Transcript The Cuyahoga County Juvenile Offender Reentry Program: A

Characteristics and Outcomes of an Innovative
Ohio Juvenile Offender Reentry Program (ORP-J)
David Hussey & Rodney Thomas, Mandel School of Applied Social
Sciences, Case Western Reserve University
Karl Cetina, Director of Cuyahoga County Juvenile TASC, Catholic
Charities Services
Gina Mazzone, Catholic Charities Services
Magistrate Terease Neff, Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court
Ian Fraser, Regional Administrator, Ohio Department of Youth
Services
Abstract
The purpose of this workshop is to describe and
discuss the components of an innovative
juvenile offender reentry program, and explore
the relationship between client characteristics,
program factors, and individual outcomes related
to criminal offending, mental health, and
substance abuse.
RECLAIM
• Funds over 610 direct service programs throughout the State
• Prevention, diversion, community based treatment, and residential
treatment
• Touch nearly 110,000 youth who never reach our doors
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
• Created a network of community-based alternatives to incarceration
• Youth arrest and crime rates continue to fall
• Reduced the county’s and state’s over-reliance on confinement
National Trends – Number of persons under age 21 detained,
incarcerated, or placed in residential facilities (1997-2010)
Number of Person Under 21
120,000
110,000
105,055
107,493
104,219
100,000
96,531
92,721
90,000
86,814
80,000
70,792
70,000
60,000
50,000
1997
1999
2001
2003
2006
2007
2010
DYS Admissions 2004-2011
(ODYS Deputy Director Dies, JDAI Inter-Site Conference, 4/26/12)
National Trends – Rate of persons under age 21 detained,
incarcerated, or placed in residential facilities (1997-2010)
Number in residential placement per
100,000 juveniles
400
356
350
300
329
355
344
344
335
339
316
306
320
295
278
250
200
150
100
227
225
United States
Ohio
1997 1999 2001 2003 2006 2007 2010
2012 Cuyahoga - Documented
Weapon Use
Unk
23%
Yes
42%
No
35%
2012 Cuyahoga - Need for
Substance Abuse Services (JASAE)
None
24%
Severe
59%
Mild
9%
Mod
8%
Cuyahoga County DYS Youth Profile
• Male: 95%
• Immediate Family Member Incarcerated:
51%
– 25% unknown
•
•
•
•
Youth Confirmed as Parents: 12%
Special Education Status: 39%
Prior Mental Health Treatment: 76%
DYS Mental Health Caseload: 57%
– Males: 55%
– Females: 100%
– Currently on Psychotropics: 54%
Current Challenges
Model, 1/10/13)
(Columbus Dispatch, The Ohio
“Ohio now spends $38 million less than it did three years ago. One-year
recidivism rates (kids who reoffended) dropped to under 23 percent.
That’s the lowest in nine years. More-compassionate punishment isn’t
signaling to kids that they can get away with delinquent behavior;
instead, it’s redeeming them: Ohio led the nation with the largest drop —
a 74 percent plunge — in violent juvenile crime between 1995 and 2010.
The state has closed more than half of its youth prisons since 2007. The
number of incarcerated youths has dropped from 2,000 to about 500. But
this has left the state institutions with a core of truly incorrigible
kids…Gangs are prevalent, teaching conditions are poor, and youth aren’t
getting enough help for mental illnesses. Currently, 52 percent of all
youths are on the mental-health caseload; 91% of the girls are. More than
half require special-education services.”
ORP & TASC: Challenges and Opportunities
• Treatment Accountability for Safer Communities (TASC)
• Offender Reentry Project (ORP-J): Substance Abuse
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)
– Pre-Release: Engagement, Evidence-Based
Assessment, Planning & Services
– Post Release: Tx Dosage; Retention; MET/CBT5;
Comprehensive Case Management; Relapse
Prevention; Dual Disorder Awareness and Intervention
– Reentry Court
– Establish effective partnerships and coalitions
TASC Clinical Case
Management Model
•
•
•
•
•
Referral
Screening or Clinical Assessment
Recommendations & Service Planning
Service Referrals, Linkage, & Placement
Monitoring, Reporting (Service Plan
Adjustments)
• Termination
TASC Advantages
•
•
•
•
Timely assessments
Greater treatment retention
Improves client readiness
Provides additional services
Pre-Release: Evidence-Based
Assessments
• Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS)
• Global Appraisal of Individual Needs
(GAIN)
Pre-Release: Ohio Youth Risk
Assessment System - OYAS
• Based on risk, need, responsivity
principles
• Low, moderate, high risk categories
• Multiple versions & domains
ORP-J
Population Description
16
Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN)
• GAIN Background
• Assessment
• Client Profiles
– Demographic
– Criminal
– Substance Abuse
– Mental Health
– Victimization
• N=139 (total number of client records)
– 100% male
– 78% African American, 10% multiracial, 6%
Caucasian, 2% any Hispanic, 1% other
– Average age= 17 years (range=13-20)
• 139 administered GAIN at intake
– 101 with 3-month GAIN
– 77 with 6-month GAIN
– 33 with 12-month GAIN
18
ORP-J Client Race (N=139)
Multiracial
14%
Other 1%
Hispanic 2%
Caucasian\
White 6%
African
American\Bl
ack 77%
ORP-J Client Age (N=139)
Less than 15
years
2%
18+ years
43%
15-17 years
55%
Average Number of Days
Substance Use Past 90-Days in the Community
(N=139)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
35
36
13
Got Drunk or High Kept from Meeting
Responsibilities
8
Used Alcohol
21
Used Marijuana
ORP Lifetime Substance Severity (N=139)
100%
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
31%
30%
25%
20%
20%
10%
14%
9%
0%
No Use
Use
Abuse
Dependence
Physiological
Dependence
Lifetime Percentage
Lifetime Substance Use Characteristics at
Baseline (N=139)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
51%
41%
54%
44%
Given up activites Fights/Troubles b/c
b/c of AOD
AOD
35%
AOD caused
problems w/law
23
33%
Hide AOD use
Other complain
about AOD use
Used AOD where
unsafe
Past Year Internalizing Problems (N=139)
100%
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
17%
11%
9%
10%
1%
5%
0%
Any Past Year
Internalizing
Disorder
Major
Depression
Disorder
Generalized
Anxiety Disorder
Suicidal
Thoughts or
Actions
Traumatic
Distress Disorder
Past Year Externalizing Problems (N=139)
100%
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
60%
55%
50%
42%
40%
35%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Any Past Year
Externalizing Disorder
Conduct Disorder
Attention DeficitHyperactivity Disorder
Past Year Co-Occurring Internalizing and Externalizing Problems
(N=139)
100%
90%
80%
Percentage
70%
60%
50%
41%
42%
40%
30%
20%
12%
10%
4%
0%
Neither
Externalizing only
Internalizing only
Both
Lifetime Victimization (N=139)
100%
90%
80%
70%
Percentage
60%
54%
52%
50%
40%
30%
22%
20%
10%
0%
Any history of victim. or
current worries
Lifetime History of
Victimization
High Levels of Victimization
Violence and Illegal Activity (N=139)
100%
90%
86%
78%
80%
Percentage
70%
60%
46%
50%
40%
31%
30%
25%
20%
14%
10%
0%
Any Violence
or Illegal
Activity
Acts of
Physical
Violence
Any Illegal
Activity
Property
crimes
Interpersonal Drug related
crimes
crimes
ReCAPP Structure
• Phase I: Begins Pre-Release – TASC worker meetings;
Forward Thinking Curriculum; Magistrate specifies 1-2
Phase 2 tasks.
• Phase 2: Focus on Basic Reentry Goals; Magistrate
specifies 1-2 tasks & issues rewards or sanctions;
promote to level 3 (or team if not successful in 60 days).
• Phase 3: Begins when basic reentry goals attained;
maintain Phase 2 progress; Magistrate specifies 1-2
tasks & issues rewards or sanctions.
– 6 month parole period = early discharge at 4 months
– 9 month parole period = early discharge at 6-7 months
Forward Thinking
Pre-Release: ORP Flow
Youth receives OYAS Risk Assessment at CCJC prior to
commitment. Youth identified at Reception as ORP-J candidate
and given further screen/assessment. Youth agrees to be involved
in ORP-J and transferred to CHJCF or IRJCF
ODYS site Social Worker (SW) primary liaison with Juvenile TASC
ORP-J Case Manager, Reentry Coordinator, PO from Cleveland
Region. Formal Staffing meeting with youth/family may lead to
referral to TASC and Reentry Court (REC); 16-week CognitiveBehavioral Forward Thinking Curriculum
Final Staffing (30 days prior to release) for reentry plan
(Unified Case Plan – UCP) and Reentry Court (REC)
start date; GAIN-I Assessment & OYAS completed
Post Release: ORP Flow
Within 24 hours of the youth’s release to the community, the youth reports
to the Juvenile Parole Officer (JPO). At this face-to-face meeting, all
community stakeholders participate. TASC continues with weekly case
management services back in the community for six months post-release.
Phase one of Re-Entry Court (REC) begins on the 2nd or 4th Monday of the
month. ORP-J Youth, Parent(s), JPO, TASC Case Manager, and other relevant
stakeholders collaborate in order to administer appropriate incentives and
necessary sanctions. Weekly drug screens begin.
The Juvenile Parole Officer maintains weekly contact with ORP-J
Youth and monitors collateral services with TASC case manager and
family. The GAIN Assessment, completed in the pre-release phase,
helps to determine appropriate level of care.
TASC Case Manager assists youth with engaging and following through
with a minimum of 5 weekly MET/CBT-5 individual treatment sessions in
non-intensive outpatient at Catholic Charities Services, and providing
family sessions as needed.
Post Release Components
•
•
•
•
•
•
Parole supervision & monitoring
Drug screening
Reentry Court
Case management
Level of care services
MET/CBT-5
Case Study #1
Results
35
Average Number of Crimes
Past 90 Days
Changes in Criminal Activity
3-Month Follow-Up (n=101)
5
4
3
2
1
0
Intake
3-Month
1.6
0.5
General
Crime
0.6
0.2
Property
Crime
0.5 0.1
0.2 0.1
Interpersonal Drug Crime
Crime
36
Average Number of Crimes
Past 90 Days
Changes in Criminal Activity
6-Month Follow-Up (n=77)
5
4
3
2
1
0
Intake
6-Month
1.7
0.3
General
Crime
0.6
0.2
Property
Crime
0.5 0.1
0.2 0.0
Interpersonal Drug Crime
Crime
37
Average Number of Crimes
Past 90 Days
Changes in Criminal Activity
12-Month Follow-Up (n=33)
5
4
3
2
1
0
Intake
12-Month
1.9
0.1
General
Crime
0.7
0.1
Property
Crime
0.7
0.0
0.2 0.0
Interpersonal Drug Crime
Crime
38
Average Number of Times
Past 90 Days
Changes in Substance Use
3-Month Follow-Up (n=94)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Intake
3-Month
37.9
4.1
7.9
0.7
Average days got drunk
Average days smoked
marijuana
39
Average Number of Times
Past 90 Days
Changes in Substance Use
6-Month Follow-Up (n=54)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Intake
6-Month
34.9
3.2
8.4
0.4
Average days got drunk
Average days smoked
marijuana
40
Average Number of Times
Past 90 Days
Changes in Substance Use
12-Month Follow-Up (n=25)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Intake
3-Month
34.8
4.0
5.5
0.6
Average days got drunk
Average days smoked
marijuana
41
Conduct Disorder Scale Score
Changes in Conduct Disorder
3-Month Follow-Up (n=101)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Intake
3-Month
2.7
1.5
Conduct Disorder Symptoms
42
Conduct Disorder Scale Score
Changes in Conduct Disorder
6-Month Follow-Up (n=77)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Intake
6-Month
2.7
1.3
Conduct Disorder Symptoms
43
Conduct Disorder Scale Score
Changes in Conduct Disorder
12-Month Follow-Up (n=33)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Intake
3-Month
3.3
1.0
Conduct Disorder Symptoms
44
Traumatic Stress Scale Score
Changes in Traumatic Stress Levels
3-Month Follow-Up (n=100)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Intake
3-Month
1.2
0.9
Traumatic Stress Levels
45
Traumatic Stress Scale Score
Changes in Traumatic Stress Levels
6-Month Follow-Up (n=76)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Intake
6-Month
1.5
0.5
Traumatic Stress Levels
46
Traumatic Stress Scale Score
Changes in Traumatic Stress Levels
12-Month Follow-Up (n=33)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Intake
12-Month
1.9
0.2
Traumatic Stress Levels
47
Behavior Complexity Scale Score
Changes in Behavior Complexity
3-Month Follow-Up (n=101)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Intake
3-Month
9.9
6.5
Behavior Complexity Levels
48
Behavior Complexity Scale Score
Changes in Behavior Complexity
6-Month Follow-Up (n=77)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Intake
6-Month
9.9
6.8
Behavior Complexity Levels
49
Behavior Complexity Scale Score
Changes in Behavior Complexity
12-Month Follow-Up (n=33)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
11.7
Intake
12-Month
5.5
Behavior Complexity Levels
50
Conclusions, 1
12-month Outcomes
(For the subset of 33 individuals with 12-month GAIN data)
• Significant decreases in alcohol and marijuana use.
• Significant deceases in criminal activity, including
property, interpersonal, and drug crime.
• Significant decreases in conduct disorders.
• Significant decreases in behavior complexity.
• Significant decreases in traumatic stress levels.
51
Implications & Limitations
• Effective reentry program designs (e.g., best
practices/EBPs; behavioral criminogenic focus; etc.)
must integrate an implementation science focus
• Particularly salient program features:
– Early Engagement: Motivation; therapeutic relationship; retention &
dosage
– Continuity, Coordination, & Comprehensiveness of Care: Structure;
evidence-based programming; consistency of staff, monitoring,
communication (messaging); and coordination
• Limitations: Attrition; lack of control/comparison group
Thank you…
Karl M. Cetina MPA, LICDC-CS
President of the Ohio TASC Association
Director of Juvenile TASC for Cuyahoga County
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Cleveland
3135 Euclid Avenue- Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Phone: 216-391-2064 ext. 13
[email protected]
Gina Mazzone LSW, MSW, LCDC III
Catholic Charities
3135 Euclid Ave
Cleveland, OH 44115
[email protected]
David Hussey, PhD.
Rodney Thomas, M.A.
The Begun Center for Violence Prevention Research & Education
Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences
Case Western Reserve University
11402 Bellflower Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Ph: 216-368-3162
[email protected]
[email protected]
53