Interventions Flashcards
MST strengths
- Holistic and Individualized Approach:
- Evidence-Based Outcomes:
- Family-Centered Approach:
- Cost-Effectiveness:
- Cultural Adaptability:
MST limitations
- Dependency on Family Participation
- Inconsistent Long-Term Outcomes
- Challenges in Implementation
- Effectiveness in severe cases
- Potential for Practitioner Burnout
MST vs CBT
MST is broader in scope than CBT, which focuses primarily on individual cognitive and behavioral patterns.
While CBT is effective for specific behavioral issues, MST addresses systemic influences, making it more comprehensive for complex cases.
MST vs Intensive Fostering
MST works within the youth’s existing family and community systems, unlike intensive fostering programs, which remove the youth from their environment.
This may make MST less disruptive but potentially less effective for youth whose home environments are highly criminogenic.
CBT strengths
- Empirical Support:
- Focus on Cognitive Distortions:
- Structured and Goal-Oriented:
- Adaptability:
- Cost-Effectiveness:
- Skill Development:
CBT limitations
- Limited Address of Environmental Factors:
- Motivational Challenges:
- Effectiveness in High-Risk Populations:
- Focus on Present Issues:
- Potential for Group Dynamics Issues:
Staffordshire Intensive Fostering Programme Strengths
- Focus on Behavioural and Emotional Development
- Alternative to Custodial Sentences
- Structured Environment
- Trained Foster Carers
- Potential for Long-Term Benefits
- Avoidance of Criminogenic Effects
SIFP Limitations
- High Costs and Resource Intensity:
- Limited Accessibility:
- Challenges with Foster Placements:
- Short-Term Focus:
- Potential Emotional Impact:
- Mixed Evidence on Effectiveness:
Holistic and Individualised approach (S) - what intervention is this related to and how
MST integrates multiple perspectives and addresses the ecological systems, increases the likelihood of identifying and addressing the root cause.
It tailors interventions to the specific needs of the individual and their environment, ensuring relevance and effectiveness.
Evidence based outcomes (S) - what intervention is this related to and how
Numerous studies demonstrate MST’s effectiveness in reducing recidivism rates among youth offenders. A meta-analysis by van der Stouwe et al. (2014) found MST to be associated with significant reductions in reoffending compared to other treatment modalities.
Similarly, Borduin et al. (2009) reported long-term reductions in antisocial behavior and improvements in family functioning.
Family Centered Approach (S) - what intervention is this related to and how
MST engages families as key agents of change. It equips parents with skills to manage their child’s behaviour and strengthens family cohesion, his element is critical given the strong link between family dysfunction and youth offending (Huey et al., 2000).
Cultural adaptability (S) - what intervention is this related to and how
MST’s framework allows for cultural sensitivity by tailoring interventions to the unique cultural contexts of the youth and their families.
Dependency on family participation (L) - what intervention is this related to and how
MST heavily depends on family participation and cooperation. Families with high levels of dysfunction or resistance to intervention may struggle to engage effectively, limiting the intervention’s success (Lundahl et al., 2006).
Challenges in implementation (L) - what intervention is this related to and how
MST is a resource-intensive approach requiring highly trained therapists and close supervision to maintain fidelity to the model. This makes it difficult to implement in resource-constrained settings or rural areas.
Inconsistent long term outcomes (L) - what intervention is this related to and how
While some studies show sustained reductions in offending, others suggest that the effects diminish over time, particularly if ongoing support is not provided (Curtis et al., 2004). This raises questions about the sustainability of behavioural changes facilitated by MST.
Effectiveness in severe cases (L) - what intervention is this related to and how
MST has shown less success with extremely high-risk youth, such as those with severe mental health issues or entrenched criminal behavior, as these may require more specialized or additional interventions (Littell et al., 2005).
CBT empirical support (S)
CBT has strong empirical backing, meta-analyses showing it effective in reducing recidivism in youth offenders. Lipsey et al. (2007) CBT significantly reduces reoffending rates compared to non-therapeutic approaches.
Reduction from the .40 mean recidivism rate of the control groups to a mean rate of .30 for the treatment groups, a 25% decrease.
Focus on cognitive distortions (S) - what intervention is this related to and how
Youth offenders often exhibit cognitive distortions, such as minimization of harm or justification of criminal behaviour. CBT directly addresses these distortions, helping offenders develop prosocial thinking patterns and emotional regulation.