1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Dependent Measure
Recidivism Rate

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

6. 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

7. 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

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

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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

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