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.

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

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

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)

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

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

Sample CharacteristicsTotal Sample

N=112Reentry Services

N=63Traditional Probation

N=49

Age at Referral – Mean (SD) 16.50 (1.39) 16.32 (1.42) 16.75 (1.32)

% Non-White 58.9% 55.6% 63.3%

% Male 72.3% 71.4% 73.5%

Urban Hometown** 57.1% 68.3% 42.9%

Behavior -- Most Recent Charge†

Other Property Persons

34.8%

42.0%

23.2%

28.6%

41.3%

30.2%

42.9%

42.9%

14.3%

Any Prior Official Contact † 90.2% 85.7% 95.9%

# of Prior Contacts -- Mean (SD)*** 5.59 (3.37) 4.40 (2.62) 7.12 (3.63)

Any Prior Persons Charge 56.3% 57.`% 55.1%

YLS/CMI Risk -- Mean (SD)a 21.89 (6.95) 21.56 (7.59) 22.50 (5.67)

Follow-up Through 6 months post release Through 1 year post release

100%84.8%

100%74.6%

100%98%

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000. a Total sample size 95 (61 Reentry Services, 34 Probation)

Initial Risk/Needs Scores

Domain Risk/Need LevelPrior / Current Offenses Moderate

Family / Parenting Moderate

Education / Employment Moderate (High)

Peer Relations Moderate

Substance Abuse Moderate (High)

Leisure / Recreation Moderate (High)

Personality / Behavior Moderate

Attitudes / Orientation Moderate

Overall Score Moderate

Transitional Case Plans

**Education/Employment, Substance Abuse, and Leisure/Recreation are areas of greatest risk/need according to initial YLS/CMI

Percent of Clients Assigned Tasks by Domain

49%

24%

64%

4%

73%

4%

62%

9%

69%

7%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Leisure /Recreation

Social / LifeSkills

Education Attitudes /Orientation

Employment PeerRelations

SubstanceAbuse

Family /Parenting

Personality /Behavior

Housing

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

Percent of All Clients Referred to Services

64%

49%

2%20%

62%

53%

27%

36%

18% 2% 11% 9% 7%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Mental

Health

EmploymentParenting

Skills

Housing Substance

Abuse

Education Cognitive /

Behavioral

Family

Counseling

Support

Group

Sex

Offender

Aftercare

Tracking /

Behavioral

Health

Related

Cultural

Support

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.

Task Completion by Domain

0

50

100

150

200

Nu

mb

er

of

Ta

sk

s

Tasks Assigned 30 111 39 152 5 212 3 120 14 126 16

Tasks Complete 26 91 29 98 5 166 3 81 9 90 15

Percent complete 87% 82% 74% 64% 100% 78% 100% 68% 64% 71% 94%

Mental Health

Leisure / Recreation

Social / Life Skills

EducationAttitudes / Orientation

EmploymentPeer

RelationsSubstance

AbuseFamily /

ParentingPersonality / Behavior

Housing

Outcomes – Risk/Needs ScoreChange in YLS/CMI Risk/Needs by Domain

Domain % Change Intake to Return

% Change Return to 6 Months

Prior / Current Offenses 21% 18%

Family / Parenting 12% -25%

Education / Employment -7% -43%

Peer Relations 3% -12%

Substance Abuse 3% -26%

Leisure / Recreation 0% -36%

Personality / Behavior -7% -42%

Attitudes / Orientation 12% -32%

Overall 3% -26%

Service Delivery 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*

Drug Testing OutcomesUrinalysis within 6 Months of Release

Traditional Probation

Reentry Services Percent Difference

aPercent of Tests that were Positive* 62.17% 34.27% -44.88%

Percent tested*** 30.60% 74.06% 142.03%

aNumber of tests – Mean (SD)***1.53 (1.06)

3.13 (2.11)

104.58%

aNumber of Positive Tests – Mean (SD).87

(.99)

1.11

(1.45)27.59%

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000. a Among 15 comparison and 47 reentry services clients receiving at least one drug test in the first six months bSample size 61cSample size 46

Outcomes – 6 Months Post-Release

Total SampleN=112

Reentry Services N=63

Traditional Probation

N=49

Any Recidivism

Has Official Contact 42.0% 36.5% 49.0%

# of Official Contacts – Mean (SD)*.69

(1.06).48 (.76)

.96 (1.31)

Criminal Recidivisma

Has Criminal Contact 34.8% 28.6% 42.9%

# of Criminal Contacts – Mean (SD) †.46

(.82)

.35

(.63)

.61

(1.0)

Days in Restrictive Placement – Mean (SD)23.86

(38.36)

23.46

(37.07)24.37 (40.33)

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000. a Excludes status and traffic offenses

Survival Analysis (Cox Regression)

Any Reoffense within 6 Months Criminal Reoffense within 6 Months

Wald 2 Exp(B) Wald 2 Exp(B)

Age at release 1.49 .87 2.20 .84

Non-White 2.67 1.70 1.29 1.49

Male 1.92 1.64 1.64 1.69

Urban hometown .02 .96 .34 .82

# of prior official contacts .30 1.03 .12 .98

Any persons charge 5.25* .50 6.31* .43

RSPa .94 .72 2.07 † .58

-2LL = 409.22, 2 (7, N=112) = 11.54, p = .12

-2LL = 339.62, 2 (7, N=112) = 13.60, p = .06

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance

Survival PlotSurvival Proportions up to Six Months Post Release

Days to First Criminal Reoffense

200150100500

Prop

ortio

n no

t Reo

ffen

ding

1.0

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

Type

Reentry Services

Comparison

Number of Official Contacts 6 Months Post-Release

Count Model (Overdispersed Poisson)

Official Contacts per Week at Risk Criminal Contacts per Week at Risk

B (SE) T B (SE) T

Intercept -5.98 (3.26) -1.84* -6.65 (5.22) -1.28

Scale .52 (.00) 0.00 .70 (.00) 0.00

Age at release .24 (.19) 1.29 .32 (.29) 1.08

Non-White -.08 (.48) -0.17 -.21 (.76) -0.28

Male .97 (.69) 1.40 .92 (1.11) .82

Urban hometown -.82 (.49) -1.67 † -1.37 (.79) -1.72 †

# of prior official contacts -.09 (.08) -1.18 -.20 (.13) -1.57

Any persons charge -.98 (.47) -2.07* -1.23 (.77) -1.60

RSPa -1.05 (.51) -2.08* -1.10 (.77) -1.43 †

LL = -74.44 LL = -31.97

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance

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.

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