Responding to social work’s grand challenge of smart decarceration, this study investigated whether Family Centered Treatment (FCT), a home-based service for juvenile court-involved youth, is more effective than group care (GC) in reducing recidivism. Outcomes are juvenile readjudication and commitment to placement, and adult conviction and sentence of incarceration.
Method:
Data were drawn from service provider and state administrative databases. Propensity score matching was used to create a sample of 1,246 FCT youth and 693 GC youth. Cox proportional hazard models estimated time to the four outcomes.
Results:
FCT participants had a significantly lower risk of adult conviction and adult incarceration relative to youth who received GC. The findings for juvenile outcomes were nonsignificant.
Discussion:
FCT shows more favorable adult criminal justice outcomes than GC, making it a potentially effective community-based service to support smart decarceration for juvenile court-involved youth.
AustinP. C.SmallD. S. (2014). The use of bootstrapping when using propensity-score matching without replacement: A simulation study. Statistics in Medicine, 33, 4306–4319. doi:10.1002/sim.6276
2.
BarthR. P.GreesonJ. K. P.GuoS.GreenR.HurleyS.SissonJ. (2007). Outcomes for youth receiving intensive in-home therapy or residential care: A comparison using propensity scores. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 497–505. doi:10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.497
3.
BeckerS. O.IchinoA. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The STATA Journal, 2, 358–377.
4.
BoxerP.GoldsteinS. E. (2012). Treating juvenile offenders: Best practices and emerging critical issues. In GrigorenkoE. L. (Ed.), Handbook of juvenile forensic psychology and psychiatry (pp. 323–340). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0905-2
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. (n.d.). Blueprints for healthy youth development. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved January 31, 2017, fromhttp://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/
8.
D’AgostinoR. B. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265–2281.
9.
De SwartJ. J. W.Van den BroekH.StamsG. J. J. M.AsscherJ. J.Van der LaanP. H.Holsbrink-EngelsG. A.Van der HelmG. H. P. (2012). The effectiveness of institutional youth care over the past three decades: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1818–1824. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.05.015
10.
DeutschA. R.CrockettL. J.WolffJ. M.RussellS. T. (2012). Parent and peer pathways to adolescent delinquency: Variations by ethnicity and neighborhood context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1078–1094. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9754-y
11.
DodgeK. A.DishionT. J.LansfordJ. E. (Eds.). (2006). Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
12.
EspinosaE. M.SorensenJ. R.LopezM. A. (2013). Youth pathways to placement: The influence of gender, mental health need and trauma on confinement in the juvenile justice system. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1824–1836. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9981-x
13.
EuserS.AlinkL. R.TharnerA.van IJzendoornM. H.Bakermans-KranenburgM. J. (2014). Out of home placement to promote safety? The prevalence of physical abuse in residential and foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 37, 64–70. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.12.002
14.
Family Centered Treatment Foundation. (2016). Family Centered Treatment®. Retrieved January 31, 2017, fromhttp://familycenteredtreatment.org
15.
GreenwoodP. (2008). Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. The Future of Children, 18, 185–210. doi:10.1353/foc.0.0018
16.
GreenwoodP. W.WelshB. C. (2012). Promoting evidence-based practice in delinquency prevention at the state level. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 493–513. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00826.x
17.
GuoS.BarthR.GibbonsC. (2006). Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating substance abuse services for child welfare clients. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 357–383. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.04.012
18.
HayC.LadwigS.CampionB. (2017). Tracing the rise of evidence-based juvenile justice in Florida. Victims & Offenders. doi:10.1080/15564886.2017.1289995
19.
HenggelerS. W.SchoenwaldS. K. (2011). Evidence-based interventions for juvenile offenders and juvenile justice policies that support them. Social Policy Report. Society for Research in Child Development, 25, 3–20. Retrieved January 31, 2017, fromhttp://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519241.pdf
20.
HowellJ. C. (2009). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
HowellJ. C.LipseyM. W.WilsonJ. J. (2014). A handbook for evidence-based juvenile justice systems. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
22.
KerigP. K.BeckerS. P. (2015). Early abuse and neglect as risk factors for the development of criminal and antisocial behavior. In MorizotJ.KazemianL. (Eds.), The development of criminal and antisocial behavior (pp. 181–199). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08720-7_12
23.
LeeB. R.BrightC. L.SvobodaD. V.FakunmojuS.BarthR. P. (2011). Outcomes of group care for youth: A review of comparative studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 177–189. doi:10.1177/1049731510386243
24.
LeeB. R.EbesutaniC.KolivoskiK. M.BeckerK. D.LindseyM. A.BrandtN. E.BarthR. P. (2014). Program and practice elements for placement prevention: A review of interventions and their effectiveness in promoting home-based care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84, 244–256. doi:10.1037/h0099811
25.
LeeB. R.ThompsonR. (2008). Comparing outcomes for youth in treatment foster care and family style group care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 746–757. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.12.002
26.
LipseyM. W. (2012). Effective interventions for juvenile offenders: Using meta-analysis to bridge from research to practice. In BliesenerT.BeelmannA.StemmlerM. (Eds.), Antisocial behavior and crime: Contributions of developmental and evaluation research to prevention and intervention (pp. 181–198). Boston, MA: Hogrefe.
27.
LipseyM. W.HowellJ. C. (2012). A broader view of evidence-based programs reveals more options for state juvenile justice systems. Criminology & Public Policy, 11, 515–523. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2012.00827.x
28.
LittellJ. H. (2005). Lessons from a systematic review of effects of multisystemic therapy. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 445–463. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.009
29.
MacKenzieD. L.FarringtonD. P. (2015). Preventing future offending of delinquents and offenders: What have we learned from experiments and meta-analyses?Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 565–595. doi:10.1007/s11292-015-9244-9
30.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (n.d.). Model programs guide. Retrieved December 17, 2016, fromhttps://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/
31.
OsgoodD. W.BriddleL. O. (2006). Peer effects in juvenile justice. In DodgeK. A.DishionT. J.LansfordJ. E. (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth: Problems and solutions (pp. 141–161). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
32.
Pettus-DavisC.EppersonM. W. (2015, 02). From mass incarceration to smart decarceration. Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative, Working Paper No. 4. American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare. Retrieved January 31, 2017, fromhttp://aaswsw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/WP4-with-cover.pdf
33.
RacusinR.MaerlenderA. C.SenguptaA.IsquithP. K.StrausM. B. (2005). Psychosocial treatment of children in foster care: A review. Community Mental Health Journal, 41, 199–221. doi:10.1007/s10597-005-2656-7
34.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55. doi:10.2307/2335942
35.
RubinD. B.ThomasN. (1996). Matching using estimated propensity scores: Relating theory to practice. Biometrics, 52, 249–264. doi:10.2307/2533160
36.
RyanJ. P.MarshallJ. M.HerzD.HernandezP. M. (2008). Juvenile delinquency in child welfare: Investigating group home effects. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 1088–1099. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.004
37.
SchwalbeC. S.GearingR. E.MacKenzieM. J.BrewerK. B.IbrahimR. (2012). A meta-analysis of experimental studies of diversion programs for juvenile offenders. Clinical Psychology Review, 32, 26–33. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2011.10.002
38.
StuartE. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science, 25, 1–21. doi:10.1214/09-STS313
39.
SullivanM. B.BennearL. S.HonessK. F.PainterW. E.WoodT. J. (2012). Family Centered Treatment—An alternative to residential placements for adjudicated youth: Outcomes and cost effectiveness. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice, 2, 25–40.
40.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Family Centered Treatment. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. National Registry of Evidence Based Programs and Practices. Retrieved January 31, 2017, fromhttp://legacy.nreppadmin.net/ViewIntervention.aspx?id=363
41.
WoodT.TalbertW. (2016, 03). Effective implementation of a Family Centered Treatment approach with high risk youth and their families. Paper presented at the National Youth-at-Risk Conference, Savannah, GA.
