Reentry Services Project

Shelley Ford, MN Department of CorrectionsSally Dandurand, Reentry Services Project

June 2008, Connecting Youth to Success

1

Funding

• 1st four years- Grant from the MN Department of Public SafetyMatch funds from the Clay County Collaborative

• Program is currently funded by the Clay County Collaborative

• Next 2 years – Clay County Collaborative and a grant from the MN Department of Public Safety-Office of Justice Programs

( Problem-Solving Partnership Grant )

2

Program Needs & Goal

• Needs of the community: lacking a coordinated response to juvenile offenders returning to communities from out of home placement

• Target population: offenders between the ages of 14-19 transitioning to home communities from out of home placements

• Goal: improve public safety by preparing incarcerated juvenile offenders for successful reentry from criminal justice placements to communities

3

Outcome Goals-Next 2 years

• Reduce recidivism by improving strengths and reducing risk/needs of juvenile offenders transitioning to their home communities by incorporating a three phase design to ensure continuity in services from placement to the community

• Strengthen families of youthful offenders to facilitate youth adjustment and transition to the community

• Improve collaboration, coordination and access to community resources for high risk youth and their families

4

Program Structure and Process

• 2 Transitional Coordinators (TC’s) work closely with 3 MN DOC Probation Agents in Clay County

YLS/CMI completed at 3 intervals during the program MAYSI-II is used to identify potential mental health problems• Transitional case plans are matched to risk/needs and strengths• Service and referral emphasis on education and family issues• Flex funds used for services, items and activities• Program was designed to continue 6 months after youth

returns to the community, but this is flexible• Traditional probation services continue after program end

5

Advisory Committee

• Joint advisory committee with Restorative Justice

• 30 members from 24 different agencies in the community involved with youth

• Meets quarterly to review projects

6

Evaluation

• Independent evaluation through North Dakota State University Department of Criminal Justice and Political Science

• Date collected by Transitional Coordinators, Probation Agents and evaluators

• Comparisons both pre-post (e.g., YLSI scores) to a similar sample of probationers in Becker County, MN (Recidivism)

7

Data• Client background Demographics Offense and out of home placement history Indicators of violence, substance abuse, school and

mental health issues• Referrals and services Numbers and nature of referrals for services and

referral and service outcomes

8

Data continued

• Program Activities TC and PO contacts with clients, parents and agency partners Meetings, case reviews Drug testing, sanctions, rewards and use of flex funds TC time spent with clients• Program Outcomes Compliance rates with transitional case plan goals and tasks Changes in YLS/CMI risk/needs and strength scores Technical violations, re-arrests, and additional out of home

placements

9

Client Background

• Cases closed: n=107Mean age upon return to the community: 16.4 Sex: 72% male51% white, 24% Native American, 23% Hispanic, 2% African American

• History of Antisocial Behavior and Other Problems67% had a history of violence77% had a history of substance abuse74% had a history of mental health issues88% had a history of school issues98% had a history of multiple risk factors (2 or more) and 33% had all

four factors

10

Offense, Probation and Placement History

• Average number of offenses prior to placement: 4.8• 35% had at least one prior felony offense• 52% had a prior persons offense • On average clients spent 17.4 months on probation prior to returning to

the community after their most recent placement• 96% of clients were on indefinite probation• 57% of clients were on maximum or intensive supervision upon release

back to the community• On average, these clients had 3.3 out of home placements, 1.4 of these

were 30 days or longer• On average clients have spent an average of 197 days in out of home

placement upon entering the Reentry Services Project.

11

Program Activities• Clients spent an average of 7.6 months in the program• TC’s averaged 38 contacts with clients, 15 parent contacts and

13 agency partner contacts• Probation Officers averaged 10 contacts with clients, 7 parent

contacts and 15 agency contacts• 86 clients were subjected at least one drug test during program

participation. 50% had no positive drug tests, 24% had one positive drug test and 26% experienced two or more positive drug tests. RSP youth were significantly less likely to test positive than comparison youth, even though they were more likely to be tested and tested more often

• On average TC’s spent 51 hours with each of these clients• 62% of females participated in gender specific activities• 41% of minority youth participated in cultural programming 12

Program Activities

Activities addressed the following 5 reentry components:

• Obtaining and retaining employment or education• Maintaining a stable residence• Successfully addressing substance abuse issues• Successfully addressing mental health and physical

health issues• Establishing a meaningful and supportive role in the

community

13

Outcomes• Goal- 75% compliance rate with transitional case plan tasks

Outcome – 77% of client’s case plan tasks were considered complete upon exit from the Reentry Services Project. The majority of tasks were in the areas of employment, leisure/recreation, substance abuse, personality/behavior, and education

• Goal- 20% reduction of the YLS/CMI risk/need levels Assessments were done upon return to the community and upon program

completion Outcome- risk/need levels declined 12%. Reductions were greatest in the

domains of Education/Employment, Personality/Behavior and Leisure/Recreation

• Goal- 20% increase in identified strengths on the YLS/CMI Assessments were done upon return to the community and upon program

completion Average strength scores increased 44% from the return to the community

to the end of program participation14

Recidivism• 54% of clients had no probation violations while participating• 58% of clients experienced no new charges during program

participation and during the follow up period ( average 28 months) 40% of youth remained offense

• RSP youth experienced better recidivism outcomes then comparison youth in a neighboring county

• Greater contact between parents and staff was related to lower recidivism

• 47% experienced no new out of home placements while participating

• 50% of new placements were short term ( less than 30 days)• 58% of new placements were the result of technical violations,

24% the result of new charges and the remainder was for protection of the client or unknown reasons

15

Additional Findings• The RSP was implemented as intended• Surveyed youth/ parents felt time spent w/TC’s was “about right”• Partner surveys indicate satisfaction with the program and

indicate the mentorship provided to youth and the professional and committed staff as strengths of the program

• Time spent with youth was approximately evenly shared between surveillance and mentoring

• Reentry programming had consistently positive effects among minority youth, those with more extensive offending histories, and higher risk youth

• RSP youth were significantly less likely to spend time on adult probation, less likely to experience a new criminal contact or experience a new long term out of home placement than comparison youth 16

Cost-Benefit Analysis

• Program has cost approximately $4,415 per youth• These costs were partially recovered within the first

year after release from placement and were fully recovered within 2 years

• Within 3 years of release from placement the net benefit of the program was $7,600 in reduced juvenile justice processing costs per youth

• Cost benefits have contributed to ongoing community support in the way of funding, in-kind services, etc.

17

Addressing Gaps• Beginning the RSP immediately after a youth enters

placement, to provide a seamless system of service and consistent case management throughout placement, release and transition to the community

• Addressing negative family dynamics that interfere with a youth’s transition home by identifying, developing and linking families to informal and formal supportive services, thereby strengthening families, improving parenting skills and facilitating youth adjustment

• Increasing collaboration of community groups and programs that can pool resources and services to youth and families. Developing new partnerships with community agencies serving high risk youth. For example, partnering with a local alternative school to co-facilitate a cognitive behavioral group as a part of a sober school track 18

Case Study• 15 year old Hispanic female – charged with Domestic

Assault• 90 detention treatment program at WCRJC• Anger management• Education• Chemical Dependency, physical health and family

issues• Employment• Positive Leisure/Recreational activities• Community Involvement

19

Client Achievements

• 96% of clients did not have high school diploma or GED upon entry. 53% regularly attended school and 24% sporadically attended during program participation. 8 completed GED

• 22% of clients were homeless at some time during program participation and only 6% were homeless upon completion

• Employment was appropriate for 88% of clients, of which 89% searched for a job, 65% were employed at some time and 41% were employed upon program completion

• 44% of clients regularly attended CD treatment and 54% of clients with a history of substance abuse were “clean” upon program completion

• 48% of clients with a history of mental health issues received mental health services while participating in the RSP.

• 50% of families participated in at least outing and 39% were involved in services

20

Other Activities• Helped organize multi-cultural events• Surveyed the community for the Wilder Foundation to

identify homeless youth• Participated in the Helping America’s Youth Regional

Conference• Helped facilitate Family Anonymous group• Trained in the Top 20 Thinking, Learning and

Communicating program• Presented at local schools on youth issues• Gender specific activities• Volunteering in the community

21