Program/Study Characteristics
(IAP Model) |
Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare |
Maryland Aftercare Program |
Skillman Intensive Aftercare Project |
Michigan Nokomis Challenge Program |
| PROGRAM DESIGN |
| Institutional Phase
|
| Prerelease
planning
|
Community sources
offer input via
probation officers.
Preparation of
postrelease plan.
|
Family therapist
assesses, diagnoses,
develops family
contract, and begins
weekly family
group sessions.
(Highly uneven
implementation.)
|
Aftercare caseworker
commences contacts
with youth and family
3 months prior to
release.
|
Planning for
community reentry
is initiated 30 days
after placement in
residential phase.
|
| Involvement of
outside agencies
and individuals
in institution
|
Probation officers
meet with
institutional staff
and juveniles.
|
Family visits facility
at least once; therapist
involves youth in
family assessment
session. (Less than
half of youth involved
in family assessment
session.)
|
Not indicated.
|
Parents meet with confined institutional staff, children, and a community worker once every 2 weeks.
|
| Targeted
community
activities during
confinement
period
|
Probation officers
meet with parents on
regular basis in the
community.
|
Family attends weekly
group sessions with
therapist and support
groups. (Low family
involvement.)
|
Not indicated.
|
Community workers see parents once per week at their home.
|
| Transitional Phase
|
| Testing and
probing of reentry
prior to placement
in community
|
Not indicated.
|
Not indicated.
|
Not indicated.
|
Not indicated.
|
| Structured
stepdown
process using
residential
placement or
intensive day
treatment
|
First 6 weeks with
very high level of
probation officer/
client contact. No
use of intensive day
treatment or short-term residential
treatment.
|
Initial period of intense
contact, followed by
lesser contact with case
manager, addiction
counselor, and family
therapist. No use of
intensive day treatment.
transition group home.
|
First few weeks after
release from facility
with carefully prescribed program.
Average number of
monthly contacts was
10 over 6 months in
Detroit; 60 over 6
months in Pittsburgh.
Contacts tapered off
after the first 2 months.
Pittsburgh uses a transition group home.
|
Initial month of
virtual house arrest. Level of community
worker/client contact also
high during first 3 months. No use of intensive day treatment or short-term residential treatment.
|
| Community Followup
|
| Provision of
multimodal
treatment
services
|
Few prescribed
activities but some
emphasis on education
and vocational
activities.
|
Wide spectrum of
services offered with
links made to community resources.
|
Efforts to improve
family functioning
through counseling
and to link clients
with education
program. Jobs fell far
short of expectations.
|
A variety of required programming activities.
Some major
questions about
quality of delivery.
|
| Discrete case
management
services
|
Required procedures
neither highly developed nor clearly
articulated.
|
Three articulated levels
of intervention: pre-release, initial intensive aftercare, and
transitional aftercare.
|
Not highly developed.
|
Not emphasized.
|
| Use of graduated
sanctions and
positive
incentives
|
Not indicated.
|
Not indicated.
|
Not indicated for
incentives. Pittsburgh
sanctions permitted
return to group or
wilderness program.
|
Not indicated.
|
| Provision of
supervision and
surveillance
beyond ordinary
working hours
|
Thirty percent of
contacts by probation
officers required to
occur outside normal
office hours.
|
Not indicated.
|
Not indicated.
|
Supplemental surveillance activities
provided by specialized community workers.
|
| Reduced caseload
size/increased
frequency of
client contact
|
Aftercare caseload
of 12 youth under
community supervision versus standard
70-120. Far higher
level of contact than
usual.
|
Caseload size unknown.
Clients had 3.2 average
monthly contacts
during aftercare or
32.4 contacts over
approximately 10
months.
|
Caseload size of 6.
Experimental group
received far more
contacts than control
group.
|
Aftercare caseload
of 10 youth. Higher
level of contact
for supervision,
treatment, and
surveillance.
|
| Multistage
decompression
process
|
Procedures for
gradual, phased
reduction in
level of imposed
control during
6 months of after-care supervision.
|
Intensive stage of after-care was 33 weeks long,
not 8 weeks as planned;
youth had less than 1
contact per week on
average. During
transitional phase of
aftercare, clients met
with case managers
less than once every
3 weeks on average.
|
Contacts tapered
off over time in
aftercare.
|
Framework and
procedures for a
diminishing level
of supervision and
control during
aftercare.
|
| IMPLEMENTATION |
| Designated
facilitate full
implementation
|
No special procedures or activities
|
None indicated.
|
None indicated.
procedures or
|
No special procedures or
activities.
|
| Documentation
and tracking of
implementation
process
|
Research team
assessed quality and
extent of implementation through selective interviews of staff,
clients, and parents.
|
Researchers studied
implementation through
client interviews,
official records, staff
interviews, and
tracking forms.
|
Implementation
studied through youth
and staff interviews,
program records, and
official record data.
|
Evaluator observed
program activities,
administered
questionnaires, and
interviewed clients
and parents.
|
| Extent of
intended
implementation
achieved
|
Evaluators determined
that program ran
smoothly only in later
months.
|
All three phases of
aftercare suffered from
serious implementation
deficiencies, and most
objectives of the short-term residential
program were not met.
|
Mixed results.
|
Mixed results in all
program sectors.
See program
summary for more
details.
|
| OUTCOME EVALUATION |
| Research design
|
Experimental.
|
Nonexperimental with
use of a comparison
group.
|
Experimental.
|
Quasi-experimental
with effective
matching
procedure.
|
| Target population
|
Male delinquents
committed to State
youth corrections and
exhibiting chronic
histories of severe
criminality.
|
Drug-involved juveniles
committed to residential facilities with after-care compared with
drug-involved youth
committed to facilities
without aftercare.
|
Chronic offenders.
|
Chronic serious
male delinquents
committed to
State youth
corrections.
|
| Sample size
|
90 cases: 44 in
experimental group
and 46 in control
group.
|
162 youth entered pre-release aftercare; of
these, 54 entered
transitional aftercare;
of these 36 completed
aftercare. Recidivism:
120 in aftercare and
132 in comparison
group.
|
99 cases in Detroit:
50 in experimental
group and 49 in control
group.
87 cases in Pittsburgh:
46 in experimental
group and 41 in control
group.
|
192 cases: 97 in
experimental
group and 95 in
control group.
|
| Significant
findings
favoring intensive aftercare1
|
Yes.
|
Generally no, though
slightly mixed.
|
No.
|
No.
|
