View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Cross-Comparison Study of Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement: Findings on Youth with Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Cross-Comparison Study of Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement: Findings on Youth with Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Mathur, Sarup R., Griller Clark, Heather, Gau, Jeff M.
Source: Behavioral Disorders. May 2021 46(3):163-174.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 12
Publication Date: 2021
Sponsoring Agency: Office of Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS)
Contract Number: H326M120004
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Disabilities, Recidivism, Intervention, Special Education, General Education, Correctional Education, Correctional Institutions, Institutionalized Persons, Delinquency, Program Effectiveness, Adolescents, Resilience (Psychology), Participation, Individual Characteristics
DOI: 10.1177/0198742919886842
ISSN: 0198-7429
2163-5307
Abstract: This article presents the findings of a 2-year-long quasi-experimental study of post-release engagement and recidivism for youth with disabilities. The effects of specialized Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement (RISE) for youth with disabilities were compared with two other groups: (a) youth with disabilities who received traditional special education services, and (b) youth without disabilities who received traditional general education services in a juvenile correctional facility. Regardless of group, participants who were engaged in the community 30 days post-release were more likely to be engaged at 120 days and less likely to recidivate than nonengaged participants. However, compared with the two other groups, participants who received RISE services were more likely to be engaged in the community at 120 days post-release and have significantly lower rates of recidivism. We conclude our study by examining limitations, suggestions, implications for practice and policy, and future research.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2021
Accession Number: EJ1291797
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHOnXlnQa19MImjhv109PDaAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNO3z0_Q9TrdOIi05wIBEICBm36v753Ue1S0wvQsywOUY4v6vsU5YDUzljMWXprhHWDpJhprpeg07T3RdRusFuhUn3imETMNueLCENiYkLc7E8kAMgmyjycrhZmQfcGmSlVSOdFHQj1KFNcMoi7x5V8mt_6__1uE1Pp8-E9Tcz56NdfDypfCLJza9BJ8RchyADG7LMei5UFVbb7X8uBh8VRagWZJXBenKVR4Jj9I
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0149787492;bhd01may.21;2021Apr15.04:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0149787492-1">A Cross-Comparison Study of Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement: Findings on Youth With Disabilities </title> <p>This article presents the findings of a 2-year-long quasi-experimental study of post-release engagement and recidivism for youth with disabilities. The effects of specialized Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement (RISE) for youth with disabilities were compared with two other groups: (a) youth with disabilities who received traditional special education services, and (b) youth without disabilities who received traditional general education services in a juvenile correctional facility. Regardless of group, participants who were engaged in the community 30 days post-release were more likely to be engaged at 120 days and less likely to recidivate than nonengaged participants. However, compared with the two other groups, participants who received RISE services were more likely to be engaged in the community at 120 days post-release and have significantly lower rates of recidivism. We conclude our study by examining limitations, suggestions, implications for practice and policy, and future research.</p> <p>Keywords: transition; person-centered planning; individualized; interventions; disorders/disabilities; continuum of care; adolescent; age group</p> <p>To improve post-incarceration outcomes for youth with and without disabilities, juvenile justice (JJ) settings need to focus on providing personalized reentry support within and outside the JJ facility. Youth in the JJ system have complex needs: The prevalence rate of youth in the JJ system with a mental health disorder is 65% to 70%, which is 3 to 4 times higher than the general youth population ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref1">12</reflink>]), and 35% to 50% have special education (SPED) needs calling for individualized interventions ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref2">35</reflink>]). Youth with disabilities come into contact with the JJ system at an earlier age, stay for a longer period than youth without disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref3">32</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref4">51</reflink>]), and experience additional challenges as they reintegrate back into the community. To counteract this trend, facilities need to provide youth-focused programming, systematic planning for release, and personalized supports to bolster reentry success ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref5">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref6">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref7">39</reflink>]) for youth with disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref9">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref10">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Personalized reentry support includes pre-release planning in facilities, ongoing post-release community services, housing, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and structured workforce preparation ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]). When reentry programming concentrates on youth needs throughout, starting from their arrival at the facility and continuing until their stabilization back in the community, it tends to be more successful ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref12">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref13">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref14">45</reflink>]). Youth-focused programming is a strength-based approach where youth actively participate as partners in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of reentry services. Their voices are incorporated in setting goals and developing personalized plans for employment, education, and other treatment options ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref16">29</reflink>]). They receive personalized support from their transition specialist (TS) in self-determination of their reentry goals and coordination of the continuum of care ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]). This kind of programming requires time, commitment, and resources. Due to the lack of resources, JJ facilities usually rely on providing traditional reentry supports using parole services that are not personalized and youth-focused and mostly depend on deterrence and surveillance and a one-size-fits-all approach.</p> <p>TSs play a critical role in providing youth-focused programming to facilitate reentry for youth involved in JJ. Effective TSs are well versed in establishing interagency linkages and are knowledgeable about local resources. They know that many youth become apprehensive and anxious of their release date as it brings the realities of the past, poor family dynamics, negative peer influences, and job insecurity ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref18">50</reflink>]). Using their trust building and relationship skills, they serve as an intermediary between the JJ setting, home, schools, and the employment agency ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]). They also communicate and work with agencies to ensure the youth's success in school, work, and other treatment options after release. However, the quality and effectiveness of TS programming depend on a reasonable caseload. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref20">50</reflink>] highlighted that caseworkers and TSs in the JJ and mental health systems were unable to deliver their individualized intensive services when their caseloads were too high. As a solution, they recommended reduced caseloads for providers who were working with youth with complex needs but did not provide guidance for measuring a caseload threshold. The lack of research-based guidelines serves as an obfuscating factor in determining a reasonable caseload for TSs.</p> <p>System-involved youth face numerous challenges in education and employment that may lead them toward further delinquency and adoption of reoffending trajectories. These challenges (e.g., homelessness, foster care, and gang involvement) can be more frequent and more intense for youth with disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref21">22</reflink>]). Therefore, youth with disabilities need additional supervision and intensive pre-release and post-release supports, from the time they arrive at the facility through their reintegration in the community. Because youth in JJ are not a homogeneous group, their offending trajectories vary considerably by individual factors (e.g., criminal history, mental health needs, life events, and social and environmental factors, such as poverty and unemployment) ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref22">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref23">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref24">34</reflink>]). It is therefore critical that reentry programming is youth-focused and considers an individual's specific risks and needs. The purpose of this programming is to increase the chances and opportunities for youth engagement and productivity and decrease recidivism. Although reentry programming has the potential to thwart some delinquent behavior, several young adults continue to offend despite receiving the programming. More research is desirable to explore the effectiveness of reentry programming that promotes engagement and reduces recidivism in youth with disabilities. JJ facilities can benefit from this research and develop a thorough understanding of intervention components associated with desistance, engagement, and other positive outcomes for specific youth groups (e.g., youth with disabilities and youth without disabilities).</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-2">Predictors of Recidivism</hd> <p> <emph>Recidivism</emph> refers to reoffending or relapsing into criminal behavior measured by return to custody. It usually occurs within a few days of release due to gaps in aftercare services. Although the juvenile arrest rates have declined significantly in the past decade, the recidivism rate is as high as 80% in some states 3 years after release from incarceration ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>]). Studies have shown that students who exhibit behavioral issues and low academic performance are more likely to recidivate ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref27">3</reflink>] found that youth in secure care who had above average academic achievement were more likely to return to school after release. Research on disproportionality has also indicated that minority status and race are predictors of rearrest ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]). Poverty, mental health diagnoses, educational failure, family stress (e.g., single parent home, substance or physical abuse, and coercive styles of family interaction), deviant peer affiliations, a lack of moral guidance, and limited recreational or vocational opportunities have been identified as risk factors for youth disengagement that can negatively influence reentry success ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]). Pathways to Desistance—the largest longitudinal recidivism study of serious juvenile offenders—found that these criminogenic risk factors were higher for youth in JJ with certain mental health problems (affective disorders, substance use disorders, and anxiety disorders). Of all these risk factors, substance use disorder has been found to be associated with higher rates of rearrest, more self-reported antisocial activity, and less time spent engaged ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref30">39</reflink>]). Although these kinds of studies explore how certain risk factors may affect recidivism, no single risk factor, whether internal (within the individual, such as difficult temperament) or external (in the family, school, and community) can accurately predict which individuals will engage in delinquent behavior. Many youth, despite exposure to risk factors, have enough protective factors to interrupt the development of antisocial or delinquent behaviors and assist them in adopting healthy lifestyles ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-3">Protective Factors</hd> <p>While most studies on youth reentry and recidivism have focused on risk factors ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref33">4</reflink>]), protective factors are equally important to consider when predicting recidivism and designing and implementing reentry programs that enhance engagement ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]). Protective factors are characteristics or attributes that foster healthy development and positive choices ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref35">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]). They counterbalance risk factors by lowering the likelihood of an undesirable outcome and minimizing the impact of risk ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref37">47</reflink>]). Factors that lower the probability of delinquency include optimism, social supports, self-confidence, and motivation to succeed ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref38">31</reflink>]). Researchers have noticed buffering effects of these protective factors over risk factors and have suggested that reentry programming that combines youth strengths with needs is likely to produce better youth outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref39">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-4">Resilience</hd> <p> <emph>Resilience</emph> refers to how well individuals adapt to or overcome obstacles ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref40">27</reflink>]). Regardless of difficulties, individuals with an innate drive to succeed are likely to be persistent in their goals ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]) and persevere through challenges ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref42">46</reflink>]). Resilience is bolstered through conflict resolution, social skills training, cognitive restructuring ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref43">37</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref44">43</reflink>]), and youth involvement in self-determination and self-regulation ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref45">30</reflink>]). As a strength-based framework, reentry programming focuses on how risk factors influence youth development while highlighting resources that help youth overcome these risks ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref46">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref47">52</reflink>]). Reentry programming that fosters engagement can help young adults cope with and overcome risk factors, avoid the JJ system, and enhance their likelihood of becoming productive citizens.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-5">Engagement as a protective factor</hd> <p>Youth engagement—a protective factor—is used to measure reentry success ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref48">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref50">49</reflink>]) and has been associated with positive youth outcomes such as employment or school enrollment upon release from a JJ facility. Engagement is not static, but rather multidimensional and fluid over time ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref52">41</reflink>]). Based on an ecological framework, engagement evolves through transactions between personal and community-related factors. These transactions occur between various social contexts—such as family, school, and community—and social processes, such as social interactions, communication, and relationships ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref53">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Positive and prosocial engagement is the goal of reentry programming. Productive engagement is "a global construct of the motivation to engage in a variety of actions that have a positive valence and the behavioral expression of that motivation" ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref54">49</reflink>], p. 527). As a protective factor, engagement enables youth to overcome obstacles and leads them to pathways fostering resilience and positive outcomes. The role of the TS is to communicate and build relationships with agencies to ensure the youth's engagement in school, work, and other treatment options after release. Positive individual strengths and attributes (e.g., positive attitude and self-determination), positive social environmental influences (e.g., sense of community and school belonging), and positive social interactions foster engagement and improve youth development and well-being ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>]). While youth involved in JJ encounter risk factors, they can develop resilience by getting productively engaged through youth-focused reentry programming.</p> <p>Despite receiving reentry programming in JJ facilities, many young adults continue to engage in delinquent behavior. Thus, it is necessary to understand the critical intervention components that promote desistance and engagement. To conceptualize the resilience process, Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement, or <emph>Project RISE</emph>, created a protective framework for youth with disabilities, which focused on providing enhanced supports for reentry and transition planning, a case management approach to reentry (ensuring early engagement in employment or education within 30 days of release), and extended long-term aftercare supports. This framework was based on national research and evidence-based practices from a previously funded project, the Arizona Detention Transition Project (ADTP) that served youth in a short-term facility. Results from ADTP suggested that youth with disabilities who received personalized and enhanced transition services in a short-term detention facility had lower recidivism rates. More specifically, if at 30 days participants were productively engaged in education or employment, they were 64% less likely to recidivate, had improved prosocial behaviors, and greater overall social engagement ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref56">21</reflink>]). So the focus of <emph>Project RISE</emph> was to keep youth engaged through the 30-day mark. In addition, the <emph>Project RISE</emph> framework established systemic supports for effective interagency linkages and efficient transfer of records to promote youth engagement. These practices have been shown to be essential for reducing the impact of risk on negative outcomes. (See [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>], for additional details on <emph>Project RISE</emph>.)</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-6">Purpose</hd> <p>The first purpose of this study was to explore the effects of <emph>Project RISE</emph> on youth with disabilities aged 8 to 18 years in a secure care system in a Southwestern state. The second purpose was to compare the outcomes of engagement and recidivism for RISE participants with two groups of non-RISE participants. Specific research questions included the following:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Research Question 1 (RQ 1): </bold> Were youth in the RISE group more likely to be engaged longer after release than other groups?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 2 (RQ 2): </bold> Were youth in the RISE group less likely to return to incarceration (recidivate) 2 years after release than other groups?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 3 (RQ 3): </bold> Were any other variables related to long-term engagement or recidivism? Did these relationships vary by group?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0149787492-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149787492-8">Setting</hd> <p>This study took place at a state juvenile correctional facility located in a Southwestern state. The correctional facility operates and maintains the functions of custody, treatment, and education for adjudicated youth. The facility consists of 14 units: seven core treatment units and seven specialized treatment units. Of the specialized units, three are for substance abuse, two for mental health, and two for sexualized behavior.</p> <p>The juvenile correctional facility operates as an independent school district. There were 200 instructional days per year organized into 6-week blocks. Each school day consisted of two class periods, each nearly 3 hr long. The facility had two fully functional classroom buildings and 15 teachers, including three SPED teachers and eight career and technical education teachers. Approximately 30% of the youth had SPED needs and 18% were English language learners. The average length of stay was 7 months.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-9">Participants</hd> <p>At the beginning of 2017, 112 youth participants were selected for the study. The 112 participants (34 RISE, 38 SPED and non-RISE, and 40 non-SPED and non-RISE) were predominantly male (92%), minority (69%), and on average 16.5 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 1.2) at baseline. The most common SPED category was an emotional disability (56%) followed by a learning disability (40%), and other health impairment (4%). Due to ethical constraints, youth were not randomly assigned to either the treatment or the comparison group prior to the inception of the study. Quasi-experimental comparisons were conducted across the following three study groups. Table 1 shows demographic characteristics by study group.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Demographic Characteristics by Study Group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">Project RISE (<italic>n</italic> = 34)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">SPED comparison (<italic>n</italic> = 38)</th><th align="center" colspan="2">Non-SPED comparison (<italic>n</italic> = 40)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Male (<italic>n</italic>, %)</td><td>31</td><td>91.2</td><td>36</td><td>94.7</td><td>36</td><td>90.0</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Race/ethnicity (<italic>n</italic>, %)</td></tr><tr><td> White</td><td>11</td><td>32.4</td><td>17</td><td>44.7</td><td>7</td><td>17.5</td></tr><tr><td> Hispanic</td><td>9</td><td>26.5</td><td>17</td><td>44.7</td><td>22</td><td>55.0</td></tr><tr><td> American Indian</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>3</td><td>7.5</td></tr><tr><td> African American</td><td>14</td><td>41.2</td><td>4</td><td>10.5</td><td>8</td><td>20.0</td></tr><tr><td>Age at entry (<italic>M, SD</italic>)</td><td>16.9</td><td>1.0</td><td>16.4</td><td>1.2</td><td>16.2</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Risk score (<italic>M, SD</italic>)</td><td>29.21</td><td>15.89</td><td>27.61</td><td>16.80</td><td>30.99</td><td>13.86</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">Disability type (<italic>n</italic>, %)</td></tr><tr><td> Learning disability</td><td>14</td><td>41.2</td><td>15</td><td>39.5</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td> Emotional disability</td><td>20</td><td>58.0</td><td>20</td><td>52.6</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td> Other health impairment</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>3</td><td>7.9</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. RISE = Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement; SPED = special education.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-10">RISE group</hd> <p> <emph>Project RISE</emph> was conducted from 2013 to 2017. During the course of the project, approximately 1,500 youth were admitted to the facility. All 1,500 youth were screened for project eligibility. To be eligible for <emph>Project RISE</emph> youth had to (a) be newly committed, (b) have an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and (c) reside in the county where <emph>Project RISE</emph> is located after release. A report was created to automatically query the facility's database to identify youth who fit <emph>Project RISE</emph>'s eligibility criteria. Periodic manual checks verified that the report identified all eligible youth. Through this process, 45 youth with disabilities were deemed eligible. Parent/guardian consent and youth assent were obtained for all 45 RISE participants. However, only the RISE participants who had been released from the facility at the time of analysis were considered for comparison (<emph>n</emph> = 34).</p> <p>A designated TS was hired and assigned to work specifically with <emph>Project RISE</emph> youth. The average caseload for the designated TS was 14 youth. The TS provided personalized services to all RISE participants during the project period. A project team—two university faculty, project director, and the superintendent of the JJ school—oversaw program development, implementation, and evaluation activities. <emph>Project RISE</emph> was implemented on multiple levels to effectively meet the academic and behavioral needs of these youth with disabilities. Collaborative processes were established both within and outside the facility with local schools, community colleges, and other treatment providers to facilitate outcomes. Specific components of <emph>Project RISE</emph> included (a) personalized case management approach, (b) individualized and systemic goal setting, (c) proactive service delivery, and (d) a long-term aftercare support. The TS contacted each youth at least once a week while in the facility to monitor progress toward transition goals, discuss and address any barriers, and provide necessary supports (coordination and communication with family, child welfare, and schools). In addition, post-release contacts were maintained at an average frequency of once every 15 days.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-11">SPED comparison</hd> <p>SPED participants were newly committed youth who received traditional SPED services mandated by law. It was neither realistic nor ethical in this study to deny services to youth to obtain a true control group. Instead, project staff used systematic random sampling to select students from the pool of SPED students who were not RISE participants and who had received basic transition services during the same time period as the RISE youth. An Excel spreadsheet of individual identification numbers was generated, a random starting point was determined, and then every fourth identification number was chosen for participation. This group served as one of the comparison groups.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-12">Non-SPED comparison</hd> <p>Non-SPED youth who were newly committed were also systematically randomly selected from the pool of non-SPED students who received traditional general education and transition services during the same time period as the other two groups of students. See Table 2 for a summary of differences in services and intervention supports for the three study groups.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Differences in Availability of Services Across Study Groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Components</th><th align="center">RISE</th><th align="center">Non-RISE SPED</th><th align="center">Non-RISE and non-SPED</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Focus and emphasis</td><td>Education, employment, social, and emotional</td><td>Only education</td><td>Only education</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Case management and personalized coaching</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Individualized goal setting</td><td>Individualized and intensive educational and vocational programming that follows IEPs and ITPs</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Planning starts at entry and continues after release</td><td>Planning starts at exit</td><td>Planning starts at exit</td></tr><tr><td>Systemic goal setting</td><td>Established seamless transfer of records and interagency linkages</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Portfolio development</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td></tr><tr><td>Contact with transition specialist</td><td>Pre-release to post-release</td><td>Only pre-release</td><td>Only pre-release</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Until 22 years</td><td>Until 18 years</td><td>Until 18 years</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Small caseload, 1 = 14</td><td>Medium caseload, 1 = 30</td><td>Large caseload, 1 = 80</td></tr><tr><td>Service delivery model</td><td>Proactive</td><td>Reactive</td><td>Reactive</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Continuous review of ITPs and parole plan</td><td>Parole plan</td><td>Parole plan</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Individualized prosocial skill building</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><tr><td /><td>M2W transition curriculum</td><td>M2W transition curriculum</td><td>M2W transition curriculum</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Juvenile and adult</td><td>Juvenile</td><td>Juvenile</td></tr><tr><td>Responsible person</td><td>Transition specialist and parole officer</td><td>Parole officer</td><td>Parole officer</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 <emph>Note</emph>. RISE = Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement; SPED = special education; N/A = not available; IEP = individualized education program; ITP = individualized transition plan; M2W = Merging Two Worlds.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-13">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149787492-14">Outcomes</hd> <p>Two outcomes were selected for the study: (a) participant engagement status in the community at 120 days post-release, referred to as long-term engagement, and (b) recidivism. As facilities struggle with keeping long-term administrative data on engagement due to challenges involved in maintaining school and employment data, <emph>Project RISE</emph> decided to use engagement data for all participants for 120 days. Engagement data were obtained by the TS from the youth, family, parole officer, school, employer, and/or related service provider. Recidivism was computed as the number of days after the initial release date that a return to custody occurred (due to a parole violation or new charge), rather than just a dichotomous yes/no. This measure was collected during the 2-year follow-up using administrative data. As recommended by national JJ policy experts ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref58">11</reflink>]), long-term engagement was emphasized as a positive youth outcome rather than focusing solely on recidivism as a negative outcome.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-15">Predictors</hd> <p>Seven pre-release variables and one post-release variable were identified as study predictors (see Table 4). Pre-release variables consisted of grade point average (GPA), Age, Minority Status, Risk, Mental Health Diagnosis, Separation Referrals, and Merging Two Worlds. One post-release predictor was early engagement. Each is described as follows.</p> <p> <emph>Academic achievement</emph> was identified as an influencing factor for reentry success ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref59">23</reflink>]). Thus, GPA was selected as a predictor and was defined as the GPA of credits earned while in the secure care facility.</p> <p> <emph>Age</emph> of participant was the age of youth at the time of data collection.</p> <p> <emph>Minority status</emph> was identified as a predictor based on research that has highlighted disparity in reentry outcomes and higher recidivism rates for youth from minorities ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref60">36</reflink>]). It was defined as "yes" for youth identified as Hispanic, African American, Native American, or Asian and "no" for Caucasian.</p> <p> <emph>Risk</emph> was measured by the Recidivism Risk Instrument (RRI), which ranges from 1 to 100. A score of 0 to 24.99 is considered low risk, a score of 25 to 44.99 is considered moderate risk, and a score of 45 to 100 is considered high risk ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref61">48</reflink>]). This measure is used as a standard practice in the facility to identify the risk levels of youth upon arrival. Psychometric information on this measure was not available.</p> <p> <emph>Mental health</emph> diagnosis was defined as "yes" if the youth had a documented mental health diagnosis in his or her institutional data system and "no" if he or she did not. If needed, mental health services were provided in the amount and type specified in the youth's facility treatment plan by clinical staff, contracted on-site health providers, and off-site health providers. RISE staff did not provide these services. In addition, the amount and type of service provided was not part of this analysis.</p> <p> <emph>Separation referrals</emph> were the number of times a youth self-referred or was referred by staff to a Temporary Stabilization Unit. This unit is used to de-escalate and stabilize the behavior of youth who are at an imminent risk of substantial injury to themselves or others. Appropriate services were provided to youth according to the youth's needs and the facility's policies and procedures.</p> <p>Targeted cognitive behavioral approaches addressing antisocial and delinquent behavior have been found to be beneficial in reducing recidivism ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref62">8</reflink>]). <emph>Merging Two Worlds</emph> (M2W) is a cognitive restructuring curriculum developed specifically to help students in JJ prepare for transition back to school, work, and the community (see [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref63">20</reflink>]). Youth who took this class while in the facility were coded as "yes" and youth who did not take this class were coded as "no."</p> <p>The one post-release variable, <emph>early engagement</emph>, was defined as "yes" if the youth was engaged at 30 days post-release and "no" if the youth was not engaged at 30 days post-release.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-16">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Logistic regression was estimated with Mplus 7.4 reporting odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to test whether study condition, pre-release to community predictors, and early engagement were associated with greater log odds of being engaged at 120 days. The ORs associated with dichotomous predictors were interpreted with the following convention: 1.48, small; 2.48, medium; and 4.28, large ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]). Cox proportional hazard models reporting hazard ratios (HRs) estimated with STATA tested whether the time to recidivate differed by study condition, pre-release to community predictors, and early engagement. The [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref65">5</reflink>] method was used to handle tied event times in the hazard models. Schoenfeld residuals were used to evaluate the proportional hazards assumption. Missing time to recidivate data were accounted for with right-censoring in the hazard models and 50 imputed data sets were used to account for missing 30- and 120-day engagement data.</p> <p>Two sets of predictive models were estimated for evaluating engagement at 120 days and time to recidivate. The first set of predictive models tested difference due to study condition and included two a priori contrasts, RISE group (coded 1) versus the SPED comparison group (coded 0) and RISE group (coded 1) versus the non-SPED comparison group (coded 0). The second set of predictive models examined the unique effect of each pre-release to community predictors and early engagement while also adjusting for study condition assignment. Simultaneous entry of variables was used for all multivariate models.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-17">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0149787492-18">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p>Groups were compared by demographic characteristics. Nongroup equivalency was found for age, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>, 111) = 3.30, <emph>p</emph> =.045, and minority status, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref67">2</reflink>, 120) = 7.06, <emph>p</emph> =.029; thus, these two variables were included as covariates in predictive models for the a priori study condition contrasts. Groups did not differ for risk score, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>, 111) = 0.46, <emph>p</emph> =.633. Rates of missing data were 18% and 24% for 30- and 120-day engagement, respectively, and the missing completely at random (MCAR) assumption was tenable—Little's MCAR test χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>) = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> =.609. Pre-release predictor data were available for all participants. Table 3 presents the correlations and descriptive statistics for all predictors.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Study Predictors.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2">Predictors</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>GPA</td><td>1.00</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Separation referrals</td><td>−.15</td><td>1.00</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Merging Two Worlds</td><td>−.10</td><td>.10</td><td>1.00</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Mental health diagnosis</td><td>.22</td><td>.20</td><td>−.20</td><td>1.00</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>Early engagement</td><td>.01</td><td>.01</td><td>.07</td><td>.17</td><td>1.00</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Age</td><td>−.11</td><td>−.16</td><td>.01</td><td>−.05</td><td>.11</td><td>1.00</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Minority status</td><td>.04</td><td>−.05</td><td>.08</td><td>−.18</td><td>−.03</td><td>.02</td><td>1.00</td><td /></tr><tr><td>8.</td><td>Risk score</td><td>−.05</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.03</td><td>.04</td><td>−.01</td><td>−.17</td><td>.22</td><td>1.00</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>Mean</italic></td><td><italic>2.38</italic></td><td><italic>15.76</italic></td><td><italic>0.49</italic></td><td><italic>0.33</italic></td><td><italic>0.64</italic></td><td><italic>16.46</italic></td><td><italic>0.69</italic></td><td><italic>29.29</italic></td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>0.77</italic></td><td><italic>26.57</italic></td><td><italic>0.50</italic></td><td><italic>0.47</italic></td><td><italic>0.48</italic></td><td><italic>1.22</italic></td><td><italic>0.47</italic></td><td><italic>15.45</italic></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 <emph>Note</emph>. Correlations greater than |.18| statistically significant at <emph>p</emph> <.05. Merging Two Worlds, mental health diagnosis, early engagement, and minority status are scored 1 for "yes" and 0 for "no"; thus, means reflect proportion "yes." GPA = grade point average.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-19">Engagement Models</hd> <p>At 120 days, 30 RISE youth (88.2%), 20 SPED comparison youth (52.6%), and 18 non-SPED comparison youth (45.0%) were engaged. Compared with the SPED comparison group, the RISE group had 385% greater log odds of being engaged (<emph>OR</emph> = 4.85, 95% <emph>CI</emph> = [1.57, 14.97]) at 120 days, a statistically significant effect (estimate = 1.578, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.688, <emph>p</emph> =.022). Similarly, compared with the non-SPED comparison group, the RISE group had 598% greater log odds of being engaged (<emph>OR</emph> = 6.98, 95% <emph>CI</emph> = [2.29, 21.25]) at 120 days, a statistically significant effect (estimate = 1.943, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.679, <emph>p</emph> =.004). The one post-release predictor, early engagement (see Table 4), significantly predicted engagement at 120 days post-release (estimate = 1.299, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.509, <emph>p</emph> =.011). Participants who were engaged early had 267% greater log odds of being engaged (<emph>OR</emph> = 3.67, 95% <emph>CI</emph> = [1.59, 8.44]) at 120 days, a medium to large effect.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Results From Logistic Regression Models Predicting Engagement at 120 Days.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Predictors</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic> value</th><th align="center"><italic>OR</italic></th><th align="center">95% <italic>CI</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GPA</td><td>−0.126</td><td>0.308</td><td>.683</td><td>0.88</td><td>[0.53, 1.46]</td></tr><tr><td>Separation referrals</td><td>−0.011</td><td>0.009</td><td>.246</td><td>0.99</td><td>[0.98, 1.01]</td></tr><tr><td>Merging Two Worlds</td><td>−0.956</td><td>0.498</td><td>.055</td><td>0.38</td><td>[0.17, 1.00]</td></tr><tr><td>Mental health diagnosis</td><td>0.007</td><td>0.502</td><td>.992</td><td>1.01</td><td>[0.44, 2.29]</td></tr><tr><td>Early engagement</td><td>1.299</td><td>0.509</td><td>.011</td><td>3.67</td><td>[1.59, 8.45]</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>0.248</td><td>0.202</td><td>.218</td><td>1.28</td><td>[0.92, 1.79]</td></tr><tr><td>Minority status</td><td>0.220</td><td>0.528</td><td>.676</td><td>1.25</td><td>[0.52, 2.96]</td></tr><tr><td>Risk score</td><td>−0.019</td><td>0.015</td><td>.201</td><td>0.98</td><td>[0.96, 1.01]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>. <emph>OR</emph> = odds ratio; <emph>CI</emph> = confidence interval; GPA = grade point average.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-20">Recidivism Models</hd> <p>At the conclusion of the study, only four RISE participants (11.8%) recidivated compared with 20 SPED participants (52.6%) and 27 non-SPED participants (67.5%). Figure 1 shows the probability of recidivism at each month of the study for each study group. When compared across youth who recidivated, RISE youth took a longer time to recidivate (median = 50.5 days) compared with youth in the SPED (median = 13 days) and non-SPED groups (32 = days). Compared with the SPED group, the RISE group recidivism rate was approximately one tenth, a significant effect (<emph>HR</emph> = 0.11, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.06, <emph>z</emph> = −3.89, <emph>p</emph> <.001, 95% <emph>CI</emph> = [0.03, 0.32]). Compared with the non-SPED group, the RISE group recidivism rate was approximately one eighth, a significant effect (<emph>HR</emph> = 0.08, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.04, <emph>z</emph> = −4.33, <emph>p</emph> <.001, 95% <emph>CI</emph> = [0.02, 0.24]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Survival functions for the three study groups. Note. RISE = Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement; SPED = special education.</p> <p>Early engagement was the only predictor that significantly predicted time to recidivate (see Table 5). Participants who were engaged at 30 days had a recidivism rate approximately one quarter of those who were not engaged (<emph>HR</emph> = 0.25, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.07, <emph>z</emph> = −4.66, <emph>p</emph> <.001, 95% <emph>CI</emph> = [0.13, 0.49]). The proportional hazard assumption was met for all models.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 5. Results From Cox Proportional Hazard Models Predicting Time to Recidivate.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Predictors</th><th align="center">Hazard ratio</th><th align="center"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>z</italic> value</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic> value</th><th align="center">95% <italic>CI</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>GPA</td><td>1.02</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.12</td><td>.906</td><td>[0.69, 1.52]</td></tr><tr><td>Separation referrals</td><td>0.99</td><td>0.01</td><td>−0.97</td><td>.334</td><td>[0.98, 1.01]</td></tr><tr><td>Merging Two Worlds</td><td>1.31</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.95</td><td>.343</td><td>[0.75, 2.27]</td></tr><tr><td>Mental health diagnosis</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.22</td><td>−1.25</td><td>.212</td><td>[0.35, 1.26]</td></tr><tr><td>Early engagement</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.07</td><td>−4.66</td><td><.001</td><td>[0.13, 0.44]</td></tr><tr><td>Age</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.14</td><td>1.16</td><td>.246</td><td>[0.91, 1.45]</td></tr><tr><td>Minority status</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.24</td><td>−1.00</td><td>.319</td><td>[0.36, 1.39]</td></tr><tr><td>Risk score</td><td>1.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>1.35</td><td>.176</td><td>[0.99, 1.03]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>. <emph>CI</emph> = confidence interval; GPA = grade point average.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-21">Thirty-Day Engagement</hd> <p>Thirty-day engagement was significantly associated with long-term engagement and reduction of recidivism. Rate of engagement at 30 days significantly differed by group, χ<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>, 92) = 20.10, <emph>p</emph> <.001, with 94% of RISE participants engaged at 30 days, compared with 44% of SPED comparison and 50% of the non-SPED comparison participants.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-22">Discussion</hd> <p>This study compared the effects of RISE with two other groups: (a) youth with disabilities who received traditional SPED services, and (b) youth without disabilities who received traditional general education services in a juvenile correctional facility. The findings indicate that youth who were engaged in the community 30 days post-release were more likely to be engaged at 120 days and less likely to recidivate than nonengaged participants. Compared with the two other groups, RISE participants were more likely to be engaged in the community at 120 days post-release and had significantly lower rates of recidivism.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-23">Difference in Long-Term Engagement Across Study Groups</hd> <p>RQ 1 addressed the differences across groups with regard to long-term engagement (120 days). Youth in the RISE group were significantly more likely to be engaged at 120 days compared with both the SPED and non-SPED comparison groups. In fact, the effect size was large for the RISE group compared with the SPED group (<emph>OR</emph> = 4.85) and even larger for the RISE group compared with the non-SPED group (<emph>OR</emph> = 6.98). The implications of this for youth with disabilities are astounding; when provided with individualized services and supports such as those offered in <emph>Project RISE</emph>, youth with disabilities fared better than their peers without disabilities. In addition, the services and supports provided by <emph>Project RISE</emph> showed a higher rate of engagement for youth with disabilities at 120 days than the predictor variable, early engagement (<emph>OR</emph> = 3.67). In other words, the services and supports that <emph>Project RISE</emph> offered to assist youth with disabilities prepare for reentry and engage in school, work, and community activities were more effective at promoting long-term engagement than simply engaging youth immediately after release.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-24">Difference in Recidivism Across Groups</hd> <p>For RQ 2, the results indicate that <emph>Project RISE</emph> participants were less likely to recidivate compared with the other two groups at 2 years after release. <emph>Project RISE</emph> participants were not only less likely to recidivate, but they also stayed out of the system longer. Youth who received <emph>Project RISE</emph> services showed desistance for a longer period, without reoffending through the 2-year follow-up, indicating maintenance of effects compared with the two comparison groups. This finding suggests that the transition services and the continuity of contact with the TS that youth in the treatment group received had a carryover effect after release ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref71">21</reflink>]). These findings support our earlier research with students with disabilities in detention, which showed that early engagement reduced the likelihood of future recidivism by 64% ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref72">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-25">Early Engagement a Significant Predictor</hd> <p>With regard to RQ3, a 30-day engagement was the only significant predictor related to long-term engagement and recidivism. The relationship with 30-day engagement did significantly vary by group membership, indicating RISE participants engaged earlier when compared with the participants in the other two groups. The only predictor of recidivism, 30-day engagement, was checked at the 2-year mark irrespective of the study groups. This finding indicates that youth who are engaged at 30 days are approximately 75% less likely to recidivate than those who were not engaged. Participants who were engaged at 30 days had a greater likelihood to be engaged at 120 days. Youth receiving <emph>Project RISE</emph> services were even less likely to recidivate compared with youth in the other two groups. As mentioned earlier, in our previous study we found that youth in the treatment group who had received individualized services had a 64% lower chance of recidivating at 30-day post-release than their comparison group counterparts ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref73">21</reflink>]). In addition to receiving individualized support in the facility, the availability of strong post-release support with a trustworthy prosocial adult, in this study the RISE TS, may have contributed to the lower rate of recidivism for the RISE group of participants.</p> <p>This study adds to our understanding that given a seamless continuum of pre-release and post-release services and supports, youth in JJ can increase their chances of early engagement with employment and education. As early engagement is a significant predictor of long-term reentry success, further investigation is needed in aftercare programming that includes supervised intervention and long-term contact to increase reentry success. Direct support for early engagement is critical ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref74">39</reflink>]). Our predictive analysis has the potential to help develop conditions for maintaining contact after release to foster reentry success and forecast future success for youth reentry.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-26">Extended Case Management</hd> <p>A case management approach that combines supervision with reentry strategies and supports that include extended follow-up and contact after release may create greater success for youth. A youth may view his or her release date as a disruptive and unpredictable event that brings the realities of the past, poor family dynamics, negative peer influences, job insecurity, anxiety, and isolation ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref75">50</reflink>]). To prevent this, the JJ facilities need to consider providing a continuum of transition support that initiates at the time of entry and continues until the first 30 days after youth are released. This would also require facilities to increase awareness among school personnel and employment agencies of the importance of immediately engaging JJ youth in education and employment after they are released. As well, a reasonable caseload for the TS, that can be managed effectively, will increase the likelihood of success for reentry programs. In this study, the caseload for the RISE TS was approximately 14 youth at a given time, whereas for the other two groups it varied from 30 to 80 youth. It is encouraging to know that <emph>Project RISE</emph> worked for many young adults with disabilities, and the success can be attributed to continuity of individualized care beyond 30 days by a designated TS with a smaller caseload. However, the extent to which the specific program components and features can be adapted without jeopardizing outcomes is still unclear. This may need more research and further exploration to identify the components that are integral to the reentry success of youth and the ones that can be adapted.</p> <p>Reentry success is determined by a complex interplay between youth, families, peer networks, neighborhoods, and available opportunities for education and employment ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref77">50</reflink>]). Navigating systems of care and interacting with multiple service providers can be incredibly overwhelming. A designated, trustworthy TS can assist the youth with extended supports in navigating through these systems and getting reintegrated back into the community. Policies that support post-release implementation of services with oversight may foster youth reentry success.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-27">Implications</hd> <p>This study provides the groundwork for future studies to support the implementation of RISE over time. Although this describes the implementation of a very specific programming and supports (RISE) that rely on low caseloads for TSs for success, it will be important for researchers and practitioners to further explore the adapted components that maybe more realistic for JJ settings.</p> <p>While only focused on one setting, this study has implications for the design of reentry programs that maximize youth success in all JJ facilities. Our findings also indicate that program delivery should focus on 30-day engagement to have the largest, most direct effect on youth success and long-term engagement. Facilities can use this study to design more effective reentry programs to maximize youth's long-term engagement.</p> <p>This finding has direct policy implications for reentry programming to promote early engagement and reduce recidivism. JJ facilities need to focus on intensive, individualized reentry supports that continue post-release for at least 30 days. More research is needed to gather a better understanding of the role the TS plays during the early engagement phase and in promoting long-term engagement and reducing recidivism.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-28">Limitations</hd> <p>A weakness of the study is that participants were not randomly selected prior to the inception of the study, limiting generalizability. Study replication is needed to provide greater understanding for reentry of youth with disabilities. Due to the small sample size, the findings of this study cannot be generalized, as the academic focus, procedural guidelines, and programming implementation may differ in other JJ settings. Therefore, challenges in measuring program effectiveness and how to best deliver a reentry program to specific groups of youth still exist. As well, better understanding of which youth with disabilities may most benefit in the short and long term from reentry programming is still needed. Fidelity data and dosage information were not systematically measured other than having the TS report on a weekly basis on the progress or barriers in providing reentry supports. This may serve as a limitation of the study as we cannot distinguish between the actual times spent with youth across conditions.</p> <hd id="AN0149787492-29">Conclusion</hd> <p>Examining protective factors in the lives of youth in JJ represents a positive shift away from the deficit model that focuses on risk factors and their relationship with recidivism. This study adds to the literature by focusing on early engagement as a predictor for long-term reentry success. It also highlights the importance of person-centered reentry programming that continues for more than 30 days after release ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref78">21</reflink>]). To meet this need, rather than relying solely on parole officers, JJ facilities must be intentional in providing continuous reentry supports via a TS to youth with or without disabilities ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref79">22</reflink>]). To navigate the systems and barriers necessary to productively engage in school and employment, youth need continuous support from their TS. Additional research is needed to examine the duration of engagement that prevents escalation of offending behavior. Finally, research is needed to clarify the definition of a reasonable caseload for a TS for continuous support of youth for at least 30 days post-release.</p> <p>By thoroughly understanding predictors and their differential effects on various groups of youth in JJ (e.g., youth with and without disabilities, youth with and without substance abuse histories, and youth aged <18 or 18+ years), JJ facilities can further refine programming to increase each youth's reentry success. With a youth-focused continuum of care delivered by a designated TS, JJ facilities can improve their reentry outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref81">24</reflink>]). This predictive analysis has highlighted the importance of early engagement as a predictor with potential for forecasting future success of youth reentry.</p> <ref id="AN0149787492-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref55" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Aisenberg E., Herrenkohl T. (2008). Community violence in context: Risk and resilience in children and families. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 296–315. doi:10.1177/0886260507312287</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref31" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barton W. H., Butts J. A. (2008). Building on strength: Positive youth development in juvenile justice programs. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref27" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Blomberg T. G., Bales W. D., Piquero A. R. (2012.). Is educational achievement a turning point for incarcerated delinquents across race and sex? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 202–216.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref33" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Borum R., Verhaagen D. (2006). Assessing and managing violence risk in juveniles. New York, NY: Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref65" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Breslow N. E. (1974). Covariance analysis of censored survival data. Biometrics, 30, 88–99.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref53" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner U., Morris P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In Damon W., Lerner R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993–1028). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bullis M., Yovanoff P., Havel E. (2004). The importance of getting started right: Further examination of the facility-to-community transition of formerly incarcerated youth. Journal of Special Education, 38, 80–94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref62" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Clark P. (2010). Preventing future crime with cognitive behavioral therapy. NIJ Journal, 265, 22–24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref22" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> The Council for State Governments. (2017). The integrated reentry and employment strategies pilot project. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/system/files/Integrated%20Reentry%20and%20Employment%20Strategies%20Pilot%20Project.pdf">http://knowledgecenter.csg.org/kc/system/files/Integrated%20Reentry%20and%20Employment%20Strategies%20Pilot%20Project.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Council for State Governments. (2019). Reducing juvenile recidivism. Retrieved from https://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/reducing-juvenile-recidivism/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dempsey M., Godfrey K., Faulkner W., Penkoff C., Gonsoulin S. (this issue). Juvenile justice administrator perspectives on reentry. Behavioral Disorders.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Development Services Group. (2017). Intersection between mental health and the juvenile justice system: Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Intersection-Mental-Health-Juvenile-Justice.pdf">www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Intersection-Mental-Health-Juvenile-Justice.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duke N. N., Borowsky I. W. (2015). Youth violence prevention and safety: Opportunities for health care providers. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 62, 1137–1158. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2015.05.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fergus S., Zimmerman M. A. (2005). Adolescence: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399–419.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Festinger T. (1984). No one ever asked us: A postscript to the foster care system. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredricks J. A., Blumenfeld P. C., Paris A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gagnon J. C., Barber B. R., Van Loan C. L., Leone P. E. (2009). Juvenile correctional schools: Characteristics and approaches to curriculum. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 673–696.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonsoulin S., Darwin M. J., Read N. W. (2012). Providing individually tailored academic and behavioral support services for youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Washington, DC: National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griller Clark H. (2018). Involvement of the young person in transition planning. In O'Neill S. C. (Ed.), Incarcerated youth transitioning back to community: International perspectives (pp. 35–58). Singapore: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griller Clark H., Mathur S. R. (2015). Merging two worlds: A tier two model to promote transition of youth from residential settings to the community. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 32, 280–298. doi:10.1080/0886571X.2015.1113456</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griller Clark H., Mathur S. R., Helding B. (2011). Transition services for juvenile detainees with disabilities: Findings on recidivism. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 511–529. doi:10.1353/etc.2011.0040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson D. R., Mathur S. R., Unruh D. K., Griller Clark H., Xueqin Q. (2017). A better path, a better future: Three federally-funded projects supporting community reentry of youth with disabilities leaving juvenile justice facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katsiyannis A., Ryan J. B., Zhang D., Spann A. (2008). Juvenile delinquency and recidivism: The impact of academic achievement. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24, 177–196.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohler P. D., Gothberg J. E., Fowler C., Coyle J. (2016). Taxonomy for transition programming 2.0: A model for planning, organizing, and evaluating transition education, services, and programs. Western Michigan University. Available from <ulink href="http://www.transitionta.org">www.transitionta.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey M. W., Wilson D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lodewijks H. B., de Ruiter C., Doreleijers T. A. H. (2010). The impact of protective factors in desistance from violent reoffending: A study in three samples of adolescent offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 568–587.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Masten A. S. (2014). Global perspectives on resilience in children and youth. Child Development, 85, 6–20. doi:10.1111/cdev.12205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathur S. R., Griller Clark H. (2014). Community engagement for re-entry success of youth from juvenile justice: Challenges and opportunities. Education and Treatment of Children, 37, 709–731.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathur S. R., Griller Clark H., Hartzell R. I., LaCroix L., McTier T. (2019). What youth with special needs in juvenile justice say about reentry: Listening to their voice. Youth & Society. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0044118X19826423</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCraty R., Atkinson M. (2012). Resilience training program reduces physiological and psychological stress in police officers. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, 1(5), 44–66. doi:10.7453/gahmj.2012.1.5.013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mowder M. H., Cummings J. A., McKinney R. (2010). Resiliency scales for children and adolescents: Profiles of juvenile offenders. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28, 326–337.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Disability Rights Network. (2015). Orphanages, training schools, reform schools and now this? Recommendations to prevent the disproportionate placement and inadequate treatment of children with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/Juvenile%5fJustice/NDRN%5f-%5fJuvenile%5fJustice%5fReport.pdf">www.ndrn.org/images/Documents/Issues/Juvenile%5fJustice/NDRN%5f-%5fJuvenile%5fJustice%5fReport.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nellis A., Hooks Wayman R. (2009). Back on track: Supporting youth re-entry from out-of-home placement to the community. Washington, DC: Youth Re-Entry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piquero A. R. (2008). Taking stock of developmental trajectories of criminal activity over the life course. In Liberman A. M. (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 23–78). New York, NY: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn M. M., Rutherford R. B., Leone P. E., Osher D. M., Poirier J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339–345.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rovner J. (2016). Racial disparities in youth commitments and arrests (The Sentencing Project Policy Brief). Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sahler O. J., Dolgin M. J., Phipps S., Fairclough D. L., Askins M. A., Katz E. R.,... Butler R. W. (2013). Specificity of problem-solving skills training in mothers of children newly diagnosed with cancer: Results of a multisite randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 31, 1329–1335.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sameroff A. J. (Ed.). (2009). The transactional model of development: How children and contexts shape each other. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schubert C. A., Mulvey E. P. (2014). Behavioral health problems, treatment, and outcomes in serious youthful offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shader M. (2003). Risk factors for delinquency: An overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.ncjrs.gov/hTml/ojjdp/jjjournal%5f2003%5f2/page1.html">www.ncjrs.gov/hTml/ojjdp/jjjournal%5f2003%5f2/page1.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sinclair M. F., Christenson S. L., Lehr C. A., Anderson A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from check & connect longitudinal studies. The California School Psychologist, 8, 29–41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Soderstrom M. F. P., Childs K. K., Frick P. J. (2019). The role of protective factors in the predictive accuracy of the structured assessment of violence risk in youth (SAVRY). Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/1541204019837329</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Songprakun W., McCann T. V. (2012). Effectiveness of a self-help manual on the promotion of resilience in individuals with depression in Thailand: A randomised comparison led trial. BMC Psychiatry, 12, Article 12. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-12-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanz R., Tewksbury R. (2000). Predictors of success and recidivism in a home incarceration program. The Prison Journal, 80, 326–344.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Test D. W., Mazzotti V. L., Mustian A. L., Fowler C. H., Kortering L., Kohler P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181. doi:10.1177/0885728809346960</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ungar M. (2012). Social ecologies and their contribution to resilience. In Ungar M. (Ed.), The social ecology of resilience: A handbook of theory and practice (pp. 13–31). New York, NY: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vincent G. M., Guy L. S., Grisso T. (2012). Risk assessment in juvenile justice: A guidebook for implementation. New York, NY: Models for Change. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://modelsforchange.net/publications/346">http://modelsforchange.net/publications/346</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams L., Lecroy C., Vivian J. (2014). Assessing risk of recidivism among juvenile offenders: The development and validation of the Recidivism Risk Instrument. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 11, 318–327.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zaff J. F., Ginsberg K. K., Boyd J. M., Kakli Z. (2014). Reconnecting disconnected youth: Examining the development of productive engagement. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24, 526–540. doi:10.1111/jora.12109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zajac K., Sheidow A. J., Davis M. (2015). Juvenile justice, mental health, and the transition to adulthood: A review of service system involvement and unmet needs in the U.S. Children and Youth Services Review, 56, 139–148. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang D., Barrett D. E., Katsiyannis A., Yoon M. (2011). Juvenile offenders with and without disabilities: Risks and patterns of recidivism. Learning and Individual Differences, 21, 12–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zolkoski S. M., Bullock L. M. (2012). Resilience in children and youth: A review. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2295–2303. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.009</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0149787492-31"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was made possible by a grant funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (H326M 120004). Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the policy of the Department of Education, and no official endorsement by the Department should be inferred.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sarup R. Mathur; Heather Griller Clark and Jeff M. Gau</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref64"></nolink>
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1291797
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1291797
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Cross-Comparison Study of Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement: Findings on Youth with Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mathur%2C+Sarup+R%2E%22">Mathur, Sarup R.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Griller+Clark%2C+Heather%22">Griller Clark, Heather</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gau%2C+Jeff+M%2E%22">Gau, Jeff M.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Behavioral+Disorders%22"><i>Behavioral Disorders</i></searchLink>. May 2021 46(3):163-174.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 12
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Office of Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: H326M120004
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disabilities%22">Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recidivism%22">Recidivism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education%22">Special Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22General+Education%22">General Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correctional+Education%22">Correctional Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Correctional+Institutions%22">Correctional Institutions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Institutionalized+Persons%22">Institutionalized Persons</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Delinquency%22">Delinquency</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Resilience+%28Psychology%29%22">Resilience (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Participation%22">Participation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Individual+Characteristics%22">Individual Characteristics</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/0198742919886842
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0198-7429<br />2163-5307
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article presents the findings of a 2-year-long quasi-experimental study of post-release engagement and recidivism for youth with disabilities. The effects of specialized Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement (RISE) for youth with disabilities were compared with two other groups: (a) youth with disabilities who received traditional special education services, and (b) youth without disabilities who received traditional general education services in a juvenile correctional facility. Regardless of group, participants who were engaged in the community 30 days post-release were more likely to be engaged at 120 days and less likely to recidivate than nonengaged participants. However, compared with the two other groups, participants who received RISE services were more likely to be engaged in the community at 120 days post-release and have significantly lower rates of recidivism. We conclude our study by examining limitations, suggestions, implications for practice and policy, and future research.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2021
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1291797
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1291797
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/0198742919886842
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 163
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recidivism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Special Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: General Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correctional Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correctional Institutions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Institutionalized Persons
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Delinquency
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Resilience (Psychology)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Participation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individual Characteristics
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Cross-Comparison Study of Reentry Intervention and Support for Engagement: Findings on Youth with Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mathur, Sarup R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Griller Clark, Heather
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gau, Jeff M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 05
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0198-7429
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2163-5307
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 46
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Behavioral Disorders
              Type: main
ResultId 1