Your browser does not support JavaScript!
PREVENTION
Academic Skills Enhancement
Afterschool/Recreation
Alternative School
Bullying
Classroom Curricula
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Community and Problem-Oriented Policing
Community Awareness/Mobilization
Drug, Alcohol Therapy/Education
Family Therapy
Gang Prevention
Gender-Specific Programming
Leadership and Youth Development
Mentoring
Parent Training
School/Classroom Environment
Truancy Prevention
Vocational/Job Training
Wraparound/Case Management
IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS
Afterschool/Recreation
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Conflict Resolution/Interpersonal Skills
Diversion
Drug, Alcohol Therapy/Education
Family Therapy
Gender-Specific Programming
Parent Training
Teen/Youth Court
Restorative Justice
Wraparound/Case Management
INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
Afterschool/Recreation
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Day/Evening Reporting Center
Drug Court
Drug, Alcohol Therapy/Education
Family Therapy
Gun Court
Gender-Specific Programming
Home Confinement
Mental Health Court
Probation Services
Restorative Justice
Shelter Care
Wraparound/Case Management
RESIDENTIAL
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Correctional Facilities
Day/Evening Reporting Center
Group Home
Residential Treatment Centers
Wilderness Camps
REENTRY
Aftercare
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment
Day/Evening Reporting Center
Reentry Court
Vocational/Job Training
MPG HOME
SEARCH HOME
SEARCH ENTIRE PROGRAM DATABASE
SEARCH USING RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS
PROGRAM TYPES
RATING SYSTEM
REFERENCES
NOMINATE PROGRAMS
RELATED LINKS
RESOURCES
DMC-REDUCTION BEST PRACTICES DATABASE
DSO BEST PRACTICES DATABASE
Family Solutions Program
Intervention:
The Family Solutions Program (FSP) is a family therapy program that employs a multiple-family group intervention (MFGI) format. The format is similar to an individual or family intervention in that it targets specific risk factors for change. But the MFGI format has an additional dimension in that the inclusion of multiple families in a group setting uses the full range of family experiences. Families are able to confront, support, and witness others’ successes and failures. The family group format provides a new context in which there are more opportunities for identifying and maintaining alternative behaviors. The emphases of the intervention are to increase positive parenting practices, improve family communication, and create a community of shared experiences.
Multiple-family group intervention typically has three phases: 1) group formation and trust/emotional relief, 2) resistance to treatment, and 3) group-involvement/growth. During the first phase, the members form a bond when they find, through self-disclosure, that that they share similar situations. There is hope in sharing a struggle and witnessing change. Phase 2 is characterized by the resistance of group members to make behavioral changes. Finally, phase 3 involves the families teaching each other by modeling, sharing experiences, and translating those experiences to guide future behavior. During this time, families begin to address systemic problems and recognize alternative options. They start to help each other, within and between families, and to embrace the concept of simultaneous human behavior change.
FSP consists of 10 weekly 2-hour sessions in a multiple-family group format. The group generally has six to eight families participating and at least one professionally trained leader assisted by group facilitators who help the group leader manage group interaction and provide a vigilance that prevents opportunities for exclusive peer interaction. Group leaders are required to have a college degree in a human services or a social science discipline. They also are trained in specific techniques on managing a multiple-family group program, including group formation and building trust. In addition, all potential group leaders are required to assist as a group facilitator for at least one cycle (a complete 10-session program) before becoming a group leader. As group facilitators, they observe the group leader in each session to learn how to implement the activities for each session and manage family group processes. Finally, they are trained in using the FSP manual, which allows group leaders to become familiar with the contents of each of the 10 sessions.
The session topics address the major influences of developmental and family challenges. Topics include group cohesion, family cooperation, building home–school partnerships, parenting skills (parental monitoring, communication), family contracting, education, decision-making, community volunteering (such as youths cooking meals at a homeless shelter, beautifying city parks and school playgrounds, playing bingo with seniors and bringing prizes), conflict resolution, and graduation. Each session is implemented through the use of activities, role-plays, and videotapes.
Evaluation Methodology:
The evaluation of FSP used a two- (and three-) group quasi-experimental design. The sample included 455 first-time juvenile offenders and their parents (predominately mothers) from two adjacent counties in northeast Georgia referred from the court. Offenses included both status (truancy, ungovernable, and alcohol possession) and criminal (shoplifting, criminal trespass, assault, and alcohol use). The sampling frame for this study was from 1993 to 2001. The treatment group consisted of 267 participants who completed FSP (by attending at least 9 of the 10 weekly 2-hour sessions). The first comparison group consisted of 107 youths who received probation in an adjacent county. These participants were a convenience sample, selected because of their proximity to the county where the treatment program was implemented and because no other treatments were provided for first-time juvenile offenders. The second comparison group consisted of 93 FSP participants dropped out of the program. Dropouts consisted of youths who never attended and those who attended eight or fewer sessions. Most youths making up the dropout group (67 percent) received no or minimal exposure to the intervention.
All participating youths were referred by the court. At adjudication, a representative from FSP was available and administered a risk assessment. The risk assessment included a battery of instruments designed to assess the at-risk status of the youths. A staff person explained the FSP intervention and received from each individual a signed consent form. If a juvenile and family failed to attend the FSP, they were referred back to the court and, typically, were assigned to probation. In addition, case file data provided information on the youth’s age, gender, ethnicity, family criminal involvement, seriousness of first offense, status of probation completion, and recidivism.
Preliminary analyses indicated that there were significant differences between the groups. These differences include ethnicity and the level of risk (status versus felony arrest). The treatment group consisted mostly of African-American youths and parents (63 percent), while the probation comparison group consisted mostly of white youths and parents (82 percent). In addition, the percentage of youths in the probation comparison group who committed criminal offenses (78 percent) was significantly higher than FSP graduates (70 percent) and FSP dropouts (58 percent) who committed criminal offenses. There were no differences among the three groups in terms of family crime history, gender, or age at initial offense.
Logistic regression was used to model the probability of recidivism as a function of the intervention. Recidivism was measured as a dichotomous variable. Pre-intervention variables were used as covariates to deal with differences across the three groups.
Recent evaluations have also measured parent stress and parent-adolescent communication of 107 families before and 3 months after completing FSP. The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice also completed a study using randomized control design that compared the outcomes of FSP with services-as-usual group of juvenile first offenders. The sample included 463 juvenile first offenders and their parents.
Evaluation Outcome:
Overall the evaluation found that FSP was effective in reducing subsequent offending. The study found that 19.9 percent of FSP completers reoffended, compared with 36.6 percent of FSP dropouts and 54.7 percent of probation comparison youths. These figures were statistically significant. The logistic regression analysis also found that youths in the FSP program were significantly less likely to reoffend. Probation youths were 9.3 times as likely to reoffend as youths who were referred to FSP and completed the program. Moreover, probation youths were 4.4 times as likely to reoffend as youths who were referred to FSP but dropped out of the program.
A final analysis was conducted using an intent-to-treat model in which all FSP referrals (graduates and dropouts) were compared with the probation group. The intent-to-treat analysis found 27.0 percent of FSP participants (both completers and dropouts) reoffended, while 53.0 percent of probation comparison youth reoffended These results indicate that there is a statistically significant difference between the FSP and probation youths. Probation youths were 8.1 times as likely as youth referred to the FSP to reoffend.
Looking specifically at status offenders (first offenders who committed truancy, runaway, ungovernable, curfew violation, underage drinking, civil traffic violations, and school disturbance), the outcomes show that between 1993 and 204, 77 percent of FSP graduates (n=678) did not reoffend, compared with 56 percent of FSP nongraduates (n=275) who did not reoffend.
The study that measured parent stress and parent-adolescent communication before and after participating in FSP found the mean score on parent stress was significantly decreased between the pre-intervention and 3 month follow-up (p<.03) and the mean score significantly increase on communication between parents and youth between pre-intervention and 3 month follow-up (p<.05). The findings suggest that the outcomes of FSP remain stable 3 months after completion of the program.
The study completed by the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice found that among the 463 juvenile first offenders and their parents, their was significant differences between the two groups regarding parents perceptions of parenting skills (such as parental monitoring and communication skills). Parents who completed FSP with juvenile first offenders had higher perceptions of their parenting skills as well.
Other Information:
References:
Caldwell, Christopher Les, Arthur M. Horne, Bernard Davidson, and William H. Quinn. 2007. “Effectiveness of a Multiple Family Group Intervention for Reducing Stress in Parents of Juvenile First Offenders.”
Journal of Child and Family Studies
16:443–59.
Quinn, William H., and David J. Van Dyke. 2004. “A Multiple-Family Group Intervention for First-Time Juvenile Offenders: Comparisons With Probation and Dropouts on Recidivism.” Journal of Community Psychology, 32(2):177–200.
Program Specification:
Current Rating:
Promising
Expected Date of Re-Review:
Winter 2013
Program Type:
Family Therapy
Ethnicity:
African American
Gender:
Both
Age:
7
-
16
Special Populations:
First-Time Offenders
Target Settings:
Suburban
Problem Behaviors:
Delinquency
Family Functioning
Risk & Protective Factors:
Risk
Protective
Additional Information:
Status:
Program is in operation at this time.
Performance Measures:
Suggested OJJDP Performance Measures for the Program Types(s):
Delinquency Prevention
Family Therapy
Logic Model:
PDF
Performance Matrix:
PDF
Mental Health Services
Family Therapy
Logic Model:
PDF
Performance Matrix:
PDF
Contact Information:
Program Developer:
Families4Change, Inc.
P.O. Box 248
Athens,
GA
30603
Phone: 1.706.369.9707
Fax: 1.706.369.9708
Email:
Click Here