Program Profile: Targeted RECLAIM (Ohio)

This is a diversion program intended to reduce juvenile recidivism by treating youths in the community in place of incarceration. This program is rated as Promising. Youths in the treatment group were statistically significantly less likely to be incarcerated during the 1-year follow-up, compared with youths in the control group.

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

Program Goals/Target Population

Targeted RECLAIM (Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to the Incarceration of Minors) is a diversion program developed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services to treat delinquent youths with correctional interventions in their communities rather than in juvenile facilities. Targeted RECLAIM targets juveniles of any risk level of reoffending (low-, medium-, or high-risk). The goal of the program is to reduce the overall number of juvenile commitments.

Services Provided

Targeted RECLAIM offers different types of services depending on the specific needs of the juvenile. These services can be grouped into three general types:

1. Residential programs: Residential programs are designed to target higher-risk youth compared with other treatment options and generally offer more-intensive services in terms of dosage and number of services offered. Some of the treatment options in residential programs are orientation classes, education services, mental health services, vocation and job readiness services, substance misuse treatment, recreation services, and cognitive–behavioral structured treatment.
2. Community-based cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT) programs: Targeted RECLAIM offers two CBT programs for juveniles: Thinking for a Change (T4C) and Aggression Replacement Training (ART). T4C is a problem-solving program that consists of cognitive restructuring and social skills interventions. It consists of 25 lessons and aims to target and change pro-criminal attitudes and antisocial thinking. ART teaches participants new thoughts, attitudes, and skills necessary to prevent aggressive behavior. The curriculum consists of three components: skills streaming, anger control training, and moral reasoning training. The program also offers one CBT program for community supervision officers: Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS). EPICS intends to restructure community supervision officers’ face-to-face interactions with the people in question. The goal of EPICS is to teach these officers to better adhere to the principles of effective correction intervention by encouraging them to increase the intervention dosage of treatment to higher-risk persons, to focus on criminogenic needs, and to use a cognitive–behavioral approach in their interactions with young people convicted of an offense.
3. Community-based family interventions: The program offers two family interventions: Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and high-fidelity wraparound. MST teaches parents skills needed to deal with adolescent behavioral problems and to reduce conflict within the family. It is designed for high-risk individuals and encourages the support of many community agents, including peers and school staff, to maintain the benefits of the treatment. High-fidelity wraparound is a strength-based approach that coordinates services across various agencies to serve juveniles in their natural environment.

Study 1

Labrecque, Schweitzer, and Mattick (2018) conducted a quasi-experimental study to determine whether Targeted RECLAIM had an effect on juvenile recidivism. Participants were considered eligible if they were between the ages of 12 and 21 and were brought before the juvenile justice system in Ohio. The treatment group (n = 730) were youths who participated in a Targeted RECLAIM service during 2012. The control group (n = 698) were youths who were released from Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) custody in the same period and did not participate in any Targeted RECLAIM services. The control group was matched to the treatment group in gender, race, age, and risk level of reoffending.

Most the sample (87.3 percent of the treatment group and 92.4 percent of the control group) were male. Of the treatment group, 32.1 percent were white, compared with 36.9 percent of the control group. For the remaining 67.9 percent of the treatment group and 63.1 percent of the control group, race/ethnicity information was not provided. Both groups consisted of youths who were at low-, moderate-, and high-risk level of reoffending. In the treatment group, 26.6 percent were at low risk, 44.1 percent were at moderate risk, and 29.3 percent were at high risk to reoffend. In the control group, 45.1 percent were at low risk, 33.3 percent were at moderate risk, and 21.5 percent were at high risk. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups on baseline characteristics. In the treatment group, participants could be assigned to three different types of services: residential treatment, cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), and family interventions. Participants in residential treatment were 13.7 percent low risk, 44.3 percent moderate risk, and 42.0 percent high risk. Participants in CBT were 23.3 percent low risk, 49.0 percent moderate risk, and 27.7 percent high risk. Participants in family interventions were 49.0 percent low risk, 39.0 percent moderate risk, and 11.9 percent high risk.

The outcome of interest in this study was recidivism, defined as any incarceration to either the DYS or Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction within 1 year of completing or being terminated from a Targeted RECLAIM service (in the treatment group) or within one year of being released for DYS custody (in the control group). This was measured using state data. The recidivism rates of the treatment and matched control groups were examined to determine whether participating in Targeted RECLAIM influences the likelihood of recidivism. The study conducted subgroup analyses to determine whether the risk level of juveniles affected the effectiveness of the intervention.

Targeted RECLAIM was developed by the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) to divert youth from juvenile facilities in 1992. Following the discovery that six counties, which constituted 63 percent of DYS’s total commitment, were receiving only 26 percent of the RECLAIM funding in 2009, Targeted RECLAIM was instituted to establish more economic resources to larger counties that served a greater portion of the population. In Targeted RECLAIM, participating counties submit yearly proposals for funding to DYS and advocate for specific programs and services they believe are needed most in their jurisdiction. In addition, counties that accept RECLAIM funding are also required to participate in quarterly work group meetings to discuss progress and address barriers to program implementation. The University of Cincinnati and Case Western Reserve University provide support to program providers to ensure quality assurance, such as coaching sessions, skill competency booster sessions, observation and feedback regarding services, and regular implementation meetings (Labrecque, Schweitzer and Mattick 2018).

Subgroup Analysis

Labrecque, Schweitzer and Mattick (2018) conducted subgroup analyses to determine whether the Targeted RECLAIM intervention had an impact on juveniles’ risk level of reoffending. Of the 388 low-risk youths (in both the treatment and control groups), 9.3 percent of the control group were incarcerated during the 1-year follow-up period compared with 5.2 percent of the treatment group; this difference was not statistically significant. Of the 644 moderate-risk youths, 14.6 percent of the control group were incarcerated during the 1-year follow-up period compared with 7.5 percent of the treatment group; this difference was statistically significant. Of the 228 high-risk youths, 19.2 percent of the control group were incarcerated during the 1-year follow-up period compared with 13.1 percent of treatment group; this difference was not statistically significant. Overall, this shows there were 4.1 percent fewer incarcerations for low-risk Targeted RELCAIM youth compared with low-risk control group youth, 7.1 percent fewer at moderate risk, and 6.1 percent fewer at high risk.

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

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