Program Profile: Reentry Services of Clay County (Minnesota)

This is a one-to-one mentoring program aimed at improving public safety by assisting youths who commit offenses with comprehensive reentry services following their release into the community. The program is rated Ineffective. There was no statistically significant difference between program and comparison group youths in prevalence of reoffense. Program youths had statistically significantly fewer official juvenile justice contacts within 1 year of release, compared with comparison group youth

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

An Ineffective rating implies that implementing the program is unlikely to result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals/ Target Population

Reentry Services of Clay County (Minn.) aimed to provide comprehensive services to youths with extensive criminal histories following at least 3 weeks of out-of-home placement. The goal of the program was to prevent future offending. Specifically, the program aimed to help youths 1) obtain and maintain long-term employment and a stable residence; 2) address substance abuse, physical health, and mental health issues; and 3) establish meaningful roles in the community.

Program Components/Key Personnel

The program had three phases: 1) placement, 2) reentry preparation, and 3) community-based services. In the placement phase each youth was assigned a Transition Coordinator, ideally at least 30 days before their return to the community. In the reentry preparation stage, the Transition Coordinator developed a transitional case plan with input from the Probation Officer, the youth, their parents, community-based service providers, and out-of-home placement staff. Transition case plans included goals and tasks in competency development, restorative accountability, and community safety. During the community-based services stage, the Transition Coordinator worked with the youth to complete their transition plan. The program was designed to last about 6 months and to end when the youth had completed their goals.

During the program, Transition Coordinators regularly assessed youths’ risks and needs, monitored transitional case plans, and connected youths and their families with community-based services. Transition Coordinators also assisted Probation Officers with supervision—for example, through drug screenings. Their time was split evenly between mentoring- and supervision-related activities.

Study

Bergseth and McDonald (2007) used a quasi-experimental design study to examine effectiveness of the Clay County Reentry Services program in Minnesota. A total of 184 youths were included in the study: 92 Clay County youths who received reentry services and 92 youths from neighboring Becker County who received regular probation. Eligible youths were ages 11 to 19 and returning from an out-of-home placement of at least 3 weeks.

Of these youths, 72 percent were male. Fifty percent were white, 26 percent were Native American or Alaskan Native, 22 percent were Hispanic, and 2 percent were Black. Youths were, on average, 16.5 years old upon their return to the community; 14.1 percent were 14 and under, 42.9 percent were 15–16, and 42.9 percent were 17–18. A little more than half the youths (56 percent) were from urban areas, and the rest (46 percent) were from rural areas. The average risk/need score on the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) was 20.8, indicating moderate risk. Youths had an average of 5.1 prior charges, 5.1 prior contacts, and 4.4 prior criminal charges (i.e., a subset of official contacts excluding status, traffic, and alcohol- or tobacco-related offenses). About half had prior felonies (51.6 percent) or prior person-related charges (53.8 percent). Most recent placements included residential care (34.8 percent), detention/shelter care (31.5 percent), conduct disorder/mental health treatment (29.9 percent), and foster care (3.8 percent). Youths averaged three placements, with an average of 234.1 days in placement and 204.4 days in restrictive placement. Percentages of youths with histories of different types of problems were as follows: substance abuse (80 percent), school problems (79 percent), mental health problems (69 percent), and violence (63 percent). Of the aforementioned problems, 7.6 percent of youths had a history of zero or one problem area, 23.4 percent had a history of two problems, 37.5 percent had a history of three problems, and 31.5 percent had a history of all four problems.

There were several statistically significant differences between the treatment group and the comparison group youths. Significantly more youths in the treatment group were Black or Hispanic (23.9 percent), compared with the comparison group (5.4 percent), while significantly more comparison group youths were Native American (55.4 percent, compared with 14.7 percent of the treatment group). Youths in the treatment group youth were more likely to come from the urban area in their county (68.5 percent, compared with 43.5 percent for the comparison group). There also were statistically significant differences between the groups in prior juvenile justice history. Comparison group youths experienced a significantly greater number of prior contacts (an average of six contacts), compared with the treatment group (an average of four contacts), a greater number of charges (averages of 7.8 versus 4.8, respectively), and a greater number of criminal charges (averages of 5.4 versus 3.4, respectively). They also were more likely to have experienced a prior felony level charge (64.1 percent, compared with 39.1 percent of the treatment group). Finally, treatment group youths experienced a greater number of prior placements (averaging 3.4, versus 2.6), while comparison youths had spent more time in placements (an average of 271 days, versus 197 days) and had been on probation longer at the time of their release (an average of 22 months, versus 18 months). Regression analyses were used to test for program effects, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, hometown (i.e., rural or urban), and number of prior of charges. For prevalence of reoffense at the 12-month follow-up, analysis also controlled for time outside of restrictive placement.

Youths spent between 1 and 17 months in the program (the average length of participation was 7 months). Follow-up time varied based on timing of the individual interventions. Almost all youths (99 percent) were followed for a full 6 months after release from out-of-home placement; 87 percent were followed for a full year postrelease, 59 percent were followed for 2 full years postrelease, and 29 percent were followed for at least 3 years. This review focused on the 157 youths with 1 year’s postrelease follow-up data (n = 80 treatment group youths and n = 77 comparison group youths).

Prevalence of reoffense at the 12-month follow-up and number of official contacts within 1 year of release were measured using official records. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.

The intervention required the development and use of individual transition plans and a flex fund for items, services, and activities to enhance or improve the life circumstances of youths and their families. Transition Coordinators used activity logs to record all in-person contacts with youths, including amount of time spent and the types of contact (e.g., school visit, social outing; Bergseth and McDonald 2007).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Bouffard, Jeffery A., and Kathleen J. Bergseth. 2008. “The Impact of Reentry Services on Juvenile Offenders’ Recidivism.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 6:295–318.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Mentoring for Youth Development

This practice provides youth with a positive and consistent adult or older youth relationship to promote healthy youth development and social functioning and to reduce risk factors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing delinquency and improving educational outcomes; Promising in improving psychological outcomes and cognitive functioning; and Ineffective in reducing substance use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Education - Multiple education outcomes
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Cognitive functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Social functioning
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Juvenile Reentry Programs

This practice consists of reintegrative programs and services designed to prepare juveniles, who were placed out of their homes, for reentry into the community. The overall goal is to reduce the recidivism rate of juveniles released from out-of-home placements. The practice is rated Promising. There was a statistically significant decrease in the recidivism rates of juveniles who participated in the reentry programs, compared with juveniles in the comparison groups.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?