Table 5: Juvenile Aftercare Matrix

Program/Study Characteristics
(IAP Model)
Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare Maryland Aftercare Program Skillman Intensive Aftercare Project Michigan Nokomis Challenge Program
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.
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.
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.

1See program summary for details.

Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare Juvenile Justice Bulletin   ·  July 1999