Pathway to Successful Reentry

A reentry guide for youthful offenders.

ABSTRACTA youthful offender under the right circumstances can be rehabilitated and saved from a life of crime with the support of family friends and the community.Kerry HayesAdvanced Seminar for Urban Policy.

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary.......................................................................3Description of Client......................................................................4Organization of Report..................................................................5Research & Methodology...............................................................6History and Background.................................................................7Research Findings.......................................................................12Central Policy Issue.....................................................................13Analysis of Reentry......................................................................17Risk Assessment Tool..................................................................18TYSC Model Tidewater, Virginia....................................................19The Roca Model...........................................................................26ROCA Model................................................................................26Michigan Youth Reentry Model.....................................................33Recommendation.........................................................................39Next Steps..................................................................................39Implementation...........................................................................40Appendix 1..................................................................................43Appendix 2..................................................................................44Bibliography................................................................................45

Executive Summary

The Children’s Village asked me, a graduate student from the Urban Policy Analysis and

Management program at The New School, to develop a policy recommendation on building a

successful youthful offenders reentry program. Additionally, they requested that I conduct

research on the correlation between juvenile delinquency and mental illness. This document is

a culmination of my work. The Children’s Village has a long and distinguished history of working

with children who are at-risk and their families, and offers a variety of programs. One such

program is Arches Transformative Mentoring, this program is designed to work with children

and young adults that have been involved with the criminal justice system. The Children’s

Village has two central goals when working with this population: to reduce the recidivism rate

and to help youthful offenders reenter society successfully. With these goals in mind I

conducted my research. I learned that there is a significant link between youthful offenders and

mental illness. While 20 to 25% of youth in the general population suffer from mental illness,

the numbers are much higher for youthful offenders. Studies have shown that 60 to 65 % of all

youthful offenders have been diagnosed with at least one mental illness. This alarming statistic

should be acknowledged by all policy makers that work with the criminal justice system.

Complicating the situation is the challenges youthful offenders face when trying to reenter

society. They face significant barriers such as: poverty, poor performing schools and

neighborhoods with high crime rates. Moreover, they are marked with a criminal record.

Youthful offenders trying to reenter society need assistance and support. I have identified 3

3

successful models that have worked well in assisting youthful offenders in reentering society.

These models have been evaluated based on their abilities to reduce recidivism and help

youthful offenders break past the barriers and reenter society successfully. I believe each of

these programs have adopted the ‘best practices’ needed to create a successful reentry

program. Each of these models use three central themes. First, the models are designed with

the understanding that the reentry process begins on the first day of incarceration. Second,

each model incorporates cognitive behavior therapy which is a necessary component of any

successful reentry program, finally, each model has participants attending program services no

less than 15 to 20 hours per week. I recommend that the Children’s Village adopt the model

that I have created. This model is a combination of the ‘best practices’ from each program. To

compliment my model I suggest that The Children’s Village review the website of the National

Reentry Resource Center https://csgjustice center .org/nrrc/ .

Description of ClientThe nonprofit organization, The Children's Village, has asked me, a graduate student from

the Urban Policy Analysis and Management program at The New School, to conduct research

on the correlation between youthful offenders and mental health disorders and to develop a

policy recommendation that provides strategies for designing a successful youthful offender

reentry program.

The Children's Village began caring for children in 1850, becoming New York's City's first

orphanage. Today, as in the past, with a staff of 900 dedicated employees, The Children's

Village continues its mission to serve children who are at-risk. In 2015 the Children’s Village

served 10, 165 children and their families. The Children's Village operates under three core

4

principles that are derived from their mission statement. First, all children need family

members and friends who can serve as mentors and role models while providing

encouragement and support to help them overcome obstacles they will face throughout their

lives. Second, all children should have access to high-quality education, with an opportunity to

learn marketable skills that will help them find steady employment and thrive. Finally, all

children need to learn how to conduct themselves in public and remain law abiding citizens

(The Children's Village n.d.). The Children's Village believes these principals will allow children

to enter adulthood with the life-skills needed for independent living. Moreover, these core

principles will help families stay together and remain fully functional. To help all children and

their families accomplish these goals, the Children’s Village offers several programs. Each of

these programs is structured to be family focused and child-centered. Many of the programs at

the Children's Village are designed to work with youthful offenders. One particular program,

Arches Transformative Mentoring, aims to work with children and young adults who are

involved in the criminal justice system. This policy paper will focus on Youthful offenders, which

is defined as a offender between the ages of 15 to 24. Please note that all statistical

information in this report refers to youth below the age of 19.

Organization of ReportThis report will begin with the history of youthful offenders, followed by an analysis of

the current environment surrounding youth crime. In the next section, I will discuss the central

policy issue. Is there a correlation between youth crime and mental illness? If so, are youthful

offenders receiving adequate care to address mental illness? Moreover, since most youthful

offenders will be released and return to their communities, how can policymakers develop a

5

successful youthful offender’s reentry program? What are the best practices of a successful

reentry program? I will examine data on this topic first exploring whether a correlation

between youth crime and mental illness exists. Additionally, I will review the literature and

examine models of different reentry programs. I will then present alternatives that rely on the

best practices of successful reentry programs. I will close this policy paper with a

recommendation for developing a successful evidence-based reentry program.

Research & Methodology I examined various youthful offenders’ reentry programs across the nation, each dealing

with the challenges of recidivism. By reviewing the different strategies employed by these

organizations, I gained a comprehensive understanding of the most effective methods for

building a successful youthful offender reentry program. My research has yielded examples of

promising templates, each of which has been proven to be a successful reentry program. The

programs I’m referring to were implemented in Tidewater Virginia, Boston, Massachusetts and

the state of Michigan. Each case illustrated in great detail the ‘best practices’ used to build their

program. The design structure of the models relies heavily on these ‘best practices’

Research methods for this project includes a comprehensive literature review of the correlation

between juvenile delinquents and mental health disorders.

Additionally, I have examined and taken inventory of existing data sources that can provide a

template which can be used by other organizations to design successful youthful offender

reentry programs.

6

History and BackgroundFor more than a century society has been challenged with the problem of juvenile

delinquency. In the late 18th century and early 19th century children, both boys and girls, who

were convicted of committing a crime were sent to prison to serve out their sentence with

hardened adult criminals. At the time prosecutors, who were able to prove that a crime had

been committed and that the child was old enough to understand the difference between right

and wrong, were successful in their efforts. Only children under the age of 8 were automatically

exempt from prosecution. A gray area was left for children over age seven, creating a situation

where children as young as 8-years old could be sent to prison. Moreover, children who

committed capital crimes were subject to a public execution (American Bar Association n.d.).

Beginning in the late 19th-century child advocates began to argue that all children should

be excluded from criminal prosecution and should have a separate legal system to address any

crimes they may commit. Advocates argued that if troubled children were given a second

chance, they could be rehabilitated and saved under the right circumstances from a life of

crime. This concept began to gain momentum and sway public opinion. As a result, the first

juvenile delinquency court opened in Cook county Illinois in 1899 (American Bar Association

n.d.). Shortly thereafter other states built juvenile delinquency courts and a juvenile justice

system was created. Whereas the criminal court system is structured to focus on punishment,

the new juvenile justice system was designed to focus on rehabilitation and sought to make

decisions that were in the ‘best interest of the child’. The courts were non-adversarial and

judges had plenty of discretion to make decisions that offered a second chance for children in

their courtroom.

7

Rehabilitation remained the key component of the juvenile justice system until the 1960’s. In

the 60’s, headlines highlighting the violent acts committed by juveniles caught the nation's

attention and the public began to challenge the juvenile justice concept of rehabilitation and

began to demand that violent offenders be treated like adults and have their cases transferred

to adult criminal court. One particular case involved Morris Kent a 16-year-old child who was

charged with rape and robbery. The juvenile justice judge, over the objections of Kent’s

lawyers immediately referred the case to criminal court. Before going to court, Kent had been

examined by two psychiatrists. Each determined that he suffered from a serve case of

psychopathology. The case found its way to the Supreme Court where Kent’s lawyers argued

that the juvenile justice judge had failed to grant Kent a hearing, and as a result, Kent's rights to

due process had been violated. The justices ruled in favor of Kent, stating that the ruling to

transfer the case to criminal court without a hearing in juvenile justice court, was certainly a

violation of Kent’s rights to due process (United States Supreme Court n.d.). The Kent case may

have been one of the first publicized juvenile justice cases linking youth crime to mental illness.

Over the next two decades, youth crime continued to increase and there were more high

profile cases involving felony assault, rape, and homicide. In response to these high profile

cases, the public again began to demand change. Despite the fact that the overwhelming

majority of juvenile justice cases were nonviolent, the perception was that juvenile justice

judges were being too soft on crime and that children who committed violent acts should face

an adult criminal court judge. In response to political pressure, politicians across the nation

began drafting legislation lowering the age requirements for children to face criminal court

judges. More significantly prosecutors were given the authority to decide if a juvenile

8

delinquency case should be transferred to adult criminal court. With this political pressure the

juvenile justice environment changed to focusing more on punishment than rehabilitation.

Juvenile justice judges began handing out lengthy sentences and more cases were simply

transferred to criminal court. This created a situation where states began incarcerating youth at

a high rate.

Examination of the Problem

Each year in the United States slightly over one million children are arrested. While most

are released immediately, about 5% remain in juvenile detention facilities throughout the

country (U.S. Department of Justice n.d.). Past research has shown that youthful offenders

particularly those 18 years or younger have a higher rate of mental illness than children from

the general population. Research indicates that approximately 20 to 25 percent of children

from the general population suffer from mental illness. In comparison, 65 to 70 percent of

youthful offenders have been diagnosed with at least one mental health disorder. When

determining the criteria needed to diagnose an adolescent with mental illness, clinicians and

psychotherapist use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM – IV.

“Successive versions of the DSM system have continuously sought to improve the application of

criteria to children and adolescents” (Grisso, Double Jeopardy 2004). They use this manual

along with a formal assessment of the child’s mental health history and family history to classify

the type of mental health disorder a patient may have and to determine the severity of the

disorder. For children involved in the juvenile justice system, the question then becomes does

mental illness have an impact on their day to day activities and if so can it be linked to youth

crime. Many mental health professionals will acknowledge that during normal development

9

children may display behavior that is symptomatic of a mental health disorder,

However, what becomes important is how does a child's behavior measure up against their

peer group. The concern begins when a child’s behavior deviates from other children in their

age range. When a child’s behavior is consistently outside the norm of his or her peers, a

mental health professional will make an assessment in order to classify the behavior and make

a determination if mental illness exists. The DSM lists a number of mental health disorders

including mental retardation, major depressive disorder, pervasive developmental disorders

and disruptive behavior disorders. These are disorders that are most prevalent among this

population. Please note the DSM – IV has other mental health disorders not listed here.

When looking at mental health through the lens of the juvenile justice system,

complicating the matter is the fact that out of the 65 to 70% of juvenile delinquents that suffer

from at least one mental health disorder, approximately 50% of this population have more than

one mental health disorder. Mental health professionals call this co-morbidity. Co-morbidity is

more likely in children and adolescents than adults (Grisso, Double Jeopardy 2004). As

previously mentioned, research has consistently proven that juvenile delinquents have a higher

rate of mental illness than children from the general population. Moreover, research has shown

that mental illness can be linked to physical aggression. Mental health professionals use

different assessment tools to help diagnose mental illness and how much that mental illness

interferes with the day to day functions of youthful offenders.

10

Mental Health Tool Target Population Specialty

The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS)

Youthful Offenders To detect Serious Emotional Disorder

Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers(POSIT)

Youthful Offenders Juvenile Detention Environment

These tools help clinicians determine if the patient is suffering from a mental illness along with

the clinicians’ assessment which is supported by a comprehensive interview of the patient. Each

of these tools guide clinicians helping them make an adequate assessment of the patients’

mental health. When looking for a link between mental illness and youth aggression there is

considerable evidence that they are related. Youth psychopathology has been linked to physical

aggression. According to Thomas Grisso “about two thirds of youth with psychotic disorders

have been found to have violent histories…” (Grisso, Double Jeopardy n.d.)First, there are

affective disorders such as Major Depression Disorder. Youth suffering from Major Depressive

Disorder (MDD) are more likely to display frustration, irritability and anger. This combination

often leads to physical aggression when they come in contact with their peers. Second, there

are anxiety disorders. Many youthful offenders come from low income areas where they are

exposed to violence and drugs at an early age. This type of exposure can sometimes lead to a

diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Research has consistently shown that PTSD

is another form of mental illness that has been linked to aggressive behavior. Finally, a youth

diagnosis of Disruptive Behavior Disorders significantly increases the chances of aggressive and

physically hostile behavior. This particular diagnosis is disturbing since Disruptive Behavior

11

Disorder often continues into adulthood. Mental illnesses can be linked to aggressive behavior

that can sometimes turn into hostility and physical aggression (Grisso, Double Jeopardy n.d.).

Research has shown that children and young adults who suffer from mental illness are

often affected in their day to day functioning. For example, mental illness often has an impact

on a youthful offenders’ ability to reason and or appreciate the gravity of what they are being

told by their caretaker or other adults in their life. By ignoring the advice of adults and

submitting to peer pressure, children and young adults often use improper judgment in

different situations. The absence of sound judgment often leads to poor decision-making which

often leads to trouble with law enforcement. Moreover, when they become involved with law

enforcement, understanding their constitutional rights is more difficult.

Research FindingsEach year approximately 200,000 youthful offenders leave secure facilities which include

federal, state prisons, local jails, and secure juvenile detention centers. These individuals return

to their communities and face tremendous obstacles such as poverty, poor performing schools’,

the threat of violence and drugs. They may or may not have family support (Mears 2004). In

order for these young people to have a second chance at life and become law abiding

productive citizens, they will need assistance and support. This assistance and support can

come in the form of a youthful offender reentry program. Reentry programs help facilitate a

successful reentry back into society. They offer a structured program that will provide the

assistance and support youthful offenders need. The reentry programs in this policy paper have

been examined and rely heavily on the ‘best practices’ in the country.

12

Central Policy Issue While 65% to 70 % of detained youthful offenders have been diagnosed with at least

one mental health disorder (Grisso 2004), most juvenile delinquency facilities fail to assess new

inmates for mental illness. (Erika K. Penner n.d.). As indicated by the graph below 25% of

juvenile detention centers have few mental health services or no mental health services.

This paper will examine the literature to determine if the absence of appropriate

mental health issues is a contributing factor to youth crime. There are several important

reasons why this should be a concern for society: 1) The U.S. Constitution requires that all

citizens receive equal protection under the law and that all legal proceedings follow the rules of

due process. 2) Society has an obligation both legally and morally to take care of its most

vulnerable citizens, our youth. 3) Failure to provide adequate mental health services to

youthful offenders increases the threat to the public. 4) There is a huge cost associated with the

13

incarceration of youth offenders. 5) Youthful offender arrests disproportionately impact

communities of color.

Due Process

Historically, U.S. law has consistently granted special protection for citizens diagnosed

with mental illness. There are two areas where the right to due process may be violated when a

youthful offender with mental health issues has contact with law enforcement. First, mental

illness may impact an individuals’ ability to appreciate the consequences of his or her Miranda

rights. Second, a youthful offender should have the capacity to assist in their own defense.

Deficits in each of these areas would place the youthful offender at an unfair disadvantage.

Moral Obligation:

When an individual is in custody, law enforcement officials should ensure that the

individual receives proper medical care including adequate mental health care. If it is

determined that an individual suffers from a mental illness, society has a moral and, some

would argue, a legal obligation to ensure that the individual receives adequate mental health

services as opposed to simple incarceration without treatment.

Public Safety:

The number one obligation of law enforcement and the court system is to reduce the

threat to public safety while respecting the rights of individuals involved in the juvenile justice

system. The juvenile justice system is designed for rehabilitation with the goal of changing the

behavior of those involved in the system. Once a case has been adjudicated, the risk of

recidivism should have been reduced. If a youthful offender is diagnosed with mental illness

14

and does not receive adequate mental health services, the likelihood of reoffending is

increased, which increases the risk to the public. Most youthful offenders who are incarcerated

will eventually be released back into society, many without the benefit of receiving the

appropriate mental health services they need. Neglecting to treat youthful offenders

appropriately during their first offense, increases the likelihood that they will re-offend and

continue to commit crimes into adulthood which is a threat to the general public

Cost:

The national average cost of incarcerating a juvenile delinquent is approximately

$148,000 a year. Moreover, a national study conducted by Columbia University and the City

University of New York concluded that lost future economic activity from all of the country’s

incarcerated youth can reach as high as $4.7 trillion dollars. (Justice Policy Institute 2014).

Race:

Finally, juvenile justice detention and youthful offender arrest has a disproportionate

impact on communities of color. Just 16% of American youth identify as being African

American, but close to 40% of juvenile arrests are African American, as are more than half the

population of youth in adult prison. The data is similar for Latinos, who have approximately 43%

of their cases transferred to adult criminal court. To add some perspective, youth who identify

as white are more likely to see their juvenile justice case transferred to an alternative

sentencing program. The graph below illustrates the racial disparities when comparing African

Americans and Latinos to whites.

15

Residential placement rate (number of juvenile

offenders in residential placement facilities) per

100,000 juveniles, by race/ethnicity and sex: 2013

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement (CJRP).

As mentioned earlier in this report, there are racial disparities related to juvenile arrest and

who will be prosecuted as an adult. These disparities have impacted the current generation and

threaten a new generation. In order to break the cycle of this racially bias treatment of youthful

offenders’ public officials and policy makers must ensure that all youthful offenders receive

adequate mental health services. The mental health services should begin shortly after the

16

individual is arrested. Moreover, the state should work with community-based organizations to

ensure that all youthful offenders are enrolled in a reentry program prior to their release.

Analysis of ReentryIn 2001 the Council of State Governments (CSG) met to discuss the high cost of

incarceration and recidivism. Most states were having difficulty balancing their budgets. During

this meeting, CSG adopted a resolution that established The National Reentry Council. The job

of the council was to develop recommendations that would lead to better outcomes for ex-

offenders. The goal was to develop policy that would help ex-offenders facilitate successful

reentry back into society where they were expected to become law abiding productive citizens.

This bipartisan effort lead to a set of recommendations designed to help ex-offenders meet the

challenges of poverty, unemployment, and drugs and have a successful reentry. CSG gathered

national representatives from the courts, parole, corrections, supportive housing, workforce

development and the Urban Institute. This group was separated into teams where they focused

on workforce development and employment, medical and mental health services and

supportive housing. Their work over the next four years lead to a comprehensive report on the

successful reentry of ex-offenders back into society. With approximately 60,000 juvenile

delinquents being released every day from local and state correctional facilities it is important

that all reentry programs commit to ‘best practices'. There are four principles that should be

included in any successful reentry program.

17

Risk Assessment Tool Supervision Service, and Resource-Allocation should be Based on the Result of Validated Risk

and Needs Assessment:

Reentry programs should use a validated risk assessment tool design to help identify the risk

factors for recidivism. Youth Assessment Screening Instrument (YASI) has been proven to be a

highly effective tool in helping identify whether a participant is low, moderate or at high risk for

recidivism. (See Appendix 1) All reentry programs should use this tool.

Adopt and Effectively Implement Programs and Services Demonstrated to Reduce Recidivism

and Improve Other Youth Outcomes, and use Data to Evaluate the Result and Direct System

Improvements.

Adequate risk assessment helps facilitate better outcomes by identifying youth who warrant

close supervision coupled with developing a comprehensive service-plan that relies on positive

impact intervention. Service plans should target the primary causes for the delinquent behavior

while incorporating any necessary treatment to address mental health and substance abuse

issues

Employ a Coordinated Approach Across Service Systems to Address Youth Needs.

The majority of youthful offenders have been diagnosed with at least one mental health

disorder. Moreover, a significant amount of this group also has substance abuse issues that

must be addressed. Finally, the overwhelming majority of juvenile delinquents (85%) are

functionally illiterate. Therefore, service-plans should incorporate a diverse group of service

providers and be culturally competent. There should be one agency that coordinates all the

18

service providers ensuring each that service providers have access to the participant’s

information.

Tailor System Polices, Programs and Supervision to Reflect the Distinct Developmental Needs

of Adolescents.

Empirical research has consistently proven that there are significant differences between the

biological and neurological systems of adults and adolescents. In a successful youth reentry

program, these differences must be acknowledged by developing age appropriate service-plans.

Moreover, youth reentry program’s service plans should be youth-centered and family focused.

The child or young adult should have as much support as possible. Additionally, they need to be

closely supervised and also held accountable for their behavior.

Using these four principals as a guide will help lay the foundation for a successful youth reentry

program. Several models of successful reentry programs are described below.

TYSC Model Tidewater, Virginia Tidewater Youth Services Commission (TYSC) a public non-profit was established in

1977. It was developed to provide services for juvenile delinquents and youthful offenders. The

Tidewater Youth Services Commission has created a successful reentry program for moderate

to high-risk youthful offenders. The program services 70 to 90 clients per year. The program’s

design is structured to incorporate evidence-based practices. The reentry program has a budget

of $615,000 a year. This covers all operating costs, salaries, staff development, and office

supplies (Lloyd 2016). The Commission has a Board of Directors that sets policy, oversees

operations of TYSC and is responsible for approving their budget. (Tidewater Youth Service

Commission 2014)

19

TYSC’s operating philosophy begins with the belief that all individuals have the capacity to

change and their program is structured to work with a diverse group of individuals. They also

realize that members of the staff are role models for their clients and therefore they must

maintain high ethical standards. Additionally, staff at TYSC understand the importance of using

evidence-based practices and learning from each experience. In order to obtain a valid risk

assessment, TYSC uses the Youth Assessment and Screening Instrument (YASI). This tool will

help identify individuals who are considered moderate to high risk for reoffending. This

program is not designed for those who are considered low risk for reoffending.

In the TYCS, a pre-release specialist begins working with clients and their families 90 days

before the clients’ release. The pre-release specialist creates a service-plan based on the client's

needs that helps facilitate client’s reentry. Their first step is to ensure that clients have all their

vital documents which includes a birth certificate, state identification card, and social security

card prior to their release. Additionally, the pre-release specialist connects clients to

community-based clinics that will provide medical care and mental health services once the

client returns to the community. The pre-release specialist also arranges for clients to return to

school or a vocational training immediately after their release. Finally, the pre-release specialist

works with clients’ families making sure they have all the services they need are in place. All of

this takes place before the clients’ release. TYSC staff maintains contact with the client while

they are incarcerated. The foundation of the TYSC program is Stages of Change and Aggressive

Replacement Training (ART). ART is a cognitive based treatment designed to help youthful

offenders learn how to control their behavior and maintain a self awareness that helps prevent

20

harmful behavior that can lead to another arrest. After they are released from state custody

each client is assigned a reentry case manager and with the assistance of trained clinical staff

they administer positive impact interventions such as Stages of Change and Aggressive

Replacement Training (ART). Case managers maintain a caseload of 4 to 7 cases.

Case managers spend several hours per week working with participants and the respective

family of each youth. They use motivational interviewing to help develop a rapport with their

clients. During the interviewing sessions case managers make an assessment of program

participants strengths and needs. Case managers also use Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) to

enhance their client’s awareness of their own behavior before they committed the offense,

during the offense, and also looking at how they felt after the offense and how they currently

feel. Additionally, the caseworker helps the program participants identify risk factors that can

lead them reoffending and being placed back in detention or jail. Each case manager

incorporates the program participant feedback into their particular service plan. The program

participants receive case plans that are based on the YASI while in detention.

All clients participate in ART with staff that have been trained to administer ART. ART is a 10

week, 30-hour Cognitive-Behavior Therapy program designed to work with youthful offenders

in groups of 8 to 12. The groups meet 3 times per week. The criteria for entrance into the

program requires that the youthful offenders are ranked moderately to high risk when

considering the possibility of reoffending. Moreover, participants in the program should have

problems controlling their anger and aggression and lack proper social skills (Office of Juvenile

21

Justice and Delinquency Prevention n.d.). ART is based on the belief that aggression is a learned

behavior through observation or through one’s own experience.

ART focuses on 3 realms that lead to aggression:

1. Weak interpersonal and social/cognitive skills;

2. Impulsiveness and reliance on aggressive means of having daily needs met;

3. Egocentric and underdeveloped moral reasoning.

ART is delivered in three phases:

Phase 1) Basic social skills are modeled, practiced and reinforced. During the program,

participants are taught to behave appropriately in different settings and under different

circumstances.

Phase 2) Through Anger Control Training, participants are taught to identify triggers that lead to

anger. Moreover, they are taught how to reduce anger and how to remind themselves how to

act appropriately.

Phase 3) Moral Reasoning Training presents a variety of moral dilemmas, and program

participants explore possible responses to the dilemmas. They are taught self-awareness so

they can be in contact with their own value system. They are also taught to use internal

reasoning and how to remind themselves of why it is important to display ethical and mature

behavior.

While in ART, participants are enrolled in a family therapy program which will help

facilitate the relationship between program participants and their families.

Another important component of the reentry program is the Academic Support and

Remediation Program. The overwhelming majority of juvenile delinquents are functionally-

22

illiterate. Estimates range as high as 85% (Webb 2014). Program participants attend ART, Family

therapy and an academic program that will help improve their basic reading and math skills.

During the program, participants are expected to maintain their schedule. Program participants

are reminded that they are accountable for their own behavior. The program is set up with

sanctions such as electronic monitoring or rewards depending on the participant’s behavior. At

TYSC, case managers are available to program participants 24 hours in case of an emergency.

Program participants are subject to random drug test. If a participant tests positive they are

referred to a drug rehabilitation program. It is important for all program participants to have

the support of family and appropriate friends while in the program.

The Academic Support and Remediation Component is formatted to help the client improve

basic reading and math skills. The program includes the following:

An assessment of reading ability;

Development of individual literacy goals;

Small structured group reading time;

Instructors use high interest /low difficulty material;

Instructors develop a reading theater which is used to encourage fluency and reading

with expression;

Incentives to encourage free-time reading;

Classroom software is used to promote literacy and math skills;

Ongoing program development and evaluation.

Outcomes after implementing this program are as follows:

increased interest in books and pleasure reading;

23

Increase in classroom participation;

More positive attitude towards reading;

Increased time spent reading;

Improved reading skills;

Improved overall academic performance;

More positive attitude towards school.

Reentry case managers are trained to teach or assist with the following:

Independent living skills;

How to develop positive leisure activities;

Exploring educational opportunities;

Securing vital documents such as social security cards, birth certificates, and state ID;

Determine available transportation options;

Encourage family communication.

24

Of the 141 youth who were discharged from the program, 60 percent successfully completed the program.

In addition to success in Virginia, a Washington State Institute for Public Policy study found that when delivered adequately the program is very successful. The study revealed that in 21 courts over an 18-month period after Aggressive Replacement Training (ART) was implemented and used, felony recidivism rates saw a statistically significant 24% reduction rate when compared to the controlled group. Moreover, the program proved to be cost effective by generating $11.66 cent for every $1 invested.

25

The Roca ModelYouthful offenders, like 15% of all youth in the United States, are often disconnected.

“Disconnected youth” are between the ages of 16 to 24 and are unemployed and not in school.

Youthful offenders trying to reenter society face many significant barriers such as

unemployment, low academic achievement, poverty, and drugs. In order to have a successful

reentry, youthful offenders often need the assistance of a reentry program. Roca is a program

designed for high-risk youthful offenders who are trying to reenter successfully back into

society.

ROCA ModelRoca began in 1988 as an anti-violence pregnancy prevention program in Massachusetts. Five

years later Roca leadership and staff began to identify young people other than young women

who would benefit from the program. Youthful offenders returning back to their community

became one of the targeted groups. In 2005 Roca, with the assistance of David E.K. Hunter PhD,

community leaders and local politicians, enhanced its model to include all at-risk youth.

Organizational Philosophy

Roca programs are designed to help youth improve their decision-making and avoid the

harmful behavior. Moreover, participants acquire a skill-set that allows them to be

economically independent. The core principal for the program is that change is possible for all

youth.

26

Roca’s Foundation rest on the 3 T’s:

Trust

Youth workers assist their clients by developing a long-term relationship with the

participant, the participant's family and friends.

Truth

Youth workers are always truthful, which helps facilitate a trusting relationship.

Transformation

Trust coupled with truth provides confidence for youth to participate in organizational

programming that will help them develop skills that will lead to consistent employment

and economic independence.

The Roca model is called the Theory of Change.

The Theory of Change

The theory of change is a two-part model that helps nonprofits in programmatic and

organizational change. The programmatic component includes continuous outreach, a defined

purpose for change and creates a space for skill building opportunities for participants.

This High-Risk Model is a five-year program with the first 3 years requiring intense work with

youth and the last two years helping youth stay on track. The program is designed to work with

youth between the ages of 14 and 24. It is structured to help youthful offenders looking to

reenter and integrate successfully in society.

27

The model is separated into 3 parts:

Transformational Relationships;

Programming; Learning a Skill-set;

Engaged Institutions.

Transformational Relationships Phase 1

This part of the model is designed to help change the behavior of program participants helping

them avoid the harmful behavior. Over a 12-month period, the youth workers build a trusting

relationship with their participants. This is accomplished by the youth worker having contact

with the participants two to three times per week. The meetings are face to face and

sometimes over the telephone. The Transformational Relationship period provides space for

28

the youth to participate in the programming part of the mode which is designed to help

increase their overall interest in working with the model The participant is involved in a

academic program and or a vocational training program.

Transformational Relationship Phase 2:

Over the next 24 months, youth workers maintain the same level of contact 2 to 3 times per

week. During this period the youth worker uses the earned trust as social capital to help the

participant avoid harmful behavior and assist them in removing barriers that are preventing

them from achieving economic independence. During this period the youth worker, their

supervisor and participant create a service-plan. The service plan includes goals established and

agreed upon by the participant youth worker and the supervisor.

Goals for this period are:

Decreased substance use; I

Increasing educational engagement;

Decreasing unhealthy relationships;

Pregnancy prevention;

Increasing court compliance;

Decreasing gang involvement;

Decreasing anti-social and aggressive behavior;

Increasing access to immigrant and refugee services.

The overall goal here is for the participant to demonstrate significant behavior changes as

agreed in the service-plan. The participant is expected to be either in school or employed

during this phase.

29

Transformational Relationship Phase 3:

When the goals established in the service plan in phase 2 are complete the participant then

graduates to phase 3. This is the final phase of the Transformational Relationship period. The

youth worker has less contact and offers less support to the participant as they work their way

to economic independence.

Stage-Based Programming:

This is part two of the working model. This part takes place during the Transformational

Relationship period. In this phase, participants are offered programs in three areas.

1. Life-Skills: Participants are enrolled in courses that address emotional literacy, substance

abuse and participate in physical engagements such as field trips.

2. Education: Participants are enrolled in school or are working towards earning their GED.

Participants may also be enrolled in pre-vocational classes or ESL classes.

3. Employment: Participants are enrolled in resume writing, interviewing practice and job

readiness classes.

Engaged Institutions:

In this part of the model, Roca staff develops relationships with other community-based

organizations, local schools, colleges, offices of probation and parole. They also work with the

local courts. This part of the model is used to ensure that the previously listed organizations are

providing participants with adequate services. This period also creates space for evaluation of

the program to see if the program is achieving the desired goals. The evaluation should include

both qualitative and quantitative information.

30

Cost:

The cost of the program is approximate $5000 a year per participant.

There are 3 levels of partnership required for this model.

Individual Community Partnership: Roca staff has a partnership with those organizations

that are directly involved in the lives of participants. Examples include Caseworkers,

Teachers, Police Officers, Probation and Parole Officers.

Organizational Community Partnership: Roca staff partners with organizations that have

a common interest in investing in youth and sharing resources.

Institutional Advocate: Roca staff advocates for policy and practice changes that will

have support and have a positive impact on participants.

Primary Partners During the reentry period:

Courts/Law Enforcement: Probation, Parole and Corrections

State and City Agencies, Health Partners: Local Youth Clinics and Hospitals.

School: Local High Schools and Colleges.

Roca is designed to help facilitate a change in the behavior of all program participants. The

model also helps enhance operational capabilities in order to have better outcomes for

program participants.

31

In fiscal year 2016 ROCA had 711 participants in their program of this amount

79% or 511 had no new arrest in fiscal year 2016.

ROCA Particip

ants in Fisc

al Year 2

016

No New Arre

st in Fisc

al Year 2

016

Chart Title

32

This page was left intentionally blank

33

Michigan Youth Reentry ModelThis reentry model has three primary goals.

Promote Public Safety

Foster Positive Transition to Adulthood

Stop the Pipeline to Prison

Public Safety: The reentry program is designed to promote public safety by reducing the

amount of youthful offenders that reoffend and creating space for the participant

34

to learn new marketable skills that will help them find sustainable employment.

Foster Positive Transition to Adulthood: The reentry program also helps youthful offenders

move into adulthood after being given a second chance. The program teaches youth how to

make decisions that will not harm anyone or themselves and how to be independent of public

welfare systems.

Stop Pipeline to Prison: States can no longer simply incarcerate youth. This is an unsustainable

position. They must learn how to cut costs by helping youthful offenders reenter society

successfully.

Michigan Reentry program’s foundation rests upon two core principles: Collaborative Case

Management and Evidence Based Principles of Risk Need and Responsivity.

In this model using Collaborative Case Management, the case manager develops a service-plan

designed to incorporate many service providers, each with one goal to help youth successfully

reenter society. The case management process begins on the first day of incarceration and

continues through transition and through the reintegration period. In this model reoffending is

a predictable behavior.

There are four major risk factors that help measure the possibility of a participate

reoffending:

History of anti-social behavior;

Anti-social cognition;

Anti-Social attitudes;

Impulsive behavior.

35

Associated with the major risk factors are four minor risk factors that often accompanying

criminal behavior.

Substance Abuse,

Poor family relationships,

Disconnected from school and work,

Lack of positive recreational activities.

Needs principle:

In order to reduce the likelihood of a participant’s chances of reoffending, positive

interventions focus on the participants needs.

Responsivity principle:

Using these principal case managers’ design a service plan that adapts to the participates

individual learning style and abilities. The case manager takes into consideration any relevant

medical and or mental health trauma experienced by the participate while growing up. This

comprehensive positive intervention model is separated into three different phases.

Phase 1 Getting Ready

Assessment and classification

Behavior and programming

Phase 2 Going Home

Transition Preparation

Release decision – making

Phase 3 Staying Home

Supervision and services

36

Graduated Sanctions

Aftercare & discharge

A risk assessment tool is used to help identify what services are needed for each participant.

Participants are screened for any medical and mental health needs. Additionally, participants

are also screened for any substance abuse issues. Case managers then make an assessment of

the education level of each participant and note any developmental delay. Finally, a complete

family history is recorded including any exposure to violence and or trauma.

In an effort to promote public safety, each participant is provided with a comprehensive

service-plan that incorporates all service providers. Each service-plan is culturally competent.

All service providers have access to the service plan in order for everyone to stay updated and

focused on the same goal which is successful youth reentry.

In this model, case managers ensure that all participants receive proper medical and mental

health care services while in custody. Moreover, all service-plans include a transition plan that

connects all participants with community-based medical and mental health service providers

prior to their release.

Participants have service-plans that address the four major risk factors listed above.

All participants have access to adequate substance abuse rehabilitation programs as needed. All

participants are enrolled in an academic and job training program that helps improve their basic

skills and provides them with marketable skills that will help them obtain sustainable

employment. Finally, all participants have mentors that help support them and provide ongoing

encouragement.

37

Phase 2 Going Home

In this phase, case, managers, with participation from of their respective clients, develop a

service plan. The service plans address all issues surrounding mental health, medical needs,

housing, education and employment. A service transition team with the cooperation of

community-based agencies helps formulate a housing plan for participants prior to their

release. Case managers ensure the housing is secure, safe, appropriate. Prior to release, all

participants are connected to community-based medical and mental health providers to

prevent any gaps in their treatment.

Participants are briefed on their medical and mental health needs prior to their release. They

are given copies of documents relating to their medical and mental health history and future

needs.

All participants prior to their release receive medication as needed to ensure participants

maintain their medication schedule prior to their first appointment with community-based

providers. Prior to participant’s release, case managers work with their families to address any

service needs families have. Case managers address families emotional and financial needs.

All participants are enrolled in community-based schools and or job training programs prior to

their release. Case managers create a workforce development plan to help participants secure

and maintain employment. Case managers help participants prior to their release secure vital

documents such as birth certificates, state identification cards, and social security cards.

Case managers work with juvenile justice judges to explain that their respective clients have

been preparing to return to their communities and community-based agencies are prepared for

participants return.

38

Phase 3 Staying Home

This phase begins once participants are released from state custody. Case managers work with

court personnel to help maintain all conditions of release. Case managers also reaffirm that the

service plans that have been developed match up with available community-based services.

Case managers also ensure that participants have access to cognitive behavior interventions at

the community level. Sanctions are imposed for any violations or misbehavior

CriteriaI have examined reentry programs across the United States and I have also looked at

international models. Each of the models observed focuses on meeting the challenge of high

recidivism rates for youthful offenders. By conducting a comprehensive review of each of these

programs, I gained an understanding of the most effective models.

My research has yielded a few promising strategies for building a successful youthful offender

reentry model. The models I looked at allowed me to see in great detail what are the ‘best

practices’ associated with building a successful reentry model. The design structure for the

program model I present have been built on the foundation of ‘best practices’.

Minimizing the recidivism rate for youthful offenders is a principal goal of the Children's Village.

Minimizing the recidivism rate helps provide space for The Children's Village to work with

youthful offenders and help them reenter society.

39

RecommendationThe challenges facing previously incarcerated youth trying to successfully reenter

society often seem insurmountable. Youthful offenders face poverty, poor quality education,

and the temptation of drugs and crime. The Children’s Village has a long history of helping at-

risk children and their families remove seemingly insurmountable barriers while helping

children transition into adulthood to lead productive lives. To help the Children’s Village

continue their work with youthful offenders I recommend that they adopt the reentry model

presented here. This recommendation relies heavily on the ‘best practices’ of each successful

youth reentry model documented in this paper. The models are from the states of

Massachusetts, Michigan and Virginia. This recommendation is in line with the mission of The

Children's Village. This model was developed by distilling the ‘best practices' from each of the

alternatives.

Next StepsThe Children’s Village should develop relationships with local courts including New

York’s Criminal and Family Courts. Additionally, they should develop a relationship with officials

on Rikers Island that allows them access to potential reentry program participants. Moreover,

correction officials can help identify potential program participants. Additionally, the Children’s

Village should enhance any relationship they currently have with Department of Probation and

Parole. Each of these relationships should be supported with a recently issued Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU).

40

In order to be successful, any efforts for facilitating youth reentry must begin shortly after

incarceration. The goal of this reentry model should be to promote public safety, help youth

successfully transition to adulthood and stop the school to prison pipeline.

For this model, case managers need to be trained in Collaborative Case Management,

Motivational Interviewing, using Evidence-Based Principles and Aggressive Replacement

Therapy (ART). All youth should be screened. Youth should be identified as moderate to high

risk in relation to the possibility of reoffending. Using ART, staff should work with groups of 8 to

12. Program participants should be between the ages of 16 and 24.The program should have a

Outreach worker who is responsible for contacting and developing a working relationship with

community-based clinics both for medical and mental health, vocational training schools, GED

programs and other community-based organizations.

Implementation Phase 1 Pre-release Phase

1. The groups should consist of 8 to 12 members. All participates should be contacted

shortly after they have been incarcerated and should be screened with the Youth

Screening Assessment Instrument (YSAI) a risk assessment tool to help identify their risk

level. This model is for moderate to high risk offenders. Low-risk offenders should be

excluded from this model.

2. Pre-release Specialists should each have 4 to 7cases. Pre-release specialists should be

assigned to their cases 90 days prior to the release of the participant. They should be

responsible for helping participants secure vital documents such as birth certificates,

state identification cards and social security cards. They should also arrange for

41

continuation of medical and mental health services with a community-based clinic,

school or vocational training, as well as, contact the participants’ families to arrange

Family Therapy and any other needed services.

3. Each client should be assigned to a mentor. The mentor should be there for

encouragement and support.

Phase Two Transitional Stage

1. Upon release, all participants should be assigned to a case manager. Case managers

should have a case load of 4 to 7 cases. Case managers, with the assistance of their

supervisor and input from their respective participant, should develop a culturally

competent service-plan. The service plan should include participation in:

ART 3 hours per week for 10 weeks;

Pre GED, GED program or vocational program 15 to 20 hours per week;

Substance abuse component as needed;

Family Therapy once a week.

Life Skills course in, emotional literacy and conflict resolution;

Phase 3 Independence Phase

Resume Building and Interviewing;

Maintaining Employment;

Financial Literacy

42

Taken together, this combination of the ‘best practices’ from each model can be used as

a outline to create a successful youthful offender reentry program.

43

Appendix 1Youth Assessment Screening Tool YASI

YASI has been validated as an effective tool for measuring the risk factor for recidivism. This

tool has been validated through random sampling in New York and Illinois of over 300,000

juvenile delinquents. This tool is commercially available through Orbis Partnership Inc. Orbis

Partners Inc. – Youth Assessment (YASI)

The YASI has two components: pre screening and full screening. It will take approximately 20 to

40 minutes to conduct a pre screening and 30 to 60 minutes to conduct a full screening. Please

note that scoring systems are available by gender.

44

Appendix 2Program FundingThe Children’s Village may find funding for a reentry program through the Second Chance Act

(SCA) according to the website “The Second Chance Act (SCA) supports state, local, and tribal

governments and nonprofit organizations in their work to reduce recidivism and improve

outcomes for people returning from state and federal prisons, local jails, and juvenile facilities.

Passed with bipartisan support and signed into law on April 9, 2008, SCA legislation authorizes

federal grants for vital programs and systems reform aimed at improving the reentry process.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) funds and administers the

Second Chance Act grants. Within OJP, the Bureau of Justice Assistance awards SCA grants

serving adults, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention awards grants

serving youth. Since 2009, more than 700 awards have been made to grantees across 49 states.

Who is eligible to apply for grants? Depending on the specific Second Chance Act grant

program, state and local government agencies, federally recognized Indian tribes, and nonprofit

organizations may be eligible to apply. Please review the pages on each grant program to

determine eligibility.

When can I apply for grants? Solicitations for Second Chance Act applications are typically

released throughout the first half of each calendar year. Please subscribe to updates from the

National Reentry Resource Center to hear about these solicitations and other funding

opportunities.

Is it allowable to assist persons reentering the community from federal prisons under a

Second Chance Act program? Yes. Grantees receiving Second Chance Act funds may use those

45

funds to provide assistance to individuals returning to the community following incarceration,

including incarceration in a federal prison.

Is it allowable to assist exonerees under a Second Chance Act program? Yes. Grantees

receiving Second Chance Act funds may use those funds to provide assistance to exonerees,

along with other individuals returning to the community following incarceration” (The U.S.

Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs n.d.)

https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/projects/second-chance-act/

BibliographyAmerican Bar Association. n.d. The History of Juvenile Justice . Accessed November 11, 2016.

www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/.../DYJpart1.authcheckdam.pdf.—. n.d. The History of Juvenile Justice. Accessed November 11, 2016.

www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/.../DYJpart1.authcheckdam.pdf.Erika K. Penner, Ronald Roesch, Jodi L. Viljoen. n.d. Young Offenders in Custody: An

International Comparison of Mental Health Services. Accessed September 17th, 2016. njdc.info/.../Young Offenders_in _custody.

Grisso, Thomas. n.d. Double Jeopardy. Edited by Franklin E. Zimring. Chicago, Illinois.—. n.d. Double Jeopardy Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders. Edited by Franklin E.

Zimring. Chicago, illnois : University of Chicago Press.

46

—. 2004. Double Jeopardy Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders. Edited by Franklin E. Zimring. Chicago, illnois.

—. n.d. Double Jeopardy Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders. Edited by Franklin E. Zimring. Chicago, Illnois.

Grisso, Thomas. 2004. Double Jeopardy Adolescents Offenders with Mental Disorders. Vol. Adolescent Development and Legal Policy, in Double Jeopardy, by Thomas Grisso, edited by Franklin E. Zimring, 7,8. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago.

—. 2004. Double Jeopardy Adolescents Offenders with Mental Disorders. Edited by Franklin E. Zimring. Chicago, Illinois.

Justice Policy Institute . 2014. Call for the Full Price Tag for Youth Incarceration. December. Accessed September 17th, 2016. www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/.../sticker_shock_final.

Lloyd, Joseph C., interview by Kerry Hayes. 2016. Director Re-Entry Brooklyn, NY, (October 13th).

Mears, P. Daniels, Travis Jeremy. 2004. The Demensions, Pathways and Consequences of Youth Reentry. January 31. Accessed October 11, 2016. jjie.org/hub/reentry/resources.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. n.d. A Strategic Planning Tool. Accessed October 11, 2016. http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/spt/program.

The Children's Village. n.d. "Mission." The Children's Village. Accessed September 14th, 2016. childrensvillage.org.

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. n.d. Second Chance Act. Accessed November 9th, 2016. https://csgjusticecenter.org/nrrc/projects/second-chance-act.

Tidewater Youth Service Commission. 2014. Tidewater Youth Service Commission. Accessed October 31, 2016. www.tidewateryouthservicecommission.org.

—. 2014. Tidewater Youth Service Commssion. Accessed October 31, 2016. www.tidewateryouthservicecommssion.org.

Tidewater Youth Services Commission . 2014. TYSC Treatment Components . April 21. Accessed October 11, 2016.

U.S. Department of Justice . n.d. Statistical Briefing Book. Accessed September 17th, 2016. www.ojjdp.gov/ojstabb/.../faq...

United States Supreme Court. n.d. Justia Supreme Court. Accessed November 11, 2016. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/541/casehtml.

Webb, Andre J. 2014. Reading Aloud to Children and Its Impact on Literacy and Crime. April 28th. Accessed November 11th, 2016. apps.americanbar.org/.../2014-0414-reading-aloud-children-impact-literacycri.

47