Additional Resources:

Practice Profile

Juvenile Reentry Programs

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes:

Promising - More than one Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types

Practice Description

Practice Goals
Juvenile reentry (previously referred to as juvenile aftercare) consists of reintegrative services designed to prepare juvenile offenders, 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 juvenile offenders.

Practice Activities
Reentry programs are for juvenile offenders 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).

Meta-Analysis Outcomes

top border
Promising - More than one Meta-Analysis Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
Overall, the results from three meta-analyses examining the impact of juvenile reentry programs on recidivism rates found mixed results. James and colleagues (2013) analyzed the impact of juvenile reentry programs on recidivism by aggregating the results from 22 studies. They found an overall mean effect size of 0.12, meaning that reentry had a small, yet significant impact on recidivism. Similarly, Bouchard and Wong (2018) examined the results from 10 studies, and found a pooled effect of 0.179, a small, yet statistically significant impact on recidivism (measured as alleged offenses). This means that both meta-analyses found that juveniles who participated in reentry programs had lower recidivism rates, compared with juveniles who did not participate in reentry programming. However, Weaver and Campbell (2015) analyzed the results from 30 studies and found that although juvenile reentry programs appeared to reduce recidivism for juvenile offenders, the impact was not statistically significant.
bottom border

Meta-Analysis Methodology

top border
Meta-Analysis Snapshot
 Literature Coverage DatesNumber of StudiesNumber of Study Participants
Meta-Analysis 11990 - 2009224595
Meta-Analysis 21990 - 2009306620
Meta-Analysis 31993 - 2012100

Meta-Analysis 1
James and colleagues (2013) reviewed studies that examined the effectiveness of aftercare or reentry programs on juvenile recidivism. A comprehensive search of bibliographic databases, bibliographies of previous meta-analyses, and literature reviews was conducted. Both published and unpublished reports were included in the search. Studies were not excluded on the basis of geographic location or language. 

To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to 1) use an experimental and/or quasi-experimental design; 2) evaluate reentry or aftercare interventions aimed at decreasing recidivism for juveniles; 3) incorporate a treatment modality, such as skills training, counseling, and cognitive behavior therapy; and 4) include only participants who had spent time in a form of detention when enrolled in the reentry or aftercare program that had started during or immediately after their detention. The treatment group comprised youths who had joined the aftercare or reentry program either during detention or post-release, and the control group youths were those assigned to a care-as-usual group. The care-as-usual group received services such as regular probation supervision without therapeutic treatment. 

Participants included juvenile males and females of various ethnic backgrounds. The minimum age for entering the program was set at 10 years. The maximum age was set at 25 rather than 18 years. The researchers believed that juveniles do not suddenly become adults at the age of 18; instead, the process of transitioning from adolescence to adulthood is an emerging one that occurs over time. 

The search yielded a final sample of 22 eligible studies, 9 of which were randomized controlled studies, 6 were matched control group studies, and 7 were quasi-experimental studies. It is important to note that in addition to the inclusion of studies of youths committed to juvenile-oriented facilities, studies of young adults incarcerated in adult facilities were also considered eligible. The total number of participants across the 22 studies was 4,595, and the majority of participants were male. 

The outcome of interest was recidivism. Studies were eligible if they included at least one measure of the following: 1) any new conviction/adjudication of any new crime committed after exiting a correctional facility based on official records, and 2) any new arrest after exiting the correctional facility based on official records. 

The authors used a fixed-effects model to analyze the impact of juvenile aftercare on recidivism.

Meta-Analysis 2
Weaver and Campbell (2015) reviewed studies to determine the treatment impact of aftercare or reentry programs for young offenders. To be eligible for inclusion in the review, studies had to
  1. Evaluate an aftercare or reentry program in which juvenile offenders were committed to a detention center or similar facility for a period of time, and then released to transition back into the community. Aftercare or reentry had to consist of monitoring, supervision, and various services intended to promote a successful reentry into the community.
  2. Include a control group. Although studies had to include a control group to be eligible for inclusion, there were no specific control conditions.
  3. Include participants who were committed to a youth-oriented facility or detention center prior to their transition into the community. Studies that included juveniles who were incarcerated in adult prisons or jails were excluded from the meta-analysis.
A comprehensive search of bibliographic databases, bibliographies of previous meta-analyses, and literature reviews was conducted. Both published and unpublished reports were included in the search. Studies were not excluded on the basis of geographic location or time period.  

The search yielded a total of 30 studies that were eligible for inclusion, which included a total of 6,620 participants (3,114 in the treatment group and 3,506 in the control group). In contrast to the review by James and colleagues (2013), only studies that involved youths committed to juvenile-oriented facilities were eligible for inclusion. Thirteen of the studies were randomized controlled trials, and the remaining studies were quasi-experimental designs. For most studies (67 percent), the average age was greater than 16.5 years, while 30 percent of the studies had samples whose average age was less than 16.5 years (one study did not report age). With regard to ethnicity, about half of the studies (47 percent) had samples consisting of more than 70 percent ethnic minority youth, while the other half (53 percent) had samples consisting of fewer than 70 percent ethnic minority youth. Over 60 percent of the studies included only male participants, while 37 percent of the studies included male and female participants.

The outcome of interest was recidivism, which included felonies and misdemeanors and excluded status and traffic offenses. The authors used a random-effects model to analyze the impact of juvenile aftercare or reentry programs on recidivism.

Meta-Analysis 3
Bouchard and Wong (2018) conducted a meta-analysis to determine the effect of aftercare or reentry programs on juvenile recidivism. Studies that were included in the review had to primarily target juveniles between the ages of 12 and 18 years. Studies had to have been published in English between January 1, 1990, and April 21, 2015. Studies also had to be rigorous or moderately rigorous control group designs (i.e., randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs) in which participants were matched on at least some variables with a minimum sample of 20 participants in both the treatment and control groups. In addition, each study had to have included at least one individual-level outcome measure of crime, and the reported outcomes had to have also provided sufficient data to permit that computation of an effect size. Finally, the program had to be delivered, at least partially, in a non-closed setting in the community (i.e., school, youth custody, hospital) in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, or a Western European country.

Conversely, studies were excluded if 1) the primary intervention was “traditional” supervision (i.e., standard probation); 2) the program studied targeted specific offenders such as perpetrators of domestic violence, those with serious mental health problems, substance users, sex offenders, and known gang members; 3) the outcomes exclusively focused on measures of substance use (tobacco, alcohol, illicit substances); or 4) there were no outcome measures for the youth who participated in the program.

There were two outcomes of interest: alleged offenses (arrests, charges, referrals, court/police contacts) and convicted offenses (convictions, sustained petitions, adjudications, incarceration). The distinction between the outcomes was meant to differentiate between alleged criminal acts and convicted criminal acts. For this review, the outcome of interest was alleged offenses.

A comprehensive search of 20 electronic databases and hand-searches for grey literature was conducted. A total of 10 studies that examined the impact of reentry or aftercare programs were identified for inclusion. The 10 studies provided a total of 15 independent program sites (because some studies included more than one program), which contributed to 24 effect sizes. Of the 15 independent program sites, 13 sites looked at alleged offenses. The 13 sites included 5 randomized controlled trials, 2 quasi-experimental designs with matched comparison groups, and 6 quasi-experimental designs with weakly matched comparison groups. Six studies included only male juveniles, while 7 studies included a mix of male and female juveniles. Three studies included whites/mixed races, while 10 studies were predominately minority.

Effect sizes were calculated as odds ratios for dichotomous outcome data. Standardized mean differences were used in calculating effect sizes for continuous data, with the Cox logit transformation applied to enable commensurability with the odds ratios. A fixed-effects model was used to analyze data.
bottom border


top border
There is no cost information available for this practice.
bottom border

Other Information

top border
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 offenders 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.
bottom border

Evidence-Base (Meta-Analyses Reviewed)

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

Meta-Analysis 1
James, Chrissy, Geert Jan J.M. Stams, Jessica J. Asscher, Anne Katrien De Roo, and Peter H. van der Laan. 2013. “Aftercare Programs for Reducing Recidivism Among Juvenile and Young Adult Offenders: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Clinical Psychology Review 33: 263–74.

Meta-Analysis 2
Weaver, Robert D., and Derek Campbell. 2015. “Fresh Start: A Meta-Analysis of Aftercare Programs for Juvenile Offenders.” Research on Social Work Practice 25(2): 201–12.

Meta-Analysis 3
Bouchard, Jessica, and Jennifer S. Wong. 2018. “Examining the Effects of Intensive Supervision and Aftercare Programs for At-Risk Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(2):1509–34.
bottom border

Additional References

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

Development Services Group, Inc. 2017. “Juvenile Reentry.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
bottom border

Related Programs

top border
Following are programs that are related to this practice:

Operation New Hope Promising - One study
A curriculum-based aftercare treatment program (formerly called Lifeskills ’95) designed to help chronic, high-risk juvenile offenders reintegrate back into the community after they are released from confinement. The program is rated Promising. Participants were more successful at parole, less likely to be arrested or use drugs, displayed greater improvements in social behavior, and were more likely to be employed compared to the control group parolees.

Multisystemic Therapy–Family Integrated Transitions (MST–FIT) Promising - One study
The program provides integrated individual and family services to juvenile offenders who have co-occurring mental health and chemical dependency disorders during their transition from incarceration back into the community. The program is rated Promising. Results showed the intervention had a significant effect on felony recidivism at 36 months postrelease. However, it did not appear to have a significant effect on overall recidivism (misdemeanor or felony).

Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET Smart Aftercare Program No Effects - One study
This program was located at a secure-custody residential facility that provided educational and vocational training to moderate-risk male youths. It incorporated a reentry component that provided services to youths post-release to the community. The program is rated No Effects. Results suggest there were no statistically significant differences in recidivism and employment measures; and a small, statistically significant positive difference in degree attainment among participants.

Wayne County (Michigan) Second Chance Reentry Program Promising - One study
This is a reentry program designed to reduce recidivism and increase reentry services for males, ages 13 to 18, who have committed offenses and are placed in a locked, residential treatment facility. The program is rated Promising. The program was shown to statistically significantly decrease recidivism rates among youths who participated in the program, compared with youths who received services as usual.

Skillman Intensive Aftercare Program (Pittsburgh and Detroit) No Effects - More than one study
This was an aftercare program in Pittsburgh (Penn.) and Detroit (Mich.) for juveniles transitioning out of a residential correctional program. The intent of the program was to decrease instances of reconviction and re-arrest among participating youths after their release into the community. The program is rated No Effects. There were no statistically significant effects on rates of reconviction and rearrest among program participants in either city.

Philadelphia (Penn.) Intensive Aftercare Probation Program Promising - One study
This program was an intensive alternative reintegration program for high-risk male juveniles who were being released to probation from a juvenile corrections facility. The program is rated Promising. Results showed that while there were no differences between the treatment and comparison groups on the percent who had been re-arrested during the 9-month follow up, the treatment group had a statistically significantly lower number of re-arrests than the comparison group.

Functional Family Parole Promising - One study
This is a supervision program that incorporates family-focused, strengths-based principles of Functional Family Therapy. The goal of the program is to reduce re-arrests and increase employment rates. The program is rated Promising. Participants in the intervention were less likely to be re-arrested, more likely to be employed, and earned more per quarter, compared with the comparison group. These findings were statistically significant.
bottom border

Practice Snapshot

Age: 10 - 25

Gender: Both

Race/Ethnicity: Other, White

Targeted Population: Prisoners

Settings: Correctional, Other Community Setting

Practice Type: Aftercare/Reentry, Family Therapy, Group Home, Individual Therapy, Probation/Parole Services, Wraparound/Case Management

Unit of Analysis: Persons

Jennifer Wong
Associate Professor
School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University
8888 University Drive
Burnaby, British Columbia V5A IS6
Phone: 778.782.8148