Last updated: February 2018 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2018. “Family Engagement in Juvenile Justice.” Literature review. 

Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/FamilyEngagement-in-Juvenile-Justice.pdf.

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. . Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Family Engagement in Juvenile Justice 

Family engagement in juvenile justice involves establishing a collaborative relationship in 

which families are partners in both their children’s treatment and in developing the policies, 

programs, and practices of the system (New York State Council on Children and Families

2008). Efforts to increase family engagement have focused on how the juvenile justice system’s 

role in engaging families is to facilitate their ongoing participation while taking into 

consideration the multiple challenges they face (Shanahan and diZerega 2016). Some of the 

primary purposes of family engagement efforts are to help hold children accountable for their 

actions and to assist them in carrying out the obligations set by the court (National Research 

Council 2013; Pennell, Shapiro, and Spigner 2011); to provide a source of supervision,

protection, guidance, and emotional support (Justice for Families 2012; National Research 

Council 2013); and to affirm the youths’ connections to their kinship networks (Pennell, 

Shapiro, and Spigner 2011). 

Improving family engagement in the juvenile justice system and in prevention programs has 

been an increasing focus for many researchers and practitioners (e.g., Luckenbill and Yeager 

2009; Osher, Huff, Colombi, and Amelga 2012; Pennell, Shapiro, and Spigner 2011; Shanahan 

and diZerega 2016). Surveys of over 1,000 family members of justice-involved youths revealed

that 91 percent of family members believed that the courts should involve families more in 

decision making for children who are adjudicated delinquent, and 86 percent expressed 

interest in being more involved in their children’s treatment while the youths were 

incarcerated (Justice for Families 2012; Vera Institute of Justice 2014). 

This literature review focuses on synthesizing descriptions of the role of family engagement 

for youths involved in the juvenile justice system; research documenting how jurisdictions 

have attempted enhanced engagement, including policies that encourage family engagement;

resources that help families to understand the juvenile justice process; practices such as parent 

training, family therapy, and family visitation; and outcome evidence for programs with 

family engagement strategies as key components. In this context of this review, family generally 

refers to biological, foster, or adoptive parents; and grandparents, siblings, and legal 

guardians; it can also refer to extended family and other individuals that the youth identifies 

as family (Butts, Seymour, and Bauer 2013; Seigle, Walsh, and Weber 2014; Shanahan and 

diZerega 2016). 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

Theoretical Foundation

A variety of research findings suggest that family is critical to the development of children and 

the main source of a child’s primary emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual development

(Alvarado and Kumpfer 2000; Conger and Simons 1997; Luckenbill and Yeager 2009; National 

Research Council 2013). The foundation for the family relationship is generally grounded in 

theories of social control, which posit that delinquent acts are more likely to occur when an 

individual’s bond to society is weak or broken (Hirschi 1969). Based on this perspective, the 

family acts as a socializing agent by introducing and directing children to conventional norms 

and values. Proponents of this theory argue that a strong affectionate tie between child and 

parent is one of the fundamental means for establishing this societal bond, which thus insulates

adolescents from delinquency and other problem behaviors (Brook, Whiteman, Finch, and 

Cohen 1998).

In regard to juvenile justice-system involvement, the role of the family has historically been 

examined in research as more of a cause of delinquency than as a protective factor for youths 

(Hoeve et al. 2009; Norman et al. 2012; Pennell, Shapiro, and Spigner 2011). Given the juvenile 

justice system’s doctrine of parents patriae, which gives the state authority to serve as a 

substitute parent to children whose parents do not provide appropriate supervision or care 

(Taylor 2014), the role of the family in rehabilitation of justice-involved youths has often been 

minimized; policies and procedures fail to provide a space for family participation; and many 

families feel excluded from the system charged with caring for their children (Osher and Hunt 

2002). However, both parents and siblings can serve either as risk factors or as protective 

factors in the development of children and youth. For more information, see the Model Programs 

Guide (MPG) literature reviews on Risk Factors for Delinquency and Protective Factors Against 

Delinquency.

For youths, family involvement can provide access to legal representation, educational 

opportunities, and medical treatment. For example, the participation of family members is 

thought to help reinforce the importance of treatment, provide youths with an advocate to help 

articulate their needs, and increase the probability of a smooth transition to home at the end of 

out-of-home placement (National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice 2016). Some 

organizations also suggest that families benefit by knowing the whereabouts of their children 

and what is happening to them, understanding the process and expectations of the system, and 

feeling valued for their information-sharing ability, such as on their youths’ treatment and 

medication history, behavioral patterns, and educational background (National Center for 

Mental Health and Juvenile Justice 2016).

Models of Family Engagement

In 2007, the Models of Change Initiative established a multidisciplinary workgroup to address 

the role of families in juvenile justice. It concluded that the “concept itself was poorly 

articulated” and that there were no established frameworks to guide this work (Luckenbill 

2012, p. 1). 

In 2013, however, the Campaign for Youth Justice, in partnership with Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), published Five Features of a Transformed Justice System
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

and identified the following principles of family engagement: 

1) Families will be supported before and after challenges arise.

2) Families will have access to peer support from the moment a youth is arrested through 

exit from the system.

3) Families will be involved in decision-making processes at the individual, program, and 

system levels to hold youth accountable and keep the public safe.

4) Families will be strengthened through culturally competent treatment options and 

approaches.

5) Families will know their children are prepared for a successful future (Arya 2013). 

In line with these five principles, a more recent framework has identified five characteristics of 

family engagement that are common to engagement practices in child welfare, behavioral 

health, education, and juvenile justice. These include 1) treating families with dignity and 

respect, 2) peer-to-peer support, 3) collaboration and partnerships between service 

professionals and family members, 4) meaningful communication across all involved parties, 

and 5) sustained familial engagement (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2017; Luckenbill 

and Yeager 2009). 

Dignity and Respect. This component includes acknowledging that family members are 

sought out and treated with respect and dignity by system professionals (Luckenbill 2012). 

Family beliefs, cultures, and experiences are also acknowledged and incorporated into services 

in culturally, linguistically, and developmentally competent and sustainable ways (Arya 2013;

Pennell, Shapiro, and Spigner 2011).

Peer-to-Peer Support. This involves using family members and other youths with previous 

juvenile justice system experience to provide peer support for families of various 

configurations. Such support may help build trust, establish safety, and empower families 

(Rozzell 2013). Some agencies have also hired staff to focus specifically on connecting families 

who are encountering the justice system with others who will help them navigate the system 

and stay better connected (Vera Institute of Justice 2014).

Collaboration/Partnership. Whether involved with child welfare, schools, or the juvenile 

justice system, families and service providers share decision-making responsibilities and work 

together toward the same positive outcomes and goals (OJJDP 2012). Consequently, across 

these disciplines, families are considered equal partners or participants and are systematically 

included in developmentally appropriate activities and programs that foster a sense of 

community, accountability, and respect for others (U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services and U.S. Department of Education 2016; Shanahan and diZerega 2016; McCarthy 2012; 

Hock et al. 2015). 

Communication/Information Sharing. This involves two-way communication and 

information sharing between juvenile justice personnel and family members or a youth’s legal 

representative. Families are provided information about court processes, expectations of their 

children, and programmatic activities. They are also considered a valuable source of 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

information, even during the early phases of arrest, interview, and interrogation, as they can 

supply information and background, including traumas that affected the child and family, and 

what service providers need to know to decide on treatment options, service plans, and how 

to improve learning, developmental, mental, and behavioral outcomes for the youths (Hock et 

al. 2015; Arya 2013; Rozzell 2013). 

Sustained Participation. Understanding the context and situation of families can help to 

overcome most barriers to engagement such as functioning (i.e., values, norms, 

communication, affective expression), denial of problems, and concerns about privacy

(Headman and Cornille 2008). Family buy-in increases the likelihood of commitment to 

treatment goals and significantly influences reunification rates and overall family outcomes 

(Child Welfare Information Gateway 2017). Building and sustaining relationships with families 

can substantially impact the safety, permanency, and well-being of children while both 

involved in the justice system and when they return to their communities (McCarthy 2012).

The Vera Institute of Justice has also developed a model of family partnership that focuses on 

identification, engagement, and empowerment (Shanahan and diZerega 2016). It includes 

many of the characteristics of family engagement. During identification, justice agencies are 

charged with identifying the family and social support available to the juveniles. This may 

include defining family more broadly to include non-relatives and bolstering a juvenile’s 

support system if needed. For engagement, agencies should be welcoming and show respect for 

families, and both formal (e.g., participation in team meetings) and informal (e.g., visits with 

youth) contact should be encouraged. To empower families, agencies should create 

opportunities for partnerships so that families are actively participating in the design and 

implementation of their children’s treatment (Shanahan and diZerega 2016).

Family Engagement Strategies

The literature on family engagement strategies in juvenile justice suggests that these strategies 

often include 1) policies that encourage family engagement, 2) materials that help families to 

understand the juvenile justice process, and 3) programs and practices such as family 

visitation, parent training, and family therapy.

Policies. One role families have played is to stimulate public awareness and become involved 

in advocating for system reform. They have also helped to evaluate and revise policies and 

programs to assist all families who encounter not only the juvenile justice system, but also all 

human service agencies (Osher and Osher 2002; Schoenwald et al. 2008). Policy changes have 

included providing orientation sessions or tours of residential facilities for families when their 

children are incarcerated; providing transportation to and from facilities; ensuring that families 

are included in conferences and meetings; scheduling flexible visitation times and encouraging 

continued communication with family; and providing easy-to-understand reading materials 

(Luckenbill 2012; Vera Institute of Justice 2014).

In addition to these specific policies, some agencies have adopted a set of principles, as 

described in the previous section, to guide their work. One example, which was designed to 

encourage visits and correspondence between youths and their families, occurred at the Ohio 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

Department of Youth Services (DYS). Selected DYS facilities created a policy that integrated

the Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool (JRIT) into staff practices. The JRIT is a 15-minute 

questionnaire that helps staff engage youths in a discussion about their individual and family

strengths and provides information that may assist staff in youths’ programming and reentry 

planning (Shanahan and Agudelo 2012). Incorporating JRIT into DYS policy represented a 

focus on not only building rapport between staff and youth, but also helping youths to think 

about the resources and familial support available to them. 

A study of DYS’s intervention found that these policies made it easier for juveniles to maintain 

relationships with their families, and that juveniles who received more visits from family 

reported feeling happier with their relationships and more connected and committed to family 

members (Shanahan and Agudelo 2012). Youths who never received visits had higher 

behavioral incident rates in the facility, compared with youths who did receive visits (Agudelo 

2013).

Written Materials. Written materials can also be considered a type of engagement as they can 

bridge the communication gap and cultivate more information sharing between juvenile justice 

professionals and families. Such materials can educate families and build an understanding of 

1) what happens to their children as they progress through the juvenile justice system; 2) the 

purpose, roles, and responsibilities of the juvenile justice professionals they encounter; 3) their 

rights and responsibilities as parents, and those of their children; and 4) court jargon to become 

more engaged in the process (Luckenbill 2012). In turn, with such materials, families can 

overcome some of their barriers to engagement, discussed in the section below, and cultivate 

more family involvement. 

Written materials can take the form of brochures and short documents in plain language or 

longer documents with more comprehensive information (Luckenbill 2012; Osher, Huff, 

Colombi, and Amelga 2012). For example, a family guide written specifically for engaging 

families with their children’s educational experience in a juvenile justice facility could cover 

topics such as 1) connecting with the educational facility, 2) making sure the juvenile is doing 

well in the program, 3) visitation, 4) connecting with other families, 5) preparing for the return 

home, and 6) finding additional resources (Osher, Huff, Colombi, and Gonsoulin 2012). 

In addition, toolkits and guides have been developed that focus on family engagement in 

education while a youth is incarcerated, family engagement in mental health treatment, and 

general family engagement for youths who are part of the juvenile justice system. For example,

the National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and 

Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk published a toolkit in 2012, which covers 

how families can engage with their children’s education while the youths are in a juvenile 

justice facility (Osher, Huff, Colombi, and Amelga 2012). The toolkit provides resources for 

families and facilitates healthier engagement by including sample letters to parents, contact 

lists, family and facility tip sheets, family engagement tools, and a facility self-assessment tool.

Programs and Practices. Family engagement can involve a set of programs and practices that 

juvenile justice systems provide to families, to help them find community support and 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

resources as well as assist them in making the best use of the system to meet their family’s 

needs. Such programs and practices focus on the family context and structure and identify how 

these aspects influence their children’s outcomes. They also reinforce and utilize the family’s 

strengths and provide training in areas that typically contribute to the youth’s antisocial 

behaviors (Luckenbill and Yeager 2009).

Family therapy programs. There are high rates of behavioral problems, mental health issues, 

and other at-risk behaviors associated with youths involved in the justice system (Weisz and 

Kazdin 2003). Family-based therapeutic interventions focus on addressing these particular 

issues (Rowe and Liddle 2003). Such programs are implemented for families who have youths 

diagnosed with mild emotional and behavioral problems such as conduct disorder, depression, 

and school or social problems (Kumpfer and Alvarado 2003). There are a variety of family 

therapy programs (e.g., functional family therapy, family-strengthening programs, child 

social-skills training) that can impact family dysfunction and child and adolescent problem 

behavior, including delinquency and crime rates (Henggeler and Borduin 1990; Sexton and 

Alexander 2000; Waldron and Turner 2008).

Kumpfer (1999) identified several types of family therapy practices usually conducted by 

trained therapists in clinical settings with parents and children. They include

• Structural family therapy (Szapocznik et al. 1983; Powell and Dosser 1992), which 

stresses families’ coping skills and strategies as well as learning new ways to respond. 

• Strategic family therapy (Szapocznik and Kurtines 1989), which is pragmatic and goal 

oriented. 

• Behavioral family-therapy programs (in which a therapist works with one family) or 

behavior family trainings (in which a therapist works with several families in a group), 

which contain separate skill-building training for parents and children during part of 

the session (Rosenthal and Bandura 1978; Gurman and Kniskern 2014). The family is 

then brought together for activities during the last part of the therapy session.

Such therapeutic practices are based on the idea that improving family functioning should in 

turn reduce problem behaviors in children and adolescents from dysfunctional families 

(Kumpfer and Alvarado 2003). There are several other therapeutic interventions designed to 

strengthen family functioning and thus prevent future problem behaviors. For more 

information, see the MPG literature review on Family Therapy.

Parent-training programs. Research suggests that improving fundamental parenting practices

significantly reduces problem behaviors or time spent by youths in residential facilities or outof-home placements (Woolfenden, Williams, and Peat 2002; Welsh and Farrington 2006). The 

2013 report by the National Research Council stated that the “most important aspect of 

parental influence relates to parental behavior that can be modified or relied on, as appropriate,

in connection with juvenile justice interventions” (p. 102). Today, there are several major 

categories of interventions designed to improve parenting practices and thus prevent future 

problem behaviors. These programs include behavioral parent training, parent education, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

parent support groups, in-home parent education or parent aid, and parent involvement in 

youth groups. 

Such parent-training programs concentrate on teaching parents and prospective parents the 

use of effective management skills. This highly structured approach generally includes parents 

only, in small groups led by a skilled trainer or clinician. Programs are designed to help parents 

learn to recognize both prosocial and antisocial behaviors, employ social-learning techniques 

(e.g., positive reinforcement, ignoring, distraction, punishment), and improve family problemsolving skills (Mason et al. 2003). Parent- training programs have been implemented with 

parents of children at risk for juvenile justice system involvement, parents of youths who are 

already in the juvenile justice system, and juvenile justice system-involved youths who are 

pregnant or parenting. Parenting skills learned early can have positive effects as the child 

matures (Howell 1995). 

Parent-training sessions can occur in diverse settings (e.g., schools, community centers, 

churches, the workplace, or even at home with self-instructional programs) and through 

various types of approaches. These include 

• Behavioral parenting trainings or family skills trainings, which are structured, delivered 

by a trained professional, and usually include about 8–14 sessions of 1–2 hours each. A 

curriculum guide and instructional aids (e.g., manuals, guidebooks, handouts, 

videotapes) are used. Positive reinforcement skills are taught, and parents learn to 

decrease inappropriate punitive behaviors and chastisements, manage family conflict, 

and strengthen family bonds (Webster-Stratton and Reid 2010; Maughan et al. 2005; 

Mason et al. 2003). 

• Parent education programs are usually designed to reach a broader audience of families, 

including those who are not necessarily severely dysfunctional, but who may be at risk. 

Parent education programs raise awareness of good parenting practices and better ways 

to discipline children (Cowen 2001; Huebner 2002; Lundahl, Nimer, and Parsons 2006). 

They also help parents learn how to determine if a child is abusing drugs or alcohol and 

to recognize other warning signs of delinquent behavior (Park et al. 2000). Parent 

education materials may include television programs, brochures, feature articles in 

newspapers and magazines, and other written information. In addition, schools, 

workplaces, churches, and community organizations can offer parent education 

information. 

Family visitation. Research suggests that youths in the justice system are disproportionally 

more likely to have mental health and behavioral issues and to recidivate in the months and 

years following their release from residential facilities (Cauffman et al. 2007; Spencer and 

Jones-Walker 2004). However, reconnecting with family during reentry is an important step to 

successful reintegration and can begin even before release. In-person visits and other methods 

of social support, such as phone calls and letter writing, play an important role in minimizing 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

the stress and isolation attributed to system involvement; these methods also improve how 

justice-involved youths may adjust to probation or incarceration (Monahan, Goldweber, and 

Cauffman 2011). 

Research has also found that youths in residential facilities who have more positive family 

relationships during justice involvement are less likely to become depressed over time and 

thus exhibit greater overall emotional well-being (Stice, Ragan, and Randall 2004; Caldwell et 

al. 2004). A study by Monahan and colleagues (2011) found that family visitations for 

incarcerated adolescents who committed serious offenses resulted in rapid declines in 

depressive symptoms over time, when compared with adolescents who received no visits from 

parents. The effects were cumulative; that is, the greater the number of visits youths received 

from family, the greater their decrease in symptoms. In addition, one study of incarcerated 

youths in Ohio found that there was a positive relationship between weekly visitation by 

family members and maintaining good behavior and improved school performance (Agudelo 

2013). 

While there are barriers to family visitation (discussed in the next section), maintaining family 

relationships during incarceration appears to help buffer youths against depression and other 

mental health, behavioral, and academic issues while confined. Such relationships also offer 

youths motivation and material and emotional support and are instrumental in helping them 

reestablish ties to the community, avoid criminality or antisocial peers, and find housing 

placements and employment opportunities, post-release (Martinez and Abrams 2013). See the 

MPG literature review on Juvenile Reentry for more information.

Barriers to Family Engagement

Research studies have also documented barriers to incorporating family engagement in a 

youth’s treatment while the youth is in the juvenile justice system. Although a 2010 survey of 

juvenile justice probation and correctional leaders identified family engagement as one of four

most important issues for positive youth outcomes, the survey also found that family 

engagement was also the most operationally challenging issue facing the system (OJJDP 2010).

One observed barrier is that family members are often considered outsiders by a justice system 

that was not designed to incorporate them in the process (Justice for Families 2012; Pennell, 

Shapiro, and Spigner 2011). Also, families often do not understand the justice system process 

and have misconceptions about its purpose and the roles and responsibilities of the 

professionals they encounter (Luckenbill 2012; Osher and Hunt 2002). An imbalance or lack of 

power and resources creates a barrier, because power is tied to the knowledge and information 

that families need to navigate the juvenile justice system (Rozzell 2013). 

Other barriers to engagement may be structural or attitudinal and vary from family to family 

(Mendez et al. 2009). Structural barriers depend on ethnic, economic, and transportation 

factors. Cultural differences or mistrust have also been linked with lower rates of engagement 

(Littell and Tajima 2000), especially among immigrant families who may also have language 

barriers and limited understanding of the justice system (Kemp et al. 2009). Families may also 

lack the economic and social supports necessary to meet the needs of their children and to fully 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 9

participate in existing activities offered by the justice system (Arya 2013). Further, there are 

often multiple barriers that hamper the ability of families to visit their incarcerated children. 

Such visitation barriers include the narrow definition of “family” visitors, communication (e.g., 

access to phone calls, Internet), long distances between home and the facilities, limited 

transportation options for families, and restrictions on the times and days for visiting (Day 

2010; Monahan, Goldweber, and Cauffman 2011; Shanahan and Agudelo 2012; Agudelo 2013). 

In addition, because of attitudinal barriers, some families are simply not willing to become 

engaged in the treatment or rehabilitation of their children. They may choose not to engage in 

services because they disagree with the perception that their child is at risk for delinquency or 

do not believe in therapeutic or intervention services (Mendez et al. 2009). 

In other cases, even where families acknowledge their children’s problem behavior, they may 

also believe the children will outgrow such behaviors or may decline to participate in services 

because they do not believe treatment would be useful for their family (Spoth et al. 1996). 

Headman and Cornille (2008) found that families who denied the existence of any familial 

problems (i.e., their family never has problems or always handles things in an ideal way) were 

less likely to engage in services. Even in cases where familial engagement is compelled (e.g., 

due to the child’s involvement with the juvenile justice system), families may schedule 

appointments but not show up, while others might come infrequently (Cornille, Mullis, and 

Mullis 2001). In these instances, the barrier to engagement is not the nature of the justice 

system, but the nature of the family.

Outcome Evidence

Most existing outcome evidence focuses more on parenting programs and family therapy than 

on engagement in the juvenile justice system. Examples of programs from the MPG that 

incorporate elements of family engagement include those below.

Positive Family Support (PFS). PFS is a multilevel, family-centered intervention targeting 

children at risk for problem behaviors or substance use and their families. Delivered to parents 

and their children in a middle school setting, PFS’s immediate goal is to improve parents’

family management and communication skills. The long-term goal is to hinder the 

development of adolescent antisocial behaviors and drug experimentation. To accomplish 

these goals, the intervention uses a tiered strategy and links families and youths to available 

intervention services.

Dishion and colleagues (2002) and Connell and colleagues (2007) found that PFS was 

associated with a significant reduction in substance use initiation among at-risk youths. Also, 

students in the treatment group reported less substance use and antisocial behaviors and had 

fewer arrests than students in the control group. This difference was statistically significant.

Functional Family Therapy. FFT, designed to help youths ages 11–18, has been successfully 

tested in multiethnic and multicultural contexts to treat both youths and their families. Youths 

are usually targeted for FFT when they are at risk for or engaged in delinquent behavior such 

as violence and substance abuse. Youths who have been diagnosed with conduct disorder, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 10

oppositional defiant disorder, or disruptive behavior disorder are also able to participate in the 

FFT program. The FFT model concentrates on decreasing risk factors and on increasing 

protective factors that directly affect the youths, with emphasis on familial factors. The 

intervention consists of 8–12, 1-hour sessions for mild cases and up to 30 sessions for cases that 

are more difficult. 

Studies by Gordon and colleagues (1988) and Sexton and Turner (2010) found that FFT 

produced statistically significant reductions in recidivism for juveniles who commit offenses.

The treatment group had lower recidivism rates and, when the program was delivered by 

high-adherent therapists, the results were even more statistically significant. FFT was also

found to have a positive effect on youths by reducing risky behavior and increasing strengths 

(Celinska et al. 2013).

Multisystemic Therapy–Family Integrated Transitions (MST–FIT). MST–FIT provides 

integrated individual and family services to juvenile offenders who have co-occurring mental 

health and substance use disorders during their transition from incarceration back into the 

community. The overall goal of MST–FIT is to provide necessary treatment to youths, thereby 

reducing recidivism. The program also seeks to connect youths and their families to 

appropriate community supports, achieve youth abstinence from alcohol and other drugs, 

improve youth mental health, and increase youth prosocial behavior.

Trupin and colleagues (2011) found that even though the program did not appear to have a 

statistically significant effect on overall recidivism (misdemeanor or felony), it had a 

statistically significant effect on felony recidivism. Fifty-eight percent of the sample had a 

felony by the time of the follow up. At 36 months post-release, however, the MST–FIT 

intervention was significantly associated with a lower risk of felony recidivism.

The Parents/Family section of the MPG lists many other family-focused and family-involved 

programs.

Conclusion

Policies, written materials, and programs and practices have been designed and developed to 

engage families in the justice system process. There is some research to indicate that 

participation of family members can improve the effectiveness of community-based and 

residential programs, as well as during the reentry process (Agudelo 2013). There are also 

reports of barriers, such as families who feel blamed for their child’s illegal behaviors, which 

may result in a family’s feeling of disrespect. Once in the system, the research presented here 

has highlighted that the perceived punitive nature of many programs can impact trust between 

system professionals and family members. Finally, a lack of understanding of the system on 

the part of family members, as well as transportation and scheduling problems, cultural 

differences, and language barriers, have also been documented as preventing meaningful 

family engagement. 

Frameworks and other interventions have been developed to assist with overcoming these 

barriers, and juvenile justice agencies have implemented policies and procedures to improve 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 11

their capacity to engage families (Luckenbill 2012; Arya 2013). Common features of this 

guidance include emphases on treating families with dignity and respect, building 

collaborative relationships with families, presenting program information in clear and 

understandable ways, ensuring regular two-way communication, offering support from 

parents in similar situations, and providing families with opportunities for decision-making 

and involvement in affecting policies and procedures (Child Welfare Information Gateway 

2017; Luckenbill and Yeager 2009). However, the outcome evidence is generally about 

multicomponent program designs that include family engagement and does not isolate the 

specific impact of family engagement. Ultimately, more research is needed to determine the 

effectiveness of these frameworks and interventions.

References

Agudelo, Sandra Villalobos. 2013. The Impact of Family Visitation on Incarcerated Youths’ Behavior 

and School Performance. Issue Brief. New York N.Y.: Vera Institute of Justice. 

Alvarado, Rose, and Karol L. Kumpfer. 2000. Strengthening America’s Families. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention.

Arya, Neelum. 2013. Family Comes First: A Workbook to Transform the Justice System by Partnering 

with Families–Executive Summary. Washington, D.C.: Campaign for Youth Justice.

Brook, Judith S., Martin Whiteman, Steven Finch, and Patricia Cohen. 1998. “Mutual 

Attachment, Personality, and Drug Use: Pathways from Childhood to Young 

Adulthood.” Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs 124(4): 492–510.

Butts, Jeffrey, Mark Seymour, and Grace Bauer. 2013. Expanding on the Definition of Family and 

Engagement. Webinar hosted by OJJDP and the National Center for Youth in Custody. 

https://www.nttac.org/media/trainingCenter/61/OJJDP%20Family%20Engage%20P

owerPoint%202%2011%2013%20%20508c.pdf

Caldwell, Roslyn M., Jenna Silverman, Noelle Lefforge, and N. Clayton Silver. 2004. 

“Adjudicated Mexican American Adolescents: The Effects of Familial Emotional 

Support on Self-Esteem, Emotional Well-being, and Delinquency.” The American Journal

of Family Therapy 32(1):55–69.

Cauffman, Elizabeth, Frances J. Lexcen, Asha Goldweber, Elizabeth P. Shulman, and Thomas 

Grisso. 2007. “Gender Differences in Mental Health Symptoms Among Delinquent and 

Community Youth.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5(3):287–307.

Celinska, Katarzyna, Susan Furrer, and Chia-Cherng Cheng. 2013. “An Outcome-Based 

Evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for Youth with Behavioral Problems.” OJJDP 

Journal of Juvenile Justice 2(2):23–36.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2017. The Family Engagement Inventory (FEI): A Brief CrossDisciplinary Synthesis.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Children’s Bureau.

Conger, Rand D., and Ronald L. Simons. 1997. “Life-Course Contingencies in the Development 

of Adolescent Antisocial Behavior: A Matching Law Approach.” In T.P. Thornberry 

(ed.). Development Theories of Crime and Delinquency: Advances in Criminological Theory, 

Vol. 7. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, 55–99.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 12

Connell, Arin M., Thomas J. Dishion, Miwa Yasui, and Kathryn Kavanagh. 2007. “An Adaptive 

Approach to Family Intervention: Linking Engagement in Family-Centered 

Intervention to Reductions in Adolescent Problem Behavior.” Journal of Consulting and 

Clinical Psychology 75(4):568–79.

Cornille, Thomas A., Ann K. Mullis, and Ronald L. Mullis. 2001. Engaging Reluctant Families in 

Helping Relationships: A Research Based Intervention and a Workbook for Implementing that 

Approach. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida State University Family Institute.

Cowen, Perle Slavik. 2001. “Effectiveness of a Parent Education Intervention for At‐ Risk 

Families.” Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing 6(2):73–82.

Day, George James. 2010. Family Time Behind Bars: The Effect of Visitation on Institutional 

Misconduct and Recidivism among Juvenile Offenders. PhD diss., Sam Houston State 

University.

Dishion, Thomas J., Kathryn Kavanagh, Alison Schneiger, Sarah Nelson, and Noah K. 

Kaufman. 2002. “Preventing Early Adolescent Substance Use: A Family-Centered 

Strategy for the Public Middle School.” Prevention Science 3(3):191–201.

Gordon, Donald A., Jack Arbuthnot, Kathryn E. Gustafson, and Peter McGreen. 1988. “HomeBased Behavioral-Systems Family Therapy with Disadvantaged Juvenile Delinquents.” 

American Journal of Family Therapy 16(3):243–55.

Gurman, Alan S., and David P. Kniskern. 2014. Handbook of Family Therapy. Volume II. New 

York, N.Y.: Routledge.

Headman, Neil C., and Thomas A. Cornille. 2008. “Family Functioning Patterns as Predictors 

of Engagement: Which Families Participate in Services and Which Ones Do Not?” 

Journal of Family Social Work 11(2):117–40.

Henggeler, Scott W., and Charles M. Borduin. 1990. Family Therapy and Beyond: A Multisystemic 

Approach to Treating the Behavior Problems of Children and Adolescents. Pacific Grove, Calif.: 

Brooks/Cole.

Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Hoeve, Machteld, Judith Semon Dubas, Veroni I. Eichelsheim, Peter H. van der Laan, Wilma 

Smeenk, and Jan R. M. Gerris. 2009. “The Relationship Between Parenting and 

Delinquency: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 37(6): 749–75.

Howell, James, C. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, 

and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hock, Robert, Mary Ann Priester, Aidyn L. Iachini, Teri Browne, Dana DeHart, and Stephanie 

Clone. 2015. “A Review of Family Engagement Measures for Adolescent Substance Use 

Services.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 24(12):3700–10.

Huebner, Colleen E. “Evaluation of a Clinic‐ Based Parent Education Program to Reduce the 

Risk of Infant and Toddler Maltreatment. 2002.“Public Health Nursing 19(5): 377–89.

Justice for Families. 2012. Families Unlocking the Futures: Solutions to the Crisis in Juvenile Justice.

Sulphur, La.: Justice for Families.

Kemp, Susan P., Maureen O. Marcenko, Kimberly Hoagwood, and William Vesneski. 2009. 

“Engaging Parents in Child Welfare Services: Bridging Family Needs and Child Welfare 

Mandates.” Child Welfare 88(1):101–26. 

Kumpfer, Karol L. 1999. Strengthening America’s Families: Exemplary Parenting and Family 

Strategies for Delinquency Prevention. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 13

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Kumpfer, Karol L., and Rose Alvarado. 2003. “Family-Strengthening Approaches for the 

Prevention of Youth Problem Behaviors.” American Psychologist 58(6–7):457–65. 

Littell, Julia H., and Emiko A. Tajima. 2000. A Multilevel Model of Client Participation in 

Intensive Family Preservation Services. Social Service Review 74(3):405–35.

Luckenbill, Wendy. 2012. Innovation Brief: Strengthening the Role of Families in Juvenile Justice. 

Chicago, Ill.: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. 

Luckenbill, Wendy, and Clay Yeager. 2009. Family Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice 

System. Chicago, Ill.: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Lundahl, Brad W., Janelle Nimer, and Bruce Parsons. 2006. “Preventing Child Abuse: A MetaAnalysis of Parent Training Programs.” Research on Social Work Practice 16(3): 251–62.

Martinez, Damian J., and Laura S. Abrams. 2013. “Informal Social Support Among Returning 

Young Offenders: A Metasynthesis of the Literature.” International Journal of Offender 

Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57(2):169–90.

Mason, W. Alex, Rick Kosterman, J. David Hawkins, Kevin P. Haggerty, and Richard L. Spoth. 

2003. “Reducing Adolescents’ Growth in Substance Use and Delinquency: Randomized 

Trial Effects of a Parent-Training Prevention Intervention.” Prevention Science 4(3):203–

12.

Maughan, Denita R., Elizabeth Christiansen, William R. Jenson, Daniel Olympia, and Elaine 

Clark. 2005. “Behavioral Parent Training as a Treatment for Externalizing Behaviors and 

Disruptive Behavior Disorders: A Meta-Analysis.” School Psychology Review 34(3):267.

McCarthy, Jan. 2012. Guide for Developing and Implementing Child Welfare Practice Models. 

Portland, Me.: University of Southern Maine. http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/

helpkids/practicemodel/PMguide.pdf

Mendez, Julia L., Johanna L. Carpenter, Doré R. LaForett, and Jeremy S. Cohen. 2009. “Parental 

Engagement and Barriers to Participation in a Community‐ Based Preventive 

Intervention.” American Journal of Community Psychology 44(1-2):1–14.

Monahan, Kathryn C., Asha Goldweber, and Elizabeth Cauffman. 2011. “The Effects of 

Visitation on Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders: How Contact with the Outside Impacts 

Adjustment on the Inside.” Law and Human Behavior 35(2):143–51.

National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. 2016. Family Involvement in the Juvenile 

Justice System. New York: N.Y.: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice. 

https://www.ncmhjj.com/resources/family-involvement-juvenile-justice-system-2

National Research Council. 2013. Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach. 

Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 

New York State Council on Children and Families. 2008. CCSI Family Involvement and Strengthsbased Practices. Rensselaer, N.Y.: New York State Council on Children and Families.

http://www.ccf.state.ny.us/Initiatives/CCSIRelate/CCSIFamInvolv.htm#definition

Norman, Rosana E., Munkhtsetseg Byambaa, Rumna De, Alexander Butchart, James Scott, and 

Theo Vos. 2012. “The Long-Term Health Consequences of Child Physical Abuse, 

Emotional Abuse, and Neglect: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” PLOS 

Medicine 9(11): e1001349.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2010. National Needs Assessment of 

Juvenile Justice Professionals: 2010. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 14

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 2012. Engaging Families as Valued 

Partners in the Juvenile Justice System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Osher, Trina W., and David M. Osher. 2002. “The Paradigm Shift to True Collaboration with 

Families.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 11(1):47–60.

Osher, Trina W., and Pat Hunt. 2002. Involving Families of Youth Who Are in Contact with the 

Juvenile Justice System. Research Brief. New York: N.Y.: National Center for Mental 

Health and Juvenile Justice.

Osher, Trina W., Barbara Huff, Greta D. Colombi, and M. Amelga. 2012. Facility Toolkit for 

Engaging Families in Their Child’s Education at a Juvenile Justice Facility. Washington, D.C.: 

National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and 

Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk.

Osher, Trina W., Barbara Huff, Greta D. Colombi, and Simon Gonsoulin. 2012. Family Guide to 

Getting Involved in Your Child’s Education at a Juvenile Justice Facility. Washington, D.C.: 

National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and 

Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk. 

Park, Jisuk, Rick Kosterman, J. David Hawkins, Kevin P. Haggerty, Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. 

Duncan, and Richard Spoth. 2000. “Effects of the Preparing for the Drug Free Years 

Curriculum on Growth in Alcohol Use and Risk for Alcohol Use in Early Adolescence.” 

Prevention Science 1(3):125–38.

Pennell, Joan, Carol Shapiro, and Carol Spigner. 2011. Safety, Fairness, Stability: Repositioning 

Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare to Engage Families and Communities. Washington, D.C.: 

Georgetown University Center for Juvenile Justice Reform.

Powell, John Y., and David A. Dosser Jr. 1992. “Structural Family Therapy as a Bridge Between 

‘Helping Too Much’ and Empowerment.” Family Therapy 19(3):243–56. 

Rosenthal, Ted L., and Anthony Bandura. 1978. “Psychological Modeling: Theory and 

Practice.” In S. L. Garfield and A.E. Bergin (eds.). Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior 

Change: An Empirical Analysis, 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: Wiley, 621–58. 

Rowe, Cynthia L., and Howard A. Liddle. 2003. “Substance Abuse.” Journal of Marital and 

Family Therapy 29(1):97–120.

Rozzell, Liane. 2013. The Role of Family Engagement in Creating Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice 

Systems. Los Angeles, Calif.: The National Child Traumatic Stress Network.

Schoenwald, Sonja K., Kelly Kelleher, John R. Weisz, and Research Network on Youth Mental 

Health. 2008. “Building Bridges to Evidence-Based Practice: The MacArthur Foundation 

Child System and Treatment Enhancement Projects (Child STEPs).” Administration and 

Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 35(1-2):66–72.

Seigle, Elizabeth, Nastassia Walsh, and Josh Weber. 2014. Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism 

and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. New York, N.Y.: 

Council of State Governments Justice Center. 

Sexton, Thomas L., and Charles W. Turner. 2010. “The Effectiveness of Functional Family 

Therapy for Youth with Behavioral Problems in a Community Practice Setting.” Journal 

of Family Psychology 24(3):339–48.

Sexton, Thomas L., and James F. Alexander. 2000. Functional Family Therapy. OJJDP Juvenile 

Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 15

Shanahan, Ryan, and Margaret diZerega. 2016. Identifying, Engaging, and Empowering Families: 

A Charge for Juvenile Justice Agencies. Washington, D.C.: Center for Juvenile Justice 

Reform, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University. 

Shanahan, Ryan, and Sandra Villalobos Agudelo. 2012. Families and Partners: Supporting 

Incarcerated Youth in Ohio. Research Brief. New York N.Y.: Vera Institute of Justice.

Spencer, Margaret Beale, and Cheryl Jones-Walker. 2004. “Interventions and Services Offered 

to Former Juvenile Offenders Reentering Their Communities: An Analysis of Program 

Effectiveness.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2(1):88–97.

Spoth, Richard, Cleve Redmond, Cathy Hockaday, and Chung Yeol Shin. 1996. “Barriers to 

Participation in Family Skills Preventive Interventions and Their Evaluations: A 

Replication and Extension.” Family Relations 45(3):247–54.

Stice, Eric, Jennifer Ragan, and Patrick Randall. 2004. “Prospective Relations Between Social 

Support and Depression: Differential Direction of Effects for Parent and Peer Support?” 

Journal of Abnormal Psychology 113(1):155.

Szapocznik, José, and William M. Kurtines. 1989. Breakthroughs in Family Therapy With DrugAbusing and Problem Youth. New York, N.Y.: Springer. 

Szapocznik, José, William M. Kurtines, Franklin H. Foote, and Angel Perez–Vidal. 1983. 

“Conjoint Versus One-Person Family Therapy: Some Evidence for the Effectiveness of 

Conducting Family Therapy Through One Person.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 51:889–99. 

Taylor, Robert. 2014. Juvenile Justice: Policies, Programs, and Practices. Columbus, Ohio: McGrawHill Higher Education.

Trupin, Eric J., Suzanne EU Kerns, Sarah Cusworth Walker, Megan T. DeRobertis, and David 

G. Stewart. 2011. “Family Integrated Transitions: A Promising Program for Juvenile 

Offenders with Co-Occurring Disorders.” Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse

20(5): 421–36.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of Education. 2016. 

Policy Statement on Family Engagement from the Early Years to the Early Grades.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/files/policy-statement-onfamily-engagement.pdf

Vera Institute of Justice. 2014. Family Engagement in the Juvenile Justice System. Juvenile Justice 

Factsheet 5. New York, N.Y.: Vera Institute of Justice.

Waldron, Holly Barrett, and Charles W. Turner. 2008. “Evidence-Based Psychosocial 

Treatments for Adolescent Substance Abuse.” Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent 

Psychology 37(1): 238–61.

Webster-Stratton, Carolyn, and M. Jamila Reid. 2010. The Incredible Years Parents, Teachers, and 

Children Training Series: A Multifaceted Treatment Approach for Young Children with 

Conduct Disorders. New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press.

Weisz, John R., and Alan E. Kazdin, 2003. Evidence-Based Psychotherapies for Children and 

Adolescents. New York, N.Y.: Guilford Press.

Welsh, Brandon C., and David P. Farrington. 2006. “Effectiveness of Family-Based Programs 

to Prevent Delinquency and Later Offending.” Psicothema 18(3).

Woolfenden, Susan R., K. Williams, and J. K. Peat. 2002. “Family and Parenting Interventions 

for Conduct Disorder and Delinquency: A Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled 

Trials.” Archives of Disease in Childhood 86(4):251–56.