Reentry Begins at Day One With Family as Focus

By Alice Heiserman

“Reentry Starts at Day One” was the theme of the Oct. 13, 2011, “Ensuring Public Safety Through Reentry Success — A Developmental Model” session of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) national Children’s Justice and Safety Conference at the Gaylord National Hotel and Convention Center in National Harbor, Md. Shay Bilchik, the principal research scientist for juvenile justice and youth and crime, and founder and director of the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University, and David Altschuler, principal research scientist at Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies, outlined a family-focused, strength-based model for juvenile reentry. They were joined by Judge Dennis Cubbon from Lucas County, Ohio; Kevin Shepherd, CCM, chief of parole from the Ohio Department of Youth Services; and Ryan Shanahan, senior program associate from the Vera Institute of Justice.

Since the 1980s, an evolving body of work on reentry/aftercare and community supervision has developed. It is part of evidence-based practices that rely on modifying the behavior of juveniles based on an assessment of the youth’s risk and needs, as well as the youth’s strengths. It looks at juveniles in terms of their families, communities, peer groups and self within the context of safety for both the public and the youths. The discussion centered on permanency — long-term solutions for youths beyond supervision.

Family is defined broadly as those upon whom the youth can rely. Shanahan explained that a family-focused approach not only reduces recidivism, but also enables staff to work with youths and their siblings. The Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool, developed by the Vera Institute of Justice, complements the assessment and the strength of the family and may be used by correctional officers and juvenile officers. With this tool, “within 15 minutes, the dynamic between the correctional officer and the youth may change,” Shanahan said. He added that the tool is based on a series of questions for the youth, such as, “who helps you and whom do you help?”

This is supplemented by a genogram, which shows the youth’s family relationships. Knowledge of such relationships is vital because family will most likely be around the youth longer than the correctional officer or the parole officer will. Questions include items such as, “who has a license and car to drive you where you need to go?” The idea is to make allies of the family members so that they feel comfortable, both in the facility and with the parole officer. Along this line, Texas has developed a Parents’ Bill of Rights, and California has initiated family dinners where families are invited to come in and cook meals at a camp and participate in family councils. According to the presenters, families should also be included in developing standards for juvenile facilities through collaboration with staff during all phases of the youth’s involvement in the system.

Shepherd explained what is happening in Ohio. Since 2008 when Ohio was under court jurisdiction, the state has started an assessment process to divert youths from confinement and employ a reentry continuum that engages the family. Family is considered anyone important to youths during and after incarceration and past parole. Eighty-five percent of these youths have alcohol and other drug issues, and 55 percent have mental health issues. The idea is to share information among groups that may not have done so previously and use resources such as the University of Cincinnati, Kent State University and Ohio University to implement EPICS (Effective Practices in Community Supervision). The parole officers use the Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool to start the process. They ask: “Who would you contact at 2 a.m. if you have a problem?”

The interaction between the parole officer and the youth is very important — especially the cognitive component and the dialog so that the youths participate in the planning and decision-making for their reentry. After staff are taught the risk, need and responsivity model (RNR model) and work on applying the model with the youths, they tape record their sessions with the youths and send the tapes back to the University of Cincinnati to critique for their adherence to the model. As a result, the staff has gotten better at their jobs. EPICS are employed in pilot sites in Dayton, Ohio, and other areas, which are broadening the cognitive model with families four months before youths are released. Both parole officers and families “love it,” Shepherd said.

Parole officers also have new laptops and use them to connect families with youths through video communication. This allows for better discharge planning and more connection to the community. The Ohio Benefit Bank is another innovation that allows public access to food stamps, heating assistance and other sources of support to which the youth can link. For example, this might include links to people who would pay bus fare for a youth for two months until he or she is able to pay for it himself or herself.

Cubbon complemented the discussion by explaining that reentry is a process that begins with a court-ordered commitment to a secure long-term facility. Using a unified case plan, a roadmap for juvenile reentry is developed to engage family and community in collaborative ways to help youths make a seamless transition from the institution to the community. However, he noted that the goal is to avoid institutional confinement if possible and to help all youths who are in danger of involvement in the system to engage in their communities.

Altschuler, who developed some of the early aftercare models, commented, “We’ve come a long way.” The aftercare model includes three activities:
 

• Preparing for reentry for the extended family requires establishing a bridge from the youths and their families to the staff inside the facility and the school and workforce. What happens inside the facility is the foundation for when juveniles reenter the community. This includes services and various individuals who are involved. It also means that generic programming must be reset to benefit the individual;
• Establishing necessary arrangements and links with a full range of public and private departments and organizations that can address risk and protective factors; and 
• Ensuring delivery of prescribed services and supervision.

Altschuler emphasized the reintegration continuum and suggested that there are stages of reentry 30, 60 and 90 days before release, but corrections cannot wait until just before release to start preparing for reentry because one may not know when release will occur. This process involves many stakeholders: facility staff, transition coordinators, parole/probation officers, providers, mentors and others. During this process, “the role of juvenile justice is ratcheted down and the family is ratcheted up,” Altschuler said. Starting this process early is important because in many areas, there is no parole officer to help youths with the transition. This continuity of care involves a range of services and social environments. This includes an assessment and classification of strengths and noncriminogenic needs; individual case planning; surveillance; incentives; and consequences with graduated responses, brokerage and linkages. Education, including GEDs, is an important part of this process, as well as work readiness. “Too often the long-term effects of institutionalization are low motivation. Thus, efforts must be sustained — real success is five years out,” Altschuler concluded.

In response to questions from the audience about helping undocumented or illegal juveniles who could not go home after release, some members of the audience suggested partnering with church groups or the nonprofit faith-based community because they would be excluded from other community halfway house programs.

Alice Heiserman is ACA’s managing editor of publications.

Click for Executive Director's Corner