If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ------------------------- --- -- -- - "- 'R'"-A KlO-'- ,.,-- .. ' - . ':'-' '.: . ,': :", ': ".' ".: R:I.. ~· .. ,.: ... :. ~ .... '.~, . ' ....'. " Chronic Juvenile Offenders Final Results from The Skillman Aftercare Experiment Peter W. Greenwood, Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, John Adams The research described in this report was supported by The Skillman Foundatiqn, Grant No. 91-296. Library of Congress Cataloging In Publication Data Greenwood, Peter W. Chronic juvenile offenders : fmal results from the Skillman aftercare experiment I Peter W. Greenwood, Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, John Adams. p. em. "Supported by The Skillman Foundation." "MR-220-SKF." Includes bibliographical references (p. ). ISBN 0-8330-1477-3 1. Juvenile delinquents-Rehabilitation-Michigan-Detroit. 2. Juvenile delinquents-Rehabilitation-Pennsylvania-Pittsburgh. 3. Social work with juvenile delinquents-Michigan -Detroit. 4. Social work with juvenile delinquents-Pennsylvania-Pittsburgh. I. Deschenes, Elizabeth Piper, 1953- ll. Adams, Jolm. 1956- HV9106.D5G74 1994 364.3'6'Q974886-dc20 9340155 CIP RAND is a nonprofit institution that seeks to improve public policy through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. Published 1993 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 To obtain information about RAND studies or to order documents, call Distribution Services, (310) 451-7002 • Chronic Ju~{)enile Offeltders Final Results from The Skillman • Aftercare Experiment Peter W. Greenwood, Elizabeth Piper Deschenes, John Adams Supported by The Skillman Foundation •••• < ."'" •••• , ;- ." 151575 U.S. Department of Justice Nationallnstltule of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute 01 Justice. Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material in mI­ crofiche only has been granted by Rand Co:r:ooratj on • to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner. iii • Preface 1his document is the final report on a four~year evaluation of two experimental intensive aftercare programs that were designed to help delinquent youth from Detroit and Pittsburgh return to their homes follOWing residential placements. The experimental programs and evaluation effort were supported by generous grants from The Skillman Foundation of Detroit, Michigan. 1his report should interest anyone concerned with the design and implementa­ tion of effective community-based supervision programs for serious delinquents . • • --~--~----------------~------------.-- v • Contents Preface iii Tables vii Summary................................................. ix Acknowledgments . • . .. xiii 1. INTRODUCTION.. 1 2. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS . 4 Subjects. • . • . 4 Random Assignment and Follow-Up Procedures ................ 5 The Intervention . • . 6 Data-Collection and Assessment Procedures ................... 9 Sample Attrition and Response Bias. • . • . .. 10 3. Ilv.lPLEMENTATION. 13 Time Served and Early Release ............................. 13 Frequency and Nature of Contacts ............., • . 13 Youth Perceptions Regarding the Program. 16 Costs . • . • . 18 4. OUTCOMES. 19 Arrests. • . 19 • Self-Reported Delinquency ............ 20 Self-Reported Drug Use ......................•.....•..••. 21 Involvement with School or Work. • . • • . • . .. 24 Involvement with Delinquent Peers •••..•.•..•••.. , . .. 24 Personal Goals, Self-Efficacy, and Coping Skills ••............... 26 5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . .. 31 Appendix A. REFERENCE TABLES. .. 37 B. DOCUMENTATION OF RANDOM ASSIGNtv1ENT AND DATA-COLLECTION PROCEDURES . • . .. 59 Bibliography .. .. ....................... 71 • vii • Tables 2.1. Number of Completed Forms and Youth Interviews by Site and Condition .......................................... 10 3.1. Program Implementation: Monthly Rates from Youth Interviews .... , . • . .. 14 3.2. Program Implementation: Monthly Rates from Caseworker Interviews . • . 15 3.3. Youth Ratings of Aftercare Program and Staff by Site and Condition ..................•....................... 17 4.1. Official Recidivism. • . .. 20 .4.2a. Self-Reported Delinquency Prevalence Rates at Pre-Release and Follow-Up in Detroit, Michigan. • . .. 22 4.2b. Self-Reported Delinquency Prevalence Rates at Pre-Release and Follow-Up in Pittsburg-'l, Pennsylvania . .. 22 4.3a. Self-Reported Drug Use Prevalence Rates a~ Pre-Release and Follow-Up in Detroit, Michigan. • . .. 23 4.3b. Self-Reported Drug Use Prevalence Rates at Pre-Release and Follow-Up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania . .. 23 4.4. Participation by Youth in School or Work During 12-Month : -- :1ow-Up . • . .. 25 4.5a, nds' Behaviors at Pre-Release and Follow-Up in Detroit, l"i;,chigan . • . .. 26 4.5b. Friends' Behaviors at Pre-Release and Follow-Up in Pittsblli'gh, • Pennsylvania . • .. 27 4.6a. Chru'1ges in Attitudes and Behaviors in Detroit, Michigan . .. 28 4.6b. Changes in Attitudes and Behaviors in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ...........•....•.•....•.•..•••......•. , 29 A.1. Background Characteristics of Sample in Detroit, Michigan ...... 37 A.2. Background Characteristics of Sample in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania . .. 38 A.3. Self-Reported Delinquency and Drug Use by Experimental Conditions in Detroit, Michigan .................•........ 39 A.4. Self-Reported Delinquency and Drug Use by Experimental Conditions in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania . .. 40 A.S. Analysis of Attrition Bias in Detroit, Michigan . • . .. 41 A.6. Analysis of Attrition Bias in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ..•....... 42 A.7. Youth Perceptions of Aftercare Program. .. 44 A.8. Youth Perceptions of Primary Aftercare Worker. .. 45 A.9. Self-Reported Delinquency and Drug Use by Experimental Conditions in Detroit, Michigan •..•........•... .. 46 A.IO. Self-Reported Delinquency and Drug Use by Experimental Conditions in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania . .. 47 A,ll. Median Incidence Rates for Active Offenders at Follow-Up in Detroit, Michigan. .. 48 A,12. Median Incidence Rates for Active Offenders at Follow-Up in • Pittsburg.i), Pennsylvania ............................... 48 viii A.13. Behavior of Friends ...... 49 A.14. Personal Goals ...... " . 51 A.15. Self-Efficacy ....... "................................ 53 • A.16. Coping Skills in Detroit, Michigan ........................ 55 A.17. Coping Skills in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania . .. 57 • • ix • Summary Background Every year, thousands of delinquent youth who have been removed from their homes and placed in residential programs, because of the seriousness or frequency of their criminal behavior, are released right back into the same communities and home situations in which their delinquent behavior developed and flourished, often without any coordinated attempt to ensure that their old patterns of delinquency and dysfunctional behavior are not reestablished. And, in fact, many of these youth do fall back into their old ways and end up in another juvenile or adult correctional facility. This cycle of inadequate aftercare and recidivism occurs in spite of the fact that many criminologists and correctional practitioners have long articulated their belief that the failure rab~ for these youth could be substantially reduced bY' providing them with appropriate amounts of aftercare supervision and services. The most prominent reasons for this belief include the lack of other supportive community resources and the • dysfunctional environment to which many youth are returned. 1vlethods The Skillman Intensive Aftercare Program Initiative was designed to test and determine the value of intensive aftercare supervision and services fOir high-risk delinquents. Under this initiative, two experimental programs, embodying common core features, were established in Detroit, Michigan, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Eligible youth, who were being retumed from residential placements to homes in these sites, were randomly assigned to either the new program, conditions or the regular forms of post-release supervision used in their community. In each site, the experimental programs were developed and run by experienced private providers. Youth assigned to the experimental programs were supposed to be released from their residential placen.1.ent two months early and to receive the intensive aftercare supervision for the next six months. Other key components of the experimental program included: pre-release contacts and planning between the assigned aftercare worker, the youth, and his family; an intensive level of supervision and counseling involving several contacts a day; efforts to resolve • family problems and improve functioning; efforts to mobilize and involve youth x with appropriate community services and programs; and highly motivated and energetic caseworkers. The program model upon which the experimental programs were based had been used extensively in Massachusetts with • supposedly good results. Data for assessing the characteristics of participating youths, and the content and effect of the programs, were obtained by: coding back8J."ound data from agency records; interviewing caseworkers during each youth's six-month program; interviewing youth just before and one year