NCJ Number
203431
Journal
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice Volume: 45 Issue: 3 Dated: July 2003 Pages: 327-342
Date Published
July 2003
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article explores the impact of methodological rigor on the findings of evaluations of family intervention programs for young offenders.
Abstract
Previous meta-analyses have demonstrated that family intervention programs for delinquents represent some of the strongest treatment modalities available for this population. But a recent meta-analysis argued that, although family intervention appears to be effective at first glance, when controls are introduced for the methodological quality of the evaluation, the sizes of the effects decrease substantially, and under the strictest methodological conditions, they ultimately disappear. The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of family interventions for young offenders, while paying special attention to the concerns regarding the impact of methodological rigor on this relationship. Particular emphasis was placed on the exploration of the roles of the principles of risk, need, and general responsivity in determining the effectiveness of family interventions. The results provided strong empirical support for the continued use of family forms of correctional intervention for dealing with juvenile delinquency. One of the major findings was regarding the paramount importance of targeting criminogenic versus non-criminogenic needs within family intervention. Although the study provided strong empirical support for the principles of need and responsivity, evidence favoring the risk principle did not reach statistical significance. This analysis showed that the principles of effective correctional treatment (risk, need, and general responsivity) were core contributors to correctional program effectiveness, as demonstrated within family intervention programs, even when the strictest of methodological controls were introduced. Additional research is necessary to confirm the robustness of these principles to the threats of methodological rigor. 1 figure, 3 tables, 4 notes, 25 references