Study 1
Bergseth and McDonald (2007) used a quasi-experimental design study to examine effectiveness of the Clay County Reentry Services program in Minnesota. A total of 184 youths were included in the study: 92 Clay County youths who received reentry services and 92 youths from neighboring Becker County who received regular probation. Eligible youths were ages 11 to 19 and returning from an out-of-home placement of at least 3 weeks.
Of these youths, 72 percent were male. Fifty percent were white, 26 percent were Native American or Alaskan Native, 22 percent were Hispanic, and 2 percent were Black. Youths were, on average, 16.5 years old upon their return to the community; 14.1 percent were 14 and under, 42.9 percent were 15–16, and 42.9 percent were 17–18. A little more than half the youths (56 percent) were from urban areas, and the rest (46 percent) were from rural areas. The average risk/need score on the Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (LS/CMI) was 20.8, indicating moderate risk. Youths had an average of 5.1 prior charges, 5.1 prior contacts, and 4.4 prior criminal charges (i.e., a subset of official contacts excluding status, traffic, and alcohol- or tobacco-related offenses). About half had prior felonies (51.6 percent) or prior person-related charges (53.8 percent). Most recent placements included residential care (34.8 percent), detention/shelter care (31.5 percent), conduct disorder/mental health treatment (29.9 percent), and foster care (3.8 percent). Youths averaged three placements, with an average of 234.1 days in placement and 204.4 days in restrictive placement. Percentages of youths with histories of different types of problems were as follows: substance abuse (80 percent), school problems (79 percent), mental health problems (69 percent), and violence (63 percent). Of the aforementioned problems, 7.6 percent of youths had a history of zero or one problem area, 23.4 percent had a history of two problems, 37.5 percent had a history of three problems, and 31.5 percent had a history of all four problems.
There were several statistically significant differences between the treatment group and the comparison group youths. Significantly more youths in the treatment group were Black or Hispanic (23.9 percent), compared with the comparison group (5.4 percent), while significantly more comparison group youths were Native American (55.4 percent, compared with 14.7 percent of the treatment group). Youths in the treatment group youth were more likely to come from the urban area in their county (68.5 percent, compared with 43.5 percent for the comparison group). There also were statistically significant differences between the groups in prior juvenile justice history. Comparison group youths experienced a significantly greater number of prior contacts (an average of six contacts), compared with the treatment group (an average of four contacts), a greater number of charges (averages of 7.8 versus 4.8, respectively), and a greater number of criminal charges (averages of 5.4 versus 3.4, respectively). They also were more likely to have experienced a prior felony level charge (64.1 percent, compared with 39.1 percent of the treatment group). Finally, treatment group youths experienced a greater number of prior placements (averaging 3.4, versus 2.6), while comparison youths had spent more time in placements (an average of 271 days, versus 197 days) and had been on probation longer at the time of their release (an average of 22 months, versus 18 months). Regression analyses were used to test for program effects, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, hometown (i.e., rural or urban), and number of prior of charges. For prevalence of reoffense at the 12-month follow-up, analysis also controlled for time outside of restrictive placement.
Youths spent between 1 and 17 months in the program (the average length of participation was 7 months). Follow-up time varied based on timing of the individual interventions. Almost all youths (99 percent) were followed for a full 6 months after release from out-of-home placement; 87 percent were followed for a full year postrelease, 59 percent were followed for 2 full years postrelease, and 29 percent were followed for at least 3 years. This review focused on the 157 youths with 1 year’s postrelease follow-up data (n = 80 treatment group youths and n = 77 comparison group youths).
Prevalence of reoffense at the 12-month follow-up and number of official contacts within 1 year of release were measured using official records. The study did not conduct subgroup analyses.
