Delinquency and Crime Prevention: Overview of Research Comparing Treatment Foster Care and Group Care
- 1.4k Downloads
Evidence of treatment foster care (TFC) and group care’s (GC) potential to prevent delinquency and crime has been developing.
We clarified the state of comparative knowledge with a historical overview. Then we explored the hypothesis that smaller, probably better resourced group homes with smaller staff/resident ratios have greater impacts than larger homes with a meta-analytic update.
Research literatures were searched to 2015. Five systematic reviews were selected that included seven independent studies that compared delinquency or crime outcomes among youths ages 10–18. A similar search augmented by author and bibliographic searches identified six additional studies with an updated meta-analysis. Discrete effects were analyzed with sample-weighted preventive fractions (PF) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI).
Compared with GC, TFC was estimated to prevent nearly half of delinquent or criminal acts over 1–3 years (PF = 0.56, 95 % CI 0.50, 0.64). Two pooled study outcomes tentatively suggested that GC in homes with less than ten youths may prevent delinquency and crime better than TFC, p = 0.08. Study designs were non-equivalent or randomized trials that were typically too small to ensure controlled comparisons.
These synthetic findings are best thought of as preliminary hypotheses. Confident knowledge will require their testing with large, perhaps multisite, controlled trials. Such a research agenda will undoubtedly be quite expensive, but it holds the promise of knowledge dividends that could prevention much suffering among youths, their families and society.
KeywordsTreatment foster care Group care Delinquency Crime Overview Meta-analysis
The authors gratefully acknowledge the research assistance of Breanna Elliotson.
(a) Systematic reviews in overview, (b) studies in overview, (c) studies in updated meta-analysis
- Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
- Becker, L. A., & Oxman, A. D. (2011). Overviews of reviews. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
- (b) Chamberlain, P. (1990). Comparative evaluation of specialized foster care for seriously delinquent youths: A first step. Community Alternatives, 2(2), 21–36.Google Scholar
- Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1987). Parent observation and report of child symptoms. Behavioral Assessment, 9, 97–109.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Gorey, K. M. (1996). Effectiveness of social work intervention research: Internal versus external evaluations. Social Work Research, 20, 119–128.Google Scholar
- Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Hoaglin, D. C., Hawkins, N., Jansen, J. J., Scott, D. A., Itzler, R., Cappelleri, J. C., et al. (2011). Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: Report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: Part 2. Value in Health, 14, 429–437.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- (c) McCrae, J. S., Lee, B. R., Barth, R. P., & Rauktis, M. E. (2010). Comparing three years of well-being outcomes for youth in group care and nonkinship foster care. Child Welfare, 89, 229–249.Google Scholar
- Osei, G. K. (2014). Group foster care and delinquency prevention: A scoping review. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Statistics Canada. (2012). Families, households and marital status: 2011 Census of population. Ottawa, ON: Author.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). (2013). Foster care statistics 2012. Washington, DC: USDHHS, Children’s Bureau.Google Scholar