they all come back: reflections on a juvenile reentry initiative

1. They All Come Back: Reflections on a Juvenile Reentry Initiative By G. Roger Jarjoura Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (AIM) School of Public and Environmental Affairs Indiana University Indianapolis Paper presented at the ACJJ Statewide Conference on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 1, 2003.

3. Some Specific Protective Factors active involvement in extracurricular events involvement in �required helpfulness� support outside the home environment interest in school and learning relationships with other adults that are based on strong interpersonal skills and professional competence

4. How it Works significant adult relationships and positive use of time lead to: encouragement, high expectations, support system, recognition, and accomplishment, all of which leads to: self-efficacy, goals-oriented, personal responsibility, optimism, internal expectations, and coping ability the end result is resiliency, or success

5. Principles of Aftercare to prepare youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community to facilitate youth-community interaction and involvement

6. Principles of Aftercare to work with both the offender and targeted community support systems to establish constructive interaction and to help youth adjust successfully to the community to develop new resources and supports where needed

7. Principles of Aftercare to monitor and test the youth and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively

8. Key Problem transition from closely monitored and highly regimented life in a secure institutional environment to unstructured and often confusing life in the community multifaceted needs and problems of high-risk juvenile offenders

9. Another problem lack of coordination and collaboration among staff in correctional facilities, parole agencies, and community social institutions

10. What we have learned: #1 Community-based aftercare is one part of a reintegrative corrections continuum that must be preceded by parallel services in the corrections facility and must include careful preparation for the aftercare to follow. Institutional services need to be geared to the services, opportunities, and challenges that exist in the community to which the juvenile will return. high-quality institutional services are likely of little value if they are not carefully reinforced and followed up in the aftercare community.

11. What we have learned: #2 Aftercare is frequently funded and staffed at levels far below what is required to provide truly intensive supervision and enhanced service delivery. The community aftercare portion of reintegrative confinement cannot be accomplished "on the cheap." Resolving issues related to family, peers, education, employment, and substance abuse requires knowledgeable individuals who have the requisite competency in these areas and are willing to go "that extra mile" in problem solving. May involve partnering with other public agencies or through contracts with private organizations

12. What we have learned: #3 Intensive aftercare, in contrast to "standard" aftercare, requires close attention via formal assessment procedures to determine which offenders are in need of a level of intervention that includes both highly intrusive supervision and enhanced treatment-related services.

13. What we have learned: #4 It is clear that a reduction in caseload size and an intensification in level of contacts are widely accepted operational principles for intensive aftercare programming. a higher level of contact in itself reveals virtually nothing about what is happening during these important periods of contact. a need to incorporate a graduated response capability, in terms of both administering sanctions and providing incentives during the community phase of these programs.

14. What we have learned: #5 Movement toward reintegrative confinement within the youth corrections system is occurring, but much remains to be accomplished.

15. Why Mentoring? Adult guidance, support Problem solving Transfer of support from confinement to chaos of daily life

17. Growth of Program Pilot Effort in Plainfield Expansion around state New regional sites Center for Offender Reintegration

18. Results of AIM Evaluation 3 Experimental Groups: Group 1: Full AIM Model (preparation prior to release and mentoring support after release) Group 2: Only prerelease preparation assistance, with no postrelease mentoring Group 3: No contact with AIM Follow-up after 4 years

19. Why Mentoring? Adult guidance, support Problem solving Transfer of support from confinement to chaos of daily life

20. No significant differences Age at release Length of stay Last grade completed Ever suspended from school Peers involved in delinquency Peers are in gang Peers use drugs Exposure to violence in home

21. No significant differences Score on substance abuse instrument Family history of substance abuse Total risk score (from risk assessment Number of prior offenses (total number and by type)

22. Significant differences Race IQ

23. Reincarceration Group 1: 43.8% Group 2: 50.0% Group 3: 62.2% Among those in Group 1 who participated fully in AIM and had a mentor that followed through on commitment: 27.8%

24. Odds of Reincarceration Group 1: 0.779 Group 2: 1.000 Group 3: 1.646 Among those in Group 1 who participated fully in AIM and had a mentor that followed through on commitment: 0.385

25. Arrests Group 1: 67.9% Group 2: 70.0% Group 3: 82.9% * p < .05

26. Convictions Group 1: 53.6% Group 2: 55.0% Group 3: 66.2% * p < .05

27. Number of Arrest Charges(Mean) Group 1: 5.32 Group 2: 6.15 Group 3: 7.74 * p < .05

28. Number of Felony Arrests (Mean) Group 1: 2.04 Group 2: 1.80 Group 3: 2.52

29. Number of Convictions(Mean) Group 1: 1.50 Group 2: 2.40 Group 3: 2.67 * p < .05

30. Number of Felony Convictions(Mean) Group 1: .64 Group 2: 1.50 Group 3: 1.37 * p < .05

31. Number of Days in Jail(Mean) Group 1: 129.9 Group 2: 107.5 Group 3: 193.2

32. Conditional Probability of Conviction given an Arrest has occurred Group 1: .790 Group 2: .786 Group 3: .882

33. Conditional Probability of Reincarceration given an Arrest has occurred Group 1: .474 Group 2: .643 Group 3: .677

34. These effects are specified by: Race The relationship is evident for white youths, but not for black youths IQ The relationship is evident for youths with average to above-average IQs, but not for low IQs

35. Costs For every 100 youths in AIM, there is a potential to save $1.3 Million per year

36. Policy Changes Comprehensive Case Management Funding Training