The Use of Paraprofessionals to Deliver Home-Based Family Therapy to Juvenile Delinquents

Abstract

Paraprofessionals are used increasingly to deliver services to juvenile delinquents, primarily because of the lower cost associated with such services. The literature comparing the effectiveness of paraprofessionals to professionals indicates that paraprofessionals achieve results equal to or superior to those achieved by professionals. The majority of these studies used adults as clients. When paraprofessionals are trained to work with children and adolescents, the lack of detail about the training procedures makes replication and dissemination of effective interventions difficult. The authors describe three training projects in which paraprofessionals were trained and supervised in the use of functional family therapy, an empirically validated, teachable approach developed for use with families of delinquents. Factors that facilitate acquisition and utilization of this method are detailed, including trainee selection, training methods, supervision, and organizational consultation.

Bringing Functional Family Probation Services to the Community: A Qualitative Case Study

“…In the report, Dr. Tom Sexton, cautioned that caseload sizes must range between twelve to fifteen high-risk youth per parole officer, and that quality assurance measures must continue to be in place to maintain program fidelity (Barnoski, 2002(Barnoski, , 2004Rowland, 2007;Sexton, 2011). Thirty years earlier, Gordon & Arbuthnot's (1988) The primary results of the study suggest that Juvenile Court Counselors and Community Justice Managers perceived observed increases in family functioning and that FFPS is well received by the county's youth and families. Moreover, all staff indicated that FFPS fits the county's philosophy that youth and families should be receiving rehabilitative services while on community supervision.…”

“…The first study examined the model adherence and competence of juvenile parole officers in the State of Washington who delivered FFPS (Rowland, 2007) and the second study examined Juvenile Probation Officers during their training and delivery of FFT in Atlanta, Georgia (Gordon & Arbuthnot, 1988). Gordon & Arbuthnot's (1988) study in Atlanta, Georgia supported the notion that Juvenile Probation Officers could be trained to deliver FFT and the authors identified the organizational and individual-level factors that assist and preclude program delivery.…”

“…The first study examined the model adherence and competence of juvenile parole officers in the State of Washington who delivered FFPS (Rowland, 2007) and the second study examined Juvenile Probation Officers during their training and delivery of FFT in Atlanta, Georgia (Gordon & Arbuthnot, 1988). Gordon & Arbuthnot's (1988) study in Atlanta, Georgia supported the notion that Juvenile Probation Officers could be trained to deliver FFT and the authors identified the organizational and individual-level factors that assist and preclude program delivery. Factors that facilitated the implementation of FFT included appropriate selection of trainees, detailed training methodology, and frequent consultations and booster workshops Factors that the Juvenile Probation Officers struggled with in Atlanta included the lack of detailed training sessions and the inability to prioritize the workload and resources dedicated to the frequent delivery and monitoring of FFT.…”

“…To date, only two studies have examined community corrections officers delivering family-based interventions: model adherence and competence of juvenile parole officers in the State of Washington delivering FFPS (Rowland, 2007) and Juvenile Probation Officers delivering FFT in Atlanta Georgia (Gordon & Arbuthnot, 1988) re-offend explained a significant portion of the variance in post-parole criminal severity (Rowland, 2007). However, the other studies conducted for the State of Washington indicated that poor delivery of FFPS and FFT did not significantly reduce recidivism (Barnoski, 2002b; In fact, poor delivery and incompetence raised recidivism (Barnoski, 2004).…”

“…The second study conducted among Juvenile Probation Officers in Atlanta, Georgia delivering FFT services examined the initial training and implementation (Gordon & Arbuthnot, 1988). Gordon & Arbuthnot (1988) found that the Atlanta probation officers could be trained to deliver FFT services and those probation officers with positive attitudes and who were less cynical were better than probation officers who were cynical and who lacked empathy towards the youth and family.…”