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

Purpose To explore the effectiveness of family interventions for young offenders, while paying special attention to the concerns raised by Latimer (2001), regarding the impact of methodological rigor on this relationship Exploration of the roles of the principles of risk, need, and general responsivity in determining the effectiveness of family interventions Latimer (2001) argued that studies that do not use rigorous designs may not find significant results with family intervention programs Literature has documented the princiles of risk, need, and general responsivity in as essential in effective correctional treatment In order to have risk the level of treatment services must be appropriately matched to the risk level of the offender, so for higher risk offenders, more extensive services must be offered Need identifies the types of treatment targets that should be selected within correctional interventions. It is essential to target criminogenic needs which are defined as the ability to change the risk factors that result in criminal activity. General responsivity is concerned with the style ofprogram delivery. The styles and modes of service must match the learning styles of the clients

Issues to Consider How an effective treatment program for youth offenders is measured Risk Need General responsivity How an effective method is measured Random assignment A large sample size (N>100) A follow-up length longer than 1 year A program evaluator independent of the program The study had risk if the majority of the participants had a prior criminal record Need was is if the program targeted increasing family affection/communication or monitoring/supervision General Responsivity if social-learning or cognitive behavioral treatment was used

Dependent Measure Recidivism Rate

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

Studies to Include 53 tests of the effectiveness of family intervention in reducing young offender recidivism were derived from the 38 studies used 76% of the studies used were composed of male offenders 89% of the studies included were also included in Latimer's (2001) meta-analysis which maximizes the comparability of the results

Inter-Rater Reliability Most of the meta-analysis raters agreed with what is correct to include in a good study However, they did not say what they did not agree on

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

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

Overall Results Treatment Group Control Group Mean Effect Size L U 95% Confidence Interval Treatment Group Control Group Mean Effect Size L U Recidivism Rate 39.5% 60.5% +0.21* +0.15 +0.28 After further exploration, the data showed a lot of variability, therefore the researchers looked at moderators

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

Mean Effect Size for Each Level Variable Label No (k) Yes (k) p Risk .19 (39) .29 (14) .19 Need .02 (17) .30 (36) .55** General Responsivity .09 (28) .35 (25) .53** these results provide empirical support for the principles of need and responsivity, yet evidence favoring the risk principle did not reach statistical significance *p<.05 **p<.01

Mean Effect Sizes for Each Level of Type of Treatment Level of Type of Treatment Variable Mean Effect Size (k) Inappropriate Service .02 (15) Weak Service .14 (8) Promising Service .30 (23) Most Promising Service .42 (7) p .56*** most promising and promising service yielded significantly higher mean effect sizes than the inappropriate service and weak service ***p<.001

Mean Effect Size by Methodological Rigor Examination of the data showed that the mean effect size steadily decreased as the methodological rigor increased

Type of Treatment at Each Level of Methodological Quality Weakest (k) Strongest (k) Correlation with Effect Size Inappropriate .09 (21) .04 (11) .30 Appropriate .37 (12) .23 (19) .15 .51** .55** Methodological Quality programs that were deemed appropriate based on the principles of risk, need, and responsivity generated a significantly higher mean effect size than those deemed inappropriate therefore, the type of intervention as measured by the principles is far more important than the methodological rigor **p<.01

Type of Treatment for Each Indicator of Methodological Quality Variable Label Inappropriate (k) Appropriate (k) Evaluator Not Involved -.01 (20) .32 (10) .67** Large Sample .08 (15) .23 (13) .40* Random Assignment -.02 (8) .27 (21) .61*** Long Follow-up .09 (15) .38 (20) .58*** finally, programs coded as appropriate generated significantly higher mean effect sizes than programs coded as inappropriate when evaluated under the strongest methodological conditions *p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

Conclusions Programs that adhere to the principles of risk, need and general responsivity continue to obtain significant mean reductions in recidivism even when evaluated under the strictest of methodological conditions Family intervention programs must focus on criminogenic familial needs of young offenders, such as increasing family affection/communication and the monitoring/supervision practices of parents the results from the meta-analysis provided strong empirical support for the continued use of family forms of corretional intervention for dealing with juvenile delinquency

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