AN EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN HALFNAY HOUSE PROGRAM BY ROBERT GUZAK GEORGE LOGAN JU LIN MEI RAYMOND WILLIAMS fl. 4‘ -— mu1111111111111111111111111111 RETURNING MATERIALS: IV‘ESI_J PIace in book drop to LIBRARIES remove this checkout from your record. FINES W111 be charged if book 15 returned after the date stamped beIow. I AN EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN HALFWAY HOUSE PROGRAM BY ‘Ifljw o ROBERT GUZAK GEORGE LOGAN JU LIN WEI RAYMOND WILLIAMS AN ABSTRACT Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK Michigan State University School of Social Work East Lansing, Michigan I968 \ I ..... ;.—H'-l"~ mull ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to evaluate the halfway house program for delinquent youths in the state of Michigan and to ascertain the effects of this program upon the community readjustments of its releasees. A group of youths, who had been referred to the halfway house program but did not go for various reasons, served as the control group. Questionaires were mailed to the directors of social services of the counties to which the youths returned following their release to the community. We hypothesized that since a halfway house is designed to facilitate a delinquent youth's readjustment to the community, those youths exposed to the halfway house program would eXperience less readjustment difficulty during the first six months after release than those youths released directly to the community from the institution. We further hypothesized that since the community ultimately assumes re5ponsibility for rehabilitation, there would be no significant difference in the readjustments of the two groups during the six to twelve month period after release. Our data confirmed our hypotheses as it was found that in the three areas of community readjustment measured (recidivism, community program changes and police contacts), halfway house releasees experienced sig- nificantly less readjustment difficulty in the community than the control group. Our findings further indicated that the effect of the halfway house seemed to diminish over an extended period as the community appeared to assume greater influence in the rehabilitative prOcess. -. -. AN EVALUATION OF THE MICHIGAN HALFWAY HOUSE PROGRAM BY ROBERT GUZAK GEORGE LOGAN JU LIN WEI RAYMOND WILLIAMS A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK Michigan State University School of Social Work East Lansing, Michigan I968 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to extend their sincerest appreciation to Mr John Miller, Director, Group Homes Division, Bureau of Group Care Services, for availing himself as a consultant and for placing all necessary case records at our disposal. We are equally indebted to the 38 county directors of social services who imposed upon their staffs the additional burdens of completing and returning our questionaires. A note of special thanks is in order for Mr. William Kime, our project advisor, whose scholary aid, tolerance, understanding, and kindness, were invaluable in helping us complete this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Survey of the Literature . . . . . . . . Michigan Halfway House Program . . . . . Treatment Milieu . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll. METHOD... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms and Operationalizing General Procedures to Obtain Data........ III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tables 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 IV. DISCUSSION. 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 V0 IMPLICIATIONSO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o FOOT-NOTES. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o BIBLIOGRAPHY o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 PAGE .lO .IO .IO .l2 .I6 .Zl .23 .24 .25 .26 INTRODUCTION It is not unusual in the field of social science to set up a pilot program with the expectation that the benevolent purpose which led to its establishment will suffice to maintain it on a continuous basis. In the area of social welfare, such programs are often set up, but little or no effort is made to evaluate them. Consequently, these pilot projects become simply ”other agencies“ in an ever expanding matrix of social agencies without being evaluated to determine their need or whether existing programs could carry out the same function as the ”pilot one“. The primary objective of this study is to do a follow up type evaluation of the Michigan Halfway House program for adjudicated juvenile delinquents. There has been very little research carried out on this type of a program. Perhaps the major reason is that the halfway house for delinquent youths is a relatively new concept in this country. Survey_of the Literature on the Halfway House Concept Halfway houses as supportive services between the institution and independent community life appeared first in this country not for delinquents, but for mental patients and for young people who were ready to leave child caring institutions and could not be placed in a foster home or returned to their own home. The possibilities offered by halfway houses in programs for delinquent youths are receiving an increasing amount of attention throughout the country. In Spite of this upsurge of interest, there still remains some hesitancy to proceed in their development. How- ever, this has not been the case in many countries abroad. Roul Tunley, IQ who has studied measures to combat adolescent delinquency in various parts of the world, has pointed out that ”the youth hostel, the aftercare home and the halfway house have all been developed abroad recently in an attempt to devise a more homelike atmosphere in which a child can work, live and study in partial but not complete freedom.”1 In the United States, halfway house programs for delinquent youths have only recently been implemented as youth authorities and welfare and social service departments are beginning to re-evaluate their delinquency rehabilitation programs. One of their first observations was to recognize that many delinquents remain in institutions longer than necessary because of a lack of an acceptable placement in the community. Rapidly expanding child and youth populations are creating serious imbalances in many communities between the number of children who need care away from home and the number and variety of resources available for them. Sheridan states that ”resources are especially inadequate for certain adolescent boys and girls who are dependent, delinquent, disturbed, or retarded, and for adolescent unmarried mothers.”2 Traditional foster homes, maternity homes and institutional resources do not seem to be the most appropriate answer for many of these children and adolescents. The trend toward halfway houses or small group homes seems to be filling this void for new child care resources by offering different combinations and a multiplicity of treatment alternatives. The question arises: what can the halfway house program offer that traditional child care institutions cannot provide? Carpenter answers this question by stating that ”halfway houses can provide more adequate protection of the legal and constitutional rights of the child, and pro- tection of the child and community through individualizing the child in 3 treatment."3 This requires services and facilities that are adaptable to meet individual needs. Present state programs for the care of delinquent children are, for the most part, still limited to the institutional care provided by the state training schools. State training schools tend to be ”catch all” facilities which try to meet the needs of a totally hetero- genous population. The only common factor applying to the population of training schools is that each inmate has committed an act, whether defined as delinquent or not, which has brought him under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Sheridan and Freer describe the population of the training schools by stating that “young people in state training schools range in age from eight to eighteen or neneteen and sometimes even to twenty-one; in intelligence from severely retarded to superior; in experience from childlike naive delinquent acts to repeaters with confirmed sophisticated delinquent patterns; in personality from the withdrawn to the highly aggressive, acting out delinquent.”u The children in each of these categories have different potentialities and present different kinds of problems. The problem of overcrowding complicates the situation further. According to HEW statistics released in November I966, four out of every ten public training schools for delinquent children are caring for populations which exceed their stated capacities.5 Expanding present training school facilities does not appear to be the answer since a current problem would only be expanded. One of the first state Operated halfway house programs was opened in the state of Washington in I962. This halfway house, which was opened originally on a trial basis, is still Operating as a placement alternative for boys being released from Washington State training schools. The trial L, program proved to be so successful that a second halfway house recently Opened in Seattle, Washington and plans are being made to Open another in the near future. In Los Angeles, California, halfway houses for delinquents have been tried on a private basis only. In New York State, halfway house programs are state financed and serve both boys and girls who are being released from state training schools. The city Of New York also Operates several similar facilities. Wisconsin, Kentucky, Delaware and Pennsylvania are among the few additional states that are now Operating state supported halfway house programs. In several Other states, there are halfway houses for delinquents in Operation, but the majority do not receive their support from local, state or federal governments. However, the trend seems to be away from privately supported facilities to government sponsored houses. Keve states that ”there probably will always be certain well known and successful facilities that will remain purely private, but already it Is evident that many privately Sponsored halfway houses falter after getting started because they lack the financial backing or administrative resources to keep them going."6 New Jersey Operates quite an extensive program for delinquents, as well as being a leader in experimentation with halfway house programs...... the renowned Highfields Residential Group Center in Hopewell, and Essexfields in Newark. Presently, New Jersey operates three such homes for boys and one for girls. These programs are eSpecially interesting because the youths do not live in the houses on a 2A hour basis. These facilities began as privately supported programs, but due to their success, they were subse quently financed and administered by the state Of New Jersey. Michigan Halfway House Program Michigan seems to be an excellent example Of a state supported halfway house arrangement which is rapidly developing into a model program. “Michigan has become more heavily involved in halfway houses for juveniles than most other states. The state experimented with the use of one cottage on the grounds Of the training school in Lansing, and then an appropriation was made to establish several separate halfway houses. These were started in l96h, and within a year there were in Operation five houses for boys and one for girls.”7 Presently there are seven halfway houses and three subsidized group homes. There are two halfway houses in Detroit, two in Flint, and one each in Lansing, Kalamazoo and Muskegon. The subsidized group homes are located in Wayne, Osceola and Grand Traverse Counties. Each halfway house can facilitate lZ youths at any one period of time; the group homes usually accomodate 6 youths at a time. Expected length Of stay for each youth is about nine months. Each halfway house is staffed by a social worker, house manager, cook and four child therapists. In addition to casework and group work services, the program has professional consultative services available to it from the various county social service departments and from the state director of the overall program. The community is crucial in developing a halfway house. Community acceptance or non acceptance can determine the success or failure of the entire program. ”A successful halfway house program depends in part upon sympathetic community understanding and involvement. Efforts to gain such 8 understanding begin long before the residence opens.“ Ireatment Milieu One of the purposes of the halfway house program is to develop treatment modalities that meet the needs of youths, both individually and collectively. Counseling services are more involved and diversified than the usual or tra- ditional Office-based worker client interview situation. -Every attempt is made to avoid totally ”professionalizing” the interview situation. Various methods and techniques at the caseworker's command are appropriately utilized in order to best reach youths at a level at which their emotional needs can best be gratified. The Often used sterile “professional approach” is non functional with ”Open delinquents” in a halfway house setting. The program offers both individual and group counseling approaches. The individual counseling services are designed to give youths the Opportunity to Openly ex- press their feelings, attitudes, frustrations, etc., within the boundaries of a healthy adult-child relationship. It is through the development and appro- priate use of this relationship that the caseworkers help youths work through many of their problems, relieve their frustrations, and hopefully guide them to broader understanding. This is not, however, to imply that the individual counseling relation- ship is entirely supportive. The individual sessions are also used for confrontlve purposes: many of the wards in the program are not in contact with the reality of their situations. One of the basic goals of casework is to help each youth face this reality. Confrontation with certain kinds of maladaptive and inappropriate behavior is one way of bringing a ward face to face with his situation. This technique is often used_not only to help a ward face some basic realities concerning his behavior, but also the realities Of his aspirations and realistic levels of achievement. 7 The halfway house program places a great deal Of emphasis on the con- frontive technique, even though many caseworkers and Others in various social disciplines do not consider this technique as being ”treatment”. However, to send a youth through the program and have him emerge as he entered, with the same over-inflated and grotesque concepts concerning the “rightness” and lack of responsibility for his own behavior, and in- appropriate and totally unrealistic goals and expectancies, is considered an injustice and a disservice to the youth. Treatment is one Of the major goals Of the program, but the caseworker does not become so involved with ”treatment” of psychic problems that the most important goal falls by the wayside; i.e., preparation for a return to the community, regardless Of whether the psychic conflicts have been suc- cessfully resolved or not. The program Operates on a short term basis and not as a long term treatment service. During the short time a youth is in the program, every effort is made to equip him with those tools essential to independent survival in the community; as much education and/or Special training available, a job, knowledge Of how to get and hold a job, internal control Of behavior, how to handle interpersonal relationships, etc. The implications are that the program can Offer these things to youths without successfully resolving their emotional conflicts. It can be seen that the individual counseling sessions serve a multitude of purposes, but are not designed to offer ”clinical treatment”. Group counseling sessions attempt to attain many of the goals mentioned above, except that the peer group is the change agent. The group counseling program complements the individual counseling program. To many youths, the group 8 sessions are less threatening than the individual sessions where some difficulties may be encountered in the more confining one—to-one casework relationship. The group sessions are directed toward creating an intensive experience in which youths talk about themselves; attitudes, behavior, etc. The group approach is not geared to suppress or to sooth feelings of frustration and anxiety, but rather to bring out such feelings, and through the give and take among the group members a youth can learn to deal effectively with such conflicts. In group sessions, unlike the individual sessions, each youth has to develop and utilize to a large extent his own devices for coping effectively with his emotional problems. It can be seen that what a ward gains in group sessions can be utilized in individual sessions, and vice versa; the two actually complements each other, rather than sup- plementing the other. It is because of the apparent uniqueness of halfway house programs with their flexibility and wide range of innovative techniques that a re- search study intO the Michigan Halfway House Program seems of particular potential value. If the program is truly an innovative and far reaching attempt to more adequately deal with the delinquency problem, then it is important that evidence be secured to establish this fact. The testing of the hypotheses which follow here is intended to provide such evidence on at least a limited basis. Hypotheses Unlike the more structured institutions such as training schools, halfway house programs attempt to assimilate youths back into the com- munity by treating them in settings which are integrated into the com- munity and utilize community resources. Therefore,one mould expect that delinquent youths released from the halfway house programs would have fewer community adjustment problems than youths released from training schools. Specifically, we hypothesize: If institutionalized youths are exposed to halfway house programs prior to release to the community, then they will experience less read- justment difficulties in the community than those youths directly released to the community from a training school program. Operational definitions Of these terms will be given after presenting some additional hypotheses. Halfway house programs are designed to facilitate a youth's readjust- ment to the community, but the community must assume the responsibility for subsequent long term rehabilitation. Consequently, an early successful community readjustment alone would not insure a continued successful adjustment, and we expect our data to Support the following adjunctive hypotheses: a. If institutionalized youths are exposed to halfway house programs prior to release to the community, then they will experience less read- justment difficulties in the community during the 0-6 month period after release than those youths released directly to the community from the training school program. b. If institutionalized youths are exposed to halfway house programs prior to release to the community, then their community readjustments during the 6-l2 month period after release will not be significantly different from the community readjustments Of those youths released di- rectly from the training school program. l0 METHOD Definition of terms and Operationalizing For the purposes of this study, the global concept of community re- adjustment was Operationalized by developing a questionaire that measured readjustment in three fairly Specific areas: recidivism, number and types of police contacts, and the number of community program changes. Recidivism is defined as any return to a training school setting or committment to adult incarceration. Police contacts were ranked according to number Of contacts and char- acter of offenses as defined legally---misdemeanors (includes Michigan Juvenile Code violations), or felonies. Misdemeanors include such infractions as truancy from home and school, illegal possession of alcoholic beverages, violation Of curfew, malicious destruction of property, petty theft and minor traffic violations. Felonies include such Offenses as homicide, rape, assault with a deadly weapon, breaking and entering, armed robbery and grand larceny. Community program changes include both changes in placement and changes in treatment plans. An example of a change in placement would be a removal of a youth from the parents' home to foster care. An examlle Of a change in treatment plan would be the removal of a youth from a school program to a job training program. These changes are here regarded as symptomatic of adjust— ment difficulties, whiCh predominantly is the case. General Procedures to Obtain Data In Obtaining subjects released from the halfway house program, we limited our selection to those youths released to the community for a minimum Of one II year to insure an adequate length of time to evaluate community readjustment. The control group was Selected on the same basis. The subjects in our experimental group consisted of all youths released from the halfway houses in Michigan during the time period Of January I, I966 through July I, I967. The director of the halfway house program made available all halfway house case records. From these we extracted the names and case numbers of all youths used in this study. The same process was used for the control group; i.e., the subjects were drawn from the entire population of youths referred to the halfway house program during the period Of January I, I966 through July I, I967, but who for some reason other than rejection by the halfway house did not enter the program, and thus entered the community directly from the training school. Typical reasons for not entering the half- way house program, after becomming eligible, would be a change in plans initiated by the training school counselor, aftercare worker, or a youth's refusal to enter the program, or a vacancy not being available in a halfway house at the time of the referral. The most usual of these was a lack of bed Space at the time Of referral. The data collection instruments used in this study were questionaires. Case records were used only for the purpose Of Obtaining subjects names, case numbers and release dates. The primary instrument used was a pre coded questionaire (see appendix). The questionaire was designed to elicit information pertaining to the subjects' readjustment in the community in all three areas: recidivism, police contacts, and program changes. The questionaire found in the appendix was developed eSpecially for this Study. A questionaire regarding each subject was mailed to the director of social services Of the county in which the subject resides. I2 RESULTS A total of 209 questionaires were sent to the various county department of social services Offices in the state of Michigan. I65 Of the questionaires 1~ere directed to elicit information pertaining to the community readjustment Of halfway house releasees, and A4 concerning training school releasees. The county offices returned a total of I68 questionaires (80%). l25 (76%) regarding halfway house releasees and 43(98 %) regarding training School releasees.* 0f the returned questionaires regarding the halfway house releasees (experimental group), 59 were rejected for the following reasons: I8 youths had been returned directly to the training school; 5 were releases directly into adult incarceration; I was released directly into the military service; A Of the questionaires lacked sufficient information for the study; and 3l questionaires were returned to late to be included in the study. Of the returned questionaires regarding the training school releasees (control group), I3 were rejected: 2 youths were releasesd directly into military service; 6 questionaires lacked sufficient information for the study; and 5 questionaires were returned to late to be included in the study. Therefore, a total of 9S questionaires was used in our study: 65 in the experimental group and 30 in the control group. The data collected from these questionaires was tabulated and subjected to the Chi Square Test in order to test the hypotheses given earlier. Jo n We believe that the fact that our control group was rather small accounted for the large percentage Of returns (9 %), as compared to 76% returns for the halfway house group. However, we feel that if time permitted, a larger percentage of halfway house questionaires would also be returned. I3 The results (see tables l-l to l-lO generally) confirmed our hypothesis that youths exposed to a halfway house program initially experience less readjustment difficulty in the community than those youths directly released to the community from a training school program. In the three areas of recidivism, community program changes and police contacts, we found that during the first six months after release, halfway house releasees had less difficulty. In the area Of recidivism, the null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in.the recidivism rates between the two groups. However, we found a significant difference at the .05 level between the experimental and control groups (see table l-l). This table shows that youths exposed to the halfway house were much less likely (l2% against 35% returned) to return to the training School or some other correctional facility during their first six months in the community after release than those youths released directly from the training school to the com- munity.. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and our alternative hypothesis was confirmed. A In the area Of community program changes, the null hypothesis was that there would be no Significant difference in the number of community program changes between the two groups. However, we found a significant difference at the .05 level between the control and experimental groups. Table l-2 shows that youths exposed to the halfway house program had l9% fewer community program changes during the first six months after release than those youths released directly from the training school to the com- munity. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was confirmed. oDOfl'I’ltutvw 9.... - IA In the area Of police contacts (felonies), our null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in the number Of police con- tacts (felonies) between the two groups. Although, we did not find a significant difference at the .05 level between the two groups, the proba- bility was less than .10 indicating a trend even though we could not reject the null hypothesis (see table l-3). In the area of police contacts (misdemeanors), the null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in the number of police contacts (misdemeanors) between the two groups. However, we found a sig- nificant difference at the .05 level between the eXperimental and control groups (see table l-H). This table shows that youths exposed to the half- way house program had 26% fewer police contacts (misdemeanors) during the first six months after release than those youths released directly from the training school to the community. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected and the alternative hypothesis was confirmed. In table l-5, we combined felonies and misdemeanors into total police contacts. The null hypothesis that there would be no significant difference in the total number of police contacts between the two groups was rejected because of our finding of a significant difference at the .05 level between the eXperimental and control groups. According to this finding, we can conclude that youths exposed to the halfway house program had fewer total police contacts (29% fewer) during their first Six months after release than those youths released directly to the community from the training school. l5 Our adjunctive hypothesis predicting that halfway house programs may facilitate a youth's early readjustment in the community but will not affect long term adjustment was at least substantiated by our statistical data. Tables l-6 through l-IO Show no significant differences in the three areas of community readjustment between the two groups during the 6-l2 month period following release. Because there was a prediction of no difference in the test hypothesis, inference testing using the null hypothesis does not apply. But we feel that our impression is validated here, because while significant differences did appear during the first six months, none did in the second six--thus indicat- ing a dimunition of differences over time. l6 TABLE l-l Recidivist, 0-6 Months After Release 4. l \ ' ControT Halfway House Group . Group Totals RecidTviStz l4 (A7%) . 8 (l2%) 1 22 (23%) Non Recidivist IO (53%) 57 (88%) 73 (77%) Totals 30 (IOO%) 65 (IOO%) 95 (l00%) TABLE 1-2 Program Changes, 0-6 Months After Release 9 v 33: Control Halfway House Group Group Totals P 2 $23.32? . lo (33%) 9 (14%) 19 (20%) Non Program. 6 j 6 "6° 6 L8 0 Changes‘ 20 ( 7%) 5 (0 A) 7 I 04) Totals 30 (100%) 65 (100%) 95 (100%) 7': x§=13.603, 1 at, P < .05, Reject H0 -:.—-:.- x = 5,579, 1 df, P ..05, Reject H° J. I\ 17 TABLE l'3 Police Contacts (Felonies), 0-6 Months After Release 333560] Efljgay House Totals Eglléits 9 (30%) 10 (19%) 19 (20%) mtggce 21 (70%) 55 (85%) 76 (80%) Totals 30 (100%) 65 (100%) 95 (100%) Police Contacts (Misdemeanors), 0-6 Months After Release TABLE l-4 >< IQ II II 8.l57, l df, P (.05, Reject HO Control H If H Group Ggougay ouse Totals Police ‘—— Contacts l2 (40%) 9 (l4%) 2l (22%) Non Police Io 60% 6 06% 0 Contacts 0 ( ) S (U ) 74 (784) Totals 30 (IOO%) 65 (IOO%) 95 (I00% X2 2.740, I df, P >.05, Does not Reject HO Total Police Contacts, 0-6 Months After Release 18. TAIBLE 1-5 J. 4 \ Control Halfway House Totals Group Group Police 16 (53%) 16 (24%) 32 (34% Contacts Non Police C N Contacts I“ (L+ A) 49 (766) 63 (6 6) Totals 30 (l00% 65 (I00%) 95 (l00%) TABLE l-6 Recidivist, 6-l2 Months After Releasel 7'3': Control Halfway House Totals Group Group Recidivist 2 (13%) 3 (7%) S (7%) Non Recidivist 14 (87%) 54 (93% 68 (93% Totals l6 (l00%) 57 (IOO% 73 (100%) ‘2: X2 ."'C 2 n 4 s 7.06, l df, P < .05, Reject Ho l.26, l df, P 7 .05 l. Numbers are reduced here because of attrition in first six months. 19 TABLE l~7 Program Change, 6-l2 Months After Release 3 Control Halfway House . Totals + Group Group I _”v W-_u -m-uwmnw..s..-..-t-. - m , _“ -Um-.n -m- _, a--. _ _.-H Program 0 00/ I Changes I (6/0) 5 (we) 6 (8%) Non Program 15 (9 7) 57 (01¢ 67 (07% Changes ° - J N .. ,_m Totals I6 (I00%) 57 (IO %) 73 (IOO%) TABLE l-8 Police Contacts (Felonies), 6-12 Months After Release **9-: -m”.c : Control ' Halfway House Totals Group Group Police 0 / o I o o 6 86 Contacts 3 ( 9/) 3 (S?) ( “"‘*"'“" <1v~~ —« 2 - ._..-..__.___~_., __+_ .-..... -. . 1 ”0“ P°"Ce . 13 (81%) 54 (95%) a 67 (92%) Contacts I I Tota‘s : 10 (100%) 57 (100%) 73 (100%) , 2 7.- x2 = 0.0913, 1 at, P > .05 *5" X = 3.8990, l df, P (.05 20 TABLE l-9 Police Contacts (Misdemeanors), 6-l2 Months After Release ..-.-~...,.. u.‘ .- ‘ .-.-.-. . ---. a; »» - ... - --a_. .-. -_ a. , - J“... .-...-—~.- .fl-«b-n. any-n.-. Hon-anu- -p_.—.n.-.-—._..a-a._n——..-. ., 5.... _ . .. .......~.—-—._-~- m.-..-,_ . Control Halfway House Totals Group Group Police Contacts 4 (25%) T 11 (19%) 15 (21%) ~- -u"--‘--:n0.oo c Q"-.—oh~-v—‘O .g-. .p-- «.. - u , . +~ 12 (75%) . .'-‘-—~ ~--. ——-.‘-'-_—.- 3-...- .~- A -c».-va| Non Police Contacts -*.-~-- . .- ".4:- 46 (81%) . 58 (79% w: oswouw n -n Q—fl .- -9 —.'A ,- -- " fl.-. 4--. - .__ .. 57 (100%) 73 (100%) ' 4 I . 0 ._H’gvm.~+”_-u«M-H . - 1 1 Totals : 16 (100%) TABLE l-IO Total Police Contacts, 6-l2 Months After Release ' ' ..- .- -. . .... . .Q...-. --.- .,—...m-..-..-.u...o ..-.~.. .-. ..-. ._--—~—-p. g’---‘”I--0vt-w. .-—.‘- r‘r-—. . ~,.‘_.-_ ._> , _, . .. n“ l‘ (\ -- “- on— u - fl..-»— \«9—- u.-- —.o. .l-I-OMQ'W ..-_ ‘.- .. -fl... a”, fin, fl“- wan—u ~‘a..—»U~D\ .mx - ~.—.... - . Control Halfway House ‘ Group Group ; Totals 4 a.— ..n ...,._.-. Police i 6 (37%) Contacts 7 . nogA‘uu- ...-v----'-- h-.*gw-"A..y. . my —- .. .~‘ 13 (23%) i 19 (2 %) -'~ "‘ "'-~":--~'-c u.'.. .. ._.. . _’.__ __ Ngn'éa1ag; . ' H Contacts ‘ IO (63%) -.-- .- -.-—o -..-‘— n-FI‘I-I‘n- - » v . (A Ono. I 54(flm) s-.-n.o‘ .- ' .. _-d-.-—---—-o- §Duabc.~:::»41u' o av H. m ”rut->3. Maximum beu11iL A :J‘ ‘ 1? ~"‘ . c. O "J‘.IP‘ ("o-ru. “ I 1 u . l. encflgeu 313u1-1clhcly from i ove' 11.11113 We 001 -1pepicnce uC‘Lrs .‘ V: 0. q, . I‘cc—o- ‘ v. A. ‘ {1: fl .‘Q .l h. 2. Bene1112u minim.il1 1£uh Boye‘ Twainin boa ol eaporlenc 11% o w m r+ DJ 5-) ' kg. (0 a ’5 3 n O 1 e -‘ ”A II fl C. r: a. n osmer Lure or bO€P law Home I f. _ ‘- o_. :~‘ “'0 311 (or any lorn of aiulL LuC 1 (Pk 1on) cc n q -'- 9“ :u‘: n‘ the- (plelee Spocl1y; Q School a21d Joo Job Trainix mg the? (plerse succify) J Adjustment to Community PrOgram 0-3 Monica Hf We Relozse: Adjustment to Community Program 3-6 A. B. C. D. E. Little or No Difficulty If it was Rec 0 envy to Cam ge C0311n1*y ogram, H ow Many Changes Occurred Reuu“1ndco BTS oaths After Release: If it W318 31? Geo urreé?_u__‘ -1 Returned hrs idul t Incagccration Other (please specify) Little or No Difficulty c 3 Adjustment to C on.munity P: oqram 6—9 fi~onth3 After Release: A.. Little or No Di‘ficu.' B. If it was He: es w ‘_ Occurred? C;-'Returned to Boys’ D.. Adult Incarcer2i i0 E.fl1er (plm so A. Little or No D B. If it was Nee: Occurred? C. Returned to Bo,s ' Training Sc . Adlll't IPC an. ‘ ez‘atio . Othe er (plea m‘ sp 53:) Number of Police Contacts: 3 Months After Release -6 ['icnths Aft? ‘ ‘31‘ R0, 1m 38" 12 ‘40nths Afce Re' ase 3- I m ‘ I pacify types of poiice gnate d above: 0 ‘n‘ 0) H) O 3 (b $ 4 (D. 0 r.” r} 77‘ {'0 ('2' H- g a O n ") Fla 0 1L (:3 ontaC' W a Current Situation: A. In School Bo E;Hp10'ed C. Employed and in School D. Unemp3.ovcd E. In Military Service F. In ->0“s’ Training School G. In