Critical Intervention Point: Re-Entry

Overview of Intervention Point

Juvenile re-entry is defined as programs, services, and supports intended to assist youth transitioning from residential placement back into the community (Geis, 2003). It is best accomplished by the establishment of necessary collaborative arrangements with the community to ensure the delivery of prescribed services and supervision as a youth transitions from placement to the community (Gies, 2003). The organization and administration of aftercare services for juveniles who are released from state custody varies by state. Typically, the executive agency that oversees the state’s juvenile correctional system is responsible for providing aftercare services to youth released to the community; in other states, executive agencies share this responsibility with local probation agencies (Griffin & Bozynski, 2004).

The number of youth incarcerated in this country rose sharply in the 1990s, due in large measure to the institution of punitive policies that resulted in more youth being adjudicated and placed in residential settings with longer sentences (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994). It is estimated that approximately 100,000 youth are returned to the community from residential placement each year (Sickmund, 2004). Existing research suggests that the recidivism rate for juvenile parolees ranges anywhere from 55 to 75 percent (Krisberg, Austin, & Steele, 1991). Communities across the country are now facing the challenge of successfully re-integrating large numbers of youth, many of whom have significant mental health, substance abuse, educational, and other needs that may have gone undetected and untreated while in juvenile justice custody. The development of effective re-entry services for transitioning youth is viewed as critical to stemming the high rates of juvenile recidivism, ensuring community safety, and providing youth with the services and supports they need to facilitate a smooth and successful transition home (Mears & Travis, 2004). Despite the recognized importance of this issue, relatively little is known about effective juvenile re-entry or aftercare standards or models. In general, this issue has not received a tremendous amount of attention from the research community. Howell (1998) suggests that evaluations of aftercare programs have been sparse. In addition to the lack of research, there is also a relative lack of knowledge about effective juvenile re-entry practices and strategies, certainly when compared to the attention given to the issue of adult re-entry.

To date, there is no single source of information describing the characteristics and backgrounds of the population of youth released from juvenile justice facilities nationwide. Snyder (2004) examined multiple sources of information and data, including the 1999 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, to provide a representative overview of the population of youth released from secure confinement in 1999. He determined that:

• 88% were male
• 45% were between the ages of 14 and 17
• 39% were white non-Hispanic, 39% were black non-Hispanic and 17% were Hispanic
• 38% were committed for a violent offense; 33% for property offenses, 14% for public order offenses, 11% for a drug offense, and 5% for a status offense.

In terms of social characteristics, he reports that these youth:

• Are more likely to come from single-parent homes and to have relatives who have also been incarcerated;
• Lag significantly behind other youth in terms of their levels of educational attainment. A recent study by the National Council on Disability found the prevalence of special education disabilities among incarcerated juveniles to be 3 to 5 times higher than the general youth population (National Council on Disability, 2003);
• Have significant alcohol and substance abuse problems;
• Have prior criminal histories, including prior adjudications and placements;
• Have high rates of mental health needs (Snyder, 2004).

According to Gies (2003), ideally, the process of re-entry or aftercare does not begin only after an offender is released, but is a more comprehensive process that begins after sentencing, continues through incarceration and after an offender’s release into the community. Geis advocates that comprehensive aftercare requires a seamless set of systems across formal and informal social networks, and that a continuum of community services and supports should be available to youth to prevent the reoccurrence of antisocial behavior.

Altschuler and Armstrong identified five principles of an Intensive Aftercare Model (IAP) that should guide all intervention efforts developed as part of a structured re-entry program for high risk juveniles (Wiebush, McNulty, & Le, 2000). These include:

• Prepare youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community.
• Facilitate youth-community interaction and involvement.
• Work with the offender and targeted community support systems, such as schools and family, on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the youth’s successful community adjustment.
• Monitor and test the youth and community on their ability to deal with each other productively.

Altschuler and Armstrong advocate that a successful aftercare or re-entry strategy for high risk youth leaving secure confinement must include a combination of elements, including coordinated and comprehensive transition planning, information exchange, continuous and consistent access to services, and monitoring in the community. Service brokerage with community providers and linkages to social networks and supports is considered critical.

Mental Health Needs and Issues

Recently, the issue of juvenile re-entry has received significant policy attention at the Federal level, resulting in new funding being made available for the development and implementation of re-entry programs for youth, including the Young Offender Initiative (United States Department of Labor [DOL], 2003) and the Serious and Violent Offender Re-Entry Initiative (Office of Justice Programs, 2002). Despite this, there remains relatively little knowledge about the characteristics of the youth population that could be served by effective re-entry programs, and little information about the best way to structure these programs (Snyder, 2004). Further, even less is known about effective aftercare and re-entry strategies specifically designed for youth with significant mental health needs who are transitioning out of juvenile placement.

There remains a paucity of research regarding whether youth with mental health needs are at greater risk for re-offending than the general juvenile offender population. One recent meta-analysis found that conduct problems (e.g., the presence of conduct-disordered symptoms) and non-severe pathology (e.g., stress and anxiety) were significant predictors of juvenile recidivism (Cottle, Lee, & Heilbrun, 2001). An earlier meta-analysis (Simourd & Andrews, 1994) that focused on juvenile delinquency but did not distinguish between first time offenders and recidivists found that conduct problems, such as psychopathy, impulsivity, and substance use were among the risk factors most strongly predictive of juvenile offending. Given the large numbers of youth in the juvenile justice system who have diagnosable mental health disorders and the fact that juvenile recidivism rates remain high, one could reasonably conclude that youth with mental health needs released from secure juvenile placement are at high risk for re-offending.

The difficulties associated with community transition for youth are enormous. Many of these youth have spent significant portions of their young lives in out-of-home placement, without the benefit of developing personal bonds or close relationships with any adult, making it difficult to form positive and stable relationships once they are released. Many have significant educational disabilities, often lagging way behind their peers, and too often face unwelcoming school districts who want no part of accepting them back. Communities to which these youth return can also pose significant challenges. Most youth come from and return to communities of concentrated disadvantage where crime is rampant and education and employment opportunities are few (Mears & Travis, 2004). Further, adolescence itself is a period of time often characterized by experimentation, rebellion, impulsiveness, insecurity, and moodiness, further complicating transition from facility to community (Altschuler & Brash, 2004). Altschuler and Brash note that youthful offenders face two transitional challenges: the developmental transition from adolescence to young adulthood, and the transition from life in a correctional facility to life in the community.

Youth with mental health needs face these challenges as well as others in the transition from placement to the community. Roskes, Feldman, Arrington and Leisher (1999) suggest that youth with mental health needs who are transitioning back to the community may have difficulty accessing mental health services due to a “double stigma” that reflects having both a criminal background as well as a mental health disorder. There is also the problem of leaving a structured environment, with clear behavioral expectations, for a less structured, less consistent home environment. This component of the transition can be particularly difficult for youth with mental health disorders, who often do better in structured settings. Community mental health providers, already reluctant to serve justice-involved youth, may be even more disinclined to provide services to youth recently released from incarceration. A lack of access to quality mental health treatment, including supervised medication management if necessary, can significantly reduce the likelihood that these youth will successfully make this transition. Further, if a youth is diagnosed and treated for the first time while in the custody of the juvenile justice system, their families will need education about their condition and support in caring for them upon their return home.

A study conducted in Washington state to determine the extent to which transition planning and community service would predict lower levels of juvenile recidivism found that transition planning, including the provision of community services, is an essential component of community reintegration and is associated with lower rates of recidivism during the first year post-discharge (Trupin, Turner, Stewart, & Wood, 2004). Participants in this study were mentally ill adolescent offenders incarcerated for 6 months or more in one of Washington’s Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration (JRA) facilities. Researchers determined that youth who received more extensive post-discharge planning (defined as greater JRA staff contacts with community providers) were less likely to re-offend, and youth who received mental health treatment within the first 3 months of release were less likely to re-offend (Trupin et al., 2004). The authors conclude that even a low frequency of post-discharge transition planning and service provision appears to have a positive impact on subsequent criminal behavior.

Participants in the above-mentioned study were part of the Family Integrated Treatment Project (FIT) in Washington State, a re-entry program specifically designed for juvenile offenders with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders. Eligible offenders are identified at intake in the state’s juvenile correctional facilities. The youth must be between the ages of 11 and 17 at the time of intake, have a substance use disorder, an Axis I disorder or currently be prescribed psychotropic medication or have demonstrated suicidal behaviors in the last 6 months. The goals of the program include lowering the risk of a youth re-offending, connecting a youth with appropriate community-based services, improving a youth’s educational and vocational opportunities, and improving mental health and stability. The treatment approach used with the FIT program, which is modeled after Multi-Systemic Therapy, encompasses an ecological, family-centered approach. The focus is on improving the psychosocial functioning of youth and promoting a parent’s capacity to supervise the youth. Services begin two months prior to release to ensure engagement and community support. All services are strength based and include dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) and motivational enhancement (ME).

One state used their Federal System of Care funding to create a re-entry program for juveniles. Project Hope is an aftercare program in Rhode Island that targets youth with serious emotional disturbances who are returning to their homes and communities from the Rhode Island Training School (RITS). The target population includes adjudicated youth who are diagnosed with a mental health disorder and who are between the ages of 12 and 22. The goal of the program is to develop a single, culturally competent, community-based system of care for youth to prevent re-offending and re-incarceration. All youth with a mental health diagnosis are eligible to participate. Project Hope services are accessed by youth transitioning out of the RITS through an established referral process facilitated by the RITS clinical social worker 90 to 120 days prior to the youth’s discharge. Family Service Coordinators work closely with the Clinical Social Worker at the RITS while the youth is incarcerated and with the Probation Officer when the youth returns to the community to ensure comprehensive planning that incorporates youth service needs with community safety issues. A youth-specific services plan is developed before the youth is released. A case manager is assigned to ensure implementation of the plan for a period of 9–12 months following discharge.

A major obstacle for many youth leaving the juvenile justice system is the need to re-enroll in school. One example of a collaborative school re-entry model is the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES) program, based in New York City, which helps court-involved youth continue their education and re-enter the community. A School Connection Center, funded by a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant, provides educational assessments, transfer of records, and expedited enrollment in community schools. Youth who are not ready to attend community schools upon release from placement are referred to Community Prep High School, which serves as a transition school that addresses the academic, social, and behavioral needs of youth. Community Prep provides a range of services, including counseling and case management services to prepare students for the transition to traditional community schools, GED or vocational programs, or employment (Roy Stevens, 2004).