fijrpznm I II '1 I ”I r o ”o -9- "I... -c . A - '0 '-4 .olt ’I II V ‘3}.‘3 "I 5‘" {$.th 14.- .1 I'I.‘ II}?! . _ .' fin": z. 9 . .IIIiI-Iz‘ "I"; I .I. IIWII‘E .3“ I- , 1 :‘. .3‘1'3- "‘Mfi W I‘ .. '. .. 2:. a: ‘ "I!” "H _. ‘7 WI“ III 'I .-‘ ”III ”,III" I". H.232 '11,: I'.:‘I‘i‘ 1;, $941“ I "I.” agc‘u‘ql N I h .. I'v.'-' O u.-. 1.11.4”: .. I$1.'I~,‘eo . ,,.1. :‘ ‘. WWII! ”I“. “I my (2;; “A“ I... I“ '- . \ 2 ‘1‘“; ‘1 “LP I.» “31‘3“: Q \Ii ifigh at ' " LII 31, In; S} ., “é“fidif II I -. .~ :wa «I I":I ‘ I.» (0.“: \I‘I 23}? IV!‘ V .3. "‘11". III, 11. I l .‘ . "-‘-(—"'i :.¢:\-ég‘.>fl‘:t ‘A‘-,_‘."’ <:- ‘ .35,“ W . . . -.c V‘ A .4 _ _ — .n, ‘ U ‘ -ar T.’ i . V J -_..- ‘ -..- -‘ , > "4" -n—r - .U u; ,1: . ._, . -- _ ,.. . {-317.62- -'.' . .- - - - . ... ._ '. _ _- ,. _ _ “:5';-,‘:. ..— . - «I. - - . —~ . 7:: _. .- “fig-‘3 a’t. ‘ v‘“ .. - _. - 1—.. ... . _ _ _ W . . - . c - "v I , ‘ ,1 “”1311 :"I; 3", ‘ ‘g - '.. ._' II, 'i‘ 1-. ~ . 11W} ‘ '. “I .‘_I 1; " . I I‘. I‘ ' "3.14.1 u'fl my“ ‘JrII- 1 “I I ' ,p ‘ KI‘I I‘. -: ..,; ‘ "'- ‘ ._.I '.,-,,I- . III}:I 1‘1““. IS I'.I:III§".1III\II‘“I.I ' v" W'ILIZIIII' «‘1': 1;"? VI "HI?“ " ‘.' It I I IIIII:III_.I ‘ it I ' '.'o H, 1 ‘ '15 '1‘ {w \ ‘ ‘I:I‘I!II""IiI',"I‘JIU' .‘L‘ I” “III." '1’ I". M'I’i ‘.'I I0 I ' ‘ ”WK 1‘1”}.qu ”Elia-1‘: in}? II". "IN?” “MI I‘ II 3‘.‘ ”III III “:4 I307 I I .III. IIIIIII_,IIII.IIII\1‘IIII_I I “II-III. III; Z'II'; NW“ 1‘! III I ”II I, JIM“: ”III“ I-I‘IIIIIII" ‘1“‘1‘5 I‘III ”ITALY. {W ‘I‘IHII‘I'II'II‘I ' “IIIII11zII,L “My“ 'I‘a‘fiuk‘ II‘II IIII- III “MIL ”'10.“; E-Ix1\\1”1"’l 1" W' W IIII " IpIUI’III'IE" ’I'I" ”"11 In: I I 'I I I". 1 . an)" I I ‘ I I 34“¥l - \. .. . . .‘ I . ‘ ‘. “III"E'JII‘ l ".I‘I‘ IIIIII‘II ' LL I I. I. 0 1.1':\I,'a;fl‘.~t'v.1"’; . viIII‘,‘I.12‘3;‘I;‘.k‘III" “’th?- I" ("LIV “VII ”“'Jl ‘1“ .II ‘II “in; ' " I'IJ’I' . 1‘ . ‘ 0 v I . . Pu 9 12:3. 30‘ -; 3—7 -\ .- w 0-?" - I' ‘ l. I III! "'1‘ 1' 11“ II I I. III“. H‘s} {I'II’ILIII [ml ‘IUWI “III! .I* I l. ’ h I l "V I I 1:21.?“ '.""I‘vl‘ -l In If .. I III h ‘m'mf‘hm‘ “I""WIMIIIISII‘IHEM IIIIIII‘W' “H;-I:I‘.'.‘I..Ii'n’.1w“I'm:MIMhHI“knLIln‘uM‘11.11%1‘Wl‘éiflflIIIIIIIWIL‘ 4. ‘,‘—oo- . A-’...o 5.31%...." 1:27 -.c-" _' THESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled FROM CONFINEMENT T0 COMMUNITY: A NEEDS EVALUATION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS presented by Carolyn L. Feis has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts dpgmpinPsychology W W/ Major professor Date November 7, 1983 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 7,, 7 __l 1V1ESI_} RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to ngRARJES remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. goon USE cw FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNITY: A NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS by Carolyn L. Feis A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1983 ABSTRACT FROM CONFINEMENT TO COMMUNITY: A NEEDS EVALUATION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS by Carolyn L. Feis This study explored the experiences and needs of juvenile offenders released from secure detention to the community. TWenty-seven youths detained for longer than eight days were interviewed within two weeks after release. The Needs Evaluation Survey (NES) interview consisted of one hundred thirty semi-structured open-ended questions asses- sing reintegration problems in the areas of school, social, and-home life; legal involvement; the transitional experi- ence; as well as exploring the youths' interest in reinte- gration programming. Crosstasbulations and T-tests were performed on the items and scales developed from the inter- view. The results indicated that supportive relationships and ongoing treatment are related to successful reentry. They further demonstrated the importance of the family in reintegration. However, no relationship was found between the amount of time in detention and the reentry experience. Despite relatively positive reentry experiences, the youths expressed strong interest in prerelease, postrelease, and home visit programming. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS David Sternberg wrote that a graduate student should pursue his or her research "with the bottom-line assumption that nobody is going to help him (sic)'l I would like to recognize a number of people who I am grateful, thankful, and relieved have proven him wrong! First and foremost are my committee members who's con- fidence in my ability to complete this project, successfully and timely, often exceeded my own. Their involvement and participation was beyond comparison. My chair, Robin Redner, instilled in me a feeling of competence which often got me through the many obstacles encountered during this research. Craig Blakely kept me progressing by means of his adept and timely reminders of when I needed to "clean house" and let go of issues being sustained only by sentiment. His support and encouragement often came when it was needed most. Vince Hoffman's enthusiasm went well beyond the call of duty. Each of these people I thank for their time and for their being both advisor and friend. Patti Witte was always there to listen to.the trials and tribulations of this research. I greatly appreciate her ability to teach me when it was time to put work aside for ii awhile. She is a true friend. Brian Mavis has served as a statisticl and computer sounding board, advisor, office mate, and confidant. His capacity to humor me is appreci— ated. The employees of the court in which this research was conducted deserve great thanks. In order to preserve the anonymity of the study participants, however, they cannot be mentioned by name. Thanks must also go to my interviewers: Allison Cooper, Ken Garfinkel, Keith Harris, Monica O'Brien, and Eric Singer, whose contribution can never be fully ack- nowledged. I am forever grateful to these people. My family's consistent support and encouragement gave me the strength needed to conquer the many barriers encoun- tered along the way. There are numerous others who have offered advice or listened to concerns during the course of this project. The numbers prohibit me from naming these individuals. I am truly thankful to them nontheless. l. Sternberg, D. How to complete and Survive a Doctoral Dissertation. New York: St. Martins Press, 1981 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Content Page LIST OF TABLES............................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES...........................................vii CHAPTER I.................................................. 1 Introduction............................................... 1 Postrelease Trauma..................................... 4 Reintegration.......................................... 7 Insufficiency of Custodial Treatment..............lO Factors in Successful Reintegration...............12 Programs..........................................14 Programs, Evaluations, and Studies.....................16 Prerelease........................................l7 Prerelease expectations......................17 Social Competence Training...................18 Prerelease centers...........................19 work release.................................20 Furlough and gradual release.................21 Postrelease.......................................24 Postrelease panel study......................25 Behavioral Evaluation, Treatment, and Analysis..................................27 Probation and parole.........................28 Aftercare institutions and halfway houses....30 Methodological Considerations..........................32 Population Generalizability.......................34 Needs Evaluation..................................36 Implications...........................................37 Qualitative Interview..................................40 CHAPTER II.................................................42 Method.....................................................42 Subjects...............................................42 The Facility......................................42 Participants......................................43 Measures...............................................44 Interview.........................................44 Archival Data.....................................47 Procedure..............................................48 Subject Referral..................................48 Interview Training................................49 Interveiwing Process..............................52 Interveiw Coding..................................53 Archival Data Coding..............................54 Scale Development......................................54 The Rational-Empirical Process....................56 Scales...oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo000000058 Changes in school (CIS)......................58 iv Concern about school problems (CASP)........58 Meetings with caseworker (MWC)..............58 Relationship with caseworker (RWC)..........61 Rules of probation (ROP)....................61 Comfort with others (CWO)...................61 Change with friends (CWF)...................61 Environment of home (EOH)...................62 Preparation for release (PER)...............62 Scale Validity...................................62 CHAPTER III...............................................65 Results...................................................65 Sample Characteristics................................65 The Reintegration Experience..........................68 School...........................................68 Court............................................69 Peers/Social Life................................76 Home Life........................................76 Transition/Release...............................77 Programatic FindinQSOO0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBO prerelease Programs...COCO...0......COCCCCOOOOCCCBO Postrelease Programs.............................83 Home ViSit ProgramSOOOOOOO0..0.0.0.0000000000000083 Open—ended Questions..................................83 CHAPTER IV................................................92 Discussion................................................92 The Participants......................................93 The Reentry Experience................................93 Youths' Program Desires...............................98 Comments.............................................100 Sample Size.....................................1oo Institutional Size and Type.....................101 Time in Detention...............................101 Time Between Release and Interview..............102 Age of Participants.............................102 Methods.........................................103 Social Desirability.............................103 Concluding Program Recommendations...................104 summarYOOO...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00000105 APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX A - Juvenile Home Rules.........................107 - Needs Evaluation Survey.....................112 - Codeboook-Openended Questions...............136 Profile Sheet...............................138 - Research Agreement..........................139 - Letter to Parents...........................140 - Contact Sheet...............................l4l H - Recruitment Letter..........................142 O'EIWUOEJ I LIST OF REFERENCESOOOOOOOOOOOOCO...COO...00.0.00000000000143 LIST OF TABLES Tables Page I. Interrater Reliability of Measurement Instruments.....55 2. Internal Consistency Analysis.........................59 3. Scale Intercorrelations...............................63 4. Crosstabulations, Chi Squares and Phi Coefficients/ Cramer's Vs for Demographic Variables.............66 S. Crosstabulations, Chi Squares and Phi Coefficients/ Cramer's Vs of Court Items........................71 6. T'teSts Of court ItemSOOOOO0.0.0.0...0.00.00.00.00000074 7. T‘teSts Of PeerS/SOCial Li fe Items.. 0 0.0.0.0... 000 O O .076 8 . Crosstabulation, Chi Square and Phi Coefficient of Home Life ItemOOOOO.00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.78 9. T-teStS Of Home Life ItemSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.079 10. Crosstabulation, Chi Square and Phi Coefficient of TranSition ItemOOOI.0.0000000000000000000000000.0.81 ll. Frequencies on Reintegration Program Items............82 12. T-tests of Prerelease Program Items...................84 13. T-tests of Postrelease Program Items..................85 14. T-tests of Home Visit Program Items...................86 15. Open-ended QuestionSOOO.00.00.000.000.00.00.00.000000088 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page I. selection Of Youths....0.000000000000000.0.00000000000045 vii CHAPTER I Introduction Prison. Jail. Secure detention. In all of these institutions there are individuals who have been removed from society to be locked up for punishment, rehabilitation, retribution, or incapacitation (Kaplan, 1978). It has been suggested that over 95 percent of these individuals will be released and will return to the community (Glaser, 1964; Michigan Prison Overcrowding Project, 1983). The US Bureau of Prisons has expressed concern about young offenders being released directly from an institution to their home and having difficulty adjusting almost immediately. It had become crystal clear that the transition from the environment of the institution to the free community with its temptations and frustra- tions, was too abrupt for most offenders and that a more gradual lessening of control and support was needed as a further effort toward the assurance of success (Guienze, 1966, p.314). More recently, Miller and Montilla (1977) argued that there needs to be a bridge to the community in order to maintain contact and encourage successful community reinte-L gration. The transition from structure to freedom is con- sidered an uncertain, confusing, and stressful period (Eskridge, Seiter, & Carlson, 1981). This difficult tran- sition to an environment of little restrictions has often resulted in renewed criminal behavior (Wittenberg & LeClair, 1979). Can we reasonably expect that an individual who has been locked up for a number of days, weeks, months, or years will readjust to the fast-paced real world without problems, and without guidance? If not, what are the needs and prob- lems that these individuals have? What has been done to try to deal with these needs and problems? Have these efforts been successful? This research is intended to address these issues. Incarceration is on the rise, as is recidivism. Most literature and research that examines the issue of reinte— grating the offender from the institution to the community evaluates these programs in terms of recidivism (Anthony, Buell, Sharratt, & Althoff, 1972). Given the suspicion that postrelease adjustment to the community is related to reci- divism, it can be postulated that if one can facilitate bet— ter adjustment, recidivism will decrease. The "postrelease trauma thesis" (Minor & Courlander, 1979) has been developed to account for the relationship between community adjustment and recidivism. A number of types of programs have emerged in attempts to ameliorate this trauma and relieve problems associated with poor re- entry. Such programs include prerelease programs (Baker, 1966; Catalino, 1967; Novotny & Enomoto, 1976), probation and parole (Lipton, Martinson, & Wilks, 1975; Martinson & Wilks, 1977; Miller & Montilla, 1977; Moseley, 1977), work release (Miller & Montilla, 1977), furloughs (Glaser, 1973; Miller, 1977; Miller & Montilla, 1977; Sullivan, Seigel, a Clear, 1974), and halfway houses and other aftercare place- ments (Anthony et al., 1972; Couse, 1965; Ehrlich, 1986; Fixsen, Phillips, & wolf, 1973; Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & wolf, 1980; Richmond, 1971). The purposes of this paper are many. First, the argu— ments behind the postrelease trauma thesis will be explored in order to come to an understanding of the reentry experi- ence. The negative effects of institutionalization will be described and factors which have been associated with re- entry success and failure will be outlined. Second, a vari- ety of programs (both pre- and postrelease) which attempt to deal with reintegration will be described. The details of the programs (including specific examples) and their suc- cesses and failures will be detailed. An awareness of fac- tors which encourage success or failure is necessary for developing new programs or evaluation strategies. Third, methodological considerations, including popula— tion generalizability and the use of needs evaluations and qualitative interviews will be explore. Finally, a project which investigated the specific postrelease problems, exper- iences, and needs of juvenile offenders released from secure detention to a community placement will be detailed. Postrelease Trauma The postrelease trauma thesis argues that the period immediately following the release of a criminal offender from a secure institution is marked by a particular stress, often resulting in renewed criminal behavior (Goodstein, 1979; Minor & Courlander, 1979; Wittenberg & LeClair, 1979). An offender is likely to remain crime free if he or she can make it through the first weeks or months without re-offend- ing because most failures occur during these first few weeks of freedom (Bacon, 1966; Doleschal & Geis, 1971; McArthur, 1974). The incarcerated individual who is nearing release can be debilitated by prerelease anxiety. The fear of an ap- proaching release date has been known to produce somatic symptoms (Agus & Allen, 1968), to increase anxiety (Goodstein, 1979; Goodstein, 1980; Parisi, 1982b) and to result in rule breaking behavior that will ensure the revo- king of the release date (Devon Probation and After-Care Service, 1979). This fear of release has been related to many factors in the lives of these individuals. Goodstein (1979) argues that those who have been incarcerated the longest or have the least satisfying home situation awaiting their return are most apt to feel anxious about their release. Agus and Allen (1968) cite two main reasons for the increase in soma- tic symptoms of prereleasees: a fear that family, friends, and prospective employers will not accept them; and the fact that many have adjusted so well to the routine of the insti- tution that the "more difficult" life on the streets is feared. Grisso (1979) conducted an evaluation of 75 boys in a youth camp using the Desirability of Release scale. Ques- tionnaires administered two weeks prior to release showed that those feeling most anxious about their release had been previously institutionalized, had at least one parent absent from the home, feared abuse and rejection, and had been pre- viously classified as truant or runaway. Individuals who had a positive evaluation of their home, however, were most eager for their release. It could be concluded from these results that youths who have previously experienced "post- release" and those who have a deficient home lifestyle to return to will be most anxious about their impending re- lease. Empey (1967) considers the problems of the released offender profound. McArthur (1974) believes that "it's fair to say that things start bad and get worse" (p. 53). Re- leasees often have the same problems at release which they had upon entering the institution (Erickson et al., 1973) and they often experience major disappointments upon return- ing to the community (Waller, 1974). McArthur (1974) argues that the release situation guarantees turmoil, limited ac- cess to usual social roles, and little control of one's destiny. Further, the nature of the first contacts that the releasee has with the community is likely to influence sub- sequent experiences. I Offenders manifest symptoms similar to those associated with transitional status. These include depression, anxie- ty, lonliness, getting used to things and talking to people, (waller, 1974), confusion, uncertainty, stress (Eskridge et al., 1981), disorientation, estrangement, and alienation (McArthur, 1974). While the postrelease experience may be marked by ”ex- treme discontinuity in role expectations, responsibility, and degree of independence” (Minor & Coulander, 1979, p. 274), these suspected trauma-inducing events are not the only contributing factors to the postrelease trauma. It may simply be enough that the initial period following release is experienced by the individual as a time of stress, uncer- tainty, duress, and reorientation (Minor & Coulander, 1979). The move from confinement to community changes almost every aspect of an offender's life (Studt, 1967). Youths involved in the legal system are often "placed in an autho— ritarian program where the main emphasis is on social con- formity under the threat of sanctions and confinement" (Lee & Haynes, 1980, p. 171). Releasees often feel as if they are required to meet a decorum demanded by an institution. It can take days or weeks to lose this sense of awkwardness and finally relax (Kachelski, 1956). As one boy said when he was transferred to an open facility from a closed one, ”'Man - you don't know what to do - it's so different. Af- ter being locked up so many months you don't know how to act you're frightenedt'" (Catalino, 1967, p. 41) It is important to remember that these above mentioned factors have been shown to be related to prerelease anxiety. These may be very different from factors, to be discussed later, which are thought to be an integral part of, or pre- dictive of, postrelease success and failure. Reintegration Erickson and his associates (1973) argued that one of the most important developments in corrections is the rein- tegration of the offender from the confinement of an insti— tution to the freedom of the community. Empey (1967) calls the reintegration of the offender a neccessity. The Presi- dent's Task Force on Corrections (1967) further points to the need to remove the isolating effects of institutionali— zation and facilitate the transition back to the community. The reintegrative model acknowledges the consequences of community isolation (Eskridge et al., 1981) and has as its goals neutralizing the effects of incarceration and fos- tering outside community ties (LeClair, 1979). The goal is not to "correct", "cure", or "treat” (LeClair, 1979), but instead stresses community systems such as family, peer groups, and the larger society (Culberston, 1981). This model considers it "unrealistic to expect an offender to return to the community after a period of incarceration and handle the problems of day-to-day living" (Eskridge et al., 1981, p.181; Williams, 1979). Reintegration has almost as many definitions as it does authors. Miller and Montilla (1977) put it most succinctly: all prisoners need a bridge to the community to maintain contact with family and positive influ- ences; to gain relevant training and or employment experience under realistic conditions; to avail themselves of necessary services not normally found in prisons; and in general to maintain some identity with the community to which they will some day return in the hope of eventual, successful reintegration (p. 185). A number of justifications for pre- and postrelease programs have developed from this definition. Nackman (1963) describes a prerelease program as a way of dealing with social and familial disorganization. The individual, upon release from an institution, moves from dependency to independence; from a protective and artificial community to one that is demanding and often cruel. He further argues that these difficulties are both psychological and social. Studt (1967) adds that: With minimal preparation the offender moves from a subservient, deprived, and highly structured insti- tutional life into a world that bombards him with stimuli, presents complicated problems requiring immediate solution, and expects him to assume re- sponsibilities to which he has long been unused. (p. 3) Empey (1978) cites the goals of reintegration as re- lieving the youth of social isolation, stifling routine, degredation, and severe punishment. However, helpful services are essential. Since an individual is not released into a vacuum, it is argued that any prerelease program must involve the community resources available to the releasee (Couse, 1965). While it may be essential that releasees be made aware of resources and services that exist for their aid, it is also thought to be essential that there occur an integration of these services (Foster, 1973). It is likely that a spe— cific agency does not know what other agencies exist and what these other agencies can offer. More importantly, the agencies may therefore duplicate services, or worse, operate at cross-purposes (Foster, 1973). Davoli and Stock (1982) argue that the transfer of an individual to a new treatment setting does not indicate the termination of responsibility and support of the first set- ting. In order to maintain progress, there must be not only communication between these systems, but also direct invol- vement of the first with the latter. This is even more cru- cial when that new setting is the community and the releasee has difficulty accessing needed resources. The reintegration time span encompasses some time prior to release, the release and transition period, as well as some time postrelease to the point where a relatively stable position is ascertained (McArthur, 1974). Landolfi (1978) points to the gradual reintegration of the offender as cru— cial in community readjustment. 10 In understanding reintegration problems, one must begin by assuming that exoffenders are basically normal people (Briggs, 1978). Reintegration efforts must not focus en- tirely on changing the offender, but should encourage effec- tive social links between the offender and the community (McArthur, 1974). Most released offenders do not have the supportive resources that are considered essential to start life again (Erickson et al., 1973). Community change, in addition to changing the offender and the institution, is necessary (Lerman, 1970). Insufficiency of Custodial Treatment There seems to be an inability on the part of correc- tional programming to create positive and enduring changes in the behavior or attitude of its prisoners (Miller & Montilla, 1977; Robison & Smith, 1971), or to successfully prepare inmates for their return to the community (Sigurdson, 1970). While many reasons have been cited for this problem, this list often includes apathy, lack of funds, overcrowding, and out-of—date facilities (Miller & Montilla, 1977). Miller (1970) argues that custodial treatment of offen- ders is not sufficient to deter the offender. He also cites a commissioner who argues that "even if the best is done by way of treatment during the period of detention, something must be done on a follow-up basis after prison” (p. 516). Correctional programs create or foster a host of ll reentry problems while at the same time taking little or no responsibility for helping the individual to deal with his or her reentry (McArthur, 1974). In order for correctional programs to impact on the offender, they must upgrade their services and orient themselves toward the reintegration of the offender (Task Force on Corrections, 1967). The goal of corrections should be to build links between the community and the offender, and to reintegrate the offender into the community through family, jobs, education, and in general to help the individual find a place for him or herself in the community (Task Force on Corrections, 1967). The institu- tional factors encompassing the release situation must be assessed. The connection between correctional programs and the offender's relationship with the community should be the central focus of corrections (McArthur, 1974). Many argue that the soicalization of offenders to the institution hinders the individual from becoming a useful member of the community (Erickson et al., 1973). Goodstein (1979) paints a picture of the correctional institution as reinforcing behaviors that serve counter to the goal of suc- cessful community adjustment: acquiesence, compliance, and dependence.‘ He concludes that the institution does not (and most likely cannot) prepare the inmate for successful rein- tegration because of its routine system of rewards and punishments. Further, Cressey (1973) adds that ”no institu- tion receiving the men (sic) made 'failures' by the rest of 12 society should be expected to make 'successes' of a very large proportion of them" (p. 148). While in an institution, an individual is expected to be obedient and passive, however, he or she is later expec- ted to be responsible and self-sufficient upon return to the community (Empey, 1967). Institutions make efforts to re- quire a way of life which is unlike normal living. Inmates are ordered to submit to institutional rules (Katkin, Hyman, & Kramer, 1976). While one might expect that the joy of being released from an institution would overshadow any problems experi- enced at release, this is not the case (Erickson et al., 1973). Whatever the specific reasons are, it seems that the institution, by definition, may not only be unable to suc- _ cessfully prepare individuals for release, but may also be serving to defeat this goal. It is very likely that the dependency the inmate seems to experience may serve to in- crease his or her problems in adjusting to the community upon release (Goodstein, 1979). Factors in Successful Reintegration Studt (1967) argues that successful reintegration does not occur in a moment. Rather, there is a period of "reci- procal adaptation" which occurs between the releasee and the community. It is this testing which ultimately determines if the individual's reintegration to the community is suc- cessful. 13 One factor often considered predictive of successful reintegration is the length of institutionalization. Goodstein (1979) argues that the longer an individual is institutionalized, the poorer his chances are for successful reintegration. However, Smith, Jenkins, Petho, and Warner (1979) state that if the length of time in a prerelease pro— gram is increased, and if the program continues after re- lease, the chances are greater that such a program will have positive effects. Minor and Courlander (1979) conclude, however, that most studies found that length of stay has very little predictive power in terms of postrelease suc- cess. Smith et a1. (1979) state that interpersonal relations, financial matters, and social activities comprise the fac- tors contributing most to postrelease success. Miller (1970) argues that one really just needs a stake in the com- munity; that one must have some satisfaction. This may oc- cur in the form of a job, better and deeper relations with friends and family, or service to the community. Buikhuisen and Hoekstra (1974) argue that there are eight factors re- lated to reintegration. These are biographical, judicial, psychological, psychiatric, familial, school, work, and lei- sure. ‘ Studt (1967) lists five conditions which help to reduce the strain of reentry. These conditions require that: (a) the releasee feel valued and supported by his community, (b) l4 tolerance for trial and error behavior be exhibited, (c) the role of the releasee be clear and unambiguous, (d) the re- leasee participate in independent decision making, and (e) the releasee have appropriate role models. Successful reintegration programs must consider the offenders' social and cultural environment (Empey, 1967), directly impact upon the negative influences of institution— alization (LeClair, 1979), and be ”carefully planned, ex— pertly executed, and highly individualized" (Task Forceon Corrections, 1967, p. 150). The major factors associated with postrelease success seem to center around jobs, family, friends, and the com- munity (Briggs, 1978; Culbertson, 1981; Erickson et al., 1973; McArthur, 1974; Renzema, 1980; and Waller, 1974). It seems logical then to expect that programs designed to faci- litate a smooth reintegration would focus on these factors. Many do. Programs Reintegration programs come in many forms and include prerelease centers or programs, work release, furlough, pro- bation, halfway houses, and other forms of aftercare super— vision (Empey, 1967; McArthur, 1974; Swart, 1982). Just as the reintegration of the psychiatric patient is based on a variety of rehabilitation procedures (Anthony et al., 1972), so is the reintegration of the criminal offender. Nackman (1963) describes such transitional programs as buffers ”not 15 only for the prisoner hitting the street 'cold' but also for his 'society'" (p. 43). Couse (1965) argues that the first step in preparing an individual for release is giving that person an opportunity to discuss his/her plans, goals, resources, and relation- ships. This provides the releasee with an opportunity to make decisions about his or her future. The Citizen's In— quiry on Parole and Criminal Justice (1975) outlines an ad— ditional six areas which are focused on before, during, and after release: cash, emergency housing, job training with living wages, educational opportunities, lowcost medical services, and public and private legal services. Smith et a1. (1979) argue that regardless of the specific program or service provided, the use of significant others in these programs is likely to have great benefits. Reintegration programs often focus on easing the tran- sition from confinement to the community by securing essen- tial services for the releasee. McArthur (1974) outlines ten general principals and/or characteristics which are es- sential in the development of effective reentry prorams. 1) Programs must assume that releasees genuinely want to change their lives. 2) Programs must focus most intensively on the immedi- ate reentry period (the first three to five weeks) because of its relationship to postrelease adjustment. 3) Programs should begin weeks or months prior to 16 release to ensure success. 4) Programs must acknowledge that it is the releasee's life situation that is the primary source of difficulty, rather than emotional difficulties, attitudes, or limita- tions of the individual. I 5) Programs should focus on providing meaningful op- portunities for releasees. 6) Programs should provide a helping relationship for the releasee which will offer support throughout the reentry process. 7) Programs must acknowledge the effect that a change in one aspect of life has on the other aspects. 8) Programs must help with family relationships. 9) Programs should develop vocational and educational placements which are seen by the recipients as meaningful for future opportunities. 10) Programs must involve community members and agen- cies in the reentry of offenders. Programs, Evaluations, and Studies A number of programs have emerged in attempts to deal with this issue of reintegration (cf., Glaser, 1964; Jenkins & Sanford, 1972; Novotny & Enomoto, 1976). Studies have also been conducted as efforts at evaluating these programs (Anthony et al., 1972). Their completeness, degree of spe- cification, and rigor vary, but these programs and studies are worthy of mentioning for the light they may shed on the l7 importance of different factors in offender reintegration. Prerelease Baker (1966) points to three principles that he argues are essential in establishing a program of prerelease pre— paration. These principles involve providing: 1) informa- tion and assistance relevant to release planning, 2) the opportunity for inmates to discuss concerns and anxieties regarding their release, and 3) a means of evaluating the effectiveness of the program. While the purpose of a prere- lease program is to facilitate the progression of individu- als from confinement to the community, it is not necessarily as simple as it may first appear (Catalino, 1967). Ultimately, prerelease programs should begin on the day an individual arrives at an institution (Eubanks, 1963; Task Force on Corrections, 1967), however, it usually begins on the day of release, if at all. Glaser argues that newly admitted individuals receive more attention in classes de- signed to orient them to the institution, than do individu- als who are near release (cited in Empey, 1967). Basically, all prerelease programs have the same goals and objectives, the primary of which is to aid in the offen- der's adjustment to freedom (McCarthy & McCarthy, 1983). Prerelease expectations. Glaser's (1964) investigation into the expectations held by prereleasees revealed that most inmates were counting on assistance from close family members. The second most relied on source of aid was other 18 friends. One would expect, therefore, that the relationship the inmate has with his or her family and friends after re- lease will be related to the success that individual has at remaining crime free. There were four main types of assis- tance that were anticipated by these prereleasees: housing, subjective (friendship, advice, etc.), employment, and fi- nancial or other material aid (in order of preference). A summary of Glaser's findings indicates that an inmate's pre- release expectations are that family and friends will be there to aid him/her upon release. Social Competence Training. The goal of Social Compe- tence Training (SCT) is to encourage and promote law-abiding and successful behavior in offenders after release into the community (Novotny & Enomoto, 1976). SCT is based on the notion that any kind of institutional adjustment is counter- productive since it encourages dependence. SCT therefore encourages competence as well as self-directed and respon- sibile conduct. It is a voluntary program based on social learning theory. The SCT program consists of two main parts. The first involves group sessions which train the members in social skills, selfmanagement, and normative redirection. The other component is a training program designed for staff. The SCT objectives are three-fold: l) teach effec- tive and prosocial behavior, 2) promote democratic and pro- social personal behavior, and 3) teach reasoning and 19 intelligent, purposeful behavior. Novotny and Enomoto (1976) believe that the focus of SCT on observable behaviors is crucial to its success. Prerelease centers. Prerelease centers are designed to serve as a middle ground between a secure institution and the free community (Guienze, 1966; Wittenberg & LeClair, 1979). However, one must also be aware that the transition from a secure institution to a prerelease center may create as many problems as does the transition to the community (Wittenberg & LeClair, 1979). One must therefore be pre- pared for the changes that will take place. Training Institution Central Ohio (TICO) is a medium security facility for delinquent males which encorporates into itself a prerelease program. Prerelease cottages are designed to reduce control and emphasize initiative, judge- ment, and interest. Field trips, home visits, and coeduca- tional activities have been designed to increase exposure to the community. At a minimum, these cottages provide the institution an emotional safety valve which is both thera- peutic and functional (Catalina, 1967). The Apalachee Correctional Institution was opened in 1961 with four goals: (a) address questions regarding re- lease procedures, (b) relieve prerelease anxiety, (c) assist in preparing individuals for the problems that will be mani- fested after release, and (d) help the individual evaluate the experience of being incarcerated (Eubanks, 1963). 20 The California prerelease centers attempted to use com- munity resources to assist in reentry. However, because the program tried to meet the needs of everyone in general, it did not meet the needs of anyone specifically. Two major requirements for a successful prerelease program illustrated by the California prerelease centers are (a) the individu— alization of treatment (as indicated by the program's fail- ure), and (b) the building of evaluation directly into pro- gram development (Holt & Renteria, 1969). Due to a lack of resources, relatively few evaluations of prerelease centers have been conducted. Those that have been published tend to evaluate the success of programs in terms of recidivism. Bacon (1966) indicates that completion of a prerelease program is directly related to low recidi-. vism rates. Williams' (1979) evaluation of forestry camps and prerelease centers showed lower recidivism for individu- als who had been placed in such programs. LeClair (1978) also found significantly lower recidivism rates for indivi- duals who had been placed in prerelease centers immediately prior to release than for those released directly from a secure institution. Work release. A workrelease program allows inmates to leave the institution for a number of hours to attend a job in the community (Miller & Montilla, 1977). There is a si- milar program, called educational release, which allows a temporary releasee to attend educational programs outside of 21 the institution. Miller and Montilla (1977) argue that the success of a work release program depends largely on the effectiveness of the original screening. One important problem that often arises from temporary dayrelease programs is the fact that other inmates often put pressure on the day-releasee to smuggle contraband into and out of the institution. Miller and Montilla (1977) believe that this can be minimized or avoided through efficient screening or by housing these day—releasees apart from others. This type of program is being minimally discussed because of its similarity to the next set of programs to be presented-—the furlough and gradual release programs. Furlough and gradual release. Furloughs and gradual release programs were developed in the 1960's and are per— mitted by law in over half of the states in the U.S.A. (Miller & Montilla, 1977). Furloughs are an unescorted re- lease from an institution to the community for a specified period ranging from a few hours to several years, with two to three days being typical (Miller, 1977). Furloughs may sometimes be distinguished from gradual release programs in the frequency and duration of release dates. Furloughs may occur for one weekend a year, or they may occur daily. Gradual release programs, on the other hand, increase the frequency and duration of release periods up until the date of release. The similarity of these pro- grams lie not so much in their allowing temporary release 22 from the institution, as in their rationale. The rationale of these programs is primarily to allow the inmate an opportunity to regain or maintain contact with the community, particularly the family (Miller & Montilla, 1977). The furlough can serve as a bridge between depen- dence and freedom; it allows the offender to gradually be- come accustomed to the community (Miller, 1977; Parisi, 1982b; Swart, 1982; Toch, 1967). Furlough activities often include job hunting or con- firming a previous job offer, obtaining a drivers license, meeting with the parole officer, getting reacquainted with family and friends, and confirming residence plans (Holt, 1971). Participation in these activities allows the individual to practice social skills, maintain community ties, and deal with social inevitabilities. Toch's (1967) study revealed a number of personal benefits of furlough, including: rebuil- ding social bonds, testing the community's acceptance, re- lief from isolation of incarceration, increase in calmness, facilitation of subsequent prison time, hope, concrete ar- rangements, and improved coping strategies. The study fur- ther revealed liabilities that were cited by furloughed in— mates. These include: returning to prison and readjusting to institutional life, drugs administered prior to furlough, useless furlough experiences, problems with community mem- bers, time limitations, community's lack of acceptance, 23 unfamiliarity with the outside world, and inadequate resour- ces. The gradual release program ensures a progressive re- lease. It is ”designed to reduce the severity of impact of an abrupt transition between two divergent and possibly an— tagonistic climates” (Doleschal & Geis, 1971, p.1). Usually the inmate leaves the institution for the day, or sometimes overnight, during a period of one week to three months just prior to release (Miller, 1970). This program is seen as allowing the individuals a gradual transition from prison to freedom (Glaser, 1973) and providing the person with time during which he/she may again become able to accept the re- sponsibilities associated with community life (Sullivan et al., 1974). It allows the individual a chance to explore social relationships before being thrown into the community where the establishment and endurance of these relationships are considered essential for success (Glaser, 1964). LeClair (1979) defines a graduated release program as one which not only allows the inmate opportunities to leave the institution, but also allows for a gradual reduction in the security of the offenders. Studies show that such gra- duated reintegration programs reduce the probability of re- cidivism (LeClair, 1978b) and have positive effects on the postrelease behavior of participants (LeClair, 1979). It is surprising that there are no sophisticated evalu- ation and measurement devices in existence to measure the 24 success of temporary releases. The method that is usually used is simply to record the number and percentages of fur- Iloughs which are successfully completed-—those where the individual returned on time (Miller, 1977; Miller & Montilla, 1977). LeClair's (1978a) and Williams' (1979) studies of furlough both showed significantly lower recidi- vism rates for furloughed inmates than for those released without a furlough. One exception to the lack of studies is Holt's (1971) investigation of California's prerelease/furlough program. Extensive screening was required prior to participation and a set of interviews was required upon return. Two of the most revealing results were that, first, despite the sub- jects' apprehension about how they would be received by family and friends, they were surprised at the positive at- titudes and support they were greeted with; and second, they were surprised at how much they accomplished on their fur- lough. It is no wonder, therefore, that Miller and Montilla (1977) argued that both offenders and prison officials would attest to the importance of the furlough as a reintegration tool. Postrelease The importance of postrelease programs is illustrated by two factors. Recidivism is highest during the time im- mediately following release and, second, the motivation to successfully reintegrate is greatest during this period. 25 Aid at the time of release is therefore crucial to protect against a quick failure and to aid in strengthening the re- leasee's desire for success (Doleschal & Geis, 1971). Postrelease care is considered essential because re- lease adjustment cannot be attained or maintained without recognizing and dealing with the following institutional and situational factors affecting release and reentry: the hasty method of problem solving, lack of prerelease preparation, disorientation caused by the release, familial pressures, and overreactions to postrelease failures (McArthur, 1974). As a result, most released individuals could, at a minimum, benefit from postrelease guidance aimed at reorientation (Kay & Vedder, 1963). It is further argued that because youths are likely to recidivate without sufficient aftercare support, the initital investment in institutional services will be lost if aftercare services are not adequately de- veloped and funded (Davoli & Stock, 1982). ‘ Postrelease panel study; Glaser (1964) conducted a massive investigation into prison and parole systems. One component of this investigation was the postrelease panel study. Glaser argued that there was not adequate evidence revealing what could be done to reduce recidivism. The panel study was conducted, therefore, 0n the assumption that what happens to a man (sic) in these initital [six] months may greatly affect his ultimate postrelease behavior, and because a major proportion of failures occur in this period....(p. 534) 26 This study involved interviewing men in the first week after release, and then monthly for six months. Many postrelease violaters complained that if they had been released to a different community, they would have been successful. They cite as reasons for their failure in the community to which they were released: a lack of job oppor— tunities, conflicts with their family and neighbors, crimi- nal associations/friends, and police harassment. According to Glaser, these complaints are consistent with the indica- tion that any type of discord associated with the community is related to postrelease failure. 0n the related note of community discord, Glaser's postrelease panel study revealed that friendship ties are weakened by the prison experience while kinship ties are strengthened. Where these frienship ties have remained, the renewal of contact with prison and criminal associates is related to a high rate of failure upon release. 0n the other hand, postrelease success is associated with the dev- ' elopment of friendships in which the individual's criminal background is not revealed. The most successful reintegration will be experienced by the individual who returns to a home life that offers him aid, to a community that exudes harmony with the individual, and to a situation that allows the individual to establish new friendships while keeping his criminal past a secret. 27 Behavioral Evaluation, Treatment, and Analysis. The Behavioral Evaluation, Treatment, and Analysis (BETA) in- strument employed by Jenkins and his associates (Jenkins, Barton, deValera, DeVine, Witherspoon, & Muller, 1972; Jenkins, deValera, & Muller, 1977; and Jenkins & Sanford, 1972) consists of four measures: The Environmental Depriva- tion Scale (EDS) the Maladaptive Behavior Record (MBR), the Weekly Activity Record (WAR), and the Law Enforcement Severity Scale (LESS). Jenkins et a1. (1972) developed the MBR which consists of 16 scales which assess the degree to which an individu- al's behavior is considered adaptive. These scales include: income, working conditions, coworkers, employer, work atten— dence, alcohol, drugs, gambling, fighting, verbal abusive- ness, maladaptive associates, money management, physical condition, psychological adjustment, legal processes, and other maladaptive responses. The EDS was developed by Jenkins and Sanford (1972) to correlate measures which are predictive of criminal behavior and recidivism. The measure covers three main areas, each with five subsections, and a sixteenth section. The occupa- tional section includes: employment, income, debts, job particiaption, and job statUs; the institutional section in- cludes: hobbies and avocations, education, residence, church, and other organizations; the interpersonal relation- ships section includes: friends, relatives, parents, wife, 28 and children; and the final section is fear--the individuals confidence in his ability to deal with his environment. Probation and parole. While parole is often thought of as a means of release prior to the termination of one's sen- tence, it is similar to probation in that it provides the court with a means of supervising the individual in the com- munity (Miller & Montilla, 1977). The releasee (called the parolee or probationer) has a resource person, namely the parole or probation officer, to whom he can turn for assis— tance. 0n the other hand, the parole and probation officers provide a means of control once the individual has been re— leased to the community. The officer may revoke probation or parole for violations of rules and return the individual to the institution (Miller & Montilla, 1977). The parole/ probation officer must choose between two roles: that of enforcement and that of service-counseling (Lerman, 1970). Successfully finding a balance of these two is very diffi- cult and very rare. The United Nations (1954) described parole as a means of easing the transition to the community from the institu- tion, not as a means of leniency. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency (1967) explained the role of parole as that of providing aid toward adjusting to the free communi— ty. More recently, the Citizens' Inquiry on Parole and Cri- minal Justice (1975) defined the purpose of parole as a ”sensible device to ease the transition from incarceration 29 to freedom...” (p. 281) and to "continue the treatment of the offender that was begun in prison by assisting him (sic) in his (sic) adjustment to the community...” (p. 294). 4 Many studies have been conducted comparing the recidi- vism rates of parolees and individuals released to the com- munity at the end of the specified sentence, with no com- munity supervision (Lipton et al., 1975; Martinson & Wilks, 1977; and Moseley, 1977). Lipton et a1. (1975) based their results on five studies of youths under 18 who were randomly assigned to conditions and concluded that probation is as- sociated with a reduction in recidivism. Martinson and Wilks (1977) conducted a survey of studies comparing the success of parole versus straight release and found that for 74 of 80 comparisons made, parolees showed lower rates of arrest, conviction, and return to prison than did those who were released without supervision. Generally, 50% of parole violations occur within the first six months after release (Task Force on Corrections, 1967). Moseley's (1977) survey of parole versus straight re- lease studies also reveals that parolees have fewer convic- tions than releasees. However, he points to a problem in recidivism research that must also be considered in the development and evaluation of reintegration programs. He indicates that the extent to which the success of parole is attributable to efficient screening mechanisms as opposed to the effectiveness of the supervision provided in the 30 community is difficult to tell. This issue warrants further investigation. Aftercare institutions and halfway houses. The dis— tinction between halfway houses and aftercare programs is often difficult to determine. They are both residential facilities located in the community where a number of indi- viduals live with or without supervision (Ehrlich, 1980). Aftercare institutions are frequently distinguished from halfway houses as providing a more specific type of treat- ment program, for example drug rehabilitation, alcohol de- toxification, and so on (Couse, 1965). Halfway houses are often seen merely as a transitional living place between an institution and the community (Ehrlich, 1980). The purposes of the halfway house are many. It is pri- marily thought to be a means of illustrating that an indivi- dual is capable of functioning in the community, or at least that he or she can learn to do so with support (Richmond, 1971). It is argued that while the individual may not be quite ready for independent living, he or she is capable of functioning outside of the institution (Ehrlich, 1980). Couse (1965) also believes that it provides a means for con- tinuing any prosocial re-education that was begun in prison. The findings on the success of halfway houses and other af- tercare programs, however, are mixed (Sullivan et al., 1974). The Transitional Treatment Center is a center for 31 nonsubstance abusers who are being reintegrated from a re- sidential psychiatric institution to independent community living (Ehrlich, 1980). The directors of this center be- lieve that reintegration is complete when the resident has developed skills for independent living, can maintain appro- priate personal and social functioning in the community, and can participate in community life. Achievement Place is a community-based residential treatment facility for delinquents in Kansas (Fixsen et al., 1973; Phillips et al., 1980), based on the principles of behavior modification. Its goals are to teach social skills such as manners and introductions, academic skills such as study and homework behaviors, self-help skills including meal preparation and personal hygiene, and prevocational skills considered necessary in the community. Anthony et a1. (1972) evaluated the effectiveness of a number of halfway house and aftercare programs. They es- tablished a baseline effect and then divided the inpatient category into: (a) traditional hospital treatment, (b) work therapy, (c) "total push” therapy, and (d) nontraditional groups. These individuals were then compared with outpa- tient rehabilitation groups such as drug maintenance, aftercare clinics, planned follow-up counseling, and tran- sitional facilities on outcomes of recidivism and employ- ment. Their results showed no differences between the out- patients and the traditional hospital patients or the wOrk 32 therapy patients for either outcome. Differences were re- vealed, however, between outpatients and total push on re- cidivism, and between nontraditional groups on both out- comes. It was concluded that those in aftercare clinics exhi— bited lower rates of recidivism, as did those in transi- tional facilities--but only while an individual was a member of that facility. This indicated that the patient was just transferring dependence from one institution to another. The overwhelming purpose of these transitional programs is an attempt to foster community life through a variety of living arrangements and treatment programs. However, the continued analysis of the effectiveness of these types of programs is important. Methodological Considerations The results of reintegration studies tend to be con- flicting. Robison and Smith (1971) concluded their study by arguing that follow-up studies statisically favor community treatment over institutionalization followed by a period of parole. Anthony et a1. (1972) concluded that recidivism rates were lower for groups receiving a variety of programs. Flynn (1973), however, came to an apparently different conclusion. She argued that the accumulated research indi- cated that positive change seldom occured in an institution, but more importantly, that when change did occur it was sel- dom carried over into the community life of the releasee. 33 This conclusion, however, need not be as disheartening as it appears at first thought. Perhaps it is just a matter of the the programs being poorly designed, or even the studies being poorly conducted (Anthoney et al., 1972; and Minor & Courlander, 1979). Given the lack of input that participants seem to have in the programs, this would be of no surprise. Very few systematic studies have been conducted on the issue of community reentry, the primary exceptions being Glaser (1964), Cohen (1972), Erickson and associaties (1973), and McArthur (1974). Renzema (1980) cited a number of problems with past examinations of reintegration. These problems included the use of only parolees as subjects, the influence of investigation methods on findings, the lack of emphasis on posititve postrelease forces, and the ignoring of individual differences in coping strategies for dealing with postrelease stress. Outcomes tended to be measured in terms of recidivism, employment, release rate, and institutional adjustment (Anthony et al., 1972). Rarely were outcomes assessed in terms of the participants' interpretation of their own ad- justment. While the quantitative measures mentioned above are useful in understanding program success and failure, they are not sufficient. The qualitative measure obtained from the participants themselves is useful in identifying the aspects of the program which most contributed to its 34 success or failure. Another problem is that most agencies do not have the capacity for evaluation (Foster, 1973). However, when knowledge is gained, it is rarely transmitted to others. Lerman (1968) pointed to additional problems with the reintegration literature. He argued that evaluation should focus on whether failure rates have been reduced, rather than whether success can be claimed. Further, he argued that it is necessary to show that the program was actually responsible for the achievement made. This requires "true" experimentation with pre- and postcondition measures and control groups, an obvious deficiency in the reintegration literature. Population Generalizability There is one final problem that must be noted, and it is echoed by Griffieth (1980) on a related issue. The needs and problems of the released juvenile offender may resemble those of the adult offender. But they may not. It is im- .perative that their needs, as a distinct and novel popula- tion, be assessed so that appropriate and confident con- clusions may be drawn. Not only is the application of literature and programs designed for adult offenders of dubious value when applied to juveniles, the reasons for detaining these offender groups are often different. Whereas adults are usually con— fined for punishment or retribution, juveniles are often 35 detained as a means of control. While some of the issues discussed here may be similar for both groups, the differ- ences should be investigated. Similarly, while issues in large state and federal institutions may be generalizable to .small, local institutions, the issue should be evaluated. It is necessary to consider the nature of the specific population and the differences in services that are neces- sary to provide such required resources as an atmosphere of self-worth, conditions for independent decision making, and role clarity for juveniles versus adults (Studt, 1967). Doleschal and Geis (1971) also argue that programs should be ”tailored individually...to the clientele they are intended to serve" (p. 4). The most frequent concern of released adult offenders is centered around jobs. However, most juveniles are not worried about jobs at the time of their release. It is not as immediate a problem for them as for adult offenders. School, however, occupies nearly half of a youth's waking hours and may be of primary importance. Youth's also have different types of familial relationships to return to than do adults. Adults often return to a spouse, while juveniles return to their parents. It is necessary to explore the relationship between youths and their parents since this relationship may have significantly different effects on the youths' reenty than the relationship between an adult and spouse would have on the adult inmate. The same holds true 36 for examining school issues of the youths instead of the usual work issues for adults. The literature on reintegration has focused primarily on the adult offender. While there are obvious similarities between the needs of all releasees, there are differences between those of the juvenile and those of the adult that make this neglect intolerable. Needs Evaluation There is a tremendous lack of studies that examine re- integration as experienced by the offender (Briggs, 1978; Dawson, 1981; Duffee & Duffee, 1981; Empey, 1967; Studt, 1967). Very little has been done to explore the problems and fears of inmates nearing release, or what kinds of ser- vices they would prefer. Rarely does one consider whether the goals of a program are consistent with those of the of— fenders they serve. Programs are planned around and for the offender, but rarely do they consider his or her perspective (Dawson, 1981). The need to focus on inmates"needs has been acknow- ledged for over 100 years (Briggs, 1978). Recent studies of prerelease have supported the need to involve offenders in reintegration program development (McCarthy & McCarthy, 1983), but the issue remains neglected. Given the variety of programs available to deal with reentry, and the vast number of issues and concerns facing released offenders, individualizing programs through needs 37 evaluations appears to be the only way to tailor a success- ful program. The problems with the California prerelease centers (Holt & Renteria, 1969) illustrated that needs eval- uations must be carefully considered in the development of reintegration programs. However, such evaluations are a necessary but not sufficient condition and will therefore not guarantee success. It is believed that programs devel- oped without careful consideration of the needs of the pro- gram setting and clientele are virtually doomed to fail. Programatic success depends upon an understanding of the perceptions of the offenders' own needs and problems (McArthur, 1974). It makes little difference what service- delivery staff think they are doing in terms of treatment; the perceptions of the recipient about what is being done may determine success or failure (Toch, 1967). It is cru- cial that program planners not only know the needs of the recipients, but also make serious attempts to meet these needs in order to achieve success (Eubanks, 1963). It has become clear that needs could help determine treatment. Implications The general conclusions to be made from this literature are that: (a) there are needs and problems that the institué tionalized individual has upon release to the community, (b) there are many different types of programs in existence to deal with these needs and problems, (c) these different pro— grams emphasize different parts of the adjustment process, 38 and (d) these facilities have varying success rates. Briggs (1978), Dawson (1981), Eubanks (1963), McArthur (1974), McCarthy & McCarthy (1983), and Toch (1967), among others, would argue that the varying success rates are due to the failure of most programs to consider the needs of the indi- viduals they serve. They would further assert that success- ful program development demands that needs be evaluated. Throughout this review, the main areas covered have been: (a) the types of programs in existence, (b) the rele- vance of these programs to the needs of their participants, (c) the success of these programs (measured in a variety of ways), and (d) the generalizability of these programs to the juvenile offender. The present study was designed to assess and evaluate the needs and problems of juvenile detainees who are re- leased to the local community. This was done through a qualitative interview developed specifically for this needs evaluation. The focus of the interview was dictated by the previously reviewed literature and studies. The literature identified four major factors associated with successful reentry: jobs, family, friends, and the com- munity. Work furlough programs focus primarily on job con- cerns. Prerelease and gradual reentry programs attend to family and friends, while postrelease programs attempt to involve the community. Since these issues have been stressed with adults, these or similar issues were explored 39 with the youths. Since most of the youths were still in school, employ- ment at the moment was not a major concern. Instead, this research focused on the role that school plays in the re— entry of youths. While exploration of familial relation- ships of adults usually focuses on spouses or partners, this is not appropriate for youths. Instead, therefore, this research explored the relationship between the youths and their parents. Unlike the adult system, the detained youths' case- workers play a major role in the lives of the youths. The caseworker is often involved with the youth prior to deten- tion, and always continues to spend time with the youth during and after detention. For this reason, the youths' relationships with their caseworkers were explored. As a means of learning about the reentry experience of these youths, they were able to describe how they felt about their release and preparation for release, and finally their in- terest in different types of reenty programs was assessed. The goal of this study was to address the following research issues and questions: 1. What are the life experiences of youths after re- lease from secure detention in terms of school, home life, social life, and the court? Which of these experiences have been affected by the youths' institutionalization and in what way? 4O 2. What services have youths employed in efforts to deal with adjustment problems? What are the youths' evalua- tions of the services they received? 3. What progams would the youths like to have that do not exist or the youths do not know how to find? Only when these questions are satisfactorally answered can one begin to adequately address the problem of reinte- gration of the juvenile offender. Once the responses to these issues are clarified, the development of appropriate and necessary programs and services can begin, and the needs of these youths can finally be met. Qualitative Interview A characteristic of many needs evaluations is the qualitative interview. The basic idea behind the interview is to provide an opportunity for respondents to express themselves in their own words and to allow the researcher to enter the perspective of the respondent. This assumes that what the respondent has to say is meaningful, important, and of interest to the interviewer (Patton, 1980; Toch, 1967). An open-ended interview allows the interviewer to probe and explore in an effort to illustrate the issues at hand (Patton, 1980). Questions are designed to give the respon- dent a chance to not only express him or herself, but also to feel a part of the study (Waller, 1974). This method is used as a means of accurately recording the offender's per- ceptions (Lohman, Wahl, Carter, & Elliott, 1966). This 41 style of interviewing has been used in a number of studies that have resulted in easily quantifiable data (cf. Griffieth, 1980; Irwin, 1970; Lehman et al., 1966; McArthur, 1974; Parisian, 1982; Waller, 1974). CHAPTER II Method Subjects The Facility The detention facility from which subjects were selec- ted is located in a city of 130,600 people, and is the only secure detention facility that serves its county with a population of 272,435. The facility itself contains 17 beds (10 for boys, 7 for girls), however, extra matresses are added when the gender imbalance is extreme. The demographic characteristics of the juvenile home population, based on a sample year of 1981 (Clark & Feis, 1982) show that of 324 intakes, almost 50% had been previ— ously detained in this county. The age of these youths ranged from nine to seventeen years, with over 90% being 14 years or older. Seventy percent of the youths were male and 70% were white. The reasons stated for detaining these youths were many and ranged from violation of probation or court order to serious violent offenses. Only 25% of the youths received preliminary hearings before they are detained. Youths spent from 1 to 284 consecutive days in detention. Fifty percent were incarcerated longer than 8 days. 42 43 The disciplinary and reward system that operates at the juvenile home is based on a typical level system (see Appen- dix A). The youths earn extra priviledges and responsibili- ties as they demonstrate appropriate behavior. The flexi- bility that exists in the system is designed to allow for mitigating circumstances and the individuality of treatment. There is no treatment program, per se, at the detention home. While the youth's caseworker is expected to visit the youth daily, the visits are often so brief as to not warrant the label of treatment. The juvenile home seems, therefore, to serve mainly as a means of detainment and control. Given the regimen and social artificiality that exists within the juvenile home, it is postulated that youths begin to experience some of the pressures of institutionalization, and after 8 days, the extreme differences between life in the juvenile home and life in the community is thought to be evident to these youths. Participants Only those individuals who were placed at the juvenile home for a consecutive period of eight days or longer were eligible to participate in this study. It was thought that after eight days youths would have begun to feel the effects of institutionalization. In addition, youths who had al- ready been interviewed, who had a caseworker who requested that he/she not be interviewed, who had a parent who re- 4 EouH mom ucoEmmumg Hmuoe w Ammuzv mama Hm>finoum mm mm mo mp mm 30H mm mm Ha ha mm H: “omcmm mm S cm 3 ms emanate EouH mom ocolwmvmmo ucmfimmumfl mcolmnlmwo unmEmoum4 Hmuoe w Hmumm m Ammuzv Anbuzv Avoanzv mEouH ooocolcomo >Hco mEouH unmocommocH mEouH Hag mZHBH QWAdUm >m>usm :oflumsam>m momoz Ammmucmoummv mucmEduumcH ucoaousmmoz mo >uwaanmAHom noumuuoucH H OHQMB 56 identify the experiences and needs of juvenile offenders returned to the community from secure detention. In order for the NES to be a useful measurement device, scales were developed which reduced the item set to a smaller number of components and simplified the interpretation of the instru- ment. The approach used for scale development was the ra- tional-empirical method exemplified by Jackson (1970). The Rational—Empirical Process Items with high endorsemnt frequencies, little vari— ance, or large numbers of missing data were eliminated from scale development. The frequency distribution of each re- maining item was examined to determine the extent of nor- mality. Some argue that rating scales should be transformed into dichotomous items if the items are not normally distri- buted. Despite indications of some skewed, bimodal, and flat distributions, these items were retained in their ori- ginal form for the following reasons. First, it is difficult to get normal distributions with a small number of subjects. Nunnally (1978) argues that not only are test scores rarely distributed normally, but also a normal distribution would represent "dead data" (p. 160). Second, it has been argued that since statistics are purely numbers, the quality of measurement scales should not influ- ence the statistics one chooses to use. This is because "a statistical test answers the question it is designed to an- swer whether measurement is weak or strong" (Baker, Hardyck, 57 & Petrinovich, 1967, p. 18). Third, most tests are robust with respect to distribu- tions deviating from normality, and if anything, will under- estimate effects. Nunnally (1978) argues that while proba- bility statements about correlations may not be perfect if there is nonnormality, this is not a problem because infe- rential statistics would not be greatly affected. In addi- tion, the use of a twotailed t-test would compensate for violations of the normality assumption (Baker et al., 1967). Fifth, if a large proportion of the subjects fall to- wards either end of a scale, then any shifting of subjects through dichotomization would be misleading. Nunnally (1978) asserts that "the advantage always is with using more rather than fewer steps" (p. 595). Finally, after the scales were constructed, the distri- butions of the scales approximated normality more closely than did the indiviudal items. This was expected because as the number of items increases, skewness decreases (Nunnally, 1978). - Items that were retained at this point were grouped rationally and assessed for their internal consistency (Chronbach, 1970) and discriminant validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). This process was repeated a number of times until the final nine scales were obtained. The initial step was to construct scales that measured issues related to the reintegration of the youth with regard to school, court, 58 social, familial, and transitional concerns. The resulting scales fit this model. Scores for each scale were computed by totalling the scores for each item that made up a scale and then dividing by the number of items in that scale. In addition, some items were retained as singlets or desrip- tors. Scales Changes in school (CIS). This four item scale repre- sented the extent to which there has been change in the youth's behavior and attitudes regarding school since the youth was detained. It was designed to represent the extent to which detention affected change in school (Alpha=.75; See Table 2). Concern about school problems (CASP). The three items in this scale (Alpha=.84) assessed the extent to which the youth was aware of and was able to deal with problems at school. The intention of this scale was to determine the extent of the youths' knowledge of available resources to deal with problems in school. In a sense it assessed the ability and extent to which the youths could seek and have sought help (See Table 2). Meetings with caseworker (MWC). The four items in this scale (Alpha=.64) were designed to assess the logistics of the youth's meetings with his or her caseworker. Specifi- cally, the measure assessed the amount of time the youth and the caseworker spent together and the extent to which the 59 Table 2 Internal Consistency Analysis of Needs Evaluation Survey Scales Item Corrected Scale # Item Content Item-total Correlation q 8 :3 l7 Extent of change in academic .71 5 f performance I a) c 2“ 24 Extent of change in satisfaction .47 ch with grades m B 8" 27 Extent of change in interest in .48 z m finishing school a ‘5' (J 2 29 Extent of change in attitudes about .55 school ———————— d ————-qb-——-——-—-—-nun--—--——————————--—--—-—--—1ln———-——— 94 2’3 v 4 :>§ a: 26 Interest in changing problems at .55 8 a A In. school <1 8 S; :5 ZCLKC 32 Knowledge of resources available to .84 £5388? help with school problems 5 g '2 33 Extent to which youth has sought .76 “’8 help for school problems ———————— q-—————u--——-—————-—————————--————————————-—————4p——————— E m E 30 Frequency of caseworker meetings .33 him ll . 3 g 8 a 31 Length of caseworker meetings .41 {DCDE % (:3: E 32 Youth's satisfaction with frequency .48 Hun h of caseworker meetings E: 5 T.’ g z 34 Youth's satisfaction with length of .51 caseworker meetings m 36 Extent youth is comfortable talking .44 B m with caseworker E m ‘7 n‘§,\2, 37 Extent youth considers the caseworker .52 m . EOE; to be a friend 9 3 e 33% 40 Extent youth asks the caseworker for .77 E 5 (I; help with personal problems g n a z 41 Youth's satisfaction with the .62 m caseworker's help on problems 60 Table 2 (cont'd) g 43 Attitude toward rules of probation .70 z o 5381'; 44 Youth's difficulty following rules .80 m S; g of probation SSE: :Jm u 45 Frequency youth breaks rules of .83 a: ‘3' z probation 50 Degree of comfort telling others .42 E, 3 of detention H o . 3282, 51 Number of old friends youth told .40 E g? 5 ‘ about detention O E4 V %O R 52 Extent to which others are accept- .12 8 % ing of the youth having been detained —————————— r——-—dp-———--—--———-—-—————--————---—--——-—-dp—-——--— m F! 55 Change in frequency of seeing .58 B \0 friends HEB . 3:e’~ll . . . no a g 5 58 Change in frequency of friends' . .31 gratl visits to youth's house :2 E ‘2‘: a g 60 Change in frequency of youth's .39 visit to friends' houses ......... u----t--------_----------__-----_--__-_----n----_-- m H 0 ‘9 69 How many chores youth has .40 B u Egg 5 78 Frequency youth lies to parents .52 g $5 79 Extent of parental/guardian .31 fi 5 involvement with youth's friends > m g E 80 Youth's satisfaction with allowance .45 87 Extent caseworker prepared youth .44 for release m m . 8 fi 89 Youth's satisfaction With release .31 u date a a ,. =5 Sign: 90 Extent youth discussed release date .58 elm 333" 91 Effect of youth's discussion of .62 E a release date n m z 94 Extent youth discussed placement .64 95 Effect of youth's discussion of .59 placement 61 youth was satisfied with that amount of time (See Table 2). Relationship with caseworker (RWC). This four item scale (Alpha=.75) assessed the qualitative aspects of the relationship between the youth and the caseworker. The quality and intensity of this relationship was distinguished from the quantitative aspects (MWC). It was hypothesized that this quality would impact directly upon the reentry experiences of youths since the caseworker deals with the youth before, during, and after release (See Table 2). Rules of probation (ROP). This scale measured the youth's attitude and adjustment toward the rules of proba- tion (Three items; Alph=.88). Probation is designed to maintain control and eliminate certain behaviors of the youths, and was therefore thought to be related to postre- lease behavior (See Tablelz). Comfort with others (CWO). The attitude that youths hold about being in detention and its effect on their social relationships was measured by this three item scale (Alpha=.46). It was believed that the extent to which the youth was comfortable telling others about being in deten- tion reflected their expectations of how others would react to that knowledge (See Table 2). Change with friends (CWF). This three item scale as- sessed the extent to which there had been change in how of— ten the youth saw friends (Alpha=.6l). This scale reflected the extent to which detention affected this relationship—- 62 either directly through new attitudes of the youth, friends, or parents; or indirectly in terms of proximity or restric- tions. The reason for any such change, however, was not revealed by this scale (See Table 2). Environment of home (EOH). The rules, attitudes, and atmoshpere of the home environment are thought to affect the reentry experience, and were assessed by this four item scale. The scale (Alpha=.64) was designed to describe the youth's and parents'/ guardians' investment in the home en- vironment (See Table 2). Preparation for release (PER). This six item scale as- sessed the extent to which the youth felt he or she was pre- pared to be released from detention (Alpha=.78). It also assessed the extent to which the youth was involved in deci— sions regarding the time of release and the location of placement (See Table 2). Scale Validity The intercorrelations of these scales were examined to ‘determine the extent to which they had demonstrated discri- minant validity properties (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). These correlations ranged from .00 to .86 (See Table 3). The three highest correlations involved the CASP scale. Despite this one scale's apparent lack of discriminant validity, it has been retained because of the literature's emphasis on the issues represented by this scale: resource awareness and community involvement. For all scales except CASP, the 63 Hoe. v @444 Ho. v mas mo. v me am. mo. $0.1 mm.i mo. mm. He. mo. Ammmv «a ommoaom “0m coflumummoum oo. om. Ho.I no. mo.1 nu. ma. “momv ¥ ¥¥ *ifi 080m MO NCOECOHfl>Cm om. hm. ma. ma.| mo. ha. Amzov mocoflum nuns omcmsu av. mm. mm.| mo. mo. Ao3ov « « mwmnuo nuwz uu0meoo ca. no.1 mo.| me. Amomv «a :OHHMQOHQ MO mmazm mm. mm. mm. Aozmv « «he umxuosmmmo cows mwsmcofluoaom mm. hm. AUSZV «n « umxuosommo nuns mmcflumoz ma. Ammduv mEoHnoum Hoonom usonm :uoocoo AmHov Hoonom ow momcmno mmm mom E30 030 mom 03m 032 mmmo mHU oceaumeHHooumucH mamom mcoflpmaowuooumucH mamom m wanes 64 scale inter-correlations are relatively low (ranging from .00 to .49); three are significant at the .01 level, and another four at the .05 level. Most of the higher cor- relations (one significant at the .05 level and two at the .01 level) involve either of the casework scales (MWC or RWC). This is not surprising given that the caseworker is involved in most aspects of the youth's life. 'CHAPTER III Results Sample Characteristics Two sets of data can be used to describe the youths who participated in this study: the archival data and a subset of the items from the NES. Of the 27 participants, 21 were older than 15, with the age range being from 13 to 17 years. Seventy-four percent were male, and 59% were white. Seventy-seven percent of the youths had been previously de- tained (all at this same institution), and 40% were charged with violations of probation or court orders. Two types of casework supervision exist within this court system. Seven- teen of the youths were on regular supervision and 10 were under intensive supervision (meaning that their caseworkers have lighter caseloads allowing more time to be devoted to each youth). Eighty-nine percent of all interviewed youths reported being on probation at the time of the interview. The youths spent from 10 to 54 days in detention: 30% for 10 to 16 days, 25% for 17 to 22 days, 26% for 23 to 30 days, and 23% for 31 to 54 days. The juvenile home adminis- tered the Peabody Achievement Test (PAT) to all youths who were in detention longer than a few days. While the scores on the PAT showed the youths performing at a mean academic 65 66 Table 4 Crosstabulations, Chi Squares, and Phi Coefficients/Cramer's Vs for Demographic Variables 4A. Number of Days in Detention 10-16 17-22 23-30 31-45 . . . 7 l 0 2 SuperV1Slon Inten51ve (26%) (4%) (7%) Type 1 5 7 4 Reg“1ar (4%) (19%) (25%) (15%) Raw x2 = 13.96 Degrees of Freedom = 3 p < .01 Cramer's V = .72 4B. Race Nonwhite White 9 7 A 13-15 (33%) (26%) ge 16-17 2 9 (7%) (33%) Correcteda x2 = 2.49 Raw x2 = 3.91 Degrees of Freedom = l p<.15 p<.05 Phi = .38 aCorrected with Yate's Correction 39; Has the Youth been Previously Detained No Yes C . 0 10 aseworker IntenSive (39%) Superv151on 6 10 Type Regular (23%) (39%) 2 2 Corrected x = 2.99 Raw x = 4.88 Degree of Freedom = l p < .10 p < .05 Phi = .43 67 level equivalent to the 6th grade (ranging from 2nd to 12th grades), the actual mean grade level they were enrolled at was 9th (ranging from 7th to 11th). Seventy-four percent of the youths were released to a parent while three youths were placed in foster care. Eighty-two percent of the youths were placed in the same location they were in before they were detained, while 11% were placed in a new setting. Only 18% of the youths inter- viewed received home visits to their placements. Chi squares and Phi Coefficients or Cramer's Vs were performed through crosstabulations for a number of these singlets and demographic variables (See Table 4). There was a significant relationship (X2=13.96, p<.01) between the type of casework supervision and the number of days youths spent in detention. Youths under regular supervision spent significantly more days in detention than did youths under intensive supervision. Youths less than 15 years old were more often not white, while white youths were more often older than 16 (Corrected X2=2.49, p<.15). All youths under intensive supervision had been detained before (not surpri- sing since that is usually a prerequisite to being placed on intensive supervision), thereby creating a relationship be- tween the type of supervision the youth was under and whether or not the youth had been previously detained (Corrected X2=2.99, p<.lO). The average participant in this study was a white male 68 'in his mid teens who had been detained in this institution before. He was on probation at the time of the interview and performed academically at a level below that for which he was enrolled. These youths were compared to those of the case-flow analysis conducted in 1981 (Clark & Feis, 1982) who had been detained for eight days or longer and were released to the community. These 110 youths were not significantly dif- ferent from the 27 in this study on all but two of the demo- graphic variables. The participants in this study were more likely to have had a hearing before detention than were those in the case-flow analysis. Further, these youths had an average academic grade level higher (by one grade) than those in the case-flow analysis. The Reintegration Experience School The CIS scale revealed that 77% of the youths reported an improvement in their behavior and attitudes toward school. Sixty-nine percent of the 16 youths with a valid CASP scale score reported a concern about changing school problems. Seventy-three percent of the youths reported at- tending a school after detention that they had previously attended. Fifty-five percent reported skipping school less than they did prior to detention, with an additional 41% reporting no change. 69 229.2: The majority of youths (59%) reported frequent and long meetings with their caseworkers, and were satisfied with that. Fifty-nine percent of the youths also reported a positive, friendly relationship with their caseworker, as reflected in the RWC scale. The majority of youths reported that they did not want to alter the extent to which they saw their caseworkers. Despite the diversity in the length of casework meetings, 89% repoted that they did not want to change the length of these meetings. While 59% of the youths reported that they did not want to change the fre- quency of their casework meetings, 26% reported that they would have liked to have seen their caseworker less often. All but three of the youths reported being on probation at the time of the interview. Seventy-nine percent of these youths reported satisfaction and few problems with the rules of probation, as reflected by their ROP scale scores. Most younger youths (aged 13 to 15) reported spending less than one day with their caseworkers in preparation for release, while most older youths (aged 16 and 17) reported spending more than one day (Corrected X2=4.58, p<.05). Boys reported spending less than 30 minutes per meeting with their caseworkers, while girls reported spending more than 30 minutes (X2=12.61, p<.Ol). Most white youths reported spending more than one day with their caseworkers in pre- paration for release, while most non-whites reported 70 spending less than one day (Corrected X2=3.62, p<.lO). Youths not previously detained reported feeling significant— ly less prepared for release by their caseworker (X2=14.00, p<.Ol) than did those who were previously detained (see Table 5). Youths who were in detention 10 to 22 days reported seeing their caseworkers less than 30 minutes per meeting, while youths detained longer than 23 days reported seeing their caseworkers more than 30 minutes per meeting (Cor- rected x2=4.52, p<.05). There was a significant relation- ship between the length of meetings with caseworkers and the smoothness of the youths' transitions (X2=l2.50, p<.Ol). Youths who reported longer meetings with their caseworkers reported a smoother transition. The longer the caseworker spent preparing the youth for release, the more likely (Cor- rected X2=5.86, p<.05) the youth was to report feeling that the caseworker's actions prepared him or her for release (see Table 5). . Youths who reported more interest in a prerelease pro- gram reported a significantly better relationship with their caseworkers than did those who were less interested (T=2.81, p<.Ol). Similarly, those who reported more interest in a postrelease program reported a significanlty (T=2.12, p<.05) better relationship with their caseworker than did those who were less interested (see Table 6). Age 71 Table 5 Crosstabulations, Chi Squares, and Phi Coefficients/Cramer's Vs of Court Items Less than More than Time Caseworkgr Spent Preparing Youth for Release (#86) one day one day 13'15 (4i%) (3%) 16'17 (14%) (32%) Correctedb X2 = 4.58 Degree of Freedom = l p < .0 Phi = . 5 55 aItem Number from Needs Evaluation Survey bCorrected with Yate's Correction 5B. Sex Race Length of Caseworker Meetings (#31) Less More than 15 15-29 30-44 45-59 than 60 minutes minutes minutes minutes minutes 4 8 3 0 5 Male (15%) (30%) (11%) (19%) 0 l 0 3 3 Female (4%) (11%) (11%) Raw X2 = 12.61 Degrees of Freedom = 4 Cramer's V p < - 01 .68 Time Caseworker Spent Preparing Youth for Release (#86) Less than More than one day one day nonwhite 7 1 (32%) (5%) . 5 9 White (23%) (41%) Corrected x2 = 3.62 Raw x2 = 5.51 Degree of Freedom = 1 p < .10 p < .05 Phi = .50 72 Table 5 (cont'd) Raw X2 = 12.50 Degrees of Freedom = 4 p < .01 Cramer's V = .68 5D. Extent to Which Caseworker Prepared Youth for Release (#87) Not at Very A A Great Youth All Little Little Somewhat Deal Previously No 3 3 0 0 Detained (13%) (13%) ;_ 5 0 3 3 Yes (21%) (13%) (29%) (13%) 2 _ Raw x — 14.00 Degrees of Freedom = 4 p < .01 Cramer's V = .76 5E. Length of Caseworker Meetings (#31) Less than More than 29 minutes 30 minutes . 10 4 Days in 10-22 (37%) (15%) Detention 23-54 3 1° (11%) (37%) Corrected x2 = 4.52 Degree of Freedom = 1 p < .05 Phi = .48 5F. Transition Smoothness (#83) Vefiy3Little Somewhat Less than 0 4 15 minutes (15%) 15-29 6 3 Length of . Caseworker minutes (22%) (11%) M . 30-44 0 3 eetlngs . 11% (#81) minutes ( ) 45-59 3 0 minutes (11%) 60 minutes 2 6 or more (7%) (22%) 73 Table 5 (cont'd) 5G. Extent to Which Caseworker Prepared Youth for Release (#87) Very Little Somewhat Amount of 1-3 4 .& 5 Time One day 10 1 Caseworker or less (48%) (5%) Spent More than 3 7 Preparing one day (14%) (33%) Youth for Release 2 (#86) Corrected X = 5.86 Degree of Freedom = l p < .05 Phi = .63 74 Table 6 T-Tests of Court Items 6A. Extent to Which Youth Supports a Prerelease Program (#97) Relationship with Caseworker (RWC) Very Little A Great Deal Degrees of Freedom = (N=8) (N=19) 1-3 l)& 5 2.70 3.46 Ta = 2.81 24.82 p < .01 aT computed on separate variance estimates 6B. Extent to Which Youth Supports a Postrelease Program (#98) Relationship with Caseworker (RWC) Degrees of Freedom Very Little A Great Deal (N-lS) (N=12) 1-3 . l)& 5 2.92 3.63 Ta = 2.12 p < .05 25 aT computed on pooled variance estimates 75 Peers/Social Life Nearly equal proportions of youths reported difficulty discussing detention with others and sensed a lack of accep- tance (44%) as did those who reported few problems with others and their reactions (48%, CWO scale). Fifty-six.per- cent of the youths reported less frequent visits with friends, with 30% reporting no change. While 60% of the youths reported that they had not changed the extent to which they were involved with drugs, 89% also believed that they did not have a drug problem, per se. Youths who reported feeling more well prepared for their release also reported feeling significantly (T=3.78, p<.OOl) more comfortable discussing detention with others (see Table 7). Home Life Sixty-seven percent of the youths described their home environment as positive (EOH scale). This included an in- vestment on the part of the youth in the running of the home and relationships with the family, as well as parental in- volvement with the youth. Fifty percent of the youths re- ported no change in the extent to which restrictions were placed on them, and 84% reported no change in how often they were punished. Overall, 64% of the youths reported an im- proved relationship with their parents. Youths placed with a parent reported that the tran- sition was significantly (Corrected X2=4.25, p<.05) smoother 76 Table 7 T-Tests of Peers/Social Life Items Extent to Which Youth was Prepared for Release (#96) Very Little Somewhat Comfort with others (N=6) (N=21) scale score mean (CWO) 2.28 3.29 T = 3.78, Degrees of Freedom = 24.58 Two—tailed p < .001 77 than that of those who were placed with a nonparent (see Table 8). Youths placed with a nonparent reported signifi- cantly (T=2.41, p<.05) more interest in a postrelease pro- gram than those placed with a parent. All youths placed with a nonparent reported strong belief that a home visit should be required before release, differing significantly (T=2.49, p<.05) from those placed with a parent (see Table 9). Transition/Release Fifty-one percent of the youths reported little in- volvement in their release preparation (PFR scale). The amount of time that was spent preparing youths for release was examined. The juvenile home staff spent less than one hour preparing 24% of the youths for release, and spent no time in preparation with 20% of the youths. Similar results were found for the amount of time the caseworkers spent on release preparation: 27% spent no time and 18% spent less than one hour. These results were reflected in the fact that 48% of the youths learned of their release date one day or less prior to that day. Twenty-three percent reportedly learned one day or less prior to release where they would be placed in the community. As for the youths' attitudes toward their release pre- paration, 78% reported that they were well prepared. In comparison, howevever, only 59% reported a smooth transition from detention to the communtiy. There was a significant 78 Table 8 Crosstabluation, Chi Square, and Phi Coefficient of Home Life Item Extent to Which Transition was Smooth (#83) Very Little Somewhat 1&2 3-5 Parent 7 16 Placement (26%) (59%) (#65) Nonparent (15%) 0 Corrected X2 = 4.25 Degree of Freedom = l p < .05 Phi = .50 79 Table 9 T-Tests of Home Life Items 9A. Placement (#65) Parent NonParent Extent to which (N=23) (N=4) youth supports a postrelease program 2'65 4-50 (#98) Ta = 2.41 Degrees of Freedom = 25 P < .054 aT computed on pooled variance estimates 9B. Placement (#65) Parent NonParent Extent to which (N=23) (N=4) youth thinks a home visit should be 2'87 4'00 required (#104) Ta = 2.49 Degrees of Freedom = 25 p < .05 aT computed on pooled variance estimates 80 relationship (X2=32.76, p<.01) between the extent to which the youths reported feeling prepared for release, and the extent to which they reported support of prerelease programs (see Table 10). There was a significant relationship (X2=12.50,p<.01) between the length of casework meetings and the smoothness of the youth's transition (see Table 5). Youths placed with a parent reported that the tranisiton was significantly (Corrected X2=4.25, p<.05) smoother than that of those who were placed with a nonparent (see Table 9). Youths who re- ported feeling well prepared for release also reported feeling significantly (T=3.78, p<.OOl) more comfortable dis- cussing detention with others (see Table 7). Programatic Findings The youths showed a great deal of interest in programs aimed at reintegration. Seventy percent of the youths re- ported strong support for prerelease programs, while 19% would not have been at all interested. Forty-six percent of the youths reported strong and 23% reported moderate support for a postrelease program, while 27% would not have been at all interested. Sixty-two percent of the youths reported a strong belief that a home visit should be required, while 27% did not think they should be mandatory (see Table 11). Prerelease Programs Girls reported significnatly more interest in a prere- lease program than did boys (T=2.95, p<.Ol). Youths who Crosstabulation, Chi Square, and Phi 81 Table 10 Coefficient bf Reintegration Item Extent to which youth felt prepared for release (#96) Extent Youth Supports a Prerelease Program (#97) Not at Very 'A Some- A Great All Little Little what Deal Not at 0 O O l 0 All (4%) Very 0 1 0 0 0 Little (4%) A 2 0 l 0 1 Little (7%) (4%) (4%) Some— 3 1 0 3 1 what (11%) (4%) (11%) (4%) A Great 0 0 0 12 1 Deal (44%) (4%) 2 Raw x = 32.76 Degrees of Freedom = 16 Cramer's V = p < .011 .55 82 Table 11 Frequencies on Reintegration Program Items Response Values 1 2 3 4 5 Extent to which youth 5 2 l 16 3 supports a PRERELEASE (18.5%) (7.4%) (3.7%) (59.3%) (11.1%) program (#97) Extent to which youth 7 l 6 8 4 supports a POSTRELEASE (26.9%) (7.7%) (23.1%) (30.8%) (15.4%) program (#98) Extent to which youth 7 2 l 8 8 thinks a home visit (26.9% (7.7%) (3.8%) (30.8%) (30.8%) should be required (#104) aItem Number on Needs Evaluation Survey 83 reported more interest in a prerelease program reported a significantly (T=2.81, p<.Ol) better relationship with their caseworkers than did those who were less interested (See Table 12). Youths who felt more prepared for release also reported greater interest in prerelease programming (see Table 10). Postrelease Programs Youths placed with a nonparent reported significantly more interest in a postrelease program than did those placed with a parent (T=2.41, p<.05). Youths who reported greater interest in a postrelease program reported being signifi- cantly more prepared for release than did those who were less interested (T=2.48, p<.05). Those youths who reported more interest in a postrelease program reported significant- ly (T=2.12, p<.05) better relationships with their case- workers than did those who were less interested (see Table 13). Home Visit Programs All youths placed with a nonparent reported strong be— lief that a home visit should be required before release, differing significantly (T=2.49, p<.05) from those placed with a parent (see Table 14). Open-ended Questions Results from the open-ended section of the interview were analyzed in a different way than the other interview items for two reasons: a) the open-ended items involved 84 Table 12 T-Tests of Prerelease Program Items 12A. Extent to which youth supports a prerelease program (#97) Sex Girls (N=7) Boys (N=20) 4.14 3.1 Ta = 2.95 Degrees of Freedom = p < .01 24.21 aT computed on separate variance estimates lZB. - Program (#97) Relationship with Caseworker (RWC) I Very Little Extent to Which Youth Supports a Prerelease A Great Deal (N=8) (N=l9) 1-3 4 6.5 2.70 3.46 Ta = 2.81 Degrees of Freedom = 24.82 p < .01 aT computed on separate variance estimates 85 Table 13 T-Tests of Postrelease Program Items 13A. _ Placement (#65) Parent NonParent Extent to which youth (N=23) (N=4) supports a postrelease program (#98) 2°65 4'50 Ta = 2.41 Degrees of Freedom = 25 p < .054 aT computed on pooled variance estimates 13B. Extent to Which Youth Supports a Postrelease Program (#98) Very Little A Great Deal (N=15) (N=12) 1-3 44& 5 Preparation for Release (PFR) 2’63 3'47 Ta = 2.48 Degrees of Freedom = 25 p < .05 aT computed on pooled variance estimates 13C. Extent to Which Youth Supports a Postrelease Program (#98) Very Little A Great Deal (N=15) (N=12) Relationship with 1‘3 4 &'5 Caseworker (RWC) 2.92 3.63 Ta = 2.12 Degrees of Freedom = 25 p < .05 aT computed on pooled variance estimates 86 Table 14 T-Tests of Home Visit Items Placement (#65) Parent NonParent I Extent to which youth (N=23) (N=4) thinks a home visit should be required 2'87 4'00 (#104) Ta = 2.49 Degrees of Freedom = 25 p < .05 aT computed on pooled variance estimates 87 response categories which, for the most part, were discrete categories rather than rating scales, and b) more than one response was allowed on most items. The purpose of these items was to learn as much as possible. Therefore, the fre- quency with which any particular response was given is re— corded. An item may therefore have more than 27 responses (see Table 15). A number of items were not coded because of a lack of variability in responses. The information in these items, however, is still of value. The majority of youths reported interest in prerelease or postrelease programs which would allow them an oppoortunity to talk with others. Nearly half of the youths reported no real problems since being released from detention. Three-fourths of the youths reported that staying out of trouble is the major thing that releasees should be prepared for at release. 88_ Table 15 Open-Ended Questions Questions and Responses N 1. What problems at school does the youth want to change? A. None 12 B. Interpersonal behavior (getting along 9 with others) C. Academic issues (grades, work pace) 4 2. What resources does the youth know of to help with school problems? A. School counselor 10 B. Teacher or aid 6 C. Persons external to school (private 6 counselor, caseworker, family member) D. Principal 3 E. Other school administrator 3 3. How has detention affected school life? A. Personal growth (getting along with 8 others, controlling temper, etc.) better B. No change 6 C. Greater interest in school 5 D. Improved academic performance (including 4 attendance) E. Future goals (finding job, wanting to go 1 to college) 4. How does the youth feel about how detention has affected school life? A. Neutral/indifferent 8 B. Positive 7 C. Negative 1 5. What role should the caseworker take? A. No change 12 B. Friend/helper 8 C. Nicer/easier 3 D. Be "the heavy" 3 89 Table 15 (cont'd) Questions and Responses N 6. What aspects of the relationship with the caseworker should be changed? A. None 14 B. Change one or more (be more active, see 9 less, have less control, etc.) 7. How has detention affected social life? A. No change 10 B. Personal (increased self-confidence, more 10 directed) C. Get into trouble less (don't break rules, 6 use drugs less, etc.) 8. How does the youth feel about the way social life has been changed? A. Positive 9 B. Negative 4 C. Neutral 3 9. What do youths and parents argue about? A. Household structure (chores, bedtime, 16 telephone use, money) B. Don't argue 7 C. Social behavior (drugs, friends, fighting) 6 10. To what extent has the arguing with parents changed? A. No change 8 B. Argue less, but about same things 8 C. Argue less (topic unknown) 5 D. Argue about different things (extent unknown) 1 11. How has detention affectd home life? A. No change 6 B. Get into less trouble (mind rules, get 6 along better) C. Greater appreciation for each other 6 D. Personal growth (trust, control over self, 6 calmer) E. More chores 2 90 Table 15 (cont'd) Questions and Responses N 12. How does youth feel about changes in home life? A. Positive 12 B. Neutral 3 C. Negative 3 14. What did staff do to prepare youth for release? A. Talked (general) 11 B. Nothing 7 C. Threatened; told youth not to come back, 7 to behave D. Routine of juvenile home 6 E. Punished 2 15. What did caseworker do to prepare youth for release? A. Talked 11 B. Told youth how to stay out of detention 9 C. Told youth how to get out of detention 6 D. Nothing 4 E. Threatened l 18. What was it like to leave the juvenile home? A. Positive, haPPY 16 B. Scary, strange, shocking 7 C. Had to adjust to new control of self 5 19. What was it like to get out of detention? A. HaPPY 16 B. Adjust to new control over self 8 C. Adjust to freedom 5 20. What was it like to go to current home? A. Positive 13 B. Scary, strange 7 C. Adjust to new control over self, 3 less strict rules D. No different 2 91 Table 15 (cont'd) Questions and Responses N 23. What does youth like best about being out of detention? A. New control (doing what they want, 18 when they want) 13 B. Freedom CHAPTER IV Discussion The purpose of this study was to assess the reentry experience of youths released from secure detention to the community. In addition, the study was designed to allow for investigation of needs and desires of these youths, specifi- cally pertaining to programs aimed at relieving problems associated the the reintegration experience. The results of this study fall into three basic areas and will be discussed in this manner. First, the sample characteristics will be discussed in order to generate a complete understanding of the youths who participated in this study. Second, the reentry experiences of these youths will be discussed. This will include results pertaining to singlets and scales of the Needs Evaluation Survey as well as the open-ended questions. Also included will be an as- sessment, where appropriate, of the extent to which these findings correspond to those expected from the literature. Third, the results pertaining to program desires will be described. Some comments will be made and a final set of recommendations will then be presented. 92 93 The Participants The youths who participated in this study were primari- ly white males in their mid-teens who had been in this in- stitution before and were on probation at the time of the interview. Most youths perform academically at a level be- low that which they were enrolled. Youths under regular supervision spent significantly more days in detention than those under intensive supervi- sion, despite the fact that a lesser percentage of youths on regular supervision had been detained before. It is pos- sible that because the regular supervision caseworkers have a larger caseload, it is more difficult to find the time to prepare a community placement for these youths, resulting in their staying in detention for a longer period of time. Another possible explanation could be that they are stronger believers of the use of detention than are intensive super- vision caseworkers. As mentioned before, it is likely that the reason that all youths under intensive supervision had been detained before is because of the process of being selected for in- tensive supervision. A youth is usually not placed on in- tensive supervision until all other alternatives have been exhausted. The Reentry Experience Overall, results from the Needs Evaluation Survey scales indicated positive experiences in different areas of 94 the youths' lives. The majority of youths reported a posi- tive change in school, a positive concern about school prob- lems, a positive attitude toward the long and frequent meetings with their caseworker, a positive and friendly relationship with their caseworker, a positive attitude' toward probation, and a positive environment at home. Their negative experiences were reflected in their discomfort with others in discussing detention, less frequent encounters with their friends, and little involvement in their release preparation. A large number of individual items also reflected posi- tive experiences. Most youths skipped school less than they did before, did not believe they had a drug problem, and had a better relationship with their parents than they did before detention. They also felt that they were well prepared for release. Over half experienced a smooth tran- sition to the community. However, little time was spent by the juvenile home staff or the caseworker actually preparing the youth for release. The surprising fact is that all but two of the signifi— cant relationships among these items and demographics involved the caseworker. The length of casework meetings was related to the sex of the youth, the amount of time that the youth spent in detention, and the transition experience of the youth; longer meetings were associated with girls, more than 23 days spent in detention, and a smoother 95 transition. Caseworkers spent more time preparing whites for release than non-whites. The longer the caseworker spent in release preparation, the better prepared the youth felt; and the better the youth felt the caseworker did in preparing them for release, the more likely he or she was to have been detained previously. It appears that the case- workers' investments with youths depended upon a number of the youths' characteristics (including age, sex, and race) and in turn affected the length of time a youth spendt in detention and the transitional experience. As indicated in Chapter I, the relationship between the amount of time an individual remains removed from society and the reentry experience of that individual is a debated issue. The results of this study showed no relationship between the number of days these youths spent in detention and the extent of their release preparation or the qualitly of their transition. There are three possible explanations for this. First, it is possible that the amount of time in detention was not long enough to result in transitional problems. Second, the amount of time that the youths had been in the community could either have been too short or too long. If too short, the euphoria of release may not have worn off, therefore masking transitional problems. On the other hand, if it was too long, the immediate transi- tional problems could have been forgotten. And third, social desirability could have played a role. Despite 96 reassurances that the interviews were not to be released to the court and that the interviewers were not employees of the court, the youths could have been providing answers that they thought we wanted to hear. This issue will be dis- cussed more later. The literature also suggested that reintegration programming should begin long before release. However, des- pite the fact that the caseworkers and staff spent little time (averaging less than one day) in release preparation, the youths felt well prepared for release overall. There are a number of possible explanations for this. First, the routine of the juvenile home could be such that it serves to facilitate positive reentry, as indicated by open-ended question 14 (What did the staff do to prepare the youth for release?). Second, the ongoing relationship the youth has with the caseworker could facilitate this process by provi- ding continuity between detention and the community, thus serving to ease some of the stress associated with the post- release transition. It has been previously argued that two central compo— nents in successful reentry are supportive relationships and ongoing treatment. Youths in this study descibed their re- lationship with their caseworkers as positive, and they met with their caseworkers both during and after detention (and often times prior to detention as well), thus creating an ongoing relationship. These two factors may have 97 contributed to the youths' positive release experiences. It was also suggested in Chapter I that institutionali- zation strengthens family ties and weakens friendship ties. This is supported by the fact that 64% of the youths repor- ted an improved relationship with their parents, and 56% of the youths saw friends less often than they did prior to detention. Two possible explanations for this change in friends exist. First, youths may have been unable to see friends as often because of distance or new rules (including probation). Second, youths may have chosen to see friends less either because they spent more time on other things, or more likely, because they thought it would help them stay out of trouble. It was further suggested in Chapter I that reentry is facilitated when an individual's criminal past can be kept secret. This was partially supported by this research. A large proportion of the youths (44%) showed strong discom- fort with others on this subject, indicating a desire to keep this past a secret. However, youths who were better prepared for release felt more comfortable telling others. This could be because the well prepared have successfully confronted the issue, or because they don't care what others think. Another variable presented in Chapter I which is thought to be related to reentry is the family. The signi- ficant relationship between placement location (parent 98 versus nonparent) and transitional experience (with those being placed with a parent experiencing a more positive transition) supports the importance of the family in rein- tegration. In addition, a majority of youths (66%) reported feeling positive about the effect that detention had on their home lives (open-ended question 12). Youths' Program Desires The open-ended questions provided an opportunity to assess needs perceived by the youths. The literature argues that releasees need an opportunity to discuss their release goals and concerns, as well as to gain assistance on these issues. The results of the open-ended items pertaining to prerelease and postrelease programming supported this. The overwhelming findings on these two items was that first, the youths wanted an opportunity to talk to others; and second, they desired information that could improve their situ- ation--either relating to school, social life, home life, or their transitional experiences. The results presented in Table 8 indicated that youths had strong feelings toward prerelease, postrelease, and home visit programs. Most youths were very strongly supportive of these programs, however, there was a definite group of youths who were not at all interested in such programs. The existence of a large group of youths who thought that such programs would have been helpful indicated a need that was run: being met. Despite the fact that the youths felt 99 relatively well prepared for release and experienced a rela- tively smooth transition to the communtiy, they felt that such programs would be helpful. I The T-test results indicated that girls reported signi- ficantly more interest in a prerelease program than did boys. Further research would be necessary to determine the reasons for this interest. It indicates, however, that boys and girls did have different program desires. The fact that youths who were interested in a postre- lease program had a higher score on the 'prepared for re~ lease' scale, indicates that prerelease preparation was not sufficient to satisfy the needs of these youths. By invol- ving the youth in prerelease preparation, perhaps their lack of postrelease program involvement was more apparent. I The results indicating that youths who were interested in prerelease or postrelease programming had a positive relationship with their caseworker, illustrates the impor- tance of the caseworker in reintegration. These results can mean one of two things. First, either youths who had a positive casework relationship felt that this relationship has hindered their reintegraiton. More likely, perhaps, these youths had a posititve reintegration experience and thought that prerelease programming would ensure such an experience for others. Again, further research is necessary to (determine the exact reasons. Perhaps the most striking finding of this research is 100 the relationship between community placement and reentry programming. Youths who were not placed with a parent felt mnphatic about the need for adequate home visit and postre- lease programming. These youths were being placed in an unfamiliar location and a home visit would have allowed them an opportunity to gradually adjust to this new environment. Their strong interest in postrelease programming indicated adjustment problems unique to youths placed with a non- parent. These findings were compatible with the negative transition experience of these youths. Comments There are characteristics of this research which need to be discussed These characteristics include: sample size, the size and type of institution the youths were detained in, the amount of time spent in detention, the time between release and interview, the age of the participants, and the means of data collection. Sampl e Si ze The number of subjects who participated in this study was small. However, despite the small size, this sample is adequate because of the manner in which subjects were selec- ted, and the type of study. First, all possible youths were considered for participation during the nearly six months of data collection. There was no systematic way of excluding Mouths, therefore, they are expected to be representative. A cnnnpmrison of the study participants with youths previously 101 detained revealed no major significant differences, thereby supporting the representiveness of the subjects. The largest number of possible subjects who were not interviewed were lost because successful contact could not be made within two weeks from release. This criterion was set for two reasons: a) to focus on the immediate transition period, as stressed in the literature, and b) to be consis- tent across all youths. Also, because this research is exploratory in nature, the size of the sample is not as important as the representativeness. Institutional Size and Type Most of the literature has focused on large state institutions. This research involved a small local facility with a child care staff to youth ratio of less than 1:6 during waking hours (this does not include teachers). The difference between these two types of institutions may effect the results. It is possible that the research facility actually contributed less to alienation and there- fore reintegration problems than do the large insitutions which have been the primary research focus in the past. The fact that a number of youths said that the routine of the facility helped prepare them for release (open-ended item 14) supported this. Time in Detention The amount of time that these youths spent in detention was; drastically different from the time most subjects in 102 earlier studies spent. Because research has focused pri- marily on adults, participants in much of the literature had spent years incarcerated. If the amount of time spent removed from society does have an effect on reintegration, this would result in different findings here than those in the literature. Time Between Release and Interview There is an emphasis in the adult literature on the immediate transition period (three to six months) and its effect on reentry. For that reason, the subjects were interviewed during their second week of release. It is pos- sible that reentry problems were not yet evident after such a short time in the community. This time was chosen, how- ever, because of the suspected different time perceptions of youths and adults. Two weeks to a teenager often seems like forever. It was important that the interviews not occur too late or reentry problems may have been forgotten by then. Also, given the relatively short amount of time spent in detention, two weeks seemed optimal. Age of Participants As mentioned in Chapter I, one of the unique aspects of this research was its use of youths, rather than adults, as subjects. It is important, therefore, to remember that pre- vious research findings may not be supported when tested With this different group of subjects (ie. youths). Since this was part of the intention of the research, these 103 differences do not pose a threat to the credibility of any previous findings. It may be that the reintegration experi- ence is very different for youths and adults. Methods It is also important to remember that a new instrument was developed during this research. Because it had not been tested on any other sample or under any other conditions, its ability to generalize must be considered. Any new instrument must be tested and retested before its value is proven. All findings, therefore, remain specific to this study, and little effort is made to generalize beyond this particular institution, at this time. Social Desirability As mentioned earlier, there was a tremendous positive orientation to the responses of the participants. This may be attributable to social desirability. The youths may have thought that it would be to their benefit to provide certain responses, i.e., those that they thought we wanted to hear. They also may have been trying to protect themselves in case the court was allowed access to the interviews, despite the promise that this would never happen. It is not necessarily the case that the youths were being dishonest. They may have had a positive reentry experience. However, the role that social desirability may have played should at least be considered. 104 Concluding Program Recommendations It is evident from these findings that, despite generally positive reentry experiences, some reintegration program development is desired by the study participants. The results strongly support the development of prerelease programming (including a home visit program) as well as postrelease programming. Programs should, most importantly, be voluntary so as not to force any youth into participating in a program he or she is not interested in. They should allow youths to talk to concerned others as well as to gain information. Home visits should be allowed for all, but especially for those youths who will not be placed with a parent. It is essential that any youth who participates in a reentry program be allowed frequent opportunities to provide feedback about that program. In this way, programs can be specifically tailored to individual youths. A set of pro- grams can be developed which allow specific details to vary according to the individual needs and desires of each parti- cipant. The form such programs should take, however, has not been adequately addreSsed. An effort to predict the types of youths who supported reintegration programming proved musuccessful, largely due to the small sample size. Further research should investigate the use of paraprofessionals in Prcrviding a supportive relationship as well as the use of 105 "experts" for providing information. Summary As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the nature of this research requires that any generalization be kept to a minimum. However, the results indicated that the reentry experiences of youths who were detained in a relatively small local facility for a relatively short amount of time is different than those of adults who spend years in large prisons. Findings which were contrary to those in the literature include the lack of relationship found between the amount of time spent in detention and the extent to which the youths experienced a positive transition. Also, despite the fact that the youths spent little time being prepared for release, they reported feeling failry well prepared for release. In support of the literature, this study found that the ongoing, supportive relationships youths have with their caseworkers was related to positive reintegration. Further, detention was related to a strenthening of family ties and a weakening of friendship ties of the participants. The role of the family was also shown to be related to the partici- pants' reentry experiences. Based on the reports of the youths, there is a lack of programs available to them to assist them during their tran— sition to the community. The participants expressed interest in prerelease, postrelease, and home visit 106 programming. The specific forms that these programs should take cannot be answered by this research. Instead, this project and its findings demands that the questions be addressed. APPENDI X A Juvenile Home Rules 107 Preliminary Hearing: If you have not had a preliminarv hearing before vou came here, you will have one within 48 hours. Your narents and the people making the charges against vou must be at the hearing. At this time the court will tell you what action will be taken. nurinn the hearinn you will have a chance to talk about your case. Level System A The Juvenile Home: At the Juvenile Home we use a level svstem. This allows us to watch your behavior and progress. You are resoonsible for vour behavior. Your behavior and attitude will decide how well vou do. LEVEL I: You start the program on Level I. 0n this level vou must learn and follow rules. You will stay on level I at least 4 days. After 4 days the staff will look at how well you have done. If vou have met the requirements of this level yo" will be placed on level II. Level I Responsibilities Level 1 privileges 1. Respect staff. 1. Stav up until 8:000.“. 2. Respect other kids. 2. 00 things with volunteer 3 Participate (Active in groups. planned activities. spend time 1, no outside with arguo, constructively, make effort 4. 00 arts and crafts. in program) 5. Write letters. 4. Use good language. 9. Read books. 5. Show good Sportsmanship. 7. Hatch T.v. 6. Volunteer for work. 7. Do good work in kitchen. 8. 00 work details. 9. Use good table manners. IO. Be on time for class. II. Keep personal hygiene (body, teeth, hair. clothes) 12. Always keep vour room clean. 13. Take care of needs before bedtime. 14. Be in your room at bedtime. LEVEL II: when you have met all the requirements of Level I vou will he placed on Level II. On this level vnu must keep up the resnonsihillties 0; Level I. Also. you must think about whv vou are here and what c anges vou need to make to stav out of t .- ‘- . rOHble. AF 4, Staff will look at how well vou have done, yr won his: flogazzothe 0 ' . v t . ' . l" (Tilr‘fifln'ltfi ’1 H1q 1370‘, ”,3” 1471‘ I“ “a“- ,‘r 'fiun,’ 108 Level II Responsibilities Level II privileges 1. Level I responsibilities 1 g;oo p,w, bedtimp 2. Do Homework. 2. All Level I privileges 3. Self-evaluation (think about 3. Co-ed activity with what you are doing.) staff 0.K. 4. Dlav ping pong. 5. Plav cards and other names. LEVEL III: When you have met all the requirements of Level II you will be placed on Level III. You must keep up the responsibilities of Levels I and II. You must set a good example with your behavior and attitude. You must also be thinking about where you will be going when you leave and what you are going to be doing to keep from coming back. Level III Resoonsibilities: Level III °rivileges: 1. Level I and II responsibilities. 1. 10:00 °.H. bedtime. 2. Be a good example for other kids. 2. 11:00 P.H. bedtime on 3. Use initiative (try hard to Fri. and Sat. night. improve, stay busy.) 3. Light on for 1 hour after bedtime. 4. Leave building with caseworker. 5. Choice of T.V. and radio station. 6. Choice of job when doing dishes. Most important is that you earn vour privileges and punishments. Anytime your behavior does not meet the reouirements of the level you will be dropped a level and you will have to work vour way up again. [33 will be held resoonsible jg: your behavior. The harder vou trv, the better vou will do! OVERALL: 1 You cannot make threats toward staff or kids. 2. YOu cannot talk to the other kids about: a.) War stories - talking about breaking the law. b.) Hhv you are at the Juvenile Home. c.) Sexual behavior. d.) Running away or breaking out. e.) Using drugs and drinking. No name calling or rudeness toward staff or kids. No whispering or note passion. Uo swearing. Ho phvsical contact with other kids. You will be searched when vou come in the building from the fil"’ I \JO‘U‘Iéw IO. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 109 You cannot use the phone. You must volunteer for work at least one time on each shift. You must go to classes in the Juvenile Home and be on time for class. You must know your bedtime and be in your room on time. You may send and receive mail. All mail will be read by staff. No smoking. uiet Hour - is from 2:30 P.M. to 3:30 P.M. All kids must go to their room at this time. Your door will be locked. This gives staff time to get ready for the next shift. It gives you the time to rest, relax and think. You must he guiet during this time. Visiting Hours - visiting hours are: Wednesday 7:OOP.M. to Rznn 0.". Sunday 4:nflP.H. to 6:“0 P.M. In The Dayroom: There are different chairs and tables for bovs and girls. Sit on your own side unless you ask staff. Boys and girls need staff O.K. before playing games together. 00 not hang around the office window. Knocking on the office window or wall will mean 1 hour in vour Staff will say when the T.V. goes on. The kids on Level III can pick T.V. shows. If no one on Level III is watching the T.V.. Level II will pick the show. You cannot eat or drink on the soft couches and chairs. Do not put your feet on the furniture, or sit on the tables. You must have staff 0.K. to leave the davroom. You cannot go into another kid's room unless vou are doing Room doors are kept closed at all times unless told by staff. Noise in rooms after bedtime is not allowed. Do not talk or knock through doors or walls to kids in their when in the halls go about your business. no not hang around Your room must be kept neat and clean at all times. 00 not write on walls and doors. 1. 2. 3. 4. room. S. 6. 7. 3. The Rooms And Hallways: I. volunteer work. , 3. 4. rooms. 6. or talk to other kids. 7. 3: Slamming doors is not allowed. 10. You can have these things in your room: A) Bedding 8) Bed Clothes .a- Two Books or Uagazines One Poster with staff 0.K. C) One Towel D) Soap E) Comb F) Paper Cup 6; Paper and Pencil ) 11. H 110 Room searches will be done by staff. Anvthing not in the list above (10) is not allowed. If something not allowed is found it will mean discipline and may mean rotation. Playground: uNe—e 01-h 1. 2. OOCDNO‘UT-hu The staff will tell you when we go outside, poH'T ASK! You will quietly line up at the back door. Stay at least 6 feet away from the fence and in view of the staff at all times. Do not talk with or shout at people outside the fenced area. Good sportsmanship must be shown at all times. Meals: Stay away from the kitchen windows while people are working in the kitchen. The cook must be treated with the same resoect as the rest of the staff. Only two people at the serving window at one time. Don't touch the food, you will be served. Take only the food you are going to eat. You will be served only one glass of milk per meal. You must ask to be excused from the table. You will be told when seconds are being served. Dessert will be served only after you have finished your meal. You will be told when trays will be taken, don‘t ask. Discipline: If you break a rule, staff may do one of the things in the list below: 1. A Time-gut is when you are sent to your room. Use this time to think about why you were sent there. Staff will try to be back to talk with you in 10 to 15 minutes. After In to lS minutes if the staff feels the problem is not settled. vou will be given in to 15 minutes more to think about why vou were sent there. This can happen 3 times. If after 3 times you still do not know why vou were sent to your room, the staff will tell vou why you were sent there and tell you how to keep this from happening again. Depending on your attitude and the way you act vou may get more discipline. You can get a check on your check sheet if you break rules. If you get 3i/'s in any 4 days , you will be drooped a level or repeat the level you are on. If you get 3v"s while on Level I you will repeat Level I or get rotation. Earlv Bedtime - You may get an early bedtime. Use this time to think about your behavior. 111 Level Drop - When you are dropped a level you will have to start the 4 days over before you earn the next level. Rotation - This is the worst you can get. There are 5 steps of rotation. Staff will decide which step you start on and how you can work your way off from there. When you get off rotation you will start Level I over again. ROTATION Time I_ Room' Time I_ Davroom a. 2 hours 2 hours b. 2 hours l hour c. 3 hours 1 hour d. 4 hours l hour e. 4 hours l5 minutes APPENDIX B Needs Evaluation Survey \J.) 112 Needs Evaluation Survey Is the youth currently enrolled in school? 1 5 No Yes What is the current (most recent, if not currently enrolled) grade level enrolled? 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th What school does the youth attend? (open-ended) Code number Has the youth previously attended this school? (not enrolled) 1 5 No Yes To What extent did the youth discuss What school he/she would attend upon release? (not enrolled) l 2 3 4 5 Never was not Discussed Discussed Discussed tried to allowed to it once it briefly it frequently discuss it discuss it . To what extent does the youth feel he/she had an effect on what school would be attended upon release? (didn't try to have an effect) 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slight Moderate Strong Deciding effect 'effect effect factor 10. 11. 12. 113 How does the youth feel about attending his/her particular school? (not enrolled) l 2 3 4 5 Dislikes Dislikes Doesn't Likes Likes intensely somewhat care somewhat intensely To what extent is the youth having difficulty adjusting to the new school overall? (not a new school) 1 2 3 4 5 Constant Many Some Few No difficulty problems problems problems problems To what extent has the frequency of skipping school/classes changed since detention? (not enrolled) l 2 3 4 5 Much more Somewhat No change Somehwat Much less more less To what extent does the youth feel this change in skipping school is a result of detention? (no change) 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slight Moderate A strong The main factor factor factor reason To What extent is skipping school or classes a problem for the youth? (not enrolled) l 2 3 4 5 Severe Serious Moderate Very No problem slight Is the youth a participant in the Transitional Services Program (TSP)? (not enrolled) l S No Yes 13. 14.- 17. 18. 114 To what extent does the youth feel comfortable asking TSP workers for advice? (not on TSP) l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal To what extent would the youth like to feel comfortable asking TSP workers for advice? (not on TSP) l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal To what extent does the youth seek TSP workers for advice? (not on TSP) l 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always To What extent is TSP's aid helpful? (has not sought aid) 1 ' 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal To What extent has the youth's school performance changed since detention? (not enrolled) 1 2 3 4 5 Much worse SomeWhat No change Somewhat Much better worse better To what extent is this change in school performance a result of detention? (no change) 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slightly Possibly A strong The main factor reason 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24'. 115 To what extent has the youth's satisfaction with his/her grades changed since detention? (not enrolled) l 2 3 4 5 Much less Somewhat No change Somewhat Much more satisfied less more satisfied satisfied satisfied To what extent has detention affected how comfortable the youth feels talking to teachers about personal things? (not enrolled) l 2 3 4 5 Much less Somewhat No change Somewhat Much more comfort- less more comfortable able comfortable comfortable To What extent would the youth like to feel more comfortable asking the teachers for advice? (not enrolled) l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little Somewhat A great little . deal To what extent has the youth's interest in finishing school changed as a result of detention? l 2 3 4 5 Much less SomeWhat No change Somewhat Much more interested less more interested interested interested - To what extent does the youth care about school? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little SomeWhat Concerned Very concerned Overall, to What extent has the youth's attitude toward school changed since detention? l 2 3 4 5 Much more SomeWhat No change Somewhat Much more negative more more positive negative positive 25. 26. OBI. 27. 0E2. 280 0E3. 0E4. 116 To what extent does the youth consider his/her attitude to- ward school to be a problem? 1 2 3 4 5 A great SomeWhat A little Very NOt at all deal little To what extent does the youth want to change his/her prob- lems at school? (has no problems) 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little Change Change Change some most all What problems at school does the youth want to change? (open-ended) To What extent does the youth have knowledge of resources available to help him/her with school problems? (has no problems) 1 2 3 4 5 Mentions vaguely Specific- Vaguely Specifically none mentions ally men- mentions _ mentions more one tions one more than than one one What resources does the youth know of to help with school problems? (open-ended) To What extent has the youth sought these resources for help with school problems? (has no problems) 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal Overall, how does the youth feel detention has affected his/ her school life? (open-ended) How does the youth feel about the way detention has affected his/her school life? (open-ended) 29. 30. 32. 33- 34. 117 To what extent does the youth feel that the juvenile home should attempt to help youths with school related problems? 1 2 3 Not at all Very A little little 4 S SomeWhat A great deal How often does the youth see his/her caseworker? 1 2 3 Never Less than Once a once a week week 4 S More than Daily once a week How long are the caseworker's visits? (no meetings) 1 2 3 Less than Fifteen to Thirty to fifteen twenty forty four minutes nine minutes minutes How satisfied is the youth with the meetings? 1 2 3 Very Somewhat Indifferent unsatisfied unsatisfied How would the youth like to see the meetings changed? .1 2 3 Much less Somewhat No change frequent less ' frequent How satisfied is the youth with the meetings? 1 2 3 Very Somewhat Indifferent unsatisfied unsatisfied How would the youth like to see the meetings changed? 1 2 3 Much SomeWhat No change shorter shorter 4 S Forty five One hour to fifty or more nine minutes frequency of casework 4 S SomeWhat Very satisfied satisfied frequency of casework 4 5 SomeWhat Much more more frequent frequent length of casework 4 5 SomeWhat Very satisfied satisfied length of casework 4 5 SomeWhat Much longer longer 36. 37. 38. CBS. 39- 036. 40. 41. 118 To what extent does the youth feel comfortable talking with his/her caseworker? l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very SomeWhat Comfort- Very com- little able _ fortable To What extent does the youth feel the caseworker plays the role of friend? 1 ' 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal To What extent does the youth feel the caseworker plays the role of authoritarian? l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal What role would the youth like to see the caseworker take? (open-ended) - To What extent would the youth like to change his/her rela- tionship with the caseworker? ' l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Few Some Most All aspects aspects aspects aspects What aspects of the youth's relationship with the caseworker would he/she like to change? (open-ended) To What extent does the youth ask the caseworker to help him/her with adjustment problems? 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always How satisfied is the youth with the help his/her caseworker offers for problems? (has not asked caseworker for help) 1 2 3 4 5 Very SomeWhat Indifferent Somewhat Very unsatisfied unsatisfied satisfied satisfied 42. up. ' 46. 47. 48. 49. 119 Is the youth on probation? l 5 No Yes How does the youth feel about the rules of probation? (not on probation) 1 2 3 4 5 Very SomeWhat Indifferent Somewhat Very unsatisfied unsatisfied satisfied satisfied How difficult is it for the youth to abide by the rules of probation? (not on probation) l 2 3 4 5 Very A little SomeWhat th very NOt at all How often does the youth break a probation rule? (not on probation) l 2 3 4 5 Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never How often does the youth discuss probation problems with his/her caseworker? (not on probation) 1- 2 3 ’4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always Has the youth had any contact with the police since release? 1 5 Yes No Has the youth been petitioned since release? 1 5 Yes No Has the youth been detained since release? 1 5 Yes No 50. 51. 52. 53- 54. 55- 56. 120 To what extent does the youth feel comfortable telling people he/she was in detention?' . 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little . deal To what extent has the youth told old friends that he/she was in detention? (no old friends) 1 2 3 4 5 None A few Some Most All To what extent does the youth feel that people accept his/her detention? 1 2 3 4 5 None Few Some Most All How often does the youth see friends (outside of school) he/ she had before detention? (no old friends) 1 2 3 4 5; Never Less than Once a More than ' Daily once a week once a week week How often does the youth see friends he/she has met since release? (no new friends) 1 2 3 4 5 Never Less than Once a More than Daily once a week once a week week To what extent has the frequency of the youth's visits with friends changed since detention? 1 2 3 4 5 Much less A little No change A little Much more frequent less more frequent frequent frequent To What extent has the youth lost friends because of his/her detention? l 2 3 4 5 All Most Some Few None 57- 58. 59. 60. 0E7. 0E8. 61. 62. 121 To what degree has there been a change since detention in how welcome friends are at the youth's home? 1 2 3 4 5 Much less A lttle No change A little Much more less more To what extent has there been a change since detention in the frequency of friends' visits to the youth's home? 1 2 3 4 5 Much less A little No change A little Much more less more To what degree has there been a change since detention in how welcome the youth is at friends' homes? 1 2 3 4 5 Much less A little No change A little Much more less more To What extent has there been a change since detention in the ' frequency of the youth's visits to friends' homes? I 2 3 4 5 Much less A little No change A little ' Much more less more Overall, how does the youth feel detention has affected his/ her social life? (open-ended) How does the youth feel about the way detention has affected his/her social life? (open-ended) To What extent has the youth's involvement with drugs changed since detention? 1 2 3 4 5 Much more SomeWhat No change SomeWhat Much less more less To What extent does the youth feel he/she has a drug problem? 1 2 3 4 5 Severe Obvious Moderate Very th a problem slight problem problem 65. 66. 67. 68. 122 To what extent has the youth sought help for drug problems? (not a problem) 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal To what extent has this aid been helpful for the youth? (hasn't sought aid) 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal Who does the youth live with? l 2 3 4 5 Both At least Other Group Foster natural one relative home home parents natural parent How often does youth visit with parents he/she does not live with? (lives with both parents) 1 2 3 4 5 Not NOt Never Sometimes Daily allowed available When has the youth most recently lived in this type of arrangement? 1 2 3 4 5 . Never More than Less than Less than Immediately one year one year six months prior to prior to prior to prior to detention detention detention detention When has the youth most recently lived in this specific arrangement? 1 2 3 4 5 Never More than Less than Less than Immediately one year one year six months prior to prior to prior to prior to detention detention detention detention 69. 70. 71. 72. 73- 74. 75. 123 To what extent does the youth have household responsibil— ities? l 2 3 4 5 None Very Some A fair A great little amount deal To what extent has there been a change in the household responsibilities of the youth since detention? l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very Some A fair A great little amount deal To what extent does the youth fulfill his/her household responsibilities? (has no responsibilities) 1 2 3 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always How has the youth's fulfillment of his/her household res- ponsibilities changed since detention? (has no responsibilities) 1 2 3 4 ' 5 Much less A little No change A little Much more less more HOW has the youth's relationship with his/her parents changed since the youth was detained? l 2 3 4 5 Much worse Somewhat No change SomeWhat Much better worse better To what extent do the parents/guardians place restrictions on the youth? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little deal To What extent have the restrictions on the youth changed since detention? 1 2 3 4 5 Much worse A little No change A little Much better worse better 76. 77. 78. 039. OElO. 79- 80. 124 How often do the parents/guardians punish the youth? 1 2 3 - 4 5 Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always To What extent has the punishment of the youth changed since detention? l 2 3 4 5 Much worse SomeWhat No change Somewhat Much worse better better To What extent does the youth lie to his/her parents/guar- dians? l 2 3 4 5 Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never What do the youth and parents/guardians argue about? (open-ended) " How‘has the arguing between the youth and parents/guardians changed since detention (in terms of quantity and topic)? (open—ended) To what extent are the parents/guardians involved with the youth's friends? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little Somewhat A great little deal To What extent has the youth's allowance changed since detention? l 2 3 4 5 Much worse Somewhat No change SomeWhat Much better worse better 82. * OEll. 0E12. 83. OE13. 84. 85. OEl4. 125 How satisfactory is the youth's allowance? (has no allowance) 1 2 3 4 5 Very Somewhat Indifferent SomeWhat Very unsatis- unsatis- satisfac- satisfac- factory factory tory _ tory Must the youth work for his/her allowance? (has no allowance) 1 5 No Yes Overall, how does the youth feel detention has affected his/ her home life? (open-ended) How does the youth feel about the way detention has affected his/her home life? (open-ended) To What extent was the youth's transition from detention to the community smooth? 1 2 3 4 ‘ 5 Not at all NOt very Average A little Very smooth smooth smooth What was it that effected the youth's transition? (open-ended) To What extent did the detention home staff spend time pre- paring the youth for release? 1 2 3 4 5 No time Less than One day Less than One week one hour or less one week or more To What extent did the detention home staff actually prepare the youth for release? 1 2 3 4 5 Did not Very A little Somewhat Extensively prepare little What did the staff do to prepare the youth for release? (Open-ended) 86. 87. OBIS. 88. 89. 90. 91. 126 To what extent did the caseworker spend time preparing the youth for release? 1 2 3 4 5 No time Less than One day Less than One week one hour or less one week or more To What extent did the caseworker actually prepare the youth for release? 1 2 3 4 5 Did not Very A little Somewhat Extensively prepare little What did the caseworker do to prepare the youth for release? (open-ended) To What extent did the youth know ahead of time When he/she would be released? 1 2 3 4 5 Less than One day Less than One week More than one hour or less one week one week How satisfied is the youth with When he/she was released? 1 2 3 4 5 Very SomeWhat Indifferent Somewhat Very unsatisfied unsatisfied satisfied satisfied To What extent did the youth discuss when he/she was to be released? 1 2 3 4 5 Never was not Discussed Discussed Discussed discussed allowed to it once it briefly it frequently it discuss it To What extent does the youth feel he/she had an effect on When he/she was released? (didn't try to have an effect) 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Slight Moderate Strong Deciding effect effect effect factor 92. 93- 94. 95. 96. 97- OEl6. 127 To what extent did the youth know ahead of time where he/she was being released to? 1 2 3 4 5 Less than One day Less than One week More than one hour or less one week one week How satisfied is the youth with Where he/she was released to? l 2 3 4 5 Very Somewhat Indifferent Somewhat Very unsatisfied unsatisfied satisfied satisfied To what extent did the youth discuss Where he/she was being released to? l 2 3 4 5 Never Was not Discussed Discussed Discussed discussed allowed to it once it briefly it frequently it discuss it To What extent does the youth feel he/she had an effect on Where he/Whe was released to? (didn't try to have an effect) I 2 3 4 ' 5 Not at all Slight Moderate Strong Deciding effect effect effect factor To what extent did the youth feel adequately prepared for release? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very A little SomeWhat A great little ' deal To What extent does the youth think a prerelease program would have been helpful in easing reintegration? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Doubtfully Possibly Probably Definitely How would the youth like to see a prerelease program run? (open-ended) 98. OE17. 99- 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 128 To What extent does the youth think a postrelease program would have been helpful in easing reintegration? l 2 3 4 5 Not at all Doubtfully Possibly Probably Definitely How would the youth like to see a postrelease program run? (open-ended) Did the youth receive home visits to his/her old home? 1 S No Yes Did the youth receive home visits to his/her final placement? (placed at home) 1 S No Yes How many days did the youth spend on home visits? (never received home visits) 1 2 3 4 5 One Two Three Four More than fo ur To What extent does the youth feel these visits were helpful in his/her return to the community? (never received home visits) 1 2 ‘ 3 4 5 Not at all NOt very A little Somewhat Very helpful helpful helpful helpful helpful To What extent does the youth feel the frequency of home visits should be changed? 1 2 3 4 5 Much less A little No change A little Much more frequent less more frequent frequent frequent To what extent does the youth feel that participation in at least one home visit should be required before release? 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Not much A little SomeWhat A great deal 129 Open-ended (OE) Questions ID Number 0E1. What problems at school does the youth want to change? 0E2. What resources does the youth know of to help with school problems? 0E3. Overall, how does the youth feel detention has affected his/her school life? 0E4. How does the youth feel about the way detention has affected his/her school life? 130 0E5. What role would the youth like to see the caseworker take? 086. What aspect of the youth's relationship with the caseworker would he/she like to change? 0E7. Overall, how does the youth feel detention has affected his/her social life? 0E8. How does the youth feel about the way detention has affected his/her social life? 131 OB9. What do the youth and parents/guardians argue about? OElO. How has the agruing between the youth and parents/guardians changed since detention (in terms of quantity and topic)? OEll. Overall, how does the youth feel detention has affected his/her home life? OEl2. How does the youth feel about the way detention has affected his/her home life? 132 0813. What was it that effected the youth's transition? OE14. What did the staff do to prepare the youth for release? OElS. What did the caseworker do to prepare the youth for release? OEl6. How would the youth like to see a prerelease program run? OE17. How would the youth like to see a postrelease program run? 133 OE18. What was it like for the youth leaving the juvenile home? OE19. What was it like for the youth to get out of detention? OEZO. What was it like for the youth to go to his/her current home? OE21. How might the youth's natural family have helped during this transition? 134 OE22. How might the youth's current family (if different from (his/her natural family) have helped during this transition? OE23. What does the youth like best about being out of detention? OE24. What kinds of things have been hard for the youth to get used to since release? OEZS. What are the main problems the youth has faced since getting out of detention? 135 0826. What does the youth think other people should be prepared for as they are released from detention? APPENDIX C Codebook: Open—ended Questions 136 CODEBOOK-OPENENDED QUESTIONS ID Number Card Number Blank CHI 1. None 2. Interpersonal Behavior 3. Academic 0E2. 1. Principal 2. Other Administrative 3. Teacher 4. Counselor 5. Other external to school 0E3. 1. No change 2. Greater Interest 3. Future 4. School performance 5. Personal growth 0E4. 1. Negative 2. Neutral 3. Positive CBS. 1. Friend/helper 2. Nicer/easier 3. Heavy 5. No change 0E6 1. Change 2. No change 0E7. 1. No change 2. Less trouble 3. Personal CBS. 1. Negative 3. Neutral 5. Positive 0E9. 1. Household structure 2. Social behaviors 3. Don't argue OEIO. 1. No change 2. Less. same topics 3. Less Lx Different things 0-... . A ...~ -..._....._,---.—.—.—. “i- -_. OEll. OEIZ. OE13. OE14. OE15. OE16. OE17. OE18. OE19. OE20. OE21. 0822. OE23. OE24. OEZS. OE26. WIJi—J DWNH H 137 No change Less trouble Appreciation Personal Chores Negative Neutral Positive Nothing Talked Routine Punishment‘ Threaten; don't come back; behave Nothing Talked Told me how to get out Told me how to stav out Threaten Scary, strange, shocking New control Positive Happy Control Freedom Scary, strange Control, less strice rules Positive No change Freedom Control APPENDIX D Profile Sheet 1138 1. Card Number: 1 2. Sequence Number:. 3. Date of Intake: (year/ month/ day) 4. Date of Birth: (year/ month/ day) 5 ————— 10 5. Age at Intake: (nearest year) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll ...... 16 17-—_--_—_18 6. Sex: 1) Male 2) Female - 7. Race: 1) Black 2) Hispanic 3) White 4) Other ’9 iL' Previousiy Detained?: O) No 1) Yes .'. . . . . . . .. .......... 29 9. If prev. detained, where? (indicate) 9’ '_—b2 10. Police Dept. or Agency requesting detention: 1) LPD 2) ICPC 3) Other 11. Reason for Detention: (indicate)mm_*- 2‘ 25 12. Is the minor a court ward?: O) No 1) Yes _——26 13. If Ward, what court: I) ICPC 2) Other J_ '_'b7 14. Has the preliminary hearing been held?: 0) No 1) Yes .............. } "“28 15. Released to: (indicate) 29“—"“‘bo 16. Caseworker:.(indicate) 31““""32 17. Date of Release: (year/ month/ day) -. 33_“——__~38 18. Days in Detention: (include day of release) 39"—'_—-"_'41 19. Peabody Total Test Grade Level: 42"""""""‘Ms 20. Current Grade Level: 46_—_‘_-_47 Name: Date of Intake: Seq 9: Date pi Birth: ___________3 APPENDIX B Research Agreement 139 RESEARCH AGREEMENT Oct. l5, 198 As a part of an ongoing research investigation being conducted jointly by the Probate Court and Carolyn L. Feis, the following is agreed to. l) Free and open acCess to the youths and their files is granted to the research staff. As interns with the Court, this access is permitted on the same basis as it is with any other Court employee. This access is not directly a result of Ms. Feis' association with Michigan State University. 2) As per standard practice, permission for such access does not require formal written consent from youths or their parents. Any resistance from a youth or parent regarding the youth's participation will result in the termination of the interview. Given the jurisdiction over the youths, the Court gives it's permission for all youths who have been detained to be inter- viewed and for their files to be examined under the methods specified in the research proposal. 3) Verbal assent from youths will be obtained after they have been informed of the nature of the study - that their participation is voluntary and they may withdraw at any time. that all information they provide will remain confidential and that results will be available upon request. The repumeration procedure will also be explained. 4) No Court or law enforcement representative outside of the research staff will have access to information regarding a youths' s decision to participate or regarding specific information provided by the youth. Nor shall any such information be released by the research staff in a manner such that the participant could be identified. 5) The Court accepts all responsibility for the conduct of this investigation. Given these above conditions, it is hereby agreed thatalweds evaluation of youths who have been detained shall be conducted by Ms. Feis, under the directior of the Court, in accordance with her continuing role as a researcher with the Cor [AIM/2L 3 Carolyn Lu/feis, Researcher Court Administi APPENDIX F Letter to Parents 140 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT Of PSYCHOLOGY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 411.424.1117 PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH BUILDING Dear has been asked to help me look at the Juvenile Home's programs. Because was in the Juvenile Home, he was asked to be' interviewed to help in this effort._ has told us that he is interested in helping out, so I want to tell you about our interests. I am interested in finding out how youths who have been in detention feel about their needs as they return to the community. By being interviewed may learn more about himself and may help the court improve its future services for youths. By helping me is showing concern for others who may be in a similar situation and they will be thankful for that. will be one of nearly 30 youths his age who will be interviewed. No one individual will be identified because code numbers are used. All things that says will be held in strict confidentiality. name will not be used in any way and I will not repeat what he says to anyone else. The final report will contain only group information and general summaries of what I found Within the next week, someone from my staff Will be contacting ‘ to set up a time for the interview. I hOpe that you will feel comfortable cooperating in this effort. It may help other youths in the future. I want to remind you that all information is confidential and that is participating voluntarily and may stop at any time. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Carolyn F is Research Director 355-7440 355-0166 I Hr:-,‘. .- 40...... ,.'-' ' "4....1',,,(),,,~H,'"."“.,nu’v’nn‘ APPENDIX C Contact Sheet 141 Contact Sheet ID” Interviewer” Observer # Date/Time Contacts Case Assigned Caseworker Contacted Letter to Guardian Sent Youth Contacted Interview Conducted Interview Coded Interview Turned In APPENDIX H Recruitment Letter 142 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH BUILDING ' 488244 I I7 Dear Student: I would like to inform you of a course that will be avail- able for independent study credit (490) beginning in Fall, l962. The course involves a two term commitment (Fall, 1982 and Winter, 1983) for four credits each term. The course will allow you to meet one-to-one with a youth from the local community. It will also provide you with experience in interviewing techniques, data coding methods, and general research and data collecting tools. You will receive the necessary training and supervision to inter- view youths involved with the juvenile court and to code data for a research project. This course will be valuable for anyone con- sidering graduate school or a career in human services or re- search. If you are interested in this course and would like more information, please Contact me at 355-7440 or 355-5015 (messages only) from dam to 5pm. At that time, we will arrange for a fu- ture meeting. Please remember that yOu must be enrolled for the course both Fall and Winter terms. Thank you very much for your interest. I look forward to meeting you. Sincerely, Carolyn L. Feis Psychology Department MSL' is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institutmn LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Agus, B., 5 Allen, T. E. The effect of parole notification on somatic symptoms in federal prisons. Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy, 1968, 15, 6I-67. Anthony, W. A., Buell, G. J., Sharratt, S., & Althoff, M. E. Efficacy of psychiatric rehabilitation. Psychological Bul- letin, 1972, lg, 447-456. Bacon, G. R. Editorial. The Prison Journal, 1966, 36, 2-3. Baker, B. 0., Hardyck, C. D., & Petrinovich, L. F. Weak Measure- ment, stron statistics: An empirical critique of S. S. Stevens' proscriptions on statistics. In w. A. Mehrens & R. L. Ebel (Eds.) Principles of educational and psychological measurement. Chicago:Rand_McNally &‘C0mpany, 1967. Baker, J. E. Preparing prisoners for their return to the commun— ity. Federal Probation, 1966, 39, 43-50. Briggs, J. P. Reintegration through community-based correctional centers: Offender problems and organiZaETonal constraints. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1978. Buikhuisen, w., & Hoekstra, H. A. Factors related to recidivism. British Journal of Criminology, 1974, ii! 63-70. Campbell, D. T. & Fiske, D. w. Convergent and discriminant val— idation by the multi-trait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Catalino, A. A prerelease program for juveniles in a medium se- curity institution. Federal Probation, 1967, 31, 41—45. Citizen's Inquiry on Parole and Criminal Justice, Inc. Report on New York parole: A summary. Criminal Law Bulletin, 1975, 11, Clark, P. M., & Feis, C. L. Case-flow analysis of the Inqham County Juvenile Home. Technical Report, 1982. Couse, A. K. Pre-release preparation for parole. The Canadian Journal of Corrections, 1965, 1, 31-39. 143 144 Cressey, D. R. Adult felons in prison. In L. E. Ohlin (Ed.), Prisoners in America. Englewood CLiffs: Prentice—Hall, Inc., 1973. Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of psychological testing (3rd ed.). New York:Harper & R6w, I970. Culbertson, R. G. Achieving correctional reform. In R. R. Roberg & V. J. Webb (Eds.), Critical issues in corrections: Problems, trends andyprospects. St. Paul: West Publishing Chmpany, 1981. Davoli, C. R. & Stock, H. (Chairpersons) Report of the Task Force on the Mentally Ill Adolescent Offender to the MTchigan Department of Management & Budget, Mental Health and Socihl Services, State of Michigan, 1982. Dawson, W. J. On the abolition of parole. In R. R. Roberg & V. J. Webb (Eds.), Critical issues in corrections: Problems, trends and prospects. St. PafiI: West Publishing Company, 1981. , Devon Probation and After-Care Service. Personal communication, 1979. Doleschal, E., & Geis, G. 959991295 release, crime and delinquency topics: A monograph series, Washington, D. C.: NIMH, Center for Studies in Crime and Delinquency, 1971. Duffee, D. E. & Duffee, B. W. Studying the needs of offenders in prerelease centers. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin- guency, 1981, 18, 232:752. Ehrlich, M. I. Adolescents in transition: A look at a transi- tional treatment center. Journal of Community Psychology, Empey, L. T. Studies in delinquency: Alternatives to incarcera- tion. Washington, D. C.: 0.8. Department of Health, Educa- tion, and welfare; Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, 1967. Empey, L. T. American delinquengy: Its meaning and construction. Homewood, IT1.: The Dorsey Press, 1978. Erickson, R. J. The ex-offender looks at his own needs. Unpub— lished masters thesis, San DTego State College, 1971. 145 Erickson, R. J., Crow, W. J., Zurcher, L. A., Jr., & Connett, A. V. Paroled but not free. New York: Behavioral Publications, 1973. Eskridge, C. W., Seiter, R. P., & Carlson, E. W. Community based corrections: From the community to the community. In R. R. Roberg & V. J. Webb (Eds.), Critical issues in corrections: Problems, trends and prospects. St. Paul: West PUbliEhing Company, 1981. Eubanks, P. J. Pre-release instruction program--Apa1achee Cor- rectional Institution. Proceedings of the American Correc- tional Association, 1963, 327-332. Fixsen, D. L., Phillips, E. L., & wo1f, M. M. The teaching- family model of group home treatment. In Y. Bakal (ed.), Closing correctional institutions: New strategies for youth services. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1973. Flynn, E. E. Jails and criminal justice. In L. E. Ohlin (ed.), Prisoners in America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1973. Foster, R. M. Youth service systems: New Criteria. In Y. Bakal (ed.), Closing correctional institutions: New Strategies for Youth Services. Lexington, Lexington Boohs, I973. Glaser, D. The effectiveness of a_prison and parole system. IndianapoIis: The Bobbs-Merrili C6mpany, Inc., I964. Glaser, D. Correction of adult offenders in the commnity. In L. E. Ohlin (ed.), Prisoners in America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973. Goodstein, L. Inmate adjustment to prison and the transition to community life. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin- quency, 1979, lg, 246-272. Goodstein, L. Psychological effects of the predictability of prison release. Criminology, 1980, 18, 363-384. Griffieth, W. R. Reintegration--Need assessment of female of- fenders being released from incarceration. Master's thesis. Michigan State University, 1980. Grisso, J. T. Conflict about release: Environmental and personal correlates among institutionalized delinquents. Journal of Community Psychology, 1975, 3, 396-399. 146 Guienze, C. Federal pre-release guidance centers: A half-decade later. Proceedings of the American Correctional Association, 1966, 34-320. H011:: N. Temporary prison release: California's prerelease fur- lough program. Crime and Delinqgengy, 1971, __, 414-430. Holt, N. & Renteria, R. A. Prerelease porgram evaluation: Some implications of negative findings. Federal Probation, 1969, 12, 40-45. Irwin, J. The felon. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Jenkins, W. 0., Barton, M. C., deValera, E. K., Devine, M. D., Witherspoon, A. D.) & Muller, J. B. The measurement and prediction of criminal behavior and recidiviSm: The environ- mental deprivatihn scaleGYEDS) and the maladaptiVe behavior record (MBR). Washington, D. C.: Rehabilitation Research FoundatiOn, Manpower Administration, U. S. Department of Labor, 1972. Jenkins, W. 0., deValera, E. K., & Muller, J. B. The behavioral evaluation, treatment and analysis (BETA) system in the prediction of criminal and delinquent behvior. Quarterly Journal of Corrections, 1977, 1, 44-50. Jenkins, W. 0., & Sanford, W. L. A manual for the use_cf envi- ronmental deppivation scale (EDS) in corrections: The predic- tion. iWaShington, D. C.: Rehahilitation Research Foundation,‘ Manpower Administration, U. S. Department of Labor, 1972. Kachelski, H. E. An approach to parole preparation. Federal Kaplan, J. Criminal justice: Introductoryycases and materials (2nd ed.). Mineola, New York: The Foundation Press, Inc., 1978. Katkin, D., Hyman, D., & Kramer, J. Delinquency and the juvenile 'ustice system. North Scituate, Massachusettes: Duxbury ress, 1976. Kay, B. A., & Vedder, C. B. (Eds.) Probation and parole. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1963. Landolfi, J. Completion/non-completion rates for releasees from Department of Corrections pre-réiease centers, I975-I976. Boston: Massachusettes Department of Corrections, 1978. 147 LeClair, D. P. Home furlough program effects on rates of recidi- vism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1978(aL, 5, 249-258. LeClair, D. P. Societal reintegration and recidivism rates. Boston: Massachusettes Department of Corrections, 1978(b). LeClair, D. P. Community-base reintegration: Some theoretical implications of posititve findings. Boston: Massachusettes Department of Corrections, 1979. Lee, R., & Haynes, N. M. Project CREST and the dual-treatment approach to delinquency: Methods and research summarized. In R. R. Ross & P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment. Toronto: Butterworths, 1980. Lerman, P. (Ed.) Delinquenpy and social policy. New York: Praeger Publishers,“i970. Lerman, P. Evaluative studies of institutions for delinquents: Implications for research and social policy. Social Wbrk, 1968' 1—3' 55-64. Lipton, D., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluatiOn studies. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1975. ' Lohman, J. D., Wahl, A., Carter, R. M., & Elliott, A. E. .53 afterview of supervision: Research design. The San Francisco Project, Research, Report # 10. Berkeley: Regents of the University of California, 1966. Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. Save parole supervision. Federal McArthur, A. V. Coming out cold: Community reentpy from a state reformatory. Lexington:‘Leiington Bodhs, i974. McCarthy, B. J. & McCarthy, 8. R. Prerelease programming: A con- cept whose time has come--again. Corrections Today, 1983, .42., 60.62. Michigan Prison Overcrowding Project. Prison overcrowding: A Michigan perspective. Lansing, Michigan:Michigan Prison Overcrowdihg Project, 1983. Miller, E. E. Furloughs as a technique of reintegration. In E. E. Miller & M. R. Montilla, Corrections in the community: Success models in correctional reform. Reston, Virginia: Reston Publishing Company, 1977. 148 Miller, E. E., & Montilla, M. R. Corrections in the community: Success models in correctional reform. Reston, Virginia: Réston Publishing Cbmpany, I977. Miller, F. P. The reintegration of the offender into the commun- ity (Some hopes and some fears). The Canadian Journal of Corrections, 1970, 12, 514-525. Minor, W. W., & Courlander, M. The postrelease trauma thesis: A reconsideration of the risk of early parole failure. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1979, lg, 273-293. Moseley, W. H. Parole: How is it wrong. Journal of Criminal Justice, 1977, 5, 185-203. Nackman, N. S. A transitional service between incarceration and release. Federal Probation, 1963, 31, 43-46. National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD). Juvenile cor- rections today: A national survey. In P. Lerman (Ed.), Del- inquency and social policy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970. Novotny, H. R. & Enomoto, J. J. Social competence training as a correctional alternative. Offender Rehabilitation, 1976, 1, pp.45, 55. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory (2nd Ed.). New York:McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1973. Parisi, N. The prisoner's pressures and responses. In N. Parisi (Ed.), Coping with imprisonment. Beverly Hills: Sage Publishers, 1982. Parisian, J. A. An examination of the process of change: Explor- ing the success of an eff3ctTve juvenile diversion profLect. Unpublished masters thesis, Michigan State University, 1982. Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980. Phillips, E. L., Phillips, E. A., Fixsen, D. L., & Wblf, M. M. Achievement Place: Behavior shaping works for delinquents. In R. R. Ross and P. Gendreau (Eds.), Effective correctional treatment. Toronto: Butterworths, 1980. Renzema, M. W. Coping with freedom: A study of psychological stresses and support in the;priSon-to-parole transition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University of New York, Albany, 1980. 149 Richmond, C. Therapeutic housing. In H. R. Lamb (Ed.), Rehab- ilitation in community mental health. San Francisco: Josey- Bass, 1971. Robison, J., & Smith, G. The effectiveness of correctional pro- grams. Crime and Delinquency, 1971, 11, 67-80. Sigurdson, H. R. Expanding the role of the non-professional. Crime and Delinquency, 1969, 15, 420-429. Smith, R. R., Jenkins, W. 0., Petho, C. M., & Warner, R. W., Jr. An experimental application and evaluation of rational be- havior therapy in a work release setting. Journal of Coun- seling Psychology, 1979, 2Q, 519-525. Studt, E. The Reentry of the offender into the community. Washington, D. C.: Uhited States Department of Health, Educa— tion, and welfare, Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development, 1967. Sullivan, D. C., Seigel, L. J., & Clear, T. The halfway house, ten years later: Reappraisal of correctional innovation. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Correction, 1974, lg, 188-197. Swart, S. L. Alternatives to incarceration: The end of an era. Corrections Today, 1982, 45, pp.28, 30-32. Task Force on Corrections: The President's commission on law enforcement and the administration of justice. Task Force report: Corrections. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1967. Toch, H. Prison inmates' reactions to furlough. Journal of Re— search in Crime and Delinquency, 1967, 4, 248-262. United Nations. Parole and aftercare. New York: Department of Social Affairs, 1954. Waller, I. Men released from prison. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974. Williams, L. T. Inmates released directly from a maximum securi- ty institution during 1977 and 1978. Boston: Massachusettes Department of7Correction, 1979. Wittenberg, S. & LeClair, D. P. A follow-up evaluation of the pre-release training experience. Boston: Massachusettes De- partment of Cbrrection, I979? “'mm)mmmwgymn'“