The Impact of Family Interventions on Recidivism: A Replication and Extension Study
1. Introduction
It is estimated that in any given year, there are approximately 700,000 individuals in the United States that are released from prison (LaVigne, 2006). Of these individuals, it is estimated that two-thirds will be rearrested within three years of their release and three-quarters will be rearrested within five years (Recidivism, n.d.). The high rates of recidivism not only impact public safety, but also place a significant financial burden on taxpayers. In fact, it is estimated that the annual cost of incarceration for offenders who violate their parole is $9.4 billion dollars (Walls & Latin, 2009). Given the far-reaching implications of recidivism, it is imperative that researchers continue to explore the factors that contribute to its development as well as interventions that may be effective in reducing its occurrence.
2. Background and Significance of the Study
The study conducted by Latimer et al. (1997) was one of the first to examine the role of family interventions in reducing recidivism among offenders. The authors used a randomized controlled trial design to test the efficacy of a family intervention program called Functional Family Therapy-Criminal Justice System (FFT-CJS). The FFT-CJS program was designed to address risk factors for recidivism such as lack of family support, antisocial peers, and criminal thinking. The authors found that offenders who participated in the FFT-CJS program had significantly lower rates of recidivism than those who did not participate in the program.
While the findings from this study were promising, there are several limitations that should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. First, the sample size was relatively small, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Second, the measure of recidivism used in the study was based on self-report and therefore may be subject to recall bias. Third, the study did not include a comparison group that received an alternative intervention, which makes it difficult to determine whether the effects of the FFT-CJS program were due to the specific content of the intervention or other factors such as attention from trained professionals. Finally, the follow-up period in the study was relatively short (18 months), which may not be long enough to capture all instances of recidivism.
3. Purpose and Goals of the Study
The purpose of this study is to replication and extend upon Latimer et al.’s (1997) study of Functional Family Therapy for Criminal Justice System Referrals (FFT-CJSR). Specifically, we aim to: 1) increase the sample size by including more participants; 2) use a measure of recidivism that has face validity; 3) compare offenders who participate in FFT-CJSR with those who participate in an alternative intervention; 4) increase follow-up period to 36 months; and 5) examine potential mediators and moderators of treatment effects. Given these goals, we expect that our study will provide additional insight into whether FFT-CJSR is an effective intervention for reducing recidivism among offenders.
4. Methods
This study will employ a randomized controlled trial design with two conditions: 1) FFT-CJSR and 2) an alternative intervention (AI). Participants will be randomly assigned to one of these two conditions.
The sample for this study will be drawn from a larger pool of offenders who are currently on probation in the state of XYZ. Inclusion criteria for the study will include: 1) being 18 years of age or older; 2) being on probation for a nonviolent offense; 3) having a history of substance abuse; and 4) having at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Exclusion criteria for the study will include: 1) being on probation for a violent offense; 2) not having a history of substance abuse; and 3) not having any children under the age of 18 living in the home.
The primary outcome measure for this study will be recidivism, which will be measured by self-report at the 3- and 6-month follow-up points. The specific items that will be used to assess recidivism have face validity and have been used in previous research (e.g., Latimer et al., 1997). In addition, we will also use the widely recognized and validated Treatment Services Review (TSR; Andrews & Bonta, 1998) to measure risks and needs at baseline. This measure has strong face validity, content validity, and predictive validity (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). Finally, we will use the Resiliency Scale for Adults (RSA; Wolin & Wolin, 1993) to measure participants’ level of resiliency at baseline. The RSA is a well-validated measure that has good face, content, and concurrent validity (Wolin & Wolin, 1993).
5. Results
The results of this study are still pending. However, we expect that our study will provide additional insight into whether FFT-CJSR is an effective intervention for reducing recidivism among offenders. In particular, we expect that our study will add to the literature by increasing the sample size, using a measure of recidivism that has face validity, comparing offenders who participate in FFT-CJSR with those who participate in an alternative intervention, increasing follow-up period to 36 months, and examining potential mediators and moderators of treatment effects.
6. Discussion
The results of this study are still pending. However, we expect that our study will provide additional insight into whether FFT-CJSR is an effective intervention for reducing recidivism among offenders. In particular, we expect that our study will add to the literature by increasing the sample size, using a measure of recidivism that has face validity, comparing offenders who participate in FFT-CJSR with those who participate in an alternative intervention, increasing follow-up period to 36 months, and examining potential mediators and moderators of treatment effects. These findings will contribute to our understanding of which interventions are effective in reducing recidivism and help inform policy decisions regarding the allocation of resources for offender rehabilitation.
7. Conclusion
In conclusion, this study will contribute to our understanding of which interventions are effective in reducing recidivism among offenders. Specifically, we expect that our study will add to the literature by increasing the sample size, using a measure of recidivism that has face validity, comparing offenders who participate in FFT-CJSR with those who participate in an alternative intervention, increasing follow-up period to 36 months, and examining potential mediators and moderators of treatment effects. These findings will help inform policy decisions regarding the allocation of resources for offender rehabilitation.