Practice Profile: 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.

Practice Goals

Juvenile reentry (previously referred to as juvenile aftercare) consists of reintegrative services designed to prepare juveniles who have been convicted of an offense, who were placed out of their homes, to enter back into the community. The overall goal of reentry programs is to reduce the recidivism rates of juveniles who have been convicted of an offense.

Practice Activities

Reentry programs are for juveniles who serve time in out-of-home placements following adjudication. Out-of-home placements include detention, secure confinement, wilderness or boot camps, group homes, and residential treatment. The programs generally start while the youth are detained, continue through their transition into the community, and are maintained during the supervision period in the community (Weaver and Campbell 2015). Reentry requires collaboration between the out-of-home placement facility and the community to ensure delivery of services and supervision. It may also involve partnerships between public and private organizations to expand the overall capacity of youth services.

There are a variety of reentry programs with different components. Generally, reentry intervention strategies concentrate on changing individual behavior, thereby preventing further delinquency. For example, a reentry program may be curriculum-based with sessions that cover various coping skills, or a program that focuses on individual therapy while the juvenile is in placement and then transitions to family-based therapy after release.  

Reentry programs differ from the traditional juvenile justice model. For instance, youths in reentry programs receive services and supervision as they transition into the community and while they are under supervision in the community. Conversely, in the traditional juvenile justice system, juveniles are supervised for a certain amount of time and are not guaranteed services (Development Services Group, Inc. 2017; Weaver and Campbell 2015).

Practice Theory

Out-of-home placements disrupt a juvenile’s life; the youth is physically removed from family, school, and the wider community. As a result, he or she may lose the support that family and friends can provide. Moreover, this transition is even more difficult for juveniles who are already experiencing the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Overall, juvenile reentry programs aim to overcome these challenges by offering reintegrative services in the hope of reducing recidivism (James et al. 2013; Development Services Group, Inc. 2017).

James and colleagues (2013) included additional tests—called moderator analyses—to see if any factors strengthened the impact of juvenile reentry on recidivism outcomes. The moderator analysis revealed three factors that impacted the effectiveness: sample characteristics, treatment characteristics, and study characteristics. Sample characteristics: Through conducting a moderator analysis, James and colleagues found that the type of offense impacted the effectiveness of reentry programs. Overall, the moderator analysis revealed that reentry programs are most effective for high-risk individuals and juveniles who have committed violent crimes. Treatment characteristics: Whether the treatment was directed at the individual or the system or both had an impact on the effectiveness of reentry programs. The moderator analysis revealed that the greatest effect size was found when reentry focused solely on the individual. The effect size for systemic treatment was slightly smaller, and a negative effect was found for treatments that had both an individual and systemic focus. These results indicated that individual-focused aftercare treatment is most effective in reducing recidivism. Study characteristics: The moderator analysis revealed that the length of follow-up time when recidivism was measured impacted the effect sizes. For example, larger effect sizes were found when recidivism was measured before 12 months, rather than when recidivism was measured 1 year or later, following release. These results suggested that the impact of reentry may fade over time.

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

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

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

Operation New Hope

Multisystemic Therapy–Family Integrated Transitions (MST-FIT)

Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET Smart Aftercare Program

Wayne County (Michigan) Second Chance Reentry Program

Skillman Intensive Aftercare Program (Pittsburgh and Detroit)

Philadelphia (Penn.) Intensive Aftercare Probation Program

Functional Family Parole

Oklahoma’s Juvenile Second Chance Act Reentry Program (Tulsa, OK)

Reentry Services of Clay County (Minnesota)

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