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 Total Sample N=112 Reentry Services N=63 Traditional Probation N=49 Age at Referral – Mean (SD)16.50 (1.39)16.32 (1.42)16.75 (1.32) % Non-White58.9%55.6%63.3% % Male72.3%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% 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 Charge56.3%57.`%55.1% YLS/CMI Risk -- Mean (SD) a (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 DomainRisk/Need Level Prior / Current OffensesModerate Family / ParentingModerate Education / EmploymentModerate (High) Peer RelationsModerate Substance AbuseModerate (High) Leisure / RecreationModerate (High) Personality / BehaviorModerate Attitudes / OrientationModerate Overall ScoreModerate

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 / Life Skills EducationAttitudes / Orientation EmploymentPeer Relations Substance Abuse 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

Outcomes - Case Plan Compliance Average number of goals assigned: 5.18 – 86% complete Average number of tasks assigned: – 74% complete **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% 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 Outcomes Urinalysis within 6 Months of Release Traditional Probation Reentry ServicesPercent Difference a Percent of Tests that were Positive*62.17%34.27%-44.88% Percent tested***30.60%74.06%142.03% a Number of tests – Mean (SD)*** 1.53 (1.06) 3.13 (2.11) % a Number 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 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 Contact42.0%36.5%49.0% # of Official Contacts – Mean (SD)*.69 (1.06).48 (.76).96 (1.31) Criminal Recidivism a Has Criminal Contact34.8%28.6%42.9% # of Criminal Contacts – Mean (SD) †.46 (.82).35 (.63).61 (1.0) Days in Restrictive Placement – Mean (SD) (38.36) (37.07) (40.33) † p <.10, * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.000. a Excludes status and traffic offenses

Survival Analysis (Cox Regression) Any Reoffense within 6 MonthsCriminal Reoffense within 6 Months Wald  2 Exp(B) Wald  2 Exp(B) Age at release Non-White Male Urban hometown # of prior official contacts Any persons charge5.25* *.43 RSP a †.58 -2LL = ,  2 (7, N=112) = 11.54, p =.12 -2LL = ,  2 (7, N=112) = 13.60, p =.06 † p <.10, * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.000 a Reentry Services effects tested with one-tailed significance

Survival Plot

Number of Official Contacts 6 Months Post-Release Count Model (Overdispersed Poisson) Official Contacts per Week at RiskCriminal Contacts per Week at Risk B (SE)T T Intercept-5.98 (3.26)-1.84*-6.65 (5.22)-1.28 Scale.52 (.00) (.00)0.00 Age at release.24 (.19) (.29)1.08 Non-White-.08 (.48) (.76)-0.28 Male.97 (.69) (1.11).82 Urban hometown-.82 (.49)-1.67 † (.79)-1.72 † # of prior official contacts-.09 (.08) (.13)-1.57 Any persons charge-.98 (.47)-2.07*-1.23 (.77)-1.60 RSP a (.51)-2.08*-1.10 (.77)-1.43 † LL = LL = † p <.10, * p <.05, ** p <.01, *** p <.000 a Reentry 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 1 st Reoffense, & Fewer New Offenses  Even Stronger Support when controlling for Risk/Need levels  Several promising results remained 1 year post-release