Program Profile: Spotlight Serious Offender Services Unit (Canada)

This was an urban-based intensive supervision program in which high-risk, gang-affiliated youths (ages 12–19) were assigned to work with a probation officer who was paired with a paid “street mentor.” The program is rated Promising. Youths in the program were significantly less likely than those in the comparison group to have a new conviction in the follow-up period of up to 3 years and remained offense-free for a longer period.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

The goals of the Spotlight Serious Offender Services program were to reduce recidivism among high-risk, gang-affiliated youth in Canada through a combination of the development of a relationship with a trained “street mentor,” intensive probation supervision, and referral to other services.

Target Population/Eligibility

The program served male youths ages 12–19 referred by probation officers and who were under a court order, rated high or very high on a risk assessment, and had been changed or convicted of crimes against persons, weapons, or drug offenses within the prior 12 months. Referred youths were determined to have gang membership based on provincial Justice Department criteria.

Program Activities

The Spotlight Serious Offender Services program focused on the provision of support-based services, in which each referred youth is supported by a street mentor and a probation officer (to provide probation counseling). The mentor developed a relationship with the youth, provided client-specific interventions, and referred the youth to additional services—including family rehabilitation support—as needed. The team monitored for probation violations, with the street mentors having some latitude regarding reporting of minor violations (e.g., minor curfew violations). Mentors worked to connect Indigenous youth with Aboriginal social service agencies and other services.

Key Personnel

Street mentors were paid community corrections employees with training in cognitive–behavioral assessment and intervention techniques. Mentors had university degrees or postsecondary training and typically were recruited from racialized groups (e.g., Indigenous, African Canadian). The mentors worked in pairs with probation officers to manage caseloads. The program also consisted of an area director and a contract therapist representing the Indigenous community.

Program Theory

The program reflects a theoretical model of probation supervision that suggests that probation officers are most effective in working with youths at risk of reoffending when they balance their surveillance responsibilities with a supportive therapeutic role (Klockars 1972). In addition, the program draws on research in the positive youth development literature indicating that relationships between youths who offend and corrections system staff can be improved through positive role modeling and supportive (mentoring) interactions (Marsh and Evans 2009).

Study

Weinrath and colleagues (2016) conducted a quasi-experimental designed study, to compare youth in the Spotlight Serious Offender Services program in the Canadian city of Winnipeg, Manitoba, with a comparison group of youth selected, using propensity score matching (PSM). The original samples consisted of 109 youths receiving program services and an initial comparison group of 217 youths. Youths were selected based on custodial release in 2006 and 2007. Reinvolvement in the criminal justice system was compiled up to a cut-off date of July 31, 2009. For the PSM comparison, there were 57 youths in the Spotlight (intervention) group and 85 youths in the comparison group. Comparison group youths were also high-risk gang-affiliated youths but did not receive Spotlight services for a variety of reasons (e.g., participation in another form of treatment, not referred by the probation officer, or were released from custody without a follow-up supervision requirement).

All participants were males ages 12 to 19. At admission, Spotlight intervention group participants had a mean age of 15.5, and comparison group participants a mean age of 15.3. In both the intervention and comparison groups, the great majority of participants were Indigenous (86.0 percent and 85.9 percent, respectively); the other 14 percent of participants were categorized as “other.” Treatment and comparison groups did not statistically significantly differ at baseline on their score on the Primary Risk Assessment (a version of the Youth Level of Service Inventory) or on any other baseline characteristics.

The outcome of interest was recidivism. The primary outcome was legal reinvolvement through court convictions. Crime severity also was assessed using the Manitoba three-category severity scale: high (e.g., homicide, aggravated assault), medium (e.g., assault, break and enter), and low (e.g., drug possession, theft). A fourth separate category was added that reflected breach of probation. Time to failure was coded as the length of time after release/assignment to the program before a new offense was charged.

Program effects on new convictions were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Survival analysis was used to evaluate potential effects on length of time that reoffending was avoided. No subgroup analysis was conducted. A subset of youths in the intervention were interviewed, with responses indicating most youths felt they had a positive relationship with their mentor. Informal observations of street mentors indicated that the mentors had positive interactions with youth.

Street mentors were paid community corrections employees, with university degrees or other postsecondary training. Mentors were recruited to represent ethnic and racial minority groups (e.g., African Canadian, Indigenous) to better reflect the population of referred youth in the geographic area. Four (male) street mentors were paired with four (female) probation officers to balance gender; the mentors and probation officers work as a team to manage caseloads. The mentor–probation officer pairs were supported by an area director, an intensive support and supervision worker, administrative support staff, and one part-time contracted family therapist. Mentor–probation officer teams carry a caseload of 15 youths each (Weinrath, Donatelli, and Murchison 2016).

A subset of youths receiving the Spotlight Serious Offender Services intervention were approached to complete a survey about their perceptions of their mentor; all of these youths (n = 21) agreed to be interviewed. Youths rated their street mentors on attributes of reliability, listening, empathy, and problem-solving on a five-point scale, with higher ratings indicating a more favorable perception. Average ratings ranged from 3.95 to 4.58, indicating favorable youth perceptions of their mentors. Open-ended comments indicated that most youths felt they had a positive relationship with their mentors.

Informal observations of street mentor behavior were conducted on at least 60 occasions by male research staff, along with 10 formal staff observations. Street mentors were observed exhibiting positive role modeling, providing constructive reinforcement for positive youth behavior, and responding fairly consistently to inappropriate behavior on the part of youth. Street mentors had positive and friendly interactions with youths and engaged in direction-setting, coaching, and advocacy on behalf of assigned mentees (Weinrath, Donatelli, and Murchison 2016).

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Mentoring for Youth Development

This practice provides youth with a positive and consistent adult or older youth relationship to promote healthy youth development and social functioning and to reduce risk factors. The practice is rated Effective in reducing delinquency and improving educational outcomes; Promising in improving psychological outcomes and cognitive functioning; and No Effects in reducing substance use.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Education - Multiple education outcomes
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Cognitive functioning
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Social functioning
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?