Juvenile Reentry Programs: Identifying Specific Jurisdictional Issues

There is not a one-size-fits-all approach for juvenile reentry. You will need to understand what makes your jurisdiction unique, how these characteristics affect the success of a reentry program, and how to tailor the program to the specific jurisdictional context. While some general information may have been gathered while Establishing Program Goals or Conducting the Community Needs Assessment, you may also need to collect additional information on specific community characteristics, such as housing options and infrastructure, before implementation begins.

This section discusses how decisions about reentry programming can best fit the needs and characteristics of your community.

• Consider the Larger Setting and Target Population of Reentry Efforts

  There are several factors that can impact the success of juvenile reentry programs, many of which are specific to your jurisdiction. You should identify and consider contextual factors, such as geographic setting (where you will be implementing the program and where youth are returning) and the unique characteristics of the target population, which can impact reentry success.

  • Take into account how the setting and services of a program match the needs and issues of the communities that youth return to. While many reentry program decisions focus on individual-level factors for improvement (such as youth behaviors), environmental- and neighborhood-related factors (though much harder to change) can impact juvenile reentry efforts. Examples of environmental- and neighborhood-level factors include geography, crime rates, transit options, population density, and housing issues. The Project BUILD (Building Urban Involvement through Leadership Development) was designed to help youth in detention overcome problems they may face when they return to their communities, such as gang involvement, crime, and drugs. The curriculum focused on communication skills, problem-solving techniques, and goal setting and decision-making. An evaluation of the program found that youth who participated in the program had statistically significant lower recidivism rates, compared with youth who did not participate.
    
    There is still much research that needs to be done to fully understand the impact of neighborhoods and communities on juvenile reentry. But acknowledging that juveniles' communities may impact their success of reentry, independent of services or treatment provided, can help to set more realistic expectations of what a “successful” reentry program for your jurisdiction may look like.

  
  

  • Explore what housing options are available for youth once they reenter the community. Ensuring that youth have appropriate housing and accommodation upon release is important, because it can help to ensure successful reintegration into the community. Some youth may be able to return home to live with parents or family members, but that may not be an option for everyone. For those who need alternative housing options, you should assess what is available for them, such as shelters or group homes. In addition, if the location of housing facilities is not in the same area as where the youth were previously living, you will need to consider other possibilities such as temporary housing in another neighborhood.

  
  

  • Consider adding culturally competent components that are uniquely responsive to the communities targeted by the program. A high proportion of youth returning from juvenile residential programs are minority. In 2015, juveniles in residential placement were 42 percent black, 31 percent white, 22 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander, or other race/ethnicity (for more information, see the Residential Programs literature review on MPG). Therefore, you should include culturally competent components in reentry programming. Cultural competence is the ability of service agencies or their staff (i.e., staff who work with juveniles reentering the community) to understand the worldview of clients of different cultures and adapt program practices accordingly.
    
    For example, the Minority Youth Transition Program in Oregon was designed and implemented using approaches from the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP). Many of the principles, components, and procedures of the IAP model were tailored to the circumstances, problems, and needs of the targeted offender population, which initially was almost entirely comprised of African American youth. Examples of culturally specific and appropriate program services included mentorships (with capable and experienced mentors with a similar background as youth), mental health services, family support, conflict resolution, bus passes, and clothing vouchers. In addition, annual cultural competency/diversity training was provided to staff.
    
    Cultural competency is also important in Tribal nations reentry programming. Research suggests that for American Indian/Alaska Native youth, there are culturally specific protective factors (such as cultural identification and participation in traditional activities) that can help buffer youth from negative behavioral outcomes (for more information, see the MPG literature review on Tribal Youth in the Juvenile Justice System). The three tribal sites that were a part of the Tribal Green Reentry Program were committed to incorporating cultural components into the programs in various ways, including culture-based counseling, talking circles, cultural arts and crafts, and cultural education. The sites used enculturation methods (such as the use of cultural experts and elder wisdom) to increase youth’s cultural knowledge, understanding, and capabilities. Overall, interviews with parents, youth, and other stakeholders involved in the programs found that the use of culture to help young people feel better about themselves and their identities as Indian people was very important to reentry programming efforts.

  Other Useful Information...
  The Models for Change project, supported by the MacArthur Foundation, developed A Toolkit for Applying the Cultural Enhancement Model to Evidence-Based Practice. The Cultural Enhancement Model (CEM) addresses factors at the community- and individual-level, to overcome barriers to evidence-based practice dissemination and program retention. The toolkit includes an example of how the CEM was applied to a juvenile reentry program, the Multisystemic Therapy–Family Integrated Transitions (MST–FIT).

  

• Prepare for Barriers/Obstacles to Implementation

  Community infrastructure and transportation issues should be considered in advance of implementation.

  • Address the potential barriers to program completion due to community infrastructure, especially in rural areas. The characteristics of rural communities, such as spatial isolation, limited service providers, limited financial resources, and transportation obstacles, can undermine the delivery and implementation of reentry programs. For example, results from an evaluation of the Reentry Services Project in Clay County, Minnesota, found that youth who lived in small urban areas had marginally better outcomes (i.e., smaller number of new official and criminal contacts) than youth in rural areas. The authors of the evaluation speculate that this may be because access to treatment is more readily available to youth in urban areas than in rural areas. Being aware of these issues ahead of time can provide you with an opportunity to address the problems without affecting program implementation.