Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders: A meta-analytic review

Abstract

The aim of this meta-analytic study, including 22 studies and 5764 participants, was to examine the effects of aftercare programs on recidivism in juvenile and young adult offenders released from correctional institutions. The studies had to be (quasi-)experimental, with the control group receiving ‘care as usual’ or no treatment. Recidivism was measured by re-arrests and/or reconvictions and was based on official reports. Although the overall effect size for aftercare programs was generally small (d = .12), moderator analyses indicated more substantial effects and showed that aftercare is most effective if it is well-implemented and consists of individual instead of group treatment, and if it is aimed at older and high-risk youth. Whereas the treatment duration and moment of starting the aftercare program were not related to the program's effectiveness, more intensive aftercare programs were associated with lower recidivism rates.

Introduction

Recidivism among juveniles and young adults who are released from a correctional facility and re-enter society is high. In the United States, for example, there is a recidivism rate of approximately 55% after a 12-month follow-up period (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006), with similar percentages in some other countries (Wartna et al., 2010). There are several explanations for why the transition from correctional facilities to society is problematic, especially for juveniles and young adults. First, it is difficult for most people to change their lives of crime and become productive citizens (Travis, Salomon, & Waul, 2001). Detention and incarceration disrupt the life of those involved, because they are physically removed from their families, schools and communities. The service and support that family, friends and other important persons provide often come to a halt during detention, which makes successful rehabilitation difficult (Mears & Travis, 2004). Second, the challenge of changing life is even greater for juveniles and young adults, as they are facing both the transition from their detention facility to the broader community and, simultaneously, the transition from adolescence to adulthood, which has its own specific challenges. The cognitive capacity and life skills of adolescents and young adults differ from those of adults, and they are still going through the developmental stages of identity, moral and social development until approximately the age of 25 (Arnett, 2000, Grisso and Schwartz, 2000, Zimmerman, 2005).

Although interventions and rehabilitation programs during incarceration sort positive effects (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007), it appears that they are not successful enough to prevent the majority of the juveniles and young adults from re-offending (Altschuler, Armstrong, & MacKenzie, 1999), given the high recidivism rates of juveniles and young adults who participated in these programs. Altschuler and Armstrong (1998) carried out longitudinal research on juvenile offenders and found that gains in prosocial behavior and academic involvement rapidly faded after discharge. The juvenile offenders return to the environment in which their delinquent behavior developed and where factors contributing to their delinquent behavior are still present. The transition from a “closely monitored and highly regimented life in a secure institutional environment to unstructured and often confusing life in community” (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1994, p. 7) can make juveniles and young adults relapse into crime (Greenwood & Zimring, 1985).

Since public safety is threatened by high recidivism rates, how juveniles and young adults fare post-release has become a critical criminal justice policy issue. Consequently, interest in aftercare for juvenile and young adult offenders has grown remarkably over the past two decades and more re-entry and aftercare programs have been developed and provided for offenders released from detention to improve chances of successful reintegration (Altschuler and Armstrong, 2002, Mears and Travis, 2004). Research has shown that lower recidivism rates and positive adjustment to the community are achieved when the transition from correctional facilities to the community is directed and supervised (Fagan, 1990, Goodstein and Sontheimer, 1997). Jarjoura (2000) argues that if youths stay out of trouble in the first few months after release, their chances of maintaining work, reaching their academic goals, and develop independent lifestyles increase. A re-entry intervention that starts when youths are incarcerated could therefore promote successful community reintegration and reduce repeated offending by youths released from juvenile correctional facilities, according to Altschuler and Armstrong (1994).

In recent years, it has become widely acknowledged that interventions aimed at reducing recidivism can be effective if they meet the What Works principles of effective judicial intervention derived from the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model and two additional principles pertaining to program integrity and professional discretion (Andrews and Bonta, 1994, Andrews and Bonta, 2010, Andrews et al., 1990). The RNR model assumes that the intensity of the intervention should be adjusted to the risk of reoffending, target the criminogenic needs (risk factors that directly influence criminal behavior) and align with responsivity of the offenders, hence be suitable and appropriate for the specific group of interest (Andrews et al., 1990, Lipsey, 1995). In order to be effective in reducing recidivism, family treatments have played an important role in aiming to change the risk factors in the home situation in several intervention programs, such as Multisystemic Therapy (Henggeler, Melton, & Smith, 1992) and Multidimensional Family Therapy (Liddle, Dakof, Henderson, & Rowe, 2010). These programs aim to address criminogenic needs at different levels of the juvenile's functioning, with a central role for the family system.

A substantial number of studies on the effectiveness of aftercare and re-entry programs for juvenile and young adult offenders have been carried out. To improve the successful transition to society and reduce future problematic and delinquent behavior that puts society at risk, it is important to gain more insight into whether aftercare is effective for specific groups of juvenile and young adult offenders, and what specific aspects of aftercare programs moderate their effectiveness. Re-entering youths are, presumably, a heterogeneous group with, consequently, diverse needs for successful reintegration (Sullivan, 2004). Risk factors contributing to juvenile recidivism that may affect the effectiveness of re-entry or aftercare programs include age, number of prior offenses, psychopathology, substance abuse and peer delinquency (Loeber and Farrington, 1998, Loeber et al., 2008). Other possible moderators related to intervention characteristics are the type, intensity, duration and start of the intervention (Andrews et al., 1990). The impact of all these moderators on the effectiveness of aftercare programs can be examined in the most robust manner by means of a meta-analysis.

The purpose of the present study was to gain insight into the effectiveness of re-entry and aftercare programs aiming to reduce recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders. In order to establish the overall effectiveness of the programs and to examine which factors moderate the reduction of recidivism that these programs aim to accomplish, a meta-analysis was carried out. The meta-analysis aimed to determine which components of the aftercare programs and client characteristics are related to a positive program outcome. The outcome of interest was recidivism of juvenile and young adult offenders, assessed by means of re-arrests or reconvictions.