Working with families in youth justice

Abstract

There is considerable evidence that family relationships are a factor in youth offending and that working with families of young offenders can improve family relationships and reduce the likelihood of re-offending. There is less evidence that frontline youth justice staff can successfully deliver family interventions to the families of young people on court orders. This study examines a project which involves the delivery of collaborative family work by youth justice workers in New South Wales, Australia, to young people and their families as part of a statutory youth justice service. The paper first outlines the literature, which supports the value of working with the families of young offenders. It then outlines the aims and methodology of the study followed by a discussion of the results, limitations and implications.

Keywords

probation rehabilitation relationships supervision youth justice

Literature review

There seems little doubt that family relationships are a factor in the development of delinquent and criminal behaviour. The relationship between family and criminal activity can be explained through a number of criminological theories including learning theory, labelling theory and social control theory. Children and young people may be socialized into pro-social or criminal behaviour by a process of reinforcement and through the personal models to whom they are exposed (Burke, 2001).

There is also considerable research support for the importance of family in the development of pro-social and pro-criminal behaviours. Longitudinal studies have shown relationships between family dysfunction and criminality (Turner et al., 2007). Studies have shown that exposure to violence in the home is related to subsequent criminality (Hayne et al., 2009). Other studies have shown that inadequate family support, family problems and family disruption among young people contribute to pathways into offending (Salisbury and Van Voorhis, 2009; Wareham et al., 2009). Earlier work by Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber (1986) pointed to family dysfunction as the strongest predictor of delinquency.

There is evidence that family relationships are a factor not just in the development of offending but in re-offending. Family factors are thus a key factor included in risk of re-offending prediction instruments for young people. For example the Youth Level of Service Inventory (YLSI) (Andrews and Bonta, 2003) highlights the importance of family. Trotter and Evans (2012) found also that family issues were one of the most commonly discussed in youth justice supervision sessions.

There is also evidence that work with families of young offenders can be effective in improving family relationships and reducing re-offending. Lipsey and Cullen (2007) considered four different meta-analyses on the effectiveness of family interventions for young offenders and found an average reduction in recidivism compared to comparison studies of between 20 per cent and 52 per cent. A meta-analysis by Dowden and Andrews (2003) of the effectiveness of 38 family interventions in corrections found that these interventions were effective, although this was only when they were based on effective practice principles. The effective practice principles include a focus on medium to high-risk offenders and a focus on factors related to the offending behaviour, in particular ‘family affection/communication and monitoring/supervision’. They also refer to cognitive-behavioural and social-learning approaches, including ‘modelling, graduated practice, rehearsal, role playing, reinforcement, resource provision, and detailed verbal guidance and explanations’ (Dowden and Andrews, 2003: 2).

The importance of delivering interventions as they are intended is further emphasized in a study by Sexton and Turner (2010), who found a reduction in recidivism of young offenders offered Functional Family Therapy (a systems cognitive behavioural approach) compared with young offenders offered probation alone. They found a statistically significant reduction of 35 per cent in felonies and a 30 per cent reduction in violent crime one year after treatment. However, they found that the benefits of the family intervention were only present if the family workers adhered to the Functional Family Therapy model.

The collaborative family work model used in the project under examination in this paper is a problem-solving model. It is based on family members first agreeing on ground rules for the conduct of sessions, identifying issues of concern to each family member, deciding which issues to address first, exploring the issue or issues in more detail, and setting goals and strategies to address the goals. While the focus of the model is problem-solving it also includes a number of strength-based activities and deliberate reinforcement by workers of pro-social comments and actions by young people and family members. More detail is provided in Trotter (2013). The model is broadly consistent with effective practice principles for work with young offenders referred to by Dowden and Andrews (2003).

Some previous research has been undertaken on the collaborative family work model, focused on client satisfaction (Trotter, 2010). Thirty-one young people and family members mostly referred from child protection or juvenile justice were offered collaborative family work by various voluntary agencies. Evaluations completed at the conclusion of the sessions found that: 74 per cent of the young people and their families reported that they were getting along now much better compared with when they first began treatment; 97 per cent said that they considerably benefited from the family work or that they could not have got along without it; and 83 per cent said that the main problem that they presented with was either much better or no longer present.

Methodology

Aim

The aims of this study are: (1) to examine the extent to which collaborative family work can be introduced and delivered by youth justice staff as a regular part of a statutory youth justice service; (2) to examine views of young people and family members regarding their experience of the family work; (3) to examine the views of juvenile justice workers delivering the family work.

The procedure

The project was undertaken in the Western region of New South Wales (NSW) in Australia, a region which includes rural and remote parts of NSW. Juvenile Justice staff in the region provide supervision to young people placed on court orders such as probation and supervision orders or on parole following release from detention centres. While work with families is a part of the work of juvenile justice staff, structured work with family groups is not routinely offered by NSW Juvenile Justice.

The Director and staff in the Western region agreed to undertake a pilot project which involved offering a series of six to ten structured family work sessions to young people and their families. A two-day practical training course in Collaborative Family Work (Trotter, 2013) was offered to youth justice staff in the region. A group of staff from a non-government welfare organization was also involved in the training and subsequently acted as co-facilitators for the family work sessions. The training course was repeated on a regular basis as new staff were appointed and regular updates to the training were also offered. Staff were then asked to offer family work to suitable young people and their families. The program is known within the region as the ANTS (Act Together Now Strong) program. ANTS was also seen as suitable terminology for the program given that many aboriginal families were involved and Honey Ants are often the subject of aboriginal art.

Following the initial agreement from family members a screening process with the juvenile justice worker and senior staff was undertaken to discuss suitability of the family (although no families were excluded at this stage). Two workers were then allocated to the family and prior to the first session an expert panel involving senior staff and if possible an expert in collaborative family work, provided advice to the workers on how they should structure the first session. Following each family work session the panel de-briefed the workers and provided advice about the structure of the next session.

The program is based on the collaborative family work model referred to in the literature review. It is described in detail in Trotter (2013). The intervention takes six to ten weeks with all family members who wish to be involved. The role of the workers is to guide the family members through a problem-solving framework. The workers used the acronym RIDGES (Rules, Identify, Decide, Goals, Explore, Strategies) to remind themselves and family members of the steps in the framework.

The workers ask the family members to identify Rules for the conduct of sessions. The family members then discuss, agree on and list rules, for example no shouting, turn off the TV, speak positively to each other and be available for all sessions. The workers assist family members in this process, make suggestions as appropriate and list the rules on a large sheet of paper, which is then displayed on a wall where the family work takes place. The discussion about ground rules will often occupy most or all of the first session and is then reviewed in subsequent sessions. The family members are then guided by the workers to Identify issues of concern to them or things they would like to change. One of the workers then lists these issues for each family member and displays them on large sheets of paper. The workers often help family members to re-frame these issues into non-blaming language. For example ‘he never speaks to me’ might be reframed into ‘I feel upset that we don’t talk to each other anymore’.

With the help of the workers the family members then Decide which issues or problems to work on first. The family members are encouraged by the workers to start with common issues, which are amenable to change – family communication for example. The workers then help the family members to agree on a Goal or goals. Often they use rating scales to assist with goal development. For example they might rate family communication at one out of ten and seek to improve it to seven out of ten. This might mean moving from ‘constantly arguing’ to ‘talking to each other in a civil manner most of the time’. Progress against the goal can then be monitored in subsequent sessions. Next they Explore the issue some more, particularly in terms of what solutions have been tried and what has worked or not worked. They then develop strategies to achieve the goals. These strategies might be carried out at home (e.g. practicing listening to each other) or they may be undertaken in the sessions (e.g. role playing different methods of talking to each other). In addition to working through the six steps of the model workers would often encourage family members to undertake strength-based exercises such as identifying things they like about each other or recalling times when things were better in the family.

The project began in 2010 and 41 families were offered and accepted family work during the period of this study (to 2015). Most of the family work sessions were conducted in the family home. Over the period of the study 205 individual family work sessions and 205 panel de-brief and planning sessions were conducted. Thirty-one young people and their families were also offered family work and considered suitable by workers, but for various reasons they did not accept.

Ethics

Family members were given an explanatory statement and asked to provide informed consent to be involved in research by a research officer. Monash University Ethics Committee and NSW Juvenile Justice Research Unit approved the project. The program itself raises a number of ethical issues. First, the intervention focuses on families rather than the young people who have offended and been placed under supervision. It was important therefore that workers took care to ensure that family members understood that the work was entirely voluntary and that any family member could withdraw from the family work at any time. The workers were also able to refer individual family members for additional support if appropriate. Second, the family work was commonly undertaken in the family home, often with multiple family members, which inevitably involved a level of intrusion, which may not have been apparent when family members initially agreed to be involved. In this regard workers took great care to focus on family strengths, to emphasize the confidentiality of the sessions and provide opportunities for families to undertake the sessions away from the family home if they wished to do so. Third, working in the family home, particularly with aboriginal families, meant that the workers needed to be sensitive to cultural norms and expectations. The importance of cultural sensitivity was emphasized in training and aboriginal staff were also involved in the regular de-briefs with workers. Finally, juvenile justice staff were expected to work with family groups on potentially traumatic and challenging issues yet few of them had qualifications in family therapy. On the other hand, juvenile justice staff regularly work with young people and family members on complex issues, including family issues, albeit generally on a one-to-one basis. Also, the practice of using two workers to deliver the family work and the oversight of the program through de-briefing maximized the likelihood that workers maintained the integrity of the intervention.

The sample

NSW Youth Justice has approximately 1700 young people under supervision with 52 per cent of the custodial population being indigenous (Department of Attorney General, 2015). The Western region of NSW is one of four regions in the state. It includes predominantly rural and remote communities. Each of the 41 young people involved in the family work was on an order for a criminal offence. The average age of the young people at the time of commencing the family work was 15.26 and 36 per cent had previous experience of custody. Twenty of 40 clients (50%) identified as indigenous (in one case this was unclear).

The workers use the Youth Level of Supervision/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) (Hoge and Andrews, 2003). This instrument has been tested for validity and reliability with youth offenders and allows for workers to determine risk of re-offending by assessing 42 items relating to offender risk (Onifade et al., 2008). The average score for offenders in the study was 21.17, which is classified as medium to high-risk on the samples on which the inventory has been tested (Bechtel et al., 2007). The young people had committed a range of offences including, for example, break and enter, robbery, assault, car theft, contravening an Apprehended Violence Order, and malicious damage.

The average number of participants in the sessions was five, including two workers and three family members. The family members included 41 young persons or primary clients, 34 mothers, 12 fathers, 12 brothers, seven grandmothers, six sisters, three stepmothers, two family friends and one stepfather.

Two juvenile justice workers conducted each session. The juvenile justice workers in NSW at the time could be employed as juvenile justice officers or as juvenile justice counsellors. Juvenile justice officers were not expected to have tertiary qualifications whereas juvenile justice counsellors were required to have tertiary qualifications and adopted a greater counselling role. The family work was delivered to the 41 families in pairs, by 42 juvenile justice officers, eight juvenile justice counsellors, 18 case managers from the NGO and two workers from Justice Health, a government organization which delivers health services in the region. In approximately one-third of the family interventions workers from the NGOs and Justice Health acted as co-facilitators with a juvenile justice worker and counsellor. Twenty per cent of the workers identified as aboriginal. Sixty-one per cent of the workers were female and 39 per cent male.

Results

Completion rates

In total 72 young people and their families were assessed as suitable and were offered family work. For 31 young people and their families, however, the family work did not go ahead, for the most part because the family members did not wish to. On some occasions they agreed but then changed their mind. Forty-one of the young people and their families accepted the offer and undertook at least one session. Thirty-one families completed the family sessions with an average number of 6.5 sessions over 8.9 weeks. Completion was defined as having worked through the model over four to ten sessions and the workers and the family members agreeing that the work had been completed. The ten families who did not complete undertook an average of 2.7 sessions. The workers reported that in 92 per cent (63/68) of instances all or most family members were present for each session.

The families who began but did not complete the family work provided various reasons for their non-completion. Five of the families did not continue because the families or the young person moved to live outside the Western region during the period of the family work. The remaining five discontinued because, for various reasons, one or more of the family members did not wish to continue. Of the ten families who did not complete, four completed four or more sessions.

Family functioning

Each week, the family members were asked to rate their general level of family functioning, using a five-point scale. The family members were given a chart and asked to put a plastic ant on the number on a chart, as in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Family Functioning Evaluation Scale.

The researchers were not able to gather all of the family functioning rating scales and not every family member completed them every week. Nevertheless, the pattern of increased ratings is evident from the family members who rated their family functioning. As shown in Table 1, the family members placed their ants on progressively higher ratings over the first five sessions. The average ratings moved from 2.7 (not good to OK) to 3.7 (OK to good).

Table 1.

Family functioning evaluations.

	Family meeting 1 evaluation functioning	Family meeting 3 evaluation functioning	Family meeting 5 evaluation functioning
N	91	94	67
Mean	2.7418	3.3144	3.7500

Similar progress was seen in rating the main problem, which was identified by the families (usually in week two). The mean rating moved from week two to week five from 2.2 (not good) to 3.58 (OK to good). Note that the n varies in Table 2 because sometimes the main problem to be worked was not decided until week three and sometimes a problem was dealt with and the family members moved onto other problems. Also, not all family members rated each problem every week. Sometimes they agreed on a common rating.

Table 2.

Problem rating scale.

	Family meeting 2 evaluation problem #1	Family meeting 3 evaluation problem #1	Family meeting 4 evaluation problem #1	Family meeting 5 evaluation problem #1
N	30	52	46	52
Mean	2.2000	2.5769	2.7674	3.5827

Family member interviews

Sixty-three family members from 27 families responded to a series of questions about the experience of the family work when followed up initially two months after the family work finished. Fifty-nine of the family members interviewed had completed the family work intervention. As shown in Table 3, 97 per cent of family members said that they found the family work helpful or very helpful and 92 per cent said the family was getting on better or much better than before they began the family work (Table 4).

Table 3.

Client post-2 months: Overall, how would you rate the helpfulness of the model?

Very unhelpful	1	1.6%
Unhelpful	0	0.0%
Neither helped nor harmed	1	1.6%
Helpful	25	39.7%
Very helpful	36	57.1%
(n = 62)

Table 4.

Client post-2 months: How is your family getting along now compared to before ANTS?

Much worse	0	0.0%
Worse	0	0.0%
About the same	5	8.2%
Better	21	34.4%
Much better	35	57.4%
(n = 61)

Table 5.

Client post-12months: How is your family getting along now?

Much worse	0	0.0%
Worse	0	0.0%
About the same	4	10.8%
Better	21	56.8%
Much better	12	32.4%
(n = 37)

Thirty-seven family members were located 12 months after finishing the family work, 35 of whom had completed the intervention. They were also positive about the experience with 89 per cent saying that things were better or much better. (Again, most of those interviewed had completed the family work – 35 of the 37.)

Family members’ views about the family work

The comments by the family members reflected the quantitative measures but also give some detail about why they found the family work helpful. Analysis of the data identified a number of key themes. The family members frequently commented on how the family work allowed them to discuss issues in a way which they could not do at home.

I enjoyed everyone talking without the confrontation that went on before – all conversations were argumentative…I feel everyone steps back and thinks about it.

The controlled environment of ANTS gave the family an opportunity to express their thoughts and also gave me the chance to listen to the children and see how responsible they are in how they approach things.

Some of the family members commented that they did not think it would help but decided to give it a go anyway.

After the first meeting me and my older son looked at each other and commented that we didn’t think ANTS would be any good but by the third week I was right into it. It gave me an avenue to be able to speak…everyone was able to speak without being interrupted. In the past when we tried to speak my son would become stressed and angry and walk away.

Many also commented that they had tried all sorts of interventions before and they had not worked.

I was worried at first as the family has done so many family interventions in the past. By the second week of the program I could see the difference in the behaviour of the children. They are still using things they learned.

I was at a stage to give up and had lost the energy to continue. We had tried lots of helplines and gotten no help so I was keen to give ANTS a go. Having the facilitators there to talk about how J’s offending affected everyone.

One family who did not complete talked about the problems involved in having a break in the family work over the Christmas holiday period.

It was good but too long a break…it stuffed everything up. This disrupted the flow and ANTS could have helped to work through issues, which arose during this time.

The family members were clearly positive about their experience with the family work program. While the young people were generally less expansive when talking about their experience with the program, they provided similar ratings in relation to each of the questions.

Workers’ views about the family work

The workers were also positive about the model. Tables 6 and 7 indicate that more than 90 per cent of the workers rated the model as either helpful or very helpful and that the main problem which the family wanted help with was at least a little better.

Table 6.

Workers: How would you rate the helpfulness of the model?

Very unhelpful	0	0.0%
Unhelpful	1	1.6%
Neither helped nor harmed	5	7.9%
Helpful	23	36.5%
Very helpful	34	54.0%
(n = 63)

Table 7.

Consider the one problem the family most wanted help with. How is that problem now?

Worse	0	0.0%
About the same	5	8.3%
A little better	7	11.7%
Much better	46	76.7%
No longer present	2	3.3%
(n = 60)

The workers also made comments about the model and their experience of working with the families. These generally reflected the quantitative ratings of the helpfulness of the model. Outlined below is a selection of the comments. Many of the workers commented that the family could speak in a safe way with each other in the family work sessions, which they could not do at home.

The concept of the model is really good – it supports the engagement of families and resolves communication issues. It gave them a forum to give their feedback in a safe way

Many workers talked about the improvements in communication.

At the beginning of the ANTS program K wouldn’t listen. The family had communication issues and the goal was to improve their communication. Father is the patriarch and he dominated the family. Mother was timid and wouldn’t speak up. At the conclusion of the ANTS program the mother was speaking up, the father was communicating and not dictating, which not only surprised us but made the siblings happy. They developed into a strong family unit.

I felt that this was an extraordinary/outstanding ANTS service for this family. A lot of families are similar where communication is yelling or screaming – they had been turned away again and again from services. No one listens to me. Negotiation between family members and opening up the ability to communicate is very helpful.

Many also talked about the value of the strengths focus of the work

When we introduced the strengths cards it was a turning point for the family as for the first time they had heard each other say positive things about the other.

Some workers felt that a strength of the model was conducting sessions in the family home.

The mother liked the fact that we went to their home to do ANTS as previously they had counselling away from the home and it was not the same

Several workers commented on the value of the weekly rating scales.

The visual tools of placing the ANTS on the chart was useful as the family could see where they were and where they had come from and that things were improving. Reinforcing was also useful.

Others talked about the importance of setting achievable goals.

There are inherent benefits from working on one or two achievable goals that flow on to other areas of life that appear unrelated. For this family, the house is now a home. M, who is the anchor of the family, has found an inner strength to deal with A’s behaviour – which is still challenging at times – without resorting to the yelling battles that happened previously.

One indigenous worker talked about the value of using cultural cards.

I knew this Aboriginal family and had a good rapport and had the respect of the family. We used the cultural cards developed in the region and this helped using visual tools.

Several workers talked about the trauma and complexity of the families and the importance of de-briefing after sessions.

J. had eight siblings, all of whom had been removed from the parents.

These are very complex families – any progress of meeting the issues is a big bonus. The de-briefs are an essential part of it. I struggled at first, how we were going to do this. It worked well and we could do it.

On one occasion the workers felt that the families were not benefiting from the work.

We learnt very quickly that this wasn’t going to work as we wouldn’t be able to do the ANTS model structure. The panel meeting was very helpful as we pulled the pin before we did any damage. It was the right decision to withdraw. We made referrals to family support. The mother was into blaming & bagging out the father and she couldn’t see the interests of the kids.

Other difficulties were acknowledged

A number of significant family issues and traumas presented during the program that were beyond the scope of both the program and the presenters’ skills/qualifications, that have been referred for ongoing follow up/support.

It is hard when the parents want assistance and support and the young person does not want to engage.

It can be a disadvantage doing the sessions in the home because of the distractions as it is not a contained environment.

Discussion

The aims of this study were (1) to examine the extent to which collaborative family work can be introduced and delivered by youth justice staff as a regular part of a statutory youth justice service; (2) to examine views of young people and family members regarding their experience of the family work; (3) to examine the views of juvenile justice workers delivering the family work.

It is clear from this study that family work can be delivered by youth justice staff to young offenders and their families. Over a period of approximately five years, 41 families undertook at least one family work session with 31 of those completing the family work intervention. More than 200 individual sessions were undertaken. Seventy-six per cent of the families who began the work completed it, with 88 per cent completing of those families who did not move out of the region.

There were clearly some obstacles to delivering the program. The family work was offered on a voluntary basis. The young people and their family members were not legally required to be involved. The region is large and includes rural and remote communities and a lot of travel for workers. The families involved in the program included many with backgrounds of severe trauma and disadvantage. Fifty per cent of the families identified as indigenous and it was important that workers were sensitive to the cultural norms of the families, particularly given that the work was for the most part undertaken in the family home (the other families were predominantly of European background). The family work program was dependent on support from the senior staff and included regular de-briefs. There were issues with the logistics of two juvenile justice workers and several family members being available to meet regularly for family work sessions. Despite these obstacles, however, the program was able to be delivered successfully.

The second aim was to consider the views of the young people and their family members regarding the program. The young people and their family members responded positively to the family work with recipients of the program indicating that their family functioning improved, their problems ameliorated, they felt that the model was helpful and that their families were getting along a lot better than before the family work. This was also evident for those families who were available for interview 12 months after the family work was completed. Similarly the workers were positive about the program, with more than 90 per cent of those interviewed saying it was helpful or very helpful and 80 per cent saying the main problem that the family faced was much better or no longer present. The qualitative interviews also reflected their positive views about the model.

This study clearly has limitations. Perhaps the key test of the effectiveness of family work involves an analysis of recidivism rates and comparison with a non-treated randomly selected control group. Or alternatively the progress of the families in terms of family functioning, of those who received the family work could be compared to the progress of families who were not offered family work. Another limitation is that the outcomes for those families who chose not to participate in the family work are also unknown. However, the purpose of this article was to examine whether or not family work of this nature could be incorporated into the day-to-day practice of youth justice workers and to examine the response of workers and family members to the work. Other publications referred to in the literature review have suggested that family work with young offenders, including problem-solving models such as collaborative family work, can be effective in reducing recidivism. There is also some evidence that both worker and client satisfaction with services is related to other improved outcomes (Trotter, 2002).

The study also has limitations in terms of the sample size and the fact that not all clients or workers responded to all questions and some family members could not be contacted for follow-up interviews. Furthermore, those that were contacted were also more often the completers rather than those who discontinued the sessions. Even though these issues are common with criminal justice research with often transient populations, they must be seen as a limitation of the research.

The strength of this study lies in the examination of a program which involved the routine use of structured family work interventions by youth justice workers, a practice which is rare despite the fact that youth justice workers may routinely work with families in a more unstructured manner (Trotter and Evans, 2012). Further research might examine the long-term impact of collaborative family work on family functioning and recidivism. Nevertheless. this study clearly suggests that structured family work can be successfully incorporated into the routine work of youth justice and that families and workers respond positively to it.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant LP1120711

References

Andrews

Bonta

(2003) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.

Bechtel

Lowenkamp

Latessa

(2007) Assessing the risk of re-offending for juvenile offenders using the Youth Level of Supervision/Case Management Inventory. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 45(3/4): 85–108.

Burke

(2001) Criminological Theory. Cullompton: Willan.

Department of the Attorney General of New South Wales (2015) 2014/15 Juvenile Justice Annual Report. Sydney: NSW Department of Justice.

Dowden

Andrews

(2003) Does family intervention work for delinquents? Results of a meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 45(3): 327–342.

Hayne

Petts

Maimon

Piquero

(2009) Exposure to violence in adolescence and precocious role exits. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38(3): 3269–286.

Hoge

Andrews

(2003) Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) User’s Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Lipsey

Cullen

(2007) The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3(1): 297–320.

Loeber

Stouthamer-Loeber

(1986) Family factors as correlators and predictors of juvenile conduct problems and delinquency. In: Tonry

Morris

(eds) Crime and Justice: An Annual Review. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10.

Onifade

Davidson

Campbell

Turke

Malisowski

Turner

(2008) Predicting recidivism in probationers with the Youth Level of Service Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(4): 474–483.

11.

Salisbury

Van Voorhis

(2009) Gendered pathways: A quantitative investigation of women probationers’ paths to incarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior 36(6): 541–566.

12.

Sexton

Turner

(2010) The effectiveness of functional family therapy for youth with behavioural problems in a community practice setting. Journal of Family Psychology 24(3): 339–348.

13.

Trotter

(2002) Worker skill and client outcome in child protection. Child Abuse Review 11: 38–50.

14.

Trotter

(2010) Working with families in criminal justice. In: McNeill

Raynor

Trotter

(eds) Offender Supervision: New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice. Cullompton: Willan.

15.

Trotter

(2013) Collaborative Family Work – A Practical Model for Working with Families in the Human Services. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

16.

Trotter

Evans

(2012) Analysis of supervision skills in juvenile justice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45(2): 255–73.

17.

Turner

Hartman

Bishop

(2007) The effects of prenatal problems, family functioning, and neighborhood disadvantage in predicting life-course-persistent offending. Criminal Justice and Behavior 34(10): 1241–1261.

18.

Wareham

Dembo

Poythress

(2009) A latent class factor approach to identifying subtypes of juvenile diversion youths based on psychopathic features. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 27(1): 71–95.