parents enough time to acquire new skills.
- Take the age and gender of the young people into account.
- Also take into account ethnic and cultural characteristics. More detailed
research should be conducted on the key factors for successful intervention
with ethnic and cultural communities in order to gain a better understanding
of the influence of cultural background on the implementation.
- Ensure that staff involved in program implementation and execution have
the academic qualifications, expertise and personal suitability.
Conclusion
As the results presented in this paper suggest, prevention and treatment programs
for vulnerable families are effective and should therefore be included in a
comprehensive approach and strategy to prevent and reduce delinquency and recidivism
for youth at risk.
Since the family is a key factor in a young person's development, it goes
without saying that working with those who are at risk by offering integrated,
personalized treatment plans, individual or family therapy, or parental education
activities, is a casework strategy with proven effectiveness.
However, since the family is at the intersection of a number of living environments - peers,
school and neighbourhood, to mention only a few - it must be understood as a
system of relations influenced by a number of risk factors and protective factors,
generated both by the influence of these living environments and by its internal
dynamics and characteristics.
In casework, therefore, there is no absolute truth and no single program that
applies to all families at risk. The reality of families at risk ranges over
a continuum, and personalized, individualized casework taking into account
the specific characteristics of each family enables accurate targeting of the
central risk factors that must be addressed, as well as the existing protective
factors that must be reinforced.
Such targeted casework must be based on an evaluation of families' needs and
circumstances, and a strong and current corpus of scientific knowledge about
vulnerable families.
With respect to scientific knowledge, this exploratory research has produced
an overall picture of existing knowledge, and in so doing, has brought out
the limitations to which research is subject. Better knowledge of protective
factors and their role with respect to the age of young people, and better
knowledge of the situation in Aboriginal families and effective ways of working
with them, are the frontiers on which research should be carried out.
Lastly, suggested avenues for future research could include detailed studies
of the costs and benefits of mid- and long-term family-based prevention programs
in such areas as justice, health, employability, substance abuse treatment
and so on, and longitudinal studies could be developed at the same time on
the long-term impact that prevention and treatment programs have on the life
trajectory of the children of those who take part in them.
APPENDIX
Program Descriptions
Preventive Treatment Program
"The Preventive Treatment Program was aimed at disruptive kindergarten boys
and their parents, with the goal of reducing short- and long-term antisocial
behaviour." (OJJDP)
This program, also referred to as the Montreal Prevention Experiment, is for
boys aged 7 to 9 identified by teachers as presenting disruptive behaviour
in school.
The program objectives are to reduce:
- delinquency;
- drug use; and
- involvement in gangs.
Method
- The program offers two-year training for parents and boys.
Training for Parents
- Training for parents is based on a model developed by the Oregon Social
Learning Center.
- Parents attend training session to learn skills in the management of family
crises, positive reinforcement and the use of consistent discipline.
- The objective of parent training is to equip them to exercise a positive
influence on their child, and modify their behaviour.
- Boys are invited to attend parent-training sessions, but attendance is
not mandatory.
- In all, over a two-year period, parents attend an average of 20 training
sessions.
- Caseworkers help parents apply what they have learned in the home, and
teachers are encouraged to become involved and participate.
Training for Boys
- Training for boys takes place in the school setting.
- Groups of young people are formed: 1 or 2 disruptive boys teamed with 3
to 5 non-disruptive boys.
- The emphasis is on the promotion of social skills and emotions management
through the learning of skills in problem solving, conflict management and
self-control.
- The sessions in school use interactive methods, such as coaching and role-plays,
and behavioural techniques to achieve positive modification of the boys'
behaviour and promote the learning of positive skills and abilities.
- In all, over a two-year period, the boys attend 19 sessions:
- The first year (9 training sessions) focuses on the development of
social skills, such as how to make contact with another person.
- The second year (10 training sessions) focuses on the promotion of
self-control; for example: What do I do when I get mad?
Additional Information
Training for Parents
- The training sessions for parents are led by 4 professionals: 2 social
workers specializing in childhood problems, 1 social worker and 1 psychologist.
The same people provide training for parents in the home and training for
the boys in the school setting.
- Parents attend about 20 group sessions which occur every 2-3 weeks over
a 2-year period.
- The duration of parent training depends on their ability to apply the new
knowledge and skills acquired; the professionals evaluate them and decide
whether training sessions should continue or terminate.
Training for Boys
- Training sessions for boys are led by the same professionals as the training
for parents.
- Sessions are held every two weeks and last about 45 minutes.
- They are held from November to April throughout two consecutive years.
- The professionals responsible for the training sessions meet with the teachers
to advise them on the kind of reinforcement the boys require.
Evaluation
- At age 12 (three years after the program), compared to non-participants,
the boys who took part presented fewer adjustment difficulties in school
(22%, compared to 44%) and fewer of them were placed in special education
(23%, compared to 43%).
- At age 15, compared to non-participants, the boys who took part were less
involved in gangs, committed fewer offences - theft, vandalism, drug use - and
had fewer friends who had been previously arrested by the police.
References
- McCord, J., et al. 1994. "Boys' Disruptive Behaviour,
School Adjustment, and Delinquency: The Montreal Prevention Experiment".
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(4), 739-752.
- Tremblay, R.E., et al. 1992. "Parent and Child Training
to Prevent Early Onset of Delinquency: The Montreal Longitudinal Experimental
Study," Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions
From Birth Through Adolescence. New York, N.Y.: The Guilford Press.
- Tremblay, R.E., et al. 1996. "From Childhood Physical
Aggression to Adolescent Maladjustment: The Montreal Prevention Experiment." Preventing
Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency. Thousand Oaks, Calif.:
Sage Publications.
Parenting With Love and Limits (PLL)
"Parenting With Love and Limits® is a parenting education program that
integrates the best principles of a structural family therapy approach into
a comprehensive program for juvenile delinquent populations." (Brush Dance
Clinic)
Parenting with Love and Limits (PLL) is a program that combines group therapy
and family therapy. It is for children aged 10 to 18 identified or diagnosed
with serious emotional or behavioural problems, drug or alcohol abuse, suicidal
ideations, depression or all of these.
The objectives of PLL are to:
- reduce the incidence of problems in young people at risk;
- develop new social skills and abilities in parents and young people; and
- prevent relapses by helping parents and young people make good use of their
new skills and abilities in their daily lives.
Method
- PLL uses group therapy and family therapy: in group therapy (about six
sessions), parents and young people learn new skills, and in family therapy
(four sessions or more), they participate in role playing activities to put
into practice what they have learned.
- PLL is based on a six-step scale for change (Savannah Family Institute,
Inc.) (pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance,
closure).
- Group therapy:
- Groups are made up of a maximum of six families and 15 people (brothers
and sisters can participate in group therapy).
- Groups are supervised by two caseworkers.
- Group therapy takes place over six weeks, two hours per week.
- During the first hour the parents and young people meet together, and
during the second hour they form two separate groups, each with a caseworker.
- Family therapy:
- During family therapy, young people and parents meet individually with
a caseworker.
- Family therapy lasts between one and two hours and is used to put the
new skills learned in group therapy into practice.
- Approximately three to four family therapy sessions are recommended
for young people who have a lower risk, and up to 20 for those at high
risk.
Additional Information
- During group sessions and family therapy, caseworkers are equipped with
detailed guides to treatment and procedure.
- Parents and young people have workbooks.
- For information about detailed implementation, go to the Web site: Parenting
With Love and Limits - PLL, An Evidence-Based Treatment Model for Mental
Health at http://www.gopll.com/ .
Evaluation
- Compared to a control group, young people who participated in PLL showed
a significant reduction in aggressiveness, depression and attention deficit.
- Families participating in PLL also improved parent-child communication.
- After a 12-month follow-up, compared to a control group, young people in
PLL had a lower rate of recidivism: 16%, compared to 55%.
References
- Sells, S.P., T.E. Smith, and J. Rodman. 2006. "Reducing
Substance Abuse through Parenting With Love and Limits.", Journal
of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse. (15): 105-115.
- Parenting With Love and Limits - PLL: http://www.gopll.com/
Focus on Families
"As a result of Focus on Families, parents are expected to have less risk
for relapse, to be better skilled to cope with relapse incidents, and to
have decreased drug use episodes." (Strengthening America's Families)
Focus on Families is designed for parents with substance abuse problems. It
is for families in which one parent is being treated with methadone and who
have children ages 3 to 14. It is preferable for the parents to have completed
at least 90 days of methadone treatment before the program begins.
The objectives are to:
- prevent relapses;
- help and equip parents to cope with their dependency problems; and
- reduce the risk that children in these families will develop the same substance
abuse problems.
Method
- The program combines training for parents and in-home services.
- Eligible families first participate in a five-hour family retreat.
- The retreat is followed by 32 sessions of treatment for the parents (about
16 weeks). Each session lasts an hour and a half and sessions are held twice
a week with a group of six to eight families.
- The sessions are led by a trained therapist with work experience in substance
abuse treatment.
- Training sessions address the following subjects: identifying family goals;
improving family communication; learning how to manage crises; creating opportunities
to live in a drug-free family; helping children succeed at school; and teaching
children to develop skills.
- The children attend 12 sessions, in which they learn to develop skills
with their parents.
- A home-visit service is also offered for nine months by a trained therapist
with work experience in substance abuse.
- Home visits begin one month after the start of the training sessions for
parents to motivate and encourage them.
- Home visits must continue for about four months after the training sessions
end to ensure follow-up.
Additional Information
- The training sessions for parents require two therapists with experience
in substance abuse treatment.
- The training sessions attended by the children require two more therapists.
- The program also requires a case manager for the home visits.
- The training manuals and teaching workbooks must be purchased (about $200).
- Training in the program is available from the designers.
- The costs vary with the length and intensity of the training.
- The provision of snacks, transportation and a babysitting service for the
youngest children are recommended.
- The program uses feedback from video recordings.
- This project is also known as Families Facing the Future.
Evaluation
- After a 12-month follow-up, compared to those in the control group, parents
who took part in the program reported fewer spousal disputes, were better
able to secure compliance with instructions in the home, and reduced their
consumption of heroin by 65%.
- After a 24-month follow-up, compared to young people in the control group,
young people who took part in the program reported fewer behavioural problems
and less drug use.
References
- Bry, B. H., et al. 1998. "Scientific Findings From Family
Prevention Intervention Research." In R. S. Ashery, E. B. Robertson, & K.
L. Kumpfer (Eds.), NIDA Research Monograph: Vol. 177. Drug Abuse Prevention
Through Family Interventions (pp. 103-129). Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse.
- Social Development Research Group: http://depts.washington.edu/sdrg/FOF.htm
Functional Family Therapy (FFT)
"Functional Family Therapy is a short-term approach designed to engage and
motivate youths and families to change negative affect." (OJJDP)
Functional Family Therapy is a family-focused prevention and response project
for young people aged 11 to 18 with serious behavioural, drug abuse and violence
problems. It has been applied successfully with various ethnic groups and in
various social and economic contexts.
FFT is a multi-system prevention program designed to:
- reduce the negativism associated with families at risk;
- reinforce the bond of affection within the family;
- improve parents' ability to manage family conflict;
- develop positive behaviour; and
- reinforce parents' skills so that they can provide consistent and structured
discipline for their children.
Method
- FFT is a short-term program delivered by therapists in the homes of participating
families.
- FFT is based on a clinical approach: in each of the three phases (see below),
the therapist identifies the risk factors and protective factors, and works
with the family and with each individual.
- The program is delivered in three phases:
- engagement and motivation: reducing the negativism associated with
families at risk;
- changing behaviour: reducing and eliminating behavioural problems and
improving family relations; and
- generalization: increasing the ability of families to use community
resources and avoid relapses.
- A family therapist works with one family at a time.
- When families have multiple problems, family treatment is incorporated
into the therapy.
- FFT is usually delivered over a three-month period: from one session of
8 to 12 hours for mild cases, to 30 for families in difficulty, with an average
of 12 sessions per family.
Additional Information
- FFT combines and incorporates empirical principles and clinical experience.
- An FFT team consists of three to eight clinicians who receive intensive
and continuous training, with follow-up over 12 months in the form of telephone
conversations with the program managers.
- FFT is successful because it is a multi-system program that emphasizes
the training of therapists, the community, and the clinical system of treatment.
- Program cost: on average, per family, for 12 visits, the cost varies from
$1,350 to $3,750 (Lawrence A. et al. 2001).
Evaluation
- Compared to traditional probation services, residential treatment or alternative
therapy approaches, FFT gets better results in reducing the rate of recidivism.
- FFT also reduces the chances that the young person's siblings will commit
offences.
- FFT reduces the number of placements in specialized treatment centres.
- Very good cost-effectiveness ratio: $700 to $1,000 per participating family,
compared to at least $6,000 per young person in placement (Mihalic S., Irwin
K., et al., 2001).
- The effectiveness of this approach has been shown in a number of studies
over some 25 years. (Greenwood P., 2004).
References
- Mihalic, S., K. Irwin, et al. 2001. "Blueprint for Violence
Prevention." Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington: US Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
- Sexton, T., and J. Alexander. 2000. "Functional Family
Therapy." In Justice Juvenile Journal. Washington: Family Strengthening
Series, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Functional Family Therapy: http://www.fftinc.com/
Multidimensional Treatment Foster
Care (MTFC)
"Community foster families are recruited and trained to provide out-of-home
placements for juvenile offenders or children at risk for detention." (OJJDP)
MTFC, or Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, offers an alternative to
traditional residential placement, incarceration or hospitalization for young
people aged 11 to 18 with chronic problems of violence and delinquency. The
young people are placed with an MTFC family for six to nine months and receive
intensive treatment. During this time, the young person's original family receives
therapy, and the parents receive training as well.
The program is based on the social learning theory, whereby social contexts
and daily interactions affect both positive and antisocial behaviours in young
people.
The goals of the MTFC program are to:
- reduce criminal behaviour and drug use;
- improve participation at school;
- reduce associations with juvenile delinquents; and
- improve young people's skills so that the return to the original family
is uneventful and relapses are avoided.
For the original families, MTFC treatment seeks to:
- improve parenting skills through effective and consistent discipline; and
- increase the parents' participation and involvement with their children.
Method
- MTFC involves a number of treatment activities, which include training
for the parents of the original family, support for the parents of the MTFC
family, family therapy for the biological parents, development of skills
in the young people, therapy for the young people, academic support and assistance
to involve the school in the process and, if necessary, a psychiatric consultation.
- Treatment for the young person consists of three components that work together:
- The MTFC family: young people are placed with an MTFC
family. The MTFC parents receive complete training beforehand, which
enables them to supervise the young people properly and work individually
with each young person. Every day, the MTFC parents brief the coordinator
on the changes in each young person. On the basis of the changes in each
case, the coordinator advises the MTFC parents on what they are to do.
- The original family: the parents receive training
and therapy. They learn to apply consistent discipline, provide encouragement
and use techniques similar to those used by the MTFC family. Their training
is also designed to develop positive family relations and reduce conflict
when the young person returns to the original family.
- The project treatment team: the team is managed by
a coordinator, who also advises the MTFC family, and consists of two
therapists - one for the family sessions and one for the individual sessions -
an educational psychologist and a secretary.
- There are currently three versions of MTFC, for those aged 3-5, 6-11 and
12-17.
Additional Information
- MTFC families are supported by a coordinator who is responsible for the
treatment program, and the family calls every day to brief the coordinator
on improvements or problems with the young person.
- Regular contacts between the MTFC family and the coordinator are key to
the program's success.
- MTFC families receive 20 hours of training in social learning theory; they
also receive financial compensation.
- Such families are sometimes difficult to recruit.
- TFC Inc. was set up in 2002, and its consultants are responsible for advising
and supporting caseworkers wishing to launch an MTFC program.
- The budget has to cover human resources costs, the cost of equipping staff,
financial compensation for the MTFC families, and expenses for the MTFC response
team, particularly with respect to travel costs.
Evaluation
- Compared to young people in a control group, after a 12-month follow-up,
MTFC participants spent 60% fewer days in jail, were arrested less often
and used hard drugs less.
- The same evaluation showed that boys completing the treatment had better
mental health, better academic results and a more positive attitude to life.
- MTFC is a program that adapts very well to the special needs of delinquent
girls (Sherman F. 2005). After a two-year follow-up, compared to girls in
a control group, MTFC girls spent 100 fewer days in detention.
- After a two-year follow-up, savings due to reduced incarceration totalled
$122,000 (Mihalic, Irwin, et al., 2001).
References
- Chamberlain, P. and J. Reid. 1998. "Comparison of Two
Community Alternatives to Incarceration for Chronic Juvenile Offenders." Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(4): 624-633.
- MTFC: http://www.mtfc.com/index.html
Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT)
"BSFT is based on the assumption that the family - one of the most important
and influential systems in the lives of children and adolescents - provides
the foundation for child development. As a result, BSFT conceptualizes and
intervenes to change youth behavior problems at the family level." (BSFT
Web site)
Brief Strategic Family Therapy (BSFT) is designed to prevent and treat behavioural
problems in young people aged 8 to 18. It targets young people who display,
or are at risk of presenting, behavioural problems, particularly drug use and
school abandonment.
The BSFT approach perceives the family as the foundation for child development.
The family protects against negative influences, hence the importance of working
with the family.
The goals of BSFT are essentially to:
- reduce behavioural problems in young people; and
- improve family functioning by reducing the negative effects of risk factors
and reinforcing protective factors.
Method
- Therapy is designed to meet the needs of each family.
- Through coaching, the therapist modifies interactions between parents and
child.
- The main techniques used include engagement (family members describe how
their family operates), diagnosis (identifying ineffective interactions and
the family's strengths), and restructuring (changing negative interactions
into positive ones).
- The duration of treatment varies from 12 to 15 sessions over a period of
about three months.
- Each lasts 60 to 90 minutes.
- For families with more serious problems, the duration of treatment can
be doubled.
- Therapy can take place in the home, in a clinic or in a community centre.
Additional Information
- Staff required to run a BSFT program include therapists and a clinical
supervisor.
- A full-time therapist can take care of a maximum of 20 families.
- Therapists must have a graduate degree in mental health, social work or
a related discipline.
- It is preferable for therapists to have at least three years' clinical
experience.
- Therapists' travel costs are provided.
- The Center for Family Studies offers training for those who wish to implement
BSFT, depending on the staff's level of clinical experience and the specific
needs of the families requiring treatment. Training takes about five days
and costs about $18,000.
Evaluation
- BSFT was developed by the Center for Family Studies, Department of Psychiatry
and Social Sciences, University of Miami.
- It has received a number of awards from government and private agencies.
- BSFT is considered highly effective with cultural communities.
- Compared to other forms of family therapy, BSFT achieves a better rate
of family participation (81%, compared to 61%), and more families complete
the program (71%, compared to 42%).
- BSFT has been certified as a model program by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
References
- Robbins, M.S. and J. Szapocznik. 2000. Brief Strategic
Family Therapy. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington: Family Strengthening
Series, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Robbins, M.S., et al. 2001. "Assessing Changes in Family
Interaction: The Structural Family Systems Ratings." In Family Observational
Coding Systems: Resources for Systemic Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Erlbaum.
- Robbins, M.S., et al. 2003. "Brief Strategic Family Therapy
for Hispanic Youth." Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Children and
Adolescents. New York: Guilford.
- Szapocznik, J., et al. 2002. "Brief Strategic Family Therapy
With Behavior Problem Hispanic Youth." Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy:
Volume 4. New York: Wiley.
- Brief Strategic Family Therapy: http://www.brief-strategic-family-therapy.com/bsft
Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT)
"MDFT targets the known areas of risk associated with adolescent drug abuse
and delinquency and enhances those protective factors and processes known
to promote successful teen and family development." (Strengthening Families)
Multidimensional Family Therapy is a complete program designed for children
aged 11 to 18 with drug use and behavioural problems.
The MDFT approach emphasizes sound functioning for the young person in a number
of areas. More specifically, it seeks to change the lifestyle of young people
in several areas of life: relations with friends, health, school attendance,
and relations with parents.
The program has been applied in various cultural communities, and most of
the families treated under the program came from poor neighbourhoods. The young
people participating in MDFT are often considered at high risk of demonstrating
multiple problems and being involved in activities that can lead them into
the youth justice system.
The goals of the program are to:
- reduce or eliminate substance abuse and behavioural problems; and
- improve family functioning.
With regard to the parents, MDFT seeks to facilitate their engagement and
involvement, improve communication between them and the child, and alter inappropriate
parenting practices. Lastly, for each family, there are two intermediate goals:
helping the young people form bonds of affection with their parents, and building
positive and lasting relations with peer groups.
Method
- MDFT consists of individual therapy for children, and family therapy.
- It is a flexible program that adapts to the clinical needs of various population
groups.
- For example, an intensive version of MDFT can include 16 to 25 sessions
(of four to six months), while a less intensive version can include 12 sessions
(about three months).
- Therapy sessions take place weekly and can be held in various locations:
home, clinic or school.
- Five evaluation and intervention modules make up the MDFT approach:
- the adolescent module,
- the parent module,
- the family module to facilitate change in family relationship patterns,
- the module for other family members, and
- the module for outside family members.
Additional Information
- The number of families per therapist varies from 6 to 10.
- The MDFT clinical team consists of a clinical supervisor, two to four therapists,
and one or two assistant therapists, depending on the financial resources
available.
- MDFT therapists have two to three years' experience in treating drug use
in young people, and a master's degree in a related field.
- Training for therapists can vary, depending on client needs. Generally,
the therapists who lead sessions have been trained by familiarizing themselves
with MDFT therapy, watching videos or participating, with other therapists,
in learning and observation sessions.
Evaluation
- MDFT has been certified as a model program by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
- In reducing rates of drug use, MDFT therapy gets better results (a 45% reduction)
than group therapy (32%) or multi-family therapy (26%).
- Compared to cognitive therapies, MDFT gets better results in terms of the
persistence of positive long-term effects. Cognitive therapies and MDFT get
good results in terms of behavioural change in young people, but the effects
of MDFT are longer lasting.
References
Positive Parenting Program - Triple
P
"Triple P - the Positive Parenting Program - is a unique parenting and family
support strategy designed to reduce the prevalence of behavioural and emotional
problems in children and adolescents. Triple P is a multi-level system of
family intervention, which provides five levels of intervention of increasing
strength." (Sanders M., et al.)
Originating in Australia, Triple P is a multi-level system of family intervention
designed to prevent and treat emotional and behavioural problems in children
and young people aged 16 and younger.
Based on behavioural and developmental theory, Triple P addresses the risk
factors related to the development of affective and behavioural problems in
children. The emphasis is on support and practical advice for parents.
The goals of Triple P are to:
- reinforce parenting skills;
- provide support to parents;
- promote sound family functioning;
- promote non-violent behaviours;
- reduce the risk of child abuse; and
- increase the resources available to parents.
Method
- The Triple P program is divided into five levels; the duration and intensity
depend on each family.
- According to its needs and the problems it faces, a family can participate
at one level without necessarily going through the preceding ones.
- The five levels are broken down over a service continuum:
- Level 1: universal prevention, with advice for parents on improving
basic healthcare for newborns.
- Level 2: offers one or two kinds of healthcare intervention for parents
whose children present minor behavioural problems; there are few contacts
with the therapist.
- Level 3: offers further sessions for parents whose children present
affective problems, such as mood disorders.
- Level 4: targets parents whose children present more serious problems.
This level includes intensive behavioural training for parents, and is
spread over 8 to 10 sessions.
- Level 5: designed for families whose functional difficulties are aggravated
by a number of risk factors, such as parental depression, parental stress
or spousal conflict.
- Level 5 offers an individualized intensive program for dysfunctional families
whose children have behavioural disorders. It includes practical sessions
to improve parenting skills and the ability to manage mood and stress, particularly
for parents who are at risk of mistreating their child.
Additional Information
- Several levels of Triple P intervention can be delivered in a variety of
formats: face-to-face conversation, group sessions, telephone assistance
or a combination of several formats. This flexibility enables parents to
adjust their participation to the program format that suits them.
- The intervention also includes watching videos that address specific family
issues.
- Triple P is adaptable to various population groups.
- Depending on the intervention level, practitioners involved in the program
are mental health workers, social workers or other support professionals
in the healthcare and education field; they have regular meetings with the
parents to discuss the behaviour of their child.
Evaluation
- The program, or one of its components, has been used in a dozen countries
around the world, particularly China, Germany, New Zealand, Singapore and
the United Kingdom (Kruger, et al. 2000).
- Twenty-five years of research and evaluation have shown that the Triple
P program is an effective method of family support.
References
- National Crime Prevention. 1999. Pathways to Prevention:
Developmental and Early Intervention Approaches to Crime in Australia.
Canberra: Attorney-General's Department, National Crime Prevention,
Australia.
- Sanders, M., C. Markie and M.K. Turner. 2003. Theoretical,
Scientific and Clinical Foundations of the Triple P Positive Parenting
Program: A Population Approach to the Promotion of Parenting Competence. Australia:
University of Queensland, Parenting and Family Support Centre.
- Sanders, M., T. Mazzucchelli and L. Studman. 2004. "Stepping
Stones Triple P - An Evidence-Based Positive Parenting Program for Families With
a Child Who Has a Disability: Its Theoretical Basis and Development." Journal
of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 29(3), 265-283.
- Triple P: http://www1.triplep.net/
Multisystemic Therapy (MST)
"The underlying premise of MST is that criminal conduct is multi-causal...
effective interventions would address multiple factors in youth ecology:
individual, family, peer, school and community." (Leschied A.W. & Cunningham
A.)
MST is intensive, family-centered treatment designed for youth aged 12 to
18 who are regarded as having serious behavioural problems (chronic violence,
abuse problems, delinquency and so on) and at risk of placement.
MST is based on a multi-dimensional intervention approach that targets the
risk factors from various sources: individual characteristics, family, school,
friends, neighbourhood. MST helps parents treat behavioural problems in their
children, divert them from bad associations and promote academic success.
The main goals of MST are to:
- reduce antisocial behaviour in young people;
- reduce the number of placements;
- enhance the ability of families to resolve problems and conflicts, that
is:
- help parents manage their children's problems better in order to reduce
or eliminate placements;
- teach parents to discipline their children consistently;
- identify what seems to be preventing parents from using effective parenting
techniques (for example, substance abuse and mental health problems in
the parents);
- develop a social support network for parents, including extended family,
neighbours, church members and friends.
Method
- The intervention plans, specific to the needs of each child, consist of
family therapy, behavioural training for parents, and cognitive behavioural
therapy.
- Each therapist works with four to six families.
- Therapists use existing strengths in the child's network to induce them
to modify their antisocial behaviours.
- MST can be carried out in various locations: home, school or community
centre.
- MST employs a team of two to four therapists and their supervisor; they
must be available at all times. Team members have a university degree in
an appropriate discipline.
- The average duration of MST is about four months, with 60 hours of family
therapy.
Additional Information
- A large portion of the resources are devoted to the training of therapists
and continuous clinical consultation.
- MST training and support is provided on site by MST Services, Inc.
- When an MST-based program is implemented, assistance and support for the
design, development and execution of the program can be obtained by MST Services.
- Partners in implementation can be drawn from various sectors: youth justice,
mental health, school, healthcare and social services, education, and justice.
- Implementing MST is relatively expensive: about US $5,000 per child. On
the other hand, MST reduces the rate of recidivism, thereby avoiding the
costs associated with treating recidivists.
Evaluation
- A number of evaluation studies have confirmed the effectiveness of MST
(for complete evaluation results, go to the MST Web site at http://www.mstservices.com/complete_overview.php )
- Compared to children who received traditional treatment, MST participants
showed a significant reduction in criminal activity. MST participants also
had fewer mental health problems.
- Compared to children who received traditional treatment, a 2.4-year follow-up
showed that MST had doubled the number of young people who had not reoffended.
- Families participating in MST showed better cohesion, more mutual assistance
and less conflict and hostility.
- The positive results of MST are apparent up to four years after program
completion.
References
- Leschied, A.W. and A. Cunningham. 2002. Seeking Effective Interventions
for Serious Young Offenders - Interim Results of a Four-Year Randomized
Study of Multisystemic Therapy in Ontario, Canada. Centre for Children
and Families in the Justice System.
- Mihalic, S., et al. 2001. Blueprint for Violence Prevention.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington: US Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Multisystemic Therapy: http://www.mstservices.com/
CASASTART (Striving Together to Achieve
Rewarding Tomorrows)
"CASASTART is based on the assumption that, while all preadolescents are
vulnerable to experimentation with substances, those who lack effective human
and social support are especially vulnerable. It seeks to build resiliency
in youths, strengthen families, and make neighborhoods safer for children
and their families." (OJJDP)
CASASTART (Striving Together to Achieve Rewarding Tomorrows), also known as
Children at Risk (CAR), is a community-, school- and family-based program.
It was developed for children aged 8 to 13 who display a high risk of involvement
in criminal activity or drug use. The children targeted by the program generally
come from poor neighbourhoods.
CASASTART brings together families, caseworkers from healthcare and social
services, schools and youth justice institutions. It is designed to provide
young people with the support and services they need to become responsible,
law-abiding citizens, and create a safe environment for young people and their
families by reducing drug-related crimes and offences.
The main goals of CASASTART are to:
- prevent drug abuse and drug dealing in the community;
- prevent crime and delinquency;
- improve school attendance;
- develop cooperation between social services agencies, schools and law enforcement
(police and justice authorities) in order to satisfy the needs of young people
and their families;
- improve communication between young people and their families, and promote
exchanges between families, schools and the other participants in the CASASTART
program.
Method
To reduce risk factors associated with neighbourhood, family, friends and
individual characteristics, the program is based on the following components:
- An increased police presence in the community, and more police involvement
and participation with young people.
- Case management: caseworkers are assigned to a few families at a time (13
to 18), which enables special attention to the individual needs of young
people and families.
- Youth justice: increased communication between case managers and youth
justice departments in order to ensure appropriate planning and supervision
for young people subject to a court order.
- Family services: caseworkers provide various services for families to increase
parental involvement in their children's lives: for example, special programs
for parents, advice, organized activities and so on.
- After-school and summer activities for young people, including sports and
recreation, as well as development and self-control programs.
- Education services to reinforce specific skills through individual in-home
courses for young people.
- Mentoring: group or individual, and designed to promote positive behavioural
change in young people.
Additional Information
- To establish a successful CASASTART program, the following steps must be
completed:
- Phase I - Initial activities:
- conduct a community evaluation,
- identify an agency to assume leadership,
- identify potential partners,
- set up an advisory council and recruit members, and
- define realistic goals. This phase can take six to eight months.
- Phase II - Execution:
- develop memoranda of agreement,
- if necessary, hire additional associates,
- establish confidentiality agreements,
- commence service delivery, and
- begin CASASTART meetings. This phase can take one year.
- The program adapts to the needs and existing strengths at each location;
there may be differences in the level of program development from location
to location.
- There are monetary and non-monetary incentives for participation in CASASTART
activities.
- CASASTART operates with case managers trained by the program leaders. It
is preferable for case managers to have at least some experience in social
work. Each case manager handles an average of 5 families.
- The cooperation of the police and youth justice agencies is necessary to
help young people on probation.
- Training and technical assistance in setting up CASASTART at new locations
are available from the program leaders, for the sum of $3,000 a day (in 2005).
Evaluation
- This program was developed by the National Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse at Columbia University and has been certified as a model program by
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
- Compared to children in the control group, after a one-year follow-up,
fewer children in CASASTART used marijuana, alcohol, inhalants or tobacco
(74%, compared to 64%), or committed violent crimes (22%, compared to 27%).
- On the other hand, for some aspects, there is no significant difference
between children in the program and children in the control group: for example,
self-esteem, at-risk sexual behaviour, crimes against property, gang membership
and contacts with the police.
References
Wraparound Milwaukee
"Wraparound Milwaukee is a system of community-based care for families of
children with severe emotional, behavioral and mental health needs. This
wraparound approach is based on an identification of the services families
really need to care for a child with special needs." (OJJDP)
Wraparound Milwaukee is an integrated care system for those aged 13 to 17
who present serious emotional or behavioural problems and require mental health
services.
The program emphasizes the development of appropriate care for children and
their families by providing integrated mental health, substance abuse and social
services.
The program was designed to reduce recourse to institutional care in treatment
centres and psychiatric hospitals by providing more services for children and
their families.
The program is run by Child and Adolescent Services, Milwaukee County Mental
Health Division in Wisconsin.
Method
- The program is based on an integrated, personalized approach to care.
- Family participation is a key to successful treatment.
- Key community caseworkers and professional resources are identified to
participate in the services provided to young people and their families.
- Young people are referred to the program by probation officers or youth
services officers.
- The program is for young people with serious affective problems identified
by youth protection services or the juvenile justice system as being at imminent
risk of residential, correctional or psychiatric centre placement.
- The program management team includes care coordinators, a child-and-family
team (CFT), a mobile crisis team and a network of partners associated with
the program.
Care Coordinators:
- Care coordinators are the cornerstone of the program.
- They conduct evaluations, assemble child-and-family teams, lead meetings,
help determine needs and resources with the young person and the family,
help the team identify the services to meet those needs, arrange the delivery
of specific services, and supervise the execution of the treatment plan.
- Coordinators in this program work with a limited number of families at
once: a maximum of eight.
The Child-and-family Team:
- This is a support network that includes family members and youth justice
probation officers or social workers from youth protection.
The Mobile Crisis Team:
- The mobile crisis team offers continuous service, round the clock.
- The team is available to meet the needs of the young person or family when
a care coordinator is not available.
- It is made up of psychologists and social workers trained in crisis intervention.
- Young people in the program are automatically registered for the crisis
service, and their treatment plans include immediate recourse to the crisis
team, when necessary.
A Network of Partners:
- The network is made up of a broad range of services and resources to meet
young people's needs.
Additional Information
- The average monthly cost per family is $3,796 (2006 Annual Report, Wraparound
Milwaukee).
Evaluation
- In 1994, Milwaukee County received five-year federal funding for the mental
health services centre to launch this integrated care program.
- Pre- and post-test evaluations after one year showed that the Wraparound
Milwaukee program led to a reduction among program participants in rates
of drug offences (6% to 3%), offences against property (34% to 17%), firearms
offences (15% to 4%), assaults (14% to 7%) and sexual assaults (11% to 1%).
References
- Kamradt, B. 2000. "Wraparound Milwaukee: Aiding Youth
With Mental Health Needs" in Juvenile Justice, Vol. VII (1), Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC.
- Wraparound Milwaukee: http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/router.asp?docid=7851
All Children Excel (ACE)
"Deflecting Children from the Path of Violence - Intensive Early Intervention
for very young offenders." (Ed Frickson, Project Director)
The ACE (All Children Excel) program is for those aged 6 to 15 who present
a high risk of becoming violent and chronic delinquents, who are already involved
in delinquency or who are at high risk of being maltreated. ACE seeks to reduce
the risk factors and improve the resilience of families and children.
The goals of ACE are to prevent and reduce:
- serious and violent delinquent behaviour;
- the intergenerational transfer of criminal behaviour, neglect or both;
- drug use;
- family violence; and
- school abandonment.
To achieve these goals, the program relies on building positive ties with
school, family and friends, improving social skills, and participation in recreational
activities.
Method
- Risk factors are identified using a chart developed by program researchers.
- The ACE model is based on integrated intervention by caseworkers drawn
from several fields: mental health care, youth justice, education, police
and the youth protection system.
- Intervention is also based on cooperation between parents, children, school
and community to reduce risk factors and reinforce protective factors.
Additional Information
- A multidisciplinary team provides multidimensional intervention and support
for families.
Evaluation
- The project was developed in 1998 by the Ramsey County (St. Paul), Minnesota,
Board of Commissioners, to address an increase in the number of juvenile
delinquents and the increasingly early onset of delinquency.
- Six months after their initial evaluation, 35% of children in the ACE program
committed a new offence, compared to 57% of children in the control group.
- In the community of Ramsey, in St. Paul, Minnesota, 82.7% of children considered
at high risk commit a criminal offence by their 13th birthday, compared to
30.5% of children who participated in ACE.
- The daily cost of the ACE program is $22 per child, compared to $100 per
child per day for detention in a youth correctional facility.
References
- Beuhring, T. 2003. Risk Factor Profile Instrument.
Ramsey County ACE Program. University of Minnesota.
- McVicker, C. (n.d.). Minnesota Youth ACE Intervention
Program. Children's Voice. Available at the Child Welfare League of
America Web site: http://www.cwla.org/programs/r2p/cvarticlesmn.htm
- Schmitz, C. and M. Luxenberg. 2006. Final Report on
the 2005-2006 Evaluation of the Ramsey County ACE Program, November
2006.
- ACE Web site: http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/ph/yas/ace.htm
SNAP™ Under 12 Outreach Project
(ORP)
"SNAP™ helps children and parents interrupt problematic pathways between
thinking and doing, to stop and think before they act and to learn more appropriate
ways to calm down."
The SNAP™ (Stop Now and Plan) Under 12 Outreach Project is a program based
on an integrated approach for boys aged 6 to 11 in contact with the police,
at risk to reoffend, or who display serious behavioural problems. SNAP™ was
developed by the Child Development Institute of Ontario, Canada.
ORP is based on social learning and cognitive change and uses a multisystem approach targeting
the child, the family and the community.
The goals of the program are to:
- prevent boys from having dealings with the police in the future;
- prevent recidivism; and
- facilitate rapid and effective access to a range of services.
Method
The prevention strategy developed by the program involves three steps:
- Step 1: a protocol with police services for boys already involved in delinquency.
This type of protocol facilitates cooperation between caseworkers and directs
the boys to the appropriate services.
- Step 2: a structured clinical evaluation of risks for young people (boys
and girls): the Early Assessment Risk List for Boys (EARL-20B) and the Early
Assessment Risk List for Girls (EARL-21G).
- Step 3: application, depending on gender, of the SNAP™ Program, which
involves teaching children and families methods of self-control to enable
them to stop and think before they act.
- For boys, there is the SNAP™ Under 12 Outreach Project, and for girls
the SNAP™ Girls Connection.
- The SNAP™ Under 12 Outreach Project (ORP) is a 12-week program with
five components:
- The SNAP™ course: group training for children to teach them the
SNAP™ self-control and dispute resolution techniques. The examples
addressed include how to stop stealing, how to manage the influence of
others, how to manage bad emotions like anger and aggression, and how
to stay out of trouble.
- A SNAP™ parent group: parents learn effective child behaviour
management strategies based on SNAP™ principles.
- Individual meetings for children who fail to assimilate the SNAP™ principles
and need additional support.
- Family consultations based on Stop Now and Plan Parenting, or SNAPP.
- Make-up courses for children having difficulty in school.
- Parents are key participants in the process: they are encouraged to participate
in weekly groups where they can learn SNAP™-based parenting techniques.
- Meetings are held weekly for 12 weeks.
Additional Information
- The average cost of ORP services for a low-risk child is about $1,000 (four-month
program), $2,300 for a moderate-risk child (six-month program), and $4,300
for a high-risk child (12-month program).
- SNAP™ is a registered trademark of the Child Development Institute.
To obtain authorization to make copies, and the necessary materials, contact
the Institute.
Evaluation
- Evaluations of the SNAP™ Outreach Project (ORP) and the Girls Connection
(GC) show the positive effects of the treatment.
- Among ORP and GC participants, significant improvements were noted in three
areas: personality (anxiety, depression), externality (aggression, delinquency)
and social skills (peer relations, participation in activities).
- Studies have shown that children who take part in the program are twice
as likely not to have a criminal record by age 18.
- It was found that 60% of high-risk children participating in the program
did not have a criminal record by age 18.
- ORP and GC participants have better relations with teachers, peers and
family members. They are more aware of the negative effects of associating
with delinquent peers.
- Parents taking part in ORP and GC feel less stress in their interactions
with their child and have more confidence in their ability to manage their
child's deviant behaviour properly.
- The program is now running in various cities in Canada, the United States,
Europe and the Scandinavian countries.
References
- Augimera, L., D. Farrington, C. Keegl and D. Day. 2007. "The
SNAP™ Under 12 Outreach Project: Effects of a Community-Based Program
for Children With Conduct Problems." Journal of Child and Family Studies,
(16)6: 799-807.
- Child Development Institute: http://www.childdevelop.ca
References
- Adlaf, E.M., P. Begin, and E. Sawka. 2005. Canadian
Addiction Survey (CAS): A National Survey of Canadians' Use of Alcohol
and Other Drugs: Prevalence of Use and Related Harms: Detailed Report.
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, Ottawa.
- Anderson, B., et al. 2005. Risk and Protective Factors.
London, United Kingdom: Youth Justice Board.
- Augimera, L., et al. 2007. "The SNAP™ Under 12 Outreach
Project: Effects of a Community Based Program for Children with Conduct Problems." Journal
of Child and Family Studies, (16)6: 799-807.
- Beuhring, T. 2003. Risk Factor Profile Instrument.
Ramsey County ACE Program. University of Minnesota
- Browning, K. and D. Huizinga. 1999. Highlights of
Findings From the Denver Youth Survey. OJJDP Fact Sheet, No. 106.
Washington DC., US, Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
- Browning, K. and R. Loeber. 1999. Highlights of Findings
From the Pittsburgh Youth Study. OJJDP Fact Sheet, No. 95. Washington
DC., US, Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
- Browning, K., T. Thornberry and P. Porter. 1999. Highlights
of Findings From the Rochester Youth Development Study. OJJDP Fact
Sheet, No. 103. Washington DC., US, Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Bry, B. H., et al. 1998. "Scientific Findings From Family
Prevention Intervention Research." R. S. Ashery, E. B. Robertson, and K.
L. Kumpfer (Eds.), NIDA Research Monograph: Vol. 177. Drug Abuse Prevention
Through Family Interventions. (pp. 103-129). Rockville, MD: National
Institute on Drug Abuse. (SDRG #168)
- Brzozowski, J.-A., A. Taylor-Butts and S. Johnson. 2006. Victimization
and Offending Among the Aboriginal Population in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics
Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Juristat, Vol. 26, No.3.
- Burns, B.J., et al. 1999. "Promising Practices in Wraparound
for Children With Serious Emotional Disturbance and Their Families." Systems
of Care: Promising Practices in Children's Mental Health, 1998 Series, Volume
IV. Washington, DC. Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice,
American Institutes for Research.
- Cabinet Office, Social Exclusion Task Force. 2007. Families
at Risk: Background on Families With Multiple Disadvantages. London:
Cabinet Office.
- Calverley, D. 2007. Youth Custody and Community Services
in Canada, 2004-2005. Juristat, 27(2). Ottawa: Statistics Canada,
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
- Calvert, G. 2002. Getting in Early to Prevent Crime.
Paper presented at the Crime Prevention Conference held in Sydney. Conference
convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Crime Prevention
Branch. Sydney: Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department.
- Canada. Public Safety Canada. National Crime Prevention Centre.
2007. A Blueprint for Effective Crime Prevention. Ottawa: Public
Safety Canada.
- Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. 2001. Aboriginal
Peoples in Canada. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (CCJS) Profile
Series, Statistics Canada, Ottawa.
- Canadian Council on Social Development. 2006. The
Progress of Canada's Children & Youth-2006.
- Catalano, R. 2007. "Prevention is a Sound Public and Private
Investment." Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3): 377-398.
- Cernkovich, S., N. Lanctôt, and P. Giordano. 2007. "Predicting
Adolescent and Adult Antisocial Behavior Among Adjudicated Delinquent Females." Crime & Delinquency,
10: 1-31.
- Chamberlain, P. and J. Reid. 1998. "Comparison of Two
Community Alternatives to Incarceration for Chronic Juvenile Offenders." Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(4): 624-633.
- Child Trends. 2007. Guide to Effective Programs for
Children and Youth. Available from: www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/TripleP-PositiveParentingProgram.htm
- Claes,M., et al. 2005. "Parenting, Peer Orientation, Drug
Use, and Antisocial Behavior in Late Adolescence: A Cross-National Study." Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 34(5): 401-411.
- Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences Education.
2001. "Preventing Juvenile Crime." In McCord J., C. Widom, & N. Crowell, Juvenile
Crime, Juvenile Justice (107-153). Washington: National Academy Press.
- Crocker, R. 2001. "Children and Youth at Risk:
A Synthesis." In Children and Youth at Risk, Symposium Report, Pan-Canadian
Education Research Agenda 2000. Toronto: Canadian Education Statistics Council.
- Donnermeyer, J., et al. 1997. "Community Readiness and
Prevention Programs." Journal of the Community Development Society,
28(1): 65-83.
- Dossier Front Nouveau de Belgique. 2002. La délinquance
des jeunes: les 13-19 ans racontent leurs délits, [juvenile
delinquency: offenders aged 13 to 19 discuss their offences]. Sébastien
Roché, 2001, Éditions du Seuil, France.
- Éthier, L., et al. 2006. L'évolution
des familles négligentes: chronicité et typologie; étude
de suivi [the development of negligent families: persistence and typology
- a follow-up study] 1992 à 2005. Research report for FQRSC.
- Éthier, L., et al. 2007. Factors Related to
Chronic Neglect in Families. CECW Information Sheet No. 50E. Toronto:
University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work.
- Farrington, D. 2002. "Developmental Criminology and Risk-Focussed
Prevention." Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (Eds.) The Oxford
Handbook of Criminology (3rd ed.) (657-701). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
- Farrington, D. and B.Welsh. 1999. "Delinquency Prevention
Using Family-Based Interventions." Children & Society, 13: 287-303.
- Farrington, D. and B. Welsh. 2003. "Family-Based Prevention
of Offending: A Meta-Analysis." The Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Criminology, 36(2): 127-151.
- Farrington, D., et al. 2006. Criminal Careers Up to
Age 50 and Life Success up to Age 48: New Findings from the Cambridge Study.
2nd edition, London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
- First Nations Centre. 2006. First Nations Regional
Longitudinal Health Survey (RHS) 2002-2003, National Aboriginal Health
Organization, Ottawa. Available from: http://www.rhs-ers.ca/english/
- Greenwood, P. 2004. "Cost-effective Violence Prevention
through Targeted Family Interventions." Youth Violence - Scientific Approaches
to Prevention. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1036: 201-214.
- Guide to Effective Programs for Children and Youth: http://www.childtrends.org/
- Hastings, R., et al. 2007. Building a Safer Canada:
First Report of the National Working Group on Crime Prevention. Ottawa:
Institute for the Prevention of Crime (IPC).
- Helping America's Youth. n.d. Community Guide to Helping
America's Youth. Available from: www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/ .
- Henggeler, S.W. 1997. Treating Serious Antisocial
Behavior in Youth: The MST Approach. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington,
DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Hill, K., C. Lui and D. Hawkins. 2001. Early Precursors
of Gang Membership: A Study of Seattle Youth. Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Hoeve, M., et al. 2007. "Long-term Effects of Parenting
and Family Characteristics on Delinquency of Male Young Adults." European
Journal of Criminology, 4:161-194.
- Hotton, T. and D. Haans. 2004. "Alcohol and Drug Use in
Early Adolescence." Health Reports, 15(3), Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
- Hotton, T. 2003. Childhood Aggression and Exposure
to Violence in the Home. Crime and Justice Research Paper Series,
Catalogue no. 85-561-MIE-No. 002. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Department
of Justice Canada.
- Hubbard, D. and B. Matthews. 2007. "Reconciling the Difference
Between the 'Gender-Responsive' and the 'What Works' Literatures to Improve
Services for Girls." Crime and Delinquency, 54(2): 225-258.
- Huizinga, D., et al. 2000. Co-Occurrence of Delinquency
and Other Problem Behaviors. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington
DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Johnston, D. 2006. "Reaction Essay: The Wrong Road: Efforts
to Understand the Effects of Parental Crime and Incarceration." Criminology
and Public Policy, 5(4): 703-720.
- Juby, H. and D. Farrington. 2001. "Disentangling the Link
between Disrupted Families and Delinquency." The British Journal of Criminology,
41(1): 22-40.
- Kamradt, B. 2000. "Wraparound Milwaukee: Aiding Youth
With Mental Health Needs." Juvenile Justice, vol. VII (1), Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC.
- Krug, E., et al. 2002. World Report on Violence and
Health. World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva.
- Kumpfer, K. and R. Alvarado. 1998. Effective Family
Strengthening Interventions. Justice Juvenile Bulletin, Washington
DC: Family Strengthening Series, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Lacourse, E., et al. 2006. "Prediction of Early-Onset
Deviant Peer Group Affiliation: a 12-Year Longitudinal Study." Arch Gen
Psychiatry, 63: 562-568.
- Lansford, J., et al. 2007. "Early Physical Abuse and Later
Violent Delinquency: A Prospective Longitudinal Study." Child Maltreatment,
12(3): 233-245.
- Lauritsen, J. 2003. How Families and Communities Influence
Youth Victimization. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington DC: US
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.
- Lawrence, A., et al. 2001. Youth Violence: A Report
of the Surgeon General. United States: Department of Health and Human
Services.
- LeBlanc, M. and N. Kaspy. 1998. "Trajectories of Delinquency
and Problem Behavior: Comparison of Social and Personal Control Characteristics
of Adjudicated Boys on Synchronous and Nonsynchronous Paths." Journal
of Quantitative Criminology, 14(2): 181-213.
- Leblanc, M. 1999. « Les comportements violents des
adolescents: un phénomène particulier » [violent behaviour
in adolescents: a specific phenomenon]. In J. Proulx, M. Cusson, & M.
Ouimet (eds), Les violences criminelles [violent crime] (pp. 319-353).
Quebec City: Les Presses de l'Université Laval.
- Lengyel, T. 2006. "Parental Incarceration and Child Welfare:
Editorial Introduction." Criminology and Public Policy, 5(4): 673-676.
- Leschied, A.W. and A. Cunningham. 2002. Seeking Effective
Interventions for Serious Young Offenders: Interim Results of a Four-Year
Randomized Study of Multisystemic Therapy in Ontario, Canada. Centre
for Children and Families in the Justice System.
- Liddle, H. 2002. Multidimensional Family Therapy for
Adolescent Cannabis Users. US Department of Health and Human Services,
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment.
- Liddle, H. A., et al. 2001. "Multidimensional Family Therapy
for Adolescent Drug Abuse: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial." American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27(4): 651-688.
- Loeber, R., et al. 1998. "The Development of Male Offending:
Key Findings From the First Decade of the Pittsburgh Youth Study." Studies
in Crime and Crime Prevention, 7: 141-172.
- Loeber, R. and D. Farrington. 1998. "Never Too Early,
Never Too Late: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions for Serious Violent
Juvenile Offenders." Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 7(1):
7-30.
- Loeber, R., D. Farrington and D. Petechuk. 2003. Child
Delinquency: Early Intervention and Prevention. Child Delinquency:
Bulletin Series.Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Lonczak, H., et al. 2007. "Family Structure and Substance
Use Among American Indian Youth: A Preliminary Study." Families, Systems & Health,
25(1): 10-22.
- Mayer, M., C. Lavergne, and R. Baraldi. 2004. "Substance
Abuse and Child Neglect: Intruders in the Family." Information Sheet,
Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare (CECW No. 14E). Montreal: University
of Montreal and Institut pour le développement social des jeunes [institute
for youth social development].
- McAra, L. and S. McVie. 2007. "Criminal Justice Transitions." The
Edinburgh Study of Youth Transition and Crime, No. 14, Edinburgh:
The University of Edinburgh, Centre for Law and Society.
- McCord, J., et al. 1994. "Boys' Disruptive Behaviour,
School Adjustment, and Delinquency: The Montreal Prevention Experiment." International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 17(4): 739-752.
- McVie, S. and P. Bradshaw. 2005. "Adolescent Smoking,
Drinking and Drug Use." The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transition and Crime,
No. 7, Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh, Centre for Law and Society.
- McVie, S. and L. Holmes. 2005. "Family Functioning and
Substance Use at Ages 12 to 17." The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transition
and Crime, No. 9, Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh, Centre for
Law and Society.
- Mihalic, S., et al. 2001. Blueprint
for Violence Prevention. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Washington, DC: US Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
- Moreau, J., et al. 2001. Transmission intergénérationnelle
de la maltraitance : étude des liens entre les facteurs de protection
et les facteurs de risque auprès d'une population en difficulté [Intergenerational
Transmission of Maltreatment: A Study of the Connections between Protective
and Risk Factors in a Population in Difficulty]. Rapport d'activités
scientifiques présenté au Conseil québécois
de la Recherche Sociale [report on scientific activities submitted to the
Quebec Council on Social Research]. Montreal : Institut de recherche pour
le développement social des jeunes.
- Mucchielli, L. 2000. Familles et délinquances:
un bilan pluridisciplinaire des recherches francophones et anglophones [Families
and Delinquency: A Multidisciplinary Survey of Research in English and
French]. France: Caisse nationale des allocations familiales [national
family allowance fund] (CNAF).
- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) - Model
Programs Guide (MPG). Available from: http://www.dsgonline.com
- Ogrodnik, L. 2006. Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical
Profile 2006. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics.
- Ogrodnik, L. 2007. Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical
Profile 2007. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice
Statistics.
- Prior, D. and A. Paris. 2005. Preventing Children's
Involvement in Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour: A Literature Review.
Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
- Promising Practices Network. 2008. Promising Practices
Network on Children, Families and Communities. Available from: www.promisingpractices.net/default.asp .
- Public Safety Canada. 2008. Family-Based Risk and
Protective Factors and Their Effects on Juvenile Delinquency: What We Know.
Ottawa: National Crime Prevention Centre.
- Public Safety Canada. 2008. Family-Based Programs
for Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Crime. Ottawa: National Crime
Prevention Centre.
- Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada. 2006. Risk
Factors for Aboriginal Offenders. Research Summary, Vol. 11, No. 5.
Ottawa: Corrections Research.
- Rae, J. 2006. Indigenous Children: Rights and Reality.
A Report on Indigenous Children and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of
the Child. Toronto: University of Toronto, U.N. Sub Group on Indigenous
Children and Young People (ISG).
- Reinhardt, V.A. 2007. An Ounce of Prevention: Taxpayer
Costs Avoided Through Preventing Crime. A dissertation submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Public
Administration, St. Paul, MN: Hamline University.
- Robbins, M. S. and J. Szapocznik. 2000. Brief Strategic
Family Therapy. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington: Family Strengthening
Series, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Robbins, M.S., et al. 2001. "Assessing Changes in Family
Interaction: The Structural Family Systems Ratings." In Family Observational
Coding Systems: Resources for Systemic Research. Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Erlbaum.
- Robbins, M.S., et al. 2003. "Brief Strategic Family Therapy
for Hispanic Youth." Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Children and
Adolescents. New York: Guilford.
- Rugge, T. 2006. Risk Assessment of Male Aboriginal
Offenders: A 2006 Perspective. Ottawa: Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness Canada.
- Samspon, R., S. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. 1997. "Neighborhoods
and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy." Science,
227(532): 918-924.
- Sanders, M., C. Markie, and M. K. Turner. 2003. Theoretical,
Scientific and Clinical Foundations of the Triple P- Positive Parenting
Program: A Population Approach to the Promotion of Parenting Competence.
Australia: University of Queensland, Parenting and Family Support Centre.
- Sanders, M., T. Mazzucchelli and L. Studman. 2004. "Stepping
Stones Triple P - An Evidence-Based Positive Parenting Program for Families
With a Child Who Has a Disability: Its Theoretical Basis and Development." In Journal
of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 29(3), 265-283.
- Savoie, J. 2007. "Youth Self-Reported Delinquency, Toronto,
2006". Juristat, Vol. 27, No. 6. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics,
- Schmitz, C. and M. Luxenberg. 2006. Final Report on
the 2005-2006 Evaluation of the Ramsey County ACE Program, November
2006.
- Schonert-Reichl, K. 2000. Children and Youth at Risk:
Some Conceptual Considerations. Paper prepared for the Pan-Canadian
Education Research Agenda Symposium, Sponsored by the Canadian Education
Statistics Council, with the assistance of Human Resources Development
Canada.
- Sells, S. P., T. E. Smith and J. Rodman. 2006. "Reducing
Substance Abuse Through Parenting With Love and Limits." Journal of Child
and Adolescent Substance Abuse (15): 105-115.
- Sexton, T., and J. Alexander. 2000. "Functional Family
Therapy." Justice Juvenile Journal. Washington: Family Strengthening
Series, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Shader, M. 2003. Risk Factors for Delinquency: An
Overview. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Sherman, F. 2005. 13 Pathways to Juvenile Detention
Reform - Detention Reform and Girls - Challenges and Solutions. Baltimore,
Maryland: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
- Sherman, L. 1997. "Family-Based Crime Prevention." In
L. Sherman, et al. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn't, What's
Promising (pp. 510-538). Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
- Sherman, L., et al. 2002. Evidence-Based Crime Prevention.
New York: Routledge.
- Slee, P., et al. 2006. Families at Risk: The Effects
of Chronic and Multiple Disadvantages. Adelaide: Shannon Research
Press.
- Smith, D. 2001. "Youth, Parenting and Crime." In The
Edinburgh Study of Youth Transition and Crime. Edinburgh: The University
of Edinburgh, Centre for Law and Society.
- Smith, D. 2004-a. "Parenting and Delinquency at Ages 12
to 15." In The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transition and Crime, No.
3, Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh Centre for Law and Society.
- Smith, D. 2004-b. "The Links Between Victimization and
Offending." In The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transition and Crime,
No. 5, Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh, Centre for Law and Society.
- Smith, D. 2006. "Social Inclusion and Early Desistance
from Crime." In The Edinburgh Study of Youth Transition and Crime,
No. 12, Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh, Centre for Law and Society.
- Smith, T. 1999. "Neighbourhood and Preventive Strategies
With Children and Families: What Works?" Children & Society,
13(4): 265-277.
- Sprott, J., J. Jenkins et A. Doob. 2000. Early Offending:
Understanding the Risk and Protective Factors of Delinquency. Hull:
Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development
Canada.
- Sprott, J., J. Jenkins, and A. Doob. 2005. "The Importance
of School: Protecting At-Risk Youth from Early Offending." Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice, 3(1): 59-76.
- Strengthening America's Families, Effective Family Programs for
Prevention of Delinquency. n.d. Program List. Available
from: http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/
- Svenson, R. 2003. "Gender Difference in Adolescent Drug
Use." Youth & Society, 34(3): 300-329.
- Szapocznik, J., et al. 2002. "Brief Strategic Family Therapy
With Behavior Problem Hispanic Youth". In Comprehensive Handbook of Psychotherapy,
Volume 4. New York: Wiley.
- Taylor, T., et al. 2007. "Gang Membership as a Risk Factor
for Adolescent Violence Victimization." Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 44: 351-380.
- Taylor-Butts, A. 2007. "Canada's Shelters for Abused Women,
2005/2006". Juristat, Vol. 27, No. 4. Ottawa: Statistics Canada,
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
- The National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign. 2007. Teens,
Drugs & Violence: a Special Report. Washington DC: Office of National
Drug Control Policy, Executive Office of the President of the United States.
- Thomas, E. 2004. Aggressive Behaviour Outcomes for
Young Children: Change in Parenting Environment Predicts Change in Behaviour.
Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Special Surveys Division.
- Thompson, K. and R. Braaten-Antrim. 1998. "Youth Maltreatment
and Gang Involvement." Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(3):
328-345.
- Thornberry, T., et al. 1999. Family Disruption and
Delinquency. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington DC: US Department
of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
- Thornberry, T., D. Huizinga, and R. Loeber. 2004. "The
Causes and Correlates Studies: Findings and Policy Implications". Juvenile
Justice Journal, 9(1): 3-19.
- Tremblay, R.E., et al. 1992. "Parent and Child Training
to Prevent Early Onset of Delinquency: The Montreal Longitudinal Experimental
Study." Preventing Antisocial Behavior: Interventions from Birth through
Adolescence. New York, N.Y.: The Guilford Press.
- Tremblay, R.E., et al. 1996. "From Childhood Physical
Aggression to Adolescent Maladjustment: The Montreal Prevention Experiment." In Preventing
Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage Publications.
- Trocmé, N., et al. 2005. 2003 Canadian Incidence
Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect - Major Findings. Ottawa:
Minister of Public Works and Government Services.
- Turner, M., J. Hartman, et D. Bishop. 2007. "The Effects
of Prenatal Problems, Family Functioning, and Neighborhood Disadvantage:
Predicting Life-Course-Persistent Offending". Criminal Justice and Behavior,
34: 1241-1261.
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2007. Parent-Child
Interaction Therapy with At-Risk Families. Washington: Child Welfare
Information Gateway, U.S.
- Vaillancourt, R., and A. Taylor-Butts. 2007. Transition
Homes in Canada: National, Provincial and Territorial Fact Sheets -
2005-2006. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
- Vitaro, F., M. Brendgen, and R. Tremblay. 2001. "Preventive
Intervention: Assessing its Effects on the Trajectories of Delinquency and
Testing for Mediational Processes." Applied Developmental Science,
5(4): 201-213.
- Waller, I., and D. Sansfaçon. 2000. Investing
Wisely in Crime Prevention: International Experiences. Crime Prevention
Series. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Assistance.
- Wasserman, G., and A. G. Seracini. 2001. "Family Risk
Factors and Interventions." In Child Delinquents: Development, Intervention,
and Service Needs. R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington (Eds). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, pp. 165-189.
- Wasserman, G., et al. 2003. Risk and Protective Factors
of Child Delinquency. Child Delinquency Bulletin Series. Washington
DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- Welsh, B. 2005. "Public Health and the Prevention of Juvenile
Criminal Violence." Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3(1): 23-40.
- Welsh, B. 2007. Evidence-Based Crime Prevention: Scientific
Basis, Trends, Results and Implications for Canada. Ottawa: Public
Safety Canada, National Crime Prevention Centre.
- Welsh, B. and D. Farrington. 2007a. "Saving Children from
a Life of Crime: Toward a National Strategy for Early Prevention in Victims
and Offenders." Victims and Offenders, 2(1): 1-20.
- Welsh, B. and D. Farrington. 2007b. "Scientific Support
for Early Prevention of Delinquency and Later Offending." Victims & Offenders,
2(2): 125-140.
- Wyrick, P. and J. Howell. 2004. "Strategic Risk-Based
Response to Youth Gangs". Juvenile Justice Journal, 9(1): 20-29.
Notes
- 1 Shader, 2003.
- 2 Ibid.
- 3 Hill et al.,
2001; Thornberry et al. 1998, 2004.
- 4 Hoeve et al.,
2007; Wasserman et al., 2003; Farrington and Welsh, 1999.
- 5 Loeber, Farrington
and Petechuk, 2003; Wasserman et al., 2003; Lawrence et al., 2001.
- 6 Loeber et al. 1998.
- 7 Cabinet Office,
Social Exclusion Task Force, 2007, p. 5.
- 8 McVie and
Holmes, 2005; Welsh and Farrington, 2007; Leblanc, 1999; Lacourse et al.,
2006; Thornberry, Huizinga, and Loeber, 2004; Wyrick & Howell, 2004;
Farrington et al., 2006; Loeber, Farrington and Petechuk, 2003; Hoeve et
al., 2007; Claes et al., 2005; Shader, 2003; Wasserman and Seracini, 2001;
Wasserman et al., 2003; Éthier et al., 2006, 2007.
- 9 See in particular,
McVie and Holmes, 2005; Loeber, Farrington and Petechuk, 2003; Mucchielli,
2000.
- 10 Wasserman & Seracini,
2001.
- 11 Smith,
2004-a; McVie and Holmes, 2005.
- 12 Claes
et al., 2005.
- 13 Thornberry
et al.,1998, 2004.
- 14 Generally, "supervision" refers
to the control parents exercise over their children's outings, associations,
schoolwork, recreational activities, and their knowledge of whether they
smoke or use drugs, and so on. Mucchielli, 2000.
- 15 Ibid.
- 16 LeBlanc,
1988, pp. 161 and 163, quoted by Mucchielli, 2000.
- 17 Smith,
2004-a.
- 18 Smith,
2004-a; McVie and Holmes, 2005.
- 19 Farrington
et al., 2006; Loeber et al., 1998.
- 20 The problem
of intergenerational crime has been associated with numerous risk factors
and stressors such as lack of supervision, placements, multiple relocations,
poor parental attitudes, embarrassment, isolation and the stigma due to incarceration
of the parents. (Children of Offenders, unpublished paper).
- 21 Dossier
from Le Front nouveau de Belgique [The new front in Belgium], 2002.
- 22 According
to social learning theory, children who are victims or witnesses of family
violence have a greater probability as adults of reproducing the family pattern
they grew up in. (Hotton, 2003).
- 23 Ibid.
- 24 Shader,
2003.
- 25 Mayer,
M., C. Lavergne, and R. Baraldi, 2004.
- 26 Lansford,
J., et al. 2007.
- 27 Thompson
and Braaten-Antrim, 1998.
- 28 Kaufman
and Widom, 1999.
- 29 For
a better understanding of transmission and the intergenerational consequences
of drug use, special attention will have to be paid to the results of the
Seattle Social Development Projects - Intergenerational Project (SSDP-TIP).
- 30 McVie
and Holmes, 2005.
- 31 Hotton
and Haans, 2004.
- 32 Mucchielli,
2000.
- 33 According
to L. Mucchielli, the relationship between delinquency and single-parent
families is often the result of a twofold stigma. It first appears as the
result of prejudice, whereby a single parent is considered less able to raise
and control children correctly than an apparently united stable family. Second,
broken families and juvenile delinquents generally come from underprivileged
environments, in which case their relationship is merely the effect of social
and economic circumstances (Mucchielli, 2000).
- 34 Ibid.
- 35 Farrington
et al., 2006.
- 36 Ibid.
- 37 Family
transition refers to a set of events associated with change: for example,
in family structure (divorce, remarriage) or in family mobility (moves).
- 38 As
researchers point out, prevention programs must take into account the fact
that young people experiencing family transition are more likely to have
difficulty in managing their emotions. It is therefore important to improve
young people's abilities and skills in controlling their emotions better
during such times (Thornberry et al. 1999).
- 39 Browning
and Loeber, 1999.
- 40 We should
point out for information that works on geocoding in order to break down
crime data over a given territory is an important source of information for
describing neighbourhoods that have high crime rates. In Canada, analysis
of the distribution of crime by neighbourhood characteristics has been carried
out in three cities: Regina, Montreal and Winnipeg. In this connection, see
Fitzgerald, R., M. Wisener and J. Savoie. 2004, Neighbourhood Characteristics
and the Distribution of Crime in Winnipeg. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics; Wallace, M., M. Wisener and K. Collins. 2006.
Neighbourhood Characteristics and the Distribution of Crime in Regina. Ottawa:
Statistics Canada, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics; and Savoie, J.,
F. Bédard and K. Collins. 2006. Neighbourhood Characteristics and
the Distribution of Crime on the Island of Montreal. Ottawa: Statistics Canada,
Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
- 41 Turner
M., J. Hartman and D. Bishop, 2007.
- 42 Lauritsen,
J., 2003.
- 43 The
terms "children" (enfants) and "youths" (jeunes) include those under 18.
The term enfants designates those under 12, whereas jeunes means those from
12 to 17. (Ogrodnik , 2007; 24)
- 44 Ibid.
- 45 Ibid.
- 46 Ibid.
- 47 Canadian
Council on Social Development, 2007.
- 48 Taylor-Butts
A., 2007.
- 49 Ibid.
- 50 Trocmé et
al., 2005.
- 51 Ibid.
- 52 Ogrodnik,
2006.
- 53 Mayer
et al., 2004.
- 54 Savoie,
2007.
- 55 Ibid.
- 56 Ibid.
- 57 Adlaf,
E.M., Begin, P., and Sawka, E. (2005). The Canadian Addiction Survey describes
the prevalence, incidence and use of alcohol and other drugs among Canadians
aged 15 or over.
- 58 Heavy
use means five glasses of an alcoholic beverage or more on one occasion for
men, and four or more for women (Ibid).
- 59 Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada, 2006.
- 60 Ibid.
- 61 Canadian
Centre for Justice Statistics, 2001.
- 62 Brozozowski,
J.-A., A. Taylor-Butts and S. Johnson, 2006.
- 63 First
Nations Centre, 2006
- 64 Lonczak
et al., 2007.
- 65 Brozozowski,
J.-A., A. Taylor-Butts and S. Johnson, 2006.
- 66 Shader,
M., 2003.
- 67 Shader,
2003; Lawrence et al., 2001.
- 68 Ibid.
- 69 Claes
et al., 2005.
- 70 Kumpfer
and Alvarado., 1998.
- 71 Shader,
2003; Lawrence et al., 2001; Claes et al., 2005.
- 72 Claes
et al., 2005.
- 73 Browning
et al. 1999.
- 74 McVie,
S. and L. Holmes. 2005.
- 75 Lauritsen,
2003.
- 76 Turner
M., J. Hartman and D. Bishop., 2007.
- 77 Sampson
et al., 1997; Slee et al., 2006.
- 78 Smith,
2006.
- 79 Smith,
2004-a.
- 80 Sherman
et al., 2002; Hastings et al., 2007.
- 81 Hastings
et al., 2007.
- 82 Mihalic
et al., 2001.
- 83 Ibid.
- 84 Welsh
and Farrington, 2007a, 2007b; Farrington and Welsh, 2003; Sherman et al.,
2002.
- 85 Welsh,
2007.
- 86 Greenwood,
2004.
- 87 Ibid.
- 88 Accordingly,
primary prevention programs - those that address families and youth without
considering the individual risks they face - were not included in the study.
- 89 To
avoid redundancy, protective factors associated with families were not included
in the tables, since essentially it is the same ones that constantly recur:
improved parenting techniques, parent involvement in family life, positive
family relations, reinforcement of family affection, family stability and
the organization of family activities in which children and parents can participate
together.
- 90 Kumpfer
and Alvarado, 1998.
- 91 Explanation
of program rating levels:
- Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) - Model
Programs Guide (MPG)
- Exemplary: program with a high degree of fidelity that demonstrates
robust empirical findings, a reputable conceptual framework and an
evaluation design of the highest quality (experimental).
- Effective: a program with sufficient fidelity that demonstrates
adequate empirical findings, uses a sound conceptual framework and
an evaluation design of high quality (quasi-experimental).
- Promising: program demonstrates promising empirical findings, uses
a reasonable conceptual framework but requires more thorough evaluation;
the evaluation is based only on pre- and post-test measurements.
- II. Strengthening America's Families Project
- Exemplary: program that has an evaluation of the highest quality,
presents positive results and has been replicated several times.
- Model: program that has been thoroughly evaluated but seldom replicated.
- Promising: program that requires other research or uses non-experimental
evaluation methods; results seem promising but need to be confirmed
with more rigorous evaluation methods.
- 92 Farrington
D. & B. Welsh. 1999. Delinquency Prevention Using Family-Based Interventions.
- 93 OJJDP
- Model Programs Guide. Available from: www.dsgonline.com
- 94 Community
Guide to Helping America's Youth. Available from: www.helpingamericasyouth.gov/
- 95 Strengthening
America's Families, Effective Family Programs for Prevention of Delinquency.
Available from: www.strengtheningfamilies.org/
- 96 Krug
et al., 2002.
- 97 Mihalic,
S. et al. 2001. Blueprints for Violence Prevention. US Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
- 98 Center
for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Blueprints for Violence Prevention,
Available from: www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/
- 99 Guide
to Effective Programs for Children and Youth. Available from: www.childtrends.org/Lifecourse/programs/TripleP-PositiveParentingProgram.htm
- 100 Burns
and Goldman, 1999, OJJDP - MPG.
- 101 Elliott
et al., 1998.
- 102 Henggeler,
et al., 1997.
- 103 Promising
Practices Network on Children, Families and Communities. Available from: www.promisingpractices.net/default.asp
- 104 Ed
Frickson, Ramsey County, All Children Excel.
- 105 Reinhardt,
2007.
- 106 With
regard to programs that operate to a limited extent (evaluation of results
and methods), information currently available on these programs was not sufficient
to provide explanations.
- 107 These
are taken from the series of OJJDP bulletins: Effective Family Strengthening
Interventions.
- 108 Kumpfer
et al., 1998.
- 109 Ibid.
- 110 The
feeling of belonging to the school community being considered an important
protective factor against delinquency (Sprott et al., 2005).