The Impact of Reentry Services on Juvenile Offenders

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
Total Sample N112 Reentry Services N63 Traditional Probation N49
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 lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Total sample size 95 (61 Reentry Services, 34 Probation) p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Total sample size 95 (61 Reentry Services, 34 Probation) p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Total sample size 95 (61 Reentry Services, 34 Probation) p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Total sample size 95 (61 Reentry Services, 34 Probation)
8
Initial Risk/Needs Scores
Domain Risk/Need Level
Prior / 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
9
Transitional Case Plans
Education/Employment, Substance Abuse, and
Leisure/Recreation are areas of greatest
risk/need according to initial YLS/CMI
10
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
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
Change in YLS/CMI Risk/Needs by Domain Change in YLS/CMI Risk/Needs by Domain Change 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
13
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

14
Drug Testing Outcomes
Urinalysis within 6 Months of Release Urinalysis within 6 Months of Release Urinalysis within 6 Months of Release Urinalysis 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 lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Among 15 comparison and 47 reentry services clients receiving at least one drug test in the first six months bSample size 61 cSample size 46 p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Among 15 comparison and 47 reentry services clients receiving at least one drug test in the first six months bSample size 61 cSample size 46 p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Among 15 comparison and 47 reentry services clients receiving at least one drug test in the first six months bSample size 61 cSample size 46 p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Among 15 comparison and 47 reentry services clients receiving at least one drug test in the first six months bSample size 61 cSample size 46
15
Outcomes 6 Months Post-Release
Total Sample N112 Reentry Services N63 Traditional Probation N49
Any Recidivism Any Recidivism Any Recidivism 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 Criminal Recidivisma Criminal Recidivisma 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 lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Excludes status and traffic offenses p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Excludes status and traffic offenses p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Excludes status and traffic offenses p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000. a Excludes status and traffic offenses
16
Survival Analysis (Cox Regression)
Any Reoffense within 6 Months Any Reoffense within 6 Months Criminal 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, N112) 11.54, p .12 -2LL 409.22, ?2 (7, N112) 11.54, p .12 -2LL 339.62, ?2 (7, N112) 13.60, p .06 -2LL 339.62, ?2 (7, N112) 13.60, p .06
p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance
17
Survival Plot
18
Number of Official Contacts 6 Months Post-Release
Count Model (Overdispersed Poisson) Official Contacts per Week at Risk Official Contacts per Week at Risk Criminal Contacts per Week at Risk Criminal Contacts per Week at Risk
Count Model (Overdispersed Poisson) 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 -74.44 LL -31.97 LL -31.97
p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance p lt .10, p lt .05, p lt .01, p lt .000 aReentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance
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
• TCs 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