Juvenile Reentry Programs: Addressing Adaptation

Often, some aspects of the original design of a program may change when the program is implemented. Changes may occur because of limited funds, time constraints, or the evolving risks and needs of the target population. If you select a specific reentry program to implement, but find it does not fit the specific needs of your community, you should consider and plan for adaptations. However, it will be important to consider certain factors before making decisions about adaptations.

This section provides guidance and recommendations about preparing for planned adaptations and being ready for the possibility of unplanned adaptations to your program.

• Consider and Plan for Appropriate Program Adaptations

  Reentry programs may involve several different components, such as individual therapy, contact/meetings with probation or parole officers, and family engagement. It is important to understand which of these components are important to the reentry process, especially if you're considering any changes to the design of a program.

  • Assess how core program components fit with the needs and available resources of your community and whether additions and minor adjustments are possible. If you decide to implement an evidence-based reentry program, a complicated part of adaptation is deciding how much of the program design to change without affecting program effectiveness. You will need to ask certain questions about your community's capacity to implement a program to determine feasibilities and what adaptations may be possible to make it the best fit. A good source of what to consider would be available from your community needs assessment (for more information, see Conducting a Community Needs Assessment).
    
    For example, the Reentry Services Project (RSP) in Minnesota was based on the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model, which required prerelease planning, individualized services, and community-based services upon release, among other elements. RST adapted the IAP model to include two fulltime transitional coordinators and a mentoring component for youths, based on research suggesting the benefits youth can get from a mentor-mentee relationship. The mentoring component involved prosocial leisure activities between the mentor and youths, such as bowling, movies, and dinner, or outings to help youth with certain life skills such as getting a driver's license.
    
    The Blended Intervention is an example of a reentry program that was adapted and adjusted based on considerations of costs and feedback from program staff. The program was adapted from an earlier version that involved targeted residential services for youth while their families participated in an in-home intervention that helped them prepare for the youth's eventual release from placement, approximately 6 months ahead of time. However, in the adapted version, the intensive in-home family services were not provided until almost 2 months before the youth's release, because of the increased cost of providing residential and in-home services simultaneously.
  
  
  • Consider adapting evidence-based programs that are not usually implemented in reentry settings. If there is not a specific reentry program available to fit the needs of your community, it may be possible to adapt an evidence-based program that is not usually implemented in a reentry setting. For example, in 2000, the State of Washington was interested in developing a program for juvenile offenders with co-occurring disorders of mental illness and chemical dependency. At the time, there was no specific program available that targeted this population. Instead, a new program called Multisystemic Therapy–Family Integrated Transitions (MST–FIT) was developed using components from several programs that had evidence to suggest positive impacts on youth, including Multisystemic Therapy (MST), motivational enhancement therapy (MET), relapse prevention, and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT).
    
    Similarly, Functional Family Parole (FFP) was adapted from the family-focused, strengths-based principles of Functional Family Therapy (FFT). The FFP program is grounded in the FFT model, which shifts the family's focus from the youth's problems to patterns of behavior between family members, with the goal of establishing more positive familial interaction patterns.
  
  
  • Make sure changes and adaptations do not conflict with the theoretical foundations of evidence-based programs, and match adaptations with evaluation. You should keep in mind that some programs are based on important theories or principles that guide the implementation of primary program components, which, if adapted, could affect the program's effectiveness. For instance, the programs previously mentioned (MST–FIT and FFP) are all grounded around theoretical frameworks that emphasize the engagement and involvement of families in the treatment process. Any adaptations of these programs away from the core idea of family involvement could impact the programs' ability to improve juveniles' behavior following release.
    
    In addition, it is not always clear which program components are core to the theory of change or are essential. Consequently, matching adaptations with evaluations to understand impact is important. For example, while the core components of the MST–FIT program are based on the MST model, the model was adapted to include DBT and MET as well as additional monthly booster training sessions for FIT therapists and supervisors (rather than just quarterly trainings as required by MST). The MST-FIT program was evaluated and found to lead to statistically significant reduced felony recidivism rates of youth, but not on misdemeanor recidivism. This example shows the importance of evaluating adapted programs to ensure program effectiveness is maintained.

  

• Be Prepared for Potential Unplanned Adaptations

  You may need to make changes along the way for many reasons, including those that emerge from issues found during ongoing program and process evaluations.

  • Be responsive to issues that occur during implementation, and prepare to make unplanned changes to the program model as needed. While fidelity to the program model is important, it can be just as important to make sure a program is heading in the right direction if not everything goes as planned. For example, the Philadelphia Intensive Aftercare Probation (IAP) Program encountered several issues during implementation that required changes to the program model along the way. The program was based on the IAP model, which required smaller caseloads for juvenile probation officers (POs) and the use of graduated sanctions when juveniles did not fulfill probation requirements or misbehaved. However, POs continued to use traditional forms of sanctions (specifically, issuing bench warrants) when juveniles showed signs of relapse into misbehavior, such as missing appointments, rather than new approaches encouraged by the IAP model. Subsequently, after several months, the juvenile court judge who was leading the program along with some POs, began to create alternative strategies to issuing bench warrants, such as bringing the juvenile to court for revocation proceedings. This example shows how a program changed during the implementation process to account for specific issues that emerged. Being prepared for such situations in advance and being responsive to issues that unfold during implementation can help make the process smoother.