The Impact of Reentry Services on Juvenile Offenders’ Recidivism

1. The Impact of Reentry Services on Juvenile Offenders’ Recidivism Presented by: Jeffrey A. Bouffard, Ph.D. Co-Authored with Kathleen J. Bergseth All opinions in this presentation are those of the authors and do not represent the official position of the agencies participating in the evaluations.

2. Juvenile Aftercare and Reentry • Current models call for a combination of “restraint” and “intervention” • Primary models • IAP program (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994) • SVORI (Winterfield & Brumbaugh, 2005) • Common characteristics • Coordination of case management and rehabilitation over three phases • Client assessment and individualized case planning • Continuity of services

3. Reentry and Recidivism • Restraint alone is not effective (Petersilia & Turner, 1993) • Mixed evidence for restraint combined with services • Most studies found no difference, but some studies found positive impact • IAP demonstration site study found improvements in some intermediate outcomes, but few significant differences in recidivism (Weibush et al., 2005) • Research plagued with null findings, small sample sizes, implementation difficulties, and little consistency in implementation, or methodology

4. Community-Based Mentoring • Mentoring research finds positive effects • Dubois et al., 2002: mean effect size of .14 to .18 for average program, greater effects for programs with certain characteristics • Mixed research for system involved youth • Blechman et al., 2000: negative impact • Barnoski, 2002: beneficial, but NS impact • Research on AIM program indicates beneficial impact (Jarjoura, 2003; AIM, 2004)

5. Evaluation Plan • Process and Outcome Evaluation • Youth in reentry program with strong mentoring component • Compared to similar youth in neighboring county (no reentry services) • All youth returning after 3+ weeks in an “Out of Home” Placement • Youth in both groups receive traditional Probation Supervision • Reentry program • Transitional Coordinators (TC) with Small Caseloads • 3 Phase Design; Assessment & Individualized Case Planning; Integration of Supervision & Services • TCs focus on Service Brokerage, Mentoring & Surveillance

6. Program Structure and Process • 2 TCs work closely with 4 existing Juvenile Probation Agents • Assessments: • YLS/CMI completed at 4 intervals, before & during program • MAYSI-II used to identify potential Mental Health problems • Transitional Case Plans matched to Risks/Needs & Strengths • Transitional Coordinators collaborate with Other Service Providers • Services & Referrals emphasize Education & Family Issues • Flex Funds used for Services, Items & Activities • 6-Month Program Duration • Traditional Probation Services continue for Reentry Participants

7. Sample Characteristics

8. Initial Risk/Needs Scores

9. Percent of Clients Assigned Tasks by Domain 100% 90% 80% 70% 73% 69% 60% 64% 62% 50% 49% 40% 30% 20% 24% 10% 4% 4% 9% 7% 0% Leisure / Social / Life Education Attitudes / Employment Peer Substance Family / Personality / Housing Recreation Skills Orientation Relations Abuse Parenting Behavior Transitional Case Plans **Education/Employment, Substance Abuse, and Leisure/Recreation are areas of greatest risk/need according to initial YLS/CMI

10. Percent of All Clients Referred to Services 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 64% 62% 50% 53% 49% 40% 30% 36% 20% 27% 20% 18% 10% 2% 2% 11% 9% 7% 0% Mental Employment Parenting Housing Substance Education Cognitive / Family Support Sex Tracking / Health Cultural Health Skills Abuse Behavioral Counseling Group Offender Behavioral Related Support Aftercare Referrals and Services • Clients were referred to an average of 5 services • Upon program completion, 58% of services referred (2.9 per client) were considered complete or ongoing

11. Task Completion by Domain 200 150 Number of Tasks 100 50 0 Mental Leisure / Social / Life Attitudes / Peer Substance Family / Personality / Education Employment Housing Health Recreation Skills Orientation Relations Abuse Parenting Behavior 30 111 39 152 5 212 3 120 14 126 16 Tasks Assigned 26 91 29 98 5 166 3 81 9 90 15 Tasks Complete 87% 82% 74% 64% 100% 78% 100% 68% 64% 71% 94% Percent complete Outcomes - Case Plan Compliance • Average number of goals assigned: 5.18 – 86% complete • Average number of tasks assigned: 18.57 – 74% complete **Education/Employment, Substance Abuse, and Leisure/Recreation were the areas of greatest risk in the initial YLS/CMI.

12. Outcomes – Risk/Needs Score

13. Reentry services Clients averaged 7 months in program TCs averaged 46 hours of Direct Contact per Client 45% of TC-Client events were ‘Supervisory’ 45% were ‘Mentoring’ 10% were direct ‘Treatment’ Level of Contact: Contacts per week on Probation No significant difference in base contact levels (PO only) with Youth, Parents or Other Agencies’ Personnel Program (PO + TC) represents a significant increase in contact levels 292% increase in contact with Youth*** 137% increase in contact with Parents** 65% increase in contact with Other Agencies’ Personnel* Service Delivery

14. Drug Testing Outcomes

15. Outcomes – 6 Months Post-Release

16. Survival Analysis (Cox Regression)

17. Survival Plot

18. Number of Official Contacts 6 Months Post-Release

19. Supplemental Analyses • Findings limited by Short Follow-up Period & Absence of Controls for Other Factors (Risk/Needs Scores) • Repeated our analyses • Survival (Any Recidivism & Criminal Recidivism) • Number of New Contacts (Any Offenses and Criminal Offenses) • Control for YLS/CMI risk/need score (N = 95) • Support for Reentry Services even stronger controlling for Risk/Need scores • Significant beneficial effects for RSP in 3 of 4 outcomes, marginal in 4th • Follow-up to 1 year post-release (N = 95) • Reentry youth continue to survive longer, but NS at one year post-release. • Significant differences in number of later contacts (any and criminal) remain to one year post-release.

20. Summary • Service Delivery • High number of Referrals to needed Community-Based Services • TC’s engage in a number of Mentoring & Supervisory activities • Program increased contact with Youth, Parents, & Other Agencies • Intermediate outcomes • More frequent Drug Testing in Reentry Program, but • Significantly lower rates of positive testing • Reentry Program lead to improvements over time in Risk/Need Scores • Recidivism • After 6 months: Lower risks of Recidivism, Longer time to 1st Reoffense, & Fewer New Offenses • Even Stronger Support when controlling for Risk/Need levels • Several promising results remained 1 year post-release