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 Characteristics

Age at Referral – Mean (SD) % Non-White % Male Urban Hometown** Total Sample N=112 16.50 (1.39) 58.9% 72.3% 57.1% Behavior -- Most Recent Charge † Other Property Persons Any Prior Official Contact † # of Prior Contacts -- Mean (SD)*** 34.8% 42.0% 23.2% 90.2% 5.59 (3.37) Any Prior Persons Charge YLS/CMI Risk -- Mean (SD) a 56.3% 21.89 (6.95) Follow-up Through 6 months post release Through 1 year post release 100% 84.8% † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000. a Total sample size 95 (61 Reentry Services, 34 Probation) Reentry Services N=63 16.32 (1.42) 55.6% 71.4% 68.3% 28.6% 41.3% 30.2% 85.7% 4.40 (2.62) 57.`% 21.56 (7.59) 100% 74.6% Traditional Probation N=49 16.75 (1.32) 63.3% 73.5% 42.9% 42.9% 42.9% 14.3% 95.9% 7.12 (3.63) 55.1% 22.50 (5.67) 100% 98%

Initial Risk/Needs Scores

Domain

Prior / Current Offenses Family / Parenting Education / Employment Peer Relations Substance Abuse Leisure / Recreation Personality / Behavior Attitudes / Orientation

Overall Score Risk/Need Level

Moderate Moderate Moderate (High) Moderate Moderate (High) Moderate (High) Moderate Moderate

Moderate

Transitional Case Plans

Percent of Clients Assigned Tasks by Domain

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

49% 64% 73% 62% 69% 24% 4% 4% 9% 7%

Leisure / Recreation Social / Life Skills Education Attitudes / Orientation Employment Peer Relations Substance Abuse Family / Parenting Personality / Behavior Housing **Education/Employment, Substance Abuse, and Leisure/Recreation are areas of greatest risk/need according to initial YLS/CMI

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

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

64% 62% 53% 49% 36% 27% 2% 20% 18% 2% 11% 9% 7%

Mental Health EmploymentParenting Skills Housing Substance Abuse Education Cognitive / Family Behavioral 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

Task Completion by Domain

200 150 100 50 0 Tasks Assigned Tasks Complete Percent complete Mental Health 30 26 87% Leisure / Recreation 111 91 82% Social / Life Skills 39 29 74% Education 152 98 64% Attitudes / Orientation 5 5 100% Employment 212 166 78% Peer Relations 3 3 100% Substance Abuse 120 81 68% Family / Parenting 14 9 64% Personality / Behavior 126 90 71% Housing 16 15 94% **Education/Employment, Substance Abuse, and Leisure/Recreation were the areas of greatest risk in the initial YLS/CMI.

Outcomes – Risk/Needs Score

Change in YLS/CMI Risk/Needs by Domain Domain

Prior / Current Offenses Family / Parenting

Education / Employment

Peer Relations

Substance Abuse Leisure / Recreation

Personality / Behavior Attitudes / Orientation

Overall % Change Intake to Return

21% 12% -7% 3% 3% 0% -7% 12%

3% % Change Return to 6 Months

18% -25%

-43%

-12%

-26% -36%

-42% -32%

-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 Outcomes

Urinalysis within 6 Months of Release a Percent of Tests that were Positive* Percent tested*** a a Number of tests – Mean (SD)*** Number of Positive Tests – Mean (SD) Traditional Probation 62.17% 30.60% 1.53 (1.06) .87 (.99) Reentry Services Percent Difference 34.27% 74.06% 3.13 (2.11) 1.11 (1.45) -44.88% 142.03% 104.58% 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 b Sample size 61 c Sample size 46

Outcomes – 6 Months Post-Release

Total Sample N=112 Reentry Services N=63 Traditional Probation N=49 Any Recidivism Has Official Contact # of Official Contacts – Mean (SD)* Criminal Recidivism a Has Criminal Contact # of Criminal Contacts – Mean (SD) † Days in Restrictive Placement – Mean (SD) † p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000. a Excludes status and traffic offenses 42.0% .69 (1.06) 34.8% .46 (.82) 23.86 (38.36) 36.5% .48 (.76) 28.6% .35 (.63) 23.46 (37.07) 49.0% .96 (1.31) 42.9% .61 (1.0) 24.37 (40.33)

Survival Analysis (Cox Regression)

Any Reoffense within 6 Months Wald  2 Exp(B) Age at release Non-White Male Urban hometown 1.49

2.67

1.92

.02

.87

1.70

1.64

.96

# of prior official contacts Any persons charge .30

5.25* 1.03

.50

RSP a .94

.72

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

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000

a Reentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance Criminal Reoffense within 6 Months Wald  2 Exp(B) 2.20

1.29

1.64

.34

.84

1.49

1.69

.82

.12

.98

6.31* .43

2.07 †

.58

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

Survival Plot

Survival Proportions up to Six Months Post Release 1.0

.9

.8

.7

.6

.5

0 50 100 150 Days to First Criminal Reoffense 200 Type Reentry Services Comparison

Number of Official Contacts 6 Months Post-Release

Count Model (Overdispersed Poisson) Official Contacts per Week at Risk B (SE) T Intercept Scale Age at release Non-White Male Urban hometown # of prior official contacts Any persons charge RSP a -5.98 (3.26) .52 (.00) .24 (.19) -.08 (.48) .97 (.69) -.82 (.49) -.09 (.08) -.98 (.47)

-1.05 (.51)

LL = -74.44

† p < .10, * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .000

a Reentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance -1.84* 0.00

1.29

-0.17

1.40

-1.67 † -1.18

-2.07* -2.08* Criminal Contacts per Week at Risk B (SE) -6.65 (5.22) .70 (.00) .32 (.29) -.21 (.76) .92 (1.11) -1.37 (.79) -.20 (.13) -1.23 (.77)

-1.10 (.77)

LL = -31.97

T -1.28

0.00

1.08

-0.28

.82

-1.72 † -1.57

-1.60

-1.43 †

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 1 st Reoffense, & Fewer New Offenses Even Stronger Support when controlling for Risk/Need levels  Several promising results remained 1 year post-release