|
Aftercare
Aftercare can be defined as reintegrative services that prepare
out-of-home placed juveniles for reentry into the community by
establishing the necessary collaboration with the community and its
resources to ensure the delivery of prescribed services and supervision
(Altschuler and Armstrong, 2001, 2). The term aftercare, however, is somewhat of a
misnomer because the process does not simply begin after an offender is
released. A comprehensive aftercare process typically begins after
sentencing, continues through incarceration and into the period of
release back to the community.
Aftercare requires the creation of a seamless set of systems across
formal and informal social control networks as well as the creation of
a continuum of community services to prevent the reoccurrence of
antisocial behavior. It can also involve public–private partnerships to
expand the overall capacity of youth services.
There are two key components to the aftercare concept that
distinguish it from the traditional handling of juvenile offenders.
First, youthful offenders must receive services and supervision.
Second, juvenile offenders must receive intensive intervention while
they are incarcerated, during their transition to the community, and
when they are under community supervision. This component of the
aftercare model redefines the concept of reintegrative services to
include not only an examination of what takes place after release but
also of what takes place before release into the community.
With the goal of better preparing youths for their return to the
community, a comprehensive aftercare model integrates two distinct
fields of criminological research—intervention research and community
restraint research. Intervention strategies in an aftercare model concentrate
on changing individual behavior and thereby preventing further
delinquency. Despite early skepticism regarding intervention programs,
recent literature reviews and meta-analyses demonstrate that
intervention programs can be effective in reducing delinquency (Lipsey,
2000; Lipsey, 1992; Andrews et al., 1990).
Community restraint, by contrast, refers to the amount of
surveillance and control over offenders while they are enrolled in the
community. Specific examples of community restraint include employment
verification, intensive supervision, electronic monitoring, house
arrest, residential halfway houses, urine testing for use of illegal
substances, and simple contact with parole officers or other
correctional personnel. Theoretically, increasing these surveillance
tactics “over offenders in the community will prevent criminal
activities by reducing both their capacity and their opportunity to
commit crimes,” according to Sherman (1997), who adds, “it is expected
that the punitive nature of the sanctions will act as specific
deterrence to reduce the offender’s future criminal activity.”
The research on the combination of community surveillance and
treatment shows promise. For example, Land and colleagues (1990)
examined the North Carolina Court Counselors Intensive Protective
Supervision Project (IPSP), where juvenile offenders (mostly status
offenders) were provided with both surveillance and treatment. Using a
random assignment research design, the results indicated that youths
with no prior offenses had fewer new delinquent offenses than control
group youths had (that is, no treatment and no surveillance), but the
IPSP youths with prior delinquent offenses had more delinquent offenses
during the study period. In another study, Sontheimer and Goodstein
(1993) examined an intensive aftercare program for serious juvenile
offenders in Pennsylvania where the experimental group was also
provided with both community restraint and services. Using a random
assignment research design, the evaluation found that, when compared
with the control group (again, no treatment and no surveillance), the
experimental group had significantly fewer re-arrests and their mean
number of re-arrests were fewer.
In a review of six comprehensive aftercare programs that prepare
juveniles for reentry into the community, Gies (2003) found that
aftercare is a promising program concept designed to minimize
recidivism among youths released from out-of-home placement. The
research found limited evidence that suggests a positive influence of
aftercare on participant youth. For instance, the Thomas O’Farrell
Youth Center (TOYC) program revealed promising results (Krisberg,
1992). Using a pretest–posttest design, the researchers found that of
the first 56 TOYC graduates, the majority (55 percent) had no further
court referrals in the year following release (11.6 months), for a
recidivism rate of 45 percent. A preliminary study of the Bethesda Day
Treatment Program (which includes an aftercare component) revealed a
recidivism rate of only 5 percent in the 1st year after discharge
(Howell, 1998).
The Florida Environmental Institute (FEI) has also demonstrated
positive success in three studies. The first study (Weaver, 1989), a
3-year follow-up of 21 FEI graduates, found that only one third of the
sample was convicted of new crimes during this period. Another
assessment of the FEI model was conducted in 1992 by the Florida
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS). This study
compared the outcomes from seven residential programs for high-risk
offenders, including 11 from the FEI program. It revealed impressive
results. Compared with a 47 percent to 73 percent range from the other
six programs, only 36 percent of the FEI participants were referred
again to the juvenile court. Moreover, none of the 11 FEI youths were
readjudicated or recommitted to the DHRS during the follow-up period,
while the readjudication rates in the other facilities ranged from 20
percent to 50 percent (Howell, 1998). More recently, a similar study by
the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice found comparable results.
Finally, Project CRAFT has also demonstrated success dealing with
economically disadvantaged out-of-school and incarcerated youth. The
evaluation (Resource Development Group, 1999) of Project CRAFT reveals
a low rate of recidivism for graduates. Of the 149 participants in the
three national demonstration sites, 39 youths (26 percent) were
convicted of new crimes after training completion, release, or
placement. The program also improved over time. Year 1 participants
sustained the highest recidivism rates, followed by year 2 and year 3,
respectively. The recidivism rate for year 1 was 15 percent. The
percentage declined to 10 percent for year 2 and to 1 percent for year
3.
These findings, while encouraging, must be viewed with extreme
caution because of the small sample sizes and the lack of control
groups. Nevertheless, the recidivism rates compare favorably with a
baseline recidivism rate for serious juvenile offenders released from
prison, which is estimated to be 80 percent (Langan and Levin, 2002).
References
Search for Aftercare
Programs
|
