Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:17 pm
Time: 8:17 pm
Results for juvenile reentry
30 results foundAuthor: Iutcovich, Joyce Miller Title: A Final Report for: Assessment of Aftercare Services Provided to Delinquent Youth Summary: Juvenile crime in America has soared over the past decade. From 1984 to 1994 the homicide arrest rate for juveniles increased 160 percent. Many believe that juvenile delinquency will continue to increase as the size of our youth population grows. Recently, our news has been filled with reports about youths committing horrendous crimes. The school shootings during the 1997/98 academic year shocked our nation and raised the public cries to do something about youth violence. One area of juvenile corrections that has received an increasing emphasis and attention is the aftercare phase. Community-based aftercare is the parole phase of corrections, it "is the point at which the supposedly beneficial cumulative effects of the institutional 'treatment' experience are transferred to community settings, and are reinforced, monitored, and assessed". Intensive community-based aftercare services have evolved over the past decade as a means to improve the likelihood that juveniles released from secure confinement remain crime free rather than return to delinquency. But questions about the efficacy of these programs remain. Given this epidemic of juvenile delinquency and the new strategies and efforts to address this problem, it is of vital importance to gather information about what works and what doesn't work. To that end, this report represents the effort to collect and analyze evaluative data on the process and outcomes of two intensive aftercare programs for juvenile delinquents that have been implemented in Pennsylvania. Details: Erie, PA: Keystone University Research Corporation, 1998. 122p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2011 at: www.portal.state.pa.us Year: 1998 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 122178 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Offenders (Pennsylvania)Juvenile ParoleJuvenile ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Watkins, Cheryl Graham Title: A Study of the Transition of Youth from a Detention Center Education Program to a Standard School Education Program in Selected Southeastern States Summary: The purpose of this study was to examine the factors which facilitate the successful transition of youth from a detention educational program to a mainstream educational program. The study investigated the following components: (a) informal or formalized transition programs, (b) the practices used to assist youth at the detention level transition to the educational mainstream, (c) program components used at the detention level to successfully transition youth to the educational mainstream, the importance of personnel in assisting youth in their transition, (d) factors which contribute to the successful transition from detention to the educational mainstream, (e) program components effective in moving youth from a detention education program to the educational mainstream, and (f) whether or not a detention education program with a formal or informal transition program makes a difference in recidivism rates. A survey questionnaire was sent to 143 detention center administrators in the Southeastern United States. Descriptive data were run on all items in the survey. Cronbach’s alpha test of reliability was used to assess internal consistency. Pearson correlation was used to compare consistency between independent and dependent variables. Finally, an independent sample t-test was conducted to examine if mean differences exist on Total Returned to a Detention Center by Transition Program. Transitioning from a detention facility to the community is a difficult process. By making available to youth a comprehensive program during periods of incarceration, and collaborating with the local educational agency, youth are often better able to make the adjustment. This study emphasized that in order for youth to be successful once they leave a correctional facility, a linkage must exist among all stakeholders. Details: Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2007. 131p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 3, 2011 at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12032007-154124/unrestricted/CWatkinETD12-4-07.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-12032007-154124/unrestricted/CWatkinETD12-4-07.pdf Shelf Number: 122291 Keywords: Education ProgramsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Juvenile ReentryRehabilitation |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: The Care of Looked After Children in Custody: A Short Thematic Review Summary: Children in the care of the local authority, or ‘looked after children’, are overrepresented within the custodial population. This thematic review, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board, reports on the care of looked after children aged 15 to 18 in young offender institutions. It examines the experience of these children, using survey data and in-depth interviews. Case supervisors, advocates and representatives from safeguarding teams provide an establishment perspective on how the needs of looked after children are met in custody and in preparation for their release. Of the representative sample of young people we surveyed across young offender institutions over a quarter said that they had spent some time in care. With no central record held by the Prison Service or Youth Justice Board, our survey data is one of the best estimates of the overall proportion of looked after children in custody. Although most YOIs held an up to date list of looked after children, establishments seemed largely to rely on information arriving with the child to identity whether he/she was looked after. Several did not feel confident that they were all correctly identified, the first step to ensuring their needs were met. On the basis of our survey, we estimate that there are around 400 children in custody at any one time who have spent time in care. The most common reasons for children going into care are abuse, neglect or family dysfunction. It is perhaps unsurprising that in our survey those who said they had spent time in care reported more vulnerability and greater need than those who had not. To meet the complex needs of looked after children – not only to ensure their wellbeing in custody but also to support their successful reintegration on release – there must be collaboration between everyone involved in supporting them, which must include the involvement of social workers from the looked after children service of the local authorities responsible for their care. The looked after child’s social worker should support them during their time in custody and be involved in their preparation for release. However, custody safeguarding teams said that the involvement of local authorities was often dependent on the commitment of individual social workers and, worryingly, a third felt that some social workers tried to end their involvement while the young person was in custody. Attendance by social workers at training planning meetings was said to be poor, despite their key role. However, many establishments also needed to improve how they involved local authorities. In contrast, links with youth offending team workers were much better developed and their attendance at training planning meetings was good. Adequate and early planning for release was a key concern of establishment staff and young people. Several establishments viewed it as the local authority’s responsibility to make arrangements for looked after children and were not clear about their own role. Accommodation was often not confirmed until close to the young person’s release or, occasionally, even the day of release. This affected young people’s opportunity for early release and meant that some ended up in unsuitable accommodation. Only two young people of the 12 we interviewed had employment and/or education plans confirmed for release. They all knew what they wanted to do but needed support to arrange it. Despite these issues, young people, particularly those who did have plans in place, were optimistic about their release. Yet they rightly realised the importance of support from their social worker, youth offending team worker and other agencies. However, the follow-up information provided was concerning: one of the 12 looked after children was released without an address and one to unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation. Two had an education or employment placement to start on release. A month later, only one child was attending education and three were back in custody. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities towards looked after children and have their own review and care planning processes. Although establishments said that staff would try to ensure that reviews were conducted on time, there was no formal monitoring and only seven of the 12 looked after children interviewed said they had had a review during their time in custody. Links between local authority care planning and young offender institution planning were poor. Only half of the young people said they had had a visit from their social worker or that they had received financial support or clothing. Although establishments are not accountable for the responsibilities of local authorities towards looked after children, they need to facilitate this process and should ensure that the entitlements of looked after children are being met. At several establishments, staff were unclear about the entitlements of looked after children. They pointed to the loss of internal social workers and a lack of national guidance for establishment staff setting out the roles and responsibilities of the young offender institution, local authority and youth offending team. Only four establishments had a dedicated or specialist lead for looked after children. Establishments without a lead felt this adversely affected the support looked after children received. In my view, the state has few responsibilities greater than its statutory responsibility towards looked after children. Even allowing for the damage they have sustained before coming into the state’s care and the challenging behaviour they may present when they do, that so many end up in custody is a cause for real concern. Our very limited follow-up information suggests that many looked after young people leave custody with inadequate support. This report sets out some of the reasons that might be so. Others have reached similar conclusions. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2011. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 7, 2011 at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Looked_after_children_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/inspectorates/hmi-prisons/docs/Looked_after_children_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123005 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Reentry |
Author: Schofield, Gillian Title: Looked after children and offending: Reducing risk and promoting resilience Summary: The research was prompted by concerns about the relationship between the care system and the risk of offending. Although a small minority of looked after children aged 10-17 offend in any one year (7.9 %), this is more than twice the rate of children in the community (3%) (Department for Education, 2011). But also of concern is the fact that between a quarter and a half of children in custody have been looked after (HM inspectorate of Prisons /YJB, 2009). Among adult prisoners, it is estimated that 27% have been looked after at some time (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). But it is important to bear in mind that these adults may only have spent a brief period in care, and have come into care in adolescence, when they may already have committed offences. There are also concerns that children in care are inappropriately criminalised by being brought to court for behaviour that should be dealt with outside of court. Almost all children in care are from backgrounds of deprivation, poor parenting, abuse and neglect, factors that together create risk for a range of emotional, social and behavioural difficulties, including anti-social and offending behaviour. However, repairing harm and promoting resilience through high quality care can occur at all stages in a child’s development, and especially in adolescence, thus providing windows of opportunity for change. The project was designed to contribute to improving the life chances of looked after children at risk of offending and criminalisation through the following aims: to identify risk and protective factors which increase or decrease the likelihood of offending by young people in care; to identify resilience factors that can be promoted in looked after children to reduce the likelihood of offending; to identify features of the care and justice systems which may increase/reduce the likelihood of offending and criminalisation of looked after children; to identify the key transitional/turning points which are opportunities for interventions to divert children from offending; to develop an evidence-based typology of looked after children and offending; to make recommendations for policy and practice. Details: London: Centre for Research on the Child and Family, University of East Anglia, 2012. 185p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 17, 2012 at http://www.uea.ac.uk/swp/research/centre/crcfnews/Looked-after-children-offending-report Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.uea.ac.uk/swp/research/centre/crcfnews/Looked-after-children-offending-report Shelf Number: 124160 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile Reentry |
Author: Phillips, Liz Title: Evaluation of the YJB Pilot Resettlement Support Panel Scheme Summary: The Youth Justice Board (YJB) made funding available in July 2009 to enable six selected Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) in Wales to expand resettlement for young people aged 12 to 17 who are leaving custody. The funding is also aimed at preventing young people from entering custody in the first place. The pilot resettlement schemes are a new approach to addressing the issues faced by young people in custody. They fit in with the priorities of the All- Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS) Delivery Plan, in particular, reducing reoffending and the use of custodial sentences, and increasing effective resettlement. The pilot resettlement schemes are a new approach to addressing the issues faced by young people in custody. They fit in with the priorities of the All- Wales Youth Offending Strategy (AWYOS) Delivery Plan, in particular, reducing reoffending and the use of custodial sentences, and increasing effective resettlement. The RSPs’ main objective is to coordinate multi-agency support for the resettlement of young people through addressing substance misuse, accommodation problems, mental health and education issues. The Panels also assist young people in accessing education, employment and training opportunities, mediate with families and peers, and encourage more appropriate use of leisure time. Developing young people’s life skills, budget management, healthy living, and raising their self-esteem and confidence to facilitate positive decision-making are also RSP objectives. RSPs typically have membership from social services, education, health (particularly Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), the police, local authority housing department, housing providers, careers advisers, YOT personnel, Young Offenders’ Institutions (YOIs), and Youth Services. The six Welsh LAs who took part in the evaluation were Bridgend, Caerphilly and Blaenau Gwent, Conwy and Denbighshire, Gwynedd and Ynys Mon, Merthyr Tydfil and Wrexham. All RSPs are required to review the delivery of resettlement support plans and outcomes for participating children and young people. Bridgend and Wrexham, however, have an enhanced review function. This means that they are required to scrutinise individual cases to ascertain whether resettlement support could have been delivered differently to offer a more effective community-based alternative to custody. The aims of the evaluation are to conduct a: Process evaluation which examines: • the setting up and functioning of the RSPs particularly with regard to ‘buy in’ from member agencies, and working together • the role and impact of the resettlement support worker and the supervision support worker • the role and effectiveness of the review body, and an: Outcome evaluation to determine: • the effectiveness of the scheme in improving outcomes for young offenders • the extent to which partners commit resources to resettlement support plans. Recommendations for more effective implementation of the scheme based on the conclusions are also included. Details: Cardiff, Wales: Welsh Government Social Research, 2012. 149p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/WYJT01/WYJT01.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/WYJT01/WYJT01.pdf Shelf Number: 126318 Keywords: At-risk YouthJuvenile Offenders (Wales, UK)Juvenile ReentryRehabilitationReoffendingResettlementYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Nacro Title: Reducing Offending by Looked After Children Summary: Nacro, the largest crime reduction charity in the UK, has published a new guide for practitioners working with looked after children. This essential guide examines some of the key issues in relation to looked after children and the prevention of offending. Highlighting the principal legislative provisions relating to looked after children, it also addresses the main strategic and operational issues for youth offending teams and children’s services arising from this area. It then considers key decision making points in the criminal justice system which can influence outcomes for looked after children and the importance of using diversionary approaches where appropriate. Examining the particular problems that looked after children can face when remanded or sentenced to custody, the guide also sets out the arrangements for professional support from children’s services, independent reviewing officers and youth offending teams before finally considering the importance of good leaving care services in preventing offending. Equipped with useful checklists for practitioners, this guide to reducing offending by looked after children will be of interest to local authorities, youth offending teams and those working with looked after children in foster care and children's homes. Details: London: Nacro, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2012 at: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/reducing-reoffending-by-looked-after-children-998.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nacro.org.uk/data/files/reducing-reoffending-by-looked-after-children-998.pdf Shelf Number: 127145 Keywords: Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ReentryRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Iowa Department of Human Services Title: Report on Iowa’s Highly Structured Juvenile Program Summary: The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS or Department) consulted with the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning of the Department of Human Rights to prepare this report. The Legislature requested a review of the programming and effectiveness of Iowa’s two highly structured juvenile programs. This report includes information gathered two ways. First, a literature review of international research concerning juvenile "boot camp" programs was conducted. Second, recidivism and foster care re-entry rates for the Iowa highly structured juvenile program (HSJP) was compared with the recidivism and foster care re-entry rates of other Iowa group foster care programs (called Comparison or Control group in the Iowa-specific data of this report). The literature review revealed that no U.S. studies found statistically significant differences in recidivism between boot camp graduates and comparison groups. Research seems to indicate that simply participating in boot camps does not improve outcomes for most juveniles. Most studies found little difference in outcomes, suggesting that boot camps, as a tool, are neither better nor worse than other alternatives. State fiscal years (SFY) 2006 and 2007 were used to study recidivism and re-entry. A group of juveniles discharged from the highly structured programs during SFY 2006 (139 individuals) was compared with a group discharged during SFY 2006 from group foster care (140 individuals). The follow up period for each group was through the end of SFY 2007. Most categories of comparison between the two groups showed no remarkable differences. However, one distinguishing finding was the average number of days from discharge until a new adjudication. For the HSJP group the number was 253 days and for the Comparison group the number was 331 days. On average, the highly structured group recidivated 2 ½ months sooner. The HSJP group also had more serious charges at the time of the recidivism. The HSJP group’s “Violent” charges represented 37% of all their charges post-program discharge, while “Violent” charges represented 19% of the Comparison group’s charges postprogram discharge. Less serious “Property” offenses represented 29% of the HSJP group’s charges while “Property” offenses represented 49% of the Comparison group’s charges. Drug offenses were slightly higher for the HSJP group too; they represented 15% of the charges of the HSJP and 11% of the charges of the Comparison group. The children in the highly structured group were also more likely to be placed in detention post-discharge, 41% compared to 18%. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Services, 2007. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2013 at: http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/docs/IA_Highly_Strutured_Juvenile_Program_Dec1407.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.dhs.state.ia.us/docs/IA_Highly_Strutured_Juvenile_Program_Dec1407.pdf Shelf Number: 128432 Keywords: Juvenile Boot Camps (Iowa, U.S.)Juvenile CorrectionsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ReentryShock Incarceration Programs |
Author: Texas Juvenile Justice Department Title: Youth Reentry and Reintegration. Comprehensive Report Summary: The Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) was created as a new state agency on December 1, 2011 pursuant to Senate Bill 653 passed by the 82nd Texas Legislature. Simultaneous to the creation of TJJD, the legislation abolished the two previous juvenile justice agencies in Texas, the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC) and the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) and transferred all functions, duties and responsibilities of these former agencies to TJJD. In 2009, the 81st Texas Legislature required TYC to develop a comprehensive reentry and reintegration plan (Texas Human Resource Code, Section 245.0535) to reduce recidivism and ensure the successful reentry and reintegration of children into the community following a child’s release under supervision or final discharge, as applicable, from the commission. TYC's comprehensive plan known as "Cultivating Success: The Reentry & Reintegration of TYC Youth" was finalized in June 2010. As a result, a comprehensive community reentry plan is developed for each youth during their time in TJJD. TJJD’s research department has conducted an evaluation to determine whether the comprehensive reentry and reintegration plan reduces recidivism. Subsequently, a report is required no later than December 1 during even-numbered years to determine if recidivism has been reduced. This report focuses on the implementation of Texas Human Resource Code, Section 245.0535 and the results of the current outcome measures. The youth population trend, noted in Cultivating Success: The Reentry & Reintegration of TYC Youth, continues with an increase in commitment of youth with higher risk assessment scores, specialized treatment needs, violent behaviors and below grade level achievement. To address the on-going changes in population, TJJD continues to evaluate and update its reentry and rehabilitation practices and procedures. This report highlights the requirements of Texas Human Resource Code, Section 245.0535 and describes TJJDs compliance with each section. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 2012. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 25, 2013 at: http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/publications/reports/2012ReentryReintegrationReport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.tjjd.texas.gov/publications/reports/2012ReentryReintegrationReport.pdf Shelf Number: 129147 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Justice Systems (Texas, U.S.)Juvenile ReentryReintegration |
Author: Jain, Sonia Title: Systems Change Across Sectors: A Collaborative Community-Based Approach to Improving Outcomes for Reentry Youth in Oakland Summary: The City of Oakland in Alameda County, California, confronts some of our nation’s most critical juvenile crime and recidivism challenges. In response, key city, county, state and community partners have developed and initiated three phases of Juvenile Justice Reform since 2005. For phase 1, these partners designed and built a new juvenile facility, the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC), and implemented innovative programming. In phase 2, they created a transition center at the JJC. For Phase 3, they developed and implemented a comprehensive system of community reentry support for juvenile offenders. This report highlights results and recommendations from a process evaluation of the Phase 3 implemented juvenile reentry system in Oakland. Details: Oakland, CA: City of Oakland Department of Human Services; WestEd, 2013. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2013 at: http://oaklandunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Second-Chance-Process-Eval-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://oaklandunite.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Second-Chance-Process-Eval-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 129447 Keywords: CollaborationJuvenile CrimeJuvenile GangsJuvenile Offenders (California, U.S.)Juvenile Reentry |
Author: Howard League for Penal Reform Title: Life Outside: Collective Identity, Collection Exclusion Summary: Much of the subsequent debate has singled out the involvement of children and young people in the looting and violence, although in reality the age range and backgrounds of those convicted in the courts have been considerably more diverse than was initially suspected. The debate has split in part over an emphasis on the criminal justice response to be made, and partly over an emphasis on causes. While not developed with these terrible events in mind, Life Outside makes a contribution to both aspects of this debate. Life Outside is the second substantive policy report to be produced from participation with children and young people in the criminal justice system as part of U R Boss, a five year project supported by the Big Lottery Fund. The first report, Life Inside, explored the experience of teenage boys in prison. This report picks up the story after children and young people leave custody. Taken together, the two reports spell out the failures of our current approach to youth justice. The youth justice system, dealing with children under the age of 18, has received a great deal of investment and the last Labour government introduced a network of youth offending teams up and down the country, as well as sentencing innovations such as the Detention and Training Order. Child custody numbers duly exploded and interventions previously rooted in the welfare system became increasingly punitive and linked to a culture of compliance and control that pays little heed to the chaotic nature of these young people’s lives, and which has little or no purchase over the deep and complex social problems which form the underlying causes of youth crime. Unsurprisingly, reoffending rates among children remain the highest of any age group in the penal system. The young people we spoke to make clear why the various stages of life after custody are all too often opportunities to fail, rather than a sure pathway to success. Much of what they told us confirmed the Howard League’s longstanding view that the funding directed into the youth justice system would be better directed into a welfare approach, and that downward pressure should be exerted on the system through measures such as raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. What the young people we spoke to particularly emphasised, however, was the issue of identity and the way in which the current system sets out to reinforce the feelings of disenfranchisement and detachment from society that erodes these children’s hopes of a positive future. At its very foundation, the youth justice system is predicated on mistaken assumptions that doom those within its ambit from the very start. And the relevance of this to the public debate now raging? The collective exclusion that young people feel may well have played its part in why disorder flared on the streets of London and elsewhere this summer. But we would be wise to think twice before perpetuating responses that simply serve to exacerbate that exclusion and which fail to unpick the reasons why young people commit crime in the first place. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/HL_Life_outside.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.urboss.org.uk/downloads/publications/HL_Life_outside.pdf Shelf Number: 129464 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile Offenders (U.K.)Juvenile ReentryRecidivismRehabilitationReintegrationResettlement |
Author: Moll, Jeanette Title: Out for Life: Pathways to More Effective Reentry for Texas Juvenile Offenders Summary: When Texans pay to lock up a youth, they seek to redress the offense that occurred, protect the public for the period of incarceration, and rehabilitate that youth to reduce the risk of future criminal behavior. It is principally to accomplish this latter goal of long-term recidivism reduction that supervision and treatment by the juvenile justice system continues after the actual period of incarceration and into a period in which the youth is on parole. How many youth continue to break the law and are reincarcerated at taxpayer’s expense depends not just on the effectiveness of the institutions where they served time, but also upon the effectiveness of parole and reentry programs that seek to transition them back into the free world. In fact, ineffective reentry programming would virtually nullify any treatment or therapy the youth received while committed to state custody, as it would prevent translation of the treatment to the youth’s home environment. Because of the key role parole plays in reforming juvenile offenders and ensuring the lessons learned in residential treatment are sustained when the juvenile returns home, successful reentry programs can dramatically reduce recidivism rates. The existing parole programming mandated by the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) currently produces rates of reincarceration of 41.2 percent and 35.7 percent after three years, for youth released in 2006 and 2007, respectively. These results must be closely evaluated, especially in light of alternative parole programming currently being used within two pilot programs in major urban centers in Texas, Harris County and Bexar County. These programs represent promising opportunities to reformulate parole for Texas juveniles into a cost-efficient and effective aftercare program. Intensive reentry and a more effective parole process can be paired with slight reductions in the length of stay for particular Texas youth without affecting public safety. The commitment time reductions can be devoted, instead, to reentry programs, resulting in both reduced recidivism and lower costs for Texas taxpayers. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2012. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-01-PP05-OutForLifePathwaysMoreEffectiveReentryforTexasJuvenileOffenders-CEJ-JeanetteMoll.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/sites/default/files/documents/2012-01-PP05-OutForLifePathwaysMoreEffectiveReentryforTexasJuvenileOffenders-CEJ-JeanetteMoll.pdf Shelf Number: 129471 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders (Texas, U.S.)Juvenile ParoleJuvenile Reentry |
Author: Damooei, Jamshid Title: The Evaluation Report For Targeted ReEntry Program of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme Summary: Crime devastates victims, communities, and even perpetrators. Over the last several decades, the United States has faced serious problems with its criminal justice system. The population of incarcerated Americans has grown tenfold since 1970 and those who have been released from prison are more likely than not to return to prison. The vicious cycle of imprisonment, release, and imprisonment need to be reduced and if possible stopped. In the last decade, there has been renewed interest in programs that are intended to reduce the recidivism rate of released prisoners. The Targeted Reentry Program of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme is one such program that focuses on the needs of at‐risk juvenile offenders. The program provides services to youth offenders from the time the time they are detained in juvenile facilities through their release and reintegration with the community. The Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme rely on several collaborators to provide specialized services that are beyond their purview. These collaborators include: - Palmer Drug Abuse Program - Ventura County Public Health - The Ventura County Probation Agency - The Coalition to End Family Violence This study has worked to collect data both from the management of and participants in the Targeted Reentry Program in order to determine the effectiveness of the services provided. Based on these findings, the program proves to be an effective resource in the lives of these young people. Participants perceive the services to be effective and they consistently utilize everything that the program has to offer. Moreover, the rates of recidivism are relatively low and they seem to be gainfully engaged in the community upon release. Data collected through studying the records of program management indicate the following: - Significant proportions (36%) of youths who have received the program services are currently employed. - 84% of those who have participated in the Targeted Reentry Program are either currently in school or they have earned academic credentials that could help them become employed. Most encouragingly, 10% are currently pursuing secondary education beyond high school. - 36% of program participants received counseling services while they were inside the juvenile facility. - 86% of those who received counseling while they were in detention continued to receive counseling after they left the facility and began reintegrating into their communities. - The vast majority of respondents (70%) received substance abuse treatment inside the juvenile facility. This is a significant finding. First, it speaks to the success and ability of the Targeted Reentry Program to provide a service to a large number of program participants. Second, it indicates just how many of the youths entering the program is in need of substance abuse treatment. The majority of participants (52%) who received substance abuse treatment within the Juvenile Facility indicate that they continued to receive such treatment after they released into the community. - 85% of those who participated in the Targeted Reentry Program were not returned to the juvenile facility after their release only for a new offense. In addition to consulting the records of program management, the research team prepared a survey that was administered to program participants. The results of the survey are as follows: - At the time respondents filled out the questionnaire, a majority (53.5%) were legal adults over the age of eighteen. - When entering the program, juvenile offenders were between the ages of 14 and 17. The largest share of respondents (46.7%) was 17 when beginning the program. - Nearly three‐fourths of respondents (73.3%) are males. - 53.3% of respondents indicate that they are full‐time high school students not currently employed. An additional 13.4% are also studying; 6.7% are attending community college fulltime while another 6.7% are attending college while working. An additional third of respondents are no longer pursuing an education. 20% are working full‐time while 13.3% are working parttime jobs. - All respondents to the survey are either working or studying. This means that all these individuals are on the path to having a more stable life. - The findings of the program participant survey are quite promising. Only 13.3% of survey respondents indicate that they have had new charges filed against them after exiting the Targeted Reentry Program for the first time. This level of recidivism is significantly less than national levels that are generally in excess of 60%. - All survey respondents believed that the Targeted Reentry Program helped them to "find [the] real sources of my [their] problems." Specifically, 60% believed the program was very successful while 40% believed it to be only successful in this regard. - All survey respondents indicated that the program changed the way they deal with their problems for the better. This is further evidence that the services of the program are helping to develop pro‐social behavior among participants. - All survey respondents indicated that the program was successful in making them more hopeful about their lives. This is the third question in which program participants indicate unanimously that the program has encouraged pro‐social behavior. - 93.3% of respondents indicate that the program successfully gave them the opportunity to meet people who care about them and their wellbeing. - All survey respondents believe that the program taught them the value of an education for a better life in the future. Such motivation may help them become more likely to take their education seriously. - 86.7% of respondents believe that the program was successful in teaching them useful skills that will help them succeed in the job market. Once again, this finding touches on the issue of employability and the need for helping these youth offenders find stable livelihoods that will encourage them to avoid criminal activity. - Another area in which the program seems to help participants is in allowing them to appreciate the importance of health living. Respondents unanimously believed that the program was successful in teaching them the importance of healthy living. Details: Oxnard, CA: Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Oxnard and Port Hueneme, 2010. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 23, 2013 at: http://www.bgcop.org/aboutus/impact/tre_report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.bgcop.org/aboutus/impact/tre_report.pdf Shelf Number: 131696 Keywords: At-Risk YouthBoys and Girls ClubsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ReentryReentry (California)RehabilitationReintegrationVoluntary and Community Organizations |
Author: Stevens, Jack Title: Aftercare Services for Juvenile Parolees with Mental Disorders: A Collaboration Between the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) and Columbus Childrens Research Institute Summary: The purpose of this study was to examine aftercare services available to juvenile parolees after release from correctional facilities. Youth (162) assigned to a mental health caseload were interviewed and assessed within 60 days of release. A declining number were also interviewed at one (60), three (38), and six (24) months post release. About two thirds of youth met criteria for one or more disorder diagnoses prior to release. About 40% of the initial sample were rearrested within six months of release. About two thirds of those interviewed had received some sort of mental health services one month after release. Details: Final report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2007. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 7, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245574.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/245574.pdf Shelf Number: 132270 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ParoleesJuvenile ReentryMental Health ServicesMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Pessin, Sandi R. Title: An Examination of the Effects of Race on the Assignment of Aftercare Services and the Effects of Aftercare Services on Recidivism for Juvenile Offenders Summary: About 100,000 youth return to their communities from correctional facilities each year. Among these youth, it is estimated that two-thirds have drug dependency and abuse problems. In recent years advocates have called for intensive aftercare services to better facilitate transitions back into the community and reduce the probability of the youth reoffending. Barriers to the implementation of aftercare services include the untested nature of most current programs, as well as small sample sizes available to conduct studies. In addition, the racial disproportionality within the juvenile justice system is well documented. This study attempts to examine the effects the provisions of aftercare services had on recidivism in a particular substance abuse facility in Virginia, and the effect race played in the assignment of aftercare services. This study found that the assignment rates of Black youth and White youth to aftercare varies with Black youth receiving aftercare less frequently than Whites. However, after controlling for a number of characteristics of the youths, the difference in the assignment to aftercare does not differ significantly by race. This study also found that Black youth were more likely to be declared "severely delinquent" which appears to have systematically disqualified them from receiving aftercare services. Unfortunately, results regarding the effects of aftercare services on recidivism are inconclusive, mostly due to the small sample size. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Public Policy Institute 2008. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Master's Essay: Accessed June 19, 2014 at: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/555950/30_etd_srp27.pdf?sequence=3 Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/555950/30_etd_srp27.pdf?sequence=3 Shelf Number: 132531 Keywords: AftercareJuvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ReentryRacial DisparitiesRecidivism |
Author: Bergseth, Kathleen J. Title: Reentry Services: An Evaluation of a Pilot Project in Clay County, MN Summary: The Reentry Services Project (RSP) in Clay County, MN began in July 2003 with funding from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Drug Policy and Violence Prevention and matching funds from the Clay County Joint Powers Collaborative (a collaborative group of local human service agencies). The RSP aimed to improve public safety by assisting youthful offenders in successful community reentry following out-of-home placement. The program included the addition of two Transitional Coordinators (TCs) who worked with Probation Officers (POs) and community-based service providers to identify case specific needs and employ comprehensive case management services. Specifically, the RSP sought to reduce the likelihood of further crime and delinquency by providing comprehensive reentry case management to aid youth in: - Obtaining and maintaining long-term employment, if appropriate, - Maintaining a stable residence, - Addressing substance abuse issues, - Addressing physical and mental health issues, and - Establishing a meaningful and supportive role in the community. RSP was designed to begin at least 30 days prior to release from out-of-home placement, and to continue for six months following release to the community. The program served 124 youth during its first 4 years of operation. This report includes information on 92 RSP youth whose files were closed as of April, 2007. The average (mean) age of youth served during this period was 16.3 years upon return to the community following their most recent out-of-home placement. Of the 92 youth, 72% were male. Half (50%) were White, 26% were Native American or Alaskan Native, 22% Hispanic, and 2% African American. RSP youth averaged 4.2 official contacts with juvenile justice authories prior to program participation, 38% had a prior felony charge, and 54% had a prior person-related crime (i.e., violent offense charge). On average, RSP clients had been on probation for 18 months prior to returning to the community following their most recent placement. RSP clients experienced an average of 3.4 prior out-of-home placements and had spent 197 days in placement, including 173 days in restrictive placement. Nearly all (98%) RSP youth were on indefinite probation, and most (60%) were on maximum or intensive probation supervision. Many RSP youth had extensive histories of problems, such as substance abuse (77%), histories of violence (65%), mental health issues (74%) and school problems (88%). More than three-quarters (76%) had experienced three or more of these problems, and more than half (54%) could be considered dual diagnosis (history of both substance abuse and mental health issues). Details: Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University, Department of Criminal Justice and Political Science, 2007. 119p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 13, 2014 at: http://www.claycountycollaborative.org/meetings/files/RSPFinalReport2007.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.claycountycollaborative.org/meetings/files/RSPFinalReport2007.pdf Shelf Number: 133043 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile Offender SupervisionJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationJuvenile Reentry |
Author: Hutton, Linda Title: 'Moving On': Throughcare for Young Male Offenders in Renfrewshire. A report on outcomes in relation to the 3-year service evaluation Summary: Moving On Renfrewshire' started as a partnership between Action for Children, Fairbridge and the Prince's Trust as a response to the significant number of individual voluntary organisations working in Polmont YOI. Eligible young people are identified as soon as possible after they enter custody. A 'youth work' approach is taken to support the young offenders and linkages are made with other services both during and after custody. The evaluation of the project notes high levels of voluntary engagement with 81% of the young people who were referred to the project engaging with it in prison and 75% continuing to engage with it post-release. The project was found to contribute towards reductions in reoffending rates, improved physical and mental wellbeing and improved personal relationships. Details: Glasgow: Robertson Trust, 2011. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2014 at: http://www.therobertsontrust.org.uk/index.php/publicationstemp/offenders-and-their-families/ Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.therobertsontrust.org.uk/index.php/publicationstemp/offenders-and-their-families/ Shelf Number: 133409 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile ReentryOffender RehabilitationVoluntary and Community OrganizationsYouthful Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Keaton, Sandy Title: Seeking Alternatives: Understanding the Pathways to Incarceration of High-Risk Juvenile Offenders February 2015 Summary: In 2003, San Diego County's juvenile justice system formed a committee to address the issue of Disproportionate Minority Contact of youth, now referred to as Reducing Racial and Ethnic Disparity (RED). This committee, which is comprised of key juvenile justice decision makers1 in San Diego County has spent years conducting research and internal reviews to identify and reduce disparities throughout the juvenile justice system. As part of this process, the committee sought to learn more about those youth most deeply entrenched in the system. Research has shown that the trajectory for most (e.g., 90%) juvenile offenders is away from offending and delinquent behaviors. However, for chronic offenders, their adolescent years are spent in and out of school, custody, and under the scrutiny of the court and the rules of probation. Recent research in the field has shown that long-term incarceration of youth does not reduce recidivism and in some cases, for lower-level offenders, it can actually increase criminal recidivism. This information, combined with the overrepresentation of youth of color in parts of the system, and the belief that more could be done to redirect these entrenched youth, provided the impetus for the RED committee to seek out the support of The California Wellness Foundation (CWF) to learn more about this population. RED members approached CWF to fund a study designed to examine factors contributing to youth becoming deeply entrenched in the juvenile justice system with the purpose to inform California juvenile justice systems. Of particular interest was capturing the youths' perspective on their experiences prior to and during their involvement in the justice system. In partnership with San Diego County Probation and The Children's Initiative, SANDAG's Applied Research Division designed and conducted a qualitative study of 40 high-risk youth either sentenced to the Youthful Offender Unit (YOU) or to the Community Transition Unit (CTU) to learn more about their paths deeper into the system and what interventions could have altered that course, and when those interventions could have been implemented to the greatest advantage. YOU is a graduated sanctions program in which youth are in custody locally for up to 9 months and supervised in their communities for the remaining 3 months, for a total of 12 months. CTU is a community-based supervision program for youth who are returning to their communities after completing a sentence in a Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facility. A mixed-model design was used with data gathered from a structured interview with the youth, validated assessments, and official Probation records. The goal of the research was to capture information on all the systems the youth had come in contact with, including education and Child Welfare Services (CWS). Details: San Diego: SANDAG, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1925_18816.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/publicationid_1925_18816.pdf Shelf Number: 135079 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SupervisionDisproportionate Minority ContactJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Reentry |
Author: Valentine, Erin Jacobs Title: Becoming Adults: One-year impact findings from the Youth Villages transitional living evaluation Summary: Young adults with histories of foster care or juvenile justice custody experience poor outcomes across a number of domains, on average, relative to their peers. While government funding for services targeting these groups of young people has increased in recent years, research on the effectiveness of such services is limited, and few of the programs that have been rigorously tested have been found to improve outcomes. The Youth Villages Transitional Living Evaluation is testing whether the Transitional Living program, operated by the social service organization Youth Villages, makes a difference in the lives of young people with histories of foster care or juvenile justice custody. The program, which was renamed "YVLifeSet" in April 2015, is intended to help these young people make a successful transition to adulthood by providing intensive, individualized, and clinically focused case management, support, and counseling. The evaluation uses a rigorous random assignment design and is set in Tennessee, where Youth Villages operates its largest Transitional Living program. From October 2010 to October 2012, more than 1,300 young people were assigned, at random, to either a program group, which was offered the Transitional Living program's services, or to a control group, which was not offered those services. Using survey and administrative data, the evaluation team is measuring outcomes for both groups over time to assess whether Transitional Living services led to better outcomes for program group youth compared with the control group's outcomes. This is the second major report in the evaluation. An earlier report provides a detailed description of the Transitional Living program model and assesses its implementation. This second report assesses whether the program affected key outcomes during the first year after young people enrolled in the study. It shows that the Transitional Living program improved outcomes in three of the six domains that it was designed to affect. The program boosted earnings, increased housing stability and economic well-being, and improved some outcomes related to health and safety. However, it did not improve outcomes in the areas of education, social support, or criminal involvement. These results indicate that the Transitional Living program can improve multiple outcomes for young adults with histories of foster care or juvenile justice custody, a notable finding given the paucity of documented positive effects for programs that serve these populations. While the individual effects of the program were modest, their breadth across several domains is consistent with the highly individualized nature of the program model, which is designed to address the wide variety of needs and circumstances of the young people it serves. These findings set the stage for additional analysis using a second year of follow-up data and an assessment of the program's benefits relative to its costs. Those results will be available in 2016. Details: New York: MDRC, 2015. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2015 at: http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Becoming_Adults_FR.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Becoming_Adults_FR.pdf Shelf Number: 135676 Keywords: At-Risk YouthFoster CareJuvenile AftercareJuvenile Justice ProgramsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Reentry |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Joint thematic inspection of resettlement services to children by Youth Offending Teams and partner agencies Summary: Context The inspection took place as the Government had just launched Transforming Youth Custody which includes plans for the improvement of resettlement work with children. The Youth Justice Board and the National Offender Management Service are tasked with taking these plans forward. The inspection This inspection was led by HMI Probation, in collaboration with partner inspectorates, in response to the findings from our mainstream inspection programme of youth offending work which suggested that services to children in custody and on release were not being delivered consistently well enough. The inspection focused on the journey and experience of the child. Their cases were tracked through the custodial period, their release and the initial phase out into the community. We talked to them and their parents/carers where possible and appropriate, about the things that made it easier for them to settle back into their community successfully and about what got in the way. We also talked to staff and managers within the Young Offender Institutions, the Secure Training Centres and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) as well as chairs of the YOT management boards and senior managers from the organisations with oversight of this work throughout England. Overall findings The offending outcomes for many of the children whose cases we inspected were poor. Too many had been rearrested, charged or convicted of new offences within months, or even weeks, of being released. Other outcomes: accommodation, education, training or employment, substance misuse and/or physical or mental health was also poor for too many. Very often, the support to help these children to successfully stop offending and start new, law-abiding lives had not been good enough. Many of the children in our inspection were vulnerable to harm, either through their offending or from others. They led complicated and chaotic lives, often in very difficult circumstances. Much hard work was carried out in the custodial institutions but it was not linked to giving children the best chance to stop offending and make a new life. It did not meet the individual, and often complex, needs of the child frequently enough; it was restricted to what was routinely available within the institution, the provision of education and behaviour management. Key staff did not fully understand each other's roles, did not always value each other's input and did not always work together. Information sharing was inconsistent both within and between organisations. Sentence planning was not integrated across all internal services, did not always take account of previous assessments or individual need and was not genuinely linked to the community. Plans were not useful tools to drive progress; they were generic, wordy and unfocused. Planning meetings were ineffective and failed to properly engage children and their parents/carers. Over one-third of children were held over 50 miles from home. This impacted on the ability of parents/carers to visit and be involved in planning, as well as the processes for gaining accommodation and accessing constructive activities. At the custodial stage, work in the community was not proactive and in too many cases was largely about attending meetings in the institution rather than preparing for release. Sometimes, having meetings and putting plans on a database had become ends in themselves; children recognised that and had become frustrated and disengaged. The worst examples of this were the lack of suitable accommodation being considered early enough and the failure to organise appropriate, realistic education, training and employment provision or constructive activities at the point of release. These were the two main complaints from those to whom we spoke. Children did not understand why things were not in place when they had been in custody for months. Too often, children and their parents/carers were not involved or engaged to any meaningful extent in the plans for release. They were at best, merely aware of the plans and, at worst, kept in the dark. There was little preparation to help them cope with the impact of the child's release. While there are some promising local resettlement projects, resettlement work in the community often started too late. Resources and services were not in place soon enough before release, leaving the child insufficiently supported at the most crucial point. Too often, it did not take into account what had taken place in custody. Contingency planning for the period following release was almost non-existent and Release on Temporary Licence was not used to promote successful resettlement. We found that some children were released without any form of statutory supervision following recall. At every stage, we found that children were held to account for their behaviour. We did not see a corresponding rigour towards the agencies tasked with providing services to them, either inside or outside custody. Conversely, we saw some excellent work both in custody and in the community, and for a small number of children, this hard work had contributed to successful resettlement back into the community. Those children had not reoffended. They had been helped to find and maintain suitable accommodation, they were engaged in education, training or employment and they told us about how they had changed the way they thought about themselves and their future. They were determined to make a new start and to stop offending. As outlined in the foreword, there are a number of agencies and departments responsible for resettlement policy and strategy. Across England and Wales, no one individual or organisation is ultimately accountable for the improvement of resettlement outcomes, in particular the reduction in the high level of reoffending of children leaving custody. The Youth Justice Board and the National Offender Management Service are again planning to improve resettlement practice under the auspices of the Government's Transforming Youth Custody. Previous initiatives have failed to embed improvements in services to those leaving custody or substantially reduce their reoffending. Locally, we found that YOT management boards did not identify or analyse the specific needs of children leaving custody or look at the reasons for their failure to settle back into the community successfully. Nor were children's social care services and housing providers sufficiently engaged, or held to account, in relation to the resettlement needs of children. Details: Manchester, UK: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 3, 2015 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Youth-Resettlement_report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/03/Youth-Resettlement_report.pdf Shelf Number: 135863 Keywords: AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ProbationJuvenile ReentryJuvenile Resettlement |
Author: Morse, Amyas Title: Care Leavers' Transition to Adulthood Summary: The system for supporting young people leaving foster or residential care in England to live successful independent lives is not working effectively, according to the National Audit Office. This is despite the fact that there is a clear legal framework and an inspection regime in place. The numbers of care leavers in employment, education and training have deteriorated since 2007-08. In 2013-14, over 10,000 young people aged over 16 left care, an increase of almost 50% since 2003-04. Moreover, 33% of those aged 16 or over who left care did so before their 18th birthday. The government wants to ensure that care leavers get the same care and support that their peers would expect from a reasonable parent, such as help finding a job or setting up home. However, those leaving care may struggle to cope with the transition to adulthood and may experience social exclusion, unemployment, health problems or end up in custody. Care leavers have had these problems for a long time. Only half of children in care have emotional health and behaviour that is considered normal and this poses additional challenges when adapting to life after care. In 2013, 50% of young people were still living with their parents at the age of 22. But young people in care have to leave by their 18th birthday and some have to live independently as soon as they leave care. The cost of not moving into adulthood successfully is likely to be high to both care leavers and the public. The principal outcome measure is the number of care leavers not in education, employment or training (NEET). In 2013-14, 41% of 19-year-old care leavers were NEET compared with only 15% of their age peers. According to the NAO, the lifetime cost of the current cohort of 19-year-old care leavers being NEET would be around $240 million, or $150 million more than if they had the same NEET rate as other 19-year-olds. In 2013 the government published the Care Leaver Strategy, setting out how it planned to improve support for care leavers. In the same year the Department for Education introduced its Staying Put policy to help care leavers stay with foster carers until the age of 21. These were positive steps but it is too early to assess their effect and there is no reliable information to monitor the lives of care leavers over time. Support for care leavers comes mainly through local authorities but the quality and cost of services vary widely. Ofsted inspections of care leaver services have found that two-thirds of services inspected require improvement or are inadequate. Local authorities have no information on 17% of their 19-21 year-old care leavers even though they are often vulnerable. Local authorities spent on average $6,250 for each care leaver in 2013-14, ranging from an estimated $300 to $20,000. The NAO's analysis shows there is minimal correlation between local authorities' reported spending on care leavers and the quantity and quality of their services. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2015. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: HC: 269, 2015-16: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Care-leavers-transition-to-adulthood.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Care-leavers-transition-to-adulthood.pdf Shelf Number: 136101 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ReentryTransition to Adulthood |
Author: Nolan, Debbie Title: Youth Justice: A Study of Local Authority Reintegration and Transitions Practice Across Scotland Summary: This paper is the second of two research papers drawing on data from a survey of Whole System Approach leads in 27 of Scotland's 32 local authority areas. It aims to explore reintegration and transitions practice in these local authorities and to share practice examples. The key findings of this paper are: - Processes for sharing information with the SPS and secure care providers when a young person enters these establishments are well established. - Over 80% of respondents treated young people who are given a period of detention in secure care and had not previously been looked after and accommodated as a looked after and accommodated child. - 65% of participants stated 72 hour reviews were always held for young people aged under 18 entering secure care or custody by order of the court. The impact and purpose of these meetings was recognised but there were varying views about the interpretation of and who should attend, arrange, and chair these meetings, as well as numerous barriers to completing 72 hour reviews. - 71% of respondents stated the lead professional role was always maintained by the local authority where the child ordinarily resides while they are in secure care or custody. In addition, 70% of participants advised community based social work staff were always involved with the young person during this period, however the type and frequency of involvement varied. - All respondents advised post-release support was available to young people returning from a period of detention in secure care and custody and 77% reported that all young people have a throughcare or aftercare plan, with the type and frequency of support again varying. - 75% of respondents stated meet at the gate support was always provided if a young person under the age of 18 was not being met by a friend or family member. - Third sector agencies worked in over 90% of participants local authority areas, with the mean number of organisations 3.35. - Respondents were committed to young people remaining in secure accommodation following their 16th birthday (up until their 18th birthday) to serve the remainder or as much of their sentence rather than transferring to custody. The subsequent implications and recommendations for practice are: - Good information sharing between Social Work Services, SPS and secure care providers must continue and this should be monitored to assess quality and consistency. - All practitioners working with young people involved in offending behaviour should understand, be able to communicate and fulfil the rights and entitlements of looked after children and care leavers under the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. - 72 hour reviews should be held for every young person detained in secure care or custody and this should be monitored on a local basis and by the SPS. - The lead professional role should be maintained and fully fulfilled by the local authority for all young people in secure care and custody. - Contact by community based social work staff should be maintained. - Throughcare and aftercare plans should be in place prior to release for all young people, must incorporate the identified elements of effective throughcare, and be monitored locally. - Meet at the gate support should be provided for all young people leaving secure care or custody following a period of detention. - Efforts should be made to ensure partnership working is effective and to reduce barriers to this. - More equitable arrangement should continue to be sought between SPS, the Scottish Government, local authorities and the secure estate to ensure placement decisions for young people aged under 18 are influenced primarily by need and vulnerability rather than cost. - Training and support should continue to be made available to all practitioners involved in supporting young people in the youth justice system to understand their roles and responsibilities in respect of reintegration and transitions practice. - Further research to address the limitations of this study would be beneficial. Details: Glasgow: Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice, 2015. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2015 at: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Youth-Justice-A-Study-of-Local-Authority-Reintegration-and-Transitions-Practice-Across-Scotland-FINAL.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cycj.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Youth-Justice-A-Study-of-Local-Authority-Reintegration-and-Transitions-Practice-Across-Scotland-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 136638 Keywords: Information SharingJuvenile Justice SystemJuvenile ReentryReintegrationYouthful Offenders |
Author: Abrams, Laura S. Title: Perceived Needs, Barriers, and Social Supports Among the Youth Reentry Population in Los Angeles County Summary: Goal of Study: To identify the transition needs, barriers to use of existing services, and key social supports for youth transitioning out of Los Angeles County probation camps. Method: A face-to-face original survey was completed with 36 males from Camp David Gonzales and 35 females from Camp Scott who were within 60 days of their release. The average age of the sample was 17.6. Youth identified their primary ethnicity as: 76% Hispanic/Latino/a/Chicano/a, 11% African American, 10% White, and 3% "other." Risk Factors - Close to 50% of youth at both camps were classified as "transient," meaning that they had moved between homes and placements three or more times in their lives. - Nearly 25% of the youth were involved with DCFS/foster care, including 37% of girls and 11% of boys. - A very high number of youth (80% of boys and 65% of girls) reported being associated with a gang. - Six girls and six boys (17% of the total sample) reported being parents of infants or young children. Educational Needs and Barriers - The most common immediate post-camp educational goal was to obtain a high school diploma or GED. - Youth expressed moderate to low confidence in writing and math skills, and girls reported slightly higher confidence than boys in their academic skills. - Girls reported slightly higher long-term educational aspirations, as 57% of girls versus 39% of the boys stated that they planned to attend a two-year or four-year college in the next five years. Employment Needs and Barriers - Boys were more likely than girls (77% versus 43%) to state that they had made money through illegal activities in the past. They were also twice as likely to suggest they would continue these activities. - Boys reported wanting to earn an average hourly wage of $13.30, and girls, $7.80 upon their release. Their short-term and long-term goals differed somewhat in regard to occupational choice. - Close to 60% of sample believed that their criminal record would serve as a barrier to achieving their vocational goals. However, very few youth reported needing legal assistance. Mental Health Needs and Barriers - Of youth who reported receiving a mental health diagnosis, 67% agreed that they had a problem. - Overall, youth found their counseling experiences, both in the past and in camp, to be useful. - A higher percentage of girls stated they would seek counseling upon their release (54% versus 16%). Details: Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Department of Social Welfare, 2008. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 17, 2016 at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228456815_Perceived_Needs_Barriers_and_Social_Supports_Among_the_Youth_Reentry_Population_in_Los_Angeles_County Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228456815_Perceived_Needs_Barriers_and_Social_Supports_Among_the_Youth_Reentry_Population_in_Los_Angeles_County Shelf Number: 138319 Keywords: Juvenile AftercareJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Reentry |
Author: Beyond Youth Custody Title: Trauma and Young Offenders: A Review of the research and practice literature Summary: The report presents key findings from a review of the research and practice literature concerning trauma in the backgrounds of young people who offend. It aims to highlight what is currently known about trauma within the population of young offenders, and to identify the importance of this knowledge for effective resettlement practice. It focuses on: Definitions of trauma and the different ways in which trauma has been understood in the research and practice literature The prevalence of different types of traumatic childhood and adolescent experiences in the backgrounds of young offenders The effects that such trauma can have on young people in the short-term, and its longer term impacts on emotional, social, and neurological development The links between trauma and young people's behaviour, including the extent of their capacity to comply with youth justice interventions The implications that an understanding of trauma and its effects might have for resettlement work undertaken with young custody-leavers Details: London: Beyond Youth Custody, 2016. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2016 at: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/wp-content/uploads/Trauma-and-young-offenders-a-review-of-the-research-and-practice-literature.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.beyondyouthcustody.net/wp-content/uploads/Trauma-and-young-offenders-a-review-of-the-research-and-practice-literature.pdf Shelf Number: 147322 Keywords: Juvenile ReentryMental HealthTraumaYouthful Offenders |
Author: Phillips, Idetta Title: Reentry support: Lessons learned from community-based programs Summary: Over 10,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons each week and arrive back in our nation’s communities, resulting in more than 650,000 formerly incarcerated individuals requiring reintegration into society each year. In Illinois, over 30,000 inmates were released from prison in 2013, with about 39 percent returning to Chicago to serve a period of parole. Community-based reentry programs can play an important role in the successful re-integration of returning individuals, by providing vital services and supports as a supplement to the parole system. In 2014, the Reentry Program, one of three components of Illinois' Community Violence Prevention Program (CVPP) receiving funds through the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, operated as voluntary program for youth and young adults between the ages of 13 and 28 returning to their community after incarceration in a state correctional facility. The program provided services in 21 Chicago area communities in order to assist clients with compliance with their parole board orders and other aspects of successful community reintegration, such as educational enrollment and employment. The program performance period spanned from November 1, 2013 through August 31, 2014. Authority research staff studied the 2014 Reentry Program by collecting case management data on client demographics, service needs, and program results for a sample of 517 youth and young adults with verified incarceration in IDJJ or IDOC prior to program participation and documented program participation during the 2014 program period. Client and case manager surveys augmented this case-level data. Key findings Program clients Seventy percent of the 517 Reentry Program clients included in this study were on parole from IDOC facilities, and 30 percent were on aftercare from IDJJ. Both groups of clients were enrolled at program sites in 18 Chicago community areas and three suburban sites. More than half (59 percent) of clients lived in the community area in which they were enrolled. Most Reentry Program sites (86 percent) focused on serving either youth exiting from IDJJ or young adults exiting from IDOC, rather than serving both clients groups. Most case managers (84 percent) worked exclusively with one type of client. Two thirds of all Reentry Program clients were referred to the program by their parole officer or aftercare specialist, although IDJJ clients reported this referral source most often (82 percent). Nineteen percent of IDOC clients reported family, friends, and community groups as sources of program referrals. Reentry Program clients were overwhelming male (95 percent) and Black (83 percent). The average age of IDJJ clients was 17 years old, while IDOC clients were older (22 years old, on average). However, the most common age for both client groups was 20 years old. IDJJ clients were living most often with parents at the time of program enrollment (68 percent), while IDOC clients more often reported living with other relatives, spouses, or partners (33 percent compared to 18 percent). Most clients did not have children (82 percent). At the time of enrollment, IDJJ clients had lower prior educational attainment than IDOC clients, partially because they were younger. Fewer IDJJ clients reported completing at least one year of high school (63 percent) compared to IDOC clients (93 percent). However, at the common age of 20, thirty-one percent of IDJJ clients reported attaining no more than an eighth grade education, compared to 4 percent of IDOC clients. The most common incarceration offense type for both groups was a violent offense (30 percent). Violent offenses were defined according to the Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act, which defines a violent offense as any felony in which force or threat of force was used against the victim [725 ILCS 120/et seq.]. A greater proportion of IDJJ clients were incarcerated for a property offense compared to IDOC clients (31 percent compared to 22 percent), while a greater proportion of IDOC clients were incarcerated for drugs and weapons offenses (46 percent compared to 37 percent). Program services All clients in this study completed a service plan with their case managers based on conditions of parole imposed by the Prisoner Review Board (PRB), with additional recommendations from the parole officer/aftercare specialist, case manager, and client. The Reentry Program offered 28 different services in four categories: mandated parole/aftercare conditions, social/emotional services, educational /vocational services, and other support services. Service plan requirements differed for IDJJ clients and IDOC clients. IDJJ clients were mandated or recommended most often to enroll in for GED/high school classes, substance abuse assessment, support groups to deal with negative peers, curfew monitoring, and random urinalysis. IDOC clients were mandated or recommended most often for substance abuse treatment, full time employment, GED/High school classes, job training, anger management, and other support services. Overall, about half of Reentry Program clients were linked to the services for which they were mandated or recommended during the program performance period, although the linkage rate varied by type of service. Of the 26 services mandated or recommended for both client groups, IDJJ clients were linked at a higher rate than IDOC clients for most service types (19 of the 26), most notably for substance abuse assessment, mental health services, GED/High school classes, and job seeking services. Short-term program results The Reentry Program clients in this study completed 152 (9 percent) of the 1,692 mandated or recommended services during the nine-month program period. The highest rates of completion were for obtaining short-term continuity of care assistance, such as enrolling in the supplemental nutrition assistance program (food stamps) (60 percent), or obtaining a birth certificate (67 percent) as a prerequisite for a state ID. Half of the clients linked to a term of electronic monitoring completed this parole/aftercare condition before the program ended, while the others linked to electronic monitoring were still continuing at the end of the performance period. Of the few clients mandated or recommended to enroll in college, half were able to do so before the program ended. IDOC clients completed more services than IDJJ clients. Despite the challenges of a serious criminal background, one third of those mandated or recommended for employment services were successful in obtaining full-time employment, while another 43 percent obtained part-time employment. One third successfully completed anger management services. No IDJJ or IDOC clients linked to GED/high school classes were indicated as completing their educational requirements before the program ended. Details: Chicago: Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority, 2016. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 2, 2016 at: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Final%202014%20CVPP%20Reentry%20Report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/articles/Final%202014%20CVPP%20Reentry%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 146788 Keywords: Community-Based ProgramsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ParoleJuvenile ReentryReentry |
Author: Clark, Heather Griller Title: Transition Toolkit 3.0: Meeting the Educational Needs of Youth Exposed to the Juvenile Justice System. Third edition Summary: The third edition of NDTAC's Transition Toolkit provides updated information on existing policies, practices, strategies, and resources for transition that build on field experience and research. The Toolkit offers practical information that enables State and local administrators, teachers, and service providers to provide high-quality transition services for youth moving into, through, and out of education programs within the juvenile justice (JJ) system. Because each State, jurisdiction, and facility addresses transition differently, no exact model can be replicated and applied. However, system-wide administrative processes, coordination efforts, strategies, and communication practices can improve a youth's experience in the JJ system and reentry into the community. The intent of the Toolkit is to highlight the processes and practices that focus primarily on the educational needs of these youth and those who directly provide education services. Organization of the Toolkit Section I of this document provides an introduction to and overview of the Transition Toolkit. Section II of this document briefly addresses the topic of transition across five areas: • The transition process for youth in the JJ system • The complexity of the JJ system • Characteristics of the population • Relevant transition literature and policies • Strategies for successful transitions Sections III–VI each addresses a distinct stage of transition: • Stage 1: Entry into the JJ system • Stage 2: Residence • Stage 3: Exit From Secure Care • Stage 4: Aftercare Each section provides strategies to improve the transition process at one of the four stages. Strategies specific to facilities, youth, families, and communities/systems are highlighted and examples are provided. Each section also includes pertinent resources, such as sample forms, protocols, and tools used at different stages of the transition process. Appendix A contains a self-study and planning document to guide program improvement at each stage of the transition process. Appendix B includes legal considerations related to transition. Appendix C provides additional information about transition-related requirements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that are introduced in Section II. Appendix D summarizes Federal funding resources available to support transition programs. Appendix E features highlights of four transition-related programs around the country. Details: Washington, DC: National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At Risk (NDTAC), 2016. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2017 at: https://www2.ed.gov/students/prep/juvenile-justice-transition/transition-toolkit-3.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www2.ed.gov/students/prep/juvenile-justice-transition/transition-toolkit-3.pdf Shelf Number: 141047 Keywords: At-Risk Youth Educational Programs Juvenile Delinquents Juvenile Justice systems Juvenile Reentry |
Author: Hussemann, Jeanette Title: Implementation and Sustainability of Juvenile Reentry Programs in Second Chance Act Sites: Evaluation Sites in Oklahoma and Virginia Summary: Delivering reentry services to youth proves challenging. This brief describes the implementation and sustainability of two Juvenile Second Chance Act reentry programs in Oklahoma and Virginia. Drawing from semi-structured interviews with grantees and community and state stakeholders conducted between 2013 and 2016, evaluators document the challenges to providing prerelease support and coordinating services among institutional and community supervision agencies and organizations. This brief is part of a larger evaluation of Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in fiscal year 2010. Details: Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2017. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/93636/juvenile-reentry-programs-in-second-chance-act-sites.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/93636/juvenile-reentry-programs-in-second-chance-act-sites.pdf Shelf Number: 148186 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders Juvenile ReentryReentry Second Chance Act |
Author: Cusick, Gretchen Ruth Title: From Corrections to Community: The Juvenile Reentry Experience as Characterized by Multiple Systems Involvement Summary: In this study, we examined the reentry experiences of a population of youth released from Illinois juvenile correctional facilities between 1996 and 2003. Prior research suggests that these youth are likely to face considerable challenges as they navigate the transition back into the community. Their needs may put them in contact with one or several child-serving systems, which may indicate both need and support received during transition. Involvement in multiple systems is viewed in this research as being part of the reentry experience that is likely to impact the chances of reoffending. Using administrative data from a variety of human and public service systems for children and youth in Illinois, we developed profiles of reentry experiences, as characterized by varying levels of involvement across multiple systems after release, among eight cohorts of youth. Reentry experiences were compared across age, gender, and race. Using multilevel modeling techniques, the study also examined how different reentry experiences are related to recidivism and how the relationship between these experiences and recidivism varies by social context. Below is a summary of the findings of this report: - Statewide, four distinct classes of youth exits are described by involvement across multiple child-serving systems. - Nearly one-half of youth exiting correctional settings statewide between 1996 and 2003 have little to no involvement across child-serving systems. The system involvement of another quarter of youth is limited to receipt of public aid. Yet another quarter is marginally served across most systems, while a small percentage is represented across a wide range of systems, particularly mental health and substance abuse rehabilitation treatment. - Youth receiving public assistance but few health services are disproportionately African American. - Although recidivism is high within 18 months of release, youth with collectively no systems involvement have the lowest recidivism rates. - Experiences with multiple systems and the relationship between these experiences and recidivism vary across regions of the state. - In the majority of Chicago exits, the youth are not enrolled in school and are not employed during reentry. - In Chicago, three distinct classes of youth exits are described by involvement across multiple child-serving systems: a class of uninvolved youth, a class of welfare recipients, and a class of marginally served youth. Findings from this study provide policymakers and practitioners a body of information on the extent of system involvement among Illinois youth released from correctional facilities. The research is intended to help coordinate efforts among the many systems and services that youth may become involved with upon release. Details: Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago, 2009. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2017 at: https://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/Corrections%20to%20Community_04_21_09.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/Corrections%20to%20Community_04_21_09.pdf Shelf Number: 110523 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Reentry |
Author: Drummond, Caroline Title: 'Have you got anybody you can stay with?' Housing options for young adults leaving custody Summary: Safe and stable housing is a critical factor in reducing reoffending rates for young people leaving custody. It provides the foundations for a young person to rebuild their life and move forward into a positive future away from crime. However, many young custody leavers face severe challenges in accessing accommodation on release; a situation which can push them into homelessness, chaotic housing situations and reoffending. Centrepoint and Nacro have conducted this research to examine the housing options and support in place for young people as they leave the prison system. The research is based on interviews with young custody leavers aged 18 to 25, and interviews with the practitioners who support them across a range of agencies. This research was carried out in late 2017, before the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Act (HRA) and before the clarification from Government that all young people under 21 who have secured accommodation would be able to claim housing costs through Universal Credit. Our analysis highlights three thematic requirements and associated barriers which we believe need to be addressed to enable young people to access safe and secure accommodation on release from custody. While we continue to call for a joined up, cross government Housing Strategy which meets the needs of vulnerable people, including young people that leave the criminal justice system each year, we have identified some practical solutions, that if adopted in the current system could make a real difference to young people leaving custody and experiencing barriers to accessing safe and stable housing. a) Young people leaving custody need the right preparation: - Young people leaving custody should have a resettlement plan to ensure that their housing needs are met and necessary services are in place prior to their release; however, many of the participants in the research reported that planning was insufficient and not done far enough ahead of their release to be effective. - Disruptions such as transfers to different prisons during a sentence can hinder effective pre-release planning and mean that young people miss out on the engagement and support they need. - Inconsistencies in joint working between prisons, community rehabilitation companies (CRC) and the National Probation Service (NPS) make it difficult to offer consistent pre- and post-release preparation and assistance. Practitioners also highlighted high workloads and insufficient resources as barriers to providing meaningful support. - Young people in custody for short periods or recalled to custody may not have the opportunity to engage with housing and post-release planning, increasing the risk of poor housing outcomes and reoffending upon release. - Home Detention Curfew (HDC) can ease the transition from custody, improve access to employment and training opportunities and assist resettlement in general. However, practitioners expressed concerns that some young people who would be eligible cannot access HDC because they do not have housing to go to or provide unsuitable home addresses. b) Young people leaving custody need access to a safe and stable home with an ongoing support network: - Too many young people experience homelessness after leaving custody. Across Centrepoint's accommodation, young custody leavers are almost twice as likely to have slept rough as those without experience with the prison system. This risks them turning to negative support networks and reoffending in order to secure a bed for the night. - Historically some local housing authorities have not assessed young people until they have left custody, even though pre-release work with probation and rehabilitation services may begin months before. This means young people are only able to engage at a point of crisis, undermining efforts to prevent homelessness. - Prior to the HRA some young custody leavers are seen as having made themselves 'intentionally homeless' by their local authority on the basis of having been convicted of a crime, and in general are not seen as being in priority need for homelessness assistance despite their vulnerability. The implementation of the HRA provides an opportunity to ensure this is no longer possible. - While supported accommodation is often the most suitable option for young people leaving custody, proposed changes to funding may put services at risk, particularly those that support people without a statutory right to housing. - The private rented sector is largely inaccessible for young custody leavers, with high upfront costs which are unaffordable for many prison leavers. Interviewees also highlighted landlords' reluctance to let to young people in general and especially young custody leavers. - Returning to the family is often a young person's best accommodation option after leaving custody and the retention of family links throughout a sentence can decrease the chance of reoffending. However, this does not work for those young people who have come from an unstable family situation, and should not be assumed as the best option in every case. c) Young people leaving custody need financial security: - Making a claim for Universal Credit can be difficult while in custody, where access to the internet and Job centre Plus work coaches is limited and inconsistent and where young people may not have the documentation they need to complete an application. However, these barriers are leading to unacceptable delays in receiving essential financial support after release. - Lower entitlements to benefits make it much more difficult for custody leavers to access appropriate housing they can afford. The Shared Accommodation Rate (SAR) drastically limits the accommodation available and can force custody leavers into shared housing which may not be appropriate for their needs. - The discharge grant someone receives when leaving prison has remained at L46 for over 15 years. For young custody leavers trying to make a fresh start whilst looking for employment or waiting for benefits to be processed, this amount is not enough for them to get back on their feet. - Finding and sustaining employment is key to securing accommodation and reducing reoffending. The research highlights some innovative and effective training programmes, building in wraparound support around employment, but found that provision is inconsistent across the wider prison and probation estate. - Criminal records present a major barrier for young custody leavers looking to access employment, with both employers and applicants unsure what legally needs to be disclosed. Details: London: Nacro; Centre Point, 2018. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Report: Accessed June 15, 2018 at: https://www.nacro.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nacro-Centrepoint-Report-Have-you-got-anybody-you-can-stay-with-June-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.nacro.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nacro-Centrepoint-Report-Have-you-got-anybody-you-can-stay-with-June-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 150557 Keywords: HousingJuvenile ReentryOffender ResettlementPrisoner ReentryYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Hobbs, Anne Title: The Lancaster County Juvenile Reentry Project: Follow-up Report Summary: In 2011, Lancaster County received a planning grant under the Second Chance Act administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Using these funds, a team of stakeholders examined the limited reentry services available to juveniles who return to Lancaster County after a stay in a Nebraska Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Center (YRTC). The following year, Lancaster County officials brought together multiple agencies to develop a systematic juvenile reentry approach, which subsequently became known as the Lancaster County Juvenile Reentry Project. From January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, a total of 126 youth were served under the Reentry Project. Of these, 45 (35.7%) were young women who were returning from YRTC-Geneva and 81 (64.3%) were young men returning from YRTC-Kearney. The majority were youth of color (62.7%), which is consistent with research that demonstrates minority overrepresentation in detention facilities in Nebraska. On average, youth were a little older than 16 when they entered the Reentry Program. The University of Nebraska Omaha's Juvenile Justice Institute (JJI) was hired to evaluate the success of the program. To examine the overall effectiveness of the Reentry Project, the stakeholders agreed to measure revocations (youth sent back to the facility after having been released and served under the program) and recidivism (new law violations filed after participating in the program). In order to determine whether the Reentry Project had an impact on the youth served, JJI used a comparison group of 150 youth who returned to Lancaster County between 2007 and 2012. Because the Reentry Project had not yet been established, those youth did not receive any of the reentry services. (A description of the control group can be found in the Appendix). We first examined all reentry services compared to the control group. Overall, the Reentry Project was very effective for youth when all of the various program elements were taken into account. This supports Antchuler and Bilchek's (2014) theory that reentry programs are most effective when they contain six functions, or components, operating in concert with one another. We then tested Antchuler and Bilchek's (2014) theory and compared the separate components of the Reentry Project (education specialist, mentoring, public defender, family support, aggression replacement therapy) to see if a specific program had a significant impact on reducing recidivism after reentry. Age was the most consistently significant characteristic that influenced whether additional charges would be filed. That is, the older the youth, the more likely he or she was to have subsequent charges filed. Awareness of this should allow programs in Lancaster County to devote extra attention to older youth returning to the community, and to examine particular factors that may be influencing this outcome. Details: Omaha, NE: Juvenile Justice Institute, University of Nebraska, Omaha, 2015. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 6, 2018 at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jjireports Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=jjireports Shelf Number: 151027 Keywords: Juvenile Offenders Juvenile Reentry Revocations |
Author: Skemer, Melanie Title: Striving for independence: Two-year impact findings from the Youth Villages transitional living evaluation Summary: Young adults with histories of foster care or juvenile justice custody often experience poor outcomes across a number of domains, on average, relative to their peers. While government funding for services targeting these groups of young people has increased in recent years, research on the effectiveness of such services is limited, and few of the programs that have been rigorously tested have been found to improve outcomes. The Youth Villages Transitional Living Evaluation is testing whether the Transitional Living program, operated by the social service organization Youth Villages, makes a difference in the lives of young men and women with histories of foster care or juvenile justice custody. The program, which was renamed "YVLifeSet" in April 2015, is intended to help these young people make a successful transition to adulthood by providing intensive, individualized, and clinically focused case management, support, and counseling. The evaluation uses a rigorous random assignment design and is set in Tennessee, where Youth Villages operates its largest Transitional Living program. From October 2010 to October 2012, more than 1,300 young people were assigned, at random, to either a program group, which was offered the Transitional Living program's services, or to a control group, which was not offered those services. Using survey and administrative data, the evaluation team measured outcomes for both groups over time to assess whether Transitional Living services led to better outcomes for the program group compared with the control group's outcomes. This is the third major report in the evaluation. The first report provides a detailed description of the Transitional Living program model and assesses its implementation. The second report assesses whether the program improved key outcomes during the first year after young people were enrolled in the study. That report relies largely on survey data to analyze the program's impacts in the six domains that it was designed to affect: education; employment and earnings; housing stability and economic well-being; social support; health and safety; and criminal involvement. This third report uses administrative data to assess the program's impacts in three of the original six domains - education; employment and earnings; and criminal involvement - during the second year after study enrollment. Taken together, the one- and two-year results show that participation in the Transitional Living program had modest, positive impacts on a broad range of outcomes. The program boosted earnings, increased housing stability and economic well-being, and improved some outcomes related to health and safety. However, it did not improve outcomes in the areas of education, social support, or criminal involvement. These results indicate that the Transitional Living program can improve multiple outcomes for young adults with histories of foster care or juvenile justice custody, a notable finding given how few other programs that serve these populations have been shown to have an effect. As a next step, Youth Villages aims to build on the areas where the program has already been successful by testing modifications to the YVLifeSet model; the hope is that such modifications will further improve young people's outcomes, particularly in domains where the program has not yet produced positive impacts. Details: New York: MDRC, 2016. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2018 at: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/YV_2016_FR.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/YV_2016_FR.pdf Shelf Number: 153415 Keywords: At-Risk YouthFoster CareJuvenile AftercareJuvenile Justice ProgramsJuvenile OffendersJuvenile Reentry |