characteristics and outcomes of an innovative ohio juvenile offender reentry program (orp-j)
Post on 23-Feb-2016
65 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Characteristics and Outcomes of an Innovative Ohio Juvenile Offender Reentry Program (ORP-J)
David Hussey & Rodney Thomas, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve UniversityKarl Cetina, Director of Cuyahoga County Juvenile TASC, Catholic Charities ServicesGina Mazzone, Catholic Charities ServicesMagistrate Terease Neff, Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court Ian Fraser, Regional Administrator, Ohio Department of Youth Services
Abstract
The purpose of this workshop is to describe and discuss the components of an innovative juvenile offender reentry program, and explore the relationship between client characteristics, program factors, and individual outcomes related to criminal offending, mental health, and substance abuse.
RECLAIM• Funds over 610 direct service programs throughout the State• Prevention, diversion, community based treatment, and residential
treatment• Touch nearly 110,000 youth who never reach our doors
ACCOMPLISHMENTS• Created a network of community-based alternatives to incarceration • Youth arrest and crime rates continue to fall • Reduced the county’s and state’s over-reliance on confinement
National Trends – Number of persons under age 21 detained, incarcerated, or placed in residential facilities (1997-2010)
1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2007 201050,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
110,000
120,000
105,055107,493
104,219
96,53192,721
86,814
70,792
Num
ber o
f Pe
rson
Und
er 2
1
DYS Admissions 2004-2011(ODYS Deputy Director Dies, JDAI Inter-Site Conference, 4/26/12)
National Trends – Rate of persons under age 21 detained, incarcerated, or placed in residential facilities (1997-2010)
1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2007 2010100
150
200
250
300
350
400
356 355335
306295
278
225
329344 344
316 320339
227
United StatesOhio
Num
ber i
n re
side
ntia
l pla
cem
ent p
er
100,
000
juve
nile
s
2012 Cuyahoga - Documented Weapon Use
Yes42%
No35%
Unk23%
2012 Cuyahoga - Need for Substance Abuse Services (JASAE)
None24%
Mild8%
Mod8%
Severe59%
Cuyahoga County DYS Youth Profile• Male: 95%• Immediate Family Member Incarcerated: 51%
– 25% unknown• Youth Confirmed as Parents: 12%• Special Education Status: 39%• Prior Mental Health Treatment: 76%• DYS Mental Health Caseload: 57%
– Males: 55%– Females: 100%– Currently on Psychotropics: 54%
Current Challenges (Columbus Dispatch, The Ohio
Model, 1/10/13)“Ohio now spends $38 million less than it did three years ago. One-year recidivism rates (kids who reoffended) dropped to under 23 percent. That’s the lowest in nine years. More-compassionate punishment isn’t signaling to kids that they can get away with delinquent behavior; instead, it’s redeeming them: Ohio led the nation with the largest drop — a 74 percent plunge — in violent juvenile crime between 1995 and 2010. The state has closed more than half of its youth prisons since 2007. The number of incarcerated youths has dropped from 2,000 to about 500. But this has left the state institutions with a core of truly incorrigible kids…Gangs are prevalent, teaching conditions are poor, and youth aren’t getting enough help for mental illnesses. Currently, 52 percent of all youths are on the mental-health caseload; 91% of the girls are. More than half require special-education services.”
ORP & TASC: Challenges and Opportunities
• Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC)• Offender Reentry Project (ORP-J): Substance Abuse
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)– Pre-Release: Engagement, Evidence-Based
Assessment, Planning & Services– Post Release: Tx Dosage; Retention; MET/CBT5;
Comprehensive Case Management; Relapse Prevention; Dual Disorder Awareness and Intervention
– Reentry Court– Establish effective partnerships and coalitions
TASC Clinical Case Management Model
• Referral• Screening or Clinical Assessment• Recommendations & Service Planning• Service Referrals, Linkage, & Placement• Monitoring, Reporting (Service Plan
Adjustments)• Termination
TASC Advantages
• Timely assessments• Greater treatment retention• Improves client readiness• Provides additional services
Pre-Release: Evidence-Based Assessments
• Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS)• Global Appraisal of Individual Needs
(GAIN)
Pre-Release: Ohio Youth Risk Assessment System - OYAS
• Based on risk, need, responsivity principles
• Low, moderate, high risk categories• Multiple versions & domains
ORP-J Population Description
16
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN)• GAIN Background• Assessment• Client Profiles
– Demographic– Criminal– Substance Abuse– Mental Health– Victimization
• N=139 (total number of client records)
– 100% male– 78% African American, 10% multiracial, 6% Caucasian,
2% any Hispanic, 1% other– Average age= 17 years (range=13-20)
• 139 administered GAIN at intake– 101 with 3-month GAIN– 77 with 6-month GAIN– 33 with 12-month GAIN
18
ORP-J Client Race (N=139)
African Amer-ican\Black
77%
Caucasian\White 6%
Hispanic 2%
Multiracial 14% Other 1%
ORP-J Client Age (N=139)
Less than 15 years2%
15-17 years55%
18+ years43%
21
Got Drunk or High Kept from Meeting Responsibilities
Used Alcohol Used Marijuana-10
10
30
50
70
90
35
138
36
Substance Use Past 90-Days in the Community (N=139)
Aver
age
Num
ber o
f Day
s
ORP Lifetime Substance Severity (N=139)
No Use Use Abuse Dependence Physiological Dependence
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
9%
25%20%
14%
31%
Perc
enta
ge
23
Given up activites b/c of AOD
Fights/Troubles b/c AOD
AOD caused prob-lems w/law
Hide AOD use Other complain about AOD use
Used AOD where unsafe
0
20
40
60
80
100
41% 44%35%
51% 54%
33%
Lifetime Substance Use Characteristics at Base-line (N=139)
Life
time
Per
cent
age
Past Year Internalizing Problems (N=139)
Any P
ast Y
ear In
terna
lizing
Diso
rder
Major D
epres
sion D
isorde
r
Genera
lized
Anx
iety D
isorde
r
Suicida
l Tho
ughts
or A
ction
s
Traumati
c Dist
ress D
isorde
r0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
17%11%
1% 5%9%
Perc
enta
ge
Past Year Externalizing Problems (N=139)
Any P
ast Y
ear E
xterna
lizing
Diso
rder
Condu
ct Diso
rder
Attenti
on D
eficit
-Hyp
eracti
vity D
isorde
r0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
55%
35%42%
Perc
enta
ge
Past Year Co-Occurring Internalizing and Externalizing Problems (N=139)
Neither Externalizing only Internalizing only Both0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
41% 42%
4%
12%
Perc
enta
ge
Lifetime Victimization (N=139)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
54% 52%
22%
Perc
enta
ge
Violence and Illegal Activity (N=139)
Any V
iolen
ce or
Illeg
al Acti
vity
Acts of
Phy
sical
Violen
ce
Any Ill
egal
Activit
y
Propert
y crim
es
Interp
erson
al cri
mes
Drug re
lated
crim
es0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%86%
78%
46%
31%25%
14%
Perc
enta
ge
ReCAPP Structure• Phase I: Begins Pre-Release – TASC worker meetings;
Forward Thinking Curriculum; Magistrate specifies 1-2 Phase 2 tasks.
• Phase 2: Focus on Basic Reentry Goals; Magistrate specifies 1-2 tasks & issues rewards or sanctions; promote to level 3 (or team if not successful in 60 days).
• Phase 3: Begins when basic reentry goals attained; maintain Phase 2 progress; Magistrate specifies 1-2 tasks & issues rewards or sanctions.– 6 month parole period = early discharge at 4 months– 9 month parole period = early discharge at 6-7 months
Forward Thinking
Pre-Release: ORP Flow
Youth receives OYAS Risk Assessment at CCJC prior to commitment. Youth identified at Reception as ORP-J candidate and given further screen/assessment. Youth agrees to be involved in ORP-J and transferred to CHJCF or IRJCF
ODYS site Social Worker (SW) primary liaison with Juvenile TASC ORP-J Case Manager, Reentry Coordinator, PO from Cleveland Region. Formal Staffing meeting with youth/family may lead to referral to TASC and Reentry Court (REC); 16-week Cognitive-Behavioral Forward Thinking Curriculum
Final Staffing (30 days prior to release) for reentry plan (Unified Case Plan – UCP) and Reentry Court (REC) start date; GAIN-I Assessment & OYAS completed
Post Release: ORP Flow
Phase one of Re-Entry Court (REC) begins on the 2nd or 4th Monday of the month. ORP-J Youth, Parent(s), JPO, TASC Case Manager, and other relevant stakeholders collaborate in order to administer appropriate incentives and necessary sanctions. Weekly drug screens begin.
TASC Case Manager assists youth with engaging and following through with a minimum of 5 weekly MET/CBT-5 individual treatment sessions in non-intensive outpatient at Catholic Charities Services, and providing family sessions as needed.
Within 24 hours of the youth’s release to the community, the youth reports to the Juvenile Parole Officer (JPO). At this face-to-face meeting, all community stakeholders participate. TASC continues with weekly case management services back in the community for six months post-release.
The Juvenile Parole Officer maintains weekly contact with ORP-J Youth and monitors collateral services with TASC case manager and family. The GAIN Assessment, completed in the pre-release phase, helps to determine appropriate level of care.
Post Release Components• Parole supervision & monitoring• Drug screening• Reentry Court• Case management• Level of care services• MET/CBT-5
Case Study #1
35
Results
36
General Crime
Property Crime
Interpersonal Crime
Drug Crime012345
1.6
0.6 0.5 0.20.5
0.2 0.1 0.1
Changes in Criminal Activity 3-Month Follow-Up (n=101)
Intake3-Month
Aver
age
Num
ber o
f Crim
es P
ast 9
0 Da
ys
37
General Crime
Property Crime
Interpersonal Crime
Drug Crime012345
1.7
0.6 0.5 0.20.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
Changes in Criminal Activity 6-Month Follow-Up (n=77)
Intake6-Month
Aver
age
Num
ber o
f Crim
es P
ast 9
0 Da
ys
38
General Crime
Property Crime
Interpersonal Crime
Drug Crime012345
1.9
0.7 0.70.20.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Changes in Criminal Activity 12-Month Follow-Up (n=33)
Intake12-Month
Aver
age
Num
ber o
f Crim
es P
ast 9
0 Da
ys
39
Average days got drunk Average days smoked marijuana
0102030405060
4.1
37.9
0.77.9
Changes in Substance Use 3-Month Follow-Up (n=94)
Intake3-Month
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f Tim
es P
ast 9
0 D
ays
40
Average days got drunk Average days smoked marijuana
0102030405060
3.2
34.9
0.48.4
Changes in Substance Use 6-Month Follow-Up (n=54)
Intake6-Month
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f Tim
es P
ast 9
0 D
ays
41
Average days got drunk Average days smoked marijuana
0102030405060
4.0
34.8
0.6 5.5
Changes in Substance Use 12-Month Follow-Up (n=25)
Intake3-Month
Ave
rage
Num
ber o
f Tim
es P
ast 9
0 D
ays
42
Conduct Disorder Symptoms0
5
10
15
2.7 1.5
Changes in Conduct Disorder3-Month Follow-Up (n=101)
Intake3-Month
Cond
uct D
isor
der S
cale
Sco
re
43
Conduct Disorder Symptoms0
5
10
15
2.7 1.3
Changes in Conduct Disorder6-Month Follow-Up (n=77)
Intake6-Month
Cond
uct D
isor
der S
cale
Sco
re
44
Conduct Disorder Symptoms0
5
10
15
3.31.0
Changes in Conduct Disorder12-Month Follow-Up (n=33)
Intake3-Month
Cond
uct D
isor
der S
cale
Sco
re
45
Traumatic Stress Levels0
5
10
15
1.2 0.9
Changes in Traumatic Stress Levels3-Month Follow-Up (n=100)
Intake3-Month
Trau
mat
ic S
tress
Sca
le S
core
46
Traumatic Stress Levels0
5
10
15
1.5 0.5
Changes in Traumatic Stress Levels6-Month Follow-Up (n=76)
Intake6-Month
Trau
mat
ic S
tress
Sca
le S
core
47
Traumatic Stress Levels0
5
10
15
1.90.2
Changes in Traumatic Stress Levels12-Month Follow-Up (n=33)
Intake12-Month
Trau
mat
ic S
tress
Sca
le S
core
48
Behavior Complexity Levels0
5
10
15
9.96.5
Changes in Behavior Complexity3-Month Follow-Up (n=101)
Intake3-Month
Beha
vior
Com
plex
ity S
cale
Sco
re
49
Behavior Complexity Levels0
5
10
15
9.96.8
Changes in Behavior Complexity6-Month Follow-Up (n=77)
Intake6-Month
Beha
vior
Com
plex
ity S
cale
Sco
re
50
Behavior Complexity Levels0
5
10
1511.7
5.5
Changes in Behavior Complexity12-Month Follow-Up (n=33)
Intake12-Month
Beha
vior
Com
plex
ity S
cale
Sco
re
Conclusions, 112-month Outcomes
(For the subset of 33 individuals with 12-month GAIN data)
• Significant decreases in alcohol and marijuana use.
• Significant deceases in criminal activity, including property, interpersonal, and drug crime.
• Significant decreases in conduct disorders.
• Significant decreases in behavior complexity.
• Significant decreases in traumatic stress levels.
51
Implications & Limitations
• Effective reentry program designs (e.g., best practices/EBPs; behavioral criminogenic focus; etc.) must integrate an implementation science focus
• Particularly salient program features:– Early Engagement: Motivation; therapeutic relationship; retention &
dosage– Continuity, Coordination, & Comprehensiveness of Care: Structure;
evidence-based programming; consistency of staff, monitoring, communication (messaging); and coordination
• Limitations: Attrition; lack of control/comparison group
Thank you…Karl M. Cetina MPA, LICDC-CSPresident of the Ohio TASC AssociationDirector of Juvenile TASC for Cuyahoga CountyCatholic Charities, Diocese of Cleveland 3135 Euclid Avenue- Cleveland, Ohio 44115Phone: 216-391-2064 ext. 13kmcetina@clevelandcatholiccharities.org
Gina Mazzone LSW, MSW, LCDC IIICatholic Charities3135 Euclid AveCleveland, OH 44115gmazzone@clevelandcatholiccharities.org
53
David Hussey, PhD.Rodney Thomas, M.A.The Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research & EducationMandel School of Applied Social SciencesCase Western Reserve University11402 Bellflower RoadCleveland, Ohio 44106Ph: 216-368-3162David.Hussey@case.eduRodney.thomas@case.edu
top related