Skip navigation

Juvenile Reentry Experiences in Svori Reentry Evaluation Dec 2009

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Reentry Experiences of
Confined Juvenile Offenders:
Characteristics, Service
Receipt, and Outcomes of
Juvenile Male Participants in
the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
THE MULTI-SITE EVALUATION OF THE SERIOUS AND VIOLENT OFFENDER REENTRY INITIATIVE

DECEMBER 2009

Stephanie R. Hawkins

Debbie Dawes

RTI International
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: (919) 485-5723
Fax: (919) 541-5985
Hawkins@rti.org

RTI International
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: (919) 485-5754
Fax: (919) 541-5985
Ddawes@rti.org

Pamela K. Lattimore

Christy A. Visher

RTI International
3040 East Cornwallis Road
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: (919) 485-7759
Fax: (919) 541-5985
Lattimore@rti.org

University of Delaware/ Urban Institute
Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies
77 East Main Street
Newark, DE 19716
Phone: (302) 831-6921
Fax: (302) 831-3307
Visher@udel.edu

This project was supported by Grant No. 2004-RE-CX-002 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies
of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Acknowledgments
The Multi-site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender
Reentry Initiative (SVORI) was supported by grant number
2004-RE-CX-002 from the National Institute of Justice (U.S.
Department of Justice) and was conducted by RTI International
and the Urban Institute. Points of view are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Principal Investigators
Pamela K. Lattimore, RTI International
Christy A. Visher, University of Delaware and Urban Institute
Report Authors
Stephanie R. Hawkins, RTI International
Debbie Dawes, RTI International
Pamela K. Lattimore, RTI International
Christy A. Visher, University of Delaware and Urban Institute
Staff Contributors
Danielle M. Steffey, RTI International
Laurin Parker, University of Delaware
Alexander Cowell, RTI International
Christine H. Lindquist, RTI International
Kelle Barrick, RTI International
Susan Brumbaugh, RTI International
Mark Pope, RTI International
Laura Winterfield, Urban Institute
We also acknowledge the contributions of the site liaisons from
RTI and the Urban Institute, who documented the
implementation of SVORI programming across the sites and
facilitated data collection for the impact study. In addition, we

iii

are grateful for the hard work and dedication shown by our field
interviewers, supervisors, and data collection task leader
throughout the data collection period.
RTI and the Urban Institute thank the SVORI program
directors, other program and research staff from the SVORI
sites, and staff at the facilities where interviews were
conducted. We greatly appreciate the assistance and support
received from these individuals.
Finally, RTI and the Urban Institute acknowledge the invaluable
assistance and direction provided by the members of our
external advisory group.
For more information about the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation,
please visit our Web site at http://www.svori-evaluation.org/.

iv

Abstract
Statement of Purpose
The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
funded agencies in 2003 to develop programs to improve
criminal justice, employment, education, health, and housing
outcomes for released prisoners. Sixty-nine agencies received
federal funds to develop 89 programs.
The SVORI Multi-site Evaluation was funded by the National
Institute of Justice in spring 2003. Sixteen programs—12 adult
and 4 juvenile—were included in an impact evaluation to
determine the effectiveness of the programming provided under
SVORI. Nearly 2,400 prisoners returning to their communities
were interviewed during the evaluation.
Research Subjects
This report presents SVORI Multi-site Evaluation findings from
the pre-release and post-release interviews conducted with
released juveniles in four impact sites. The sample comprises
152 juvenile males enrolled in SVORI programs and 185
comparison juvenile males who did not receive SVORI
programming. The respondent profile revealed a high-risk,
high-need study group. Most respondents had serious problems
with school: before confinement, fewer than half of respondents
were regularly attending school, and nearly all respondents had
been suspended or expelled at some point. A majority of
respondents had family and friends with criminal histories or
problems with alcohol or drugs. Most respondents had used
alcohol or marijuana. Their average age at first use of these
substances was 12. Although nearly half of respondents held a
job in the 6 months before confinement, about one third
reported having supported themselves by illegal means.
Respondents’ delinquency histories were serious and chronic:

v

on average, respondents were 13 years old at the time of their
first arrest, had been arrested six times, and had been
adjudicated three times; most had been previously confined. In
the 6 months before confinement, a majority of respondents
had engaged in violent behavior.
Study Methods
The evaluation focused on assessing whether SVORI
respondents received more services than non-SVORI
respondents and assessing differences between the groups on
various post-release outcomes. Propensity score weights were
developed, tested, and applied to improve the comparability of
the SVORI and non-SVORI groups. Weighted analyses were
used to examine the treatment effect of SVORI.
Major Findings
Service receipt for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents was
highest during confinement. Although the levels of post-release
service receipt for both groups were considerably lower than
their reported levels of service need, SVORI respondents
generally reported higher levels of service receipt than nonSVORI respondents.
The most notable post-release outcomes show that SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to be in school 3 months after release from
confinement and, 15 months after release, SVORI respondents
were much more likely to have a job with benefits. No
significant differences were found between SVORI and nonSVORI respondents in substance use, physical health, mental
health, or recidivism outcomes.
Conclusions
Confined juveniles have high levels of need and, although some
juveniles reported having received services that exceeded their
needs, the needs of many went unmet. It is critically important
that juvenile justice practitioners and policy makers understand
the wide range and degree of deficits that often characterize
confined juveniles. This understanding can inform decisions
about what types of services are most needed and for whom.
The second policy implication addresses how best to do the
work of juvenile reentry programming—namely, how to manage
the coordination of services to prepare for reentry. Findings

vi

suggest that SVORI programs were able to make modest
improvements in the approach to delivery of reentry services
(e.g., intensive case management, greater use of needs
assessments, reentry planning) and that this model of care may
have resulted in small improvements in outcomes.

vii

Contents
Section
Abstract
Executive Summary
Introduction

Page
v 
ES-1 
1 

The SVORI Multi-site Evaluation—Design and
Methods .............................................................. 3 
Approach for Addressing Nonresponse and Attrition ........ 6 
Approach for Addressing Selection Bias ........................ 6 
Brief Literature Review on Community Reentry and
Juveniles ............................................................. 7 
SVORI Program Overview ..........................................11 
Characteristics of the SVORI and Non-SVORI
Comparison Respondents

17 

Demographic Characteristics ......................................17 
Housing ..................................................................19 
Family and Peers ......................................................19 
Substance Use and Physical and Mental Health .............24 
Employment History and Financial Support ..................31 
Delinquency History, Violence, Victimization, and
Gang Involvement ...............................................33 
Experiences During Confinement ................................35 
Comparability of SVORI and Non-SVORI
Respondents.......................................................38 
Pre-release Service Needs

41 

Pre-release Service Need Bundle Scores ......................42 
Levels of Need Across Services ...................................48 
Pre-release Service Receipt

51 

Pre-release Service Receipt Bundle Scores ...................52 
Levels of Receipt Across Services................................59 

ix

Post-release Experiences of the SVORI and NonSVORI Comparison Respondents

63 

Post-release Service Needs ........................................64 
Service Need Bundle Scores .......................................65 
Levels of Need Across Services ...................................75 
Post-release Service Receipt ......................................75 
Service Receipt Bundle Scores....................................77 
Levels of Receipt Across Services................................92 
Post-release Outcomes

95 

Housing ..................................................................95 
Education and Employment...................................... 100 
Family, Peers, and Community Involvement ............... 105 
Substance Use and Physical and Mental Health ........... 110 
Criminal Behavior and Recidivism ............................. 115 
Conclusions

121 

Characteristics of Respondents ................................. 121 
Comparability of SVORI and Non-SVORI
Respondents..................................................... 123 
Pre-release Service Needs ....................................... 125 
Pre-release Service Receipt...................................... 126 
Post-release Service Needs ...................................... 128 
Post-release Service Receipt .................................... 128 
Post-release Outcomes ............................................ 129 
Implications........................................................... 131 

x

References

135 

Appendix A. Data Tables

A-1 

Exhibits
Exhibit Number

Page

1.

Juvenile male sample sizes, by state and group .................... 4 

2.

Demographic characteristics of respondents at time of
pre-release interview, by group .........................................18 

3.

Primary persons or person who raised juvenile
respondents, by group .....................................................20 

4.

Primary persons or person whom juvenile respondents
lived with the longest, by group .........................................21 

5.

Criminal history and substance use of family and peers,
by group ........................................................................23 

6.

Lifetime substance use, by group .......................................25 

7.

Use of specific substances during the 30 days before
confinement, by group .....................................................27 

8.

Lifetime health problems, by group ....................................28 

9.

Current health problems, by group .....................................28 

10.

Average scores on Brief Symptom Inventory subscales,
by group ........................................................................30 

11.

Characteristics of respondents’ jobs before confinement,
by group ........................................................................31 

12.

Sources of income during the 6 months before
confinement, by employment status and group ....................33 

13.

Delinquency history of respondents, by group ......................34 

14.

Offenses resulting in current confinement, by group .............35 

15.

Disciplinary infractions and administrative segregations
during current confinement, by group .................................36 

16.

Frequency of contact with family members and friends
during confinement, by group............................................37 

17.

Amount of contact with family members and friends at
time of interview, compared with contact when first
confined .........................................................................38 

18.

Statistically significant differences between SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents ...................................................40 

xi

xii

19.

Service need bundle scores across service bundles, by
group.............................................................................43 

20.

Self-reported need for specific transition services, by
group.............................................................................44 

21.

Self-reported need for specific health services, by group .......45 

22.

Self-reported need for specific employment, education,
and skills services, by group..............................................47 

23.

Most commonly reported service needs, by group ................48 

24.

Service receipt bundle scores across service bundles, by
group.............................................................................53 

25.

Self-reported receipt of specific coordination services, by
group.............................................................................54 

26.

Self-reported receipt of specific transition services, by
group.............................................................................55 

27.

Self-reported receipt of specific health services, by
group.............................................................................57 

28.

Self-reported receipt of specific employment, education,
and skills services, by group..............................................59 

29.

Most commonly reported services received, by group............60 

30.

Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect
of SVORI on service need .................................................66 

31.

Average level of need for transition services, by
interview wave and group .................................................69 

32.

Average level of need for health services, by interview
wave and group ..............................................................71 

33.

Average level of need for employment, education, or
skills-related services, by interview wave and group .............73 

34.

Most commonly reported needs, by interview wave and
group.............................................................................76 

35.

Level of need for all services, by interview wave and
group.............................................................................77 

36.

Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect
of SVORI on service receipt ...............................................78 

37.

Average level of coordination service receipt, by
interview wave and group .................................................82 

38.

Average level of transition services receipt, by interview
wave and group ..............................................................84 

39.

Average level of health services receipt, by interview
wave and group ..............................................................88 

40.

Average level of employment, education, and skills
services receipt, by interview wave and group .....................90 

41.

Most commonly reported services received, by interview
wave and group ..............................................................93 

42.

Level of receipt of all services, by interview wave and
group.............................................................................94 

43.

Self-reported housing independence since release/last
interview ........................................................................96 

44.

Self-reported housing stability ...........................................96 

45.

Self-reported lack of housing challenges since
release/last interview .......................................................97 

46.

Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect
of SVORI on housing outcomes ..........................................99 

47.

Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect
of SVORI on education and employment outcomes ............. 101 

48.

Self-reported currently in school ...................................... 102 

49.

Self-reported has job with benefits ................................... 103 

50.

Self-reported lack of problem finding a job ........................ 104 

51.

Self-reported current support of self with a job .................. 104 

52.

Self-reported nonreceipt of money from illegal activity ........ 105 

53.

Self-reported current or recent job status as permanent...... 105 

54.

Self-reported family emotional support ............................. 107 

55.

Self-reported parental relationship ................................... 107 

56.

Self-reported peer instrumental support ........................... 108 

57.

Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect
of SVORI on family and peer outcomes ............................. 109 

58.

Self-reported lack of drug use ......................................... 110 

59.

Self-reported lack of drug use in past 30 days ................... 111 

60.

Self-reported physical health scale ................................... 112 

61.

Self-reported mental health scale..................................... 112 

62.

Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect
of SVORI on self-reported mental health, physical
health, and substance use outcomes ................................ 114 

63.

Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect
of SVORI on self-reported recidivism outcomes .................. 116 

64.

Self-reported nonperpetration of violence since release
or last interview ............................................................ 117 

65.

Compliance with conditions of supervision ......................... 117 

66.

Self-reported lack of sanctions post-release ....................... 118 

67.

Self-reported noncommission of any crime post-release ...... 118 

68.

Not reincarcerated at follow-up interview .......................... 119 

A-1.

Juvenile male case disposition—Wave 1 (pre-release) ............ 1 

A-2.

Respondent characteristics, by group .................................. 2 

A-3.

Proportion of respondents who reported needing specific
services, by group ...........................................................11 

A-4.

Proportion of respondents who reported receiving
specific services, by group ................................................12 

xiii

Executive Summary
The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
funded agencies in 2003 to develop programs to improve
criminal justice, employment, education, health, and housing
outcomes for released prisoners. Sixty-nine agencies received
federal funds ($500,000 to $2,000,000 over 3 years) to
develop 89 programs.
The SVORI Multi-site Evaluation was funded by the National
Institute of Justice in the spring of 2003 and included prerelease and follow-up interviews with nearly 2,400 returning
prisoners. Sixteen programs were included in an impact
evaluation (to determine the effectiveness of programming),
comprising 12 adult programs and 4 juvenile programs located
in 14 states: Colorado (juveniles only), Florida (juveniles only),
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas (adults and juveniles), Maine, Maryland,
Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina (adults and juveniles), and Washington.
This report presents findings from the pre-release and postrelease interviews conducted with juveniles in four impact sites.
The sample includes 152 juvenile males who were enrolled in
SVORI programs and 185 comparison juvenile males who did
not receive SVORI programming. The data presented in this
report describe characteristics of the respondents, as well as
their experiences preconfinement, during confinement, and
post-confinement. Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents are presented for three purposes: to assess prerelease comparability between groups, to assess whether
SVORI participation increased access to programs and services,
and to assess the impact of SVORI participation on a wide
range of post-release outcomes.

ES-1

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Pre-release Characteristics of the SVORI and Non-SVORI
Juvenile Respondents
Demographics
ƒ

The average age of the respondents was 17; 54% were
black, 20% were white, and 20% were Hispanic.

ƒ

At their pre-release interview, most respondents
reported that they were currently in school. In the
school year before their confinement, less than half of
respondents reported that they were regularly attending
school.

ƒ

Nearly all respondents reported that they had at some
time been suspended or expelled from school.

ƒ

Most respondents reported that, before confinement,
they were living in a house or apartment that belonged
to someone else (including parents’ house or
apartment).

Family and Peers
ƒ

Respondents most frequently reported their natural
mothers as the primary person who raised them and the
person with whom they had lived the longest.

ƒ

Nearly all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
they felt close to their families and wanted their families
to be involved in their lives.

ƒ

More than three quarters of respondents reported that
they had family members who had been convicted of a
crime or had been incarcerated. More than half of
respondents reported that they had family members
who had had problems with alcohol or drugs.

ƒ

A large majority of respondents reported that they had
friends who had been convicted of a crime, had been
incarcerated, or who had had problems with alcohol or
drugs.

Substance Use and Physical and Mental Health

ES-2

ƒ

Nearly all respondents reported that they had used
alcohol. The average age at first use was 12.

ƒ

A large majority of respondents reported that they had
used marijuana. The average age at first use was 12.

ƒ

Most respondents reported that they had used alcohol or
other drugs in the 30 days before confinement.

ƒ

About half of all respondents reported that they had
received treatment for a substance abuse or mental
health problem at some point during their lifetimes.

Executive Summary

ƒ

Most respondents rated their current physical health as
excellent or very good. More than half of all respondents
described their mental health status as excellent or very
good.

Employment History and Financial Support
ƒ

Nearly half of all respondents reported having worked at
some time before confinement. More than one third
reported that they were employed in the 6 months
before confinement.

ƒ

Of those working in the 6 months before confinement,
about half described their most recent job as
permanent.

ƒ

The majority of respondents reported that they received
financial support from their family. About one third of
respondents reported that they supported themselves by
illegal income.

Delinquency History and Current Offense
ƒ

On average, respondents were 13-years-old at the time
of first arrest, had been arrested about six times, and
had been adjudicated about three times.

ƒ

Nearly all respondents previously had been ordered to a
juvenile correctional facility.

ƒ

In the 6 months before confinement, about three
quarters of respondents reported that they had engaged
in violent behavior, and nearly two thirds reported that
they had been victims of violence.

ƒ

More than 10% of respondents reported having been a
member of a gang.

ƒ

Nearly half of respondents reported that they were
currently confined for a violent crime.

ƒ

At the time of their pre-release interview, respondents
reported an average length of confinement of more than
one year.

Differences Between SVORI and Non-SVORI
Although the SVORI and non-SVORI comparison respondents
were similar on many of the several hundred measures, they
differed significantly on a few measures:
ƒ

SVORI respondents were older and less likely to be
white than comparison respondents.

ƒ

SVORI respondents were more likely than comparison
respondents to report that they had family members
who had been convicted of crimes.
ES-3

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

ƒ

SVORI respondents were more likely than comparison
respondents to report that they had relatives who were
gang members.

ƒ

SVORI respondents were more likely than comparison
subjects to report that they had received formal pay at
their most recent job.

ƒ

Comparison respondents reported better physical health
than SVORI respondents.

ƒ

SVORI respondents were more likely than comparison
respondents to indicate symptoms of phobic anxiety and
psychoticism.

ƒ

SVORI respondents were more likely than comparison
respondents to report that they had at some time used
alcohol and hallucinogens.

ƒ

SVORI respondents were less likely than comparison
respondents to be currently confined for a drug or
public-order crime.

ƒ

On average, SVORI respondents had fewer prior terms
of confinement to a juvenile correctional facility than
comparison respondents but were significantly more
likely to report that they had at some time been
detained for more than 24 hours at one time.

Levels of Service Needs
ƒ

Before their release from confinement, respondents
reported needing, on average, slightly less than half of
the wide array of services measured.

ƒ

Before SVORI respondents’ release from confinement,
the most common needs that they reported were more
education (93%), a driver’s license (90%), job training
(89%), a job (87%), and life skills training (76%).

ƒ

SVORI and non-SVORI respondents were similar on
most pre-release service need measures, but non-SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely than SVORI
respondents to report that they needed anger
management programming and needed to change their
attitudes toward criminal behavior.

Levels of Service Receipt
ƒ

ES-4

SVORI programs achieved modest increases in providing
access to a wide range of pre-release services and
programs. Overall, SVORI respondents were more likely
than non-SVORI respondents to report receiving most of
the 60 services measured.

Executive Summary

ƒ

SVORI respondents were significantly more likely than
non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received
nearly one quarter of all of the services measured.

ƒ

The most common services SVORI respondents reported
having received before their release from confinement
were educational services (94%), a meeting with a case
manager (90%), a needs assessment (83%),
collaboration with someone to plan for release (78%),
and medical treatment (73%).

ƒ

SVORI respondents reported having received 39% of the
service items while confined, on average, whereas nonSVORI respondents reported having received 36% of the
items.

Post-release Experiences of the SVORI and Non-SVORI
Juvenile Respondents
Levels of Service Needs
ƒ

After release, respondents reported levels of service
need that were lower than their pre-release levels of
need. At each post-release interview, respondents
reported that they needed more than one third of the
services measured, on average.

ƒ

At each post-release interview, at least half of SVORI
respondents reported that they needed more education,
a driver’s license, a job, job training, transportation, and
life skills training. Similar levels of need were reported
by non-SVORI respondents.

ƒ

At each post-release interview, SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents were similar on most service need
measures. However, 9 months after release, SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely than nonSVORI counterparts to report that they needed life skills
training; 15 months after release, non-SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely than SVORI
respondents to report that they needed transportation.

Levels of Service Receipt
ƒ

Overall, the reported levels of service receipt were
highest for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents before
their release from confinement, dropped dramatically in
the 3 months after release, and remained low
throughout the post-release period.

ƒ

Although SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported
low levels of post-release service receipt, SVORI
respondents generally reported higher levels of service
receipt than non-SVORI respondents. In fact, 3 months

ES-5

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

after release, SVORI respondents reported receiving a
significantly higher level of services than non-SVORI
respondents.
ƒ

At each post-release interview, the most common
services SVORI respondents reported having received
were a meeting with a case manager, a needs
assessment, educational services, collaboration with
someone to reintegrate into the community, and
employment services.

ƒ

At each post-release period and for each service bundle,
the levels of service receipt reported by SVORI and nonSVORI respondents were considerably lower than their
reported levels of service need.

Outcomes
ƒ

Non-SVORI respondents were significantly more likely
than SVORI respondents to achieve housing
independence 15 months after release from
confinement. No other housing differences were found
between groups.

ƒ

SVORI juvenile males were significantly more likely than
non-SVORI juvenile males to be in school 3 months after
release from confinement

ƒ

SVORI juvenile males were significantly more likely to
have jobs with benefits than their non-SVORI
counterparts, but this finding was only at 15 months
post-release from confinement.

ƒ

No significant differences were found between SVORI
and non-SVORI juvenile males in substance use
outcomes, physical health and mental health outcomes,
or criminal behavior and recidivism outcomes.

Conclusions and Implications
This report focused on four juvenile programs that were part of
the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation. For assessment of program
effects of SVORI, the findings lead to two important policy
implications for juvenile reentry programming. The first
addresses the advantage of assessing and responding to the
needs of delinquent youth; the second addresses how best to
do the work of reentry planning. This report also suggests areas
of future study to expand what is known about effective reentry
approaches.
Similar to findings from previous research about juvenile
offenders, the findings from the SVORI evaluation revealed that
juvenile offenders confined to juvenile correctional facilities

ES-6

Executive Summary

have wide-ranging needs. The profile typical of the juvenile
male who participated in the SVORI evaluation revealed that he
had family and friends who were involved with the criminal
justice system or who had drug and alcohol problems; he had
substantial difficulties in school, as illustrated by his irregular
attendance and likely suspension or expulsion from school; he
reported high rates of alcohol and marijuana use and started
using these substances at a young age. He probably had
engaged in violent behavior or had been victimized before
being confined. And he had incurred a history of delinquency
that could be described as chronic, given his young age.
Although findings indicate that some youth received services
that exceeded their stated needs, the majority of youth lacked
services adequate to meet their needs. Given the gap between
juveniles’ expressed needs for services and their reported
receipt of services, it is critically important that juvenile justice
practitioners and policy makers reflect on how needs are
assessed, in order to better understand the wide range of
deficits that often characterize youth confined to juvenile
correctional facilities. Gaining this understanding has
implications for treatment and program planning—for deciding
what types of services are most needed and for whom. In
addition, understanding levels of need can help establish
realistic expectations about what improvements programs can
achieve in terms of immediate and longer-term outcomes for
juveniles.
The second policy implication addresses how best to do the
work of reentry—namely, how to manage the coordination of
services for juvenile offenders preparing to reenter their
communities. Evidence from this report suggests that SVORI
programs were able to make modest improvements in the
approach to delivery of reentry services (e.g., intensive case
management, greater use of needs assessments, reentry
planning) and that this model of care may have resulted in
small improvements in outcomes. For example, it is perhaps
the case that the SVORI-funded programs’ enhanced case
management and service coordination approach, coupled with
their emphasis on providing greater levels of employment and
education services, contributed to the small improvements in
these particular outcomes.

ES-7

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Although some of these findings of improvement in levels of
service for SVORI participants offer encouragement, they
should not be overstated. Service receipt levels were far from
100%, particularly in the months following release from
confinement. With the remarkably low levels of service receipt
and relatively high levels of self-reported need throughout the
study period, the fact that few significant improvements in
outcomes were observed for SVORI respondents is not
surprising.
Although beyond the scope of the current evaluation, an
examination of the factors that may have contributed to low
levels of service receipt (e.g., implementation issues, the
voluntary nature of some of the SVORI programs, respondents’
perceptions of the quality of programs and services, the
intensity and quality of post-release supervision, the use of
sanctions and rewards, the “aging out” of some from juvenile
justice jurisdiction) would be an important contribution to the
field. In addition, although small sample sizes preclude a
rigorous site analysis, an exploration of program
implementation and service receipt by site—with their varied
reentry approaches—may provide insight into the relationships
between SVORI program operations and service delivery, the
levels of service needs and service receipt, and reentry
outcomes. Finally, secondary analyses, without regard to
SVORI participation, could explore “what works for whom” with
regard to reentry programming for youth. Exploration of these
topics holds out the possibilities for further expanding what is
known about effective reentry programming.

ES-8

Introduction
The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
was a collaborative federal effort, established in 2003, to
improve outcomes for adults and juveniles returning to their
communities after a period of incarceration. The initiative
sought to help states better utilize their correctional resources
to address outcomes along criminal justice, employment,
education, health, and housing dimensions. Funded by the U.S.
Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban
Development, and Health and Human Services, SVORI was an
unprecedented national response to the challenges of prisoner
reentry.
Sixty-nine state and local grantees (corrections and juvenile
justice agencies) received SVORI funding, representing all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
These grantees developed 89 programs that targeted adult and
juvenile correctional populations. SVORI funding was intended
to create for returning prisoners a three-phase continuum of
services that began during the period of incarceration,
intensified just before release and during the early months
post-release, and continued for several years after release as
former inmates took on more productive and independent roles
in the community. The SVORI programs attempted to address
the initiative’s goals and provide a wide range of wellcoordinated services to prisoners returning to the community.
Although SVORI programs shared the goals of improving
outcomes across various dimensions and improving service
coordination and systems collaboration, programs differed
substantially in their approach and implementation (Lattimore,
Visher, Winterfield, Lindquist, & Brumbaugh, 2005; Lindquist,
2005; Winterfield & Brumbaugh, 2005; Winterfield, Lattimore,
Steffey, Brumbaugh, & Lindquist, 2006).

1

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

In spring 2003, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded
RTI International, a nonprofit research organization, a grant to
evaluate programs funded by SVORI. The Urban Institute, a
nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization, is
collaborating on this project, which is one of the largest
evaluation studies ever funded by NIJ. With data collected from
grantee staff, partnering agencies, and returning prisoners, this
6-year study involved a comprehensive implementation
evaluation of all 89 SVORI programs, an intensive impact
evaluation of 16 selected programs, and an economic analysis
on a subset of the impact sites (see Lattimore et al., 2005).
The goal of the SVORI evaluation was to document the
implementation of SVORI programs and determine whether
they had accomplished SVORI’s overall goal of increasing public
safety by reducing recidivism among the populations served.
The implementation assessment addressed the extent to which
the 89 SVORI programs (69 grantees) increased access to
services and promoted systems change. The impact evaluation
addressed the effectiveness of SVORI by comparing key
outcomes among those who received services as part of SVORI
and those among a comparable group of individuals who
received “treatment as usual” in the 16 sites participating in the
impact evaluation. The impact evaluation included a
longitudinal study of 2,391 returning prisoners (adult males,
adult females, and juvenile males) who were interviewed
approximately one month before release and then again at 3,
9, and 15 months after release. The third component of the
evaluation, an economic analysis, was intended to determine
the return on SVORI investment and included both a costbenefit and a cost-effectiveness analysis.
This report presents findings from all four waves of interviews
conducted with juvenile males in the four impact sites. The
sample includes 152 SVORI program participants and 185
comparison juvenile males who were not enrolled in SVORI
programs.
The data presented in the pre-release section of this report,
which are based on the interviews conducted 30 days (on
average) before release from confinement, are primarily
descriptive. Specifically, this section of the report describes the
respondents’ demographic characteristics, family and peer
relationships, educational attainment and employment, physical

2

Introduction

and mental health, delinquency history, and substance use. The
pre-release section also provides detailed information on
respondents’ need for and receipt of services before their
release from confinement. A comparison between pre-release
service receipt reported by SVORI respondents and that
reported by non-SVORI respondents assesses the SVORI
initiative’s success in increasing access to programs and
services in the pre-release period.
The post-release section of the report, which is based on the
interviews conducted 3, 9, and 15 months after release from
confinement, describes the post-release experiences among the
juvenile respondents, assesses whether SVORI respondents
received more services than non-SVORI respondents during the
post-release follow-up period, and examines differences
between the groups on a variety of outcomes. In the postrelease section, weighted outcome analyses (which adjust for
selection into the SVORI programs) were used to examine the
treatment effect of SVORI. Both the pre- and the post-release
sections highlight differences between juvenile respondents and
adult male respondents, based on comparisons of the juvenile
and adult male samples (using unweighted t-tests).
The next section provides an overview of the design of the
SVORI impact evaluation, including the selection of respondents
and the interview process. In addition, a brief summary of the
literature on community reentry and juveniles, as well as a
description of the four juvenile SVORI programs as derived
from site visits, is included. This description is followed by a
presentation of findings from all four waves of interviews (prerelease, and 3, 9, and 15 months post-release). A discussion of
policy implications concludes the report.

THE SVORI MULTI-SITE EVALUATION—
DESIGN AND METHODS
Here the methods employed in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
are summarized. A detailed description of the design, data
collection procedures, instrumentation, and analytic strategy
can be found in Lattimore and Steffey (2009).
The impact evaluation component of the SVORI Multi-site
Evaluation included a longitudinal study of adult male, adult

3

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

female, and juvenile male returning prisoners. 1 On the basis of
an extensive site selection process, 16 programs were chosen
(from among the 89 SVORI programs) for the impact study,
with the objective of achieving diversity in programmatic
approach and geographical representation. The 16 programs
included 12 adult programs and 4 juvenile programs located in
14 states: Colorado (juveniles only), Florida (juveniles only),
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas (adults and juveniles), Maine, Maryland,
Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina (adults and juveniles), and Washington. Exhibit 1
shows the distribution of juvenile respondents who are the
focus of this report.
Exhibit 1. Juvenile male
sample sizes, by state
and group

State
Colorado
Florida
Kansas
South
Carolina
Total

SVORI
23
40
49

Non-SVORI
37
89
20

Total
60
129
69

% of Total
17.8
38.3
20.5

40

39

79

23.4

152

185

337

100.0

A site-specific research design was developed for each impact
site. Comparison groups were developed by isolating the
criteria that local site staff used to identify individuals eligible
for enrollment in their SVORI program (these included factors
such as age, criminal history, risk level, post-release
supervision, transfer to pre-release facilities, and county of
release) and replicating the selection procedures on a different
population. Where possible, the comparison participants came
from the same pre-release facilities and were returning to the
same post-release geographic areas as the SVORI participants.
In some instances, comparison participants were identified as
those who met all eligibility criteria except pre- or post-release
geographic parameters. When this exception occurred, the
comparison sample was selected from pre-release facilities that
were comparable to facilities in which SVORI was available, or
individuals were selected from SVORI facilities who were
returning to a separate but similar geographic area. Eligible
respondents (both SVORI and comparison) were identified
1

4

Juvenile females were excluded from the impact evaluation because
of the extremely small number of SVORI participants in this
subgroup.

Introduction

monthly during the 16-month enrollment period for the impact
evaluation.
Data collection consisted of four waves of in-person, computerassisted interviews: the pre-release interview (Wave 1)
conducted about one month before expected release and three
follow-up interviews (Waves 2 through 4) conducted 3, 9, and
15 months after release. 2 In addition, oral swab drug tests
were conducted during the 3- and 15-month interviews for
respondents who were interviewed in a community setting.
All interviews were conducted in private settings by
experienced RTI field interviewers using computer-assisted
personal interviewing. Pre-release interviews were conducted
from July 2004 through November 2005 in more than 150
prisons and juvenile detention facilities. Pre-release interviews
were conducted approximately 30 days before release and were
designed to obtain data on the respondents’ characteristics and
preconfinement experiences, as well as their experiences during
confinement and services received since admission to a facility.
These interviews also obtained data on the respondents’ postrelease plans and expectations about reentry.
Post-release interviews were conducted from January 2005
through May 2007. The post-release interviews were similar in
content across waves and obtained data on reentry
experiences, housing, employment, family and community
integration, substance use, physical and mental health,
supervision and criminal history, service needs, and service
receipt. The interview instruments were developed through an
extensive instrumentation process involving substantive domain
experts and the use of existing, validated measures and scales
used in previous RTI and Urban Institute studies.
In addition to obtaining approval from the Institutional Review
Boards at RTI and the Urban Institute, memoranda of
agreement or formal research agreements were negotiated with
all agencies, and evaluation staff ensured that study procedures
were approved by all facilities in which interviews were
conducted (or by correctional agencies overseeing the
facilities).

2

The median time to release at the time of the first interview was 30
days.

5

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

APPROACH FOR ADDRESSING
NONRESPONSE AND ATTRITION
A total of 447 juvenile males were eligible to be included in the
study. Completed Wave 1 (pre-release) interviews were
obtained from 75% of the eligible juveniles. Among eligible
sample members approached for interviews, refusal rates were
very low: on average, 8% across the four juvenile sites. A
breakdown of the categories of refusals and ineligible cases is
available in Appendix Exhibit A-1. As shown in the exhibit, most
of the noninterviews among eligible juveniles were due to their
release before their Wave 1 interview could be completed
(14.8%).
Of the juveniles who were interviewed at Wave 1, 87% also
responded to at least one of the follow-up interviews. The
response rates for the Wave 2, 3, and 4 interviews were 70%,
71%, and 74%, respectively.
Although the response rates for the juveniles were fairly high,
the possibility remains that respondents who “dropped out” of
subsequent waves of interviews differed from those who
completed the follow-up interviews. As preliminary evidence
that the attrition was random or affected the SVORI and nonSVORI groups similarly, analyses suggested that the SVORI and
comparison groups were similar at each wave on a range of
characteristics. Unfortunately, the relatively small juvenile
sample size precluded a more rigorous examination of
nonresponse as was conducted for the men (see Lattimore &
Steffey, 2009). Diagnostic tests for response bias in the male
sample did not indicate any problems. These results, combined
with the higher response rates found, at each wave, in the
juvenile sample as compared with the male sample, and
combined with the comparability between groups across waves,
suggest that attrition did not introduce any substantial problem
into the data on juvenile respondents.

APPROACH FOR ADDRESSING SELECTION
BIAS
In addition to limitations posed by attrition, the potential for
selection bias must be examined because juveniles were not
randomly assigned to SVORI or non-SVORI conditions. On
initial examination, the raw data showed that the two groups
differed significantly on a number of characteristics. For

6

Introduction

example, SVORI participants were younger at the time of
confinement and less likely to be white. They were also less
likely to be currently confined for a drug or public-order crime
and served fewer prior terms of confinement, on average.
However, SVORI respondents were more likely to report that
they had used alcohol and hallucinogens. In addition, SVORI
respondents were more likely to report that they had family
members who had been convicted of a crime (see Lattimore &
Steffey, 2009).
For the analysis of program effects, weights were developed to
improve the comparability between the SVORI and non-SVORI
groups. To develop the weights, a logit model was developed to
generate the estimated probability of assignment to SVORI. The
propensity model used 23 variables measured before SVORI
assignment, including characteristics such as age, race, school
attendance, family and peer measures, substance use,
delinquency history, and types of crime leading to the current
period of confinement. The resulting propensity score weights
were used to examine balance, as well as program effects.
Once the propensity score weights were applied, the SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents exhibited balance on each of the 23
variables included in the propensity model, conferring
confidence that the groups were indeed comparable and
permitting examination of the effect of SVORI on outcomes
measured in the follow-up interviews.
As an additional check, differences between the SVORI and
comparison groups on these 23 Wave 1 characteristics were
examined at each follow-up interview wave. The SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents did not differ significantly on any of the
variables included in the propensity model at any wave. The
results suggest that the propensity score model provided
balance across all four waves of interview data.

BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW ON
COMMUNITY REENTRY AND JUVENILES
Juvenile Justice System and Reentry
The United States has one of the highest incarceration rates in
the modern world (Freudenberg, Daniels, Crum, Perkins, &
Richie, 2005), and the role that juveniles play in these
incarceration rates is not inconsequential. In 2007 an estimated
2.18 million youth were arrested in the United States

7

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

(Puzzanchera, 2009). Data from the 2006 Juvenile Residential
Facility Census show that approximately 95,000 juveniles were
held in juvenile facilities (Sickmund, Sladky, & Kang, 2008),
and among this total about 65,000 were committed, meaning
they were placed in the facility by a court-ordered disposition.
From a developmental perspective, juvenile confinement often
leads to inadequate preparation for young adulthood, and often
a juvenile’s delinquent involvement is likely to manifest in adult
criminality (McCord, 1992). Snyder and Sickmund (2006)
report that approximately “one quarter of juveniles who
offended at ages 16–17 also offended as adults at ages 18–19.”
Juvenile reentry and transition services may serve as an
opportunity to intervene and reverse a downward trajectory for
many youth (Freudenberg et al., 2005). The transition phase of
community reentry, which has been considered to be between
one month pre-release and up to 6 months post-release, is an
important time for juvenile offenders to establish lifestyles that
do not support delinquent and criminal activity (Altschuler &
Brash, 2004). Juvenile offenders often encounter problems
similar to those that adult offenders encounter when reentering
their communities, such as establishing supportive familial and
peer relations after release. For example, juveniles frequently
return to the same environments and family structure that had
contributed to their delinquent involvement; moreover, they
often return to their communities with serious unmet needs
that complicate their opportunities for successful reentry
(Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; Chung, Schubert, & Mulvey,
2007). Although similar obstacles confront adult and juvenile
offenders, it is important to understand the role that reentry
uniquely plays in the lives of juveniles offenders after their
release from correctional institutions.
Challenges Facing Juvenile Offenders
Juvenile offenders have been found to have serious and wideranging deficits, including negative family influences and
functioning, mental health problems, low academic functioning,
and high rates of substance use. For example, juvenile
offenders often have unmet mental health needs, as illustrated
by a rate of mental health disturbance 2 to 3 times as high as
that of the general adolescent population (Grisso, 2004). It is
estimated that 80% of juvenile offenders suffer from minor
mental health problems, including conduct disorder, attention-

8

Introduction

deficit disorder, and mood and anxiety disorders (Cocozza &
Skowya, 2000; Mears, 2001). Together with mental health
problems, juvenile offenders often experience physical health
problems, as well as learning disorders (National Council on
Disability, 2003). In addition, the National Research Council
and Institute of Medicine (2001) has found that delinquency is
associated with poor school performance, truancy, and leaving
school at an early age. Substance use is also common among
juvenile offenders: when asked about the use of drugs and
alcohol at the time that they committed the crime that lead to
their confinement, 9% of juvenile offenders younger than age
18 reported having used alcohol, 15% reported having used
illicit drugs, and 23% reported having used both alcohol and
drugs (Kazdin, 2000). Other common characteristics of juvenile
offenders included criminally involved parents (Farrington,
1989), poor parent-child relationships, and inadequate parental
supervision (Hawkins et al., 1998; Lipsey & Derzon, 1998).
Because of these challenges, it is unsurprising that, when these
factors are not adequately addressed, juveniles often fail to
succeed in school, work, personal relationships, and drug-free,
crime-free post-confinement lives. Altschuler and Brash (2004)
summarized the challenges that confront juvenile offenders
upon release from confinement, noting,
When underlying factors that predispose or propel
them toward offending behavior are not addressed
during incarceration and afterward, the likelihood is
great that young offenders will reoffend upon
release. If being literate, holding a legitimate job,
and maintaining stable and positive personal
relationships are key to making successful transitions
both to adulthood and law abidance in the
community, then lacking such attributes—as is the
case presently with many young offenders—would
logically make it much more difficult to succeed.
(p. 75)
Juvenile Reentry Programs
The juvenile justice system was originally established with the
goals of promoting the development of troubled youth and
training youth for successful adulthood, as well as, to a lesser
extent, punishing youth for their offenses (Steinberg, Chung, &
Little, 2004). Feld (1998) suggests that, in response to youth
delinquency, in recent years the contemporary juvenile court
has increasingly emphasized punitive sanctions and public
safety over rehabilitation. Youth who complete their time with

9

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

the juvenile justice system too often reenter their communities
with as many, if not more, problems than they had when they
first entered the system (Steinberg et al., 2004).
Because of the growing populations and the crowding in
juvenile confinement facilities effected by “get tough” policies,
the ever-increasing costs of confinement, and the high
recidivism rates, the 1980s marked a period when policy
makers and practitioners started to reconsider the issue of
juvenile reentry (Altschulter & Armstrong, 1994). In response
to this increased attention, in 1987 the Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention sought to assess, test, and
disseminate information about effective reentry programming
for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. The result of
this effort was the development of the Intensive Aftercare
Program (IAP), a theoretical and research-based model that
promotes intensive case management, the assessment and
identification of risk and needs factors, individualized case
planning, intensive supervision and monitoring, the use of
sanctions and rewards, and coordinated community-based
services. Moreover, IAP recognizes the importance of involving
all actors in the juvenile justice system, including providers
from child services agencies, to develop and implement a
seamless provision of reentry services (Altschulter &
Armstrong, 1994).
In the past several years, the literature on reentry services for
confined youth has grown (Abrams, Shannon, & Sangalang,
2008; Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; Freudenberg et al., 2005;
Mears & Travis, 2004; Steinberg et al., 2004). Attention has
been given to the domains and areas in which youth experience
particular challenges during reentry. According to Altschuler
and Brash (2004), these domains and areas include family and
living arrangements, peer groups, mental and physical health,
education, vocational training and employment, substance use,
and leisure activities.

10

Introduction

SVORI Goals
ƒ To improve quality of
life and self-sufficiency
through employment,
housing, family, and
community involvement
ƒ To improve health by
addressing substance
use (sobriety and
relapse prevention) and
physical and mental
health
ƒ To reduce criminality
through supervision
and monitoring of
noncompliance,
reoffending, rearrest,
reconviction, and
reincarceration
ƒ To achieve systems
change through
multiagency
collaboration and case
management strategies

Lipsey (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of juvenile reentry
programs and found that interventions that provide a
therapeutic element, serve high-risk offenders, and are
implemented with expertise are considered most effective.
Similarly, MacKenzie (2006) contends that multisystemic
therapy, which is a community-based treatment program for
serious juvenile offenders, is most effective for serious
offenders who are reuniting with the families, because
therapists and case managers are present to facilitate the
transition process. In their examination of a juvenile reentry
program that offers the mentoring component of transitional
coordinators to released juveniles, Bouffard and Bergseth
(2008) conclude that juveniles who participate in this
structured reentry program, in which services and group
planning are major elements, are more likely to successfully
reintegrate into the community. After a short-term follow-up,
such juveniles were found to have lower rates of recidivism
than juveniles who did not receive any reentry services.
Nevertheless, although these studies are encouraging, research
on juvenile aftercare and reentry has been predominated by
null findings for program effects, small sample sizes, and
implementation challenges (Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008). As
some scholars assert, the skills acquired in juvenile correctional
facilities will not be sustained unless they are reinforced in the
community and are highly relevant to the real-life setting and
situations these youth will confront once they return to their
communities (Abrams, 2006; Steinberg et al., 2004).

SVORI PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The federal guidance accompanying SVORI funding placed few
restrictions on the state agencies with respect to the design of
the individual SVORI programs. The primary restrictions placed
on local SVORI programs were an age limit—the programs were
required to target prisoners 35 or younger—and a requirement
for post-release community supervision. 3 Other broad
requirements were that the program should include three
phases (in-prison, supervised post-release, and postsupervision); provide holistic case management and service
delivery; improve participants’ quality of life and self-sufficiency
through employment, housing, family, and community
3

Some programs requested and received exemptions for one or both
of these requirements.

11

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

involvement; improve participants’ health by addressing
substance use and physical and mental health; and reduce
participants’ criminality through supervision and monitoring of
noncompliance. The programs also were encouraged to include
needs and risk assessments, reentry plans, transition teams,
community resources, and graduated sanctions (see Winterfield
et al., 2006). Because a SVORI program model was not
specified, each program was locally designed, and the
programs varied considerably in approach, services provided,
and target populations.
Although the SVORI programs were diverse in their use of
funds and program implementation, some similarities existed.
For example, many of the programs had specialized staff that
focused only on the youth in the SVORI program. In addition,
two of the SVORI programs highlighted service coordination as
one of the major accomplishments of the SVORI funding.
To provide greater depth of information available on reentry
programs for youth, SVORI research team members conducted
2- to 3-day site visits to each of the juvenile programs. A
summary description of each juvenile program follows.
Colorado
The Colorado Department of Corrections used SVORI grant
funds to develop and implement the Colorado Affirms Reentry
Effort (CARE) juvenile program. The goals of the CARE program
were to reduce recidivism; obtain good, sustainable resources;
and confidently say what worked and what did not work during
the course of the program. Participation in the CARE program
was voluntary. The initial focus of the CARE program was to fill
and expand services with a particular emphasis on (1)
employment/vocation, (2) family support, and (3) community
integration. These program emphases were accomplished by
means of the “backing in” of services before release by parole
advocates and by focusing on individual services after release.
Parole advocates were hired specifically to support the CARE
participants. They provided additional, more concentrated
resources for youth during the reentry process. Although all
youth received a client manager on entry into the Division of
Youth Corrections, the caseloads for these client managers
were high (30–36 youth), so they did not time to focus on

12

Introduction

individuals to the extent necessary for intensive reentry
planning. The parole advocates filled this need gap.
Approximately 1.5 to 2 years after the start of the CARE
program for juveniles, the focus of the program shifted to
incorporate more evidence-based programs and services. The
new focus included an initiative to make the family an integral
part of the incarceration and transition process. Services
provided at the outset of the program focused on the
transitional needs of the juveniles. Consequently, CARE kids
had access to services that other kids lacked because of scarce
resources. Program stakeholders noted that youth’s access to
these services was key to their reentry planning.
South Carolina
The South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (SCDJJ)
used SVORI grant funds to develop and implement the
Reintegration Initiative Project. This program was conceived to
expand existing services and target youth incarcerated in any
SCDJJ facility who were returning to any one of five specific
counties (Orangeburg, Calhoun, Dorchester, Florence or
Spartanburg). Participation in the Reintegration Initiative
Project was mandatory. In addition, the general “serious and
violent” offender population was targeted, rather than a subset
of offenders with specific service needs.
Program stakeholders indicated that the three primary areas in
which the program focused its resources were family support
and community integration, mental health, and education or
skills building. During incarceration, all youth in SCDJJ facilities
identified for post-release supervision were assigned a
community caseworker. For the SVORI participants,
Reintegration coordinators were hired to serve in place of
community caseworkers. Community caseworkers did not have
specialized caseloads (so they had more youth to supervise)
and typically did not provide services to youth committed to a
SCDJJ facility until after release. Reintegration coordinators
provided much more intensive case management and
supervision than community caseworkers.
With the Reintegration coordinators in place, the
transition/reintegration planning occurred earlier for SVORI
participants than for comparison youth, so community services
were more likely to be “lined up” for SVORI participants on

13

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

release than they were for comparison youth. The program’s
strategy for facilitating the transition from confinement to the
community for individual youth was based on Altschuler’s
intensive aftercare program model. Program stakeholders
acknowledged that SVORI changed the way that participating
agencies coordinated with one another; one consequence of the
grant was, therefore, dissatisfaction with the old status quo.
Florida
The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FLDJJ) used SVORI
funds to implement the Going Home (GH) program, which
aimed, with the use of flexible and individualized treatment, to
reduce recidivism among the serious and violent juvenile
offenders judged most at risk for recidivism. Participation in GH
was mandatory. The GH program divided its focus between prerelease and post-release services. The pre-release services
included curriculum and participation in release planning
activities; the post-release services included ongoing
educational and vocational support. While the post-release
services primarily targeted vocational and educational support,
the pre-release curriculum was broader, with an array of
service areas, from personal accountability to goal setting to
planning for release. The goals of the GH program were to
(1) facilitate a smooth transition from residential placement to
community living, (2) offer constructive alternatives for
economic self-sufficiency to youth coming out of residential
programs, (3) create a path for youth to become better
prepared with independent-living skills, and (4) increase public
safety by decreasing recidivism.
The GH program was originally planned to target male and
female offenders, aged 15 to 19, in Duval, Miami-Dade, and
Hillsborough Counties; however, the FLDJJ ultimately chose to
concentrate on Miami-Dade County and contracted out all
services through Transitions, Inc. Although the SVORI postrelease services were voluntary, meaning that some youth
would choose not to use them after conditional release, the
grant provided a continued relationship with youth who
normally would not be eligible for services, either because they
were no longer under the FLDJJ jurisdiction, or because they
had aged out of FLDJJ services at age 19: the grant provided
services to youth until they were 21. Services were coordinated
for GH youth in monthly meetings between providers, which

14

Introduction

fostered knowledge-sharing and collaboration. The GH program
marked the first time that conditional release and residential
programs regularly met.
Kansas
The Kansas Juvenile program used SVORI funds to implement
the Going Home Initiative (GHI). Participation in GHI was
voluntary. All Juveniles returning to one of the five judicial
districts in northeastern and south-central Kansas were able to
participate in GHI, which was designed to provide intensive
support for serious and violent juvenile offenders in the period
leading up to and following release from a correctional facility.
Youth participating in the program received intensive support
and planning services from a community reentry facilitator
(CRF) focused on serving youth once they had returned to the
community. Only youth in GHI received the services of the
CRFs and long-term support specialists. These staff members
focused on building relationships with youth and their families,
which they were able to do because they carried small
caseloads and no authority to sanction the youth. A major
component of the program was Family Group Conferencing
(involving family members, service providers, education
representatives, law enforcement officers, community case
managers, and other individuals important to the youth), with
the conference occurring immediately after release.

15

Characteristics of
the SVORI and NonSVORI Comparison
Respondents
Provided here is descriptive information about the 337 juvenile
male respondents interviewed before their release from juvenile
facilities in the four juvenile impact sites. The sample comprises
152 juvenile males who were enrolled in SVORI programs and
185 comparison juvenile males who did not receive SVORI
programming (for the means, standard deviations, and
t-statistics for the variables discussed in this section, see
Appendix Exhibit A-2).
Although the data are not shown, this section also explores
similarities and differences between the pre-release
characteristics of the full juvenile sample and the 1,697 adult
males interviewed as a part of the SVORI evaluation (for
complete pre-release data on the male sample, see Lattimore,
Visher, & Steffey, 2008).
Because the pre-release data are used entirely for descriptive
purposes in this section, the data presented are unweighted. As
will be discussed in the post-release section, weighting for
selection bias was necessary to examine actual program effects
among the SVORI and non-SVORI groups.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
The juvenile males in the SVORI and non-SVORI samples were
almost exclusively born in the United States (94% of both the
SVORI and non-SVORI groups) and spoke English as a first

17

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

language (91% and 90%, respectively). In addition, as shown in
Exhibit 2, more than half (59%) of the SVORI respondents were
black; 14% were white. The SVORI sample included a higher
percentage of black juveniles and a lower percentage of white
juveniles than the non-SVORI comparison sample, which was
51% black and 24% white. Nearly one quarter of SVORI
respondents and one fifth of non-SVORI respondents identified
themselves as Hispanic (23% of SVORI and 17% of non-SVORI).
Exhibit 2. Demographic
characteristics of
respondents at time of
pre-release interview,
by group

Variable

SVORI

Non-SVORI

Race
Black

59%

51%

White*

14%

24%

Hispanic

23%

17%

Other race
Age

4%

8%

17.0

16.7

Currently in school

88%

94%

Completed 12th grade/GED

20%

15%

Regularly attended school before
commitment

54%

43%

Ever suspended/expelled from school

95%

91%

Age at interview (mean)*
Education

Notes: Respondents were allowed to select all that applied. Individuals who
reported more than one race were coded here as “other,” which also included
American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or East Indian, and Native Hawaiian
or other Pacific Islander. Individuals were coded Hispanic if they chose
“Hispanic, Latino or Spanish,” regardless of whether they chose a race
category. GED = General Education Development credential.
*p < 0.05

On average, SVORI respondents were older than non-SVORI
respondents (17 years and 16.7 years, respectively). Because
school attendance is required for school-age juveniles during
confinement, not surprisingly the great majority of respondents
in both groups reported being in school (88% of SVORI and
94% of non-SVORI). Only 20% of SVORI respondents and 15%
of non-SVORI respondents had completed 12th grade or earned
a Graduate Education Development credential at the time they
were confined to a juvenile facility. As is evident from Exhibit 2,
respondents in both groups had substantial difficulties in
school. Only 54% of SVORI respondents and 43% of nonSVORI respondents reported regularly attending school in the

18

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

school year before confinement. Furthermore, nearly all
respondents in both groups had received an out-of-school
suspension or been expelled from school (95% of SVORI and
91% of non-SVORI).
The demographic profile of juvenile respondents differs from
that of adult male respondents in the SVORI evaluation. For
example, a significantly greater proportion of adult male
respondents were white (20% of juvenile respondents and 34%
of adult male respondents), while a significantly greater
proportion of juvenile respondents were Hispanic (20% of
juvenile respondents and 4% of adult male respondents). The
average age at the time of the pre-release interview was 17 for
juvenile respondents and 29 for adult male respondents.

HOUSING
Less than 10% of
respondents reported that
they were primarily
homeless, were living in a
shelter, or had no set
place to live during the 6
months before
confinement.

For the 6 months before confinement, the most commonly
reported housing situation was living in a house or apartment
that belonged to someone else (including parents’ house or
apartment). About 79% of SVORI and 85% of non-SVORI
respondents reported having lived primarily in a house or
apartment that belonged to someone else. SVORI respondents
were significantly more likely than non-SVORI respondents to
report that they had lived in a facility (e.g., group home,
juvenile correctional facility, treatment facility) before
confinement (10% of SVORI and 4% of non-SVORI). Less than
10% of respondents reported as their primary housing situation
that they were homeless, were living in a shelter, or had no set
place to live (7% of SVORI and 9% of non-SVORI). Juvenile
respondents’ rate of reported homelessness was significantly
lower than that of adult male respondents (8% of juvenile
respondents and 13% of adult male respondents).

FAMILY AND PEERS
Primary Caregiver

Respondents most
frequently reported their
natural mothers as the
primary persons who
raised them and with
whom they had lived the
longest.

Respondents most frequently reported their natural mothers as
the primary persons who raised them (38% and 46%, SVORI
and non-SVORI, respectively). In addition, as shown in
Exhibit 3, nearly one fifth of SVORI respondents and one fourth
of non-SVORI respondents reported that both their natural
mothers and fathers to be the primary people who raised them
(19% of SVORI and 24% of non-SVORI). Seventeen percent of

19

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 3. Primary
persons or person who
raised juvenile
respondents, by group

100%

SVORI

80%
60%
40%

Non-SVORI
46%
38%
24%
19%

20%

17%
10%

14%12%

12%

8%

0%
Natural
m other

Natural Grandparents
m other and
natural father

Other
person

Natural
m other and
step-father

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.

SVORI respondents and 10% of non-SVORI respondents
reported that their grandparents were primarily responsible for
raising them. About 13% of respondents reported other
relatives or nonrelatives to be primarily responsible for raising
them (14% of SVORI and 12% of non-SVORI). About one in 10
respondents reported that a mother and stepfather or mother’s
boyfriend filled this role (12% of SVORI and 8% of non-SVORI).
Living Arrangements
Respondents were also asked who they had lived with the
longest while they were growing up. SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported similar living arrangements. About half of
respondents reported that they had lived longest with their
natural mothers (48% of SVORI and 54% of non-SVORI). In
addition, as shown in Exhibit 4, 16% of respondents reported
that they had lived longest with both natural parents (15% of
SVORI and 17% of non-SVORI). Thirteen percent of
respondents reported that they had lived longest with their
grandparents (15% of SVORI and 12% of non-SVORI). About
one in 10 respondents reported that they had lived longest with
another relative or nonrelative (11% of SVORI and 10% of nonSVORI). Finally, 9% of respondents reported that they had
lived longest with their natural mothers and a stepfather or
mother’s boyfriend (11% of SVORI and 7% of non-SVORI).

20

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

Exhibit 4. Primary
persons or person whom
juvenile respondents
lived with the longest,
by group

100%
SVORI

80%
60%

Non-SVORI
54%
48%

40%
15%17%

20%

15%12%

11%10%

11%

7%

0%
Natural
mother

Natural Grandparents
mother and
natural father

Other
person

Natural
mother and
step-father

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.

Family Emotional Support

Nearly all respondents
agreed or strongly agreed
that they felt close to their
families and wanted their
families to be involved in
their lives.

To measure the degree of family emotional support that
respondents felt at the time of the pre-release interview, a
scale was created based on the degree to which they agreed
with 10 statements about their relationships with their families.
These statements included items such as “I have someone in
my family who understands my problems” and “I have
someone in my family to love me and make me feel wanted.”
The items were combined to create a scale with possible values
ranging from zero to 30, where higher scores indicated higher
levels of family emotional support. 4 Respondents in both groups
reported relatively high levels of family emotional support
according to this scale (23.19 for SVORI and 22.89 for nonSVORI). Nearly all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
they felt close to their families (99% of SVORI and 96% of nonSVORI) and wanted their families to be involved in their lives
(99% of SVORI and 97% of non-SVORI). In addition, nearly all
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they had someone
in their families to turn to (94% of SVORI and 92% of nonSVORI) and someone who understood their problems (95% of
SVORI and 92% of non-SVORI).

4

Response categories were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and
“strongly disagree.” Values of zero through 3 were assigned to
response categories, with higher values representing greater family
emotional support. The values for each of the 10 items were
summed to create the family emotional support scale.

21

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

On average, the family emotional support score for adult male
respondents in the SVORI evaluation was significantly lower
than that of juvenile respondents (average scores of 23.0 and
21.4 for juvenile and adult male respondents, respectively).
Parental Relationship

When describing the
relationship with their
parent(s) before
confinement, nearly all
respondents agreed or
strongly agreed with the
statements “We wanted to
spend time together” and
“We respected each
other.”

Similarly, to measure the strength of relationship to parents
that respondents felt before confinement, a scale was created
based on the degree to which they agreed with 10 statements.
These statements included items such as “We wanted to spend
time together” and “We respected each other.” The items were
combined to create a scale with possible values ranging from
zero to 30, where higher scores indicated a stronger parental
relationship. 5 Respondents in both groups shared similar, fairly
high scores on the strength of their parental relationships (21.5
for SVORI and 21.2 for non-SVORI). Specifically, nearly all
respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statements
“We wanted to spend time together” (89% of SVORI and 92%
of non-SVORI), “We respected each other” (93% of both
groups), and “They were important to me” (99% of SVORI and
98% of non-SVORI).
During the pre-release interview, respondents were also asked
a series of questions about how they felt about their current
relationship to their parents. As with the measure of
preconfinement parental relationship, the responses to the
current relationship items were combined to create a scale with
possible values ranging from zero to 30, where higher scores
indicated a stronger relationship. Overall, both groups reported
that their current relationships with parents were stronger
(average scores of 22.9 for SVORI and 22.1 for non-SVORI)
than the relationships before confinement.

5

22

Response categories were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and
“strongly disagree.” Values of zero through 3 were assigned to
response categories, with higher values representing a stronger
parental relationship. The values for each of the 10 items were
summed to create the parental relationship scale.

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

Family Criminality

A majority of respondents
reported having family
members who had been
convicted of a crime,
incarcerated, or had
problems with drugs or
alcohol.

Although they provided a substantial source of emotional
support for the juvenile respondents, family members also may
have served as negative influences. As shown in Exhibit 5,
more than three quarters of respondents reported having family
members who had been convicted of a crime (87% of SVORI
and 76% of non-SVORI) or incarcerated (82% of SVORI and
75% of non-SVORI). In addition, more than half of respondents
reported having family members who had problems with drugs
or alcohol (64% of SVORI and 57% of non-SVORI). Similarly, a
majority of adult males in the SVORI evaluation reported
having family members who had been convicted of a crime
(76%), had been incarcerated (74%), or had had problems
with drugs or alcohol (73%).

Exhibit 5. Criminal history and substance use of family and peers, by group

100%

SVORI
88%

87%
82%
80%

76%

Non-SVORI
82%
78%

75%

81%
71%
67%

64%
60%

57%

40%

20%

0%
Fam ily w ho had Fam ily w ho had Fam ily w ith
drug or alcohol
been
been
problem s
incarcerated
convicted*

Friends w ho
had been
convicted

Friends w ho
had been
incarcerated

Friends w ith
drug or alcohol
problem s

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

23

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Peer Criminality

A large majority of
respondents reported
having criminally
involved friends before
confinement.

Juvenile respondents overwhelmingly reported having friends
involved in crime and substance use. A large majority of both
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported having friends
before confinement who had been convicted of a crime (88% of
SVORI and 82% of non-SVORI) or incarcerated (78% of SVORI
and 81% of non-SVORI). Most respondents also reported that,
before confinement, they had friends who had problems with
drugs or alcohol (71% of SVORI and 67% of non-SVORI). Most
adult males in the SVORI evaluation also reported having friends
who had been convicted of a crime (83%), had been incarcerated
(81%), or had had problems with drugs or alcohol (82%).

SUBSTANCE USE AND PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH
Respondents were asked a variety of questions about their
preconfinement alcohol and drug use, as well as their substance
use treatment experiences. They were also asked about their
lifetime and current experiences with a variety of physical
illnesses. In addition, they were asked to respond to a series of
items that compose three well-known scales—the 12-Item
Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) physical health scale, the
SF-12 mental health scale (Ware, Kosinski, Turner-Bowker, &
Gandek, 2002), and the Symptom Assessment–45
Questionnaire (SA-45) Global Severity Index (GSI; Strategic
Advantages, 2000).
Substance Use and Treatment
Nearly all of the respondents reported having used alcohol or
drugs during their lifetimes (92% of SVORI and 94% of nonSVORI). On average, respondents reported having used two
different drugs. Exhibit 6 shows responses for lifetime use for
the most common drugs.
A large majority of respondents reported having used alcohol
(91% of SVORI and 83% of non-SVORI), and the average age
of first use was about 12 years (12.2 years for SVORI and 12.5
years for non-SVORI). Although reported use of alcohol by
adult male respondents in the SVORI evaluation was also high
(97%), juvenile respondents were, on average, significantly
younger than their adult counterparts at the time that they had
first used alcohol (12.4 years for juvenile respondents and 13.7
years for adult male respondents).

24

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

Exhibit 6. Lifetime substance use, by group

Alcohol*

83%

91%

88%
85%

Marijuana
25%
26%

Cocaine

Hallucinogens*

19%

Tranquilizers

16%
14%

Pain Relievers

14%
17%

Inhalants

8%

SVORI

30%

Non-SVORI

12%

11%
14%

Sedatives

10%
11%

Am phetam ines
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Nearly all of the
respondents reported
having used alcohol and
drugs during their lifetimes.
Compared with adult male
respondents in the SVORI
evaluation, juvenile
respondents reported
similar rates of alcohol and
marijuana use and were, on
average, significantly
younger at the time they
first used these drugs.

Most juvenile respondents reported having used marijuana
(88% of SVORI and 85% of non-SVORI) and reported a young
average age of first use (12.2 years for SVORI and 12.5 for
non-SVORI). Again, reported use of marijuana by juvenile
respondents was similar to that of their adult counterparts
(86% of juvenile respondents and 93% of adults). In addition,
juvenile respondents were, on average, significantly younger
than adult respondents at the time that they had first used
marijuana (12.4 years for juvenile respondents and 14.0 for
adult male respondents).
About one quarter of all juvenile respondents reported having
used cocaine (25% of SVORI and 26% of non-SVORI) and
hallucinogens (30% of SVORI and 19% of non-SVORI), much
lower rates of use than reported by adult males in the SVORI

25

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

evaluation (56% cocaine and 46% hallucinogens). Fewer
juvenile respondents reported using other substances. 6

A large majority of
respondents reported
having used alcohol or
other drugs during the 30
days before their
confinement.

Respondents were also asked about substance use during the
30 days before their current confinement. A large majority in
both groups reported having used alcohol or other drugs during
the 30 days before their confinement (70% of SVORI and 68%
of non-SVORI). About 60% of the respondents in both groups
reported having used one or more drugs other than alcohol
during the 30 days before their confinement (59% of SVORI
and 61% of non-SVORI). Similarly, about two thirds of adult
male respondents reported using one or more drugs in the 30
days before incarceration. Fewer juvenile respondents reported
using other substances. 7
Exhibit 7 compares the two groups’ reported drug use during
the 30 days before confinement for the most commonly
reported drugs. Nearly 60% of both SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported having used marijuana; about half of
both SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported having used
alcohol; about one in every 10 respondents reported having
used cocaine.

About half of all
respondents had received
treatment for a substance
use or mental health
problem at some point
during their lifetime.

About half of SVORI and non-SVORI respondents had received
treatment for a substance use or mental health problem at
some point during their lifetimes (53% of SVORI and 48% of
non-SVORI). Of these, 26% reported that they had received
treatment for drug use or dependence (25% of SVORI and 28%
of non-SVORI), 22% had received treatment for attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (21% of SVORI and 22% of nonSVORI), 19% had received treatment for alcohol use or
dependence (19% of SVORI and 20% of non-SVORI), and 16%
had received treatment for depression (19% of SVORI and 13%

6

7

26

Less than 10% reported ever using methadone (1% and 3% for the
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively), anabolic steroids
(1% for both the SVORI and non-SVORI respondents), or heroin
(3% and 4% for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively).
Less than 10% reported using hallucinogens (8% and 6%, SVORI
and non-SVORI, respectively), pain relievers (7% and 5%, SVORI
and non-SVORI, respectively), tranquilizers (6% and 8%, SVORI
and non-SVORI, respectively), sedatives (5% of each group),
amphetamines (5% of each group), inhalants (2% and 1%, SVORI
and non-SVORI, respectively), stimulants (1% and 4%, SVORI and
non-SVORI, respectively), or heroin (1% and 2%, SVORI and nonSVORI, respectively).

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

Exhibit 7. Use of specific
substances during the
30 days before
confinement, by group

58%

Marijuana

59%
SVORI
Non-SVORI

55%

Alcohol

49%

10%

Cocaine

14%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.

of non-SVORI). On average, those who reported having
received treatment had started a treatment program on more
than two separate occasions.
Adult males in the SVORI evaluation reported somewhat higher
rates of treatment receipt. About half of respondents (55%)
reported that they had received treatment for a substance use
or mental health problem during their lifetime. Of these, 39%
reported that they had received treatment for drug abuse or
dependence, 27% had received treatment for alcohol abuse or
dependence, and 20% had received treatment for depression.
Physical Health

Overall, the study
participants reported
currently experiencing
few physical health
problems.

Overall, the study participants reported currently experiencing
few physical health problems. Most respondents rated their
current physical health as excellent or very good (70% of
SVORI and 71% of non-SVORI). The percentages of subjects in
each group who reported ever or currently having specific
diseases are shown in Exhibits 8 and 9.

27

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 8. Lifetime health problems, by group

15%

Asthm a

23%

10%

Chronic back pain

6%
5%
4%

High blood pressure

SVORI

3%
4%

Heart trouble
Arthritis

2%
2%

Tuberculosis

1%
2%

Non-SVORI

2%

Diabetes
Hepititis B or C

1%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not significant at the 0.05 level.
Exhibit 9. Current health problems, by group

Wear corrective lenses*

31%

21%
9%

Asthm a
Chronic back pain

5%

High blood pressure

2%
1%

Heart trouble

2%
2%

13%

9%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

1%
1%

Arthritis
Tuberculosis

1%

Diabetes

1%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Needing corrective lenses and having asthma were the most
commonly reported health problems. Less than 5% of the
respondents reported that they had been diagnosed with heart
trouble (4%), arthritis (2%), tuberculosis (2%), diabetes (1%),

28

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

or hepatitis B or C (0.3%). None of the respondents reported
that he was HIV positive or had been diagnosed with AIDS.
Mental Health

No differences were
found between SVORI
and non-SVORI
respondents on three of
the four scales measuring
physical and mental
functioning and mental
health.

SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely
than non-SVORI
respondents to indicate
symptoms of phobic
anxiety and psychoticism.

No differences were found between SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents in their scores on three of the four scales
measuring physical and mental functioning (the SF-12 scales)
and mental health (the SA-45 GSI and Positive Symptom Total
[PST]). While slightly more than half of each group responded
that they had no limitations with respect to each of the five
items that constitute the SF-12 physical health scale (51% of
SVORI and 52% of non-SVORI), non-SVORI respondents had a
significantly higher average physical health score (average
scores of 53.39 for SVORI and 54.96 non-SVORI). Scores on
the SF-12 mental health scale were nearly 50 for each group
(49.63 for SVORI and 49.53 for non-SVORI). Both groups
scored less than 70 on the GSI, which has a range of 45 to
225; higher scores indicate more psychopathology (64.03 for
SVORI and 62.04 for non-SVORI). Average scores on the PST
index were 11.85 for SVORI and 10.34 for non-SVORI
respondents, meaning that SVORI respondents reported
experiencing, on average, 11 of the 45 symptoms included in
the SA-45 during the 7 days before the interview and nonSVORI respondents reported experiencing, on average, 10
symptoms.
In addition to the GSI, the SA-45 includes a set of subscales
indicating symptoms of specific psychopathologies, the Brief
Symptom Inventory. Of the nine subscales, statistically
significant differences emerged for two measures—in each case
indicating that the SVORI respondents were slightly worse on
these measures than the non-SVORI respondents. Results are
shown in Exhibit 10. Scores on these subscales can range from
a low of 5 to a high of 25, and all results were on the lower end
of the range. Scores were similar between groups for anxiety,
depression, hostility, interpersonal sensitivity, obsessivecompulsive disorder, paranoid ideation, and somatization.
SVORI respondents were significantly more likely than nonSVORI respondents to indicate symptoms of phobic anxiety
(6.07 for SVORI and 5.62 for non-SVORI) and psychoticism
(6.49 for SVORI and 6.05 for non-SVORI).

29

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 10. Average
scores on Brief
Symptom Inventory
subscales, by group

Measure
Anxiety scale
Depression scale
Hostility scale
Interpersonal sensitivity scale
Obsessive-compulsive scale
Paranoid ideation scale
Phobic anxiety scale*
Psychoticism scale*
Somatization scale

SVORI
6.6
7.8
6.8
7.0
8.1
8.6
6.0
6.5
6.7

Non-SVORI
6.4
7.3
7.3
6.9
7.8
8.3
5.6
6.1
6.4

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Attentiondeficit/hyperactivity
disorder was cited as the
most common reason for
the treatment.

As reported previously, more than half of SVORI and nonSVORI respondents had received treatment for a substance use
or mental health problem at some point during their lifetimes
(53% of SVORI and 48% of non-SVORI). Of those who reported
that they had ever received mental health treatment, attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder was cited as the most common
reason for treatment. One fifth of juvenile respondents in both
groups reported that they had received care for this problem
(21% of SVORI and 22% of non-SVORI). In comparison, the
most common reason for treatment cited by adult male
respondents in the SVORI evaluation was depression (20%).
Less than 10% of juvenile respondents reported that they were
currently receiving treatment for any mental health problem. Of
those who reported that they were currently receiving
treatment, the most common diagnosis was attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder (10% of SVORI and 14% of nonSVORI). Similarly, less than 10% of adult males reported that
they were currently receiving treatment. For these men, the
most common diagnosis was depression or dysthymia (8%).

More than half of all
respondents described
their mental health status
at the time of the prerelease interview as
excellent or very good.

30

More than half of all juvenile respondents described their
mental health status at the time of the pre-release interview as
excellent or very good (55% of SVORI and 58% of non-SVORI).
During their current period of confinement, 17% of all juvenile
respondents were prescribed medication for emotional
problems (18% of SVORI and 15% of non-SVORI). About one
fifth of all respondents felt they needed treatment for mental
health problems (23% of SVORI and 20% of non-SVORI).
Similarly, 16% of adult male respondents were prescribed

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

medication for emotional problems, and 26% felt they needed
treatment for mental health problems.

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AND FINANCIAL
SUPPORT
This subsection covers the respondents’ employment histories
before confinement and describes additional sources of financial
support.
Employment History

Nearly half of all
respondents reported
having worked at some
time before confinement.

Exhibit 11.
Characteristics of
respondents’ jobs
before confinement, by
group

Nearly half of all juvenile respondents reported having worked
at some time before confinement—43% of SVORI and 51% of
non-SVORI. More than one third of respondents reported that
they were employed during the 6 months before confinement
(35% of SVORI and 41% of non-SVORI). As shown in
Exhibit 11, a greater proportion of SVORI respondents
described their most recent respective jobs as permanent (58%
of SVORI and 44% of SVORI) and received formal pay (53% of
SVORI and 31% of non-SVORI). Nearly one third of
respondents who held jobs in the 6 months before confinement
reported working more than 20 hours per week (28% of SVORI
and 34% of non-SVORI). Non-SVORI respondents reported a
slightly higher average hourly rate of $9.72, compared with the
average $8.66 reported by SVORI respondents.

100%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80%
60%

58%

53%
44%

40%

31%

28%

34%

20%
0%
Held perm anent job

Received form al pay* Worked m ore than 20
hours/w eek

Note: Results are for respondents who worked during the 6 months before
confinement.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

The jobs that respondents typically held were “blue-collar” jobs.
More than one third of all respondents who had been employed

31

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

during the 6 months before confinement reported a last job
they as laborer, which includes construction workers, day
laborers, landscapers, and roofers (32% of SVORI and 39% of
non-SVORI). More than one third of respondents had worked in
the service industry as cooks, waiters, janitors, cashiers, and
dishwashers (38% of SVORI and 33% of non-SVORI). Less than
10% of respondents worked as skilled craftsmen (8% of SVORI
and 7% of non-SVORI) or in sales (6% of SVORI and 8% of
non-SVORI). A few respondents reported having a jobs as
operators or transportation equipment operators (3% of all
respondents).
Financial Support

About one third of the
respondents reported
supporting themselves
with income from illegal
activities during the 6
months before
confinement.

Respondents were asked how they had supported themselves,
in addition to being legally employed, during the 6 months
before confinement. Overall, the majority of respondents in
each group reported that they had received support from their
family (70% of SVORI and 68% of non-SVORI). About one third
of respondents in each group reported that they had supported
themselves by illegal income (34% of SVORI and 35% of nonSVORI).
Exhibit 12 shows the sources of financial support for SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents, disaggregated by their employment
status during the 6 months before confinement. As shown in
the exhibit, within employment status were relatively few
differences between SVORI and non-SVORI respondents with
respect to whether they reported having received financial
support from each of the four sources. Regardless of
employment status, the majority of respondents reported
having received financial support from family. While about one
third of respondents reported that they had received financial
support from illegal activity, a greater proportion of nonworking
respondents than working respondents reported having
received this type of support.

32

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

Exhibit 12. Sources of income during the 6 months before confinement, by employment
status and group

100%

Held job (SVORI)
Held job (non-SVORI)

80%

73%

76%
No job (SVORI)

66%

No job (non-SVORI)
60%

54%

36% 38%

40%

30% 29%

25%
20%

12% 14% 14%

8%

5%

9%
3%

0%
Fam ily

Friends

Governm ent

Illegal

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not significant at the 0.05 level.

DELINQUENCY HISTORY, VIOLENCE,
VICTIMIZATION, AND GANG INVOLVEMENT
This subsection describes respondents’ involvement with the
juvenile justice system before confinement and outlines
preconfinement perpetration of violence and victimization. A
brief description of respondents’ involvement as gang members
is also provided.
Delinquency History

Respondents reported
considerable involvement
with the juvenile justice
system before their
current confinement.

SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported considerable
involvement with the juvenile justice system before their
current confinement (Exhibit 13). On average, respondents
were about 13 years old at the time of their first arrest, and
had been arrested about 6 times and adjudicated about 3
times. While most respondents had been previously ordered to
a juvenile detention facility, training school, or other kind of
juvenile correctional facility, non-SVORI respondents reported
significantly more terms of confinement, on average, than
SVORI respondents (3.0 for SVORI and 3.7 for non-SVORI).

33

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 13. Delinquency
history of respondents,
by group

Delinquency History
Age at first arrest (mean)
Times arrested (mean)
Times adjudicated (mean)
Ever been previously ordered to a
juvenile detention facility, training
school, or other kind of juvenile
correctional facility
Times previously confined (mean)*

SVORI
12.9
5.7
2.9

Non-SVORI
13.2
6.6
3.3

88%

93%

3.0

3.7

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

On average, respondents
reported being about 13
years old at the time of
first arrest.
Almost half of
respondents reported that
they were currently
confined for a violent
crime.

Compared with adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation, juvenile respondents were significantly younger, on
average, at the time of first arrest (13 years old for juvenile
respondents and 16 years old for adult male respondents). Half
of adult male respondents reported that they had spent time in
a juvenile correctional facility for committing a crime. These
men reported being detained 3.5 times, on average, mirroring
the correctional experiences of juvenile respondents who
reported being detained 3.3 times, on average.
Exhibit 14 shows the offenses that led to the current terms of
confinement as reported by the respondents. 8 Almost half of
respondents reported that they were currently confined for a
person/violent crime (45% of SVORI and 46% of non-SVORI).
About 47% reported a property crime (46% of SVORI and 49%
of non-SVORI). SVORI respondents were significantly less likely
than non-SVORI respondents to report that their current
confinement was for a drug crime (11% of SVORI and 19% of
non-SVORI) or public-order crime (20% of SVORI and 32% of
non-SVORI).
Compared with adult male respondents, juvenile respondents
were significantly more likely to report that their current
confinement was for a property crime (47% juvenile
respondents and 25% adult male respondents) or public-order
crime (27% juvenile respondents and 19% adult male
respondents). Juvenile respondents were significantly less likely
than adult male respondents to report that they were currently
confined for a drug offense (15% juvenile respondents and
33% adult male respondents).
8

34

One percent of the non-SVORI respondents reported that their
adjudicated offense was “other.” This category includes unspecified
felonies and gang activity.

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

Exhibit 14. Offenses
resulting in current
confinement, by group

SVORI

45%
46%

Person/Violent

Non-SVORI

46%
49%

Property

11%

Drug*

19%
20%

Public Order*

32%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Perpetration of Violence

About three quarters of
respondents reported
violent behavior before
incarceration.

For the 6 months before confinement, about three quarters of
respondents (79% of SVORI and 70% of non-SVORI) reported
violent behavior (including threats of violence), a slightly higher
proportion than for adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation (68%).

Most also reported being
victims of violence.

Victimization
Two thirds of respondents reported having been victims of
violence in the 6 months before confinement (70% of SVORI
and 63% of non-SVORI). Similarly, most adult male
respondents in the SVORI evaluation reported having been
victimized (59%).
Gang Membership
More than one in every 10 respondents reported having been a
gang member (13% of SVORI and 14% of non-SVORI). Of the
respondents in gangs, more than half (53% of SVORI and 58%
of non-SVORI) considered their gang to be family. In
comparison, only about 5% of adult male respondents in the
SVORI evaluation reported gang membership. As with juvenile
respondents, about half of adult male respondents considered
their gang to be family.

EXPERIENCES DURING CONFINEMENT
This subsection describes respondents’ experiences during
confinement on several dimensions, including length of

35

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

confinement and disciplinary infractions. These findings are
followed by a description of work performed during confinement
and a discussion of interaction with family during confinement.
Length of Confinement
At the time of the pre-release interview, SVORI respondents
had been incarcerated longer than non-SVORI respondents (an
average of 1.9 years for SVORI and 1.1 years for non-SVORI).
Disciplinary Infractions and Administrative Segregations
SVORI respondents also reported more disciplinary infractions
and administrative segregations than were reported by the
non-SVORI respondents. As shown in Exhibit 15, 59% of SVORI
respondents reported at least one disciplinary infraction,
compared with 56% of non-SVORI respondents. Fewer
respondents reported administrative segregation during the
current term of confinement (43% of SVORI and 36% of nonSVORI).
Exhibit 15. Disciplinary
infractions and
administrative
segregations during
current confinement, by
group

Infractions and Segregations
Disciplinary Infractions
None
One
More than one
Administrative Segregations
None
One
More than one

SVORI

Non-SVORI

41%
7%
52%

44%
11%
45%

57%
15%
28%

64%
12%
24%

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.

Work Assignment During Confinement
About one third of the respondents said that they had a work
assignment in the institution where they were confined (34% of
SVORI and 31% of non-SVORI). On average, respondents with
a work assignment spent about 14 hours per week working
(15.4 and 12.6 hours for SVORI and non-SVORI for
respondents, respectively).
Very few respondents reported having a work-release job: only
3% of SVORI and 6% of non-SVORI respondents reported that

36

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

About one third of
respondents said that they
had a work assignment in
the institution where they
were confined.
Few respondents reported
having a work-release
job.

they were on work release. Those with work-release jobs
reported working more hours than those with institution jobs.
On average, SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported
working about the same number of hours per week (28 hours
for SVORI and 27 hours for non-SVORI).
Family Contact
Respondents were asked about the frequency of contact with
family members and friends. Response options for each type of
contact ranged from “never” to “daily.” SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported similar frequencies of contact with their
family members through phone calls, mail, and in-person visits
(Exhibit 16). About two thirds of respondents reported weekly
phone contact with family members (63% of SVORI and 70% of
non-SVORI). Nearly half of respondents reported weekly
contact with family members by mail (42% of SVORI and 47%
of non-SVORI). More than one third of respondents reported
weekly in-person visits with family members (38% of SVORI
and 39% of non-SVORI). Both SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported less frequent phone, mail, and in-person
contact with friends.

Exhibit 16. Frequency of contact with family members and friends during confinement, by
group

Form of Contact
Phone Contact
Never
A few times
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Mail Contact
Never
A few times
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
In-Person Visits
Never
A few times
Monthly
Weekly
Daily

Contact with Family Members
SVORI
Non-SVORI

Contact with Friends
SVORI
Non-SVORI

2%
8%
17%*
63%
10%

2%
7%
7%*
70%
15%

45%
13%
10%
24%
8%

36%
16%
10%
24%
12%

6%
21%
20%
42%
11%

11%
23%
14%
47%
5%

20%
19%
13%
37%
10%

27%
20%
14%
33%
6%

16%
17%
28%
38%
1%

18%
19%
23%
39%
1%

80%
6%
7%*
6%
1%

87%
7%
2%*
4%
0%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

37

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Respondents were also asked whether the amount of each type
of contact with family and friends was currently more than,
about the same as, or less than the amount when they were
first confined (i.e., during the first 6 months of confinement).
Almost half of the respondents in both groups reported that
they had about the same amount of contact with family and
friends as they did when they were first confined (Exhibit 17).
More respondents reported having less contact, rather than
more contact, with family and friends than when they were first
confined.
Exhibit 17. Amount of contact with family members and friends at time of interview,
compared with contact when first confined

100%

More contact (SVORI)
More contact (non-SVORI)
About the sam e (SVORI)

80%

About the sam e (non-SVORI)
Less contact (SVORI)
60%

Less contact (non-SVORI)

55%
49%

43%

40%

40%

40%

34%
28% 26%

51%

28%

31%

30% 29%

29%
22%

20%

25%
19%

17%

0%
Phone contact

Mail contact

In-person contact

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not significant at the 0.05 level.

COMPARABILITY OF SVORI AND NONSVORI RESPONDENTS
The impact evaluation findings depend on the comparability of
the two evaluation study groups—those who participated in
SVORI programs and the non-SVORI respondents who were
identified as comparison subjects for this evaluation. The
evaluation team worked with the local program staff to identify
appropriate populations from which to identify comparison
subjects. The goal of this exercise was to find groups of

38

SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents’ Characteristics

subjects who were similar to those participating in SVORI
programs and to have local staff in the sites (usually individuals
working with agency management information systems)
provide lists of these individuals to the evaluation team during
the first wave of interviews. If identification of comparable nonSVORI respondents were successful, then the expectation
would be that few differences would be found between the
groups on variables that measured characteristics before the
time at which assignment to SVORI could be made. For the
interview data, this expectation refers to variables measuring
preconfinement characteristics.
The characteristics of the respondents and comparisons of the
average values for the SVORI and non-SVORI groups having
been thoroughly discussed earlier in this section, the focus of
the following discussion is the few variables for which
statistically significant differences between the two groups were
identified. 9
Exhibit 18 lists the few variables for which the differences
between groups were statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Those participating in SVORI programs were older and less
likely to be white. SVORI respondents were more likely than
non-SVORI respondents to report that they had family
members who had been convicted. Although few respondents
reported that they were gang members, SVORI respondents
were more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that
they had relatives who were members of their gang.
Responses differed on one of the employment measures. SVORI
respondents were more likely than non-SVORI respondents to
report that they had received formal pay at their last job.
With regard to physical health, non-SVORI respondents scored
higher than SVORI respondents on the SF-12 physical health
scale, indicating better physical health for non-SVORI
respondents. SVORI respondents were more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report wearing corrective lenses. On
mental health, SVORI respondents were more likely than nonSVORI respondents to indicate symptoms of phobic anxiety and

9

Here, statistical significance is defined by a two-tailed test at α =
0.05. For the means, standard deviations, and t-statistics for many
of the variables discussed earlier in this section, see Appendix
Exhibit A-2.

39

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 18. Statistically significant differences between SVORI and non-SVORI respondents

Variable
Demographic Characteristics
Age at pre-release interview
Race: White
Family
Anyone in family ever convicted
Any relatives members of respondent’s gang
Employment
Received formal pay for last job
Physical and Mental Health
SF-12 physical health scale
Wear corrective lenses
Phobic anxiety scale (range 5–25; higher is worse)
Psychoticism scale (range 5–25; higher is worse)
Drug Use
Ever used alcohol
Ever used hallucinogens
Delinquency History
Conviction offense: drug crime
Conviction offense: public-order crime
Times previously confined
Ever in jail/prison for more than 24 hours at one time

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

337
337

17.0 (1.30)
0.14 (0.35)

16.7 (1.36)
0.24 (0.43)

307
45

0.87 (0.34)
0.74 (0.45)

0.76 (0.43)
0.42 (0.50)

128

0.53 (0.50)

0.31 (0.46)

333
337
337
337

53.39 (7.88)
0.31 (0.46)
6.07 (2.33)
6.49 (2.01)

54.96 (6.20)
0.21 (0.41)
5.62 (1.41)
6.05 (1.81)

337
336

0.91 (0.29)
0.30 (0.46)

0.83 (0.37)
0.19 (0.39)

335
335
327
337

0.11 (0.31)
0.20 (0.40)
2.97 (2.64)
0.60 (0.49)

0.19 (0.39)
0.32 (0.47)
3.65 (2.77)
0.48 (0.50)

Note: All differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were significant at p < 0.05.

psychoticism, although scores on both measures for each group
were low.
In terms of drug use experience, only two statistically
significant differences were found in the substance use
measures. SVORI respondents were more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report having ever having used alcohol
and to report having ever used hallucinogens.
With respect to the delinquency history domain, SVORI
respondents were less likely than non-SVORI respondents to be
currently confined for a drug or public-order crime. In addition,
SVORI respondents were more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report having been confined for more than 24
hours at one time. Conversely, non-SVORI respondents had
more prior terms of confinement than SVORI respondents, on
average.

40

Pre-release Service
Needs
The pre-release interviews provided an opportunity for the
respondents to identify the extent to which they needed a wide
range of specific services. 10 The evaluation team asked
questions about 28 different types of services and then grouped
them into five service categories or “bundles.” These bundles
are
ƒ

services to help with the transition from confinement to
the community;

ƒ

health care services (including substance use treatment
and mental health);

ƒ

employment, education, and skills services;

ƒ

domestic violence–related services; and

ƒ

child-related services.

To summarize needs in the domains of transition, health,
employment/education/skills, domestic violence–related, and
child-related services, service need bundle scores were
developed from the interview data. 11 Scores for each individual
were generated by summing zero/one indicators for whether
the individual did not/did report needing each of the items
within a bundle; then this sum was divided by the number of
items in the bundle. 12 At the individual-respondent level, this
10
11

12

Responses were “a lot,” “a little,” or “not at all.” These were
subsequently recoded to “some” and “not at all.”
Only 30 respondents (less than 10% of the sample) reported that
they had children so the discussion of the need for child-related
services is not discussed in this section.
For a list of these items by bundle, see Appendix Exhibit A-3; these
items are presented bundle-by-bundle in the subsections that
follow.)

41

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

bundle score can be interpreted as the proportion of the bundle
that the individual reported needing. 13
This section of the report provides descriptive information about
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents’ needs for an array of
services. Although the data are not shown, this section also
explores the differences and similarities in service needs
reported by juvenile respondents and adult male respondents in
the SVORI evaluation.

PRE-RELEASE SERVICE NEED BUNDLE
SCORES
The levels of expressed
need for employment,
education, and skills were
very high.

Exhibit 19 compares the service need bundle scores for all
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents. As can be seen, the levels
of expressed need for employment, education, and skills were
very high—on average, respondents reported needing nearly
three quarters of all of the service items in the employment
bundle (average bundle scores of 74 for both groups).
Respondents also expressed a high level of need for the
services and assistance contained in the transition services
bundle. On average, respondents reported needing about half
of these services, which included financial assistance,
transportation, and obtaining a driver’s license and other
documentation (average scores of 51 for SVORI and 49 for
non-SVORI).
On average, SVORI and non-SVORI respondents had about the
same level of need for health services (average bundle score of
30 for SVORI and 33 for non-SVORI). Relatively few
respondents felt the need for domestic violence services. There
were no statistically significant differences in the expressed
levels of service need between the two groups.
Juvenile respondents and adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation reported very similar levels of service need within
each of the service bundles. On average, juvenile and adult
male respondents reported needing about three quarters of the
items in the employment, education, and skills-related service
bundle. Although adult male respondents reported a
significantly higher level of need for transition services than
juvenile respondents, both groups reported a high level of need

13

42

Data from the pre-release interview were used to develop individuallevel bundle scores for each respondent.

Pre-release Service Needs

Exhibit 19. Service need
bundle scores across
service bundles, by
group

Em ploym ent/education/life
skills services

74
74
51
49

Transitional services

SVORI

30
33

Health services

Dom estic violence
services

Non-SVORI

7
7
0

20

40

60

80

100

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.

for these services. On average, juvenile and male respondents
reported needing about one third of the items in the health
services bundle. Finally, juvenile and adult male respondents
reported similar, low levels of need for domestic violence
services.
The following subsections provide additional information on the
individual bundles.
Transition Services
Before release from confinement, nearly all SVORI and nonSVORI respondents reported needing at least some transition
services to address immediate needs upon release, such as
financial, public, or legal assistance; a place to live; various
identification documents; transportation; health insurance; and
access to emergency resources, such as clothing and food
(98% of SVORI and 99% of non-SVORI). Exhibit 20 displays
the percentages of respondents who reported needing these
types of services. There were no significant differences between
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents in their reported needs for
transition services.
Nearly all respondents reported needing to obtain a driver’s
license (90% of SVORI and 91% of non-SVORI). Half or more
of all respondents reported needing transportation (65% of

43

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 20. Self-reported
need for specific
transition services, by
group

90%
91%

Driver's license

65%
62%
62%
59%
60%
51%
54%
51%
53%
55%
50%
48%
40%
35%
SVORI
26%
Non-SVORI
28%

Transportation
Mentor
Legal assistance
Docum ents for em ploym ent
Public health insurance
Financial assistance
Access to clothes/food bank
Place to live

21%
24%

Public financial assistance
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not statistically significant
at the 0.05 level.

Obtaining a driver’s
license was the most
commonly reported
transitional need.

SVORI and 62% of non-SVORI), a mentor (62% of SVORI and
59% of non-SVORI), legal assistance (60% of SVORI and 51%
of non-SVORI), documents for employment such as a birth
certificate, Social Security card, and photo identification (54%
of SVORI and 51% of non-SVORI), public health insurance
(53% of SVORI and 55% of non-SVORI), and financial
assistance (50% of SVORI and 48% of non-SVORI).
Respondents also reported needing basic services, including
housing and access to clothing and food. Approximately 30
days before release, more than one third of all respondents
reported needing access to clothing and food banks after
release (35% of SVORI and 40% of non-SVORI), and more
than one quarter of all respondents reported needing a place to
live (26% of SVORI and 28% of non-SVORI).
As mentioned, the service need bundle score at the individualrespondent level can be interpreted as the proportion of
services in the bundle that the individual reported needing.
Respondents generally expressed a high level of need for the
services and assistance included in the transition services
bundle, with average bundle scores of 49 for SVORI
respondents and 51 for non-SVORI respondents.

44

Pre-release Service Needs

Although the level of need for transition services reported by
both juvenile and adult male respondents was high, juvenile
respondents reported a significantly lower level of need than
their adult counterparts. Compared with adult male
respondents, juvenile respondents were significantly less likely
to report that they needed financial assistance, public health
insurance, transportation, public financial assistance, access to
clothes/food banks, or a place to live. Juvenile respondents
were significantly more likely than adult male respondents to
report that they needed a driver’s license or legal assistance.
Health Services

The most common health
service need was for
anger management
programming.

Exhibit 21. Self-reported
need for specific health
services, by group

Respondents’ perceived needs regarding health services are
shown in Exhibit 21. The majority of both SVORI and nonSVORI respondents reported needing some kind of health
services (73% of SVORI and 77% of non-SVORI). The most
common health service need was for anger management
programming, with reported need being significantly higher
among the non-SVORI respondents (47% of SVORI and 58% of
non-SVORI).

47%

Anger m anagem ent program *

58%
45%
48%

Medical treatm ent

30%
35%

Substance use treatm ent

23%
20%

Mental health treatm ent

Non-SVORI

5%
3%

Support group for abuse victim s
0%

SVORI

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Nearly half of both groups reported that they needed medical
treatment (45% of SVORI and 48% of non-SVORI). Nearly one
third of both groups reported needing substance use treatment
(30% of SVORI and 35% of non-SVORI). About one quarter of
both groups reported needing mental health treatment (23% of
SVORI and 20% of non-SVORI). Very few of the respondents
reported needing a support group for victims of abuse (5% of
SVORI and 3% of non-SVORI).

45

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

In terms of the bundle scores for this category (see Exhibit 19),
respondents generally reported needing about one third of the
health services, with SVORI respondents needing a smaller
proportion of services in this bundle (average bundle scores
were 30 for SVORI respondents and 33 for non-SVORI
respondents). The difference was driven primarily by higher
reported need for anger management programming by the nonSVORI respondents (as shown in Exhibit 21).
Juvenile and adult male respondents in the SVORI evaluation
reported the same level of need for health. Within this service
bundle, juvenile respondents were significantly less likely than
adult male respondents to report needing medical treatment
and substance use treatment; however, juvenile respondents
were significantly more likely than adult male respondents to
report needing anger management programming.
Employment/Education/Skills Services

All respondents reported
needing some kind of
employment, education,
or skills-related services
to prepare them for
release.

The majority of
respondents recognized
that some aspect of their
own behavior needed to
change to improve their
lives after release.

46

All respondents reported needing some kind of employment,
education, or skills–related services to prepare them for their
return to the community. As shown in Exhibit 22, half or more
of all respondents reported needing each of the services in this
bundle.
The most common need in this service bundle was for more
education after release (93% of SVORI and 95% of nonSVORI). This was followed closely by respondents’ reported
need for job training (89% of SVORI and 88% of non-SVORI)
and a job (87% of SVORI and 86% of non-SVORI).
In addition to education and employment, skills-building
services such as money management and life skills training
were needed by the majority of respondents. Most respondents
recognized that some aspect of their own behavior needed to
change to improve their lives after release. Nearly two thirds of
respondents reported that they needed to change their
attitudes related to criminal behavior, with a significantly
greater need for change being reported by non-SVORI
respondents (66% of SVORI and 76% of non-SVORI). Finally,
more than half of respondents in both groups reported needing
to work on their personal relationships (58% of SVORI and
54% of non-SVORI).

Pre-release Service Needs

Exhibit 22. Self-reported
need for specific
employment, education,
and skills services, by
group

93%
95%

More education

89%
88%

Job training

87%
86%

Job
Life skills

76%
68%

Change in criminal attitudes*

66%
76%
62%
64%

Money m anagem ent skills

58%
54%

Work on personal relationships
0%

20%

40%

60%

SVORI
Non-SVORI
80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

As explained (see discussion of Exhibit 19), the bundle scores
for employment, education, and skills services were very high—
on average, respondents reported needing about three quarters
of the service items in the employment bundle (average scores
of 74 for both groups).
Juvenile and adult male respondents in the SVORI evaluation
reported the same high level of need for employment,
education, and skills-related services. Juvenile respondents
were significantly more likely than adult male respondents to
report needing job training and a job. Juvenile respondents
were significantly less likely than adult male respondents to
report needing money management and work on personal
relationships.
Domestic Violence Services

Very few respondents
reported needing
domestic violence
services.

Respondents were asked about their need for two types of
domestic violence services—batterer intervention programs and
domestic violence support groups—which were combined into a
domestic violence services bundle. Very few respondents
reported needing these services—less than one in every 10
respondents reported needing either of these two types of
programming.
Juvenile and male respondents in the SVORI evaluation
reported similar, low levels of need for domestic violence

47

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

services. No significant differences were found between juvenile
and adult male respondents in reported need for specific
service items in this bundle.

LEVELS OF NEED ACROSS SERVICES
SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents were similar
on most measures and
reported high need across
the spectrum of services.

Exhibit 23. Most
commonly reported
service needs, by group

SVORI and non-SVORI respondents were similar on most
measures and reported high need across the spectrum of
services (see Appendix Exhibit A-3). As shown in Exhibit 23,
SVORI respondents commonly reported needing more
education (93%), a driver’s license (90%), job training (89%),
a job (87%), and life skills training (76%)—levels of need
mirrored by non-SVORI respondents.

93%
95%

More education

90%
91%

Driver's license

89%
88%

Job training

87%
86%

Job
76%

Life skills

68%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

SVORI
Non-SVORI
100%

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.

When asked for their “top two” service needs, nearly half of all
respondents mentioned needing a job after release (47% of
SVORI and 46% of non-SVORI). More than one quarter listed
needing more education (34% of SVORI and 22% of nonSVORI) and a driver’s license (28% of SVORI and 30% of nonSVORI) in their top two needs. About one in every 10
respondents mentioned change in criminal attitudes as one of
their top two needs (7% of SVORI and 11% of non-SVORI).
Few significant differences were found between the two groups
with respect to their top two needs. Non-SVORI respondents
were much more likely than SVORI respondents to mention

48

Pre-release Service Needs

anger management programming (4% of SVORI and 14% of
non-SVORI) and transportation (5% of SVORI and 13% of nonSVORI) as one of their top two needs. SVORI respondents were
much more likely than non-SVORI respondents to mention
more education (34% of SVORI and 22% of non-SVORI) and
access to clothing or food banks (7% of SVORI and 2% of nonSVORI) as one of their top two needs.

On average, juvenile
respondents reported
needing less than half of
all service items.

In addition to the service bundles already described, an “all
services” bundle was created, which captures the level of
overall need across all services (for individual items, see
Appendix Exhibit A-3). On average, juvenile respondents
reported needing less than half of all service items (average
score of 48 for both groups). In comparison, adult male
respondents reported needing more than half of all service
items (average score of 54), a significantly higher level of need
than that reported by juvenile respondents.

49

Pre-release Service
Receipt
The previous section demonstrated the levels of expressed
need for a wide variety of services—particularly those services
critical to moving from confinement to the community,
including those associated with basic transitional needs (e.g.,
education, job training, and transportation). The SVORI
programs were intended to increase access to the services and
programs that address these and other needs. In the
Introduction, profiles of each SVORI site program were
presented that suggested that its programming was providing a
variety of services to SVORI program participants, particularly
in the transition and employment, education, and skills-related
services domains.
In this section pre-release interview results are presented that
enable insight into the delivery of services at the pre-release
phase of SVORI programming for SVORI respondents, as
compared with the “treatment as usual” received by non-SVORI
respondents. These interviews were conducted between July
2004 and November 2005, so individuals would have received
pre-release services and programming during the first one to 2
years of SVORI program development and implementation.
Service receipt bundle scores were calculated as were the
service need bundle scores: the number of “yes” responses to
items in a bundle was divided by the number of bundle items
and multiplied by 100. Individual bundle scores were averaged
to yield overall scores. For service receipt, a “bundle”
comprising service coordination items was added.
This section of the report provides descriptive information about
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents’ levels of service receipt in

51

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

each of the five service bundles. 14 Although the data are not
shown, this section also explores differences and similarities in
service receipt reported by juvenile respondents and adult male
respondents in the SVORI evaluation.

PRE-RELEASE SERVICE RECEIPT BUNDLE
SCORES
SVORI programs
achieved modest
increases in providing
access to a wide range of
services and
programming.

Exhibit 24 shows the service receipt bundle scores for all SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents and demonstrates that SVORI
programs achieved modest increases in providing access to a
wide range of services and programming. Except for the health
services bundle, SVORI respondents reported receipt of more
services, on average. On average, SVORI respondents reported
receipt of a significantly higher level of coordination services,
which included needs assessment and reentry planning, than
non-SVORI respondents (average score of 59 for SVORI and 52
for non-SVORI). In addition, SVORI respondents reported
having received, on average, 54% of the items in the
employment, education, and skills-related bundle, whereas
non-SVORI respondents reported having received 50% of the
items in this bundle. Conversely, non-SVORI respondents
reported receipt of slightly higher levels of service in the health
bundle than SVORI respondents (average score of 44 for SVORI
and 46 for non-SVORI). Although receipt of domestic violencerelated services was low for both groups, SVORI respondents
reported having received, on average, more of the items in this
bundle than non-SVORI respondents (average score of 8 for
SVORI and 5 for non-SVORI).
Consistent with the rehabilitative focus of the juvenile justice
system, service receipt levels reported by juvenile respondents
were fairly high when compared with those of adult male
respondents in the SVORI evaluation. Within service receipt
bundles, juvenile respondents reported significantly higher
levels of service receipt than their adult counterparts in the
employment, education, and skills-related services bundle, the
coordination services bundle, and the health services bundle.
The following subsections provide additional detail on individual
service receipt bundles.
14

52

Because only 30 juvenile respondents (less than 10% of the sample)
reported that they had children, the discussion of the receipt of
child-related services was omitted from this section.

Pre-release Service Receipt

Exhibit 24. Service
receipt bundle scores
across service bundles,
by group

59

Coordination services*

52
54
50

Em ploym ent/education/skills
services

44
46

Health services
24
21

Transitional services

SVORI

8

Dom estic violence services

Non-SVORI

5
0

20

40

60

80

100

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Coordination Services

SVORI respondents were
more likely than nonSVORI respondents to
report that they had
received coordination
services.

The use of needs assessments and the coordination of services
were integral to the concept of the SVORI programs—both as
defined by the federal funders and as described by the SVORI
programs—in order to ensure that identified needs were met
with appropriate services and programming. For example, in
response to the evaluation team’s 2005 program director
survey, 81% of the juvenile program directors said that they
were attempting to provide all needed services to participants
rather than focusing on a specific service or set of services.
Exhibit 25 shows the proportions of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents who reported having received each of the seven
coordination services. SVORI respondents were more likely
than non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received
coordination services. Specifically, SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely to report having received release
planning (78% of SVORI and 65% of non-SVORI), development
of a reentry plan (55% of SVORI and 41% of non-SVORI), and
meeting with a caseworker or social worker (42% of SVORI and
30% of non-SVORI).

53

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 25. Self-reported
receipt of specific
coordination services,
by group

90%
88%

Meeting w ith case m anager

83%
78%

Needs assessm ent

78%

Release planning*

65%
55%

Reentry plan*

41%
46%
46%

Release needs assessm ent

42%

Meeting w ith casew orker

30%

Assistance accessing casew orker
or social w orker

26%
24%
0%

20%

40%

SVORI
Non-SVORI
60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Only about half of SVORI
respondents reported
having develop a reentry
plan or having received a
needs assessment to
prepare for release.

While the overall levels of service receipt were fairly high, only
about half of SVORI respondents reported having developed a
reentry plan (55%) or having received a needs assessment
specifically designed to help in preparation for release (46%).
Compared to adult male respondents in the SVORI evaluation,
juvenile respondents were significantly more likely to report
receiving most of the items in the coordination services bundle.
Most notably, juvenile respondents were much more likely to
report that they had met with a case manager, received a
needs assessment, and worked with someone to plan for
release.
Transition services

In general, SVORI
respondents were more
likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that
they had received
transition services

54

Transition services are programs and assistance that help
individuals prepare for returning to the community, including
assistance finding housing and transportation. Exhibit 26 shows
responses about 30 days before release for the 12 transition
services included in this bundle. In general, SVORI respondents
were more likely to report that they had received transition
services. Specifically, SVORI respondents were significantly
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had participated in release preparation classes (65% of SVORI
and 54% of non-SVORI) and had received help finding a place
to live (30% of SVORI and 19% of non-SVORI). Although

Pre-release Service Receipt

Exhibit 26. Self-reported receipt of specific transition services, by group

Release preparation program s*

54%

65%

43%
42%

Release preparation class

39%
39%

Mentoring
Help finding a place to live*

19%

30%

24%
20%

Help finding legal assistance

22%
17%

Help finding transportation

20%
18%

Help w ith docum ents

18%
16%

Help obtaining a driver's license
Help accessing clothing/food banks

5%

11%
10%

Help accessing public health care

17%

SVORI

9%
7%

Help accessing financial assistance

Non-SVORI

3%
2%

Help accessing public financial assistance
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

SVORI respondents reported a higher level of service receipt
than non-SVORI respondents, their service levels were far less
than 100%. Overall, less than one quarter of SVORI
respondents reported having received 8 of the 12 items in this
bundle, including help finding legal assistance (24%), finding
transportation (22%), obtaining documents such as a birth
certificate or Social Security number (20%), obtaining a driver’s
license (18%), accessing clothing/food banks (11%), accessing
public health care (10%), and accessing financial assistance
(9%) or public financial assistance (3%).
Juvenile and adult male respondents in the SVORI evaluation
reported the same level of transition services; however, several
specific differences emerged. For example, juvenile
respondents were significantly more likely than adult male
respondents to report that they had received mentoring
services and legal assistance. Juvenile respondents were
significantly less likely than their adult counterparts to report
that they had taken a class to prepare for release, had received

55

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

help to obtain documents, or had received help accessing public
financial assistance.
Health Services

SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely
than non-SVORI
respondents to report that
they had participated in
Alcoholics
Anonymous/Narcotics
Anonymous and received
information on accessing
alcohol/other drug
treatment in the
community.

At their pre-release interview, most respondents reported that
they had received some type of medical treatment (73% of
SVORI and 68% of non-SVORI). Exhibit 27 shows the
proportion of each group who reported having received each of
the different types of medical services.
SVORI respondents were more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that they had received preventive
medical services (54% of SVORI and 43% of non-SVORI) and
information on accessing physical health care (23% of SVORI
and 17% of non-SVORI) or mental health care (18% of SVORI
and 15% of non-SVORI). In addition, SVORI respondents were
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had received substance use treatment (60% of SVORI and 57%
of non-SVORI), participated in drug education classes (53% of
SVORI and 50% of non-SVORI), and received group counseling
for substance use problems (43% of SVORI and 40% of nonSVORI). SVORI respondents were significantly more likely to
report that they had participated in Alcoholics Anonymous or
Narcotics Anonymous (40% of SVORI and 28% of non-SVORI)
and had received information on accessing substance use
treatment in the community (42% of SVORI and 29% of nonSVORI). Conversely, non-SVORI respondents were significantly
more likely than SVORI respondents to report that they had
participated in anger management classes (51% of SVORI and
62% of non-SVORI). Non-SVORI respondents were also more
likely to report that they had received dental services (47% of
SVORI and 53% of non-SVORI), had received individual
substance use counseling (24% of SVORI and 29% of nonSVORI) and had received mental health treatment (25% of
SVORI and 31% of non-SVORI).
Very few respondents in either group reported that they had
participated in groups designed to help victims of abuse (7% of
SVORI and 5% of non-SVORI), had received any detoxification
(2% of each group), or had received methadone treatment (1%
of each group).
On average, juvenile respondents reported a significantly
higher level of health services receipt than adult male

56

Pre-release Service Receipt

Exhibit 27. Self-reported receipt of specific health services, by group
73%
68%

Any m edical treatm ent
45%
46%

Medical treatm ent for physical health problem
Preventive m edical services

54%

43%

47%
53%

Dental services
Prescription m edication for physical health
problem

44%
39%
23%
17%
25%
31%

Inform ation on accessing physical health care
Any m ental health treatm ent

19%
24%

Individual m ental counseling
Group m ental health counseling

19%
19%

Inform ation on accessing m ental health care

18%
15%
60%
57%

Any substance use treatm ent
Alcoholics Anonym ous/Narcotics Anonym ous*

28%

40%
53%
50%

Drug education

43%
40%

Group substance use counseling
24%
29%

Individual substance use counseling
10%
12%

Residential substance use treatm ent
Methadone

1%
1%

Detox

2%
2%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

Inform ation on accessing substance use
treatm ent*

29%

42%
51%

Anger m anagem ent program s*

62%

7%
5%

Victim s' group for abuse
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

respondents in the SVORI evaluation. Juvenile respondents
were significantly more likely than their adult counterparts to
report that they had received 11 of the 21 specific health
services, including medical treatment, substance use counseling
and treatment, mental health counseling and treatment, and
anger management programming.

57

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Employment/Education/Skills Services

SVORI respondents were
much more likely than
non-SVORI respondents
to report that they had
received employment
services.

Nearly all respondents reported they had received some kind of
employment, education, or skills-related service while confined
(97% of SVORI and 99% of non-SVORI). As shown in
Exhibit 28, the most frequently reported item in this bundle was
education services, with 94% of SVORI respondents and 95%
of non-SVORI respondents reporting that they had received this
type of service. SVORI respondents were significantly more
likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they had
received employment services (43% of SVORI and 27% of nonSVORI). In addition, SVORI respondents were more likely to
report that they had received money management services
(24% of SVORI and 17% of non-SVORI), other life skills
training (52% of SVORI and 47% of non-SVORI), and
assistance with personal relationships (39% of SVORI and 35%
of non-SVORI). Non-SVORI respondents were significantly more
likely than SVORI respondents to report that they had received
training to change their attitudes toward criminal behavior
(70% of SVORI and 79% of non-SVORI).
Respondents were also asked about a variety of services
related to finding employment in the community after release.
About one third of SVORI respondents reported that they had
received advice about how to behave on the job (37%), about
job interviewing (36%), or about answering questions from
potential employers about their criminal history (32%). By
contrast, less than one quarter of non-SVORI respondents had
received advice about job behavior (22%) or job interviewing
(23%), and only about one out of every seven had received
advice about answering questions about criminal history (15%).
In addition, twice as many SVORI respondents as non-SVORI
respondents reported that they had participated in employment
readiness programs (21% of SVORI and 11% of non-SVORI).
Roughly one fifth of SVORI respondents reported they had
composed a resume (19%) while confined, compared with one
tenth of non-SVORI respondents (10%).
On average, juvenile respondents reported a significantly
higher level of receipt for employment, education, and skillsrelated services than adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation. Juvenile respondents were significantly more likely
than their adult counterparts to report that they had received 8

58

Pre-release Service Receipt

Exhibit 28. Self-reported receipt of specific employment, education, and skills services, by
group

Employment/Education/Skills Services
Received any employment services*
Participated in employment readiness program*
Participated in job training program
Talked to potential employer
Received advice about job interviewing*
Received advice about answering questions about delinquency history*
Received advice about how to behave on the job*
Received names of people to contact in community to find a job*
Composed a resume
Received any educational services
Received money management services
Received other life skills training
Received assistance with personal relationships
Received training to change criminal behavior attitudes*

SVORI
43%
21%
23%
11%
36%
32%
37%
19%
22%
94%
24%
52%
39%
70%

Non-SVORI
27%
11%
15%
7%
23%
15%
22%
10%
18%
95%
17%
47%
35%
79%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

of the 14 specific items included in this service bundle,
including educational services, training to change their attitudes
toward criminal behavior, and other life skills training.
Domestic Violence Services
Domestic violence services included two programs: a batterer
intervention program and a domestic violence support group.
Overall, 12% of the SVORI and 8% of the non-SVORI
respondents reported having participated in domestic violence
support groups, while only 3% of SVORI and 2% of non-SVORI
respondents reported that they had participated in batterer
intervention programs.
Juvenile and adult male respondents in the SVORI evaluation
reported similar, low levels of receipt for domestic violence
services. No significant differences were found between juvenile
and adult male respondents in the receipt of specific domestic
violence services.

LEVELS OF RECEIPT ACROSS SERVICES
Appendix Exhibit A-4 shows the proportion of each group who
reported that they had received each of the 60 services
included in the pre-release service receipt bundles. Overall, the
SVORI respondents were more likely than non-SVORI

59

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

respondents to report having received most of these services
before release from confinement.
Not surprisingly, as shown in Exhibit 29, nearly all respondents
reported having received education services during confinement
(94% of SVORI and 95% of non-SVORI). For the other services
commonly reported as received, SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported similar receipt levels, with SVORI
respondents reporting slightly higher rates of service receipt.
For example, SVORI respondents were more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report that they had met with a case
manager before release (90% of SVORI and 88% of nonSVORI), received a needs assessment before release (83% of
SVORI and 76% of non-SVORI), received release planning
(78% of SVORI and 65% of non-SVORI), and received any
medical treatment (73% of SVORI and 68% of non-SVORI).

Exhibit 29. Most
commonly reported
services received, by
group

Educational
services

94%
95%

Meeting w ith
case m anager

90%
88%

Needs
assessm ent

83%
78%
78%

Release planning*

65%

Any m edical
treatm ent

SVORI

73%
68%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Non-SVORI

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Overall, SVORI respondents were more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that they had received most (72%) of
the pre-release services measured (see Appendix Exhibit A-3).
In fact, SVORI respondents were significantly more likely than
non-SVORI respondents to report they had received nearly one
quarter of all of the service measured. Non-SVORI respondents
were more likely than SVORI respondents to report they had
received only 10 (16%) of the pre-release services. For only 3

60

Pre-release Service Receipt

of these services (help in accessing public health care,
participation in anger management programs, and training to
change criminal-behavior attitudes) was the difference in
service receipt between the two groups significant.

Respondents reported
having received about
one third of the service
items, on average, with
SVORI respondents
reporting a slightly
higher level of service
receipt than non-SVORI
respondents.

As with the “all services” need bundle, an “all services” receipt
bundle was created, which captures the level of overall prerelease service receipt across all 60 services measured.
Respondents reported having received about one third of the
service items, on average, with SVORI respondents reporting
that they had received slightly more services than non-SVORI
respondents (average service receipt bundle scores of 39 for
SVORI and 36 for non-SVORI). Compared with adult male
respondents in the SVORI evaluation, juvenile respondents
reported that they had received significantly more services, on
average.

61

Post-release
Experiences of the
SVORI and NonSVORI Comparison
Respondents
Examined in this section are post-release service needs and
receipt for juvenile males who participated in SVORI
programming, as well as their reentry outcomes, especially as
compared with those of juvenile males who received only
“treatment as usual.” Because juveniles were not randomly
assigned to SVORI treatment, potential bias associated with
treatment group membership must be adjusted for.
As detailed in Lattimore and Steffey (2009), propensity
modeling was employed to model the likelihood of SVORI
status. The propensity score weights developed from these
models were applied to the raw data; therefore, all of the data
presented in this section are weighted to adjust for selection
bias (unlike the “Pre-release Characteristics of the SVORI and
non-SVORI Comparison Respondents” section, which presents
unweighted data). Because it is of interest to examine patterns
across waves in a comparable manner (beginning with the prerelease interviews), weighted Wave 1 (pre-release) data are
presented in several places in this section.
To assess whether SVORI participation had a significant impact
on a range of outcomes, we ran a series of weighted bivariate
regression (for continuous outcomes) and logistic regression
(for dichotomous outcomes) models (with treatment status as

63

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

the independent variable and the outcome of interest as the
dependent variable). Due to the relatively small sample sizes,
regression models were not always appropriate and were
occasionally excluded from the exhibits; weighted means are
presented for all outcomes. The exhibits present regression
results only when there were at least 20 respondents (with a
minimum of 10 SVORI and 10 non-SVORI respondents) in each
cell. For example, at the 3-month post-release interview only 7
SVORI and 7 non-SVORI respondents reported needing money
management skills; because these cells are too small to render
logistic regression results meaningful, only weighted means are
presented.
Importantly, although descriptive comparisons of trends across
time are discussed, the number of respondents varied at each
wave, and significance tests of differences across time were not
conducted. The outcome analyses were not limited to
individuals who responded to all interviews, so the possibility
that some of the differences across time result from differences
in respondents across waves cannot be ruled out.
After presenting information about service needs reported by
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents at each interview wave,
service receipt from the pre- and post-release interview waves
is discussed. This section is followed by an assessment of
whether SVORI programming increased access to programs and
services. In addition, a presentation of reentry outcomes for
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents is provided. Study
conclusions and implications complete the section.

POST-RELEASE SERVICE NEEDS
The three waves of post-release interviews provided another
opportunity for the respondents to identify the extent to which
they needed a wide range of specific services after release from
confinement. 15 Much as with the pre-release interviews, the
evaluation team asked questions about 28 different types of
services and then grouped them into five service categories or
“bundles.” These bundles are

15

64

Responses were “a lot,” “a little,” or “not at all.” These responses
were subsequently recoded to “some” and “not at all.”

Post-release Experiences

ƒ

services to help with transitioning to the community;

ƒ

health care services (including substance use and
mental health treatment);

ƒ

employment, education, and skills services;

ƒ

domestic violence–related services; and

ƒ

child-related services.

Following the approach to analyzing pre-release service needs,
the evaluation team developed post-release service need
bundle scores from the interview data to summarize needs for
each domain. Scores for each individual were generated by
summing zero/one indicators for whether the individual did
not/did report needing each of the items within a bundle; then
this sum was divided by the number of items in the bundle. At
the individual-respondent level, this bundle score can be
interpreted as the proportion of the bundle that the individual
reported needing.
This section of the report provides information about SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents’ needs for an array of services at
each of the four interview waves (pre-release and 3, 9, and 15
months post-release). Because few juveniles reported that they
had a need for domestic violence–related services (less than
10% of the sample at each post-release interview wave), the
discussion of this service need was omitted from this section of
the report. As in the pre-release needs section, the discussion
of child-related service needs was also omitted from this
section, because of the low number of respondents who
reported that they had children.
Although the data are not shown, this section also explores the
differences and similarities in service needs reported by
juvenile respondents and adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation.

SERVICE NEED BUNDLE SCORES
Exhibit 30 shows the service need bundle scores for all SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents at each of the four interview
waves (pre-release and 3, 9, and 15 months post-release). The
exhibit also shows the proportion of respondents who reported
needing specific items in each service bundle. Needs for specific
items are discussed in the subsections that follow.

65

Transition
Legal assistance
Caseworker
After-school/weekend/
summer sports program
Financial assistance
Public financial assistance
Public health care
insurance
Mentor
Documents for employment
Place to live
Transportation
Driver’s license
Clothing/food banks
Health
Medical treatment
Mental health treatment
Substance use treatment
Victim support group
Anger management
Employment/Education/Life
Skills
Job training
Job
Education
Money management skills
Life skills
Work on personal
relationships
Change in criminal attitudes
Domestic Violence
Batterer intervention
Support group
Child-related services
a
Child support payments
Modification in child support
b
debt
a
Modification in custody
a
Parenting skills
a
Child care

Wave 1
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
52
49
2.57
63%
51%
0.50
NA
NA
—

Wave 2
NonSVORI SVORI
SE OR
Mean Mean Est.
SE
OR
2.70 NA
38
39
−0.48
3.20 NA
0.25 1.65 *
33%
37% −0.20 31.00 0.82
— —
6%
7% −0.18
0.55 0.84

NA
50%
21%

NA
—
48%
0.08
24% −0.21

— —
0.24 1.08
0.29 0.81

33%
25%
13%

26%
35%
17%

0.31
−0.48
−0.34

0.34 1.37
0.31 0.62
0.40 0.71

28%
27%
10%

25% 0.19 0.38 1.21
35% −0.42 0.31 0.66
19% −0.71 0.39 0.49

23%
36%
17%

20%
0.20
47% −0.47
20% −0.16

0.45 1.22
0.29 0.63
0.36 0.85

50%
65%
59%
24%
66%
90%
41%
30
44%
25%
29%
5%
48%

55%
59%
52%
28%
62%
91%
35%
32
47%
19%
36%
3%
57%

−0.17
0.25
0.27
−0.22
0.17
−0.09
0.26
−2.04
−0.13
0.34
−0.28
0.59
−0.36

0.24
0.25
0.24
0.27
0.25
0.40
0.25
3.17
0.24
0.29
0.26
0.59
0.24

0.84
1.29
1.31
0.80
1.19
0.92
1.29
NA
0.88
1.40
0.75
1.80
0.70

40%
38%
27%
28%
65%
86%
33%
18
37%
9%
13%
0%
29%

39%
32%
18%
38%
72%
82%
34%
15
33%
9%
10%
2%
22%

0.05
0.28
0.49
−0.41
−0.31
0.29
−0.07
2.30
0.18
−0.02
0.30
—
0.33

0.29
0.30
0.35
0.30
0.31
0.37
0.30
3.02
0.29
0.49
0.44
—
0.33

1.05
1.33
1.64
0.66
0.73
1.34
0.93
NA
1.19
0.98
1.35
—
1.40

39%
34%
35%
40%
60%
69%
43%
17
32%
11%
11%
0%
30%

42%
31%
30%
49%
66%
75%
39%
15
27%
11%
11%
1%
24%

−0.15
0.12
0.23
−0.35
−0.24
−0.27
0.15
2.18
0.25
−0.04
0.06
—
0.33

0.29
0.30
0.32
0.29
0.31
0.34
0.30
2.98
0.32
0.44
0.48
—
0.33

0.86
1.13
1.26
0.70
0.79
0.76
1.16
NA
1.29
0.96
1.06
—
1.39

34%
30%
31%
37%
59%
67%
29%
17
35%
9%
11%
2%
29%

40%
37%
21%
50%
74%
76%
41%
18
38%
16%
10%
2%
24%

−0.28
−0.30
0.55
−0.54
−0.66
−0.44
−0.51
−0.56
−0.13
—
0.21
—
0.28

0.29
0.30
0.32
0.28
0.31
0.30
0.30
2.78
0.30
—
0.41
—
0.31

0.76
0.74
1.73
0.58
0.52 *
0.65
0.60
NA
0.88
—
1.23
—
1.32

75
88%
86%
95%
64%
78%

75
0.66
87%
0.02
88% −0.19
95% −0.05
66% −0.09
71%
0.33

2.74
0.40
0.38
0.48
0.25
0.26

NA
1.02
0.83
0.96
0.92
1.38

56
67%
74%
88%
46%
52%

52
59%
69%
87%
44%
42%

3.56
0.33
0.21
0.05
0.06
0.42

4.19
0.30
0.33
0.41
0.29
0.29

NA
1.39
1.24
1.06
1.06
1.52

63
71%
72%
91%
52%
72%

54
65%
66%
85%
46%
55%

9.54
0.27
0.27
0.62
0.23
0.76

4.00
0.30
0.31
0.45
0.29
0.29

NA *
1.32
1.31
1.86
1.26
2.14 *

58
56%
65%
85%
49%
64%

59
64%
74%
91%
42%
62%

−1.57
−0.36
−0.42
−0.50
0.28
0.08

3.99
0.29
0.30
0.40
0.29
0.28

NA
0.70
0.66
0.60
1.32
1.09

60%
70%
7
6%
9%
29
22%

53%
0.27 0.24 1.31
75% −0.26 0.26 0.77
9
−1.30 3.00 NA
8%
—
— —
10% −0.12 0.43 0.89
27
2.91 11.71 NA
16%
—
— —

40%
34%
9
7%
12%
19
5%

36%
0.17
0.30 1.19
34%
0.01
0.30 1.01
4
5.15
3.97 NA
4%
—
—
—
5%
—
—
—
41
−21.69 12.20 NA
27%
—
—
—

46%
47%
6
6%
7%
50
17%

33%
38%
3
4%
2%
26
11%

0.55 0.30 1.73
0.35 0.29 1.42
2.80 3.39 NA
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
NA
—
—
—

44%
38%
3
3%
2%
24
4%

40%
0.16
46% −0.33
5
−2.50
5%
—
5%
—
35 −10.22
29%
—

0.29
0.30
2.77
—
—
8.87
—

1.17
0.72
NA
—
—
NA
—

100%
28%
80%
72%

100%
17%
42%
32%

—
—
—
—

0%
19%
56%
18%

0%
19%
64%
17%

100%
24%
42%
24%

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

0%
16%
39%
17%

100%
41%
60%
35%

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Wave 3
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est. SE
OR
40
41
−0.86 3.47 NA
49%
37% 0.50 0.30 1.60
7%
5% 0.24 0.53 1.28

—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—

Wave 4
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
37
42
−5.74
31%
35% −0.18
4%
10%
—

SE
3.43
0.30
—

OR
NA
0.83
—

100%
—
—
—
16%
—
—
—
59% −0.10 0.62 0.90
33%
—
—
—
(continued)

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

66

Exhibit 30. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on service need

Exhibit 30. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on service need (continued)

All Services Need

Wave 1
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
49
49
0.61

SE OR
2.18 NA

Wave 2
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
36
35
1.32

SE
2.75

OR
NA

Wave 3
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est. SE
38
35
2.81 2.69

OR
NA

Wave 4
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
35
38
−3.60

SE OR
2.69 NA

Notes: Regression results not shown when cell sizes <10. NA = not applicable. Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release;
Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
a

Asked only of respondents with children.

b

Asked only of respondents who owed back child support.

*p < 0.05.

Post-release Experiences

67

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

The levels of need
reported by SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents
were similar at each
interview wave.

From the service need bundle scores across the interview
waves, as shown in Exhibit 30, several themes emerge about
respondents’ service needs. First, the levels of need for services
reported by SVORI and non-SVORI respondents were similar at
each interview wave. The only significant difference in the level
of need reported by the two groups was for employment,
education, and skills-related services 9 months after release
(average bundle scores of 63 and 54 for SVORI and nonSVORI, respectively).
Second, the levels of need for services reported by SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents before release were, on average,
higher than their reported needs after release. For example,
respondents reported needing about half of the items in the
transition service bundle before release (average bundle scores
of 52 and 49 for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents,
respectively; however, in the 15 months after release,
respondents reported needing about 40% of transition services.

The levels of expressed
need across the 15-month
follow-up period were
consistently the highest
for employment,
education, and skills
services.

Finally, the levels of expressed need across the 15-month
follow-up period were consistently the highest for employment,
education, and skills-related services. For the entire follow-up
period, respondents reported needing at least half of the
services included in this bundle.
While the levels of service need reported by juvenile and adult
male respondents in the SVORI evaluation were very similar
before release, adult male respondents often reported
significantly higher levels of need after release. Across the 15month post-release follow-up period, adult male respondents
consistently reported needing significantly more transition,
health, and employment, education, or skills-related services.
The following subsections provide additional information on the
individual service bundles.
Transition services
Before release, nearly all respondents (98% of SVORI and 99%
of non-SVORI) reported needing at least some transition
services to address immediate needs upon release. Similarly, at
least 90% of respondents reported needing some transition
services at each post-release interview.

68

Post-release Experiences

Exhibit 31 displays the transition services need bundle scores
from pre-release (Wave 1) through 15-months post-release
(Wave 4). As already noted, the levels of need for transition
services reported by SVORI and non-SVORI respondents were
highest before release, with respondents reporting that they
needed about half of the services contained in this bundle
(average scores of 52 and 49 for SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively). After release, respondents
consistently reported needing only about 40% of the items in
this bundle. No significant differences were found between
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents in their levels of need for
transition services at any of the interview waves.

Exhibit 31. Average level
of need for transition
services, by interview
wave and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80
60

52

49
38

40

39

40

41

37

42

20
0
Wave 1

Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release;
Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 =
15 months post-release.

Obtaining a driver’s
license was the most
commonly reported
transitional need across
all interview waves.

Exhibit 30 shows the proportion of respondents who reported
needing specific items in the transition services bundle at each
interview wave. As shown in the exhibit, obtaining a driver’s
license was the most commonly reported transitional need
across all interview waves. Before release, nearly all
respondents reported needing to obtain a driver’s license (90%
of SVORI and 91% of non-SVORI). Fifteen months after
release, a large majority of respondents reported needing to
obtain a driver’s license (67% of SVORI and 76% of nonSVORI).
Transportation was another high-need transition item during
the follow-up period. Before release, more than 60% of all
respondents reported needing transportation (66% of SVORI
and 62% of non-SVORI). Although significantly fewer SVORI

69

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

respondents than non-SVORI respondents reported needing
transportation 15-months after release, a majority of
respondents in both groups reported having this need (59% of
SVORI and 74% of non-SVORI).
Notably, a decrease in the need for documents for employment
emerged (e.g., Social Security card, identification card) during
the study period. Before release, more than half of all
respondents reported needing these types of documents (59%
of SVORI and 52% of non-SVORI). Fifteen months after
release, about one quarter of respondents reported that they
needed such documents (31% of SVORI and 21% of nonSVORI).
Decreases in need were also observed for other transition
services. As shown in Exhibit 30, before release, at least half of
all respondents reported needing a mentor, legal assistance,
and public health care insurance. Fifteen months after release,
about one third of all respondents reported needing each of
these services. Similarly, before release, nearly half of all
respondents reported that they needed financial assistance. By
15-months post-release, about 40% of all respondents reported
needing this type of assistance. No significant differences were
found between SVORI and non-SVORI respondents in the postrelease levels of need for these services.
At their pre-release interviews, respondents reported needing
basic services, such as housing and access to clothing and food
banks. More than one third of all respondents reported needing
access to clothing and food banks after release (41% of SVORI
and 35% of non-SVORI) and more than one quarter of all
respondents reported needing a place to live (24% of SVORI
and 28% of non-SVORI). In the 15 months after release, many
respondents continued to report needing these basic services.
In fact, compared with the expressed need for housing before
release, the need after release, in each group at each postrelease interview, was higher (see Exhibit 30).
During the three post-release interviews, respondents were
asked about their needs for a child welfare caseworker and
afterschool, weekend, or summer sports programming. At each
of the post-release interviews, less than 10% of respondents
reported that they needed a child welfare caseworker, and
about 25% of all respondents reported that they needed

70

Post-release Experiences

afterschool, weekend, or summer sports programming (see
Exhibit 30).
Compared with adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation, juvenile respondents reported significantly lower
levels of need for transition services across all interview waves.
Throughout the follow-up period, juvenile respondents were
significantly less likely than adult male respondents to report
that they needed financial assistance, public financial
assistance, or public health care assistance.
Health Services
Before release, nearly three quarters of all respondents
reported needing some kind of health service (71% of SVORI
and 77% of non-SVORI). During the post-release follow-up
period, about half of all respondents reported needing some
kind of health service.
Exhibit 32 shows respondents’ reported levels of need for
health services across all interview waves. Before release,
respondents reported needing nearly one third of the items
included in the health services bundle (average scores of 30
and 32 for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively).
After release, respondents consistently reported needing less
than one fifth of the items in this bundle. No significant
differences were found between SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents in their level of need for health services at any of
the interview waves.

Exhibit 32. Average level
of need for health
services, by interview
wave and group

100
80
SVORI

60
40

Non-SVORI
30

32
18

20

15

17

15

17

18

0
Wave 1

Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Exhibit shows weighted data. Wave 1 = 30 days
pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months postrelease; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

71

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Before release, the most
common health service
need was for anger
management
programming. After
release, the most common
health service need was
medical treatment.

Exhibit 30 shows the proportion of respondents who reported
needing specific items in the health services bundle at each
interview wave. As shown in the exhibit, the most common
health service need before release was for anger management
programming (48% of SVORI and 57% of non-SVORI). At each
of the post-release interviews, however, the most common
health service need was medical treatment. About one third of
all respondents consistently reported that they needed medical
treatment. During the 15 months after release from
confinement, about one quarter of all respondents reported that
they needed anger management programming.
As shown in Exhibit 30, before release, about one third of all
respondents reported that they needed substance use
treatment (29% of SVORI and 36% of non-SVORI), and nearly
one quarter of all respondents reported that they needed
mental health treatment (25% of SVORI and 19% of nonSVORI). After release, far fewer respondents reported that they
needed either of these services. For example, 15 months after
release, 11% of all respondents reported that they needed
substance use treatment (11% of SVORI and 10% of nonSVORI) and 12% reported that they needed mental health
treatment (9% of SVORI and 16% of non-SVORI). During the
15-month follow-up period, very few of the respondents
reported needing a support group for victims of abuse.
Before release, juvenile and adult male respondents in the
SVORI evaluation reported the same level of need for health
services; however, during the post-release follow-up period,
juvenile respondents consistently reported lower levels of need
than adult male respondents. After release, juvenile
respondents were significantly less likely than adult male
respondents to report needing medical treatment, substance
use treatment, or mental health treatment.
Employment/Education/Skills Services
Before release, all respondents reported needing some kind of
employment, education, or skills–related services. Similarly, at
least 93% of respondents in each group reported needing some
of these services at each post-release interview.

72

Post-release Experiences

Before release, all
respondents reported
needing some kind of
employment, education,
or skills–related services.
Similarly, at least 93% of
respondents in each
group reported needing
these services at each
post-release interview.

Exhibit 33. Average level
of need for employment,
education, or skillsrelated services, by
interview wave and
group

Exhibit 33 shows respondents’ reported levels of need for
employment, education, or skills-related services across all
interview waves. Before release from confinement, respondents
in both groups reported needing three quarters of the services
in this bundle (average bundle score of 75 for each group).
After release, the reported levels of need for employment,
education, or skills-related services dropped but remained
consistently high for both groups. As shown in the exhibit,
respondents reported that they needed more than half of the
services in this bundle at each post-release interview. Nine
months after release from confinement, SVORI respondents
reported a significantly higher level of need than non-SVORI
respondents (average bundle scores of 63 and 54 for SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents, respectively).

100
80

SVORI
75

Non-SVORI

75
56

60

63
52

54

Wave 2

Wave 3*

58

59

40
20
0
Wave 1

Wave 4

Note: Data are weighted. Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months
post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months postrelease.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Across all interview
waves, the most common
need in the employment,
education, or skillsrelated bundle was for
more education.

Exhibit 30 shows the proportion of respondents who reported
needing specific items in the employment, education, or skillsrelated services bundle at each interview wave. Across all
interview waves, the most common need in this service bundle
was for more education. Before release, 95% of respondents in
each group reported that they needed more education. At each
post-release interview, at least 85% of respondents in each
group reported needing more education.
At each interview wave, a majority of respondents reported
that they needed job training or a job. Before release, nearly 9

73

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

of every 10 respondents reported that they needed job training
(88% of SVORI and 87% of non-SVORI) or a job (86% of
SVORI and 88% of non-SVORI). Fifteen months after release,
about 6 of every 10 respondents reported that they needed job
training (56% of SVORI and 64% of non-SVORI), and about 7
of 10 respondents reported that they needed a job (65% of
SVORI and 74% of non-SVORI).
As shown in Exhibit 30, before release from confinement, a
majority of respondents reported needing skills-building
services such as money management (64% of SVORI and 66%
of non-SVORI) and life skills training (78% of SVORI and 71%
of non-SVORI). While fewer respondents reported needing
these services after release, nearly half of all respondents
reported that they needed money management skills (49% of
SVORI and 42% of non-SVORI), and more than half of all
respondents reported that they needed life skills training (64%
of SVORI and 62% of non-SVORI) at their 15-month postrelease interview.
Exhibit 30 shows that, before release, most respondents
reported that they needed to work on their personal
relationships (60% of SVORI and 53% of non-SVORI) or to
change their attitudes toward criminal behavior (70% of SVORI
and 75% of non-SVORI). At each post-release interview, less
than half of all respondents reported that they felt the need to
change these aspects of their lives.
As mentioned earlier, before release from confinement juvenile
and adult male respondents in the SVORI evaluation reported
the same high level of need for employment, education, or
skills-related services. Although the level of need reported by
juvenile respondents remained high after release, their level of
need was significantly lower than that reported by adult male
respondents. After release, juvenile respondents were
significantly less likely than adult male respondents to report
that they needed to work on their personal relationships or that
they needed money management skills training.

74

Post-release Experiences

LEVELS OF NEED ACROSS SERVICES
Although the levels of
service needs reported by
SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents generally
decreased after release, a
few service-item needs
remained consistently
high.

No significant differences
were found in the average
levels of overall service
need reported by SVORI
and non-SVORI
respondents at any of the
interview waves.

Before release from confinement, SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported similar high levels of need across a wide
array of services. Although the levels of service need reported
by respondents generally decreased after release, a few
service-items needs remained consistently high. For example,
at each of the post-release interviews at least half of SVORI
respondents consistently reported that they needed more
education, a driver’s license, a job, job training, transportation,
and life skills training (Exhibit 34). Similar levels of need for
these services were reported by non-SVORI respondents.
In addition to the service bundles already described, an “all
services” bundle was created, which captures the level of
overall need across all services at each interview wave.
Exhibit 35 shows the average service need bundle scores for
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents at each interview wave.
Before release from confinement, respondents in both groups
reported needing nearly half of all service items (average score
of 49 for each group). After release, respondents in both
groups consistently reported needing fewer service items—
slightly more than one third of the services, on average, at
each post-release period. No significant differences were found
in the average levels of overall service need reported by SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents at any of the interview waves.
Compared with adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation, juvenile respondents reported needing significantly
fewer service items at each interview wave.

POST-RELEASE SERVICE RECEIPT
Results from the four interview waves enable insight into the
delivery of services and programs as reported by SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents throughout the entire study period.
These results show whether SVORI programming led to
increases in participants’ access to an array of services and
programming.
Analogous to the service need bundle scores, service receipt
bundle scores were calculated: the number of “yes” responses
to items in a bundle was divided by the number of bundle items
and multiplied by 100. At the individual-respondent level, this
bundle score can be interpreted as the proportion of the bundle

75

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 34. Most commonly reported needs, by interview wave and group

88%
87%
91%
85%

More education

85%
91%
86%
82%
69%

Driver's license

75%
67%
76%
74%
69%
72%
66%

Job

65%
74%
67%

SVORI Wave 2

59%
71%

Job training

Non-SVORI Wave 2

65%

SVORI Wave 3

56%
64%

Non-SVORI Wave 3
SVORI Wave 4

65%
72%
60%

Transportation

Non-SVORI Wave 4

66%
59%
74%
52%
42%
72%

Life skills

55%
64%
62%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months
post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

76

Post-release Experiences

Exhibit 35. Level of need
for all services, by
interview wave and
group

100
SVORI

80
60

Non-SVORI
49

49
36

40

35

38

35

35

38

20
0
Wave 1

Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release;
Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 =
15 months post-release.

that the individual reported receiving. Individual bundle scores
were averaged to yield overall scores. In addition to the service
need bundles introduced previously, a bundle of service
coordination items was included.
Next information is provided about SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents’ level of service receipt in the coordination,
transition, health, and employment, education, and skillsrelated bundles at each of the four interview waves (showing
the weighted service receipt scores, including those for the prerelease time period as a reference point). 16 Although the data
are not shown, service receipt reported by juvenile respondents
as compared with receipt reported by adult male respondents in
the SVORI evaluation is briefly discussed. This discussion is
based on data that are unweighted.

SERVICE RECEIPT BUNDLE SCORES
Exhibit 36 shows the service receipt bundle scores for all SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents at each of the four interview
waves (pre-release and 3, 9, and 15 months post-release). The
exhibit also shows the proportion of respondents who reported

16

The discussion of domestic violence–related service receipt has been
omitted because less than 2% of juvenile respondents reported that
they had received these services at each post-release interview.
Similarly, the discussion of child-related service receipt has been
omitted because few respondents reported having children at each
interview wave.

77

Wave 1
Wave 2
NonNonSVORI SVORI
SVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
SE OR
Mean Mean Est.
Coordination services
57
53
4.90 2.89 NA
43
42
1.64
Needs assessment
83% 79%
0.22 0.30 1.25
74% 54%
0.89
Meeting with case manager 89% 88%
0.18 0.38 1.19
66% 66%
−0.01
Collaboration with someone
to reintegrate
76% 66%
0.49 0.29 1.63
40% 39%
0.03
Assistance accessing child
welfare caseworker
23% 25%
−0.09 0.28 0.91
9%
9%
−0.06
Meeting with child welfare
caseworker
41% 33%
0.36 0.26 1.44
17% 16%
0.07
Current probation/parole
NA
NA
90% 82%
0.65
Transition services
23
21
2.10 2.10 NA
12
8
3.49
Afterschool/weekend/
summer sports program
NA
NA
9% 18%
—
Financial assistance
8%
6%
0.31 0.43 1.36
13%
7%
0.74
Public financial assistance
3%
2%
—
—
—
2%
2%
—
Public health care
insurance
9% 17%
−0.75 0.35 0.47 *
16%
8%
0.77
Legal assistance
23% 21%
0.10 0.30 1.11
17%
7%
1.08
Documents for employment 20% 18%
0.13 0.31 1.14
18% 11%
0.63
Mentoring
37% 42%
−0.21 0.25 0.81
9% 15%
—
Place to live
31% 18%
0.68 0.28 1.97 *
10%
6%
—
Transportation
21% 17%
0.31 0.29 1.36
18% 10%
0.70
Driver’s license
16% 16%
0.00 0.32 1.00
12% 10%
0.27
Access to clothing/food
9%
6%
0.48 0.44 1.61
9%
7%
—
Health services
42
47
−5.40 2.70 NA *
12
7
4.62
Victim support group
6%
6%
—
—
—
0%
0%
—
Anger management
program
48% 63%
−0.61 0.24 0.55 *
15%
8%
0.62
Medical treatment
69% 69%
−0.02 0.27 0.98
20% 15%
0.34
Dental services
42% 54%
−0.46 0.24 0.63
14%
8%
0.56
Mental health treatment
25% 31%
−0.29 0.27 0.75
9%
5%
—
Substance use treatment
56% 58%
−0.06 0.25 0.95
16%
8%
0.80
Employment/education/life
skills services
52
50
2.04 3.02 NA
21
16
5.02
Money management skills
22% 18%
0.27 0.29 1.31
7%
5%
—
Life skills
50% 47%
0.11 0.24 1.12
6% 11%
—
Work on personal
relationships
38% 35%
0.12 0.25 1.13
5% 11%
—
Change in criminal attitudes 68% 80%
−0.61 0.28 0.54 *
22% 24%
−0.10
Any educational services
93% 96%
−0.55 0.50 0.58
56% 28%
1.19
Any employment services
42% 27%
0.69 0.25 2.00 *
29% 15%
0.81

Wave 3
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est. SE
OR
24
18
6.25 3.07 NA *
23%
12%
0.82 0.40 2.27 *
39%
30%
0.42 0.31 1.52

Wave 4
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
13
14
−1.30
9%
16%
—
14%
27% −0.83

SE
3.79
0.31
0.30

OR
NA
2.42 *
0.99

0.30

1.03

29%

16%

0.76

0.35

2.13 *

18%

13%

0.37

0.57

0.94

6%

3%

—

—

—

2%

3%

—

0.44
0.49
1.81

1.07
1.92
NA

7%
45%
8

7%
45%
7

—
0.00
0.41

—
—
0.29 1.00
1.58 NA

1%
39%
8

5%
28%
5

—
0.49
2.99

—
0.53
—

—
2.10
—

8%
6%
1%

16%
1%
3%

—
—
—

—
—
—

6%
2%
1%

16%
1%
4%

—
—
—

0.42
0.49
0.39
—
—
0.42
0.48
—
2.23
—

2.17
2.94 *
1.88
—
—
2.02
1.31
—
NA *
—

14%
14%
15%
11%
2%
8%
6%
4%
8
3%

8%
4%
16%
9%
5%
14%
8%
3%
10
1%

0.65
—
−0.14
0.24
—
—
—
—
−1.34
—

0.46 1.91
—
—
0.40 0.87
0.48 1.27
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
2.04 NA
—
—

6%
11%
11%
4%
7%
19%
17%
5%
10
0%

5%
6%
4%
12%
2%
7%
6%
1%
7
0%

—
—
—
—
—
1.18
—
—
3.19
—

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0.45 3.24 *
—
—
—
—
1.93 NA
—
—

0.48
0.36
0.47
—
0.42

1.85
1.40
1.75
—
2.22

6%
14%
12%
7%
8%

7%
21%
13%
5%
10%

—
−0.55
−0.15
—
—

—
0.38
0.43
—
—

—
0.57
0.86
—
—

5%
26%
14%
6%
8%

5%
12%
10%
2%
10%

—
0.93
0.46
—
—

—
—
0.37 2.55 *
0.47 1.58
—
—
—
—

2.38
—
—

NA *
—
—

18
4%
13%

13
5%
9%

4.29 2.65 NA
—
—
—
0.44 0.44 1.55

14
3%
10%

9
3%
7%

4.65
—
—

2.49
—
—

—
0.36
0.30
0.36

—
0.91
3.28 *
2.25 *

11%
28%
30%
21%

6%
16%
29%
15%

—
—
—
0.67 0.38 1.95
0.08 0.32 1.09
0.37 0.37 1.45

5%
16%
35%
16%

2%
12%
22%
10%

—
—
—

SE OR
2.61 NA
—
—
0.37 0.44 *
0.44 1.44
—

—

—
—
0.31 1.63
1.45 NA *
—
—
—

—
—
—

NA
—
—

—
—
—
0.97 0.74 2.65
0.61 0.36 1.83
0.54 0.44 1.71
(continued)

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

78

Exhibit 36. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on service receipt

Exhibit 36. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on service receipt (continued)
Wave 1
SVORI
NS
Mean Mean Est.
Domestic violence-related
services
Support group
Batterer intervention
Child-related services
a
Child support payments
Modification in child support
b
debt
a
Modification in custody
a
Parenting skills
a
Child care
All Services Receipt

7
11%
3%
17
0%

5
9%
2%
6
0%

0%
6%
50%
13%
38

0%
0%
12%
12%
37

SE OR

1.48 2.20 NA
0.23 0.42 1.26
—
—
—
10.97 6.48 NA
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
1.23 1.85

—
—
—
—
NA

Wave 2
SVORI
NS
Mean Mean Est.

SE

0
0%
0%
0
0%

1
2%
0%
2
0%

−0.81 0.60
—
—
—
—
−1.93 1.91
—
—

0%
0%
0%
0%
19

0%
0%
0%
10%
16

—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
3.33 1.61

OR
NA
—
—
NA
—
—
—
—
—
NA *

Wave 3
SVORI
NS
Mean Mean Est.
0
0%
1%
4
0%

0
0%
0%
2
0%

0%
0%
14%
0%
12

100%
0%
0%
0%
10

Wave 4
SVORI
NS
Mean Mean Est.

SE

OR

—
—
—
—
—

—
—
—
—
—

NA
—
—
NA
—

0
0%
0%
3
0%

0
1%
0%
1
0%

—
—
—
—
2.05

—
—
—
—
1.52

—
—
—
—
NA

0%
4%
4%
4%
9

0%
0%
5%
0%
7

SE

OR

—
—
—
1.69
—

—
—
—
3.29
—

NA
—
—
NA
—

—
—
—
—
2.02

—
—
—
—
1.24

—
—
—
—
NA

Notes: Regression results not shown when cell sizes <10. NA = not applicable. Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release;
Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
a

Asked only of respondents with children.

b

Asked only of respondents who owed back child support.

*p < 0.05

Post-release Experiences

79

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

receiving specific items in each service bundle. Receipt of
specific items is discussed in the subsections that follow.

Reported levels of service
receipt were highest for
SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents before their
release from confinement,
declined dramatically in
the 3 months after
release, and remained
low during the postrelease period.
Although SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents
reported low levels of
post-release service
receipt, SVORI
respondents generally
reported slightly higher
levels of service receipt
than their non-SVORI
counterparts.

At each post-release
follow-up period and for
each service bundle, the
levels of service receipt
reported by SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents
were considerably lower
than the levels of service
need reported by each
group.

80

From Exhibit 36 several common themes emerge about service
delivery across all four interview waves. First, reported levels of
service receipt were highest for SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents before their release from confinement, declined
dramatically in the 3 months after release, and remained low
during the post-release period. For example, before release,
respondents reported having received more than one fifth of
the services in the transition services bundle (average scores of
23 and 21 for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents,
respectively). After release, respondents consistently reported
that they had received less than one tenth of the services in
this bundle.
Second, although SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported
low levels of post-release service receipt, SVORI respondents
generally reported slightly higher levels of service receipt than
their non-SVORI counterparts. For example, in the 3 months
after release, SVORI respondents reported that they had
received 12% of the services in the transition services bundle,
on average, whereas non-SVORI respondents reported that
they had received 8% of these services. Fifteen months after
release, SVORI respondents reported that they had received
8% of the transition service items, on average, whereas nonSVORI respondents reported having received 5% of the items.
Third, as shown in Exhibit 36, after release SVORI and nonSVORI respondents consistently reported the highest level of
service receipt to be in the coordination services bundle. This
bundle includes case management and service coordination
activities such as needs assessment, meeting with a child
welfare caseworker, and working with someone to reintegrate
into the community.
Finally, at each post-release period and for each service bundle,
the levels of service receipt reported by SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents were considerably lower than the levels of service
need reported by each group. For example, 3 months after
release, respondents reported needing more than half of the
services in the education, employment, or skills-related bundle
(average scores of 56 and 52 for SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively). In contrast, respondents reported
that they had received less than one fifth of the services in this

Post-release Experiences

bundle in the 3 months after release (average scores of 21 and
16 for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively).
Fifteen months after release, respondents reported needing
nearly 60% of the services in this bundle (average scores of 58
and 59 for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively)
yet reported having received only about 10% of these services
(average scores of 14 and 9 for SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively).
As noted earlier, before release from confinement juvenile
respondents reported significantly higher levels of service receipt
of employment, education, and skills-related services, and of
health services than adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation. After release, however, juvenile respondents
consistently reported significantly lower rates of service receipt
in the health services bundle than adult male respondents
reported. Throughout the post-release follow-up period, juvenile
respondents continued to report significantly higher levels of
receipt of employment, education, and skills-related services.
The following subsections detail the receipt of specific service
items within each service bundle. To add context to the
reported levels of service receipt, the levels of need for specific
service items are also provided.
Coordination Services
Three months after release, most respondents reported that
they had received some coordination services (94% of SVORI
and 93% of non-SVORI); however, the proportion of
respondents who reported receipt of any coordination services
steadily declined during the post-release follow-up period. By
15 months after release, less than half of respondents in each
group reported that they had received any of these services
(47% of SVORI and 45% of non-SVORI).

Receipt of coordination
services was highest for
both groups before their
release from confinement
and then steadily declined
after release.

Exhibit 37 displays the coordination service receipt scores from
pre-release through 15-months post-release. Receipt of
coordination services was highest for both groups before their
release from confinement and then steadily declined after
release. Nine months after release, SVORI respondents
reported that they had received a significantly higher level of
coordination services, on average, than their non-SVORI
counterparts (average scores of 24 and 18 for SVORI and nonSVORI respondents, respectively).

81

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 37. Average level
of coordination service
receipt, by interview
wave and group

100
80
60

57

SVORI

53
43

Non-SVORI

42

40

24

20

18

13

14

0
Wave 1

Wave 2

Wave 3*

Wave 4

Note: Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 =
9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.

Exhibit 36 shows the proportion of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents at each interview wave who reported having
received each of the five coordination services. Overall, the
proportion of respondents who reported receipt of each of the
coordination services items was highest before release and
declined steadily over time. For example, before release, a
large majority of respondents in each group reported that they
had received a needs assessment (83% of SVORI and 79% of
non-SVORI), met with a case manager (89% of SVORI and
88% of non-SVORI), or worked with someone to reintegrate
into the community (76% of SVORI and 66% of non-SVORI). In
contrast, 15 months after release, remarkably fewer
respondents reported having received a needs assessment (9%
of SVORI and 16% of non-SVORI), having met with a case
manager (14% of SVORI and 27% of non-SVORI), or having
collaborated with someone to reintegrate (18% of SVORI and
13% of non-SVORI).

82

Post-release Experiences

Three and 9 months after
release, SVORI
respondents were
significantly more likely
than non-SVORI
respondents to report that
they had received a needs
assessment.

Exhibit 36 shows that 3 and 9 months after release, SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that they had received a needs
assessment. In addition, 9 months after release, SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that they had worked with someone to
reintegrate into the community (29% of SVORI and 16% of
non-SVORI). Fifteen months after release, non-SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely than SVORI
respondents to report that they had met with a case manager
(14% of SVORI and 27% of non-SVORI).
At each post-release interview, relatively few respondents
reported meeting with a child welfare caseworker or receiving
assistance to access a child welfare worker. Three months after
release, 9% of respondents in each group reported that they
had received assistance to access a child welfare caseworker,
and less than 20% of respondents in each group reported that
they had met with a child welfare caseworker (17% of SVORI
and 16% of non-SVORI). Fifteen months after release, less
than 5% of respondents reported having received either of
these services.
Exhibit 36 also shows the proportion of respondents who were
under probation or parole supervision at each of the postrelease interview waves. Most respondents reported that they
were under supervision 3 months after their release from
confinement (90% of SVORI and 82% of non-SVORI). Nine
months after release, 45% of respondents in each group were
under supervision. Fifteen months after release, although the
proportion of respondents in each group who reported that they
were under supervision decreased, SVORI respondents were
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
were under supervision (39% of SVORI and 28% of nonSVORI).
Transition services
Three months after release, more than half of SVORI and nonSVORI respondents reported that they had received any
transition services (62% of SVORI and 55% of non-SVORI).
The proportion of respondents who reported having received
any of these services steadily declined during the post-release
follow-up period. By 15 months after release, less than half of

83

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

respondents in each group reported that they had received any
transition services (43% of SVORI and 33% of non-SVORI).

Overall, while SVORI
respondents reported that
they received more
transition services, on
average, than non-SVORI
respondents, the level of
service receipt was low
for both.

Exhibit 38. Average level
of transition services
receipt, by interview
wave and group

Exhibit 38 displays the transition services receipt bundle scores
from pre-release through 15-months post-release. Service
receipt was highest for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents
before release (average scores of 23 and 21 for SVORI and
non-SVORI, respectively), sharply declined 3 months after
release (average scores of 12 and 8 for SVORI and non-SVORI,
respectively), and declined slightly over the post-release followup period. Overall, although the levels of service receipt were
low for both groups, SVORI respondents reported slightly
higher levels of service receipt than non-SVORI respondents at
each interview wave. In fact, 15 months after release, SVORI
respondents reported a significantly higher level of service
receipt, on average, than their non-SVORI counterparts
(average scores of 8 and 5 for SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively). This result suggests that SVORI
programs were modestly successful in providing transition
services beyond “treatment as usual” levels of service.

100
80
SVORI
60

Non-SVORI

40
23

21

20

12

8

8

7

8

5

0
Wave 1

Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4*

Note: Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 =
9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.

Exhibit 36 shows the proportions of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents who, at each interview wave, reported having
received each of the 10 transition service items. Overall,
service receipt reported by both groups was remarkably low for
most of these items, particularly 9 and 15 months after release,
but, in general, SVORI respondents were more likely than non84

Post-release Experiences

SVORI respondents to report that they had received these
services.
Before release, the most commonly reported type of service
received by each group was mentoring services (37% of SVORI
and 42% of non-SVORI). After release, only about 10% of
respondents reported, at each post-release interview, having
received these services. At the same time, at least 30% of
respondents in each group consistently reported needing
mentoring services after release (see Exhibit 30).

Across all four interview
waves, obtaining a
driver’s license was the
highest transitional need
reported by SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents.
In general, SVORI
respondents were more
likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that
they had received help to
obtain a driver’s license.

Across all four interview waves, obtaining a driver’s license was
the highest transition service need reported by SVORI and nonSVORI respondents (see Exhibit 30). In general, SVORI
respondents were more likely than non-SVORI respondents to
report that they had received help to obtain a driver’s license.
Nevertheless, in comparison with reported need rates, few
respondents in either group reported having received help. For
example, 15 months after release, about 70% of respondents
reported that they needed help to obtain a driver’s license
(67% of SVORI and 76% of non-SVORI), but only about 10% of
respondents reported that they had received such assistance
(17% of SVORI and 6% of non-SVORI).
As shown in Exhibit 36, in general, SVORI respondents were
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had received transportation assistance. Before release from
confinement, 21% of SVORI respondents, compared with 17%
of non-SVORI respondents, reported that they had received
help with their transportation issues. Similarly, 15 months after
release, 19% of SVORI respondents, compared with 7% of nonSVORI respondents, reported that they had received this type
of help. Receipt of this service was lower than respondents’
expressed level of need. Across all interview waves, at least
59% of respondents in each group reported that they needed
transportation (see Exhibit 30).
In general, SVORI respondents were more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report that they had received legal
assistance (see Exhibit 36). In fact, 3 months after release from
confinement, SVORI respondents were significantly more likely
than non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received
assistance (17% of SVORI and 7% of non-SVORI). Fifteen
months after release, 11% of SVORI and 6% of non-SVORI
respondents reported that they had received this type of

85

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

assistance. The need for legal assistance consistently fell below
reported need, however: at each post-release interview,
roughly 40% of respondents in each group reported that they
needed legal assistance (see Exhibit 30).
At each post-release interview, SVORI respondents were more
likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they had
received public health care insurance (see Exhibit 36). Unlike
the receipt of other transition services, receipt of public health
care insurance was highest for SVORI respondents in the 3
months after release (16%), not before release (9%). However,
as with other services, the need for public health care insurance
as reported by respondents in both groups outweighed receipt.
About 40% of respondents in each group consistently reported
needing this service after release (see Exhibit 30).

In general, SVORI
respondents were more
likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that
they had received help
accessing basic services
such as housing and
clothing or food banks;
however, at each postrelease interview, less
than 10% of all
respondents reported that
they had received help
accessing these
resources.

Exhibit 36 shows that, in general, SVORI respondents were
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had received help accessing basic services such as housing and
clothing or food banks; however, at each post-release
interview, less than 10% of all respondents reported that they
had received help to access these resources. Consistent with
the pattern for other transition services, respondents’ need for
assistance in the 15-month period after release exceeded their
receipt of assistance. For example, 3 months after release,
about one third of respondents reported that they needed help
finding a place to live (33% of SVORI and 34% of non-SVORI),
while less than 10% of respondents reported that they had
received such help (10% of SVORI and 6% of non-SVORI).
Fifteen months after release, nearly 50% of respondents
reported that they needed assistance with housing (37% of
SVORI and 50% of non-SVORI), yet only about 5% of
respondents reported having received help (7% of SVORI and
2% of non-SVORI).
As shown in Exhibit 36, at each interview wave, few
respondents reported having received financial assistance or
public financial assistance. Three months after release, about
10% of respondents reported that they had received financial
assistance (13% of SVORI and 7% of non-SVORI); by 15
months after release, about 2% of respondents reported receipt
of this service (2% of SVORI and 1% of non-SVORI). At each
post-release interview, only about 2% of respondents reported
that they had received public financial assistance. In the 15

86

Post-release Experiences

months after release from confinement, needs for these
services remained relatively constant for each group and
outweighed reported receipt. At each post-release interview,
more than one quarter of respondents reported that they
needed financial assistance, and nearly one fifth of respondents
reported that they needed public financial assistance (see
Exhibit 30).
During the three post-release interviews, respondents were
asked if they had participated in afterschool, weekend, or
summer sports programs. At each follow-up interview, nearly
20% of non-SVORI respondents reported that they had
participated in these types of programs, compared with less
than 10% of SVORI respondents (see Exhibit 36). With regard
to the need for this type of programming, at each follow-up
interview at least 20% of respondents in each group reported
that they had a need (see Exhibit 30).
No significant differences were found between juvenile
respondents and adult male respondents in level of receipt of
transition services, at any of the interview waves.
Health Services
Three months after release, less than half of SVORI and nonSVORI respondents reported that they had received any health
services (44% of SVORI and 30% of non-SVORI). Fifteen
months after release, about one third of respondents reported
that they had received any type of health service (35% of
SVORI and 30% of non-SVORI).
Exhibit 39 displays the health services receipt bundle scores
from pre-release through 15-months post-release. The level of
service receipt was highest for both groups before release
(average scores of 42 and 47 for SVORI and non-SVORI,
respectively), declined dramatically in the 3 months after
release (average scores of 12 and 7 for SVORI and non-SVORI,
respectively), and remained low throughout the post-release
follow-up period. Before release, non-SVORI respondents
reported having received a significantly higher level of health
services. Three months after release, SVORI respondents
reported a significantly higher level of service receipt, on
average, than their non-SVORI counterparts (average scores of
12 and 7 for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively).

87

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 39. Average level
of health services
receipt, by interview
wave and group

100
80
SVORI
60
42

Non-SVORI

47

40
20

12

7

8

10

10

7

0
Wave 1

Wave 2*

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 =
9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.

Exhibit 36 shows the proportion of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, at each interview wave, who reported having
received each of the 6 health service items. At each postrelease interview, respondents were more likely to report
receipt of medical treatment than receipt of the other services
in this bundle. Three months after release, nearly 20% of
respondents reported that they had received medical treatment
(20% of SVORI and 15% of non-SVORI). Fifteen months after
release, SVORI respondents were significantly more likely than
non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received this
type of treatment (26% of SVORI and 12% of non-SVORI).
While nearly one fifth of respondents consistently reported that
they had received medical treatment after release from
confinement, about one third of respondents reported that they
needed this service (see Exhibit 30).
As shown in Exhibit 36, at each post-release interview, few
respondents reported having received help to manage their
anger. Three months after release, about 10% of respondents
reported having received anger management programming
(15% of SVORI and 8% of non-SVORI). By 15 months after
release, only 5% of respondents in each group reported that
they had received help with anger management. While receipt
of anger management programming was low after release,
about one quarter of respondents consistently reported that
they needed it (see Exhibit 30).

88

Post-release Experiences

While the proportion of respondents who reported that they had
received substance use treatment after release was consistently
low—about 10% of respondents at each post-release
interview—few respondents reported that they had a need for
this type of treatment. For example, 3 months after release,
13% of SVORI respondents reported that they needed
substance use treatment, and 16% reported that they had
received treatment. Likewise, 10% of non-SVORI respondents
reported that they needed substance use treatment, and 8%
reported that they had received treatment.
Similarly, few SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported
receipt of mental health treatment after release, but few
respondents in each group reported that they needed this type
of treatment. For example, 3 months after release, 9% of
SVORI respondents reported that they needed mental health
treatment, and 9% reported that they had received treatment.
For non-SVORI respondents, 9% reported that they needed
mental health treatment, and 5% had received this type of
treatment.
As mentioned, before release from confinement, juvenile
respondents reported a significantly higher level of health
services receipt than adult males in the SVORI evaluation.
However, after release, juvenile respondents reported
significantly lower levels of health services receipt than adult
male respondents. At each post-release interview, juvenile
respondents were significantly less likely than adult male
respondents to report that they had received substance use
treatment.

In the 15 months after
release from confinement,
SVORI respondents were
consistently more likely to
report that they had
received any employment,
education, or skillsrelated services.

Employment/Education/Skills Services
In the 15 months after release from confinement, SVORI
respondents were consistently more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that they had received any employment,
education, or skills-related services. In fact, 3 months after
release, SVORI respondents were significantly more likely than
non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received any of
these services (79% of SVORI and 56% of non-SVORI).
Exhibit 40 displays the employment, education, and skillsrelated services receipt bundle scores from pre-release through
15-months post-release. As with the other services measured,
the level of receipt was highest for both groups before release

89

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 40. Average level
of employment,
education, and skills
services receipt, by
interview wave and
group

100
80
SVORI
60

52

50

Non-SVORI

40
21
20

16

18

13

14

9

0
Wave 1

Wave 2*

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 =
9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.

(average scores of 52 and 50 for SVORI and non-SVORI,
respectively), declined dramatically in the 3 months after
release (average scores of 21 and 16 for SVORI and nonSVORI, respectively), and gradually declined throughout the
post-release follow-up period. The receipt of these services
was, on average, higher for SVORI respondents than for nonSVORI respondents at all interview waves—significantly higher
3 months after release—which suggests that SVORI programs
were successful in providing a higher level of these kinds of
services and programming than the “treatment as usual”
approaches.

At each post-release
interview, SVORI
respondents were more
likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that
they had received
educational services and
employment services.

90

Exhibit 36 shows the proportions of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents who reported receipt for each of the 6
employment, education, or skills-related service items at each
interview wave. At each interview, respondents in both groups
were more likely to report having received educational services
than to report having received the other services in this bundle.
Three months after release, a majority of SVORI respondents
reported that they had received educational services (56%)—
significantly more than non-SVORI respondents (28%).
Throughout the follow-up period, SVORI respondents were
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had received these services. Although receipt of educational
services was higher than that of the other services in this
bundle, needs for these services far exceeded receipt. At each

Post-release Experiences

post-release interview, nearly all respondents reported that
they needed more education (see Exhibit 30), while less than
one third of respondents reported that they had received
educational services.
At each post-release interview, SVORI respondents were more
likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they had
received employment services. In fact, 3 months after release,
SVORI respondents were significantly more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report that they had received these
services (29% of SVORI and 15% of non-SVORI).
As shown in Exhibit 36, nearly one quarter of respondents
reported 3 months after release that they had participated in
training to change their attitudes toward criminal behavior
(22% of SVORI and 24% of non-SVORI), and they reported
similarly 9 months after release (28% of SVORI and 16% of
non-SVORI). Fewer respondents reported participation in this
type of training 15 months after their release (16% of SVORI
and 12% of non-SVORI). In contrast, at each post-release
interview, more than one third of respondents reported that
they needed to change their attitudes toward criminal behavior
(see Exhibit 30).
After release from confinement, receipt of programs and
services to address life skills development, money
management, and personal relationship issues was low for
respondents in both groups. As shown in Exhibit 36, less than
10% of respondents reported receipt for each of these services
at their post-release interviews. Conversely, at each postrelease interview, more than half of respondents in both groups
reported that they needed life skills training; nearly half of
respondents in both groups reported they needed money
management skills training; and at least of one third of
respondents in each group reported that they needed to work
on their personal relationships (see Exhibit 30).
As noted earlier, before release from confinement, juvenile
respondents reported a significantly higher level of receipt of
employment, education, and skills-related services than adult
males in the SVORI evaluation. After release, juvenile
respondents continued to report significantly higher levels of
receipt of these services than adult male respondents. At each
post-release interview, juvenile respondents were significantly

91

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

more likely than adult male respondents to report that they had
received educational services.

LEVELS OF RECEIPT ACROSS SERVICES
Exhibit 41 shows the most commonly reported services
received by respondents in both groups across all service
domains in the 15 months after release from confinement.
These common services were in the coordination and
employment, education, and skill-related domains.

While overall service
receipt was low for
respondents in both
groups, SVORI
respondents received
more services, on
average, than their nonSVORI counterparts. In
fact, three months after
release, SVORI
respondents reported
receiving a significantly
higher level of services
than non-SVORI
respondents.

Overall, although service receipt for SVORI respondents was far
below 100%, notable differences in service receipt were found
between SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, as was illustrated
by these commonly received services. As shown in the exhibit,
at most post-release periods, SVORI respondents were more
likely—even significantly more likely—than non-SVORI
respondents to report that they had received each of these
common services. For example, SVORI respondents were much
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had received a needs assessment 3 months after release (74%
of SVORI and 54% of non-SVORI) and 9 months after release
(23% of SVORI and 12% of non-SVORI). In addition, 3 months
after release, SVORI respondents were much more likely than
non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received
educational services (56% of SVORI and 28% of non-SVORI)
and employment services (29% of SVORI and 15% of nonSVORI). Finally, 9 months after release, SVORI respondents
were much more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report
that they had worked with someone to help reintegrate into the
community (29% of SVORI and 16% of non-SVORI). For these
common coordination and employment, education, and skillsrelated services, it appears that SVORI programs were able to
provide modest and sometimes significant increases in the
delivery of services, over “treatment as usual.”
In addition to the services just described, an “all services”
bundle was created, which captured the level of overall receipt
across all services at each interview wave. Exhibit 42 shows the
average service receipt bundle scores for SVORI and nonSVORI respondents at each interview wave. The pattern in the
overall level of service receipt for SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents at each interview wave mirrors the pattern found

92

Post-release Experiences

Exhibit 41. Most commonly reported services received, by interview wave and group

66%
66%
39%

Meeting w ith case
m anager

30%
14%*
27%*

74%*
54%*
23%*

Needs assessm ent

12%*
9%
16%

56%*
28%*
30%

Educational services

29%
SVORI Wave 2

35%
22%

Non-SVORI Wave 2
SVORI Wave 3
40%

Non-SVORI Wave 3

39%

SVORI Wave 4

29%*

Collaboration w ith
som eone to reintegrate

16%*

Non-SVORI Wave 4

18%
13%

29%*
15%*
21%

Em ploym ent services

15%
16%
10%
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data are weighted.

93

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

for the individual service receipt domains—service receipt was
highest for both groups before release, declined dramatically
immediately after release, and steadily declined throughout the
post-release period.
Exhibit 42 shows that, although overall service receipt was low
for respondents in both groups, SVORI respondents received
more services, on average, than their non-SVORI counterparts.
In fact, 3 months after release, SVORI respondents reported
having received a significantly higher level of services than
non-SVORI respondents (average scores of 19 and 16 for
SVORI and non-SVORI). Nonetheless, a substantial gap
remained between the level of services received and the level
of need for respondents in both groups at each interview wave
(see Exhibit 30).

Exhibit 42. Level of
receipt of all services,
by interview wave and
group

100
80
SVORI
60
40

Non-SVORI
38

37
19

20

16

12

10

9

7

0
Wave 1

Wave 2*

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release; Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 =
9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.

As mentioned, before release from confinement, juvenile
respondents reported a significantly higher level of overall
service receipt than adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation; however, after release, no significant differences in
service receipt were found between the two groups.

94

Post-release
Outcomes
The focus of this section is the outcomes of SVORI participants
at 3, 9, and 15 months post-release, on several key domains.
Detailed findings are present for housing; education and
employment; family, peer, and community relations; substance
abuse and physical and mental health; and criminal behavior
and recidivism.
Although the data are not shown, this section also explores the
differences and similarities in outcomes as reported by juvenile
respondents and adult male respondents in the SVORI
evaluation.

HOUSING
As youth transition from juvenile facilities back to their
communities, housing is a critical element of this reentry
experience. In the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation, three “core”
housing outcomes were housing independence, housing
stability, and the extent of challenge in locating housing after
release. Juvenile males who were housing-independent lived in
their own houses or apartments, contributed to the costs of
housing, or had their names on their current leases or
mortgages. Juvenile males who had stable housing had lived in
only one place during the reference period, or in two places if
the move was to attain their own place or a nicer place.
Juvenile males were classified as not having housing challenges
if they were not homeless, reported that they had no trouble
finding a place to live, and reported that their current living
situation was better or about the same as the last place they
lived in.

95

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

No significant differences were found between the SVORI and
non-SVORI juvenile males at 3 and 9 months post-release
(Waves 2 and 3) on these three core housing outcomes;
however, a significant difference between these groups was
found at 15 months post-release for housing-independence only
(Wave 4; Exhibit 43). At 15 months post-release, non-SVORI
juvenile males had significantly more housing independence
than SVORI juvenile males. Overall findings suggest that SVORI
programming did not significantly improve the post-release
housing experiences for juvenile males returning to their
communities (Exhibits 43–45).
Exhibit 43. Self-reported
housing independence
since release/last
interview

100
SVORI
80

Non-SVORI

60

51

47

40

31

37

35

23
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4*

Note: Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave
4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.
Exhibit 44. Self-reported
housing stability

SVORI

100
81
80

78
62

70

74

Non-SVORI
71

60
40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not statistically significant
at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3
= 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

96

Post-release Outcomes

Exhibit 45. Self-reported
lack of housing
challenges since
release/last interview

SVORI
100

88

92

94

Non-SVORI
88

93

90

80
60
40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not statistically significant
at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3
= 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Also informing the housing experiences of returning juvenile
males are the difference in changes in housing experiences
between SVORI and non-SVORI juvenile males over the 15
months after release. For both groups, housing independence
improved gradually over the post-release follow-up periods;
housing stability and housing challenges did not follow a
consistent pattern between groups. For the SVORI group,
housing stability decreased from the 3-month follow-up to the
9-month follow-up period and then increased at the 15-month
follow-up period. The non-SVORI group had a decrease from
the 3-month to 9-month follow-up period and then experienced
a stable period from 9 months to 15 months post-release. The
SVORI juvenile males experienced their greatest decrease in
housing challenges during the time between their 3-month
follow-up period and 9 month follow-up period. By their 15month follow-up period, they had experienced slightly more
housing challenges. Non-SVORI juvenile males experienced the
opposite pattern. They experienced their greatest increase in
housing challenges during the time between their 3-month and
9-month post-release follow-up period. By their 15-month postrelease follow-up period, they had experienced a decrease in
housing challenges.
A juvenile’s living arrangements after confinement have
implications for his successful reentry. Of particular interest in
the living arrangements of juveniles when they reenter their

97

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

communities is whether they resided with criminally involved
people. More than two thirds (68%) of the SVORI juvenile
males at 3 months post-release lived with people who had
never been to jail. This rate increased over the next 6 months
to nearly three quarters of juvenile males at the 9-month
follow-up (72%) and 15-month follow-up (73%). This trend
was similar for the non-SVORI juvenile males (71% at 3-month
follow-up; 71% at 9-month follow-up; 73% at 15-month followup). In addition to living with people who had never been to
jail, SVORI and non-SVORI juvenile males primarily lived with
people who did not use drugs and who did not use alcohol in
their presence. In fact, the majority of SVORI and non-SVORI
juvenile males lived with their mothers up to 15 months postrelease.
The last housing dimension that has significant impact on
juvenile reentry is neighborhood quality. In the SVORI Multisite Evaluation, answers to the following interview items were
combined to create an overall neighborhood quality score:
ƒ

“It is hard to stay out of trouble in your neighborhood.”

ƒ

“Drug selling is a major problem in your neighborhood.”

ƒ

“You think your neighborhood is a good place to live.”

ƒ

“You think your neighborhood is a good place to find a
job.”

ƒ

“Living in your neighborhood makes it hard to stay out
of incarceration.”

No significant differences were found between the SVORI and
non-SVORI juvenile males, and their perceptions of
neighborhood quality remained relatively stable from 3 months
to 15 months post-release. Exhibit 46 shows the weighted
proportions of SVORI and non-SVORI juvenile males for each of
the housing variables discussed (with estimates, standard
errors, odds ratios, and significance) from the logistic
regression models. As can be seen in Exhibit 46, SVORI and
non-SVORI juvenile males viewed their neighborhoods as
having moderate quality (average score of 9 out of 15).

98

Exhibit 46. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on housing outcomes

Housing independence
Housing stability
No housing challenges
Living with people who
have never been to jail
Living with people who
don’t use drugs
Living with people who
don’t use alcohol in
juvenile’s presence
Neighborhood quality

SVORI
Mean
23%
81%
88%

Wave 2
NonSVORI
Mean Est.
31% −0.43
78%
0.16
92% −0.47

Wave 3
NonSVORI
Mean Est.
SE
47% −0.50
.29
70% −0.37 0.32
88%
0.70 0.56

SE
0.31
0.35
0.45

OR
0.65
0.21
0.63

SVORI
Mean
35%
62%
94%

68%

71% −0.15

0.32

0.86

72%

71%

86%

92% −0.58

0.50

0.56

95%

94%

81%
9

80%
0.05
9 −0.01

0.36
0.41

1.05
NA

73%
10

Wave 4
NonSVORI
Mean Est.
SE
51% −0.61
.30
71%
0.17 0.33
90%
0.31 0.57

OR
.61
0.69
2.01

SVORI
Mean
37%
74%
93%

0.04 0.34

1.04

73%

73%

0.09 0.33

0.07

0.13 0.63

1.14

94%

91%

0.36 0.54

1.44

79% −0.33 0.33
9
0.53 0.42

0.72
NA

75%
10

77% −0.14 0.35
9
0.16 0.46

0.18
NA

OR
0.54 *
1.18
1.37

Note: Regression results not shown when cell sizes <10. NA = not applicable. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15
months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Post-release Outcomes

99

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

An examination of how the juvenile males compared with the
adult males on housing experiences yielded expected findings,
given the age difference between the two (data not shown).
Significant differences for each of the follow-up periods for
housing independence and housing challenges were found
between juvenile males and adult males. Adult males had
significantly greater housing independence at each follow-up
period than juvenile males, whereas juvenile males had
significantly fewer housing challenges at each follow-up period
than adult males. Another noted difference was with the living
arrangements post-release. At each follow-up period (3, 9, and
15 months post-release), males lived with people who had
never been to jail significantly more often than juvenile males.
Adult males also perceived their neighborhoods to be of better
quality significantly more often than juvenile males at 3 months
post-release. At 9 and 15 months post-release, adult males and
juvenile males appeared to have similar perceptions of their
neighborhood quality.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
Education and employment are key issues in the reentry
outcome for the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation. All SVORI
programs for juvenile males placed some emphasis on
education, employment, or both. Several outcomes were of
particular interest:
ƒ

currently enrolled in school

ƒ

receiving no money from illegal activity

ƒ

currently supporting oneself with a job

ƒ

currently or recently holding a permanent job

ƒ

holding a job with benefits (a summary measure
indicating whether the job provided health insurance or
fully paid leave)

ƒ

having no problem finding a job

The weighted proportion of juvenile males in each group (with
estimates, standard errors, odds ratios, and significance) from
the logistic regression models are shown in Exhibit 47.

100

Exhibit 47. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on education and employment outcomes

Currently in school
Currently supported self
with a job
Current job was
permanent
Job had benefits
Had no problem finding job
Received no money from
illegal activity

Wave 2
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
68% 52%
0.68

SE
0.29

Wave 3
NonSVORI SVORI
OR
Mean Mean Est.
SE
1.98 * 49% 51% −0.09 0.29

OR
0.91

Wave 4
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
SE
43% 35%
0.34 0.29
0.37 0.30

OR
1.41

32%

40% −0.35

0.30

0.70

32%

39% −0.31 0.30

0.74

53%

44%

1.45

48%
25%
24%

61% −0.50
37% −0.58
36% −0.57

0.41
0.43
0.59

0.60
0.56
0.57

64%
45%
37%

53%
42%
30%

0.48 0.39
0.13 0.38
0.31 0.39

1.62
1.14
1.36

65%
59%
38%

66% −0.04 0.38
40%
0.80 0.35
32%
0.24 0.36

0.96
2.22 *
1.28

90%

95% −0.65

0.53

0.52

76%

87% −0.71 0.40

0.49

83%

91% −0.73 0.45

0.48

Note: Regression results not shown when cell sizes <10. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Post-release Outcomes

101

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

SVORI juvenile males were significantly more likely to be in
school at the first follow-up period (3 months, Wave 2).
Exhibit 48 graphically depicts the differences between the
SVORI and non-SVORI groups in education across the 3-, 9-,
and 15-month post-release timepoints. As can be seen, the
significant difference in education at the 3-month follow-up was
not sustained (during the 9-month and 15-month post-release
follow-ups). At 9 months post-release (Wave 3), the percentage
of SVORI juvenile males who were currently in school
decreased to similar levels as that of non-SVORI juvenile males
(49% of SVORI and 51% of non-SVORI). At 15 months postrelease, the SVORI group continued to decline (43%), and the
percentage of non-SVORI juvenile males who were currently in
school decreased to 35%.
Exhibit 48. Self-reported
currently in school

100
80
60

SVORI

68
52

Non-SVORI
49

51

40

43

35

20
0
Wave 2*

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave
4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.

Despite SVORI respondents’ being significantly more likely to
report receiving employment services at pre-release, only one
significant difference was found between SVORI and non-SVORI
juvenile males at any of the post-release time periods: SVORI
juvenile males were significantly more likely to have a job with
benefits than their non-SVORI counterparts at 15 months postrelease. Exhibit 49 shows that SVORI juvenile males had a
steady increase in the number of participants who had jobs with
benefits from the 3-month post-release wave through 15
months post-release, whereas the non-SVORI group had an
increase from 3 to 9 months post-release but experienced a

102

Post-release Outcomes

Exhibit 49. Self-reported
has job with benefits

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80
59

60
45
37

40

42

40

25
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4*

Note: Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave
4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.

drop-off at the 15-month post-release time period. This finding
may reflect SVORI programming.
Over the 15 months post-release, only one third of juvenile
males in both groups (SVORI and non-SVORI) indicated that
they had no problem finding jobs, and about 50% or less of
juvenile males in both groups currently supported themselves
with jobs. Despite this finding, more than three fourths of
participants in both groups indicated that they did not receive
money from illegal activity throughout all follow-up time
periods; more than 50% of those who had job indicated that
their jobs were permanent. These findings are displayed in
Exhibits 50–53.
Overall, the education and employment findings indicate that
SVORI programming for juvenile males was associated with
significant improvements in two outcomes: (1) being enrolled in
school and (2) the likelihood of having a job with benefits.
Neither of these outcomes was significant across all postrelease time points, but they do suggest some positive impact
of SVORI programming. The employment finding may also
suggest that the type of job held by SVORI juvenile males may
be of higher quality that those held by their non-SVORI
counterparts in that they offered benefits.

103

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 50. Self-reported
lack of problem finding a
job

100
80
SVORI
Non-SVORI

60
36

40

37

24

38
30

32

20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Exhibit 51. Self-reported
current support of self
with a job

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

53

60
40
40

32

32

39

44

20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

104

Post-release Outcomes

Exhibit 52. Self-reported
nonreceipt of money
from illegal activity

SVORI
Non-SVORI
100

95

90

87
76

80

91
83

60
40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Exhibit 53. Self-reported
current or recent job
status as permanent

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80
61
60

48

65

64

66

53

40
20
0
Wave 2*

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave
4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI. Data
are weighted.

FAMILY, PEERS, AND COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
Adolescence is traditionally known as a period when juveniles
have more challenges with family members, especially parents,
and closer relationships with peers. Both family and peer

105

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

relationships are critical for juveniles returning to their
communities.
Family Relationships
Most of the SVORI juvenile programs emphasized family
support or family involvement in the reentry process. Some
SVORI outcomes related to family functioning were of particular
interest. First among these was family emotional support,
which refers to how the juvenile felt about his relationship with
his family since his release from confinement. To measure the
degree of family emotional support, a scale was created based
on the degree to which the respondent agreed with 10
statements about his relationship with his family. 17 The items
were combined to create a scale with possible values ranging
from zero to 30, where higher scores indicated higher levels of
family emotional support.
Another outcome of particular interest was parental
relationship, which refers to the relationship the juvenile had
with his parental figure since his release from confinement. To
measure the strength of the relationship with parents, a scale
was created based on the degree to which the respondent
agreed with 10 statements. 18 The items were combined to
create a scale with possible values ranging from zero to 30,
where higher scores indicated a stronger parental relationship.
Despite the focus on family support or involvement in the
SVORI programs, no differences were observed between the
SVORI and non-SVORI groups at any of the post-release time
periods, and little to no variability emerged for either group
over the 15 months after release from confinement. These
finding are depicted in Exhibits 54 and 55.
Respondents in both groups appeared to have moderately high
levels of family emotional support across the 15-month followup period, which suggests that they felt loved and supported by
their families.

17

18

106

Response categories were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and
“strongly disagree.” Values of zero through 3 were assigned to
response categories, with higher values representing stronger
family emotional support.
Response categories were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and
“strongly disagree.” Values of zero through 3 were assigned to
response categories, with higher values representing a stronger
relationship.

Post-release Outcomes

Exhibit 54. Self-reported
family emotional
support

100
SVORI
80

Non-SVORI

60
40
22

21

21

21

21

21

20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Exhibit 55. Self-reported
parental relationship

100
SVORI

80

Non-SVORI

60
40
22

21

21

21

20

21

20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Respondents in both groups appeared to have moderately
strong relationships with their parents across the 15-month
follow-up period, which suggests that parental figures offered
these juvenile males significant love and support.
Peer Relationships
As previously mentioned, juveniles tend to emphasize and rely
on peers for support. Consequently, the SVORI Multi-site
Evaluation was interested in peer instrumental support, which
encompassed types of support the juvenile had received from
peers since his release from confinement. As with the findings

107

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

for family relationships, no differences were observed between
the SVORI and non-SVORI groups at any of the post-release
time periods, and little to no variability emerged for either
group over the 15 months after release from confinement.
Unlike the findings for family relationships, both SVORI and
non-SVORI juvenile males had moderately low levels of peer
instrumental support across the 15 month follow-up period,
suggesting they did not believe they had a particular friend who
would help them in a time of need or be supportive in difficult
situations. These findings are depicted in Exhibit 56.
Exhibit 56. Self-reported
peer instrumental
support

100
80
60

SVORI
Non-SVORI

40
20

9

10

10

10

9

10

0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

The weighted proportion of juvenile males in each group (with
estimates, standard errors, odds ratios, and significance) from
the logistic regression models are shown in Exhibit 57.
The comparison of juvenile males and adult males on the family
and peer variables revealed significant differences. At 3 months
post-release, adult males had significantly more family
emotional support than juvenile males. This difference was not
sustained over the 9-month and 15-month post-release time
periods.

108

Exhibit 57. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on family and peer outcomes

Wave 2
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
Family emotional
support
Parental relationship
Peer instrumental
support

SE

OR

Wave 3
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.

SE

OR

Wave 4
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.

SE

OR

22
22

21
21

0.67
0.48

0.63
0.66

NA
NA

21
21

21
21

0.14 0.58
−0.25 0.60

NA
NA

21
20

21
21

0.10 0.64
−0.31 0.83

NA
NA

9

10

−0.38

0.41

NA

10

10

−0.45 0.52

NA

9

10

−0.30 0.44

NA

Note: NA = not applicable. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Post-release Outcomes

109

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

SUBSTANCE USE AND PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH
Substance Use
Substance use outcomes were measured by self-report at each
follow-up time period (3-, 9-, and 15-months post-release).
Although SVORI respondents were more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report having received substance use
treatment, having participated in drug education classes, and
having received group counseling for substance use problems,
no significant differences between the SVORI and non-SVORI
groups and little variability across the 15-month post-release
time period were found on measures of substance use. From
one half to three quarters of SVORI and non-SVORI participants
indicated that they did not use drugs, with at least two thirds
indicating that they did not use drugs in the 30 days before the
follow-up interview. These findings are shown graphically in
Exhibits 58 and 59.
When adult males’ drug use was compared with juvenile males’
drug use during the post-release follow-up period, no
differences were found. The adult males and juvenile males
reported equivalent levels of substance use.
Exhibit 58. Self-reported
lack of drug use

100
80

SVORI
79

Non-SVORI

73
59

60

56

56

58

40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not statistically significant
at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3
= 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

110

Post-release Outcomes

Exhibit 59. Self-reported
lack of drug use in past
30 days

100
85
80

SVORI
Non-SVORI

79
66

66

71
61

60
40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Physical Health
The SVORI juvenile programs did not particularly emphasize
physical health outcomes; however, a juvenile’s physical health
may impact his ability to obtain gainful employment or may
influence other outcomes of interest to SVORI. The SF-12
physical health scale was used to measure five dimensions of
physical health functioning (moderate activities such as moving
a table, climbing several flights of stairs; accomplishing less
than he would have liked to have accomplished, because of his
physical health; being limited in the kind of work or activities
he did as a result of his physical health; and having pain that
interfered with his normal work). As seen in Exhibit 60, no
significant differences were found between the SVORI and nonSVORI groups, with little variability emerging across postrelease follow-up time periods. Overall, both the SVORI and
non-SVORI juvenile males reported no major physical health
problems.

111

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 60. Self-reported
physical health scale

100
SVORI
Non-SVORI

80
60

55

54

54

55

55

54

40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Mental Health
Mental health services are an integral part of most juvenile
reentry programs. In the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation, the
SF-12 mental health scale (a measure of mental health
functioning) was used to measure mental health symptoms that
may impede functioning. Results showed no significant
differences in mental health functioning between the SVORI and
non-SVORI groups and little variability across post-release
follow up time periods (Exhibit 61). As with the physical health
of juvenile males, both SVORI and non-SVORI juvenile males
reported no major mental health problems.
Exhibit 61. Self-reported
mental health scale

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80
60

53

54

51

52

50

52

40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not statistically significant
at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3
= 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

112

Post-release Outcomes

For youth, the beliefs they have about themselves (selfefficacy) and their perspective about the amount of control they
have in their lives (locus of control) is likely to have significant
impacts on their reentry successes. Changes in self-efficacy and
locus of control may be direct outcomes of some of the SVORI
programming offered to juveniles. When these outcomes were
examined at the 3-, 9-, and 15- month post-release follow-up
time periods, no significant differences emerged between
SVORI and non-SVORI groups in their self-efficacy; however,
significant differences were found in locus of control. SVORI
participants had significantly greater locus of control than nonSVORI participants at 9 months post-release (Wave 3).
Exhibit 62 shows the weighted proportions of the SVORI and
non-SVORI groups for the substance use, physical health, and
mental health variables. No differences were found in the
comparison of adult males with juvenile males on any of the
physical or mental health outcomes.

113

Mental health scale
Physical health scale
No self-reported drug
use
No self-reported drug
use in past 30 days

SVORI
Mean
53
55

Wave 2
NonSVORI
Mean Est.
54 −0.58
54
0.61

SE
1.11
0.88

OR
NA
NA

Wave 3
NonSVORI SVORI
Mean Mean Est.
51
52 −1.02
54
55 −0.56

SE
OR
1.36 NA
0.67 NA

SVORI
Mean
50
55

Wave 4
NonSVORI
Mean Est.
52 −1.71
54 0.63

SE
OR
1.23 NA
0.89 NA

79%

73%

0.33

0.33

1.40

59%

56%

0.12

0.30 1.13

56%

58% −0.08

0.30 0.93

85%

79%

0.38

0.37

1.46

66%

66%

0.00

0.32 1.00

61%

71% −0.46

0.31 0.63

Locus of control

8.1

8.0

0.10

0.22

NA

8.2

7.5

0.69

0.25

NA

Self-efficacy

8.1

8.1 −0.05

0.23

NA

8.0

7.8

0.18

0.25

NA

*

8.2

7.9

0.24

0.89

NA

8.2

7.9

0.32

0.30

NA

Note: NA = not applicable. Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

114

Exhibit 62. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on self-reported mental health, physical health,
and substance use outcomes

Post-release Outcomes

CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND RECIDIVISM
In the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation, several self-reported
measures were used to assess criminal behavior and recidivism.
Core criminal behavior, or recidivism, outcomes are shown in
Exhibit 63. Overall, no significant differences were found
between the SVORI and non-SVORI groups for criminal
behavior or recidivism.
The perpetration of violence was measured for SVORI and nonSVORI participants. Respondents were asked about several
specific types of violence: threatening to hit, throwing,
pushing/grabbing/shoving, slapping/kicking/biting/hitting, and
threatening or using a weapon. The responses were summed to
create the summary measure. Exhibit 64 graphically illustrates
the patterns for this outcome. As can be seen in the exhibit,
about 50% of the SVORI and non-SVORI juvenile males
reported no perpetration of violence.
Another measure of criminal behavior or recidivism is
compliance with conditions of supervision. As shown in
Exhibit 65, more than two thirds of the SVORI and non-SVORI
groups indicated that they had complied with all conditions of
supervision. Slightly more participants (in both groups)
indicated compliance in the 3-month post-release follow-up
than in the 9- or 15-month post-release follow-up.
The SVORI Multi-site Evaluation assessed whether juvenile
males avoided sanctions after their release from confinement.
While more than two thirds of the SVORI and non-SVORI
groups indicated that they complied with the conditions of their
supervision, only between one third and one half of males from
both groups were successful in avoiding sanctions during the 15
months after confinement (Exhibit 66).

115

Wave 2
NonSVORI SVOR
Mean IMean Est.
No perpetration of
violence
Complied with
conditions of
supervision
No sanctions received
for noncompliance
No self-reported
criminal behavior
Not reincarcerated at
follow-up

Wave 3
SE

OR

NonSVORI SVOR
Mean IMean

Est.

SE

OR

Wave 4
NonSVORI SVOR
Mean IMean Est.

SE

OR

57%

62%

−0.21

0.29

0.81

49%

47%

0.10

0.29

1.10

57%

55%

0.09

0.28

1.09

80%

86%

−0.39

0.39

0.68

71%

74%

−0.17

0.47

0.85

66%

77%

−0.56

0.65

0.57

53%

48%

0.21

0.31

1.23

41%

41%

−0.02

0.44

0.98

37%

38%

−0.05

0.52

0.95

76%

75%

0.08

0.33

1.08

54%

58%

−0.18

0.29

0.83

62%

57%

0.19

0.28

1.21

92%

92%

0.01

0.50

1.01

73%

82%

−0.50

0.36

0.61

73%

80%

−0.37

0.33

0.69

Note: Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

116

Exhibit 63. Weighted means and parameter estimates of the effect of SVORI on self-reported recidivism outcomes

Post-release Outcomes

Exhibit 64. Self-reported
nonperpetration of
violence since release or
last interview

100
SVORI
Non-SVORI

80
60

57

62

57
49

55

47

40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Exhibit 65. Compliance
with conditions of
supervision

SVORI

100
80

86

Non-SVORI
71

80

74

77

66

60
40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 1 = 30 days pre-release;
Wave 2 = 3 months post-release; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 =
15 months post-release.

117

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit 66. Self-reported
lack of sanctions postrelease

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80
60

53

48

41

41

40

37

38

20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

Juvenile males were also asked if they had committed any
crimes during the post-release follow-up period. As mentioned
previously, no significant differences were found between
SVORI and non-SVORI groups: 75% of the juvenile males from
both groups indicated that they had not committed a crime at
3-months post-release (Exhibit 67). This rate decreased to
slightly more than one half for both groups at 9 months postrelease (54% SVORI and 58% non-SVORI) and was slightly less
than two thirds for both groups at 15-months post-release
(62% SVORI and 57% non-SVORI).
Exhibit 67. Self-reported
noncommission of any
crime post-release

SVORI

100
80

76

Non-SVORI

75
54

60

58

62

57

40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

118

Post-release Outcomes

The final criminal behavior or recidivism outcome of interest is
whether the juvenile males had been reincarcerated at the time
of the follow-up interview. More than three quarters of juvenile
males in both groups reported they had not been
reincarcerated at 3-, 9-, or 15-months post-release
(Exhibit 68).
Exhibit 68. Not
reincarcerated at followup interview

SVORI
100

92

92

Non-SVORI
82
73

80

73

80

60
40
20
0
Wave 2

Wave 3

Wave 4

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level. Data are weighted. Wave 2 = 3 months postrelease; Wave 3 = 9 months post-release; Wave 4 = 15 months post-release.

One key differences was found when juvenile males were
compared with adult males. Juvenile males were significantly
more likely, at each of the follow-up waves (3-, 9-, and 15months), to have perpetrated violence than adult males.

119

Conclusions
This report has presented findings from four waves of
interviews conducted with juvenile males in the four juvenile
impact sites included in the SVORI evaluation. The sample
included 152 SVORI program participants and 185 comparison
juvenile males who were not enrolled in SVORI programs.
Respondents were interviewed approximately one month before
release and then again at 3, 9, and 15 months after release. All
four interview waves have provided information on the
characteristics of study respondents, their family and peer
relationships, educational attainment and employment, physical
and mental health, delinquency, and substance use, as well as
detailed data on their need for and receipt of services and
programs. The three post-release interviews have provided
information about the impact of SVORI programming on a
variety of reentry outcomes, including housing, education and
employment, mental and physical health, substance use, and
criminal behavior.
This section provides a summary description of respondents’
characteristics and their pre-release service needs and receipt;
it also discusses the comparability of the two study groups.
Discussed here, as well, are respondents’ post-release
experiences, including their post-release service needs, their
post-release service receipt, and the impact of SVORI program
participation on their reentry outcomes. The final subsection
discusses the implications of findings for juvenile males’
successful reentry into their communities.

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
The respondents were about 17 years of age, on average, and
the majority reported their race as black. Before their current

121

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

confinement, most reported that they had lived in a house or
apartment that belonged to someone else (including parents’
home). Less than 10% reported that they were homeless, living
in a shelter, or had no set place to live during the 6 months
before their current confinement. Before confinement,
respondents had substantial difficulties in school: nearly all
reported that they had at some time been suspended or
expelled, and more than half reported that they had not been
regularly attending school. Respondents most frequently
reported that their natural mother was the primary person who
raised them and the person with whom they had lived the
longest. Nearly all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that
they felt close to their families and wanted their families to be
involved in their lives. More than three quarters of the
respondents reported that they had family members who had
been convicted or who had been incarcerated. More than half of
the respondents reported that they had family members who
had alcohol or drug problems. Similarly, more than three
quarters reported that, before confinement, they had friends
who had been convicted or who had been incarcerated. More
than two thirds of the respondents reported that they had
friends who had drug or alcohol problems.
Overall, the study participants reported being physically
healthy, with most reporting that their health did not limit their
current physical activities. Additionally, few study participants
reported currently experiencing physical health problems.
Wearing corrective lenses and asthma were the most commonly
reported health problems. Less than 5% of the respondents
reported that they had been diagnosed with heart trouble,
arthritis, tuberculosis, diabetes, or hepatitis B or C. None of the
respondents reported that he was HIV-positive or had been
diagnosed with AIDS. More than half of the respondents rated
their mental health status as excellent or very good. About half
of the respondents reported that they had received treatment
for a mental health or substance use problem—the most
common reasons for this treatment were drug use or
dependence (26%), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(22%), and alcohol use or dependence (19%).
Nearly all of the respondents reported having used alcohol and
marijuana during their lifetimes, and about half reported having
used cocaine or hallucinogens. Reported age at first use for
alcohol and marijuana was about 12 years, on average. Less

122

Conclusions

than 10% of respondents reported having ever used heroin,
methadone, or anabolic steroids. About 7 in every 10
respondents reported having used alcohol or other drugs in the
30 days before confinement.
Nearly half of the respondents reported that they had at some
time held a job. More than one third reported that they had
worked during the 6 months preceding their current
confinement, with most having worked as laborers (e.g.,
landscapers, roofers, day laborers) or in the service industry
(e.g., as cooks, waiters, janitors, cashiers, dishwashers).
On average, respondents were 13 years old at the time of their
first arrest and reported that they had been arrested six times
and adjudicated three times. Nearly all respondents reported
that they had been previously locked up in a juvenile detention
facility, training school, or other type of juvenile correctional
facility, averaging three terms of confinement. Nearly half of
respondents reported that they were currently confined for a
violent offense; fewer respondents reported that their current
offenses included drug or public order offenses. At the time of
the interviews, SVORI respondents reported that they had been
incarcerated an average of 1.9 years, compared with an
average of 1.1 years as reported by the non-SVORI
respondents.

COMPARABILITY OF SVORI AND NONSVORI RESPONDENTS
The impact evaluation findings depend on the comparability of
the two evaluation study groups—those who participated in
SVORI programs and the non-SVORI respondents who were
identified as comparison subjects for this evaluation. If
identification of comparable non-SVORI respondents succeeded,
then the expectation would be that few differences between the
groups would be found on variables that measured
characteristics before the time at which assignment to SVORI
could be made.
The interview data collected before respondents’ release from
confinement showed a few characteristics for which the
differences between the study groups were statistically
significant at the .05 level. For example, those participating in
SVORI programs were older and less likely to be white. SVORI
respondents were more likely than non-SVORI respondents to

123

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

report that they had family members who had been convicted.
While few respondents reported that they were gang members,
SVORI respondents were more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that they had relatives who were
members of their gang.
No significant differences were found between the two groups
on the education measures, and only one significant difference
was found on employment history: SVORI respondents were
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
received formal pay at their last job.
With regard to health measures, non-SVORI respondents
scored higher than SVORI respondents on the SF-12 physical
health scale, indicating better physical health for non-SVORI
respondents. SVORI respondents were more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report wearing corrective lenses. SVORI
respondents were more likely than non-SVORI respondents to
indicate symptoms of phobic anxiety and psychoticism,
although scores on both measures for each group were low.
On substance use and delinquency measures, SVORI
respondents were more likely than non-SVORI respondents to
report having ever used alcohol and to report having ever used
hallucinogens. SVORI respondents were less likely than nonSVORI respondents to be currently confined for a drug or
public-order crime. In addition, SVORI respondents were more
likely than non-SVORI respondents to report having been
confined for more than 24 hours at one time; however, nonSVORI respondents had more prior terms of confinement than
SVORI respondents, on average.
Although few significant differences in characteristics were
found, propensity score matching techniques were used to
improve the comparability between the SVORI and non-SVORI
groups. A logit model to generate the probability of assignment
to SVORI was estimated with 23 variables measured before
SVORI assignment, including characteristics such as age, race,
school attendance, family and peer measures, substance use,
delinquency history, and types of crime leading to current
period of confinement. Propensity score weights were
developed to examine balance and SVORI program effects.
Once the propensity score weights were applied, the SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents exhibited balance on each variable
included in the propensity model, conferring confidence on the

124

Conclusions

conclusion that the groups were comparable. This conclusion
permitted examination of the effect of SVORI on outcomes
measured in the follow-up interviews.

PRE-RELEASE SERVICE NEEDS
Respondents reported high levels of need for a wide array of
services—particularly for transition services and services
related to employment, education, and skills development.
Nearly all of the respondents reported needing at least some
transition services to address immediate needs upon release. In
fact, of the 10 items included in the transition service needs
bundle, at least half of the respondents reported that they
needed 7. The most common transition service need was for a
driver’s license (90%). More than 6 in every 10 respondents
reported needing transportation or a mentor. About 55%
reported that they needed legal assistance. About half of
respondents reported that they needed public health insurance
(54%), documents for employment (53%), or financial
assistance (49%). More than one third reported that they
needed access to clothing or food banks, and one-quarter
reported that they needed a place to live.
All respondents reported needing some kind of employment,
education, or skills-related services. More than half of the
respondents reported that they needed each of the seven items
included in this bundle. The most common need was for more
education (94%), followed closely by job training (88%) and a
job (87%). About 7 in every 10 respondents reported that they
needed life skills training or needed to change their attitudes
toward criminal behavior, while 6 in every 10 respondents
reported that they needed help learning money management.
More than half of the respondents expressed the need to work
on their personal relationships (55%).
About three quarters of the respondents reported needing
health services after release. The most commonly reported
need in this bundle was for anger management programming
(53%). Nearly half of the respondents reported that they would
need medical treatment, and about one third reported that that
they would need substance use treatment. About one fifth of
respondents reported that they would need mental health
treatment.

125

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Very few of the respondents reported needing either of the two
domestic violence services—batterer intervention programs or
domestic violence support groups.

PRE-RELEASE SERVICE RECEIPT
Although reported needs were similar for the SVORI and nonSVORI respondents, some notable differences emerged in
reports of the services received during confinement. SVORI
programs achieved modest increases in provision of services
and programming before participants’ release from
confinement. Programs made the most impact in providing
greater access to coordination services and to employment,
education, and skills-related services.
SVORI respondents reported that they had received a
significantly higher level of coordination services, on average,
than non-SVORI respondents (average score of 59 for SVORI
and 52 for non-SVORI). Nearly all respondents in each group
reported that they had met with a case manager—the most
commonly reported coordination service received. SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely to report that they
had worked with someone to plan for release, had developed a
reentry plan, and had met with a social worker or caseworker.
SVORI respondents reported a higher level rate of receipt for
transition services, on average, than non-SVORI respondents
(average score of 24 for SVORI and 21 for non-SVORI). SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely to report that they
had participated in release preparation programs and had
received help in finding a place to live. Non-SVORI respondents
were significantly more likely than non-SVORI respondents to
report that they had received help in accessing public health
care. For the remaining nine items in the transition services
bundle, SVORI respondents reported receipt at about the same
rate, or slightly more, for these services as non-SVORI
respondents.
Respondents in both groups reported having received less than
half of the services in the health services bundle (average score
of 44 for SVORI and 46 for non-SVORI); however, respondents
in both groups reported similar, high levels of medical
treatment. SVORI respondents were more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report that they had received preventive
medical services, substance use treatment, and information on

126

Conclusions

accessing physical health care or mental health care in the
community. In addition, SVORI respondents were significantly
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had received specific substance use treatment services, such as
Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous, and
information on accessing substance use treatment in the
community. Non-SVORI respondents were much more likely
than SVORI respondents to report that they had participated in
anger management programs—consistent with the finding that
non-SVORI respondents were more likely to report needing
help with anger management.
SVORI respondents reported having received a higher level of
employment, education, and skills-related services, on average,
than non-SVORI respondents (average score of 54 for SVORI
and 50 for non-SVORI). SVORI respondents were significantly
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had received employment services. About twice as many SVORI
respondents as non-SVORI respondents reported that they had
been given advice on answering questions about delinquency
history, had participated in an employment readiness program,
or had been given names of people to contact in their
communities to find jobs. In addition, SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report
that they had been given advice about job interviewing. NonSVORI respondents were significantly more likely than SVORI
respondents to report that they had received training to change
their attitudes toward criminal behavior—consistent with the
finding that non-SVORI respondents were more likely to report
needing to change these attitudes.
Very few respondents reported participation in either a batterer
intervention program or a domestic violence support group.
Overall, SVORI respondents reported receiving 39% of all
service items measured before release from confinement, on
average, while non-SVORI respondents reported receiving 36%
of the services, on average. Although pre-release service
receipt levels were less than 100%, SVORI programs were
successful in modestly increasing the level of services and
programming provided to participants before their release to
the community.

127

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

POST-RELEASE SERVICE NEEDS
The levels of service need reported by SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents were similar at each of the three post-release
interviews. On average, respondents in both groups reported
that they needed slightly more than one third of all the services
measured at each post-release wave. The levels of expressed
need across the 15-month post-release follow-up period were
consistently highest for employment, education, and skillsrelated services.
The levels of need reported by respondents in both groups
before their release from confinement were, on average, higher
than their reported needs after release. While respondents’
levels of service need generally declined after release, at each
post-release interview at least 90% of respondents reported
needing some transition services; at least 93% reported
needing some employment, education, or skills-related
services; and, about half reported needing some kind of health
service. Obtaining a driver’s license was the most commonly
reported transitional need across all post-release interview
waves. At each post-release interview, the most commonly
reported need in the employment, education, and skills-related
bundle was for more education, and the most common health
service need was for medical treatment.
For a few items, needs remained consistently high for SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents. At each post-release interview, at
least half of SVORI respondents reported that they needed
more education, a job, job training, life skills training, a driver’s
license, and transportation. Non-SVORI respondents reported
similar high levels of need for these services.

POST-RELEASE SERVICE RECEIPT
SVORI programs continued to achieve modest increases in
provision of services and programming in the months following
participants’ release from confinement. Programs made the
most impact in providing greater access to employment,
education, and skills-related services, as well as to coordination
services. In fact, 3 months after their release from
confinement, SVORI respondents were significantly more likely
than non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received a
needs assessment, educational services, and employment
services. In addition, 9 months after release, SVORI

128

Conclusions

respondents were significantly more likely than non-SVORI
respondents to report that they had received a needs
assessment and had worked with someone to reintegrate into
their community.
For each service domain, reported levels of service receipt were
highest for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents before their
release from confinement, declined dramatically in the 3
months following release, and remained low over the postrelease period. Respondents in both groups consistently
reported having received the highest level of services in the
coordination bundle.
Although SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported low
levels of service receipt after their release from confinement,
respondents in both groups reported relatively high levels of
service needs during this time. In fact, at each post-release
period and for each service bundle, the levels of service receipt
reported by respondents in both groups were considerably
lower than their reported needs.
Overall, while respondents in both groups reported relatively
high levels of post-release service needs and low levels of
service receipt across all service bundles, SVORI respondents
reported slightly higher levels of overall service receipt than
their non-SVORI counterparts. In fact, 3 months after release,
SVORI respondents reported a significantly higher level of
overall service receipt, on average, than non-SVORI
respondents. So, although service receipt for SVORI
respondents was far below 100% during the post-release
period, SVORI programs were able to provide modest increases
in the delivery of programs and services over “treatment as
usual.”

POST-RELEASE OUTCOMES
Several notable outcomes for juvenile males emerged as a
result of SVORI programming. The first is that housing was not
significantly impacted by SVORI programming, despite the
efforts dedicated to transition planning for SVORI participants.
SVORI and non-SVORI juvenile males were similar in their
abilities to find stable housing, the challenges they confronted
when looking for housing, living with people who did not have a
history of criminal involvement and did not use drugs or
alcohol, and their perceptions of neighborhood quality. The sole

129

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

area in which SVORI and non-SVORI participants differed was
housing independence: non-SVORI participants were
significantly more likely to achieve housing independence 15
months after release from confinement.
As indicated in the pre-release service needs section, all SVORI
respondents reported needing some kind of employment,
education, or skills-related services. Post-release outcomes in
the area of education and employment confirm that SVORI
programming met this need for some areas of education and
employment; however, the success of SVORI programming in
these areas were time limited. SVORI juvenile males were
significantly more likely than non-SVORI juvenile males to be in
school 3 months after their release from confinement, but at 9
and 15 months post-release, the significant differences
diminished. SVORI juvenile males were also significantly more
likely to have a job with benefits than their non-SVORI
counterparts, but this finding was only at 15 months postrelease from confinement.
All of the SVORI juvenile programs attempted to include family
members as a part of the reentry process. Although significant
differences did not exist in the level of family emotional support
and the strength of parental relationships between SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents, SVORI programming appeared to
have a moderate impact on the type of support both SVORI and
non-SVORI groups received from their families throughout the
follow-up periods.
Even though SVORI respondents were more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report having received substance use
treatment and information on accessing physical health care or
mental health care in the community while confined, no
significant differences were found between SVORI and nonSVORI juvenile males in substance use, physical health, or
mental health outcomes, suggesting that this area was not one
in which SVORI programming had a unique impact on SVORI
participants.
One of the primary outcomes of the SVORI program was
criminal behavior and recidivism. SVORI was successful in
supporting 50% or more of the participating juvenile males in
their compliance with conditions of supervision and avoidance
of sanctions, perpetrating violence after their release,
committing crimes after release, and being reincarcerated after

130

Conclusions

release. Despite this outcome, SVORI failed to generate
differences between juvenile males in the SVORI program and
their non-SVORI counterparts.

IMPLICATIONS
The juvenile justice system is mandated to promote public
safety, to hold youthful offenders accountable for their
delinquent behavior, and to promote youth development
(Howell, 2003; King, 2006). While the “get tough” policies of
the past two decades have resulted in an increase in the
population of confined juveniles, reoffending persists. Faced
with these ineffective policies, practitioners and researchers
continue to experiment with research-based reentry models to
improve outcomes for confined juvenile offenders (Gies, 2003)
Similar to the research-based IAP, SVORI was intended to
create a multiphase continuum of well-coordinated,
individualized services that began during the period of
confinement and intensified just before release and during the
early months post-release, with continuing support spanning a
longer-term post-release period. The overarching goals of the
initiative were to improve not only criminal and juvenile justice
outcomes, but also education, employment, and housing
outcomes for juvenile released from confinement. This report
focused on four juvenile programs that were part of the SVORI
Multi-site Evaluation. In assessing program effects of SVORI,
the findings lead to two important policy implications for
juvenile reentry programming. The first addresses the
advantage of assessing and responding to the needs of
delinquent youth; the second addresses how best to do the
work of reentry.
Addressing the Needs of Juvenile Offenders
The profile of the typical juvenile male who participated in the
SVORI evaluation revealed that he had family and friends who
were criminal justice–involved or who had drug and alcohol
problems; he had substantial difficulties in school, as illustrated
by his irregular attendance and likely suspension or expulsion
from school; he reported high rates of alcohol and marijuana
use and started using these substances at a young age. Most
likely, he had engaged in violent behavior or had been
victimized before being confined. And he had incurred a history
of delinquency that could be described as chronic, given his
young age. These findings are consistent with previous
131

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

research on the wide range of challenges juvenile offenders
face, including crime-involved parents (Farrington, 1989), low
academic functioning (National Research Council and Institute
of Medicine, 2001), and a history of substance use (Kazdin,
2000).
Youth who are deeply involved in the juvenile justice system,
much like the SVORI youth, often have a myriad of family,
health, and mental health issues that accompany their
delinquent behaviors. For some youth, like those in the SVORI
program, their involvement in the juvenile justice system
initiates a range of services designed to address these
problems. For other youth, continued involvement in
delinquency may reflect a failure of community-based services
to adequately meet the myriad needs of youth (Schwalbe,
Smith Hatch, & Maschi, 2009).
In the case of SVORI youth, the juvenile justice system took on
the role of gatekeeper for specialized case management, needs
assessment, and supervision, as well as access to individualized
services and interventions. The findings presented in this report
reveal that some youth received services that exceeded their
stated need, but the majority of youth lacked services adequate
to meet their needs. Because of the gaps between juveniles’
expressed need for services and reported receipt of services, it
is critically important that juvenile justice practitioners and
policy makers reflect on how needs are assessed, in order to
better understand the wide range of deficits that often
characterize youth confined to juvenile correctional facilities.
Once gained, this understanding would have implications for
program and treatment planning and coordination for deciding
what types of services are most needed and for whom.
Understanding the levels of need may also help establish
realistic expectations about what improvements programs can
achieve, in terms of both immediate and longer-term outcomes
for juveniles.
Improving How Reentry Works
The second policy implication addresses how best to do the
work of reentry—namely, how to manage the coordination of
services for juvenile offenders preparing to reenter their
communities. Evidence from this report suggests that SVORI
programs were able to make modest improvements in the
approach to the delivery of reentry services (e.g., intensive

132

Conclusions

case management, greater use of needs assessments, reentry
planning) and that this model of care may have resulted in
small improvements in outcomes. For example, evidence
suggests that short-term, significant improvements were made
in some employment and education outcomes—another primary
service area of SVORI juvenile programs. It is perhaps the case
that the SVORI-funded programs’ enhanced case management
and service coordination approach, coupled with their emphasis
on providing greater levels of employment and education
services, contributed to the small improvements in these
particular outcomes. Similarly, evaluation of IAP, a reentry
model with an emphasis on service coordination and with a
theoretical framework similar to that of SVORI, found small
improvements in short-term, intermediate outcomes for IAP
participants, such as fewer positive drug testing results, a
higher rate of employment, and a higher proportion of
participants’ returns to school after release from confinement
(Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005).
Future Directions
Although some of these findings of improvement in levels of
service for SVORI participants offer encouragement, they
should not be overstated. Service receipt levels were far from
100%, particularly in the months following release from
confinement. With the remarkably low levels of service receipt
and relatively high levels of self-reported need throughout the
study period, the fact that few significant improvements in
outcomes were observed for SVORI respondents is not
surprising.
In their evaluation of IAP, Wiebush and colleagues suggest that
implementation issues (e.g., staff turnover that hampered
continuity/coordination of services, delayed formation of
community-based service networks, difficulties in delivery of
specialized services during the confinement stage) may
preempt the ability to draw conclusions about the impact of IAP
on reentry outcomes (Wiebush et al., 2005). It may be the case
that the sites included in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
experienced early implementation issues that are reflected in
the low level of service receipt reported by SVORI respondents
and few significant differences in reentry outcomes.
Consequently, future study may benefit from an examination of
factors that may have contributed to low levels of service

133

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

receipt, including implementation issues, among others (e.g.,
the voluntary nature of some of the SVORI programs,
respondents’ perceptions of the quality of programs and
services, the intensity and quality of post-release supervision,
the use of sanctions and rewards, the “aging out” of some from
juvenile justice jurisdiction). In addition, although small sample
sizes preclude a rigorous site analysis, an exploration of
program implementation and service receipt by site—with their
varied reentry approaches—may provide insight into the
relationships between SVORI program operations and service
delivery, the levels of service needs and service receipt, and
reentry outcomes. Finally, secondary analyses, without regard
to SVORI participation, might explore “what works for whom”
with regard to reentry programming. Exploration of these topics
holds out possibilities for expanding what is known about
effective reentry programming for youth.

134

References
Abrams, L. S. (2006). Listening to juvenile offenders: Can
residential treatment prevent recidivism? Child and
Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(1), 61-85.
Abrams, L. S., Shannon, S., & Sangalang, C. (2008). Transition
services for incarcerated youth: A mixed methods
evaluation study. Children and Youth Services Review,
30, 522-535.
Altschuler, D. M., & Brash, R. (2004). Adolescent and teenage
offenders confronting the challenges and opportunities
of reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 7287.
Altschulter, D. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1994). Intensive
aftercare for high risk juveniles: A community care
model. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Bouffard, J. A., & Bergseth, K. J. (2008). The impact of reentry
services on juvenile offenders’ recidivism. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6, 295-318.
Chung, H., Schubert, C. A., & Mulvey, E. P. (2007). An
empirical portrait of community reentry among serious
juvenile offenders in two metropolitan cities. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 34, 1402-1426.
Cocozza, J. J., & Skowya, K. (2000). Youth with mental health
disorders: Issues and emerging responses. Juvenile
Justice, 7, 3-13.
Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent
aggression and adult violence. Violence and Victims,
4(2), 79-100.
Feld, B. C. (1998). Juvenile and criminal justice systems’
responses to youth violence. In M. Tonry & M. H. Moore
(Eds.), Youth violence (pp. 189-263). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
135

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Freudenberg, N., Daniels, J., Crum, M., Perkins, T., & Richie, B.
(2005). Coming home from jail: The social and health
consequences of community reentry for women, male
adolescents, and their families and communities.
American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1725-1736.
Gies, S. V. (2003). Aftercare services. Washington, DC: Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Grisso, T. (2004). Double jeopardy: Adolescent offenders with
mental disorders. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D.,
Catalano, R. F., & Harachi, T. W. (1998). A review of
predictors of youth violence. In R. Loeber & D. P.
Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders:
Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 106-146).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Howell, J. C. (2003). Preventing and reducing juvenile
delinquency: A comprehensive framework. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kazdin, A. (2000). Adolescent development, mental disorders,
and decision making in delinquent youth. In T. Grisso &
R. Schwartz (Eds.), Youth on trial (pp. 33-65). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
King, M. (2006). Guide to the state juvenile justice profiles.
Technical assistance to the juvenile court: Special
project bulletin. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for
Juvenile Justice.
Lattimore, P. K., & Steffey, D. M. (2009). The Multi-Site
Evaluation of SVORI: Methodology and analytic
approach. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International.
Lattimore, P. K., Visher, C. A., & Steffey, D. M. (2008). Prerelease characteristics and service receipt among adult
male participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation.
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
Lattimore, P. K., Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., Lindquist, C., &
Brumbaugh, S. (2005). Implementation of prisoner
reentry programs: Findings from the Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative Multi-site Evaluation. Justice
Research and Policy, 7(2), 87-109.
Lindquist, C. (2005). Reentry research in action:
Implementation of SVORI programs. Research Triangle
Park, NC: RTI International.

136

References

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize
effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A metaanalytic overview. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 124–147.
Lipsey, M. W., & Derzon, J. H. (1998). Predictors of violent or
serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood:
A synthesis of longitudinal research. In R. Loeber & D. P.
Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders:
Risk factors and successful interventions (pp. 86-105).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). What works in corrections: Reducing
the criminal activities of offenders and delinquents. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
McCord, J. (1992). The Cambridge-Somerville study: A
pioneering longitudinal-experimental study of
delinquency prevention. In J. McCord & R. Tremblay
(Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk
factors and successful interventions (pp. 313-345).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mears, D. (2001). Critical challenges in addressing the mental
health needs of juvenile offenders. Justice Policy Journal,
4, 41-61.
Mears, D. P., & Travis, J. (2004). Youth development and
reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 3-20.
National Council on Disability (2003). Addressing the needs of
youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: The
current status of evidence-based research. Washington,
DC: National Council on Disability.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2001).
Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Puzzanchera, C. (2009). Juvenile arrests 2007 (NCJ 225344).
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved June 11, 2009, from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/225344.pdf
Schwalbe, C. S., Smith Hatch, S., & Maschi, T. (2009). Effects
of treatment needs and prior social services on juvenile
court decision making. Social Work Research, 33(1), 3140.
Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., & Kang, W. (2008). Census of
juveniles in residential placement databook. Retrieved
December 18, 2009, from
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/cjrp/

137

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and
victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Steinberg, L., Chung, H. L., & Little, M. (2004). Reentry of
young offenders from the justice system: A
developmental perspective. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 2, 21-38.
Strategic Advantages (2000). Symptom Assessment-45
Questionnaire (SA-45). New York: Multi-Health Systems.
Ware, J. E., Jr., Kosinski, M., Turner-Bowker, D. M., & Gandek,
B. (2002). How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health
survey (with a supplement documenting version 1).
Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric.
Wiebush, R. G., Wagner, D., McNulty, B., Wang, Y., & Le, T. N.
(2005). Implementation and outcome evaluation of the
intensive aftercare program, final report. Washington,
DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Winterfield, L., & Brumbaugh, S. (2005). Reentry research in
action: Overview of the Serious and Violent Offender
Reentry Initiative. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI
International.
Winterfield, L., Lattimore, P. K., Steffey, D. M., Brumbaugh, S.,
& Lindquist, C. (2006). The Serious and Violent Offender
Reentry Initiative: Measuring the effects on service
delivery. Western Criminology Review, 7(2), 3-19.

138

Appendix A. Data Tables
Exhibit A-1. Juvenile male case disposition—Wave 1 (pre-release)

SVORI
TOTAL ALL CASES

Case Disposition—Eligible Cases
Completed
Interview completed
Released Early
Respondent released before Wave
1 interview
Refused
Final refusal by respondent,
guardian, or other
Access Denied
Access to respondent denied by
prison
Other Noninterview
Respondent absconded
Private setting not available
Respondent deceased
Language barrier—Spanish
Language barrier—other
Physically/mentally incapable
Other noninterview
Total Eligible Cases

Case Disposition—Ineligible
Cases
Ineligible Cases
Respondent transferred to nonstudy facility
Respondent releasing to non-study
area
Respondent not releasing during
data collection period
Date of release unknown
Case fielded incorrectly
Respondent ineligible to participate
Respondent ineligible—age
Other ineligible (groups dropped)
Other (noninterview) ineligible
Total Ineligible Cases

N
192

%
45.8
SVORI
% of
Eligible
N
SVORI

Non-SVORI
N
%
54.2
227
Non-SVORI
% of
Eligible
N
NS

All Cases
N
%
100.0
419
All Cases
N

% of
Eligible

152

75.2

185

75.5

337

75.4

31

15.3

35

14.3

66

14.8

17

8.4

20

8.2

37

8.3

1

0.5

2

0.8

3

0.7

0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.5
202
100.0
SVORI
% of
Ineligible
N
SVORI

2
0.8
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
1
0.4
245
100.0
Non-SVORI
% of
Ineligible
N
NS

2
0.4
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
0
0.0
2
0.4
447
100.0
All Cases
N

% of
Ineligible

2

5.0

1

2.4

3

3.7

1

2.5

0

0.0

1

1.2

5

12.5

17

40.5

22

26.8

2
1
11
3
7
8
40

5.0
2.5
27.5
7.5
17.5
20.0
100.0

5
0
5
1
10
3
42

11.9
0.0
11.9
2.4
23.8
7.1
100.0

7
1
16
4
17
11
82

8.5
1.2
19.5
4.9
20.7
13.4
100.0

A-1

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group

Characteristic
Demographics and Housing
Age at confinement
Age at pre-release (Wave 1) interview
White
Black
Hispanic
Multiracial/other
Born in United States
English is primary language
Homeless/shelter/no set place to live
before incarceration
Employment History
Ever held a job
Employed during 6 months before
incarceration
Source of support 6 months before
incarceration: family
Source of support 6 months before
incarceration: friends
Source of support 6 months before
incarceration: government
Source of support 6 months before
incarceration: illegal income
Source of support 6 months before
incarceration: group home/training school
Last job: worked more than 20 hours/week
Last job: hourly salary
Last job: was permanent
Last job: received formal pay
Last job: health insurance provided
Completed 12th grade or GED/other high
school equivalent
Currently in school
Regularly attended school in the school
year before confinement
Ever expelled/suspended from school
Family and Peers
Primary person or persons who raised
respondent: natural mother and natural
father

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

337
337
337
337
337
337
337
337

15.26 (7.32)
17.01 (1.30)
0.14 (0.35)
0.59 (0.49)
0.23 (0.42)
0.04 (0.20)
0.94 (0.24)
0.91 (0.28)

15.77 (1.28)
16.68 (1.36)
0.24 (0.43)
0.51 (0.50)
0.17 (0.37)
0.08 (0.27)
0.94 (0.24)
0.90 (0.30)

−0.85
2.27
−2.31
1.42
1.44
−1.62
0.01
0.53

337

0.07 (0.25)

0.09 (0.28)

−0.71

337

0.43 (0.50)

0.51 (0.50)

−1.47

337

0.35 (0.48)

0.41 (0.48)

−1.07

337

0.70 (0.46)

0.68 (0.47)

0.56

337

0.18 (0.38)

0.13 (0.34)

1.22

337

0.09 (0.28)

0.04 (0.19)

1.78

337

0.34 (0.48)

0.35 (0.48)

−0.07

337

0.01 (0.08)

0.01 (0.10)

−0.42

335
123
128
128
126

0.28 (0.45)
8.66 (5.61)
0.58 (0.50)
0.53 (0.50)
0.15 (0.36)

0.34 (0.47)
9.72 (6.39)
0.44 (0.50)
0.31 (0.46)
0.19 (0.37)

−1.16
−0.94
1.62
2.57
0.93

337

0.20 (0.40)

0.15 (0.36)

1.26

337

0.88 (0.33)

0.94 (0.25)

−1.85

332

0.54 (0.50)

0.43 (0.50)

1.93

333

0.95 (0.21)

0.91 (0.28)

1.53

333

0.19 (0.40)

0.24 (0.43)

−0.97
(continued)

A-2

Appendix A — Data Tables

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Family and Peers (continued)
Primary person or persons who raised
respondent: natural mother only
Primary person or persons who raised
respondent: natural mother and
stepfather/boyfriend
Primary person or persons who raised
respondent: grandparents
Primary person or persons who raised
respondent: other person
The person/persons who respondent lived
with the longest: natural mother and
natural father
The person/persons who respondent lived
with the longest: natural mother only
The person/persons who respondent lived
with the longest: natural mother and
stepfather/boyfriend
The person/persons who respondent lived
with the longest: Grandparents
The person/persons who respondent lived
with the longest: other person
Family emotional support score (range 0–
30, where higher = more support)
Parental relationship before confinement
score (range 0–30, where higher =
stronger relationship)
Current parental relationship score (range
0–30, where higher = stronger
relationship)
Has any living children
Number of children (only respondents with
children)
Had primary care responsibilities for any
children 6 months before incarceration
Provided financial support for children 6
months before incarceration (only
respondents who did not have primary
care responsibilities)
Has persons in life that are considered
family
Has a family member who has been
convicted of a crime
Has a family member who has been in a
correctional facility

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

333

0.38 (0.49)

0.46 (0.50)

−1.55

333

0.12 (0.33)

0.08 (0.27)

1.28

333

0.17 (0.37)

0.10 (0.31)

1.61

333

0.15 (0.35)

0.12 (0.33)

0.66

333

0.15 (0.36)

0.17 (0.38)

−0.44

333

0.48 (0.50)

0.54 (0.50)

−1.12

333

0.11 (0.32)

0.07 (0.25)

1.47

333

0.15 (0.35)

0.12 (0.32)

0.82

333

0.11 (0.32)

0.11 (0.31)

0.08

333

23.19 (4.09)

22.89 (4.02)

0.66

328

21.53 (4.02)

21.24 (4.44)

0.61

319

22.87 (4.21)

22.11 (4.65)

1.51

335

0.11 (0.31)

0.08 (0.27)

0.97

30

1.00 (0.00)

1.07 (0.27)

−1.00

30

0.31 (0.48)

0.21 (0.43)

0.59

22

0.27 (0.47)

0.45 (0.52)

−0.86

337

0.99 (0.11)

0.99 (0.07)

−0.72

307

0.87 (0.34)

0.76 (0.43)

2.52

313

0.82 (0.38)

0.75 (0.43)

1.49

t-statistic

(continued)

A-3

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Family and Peers (continued)
Has a family member who has had
problems with drugs/alcohol
Had a friend (before incarceration) who has
been convicted of a crime
Had a friend (before incarceration) who has
been in a correctional facility
Had a friend (before incarceration) who has
had problems with drugs or alcohol
Physical and Mental Health
Physical health scale (>better)
Mental health scale (>better)
Received treatment for mental health
problem before this period of confinement
Global Severity Index (45–225: >worse)
Positive Symptom Total (0–45: >worse)
Anxiety Scale (5–25: >worse)
Depression Scale (5–25: >worse)
Hostility Scale (5–25: >worse)
Interpersonal Sensitivity Scale (5–25:
>worse)
Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (5–25:
>worse)
Paranoid Ideation Scale (5–25: >worse)
Phobic Anxiety Scale (5–25: >worse)
Psychoticism Scale (5–25: >worse)
Somatization Scale (5–25: >worse)
No physical health–related limitations
Ever had asthma
Currently has asthma
Receiving treatment for asthma
Taking prescription for asthma
Ever had diabetes
Currently has diabetes
Ever had heart trouble
Currently has heart trouble
Receiving treatment for heart trouble
Taking prescription for heart trouble
Ever had high blood pressure
Currently has high blood pressure
Receiving treatment for high blood pressure

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

324

0.64 (0.48)

0.57 (0.50)

1.23

311

0.88 (0.32)

0.82 (0.39)

1.71

318

0.78 (0.41)

0.81 (0.40)

−0.55

319

0.71 (0.45)

0.67 (0.47)

0.76

333
333

53.39 (7.88)
49.63 (9.03)

54.96 (6.20)
49.53 (9.66)

−1.99
0.09

333

0.25 (0.44)

0.29 (0.46)

−0.82

337
337
336
336
336

64.03 (20.69)
11.85 (9.84)
6.57 (2.43)
7.76 (3.51)
6.79 (2.54)

62.04 (17.66)
10.34 (9.15)
6.41 (2.18)
7.33 (3.08)
7.28 (3.17)

0.94
1.46
0.61
1.20
−1.57

336

7.01 (2.99)

6.93 (2.80)

0.26

336

8.13 (3.56)

7.80 (3.23)

0.88

336
337
337
337
337
337
335
38
38
337
337
337
337
6
6
337
335
5

8.55 (3.52)
6.07 (2.33)
6.49 (2.01)
6.68 (2.61)
0.51 (0.50)
0.15 (0.36)
0.09 (0.29)
0.43 (0.51)
0.43 (0.51)
0.02 (0.14)
0.01 (0.11)
0.03 (0.18)
0.02 (0.14)
0.33 (0.58)
0.00 (0.00)
0.05 (0.22)
0.02 (0.14)
0.67 (0.58)

8.26 (3.30)
5.62 (1.41)
6.05 (1.81)
6.39 (2.15)
0.52 (0.50)
0.23 (0.42)
0.13 (0.34)
0.58 (0.50)
0.71 (0.46)
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.04 (0.20)
0.02 (0.13)
0.67 (0.58)
0.33 (0.58)
0.04 (0.20)
0.01 (0.10)
0.50 (0.71)

0.78
2.09
2.14
1.10
−0.32
−1.90
−1.08
−0.91
−1.72
1.74
1.42
−0.49
0.24
−0.71
−1.00
0.40
0.66
0.29
(continued)

A-4

Appendix A — Data Tables

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Physical and Mental Health (continued)
Taking prescription for high blood pressure
Ever had arthritis
Currently has arthritis
Taking prescription for arthritis
Ever had chronic back pain
Currently has chronic back pain
Receiving treatment for chronic back pain
Taking prescription for chronic back pain
Ever had tuberculosis
Tuberculosis is currently active
Ever diagnosed as being HIV-positive or
having AIDS
Ever had hepatitis B or C
Currently has hepatitis B or C
Wears glasses or corrective lenses
Needs eyeglasses
Currently uses a hearing aid
Needs a hearing aid
Ever received care for mental health or
alcohol/drug problems
Ever received care for: Alcohol
abuse/dependence
Ever received care for: anxiety
Ever received care for: attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder
Ever received care for: bipolar disorder
Ever received care for: conduct disorder
Ever received care for:
depression/dysthymia
Ever received care for: drug
use/dependence
Ever received care for: obsessivecompulsive disorder
Ever received care for: oppositional defiant
disorder
Ever received care for: posttraumatic stress
disorder
Ever received care for: phobia (social or
specific)
Ever received care for: schizophrenia

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

5
337
337
4
337
337
23
23
337
336

0.67 (0.58)
0.02 (0.14)
0.01 (0.11)
0.50 (0.71)
0.10 (0.30)
0.09 (0.28)
0.15 (0.38)
0.08 (0.28)
0.01 (0.11)
0.00 (0.00)

0.50 (0.71)
0.02 (0.13)
0.01 (0.10)
0.00 (0.00)
0.06 (0.24)
0.05 (0.23)
0.30 (0.48)
0.20 (0.42)
0.02 (0.13)
0.01 (0.07)

0.29
0.24
0.20
1.00
1.31
1.12
−0.82
−0.84
−0.23
−1.00

337

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

—

335
335
337
251
337
335

0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.31 (0.46)
0.18 (0.39)
0.00 (0.00)
0.01 (0.08)

0.01 (0.07)
0.00 (0.00)
0.21 (0.41)
0.18 (0.38)
0.01 (0.07)
0.00 (0.00)

−1.00
—
2.07
0.06
−1.00
1.00

337

0.53 (0.50)

0.48 (0.50)

0.95

167

0.19 (0.39)

0.20 (0.40)

−0.13

167

0.04 (0.19)

0.01 (0.11)

1.07

167

0.21 (0.41)

0.22 (0.42)

−0.09

167
167

0.08 (0.27)
0.03 (0.16)

0.06 (0.23)
0.03 (0.18)

0.45
−0.36

167

0.19 (0.39)

0.13 (0.39)

1.08

167

0.25 (0.44)

0.28 (0.45)

−0.38

167

0.01 (0.11)

0.00 (0.00)

1.00

167

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

—

167

0.04 (0.19)

0.02 (0.15)

0.54

167

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

—

167

0.01 (0.11)

0.00 (0.00)

1.00

t-statistic

(continued)

A-5

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Physical and Mental Health (continued)
Ever received care for: other
problem/diagnosis
Did not receive care for problem/no
diagnosis
Currently receiving treatment: alcohol
use/dependence
Currently receiving treatment: anxiety
disorder
Currently receiving treatment: attentiondeficit/hyperactivity disorder
Currently receiving treatment: bipolar
disorder
Currently receiving treatment: conduct
disorder
Currently receiving treatment:
depression/dysthymia
Currently receiving treatment: drug
abuse/dependence
Currently receiving treatment: obsessivecompulsive disorder
Currently receiving treatment: oppositional
defiant disorder
Currently receiving treatment: posttraumatic
stress disorder
Currently receiving treatment: phobia
(social or specific)
Currently receiving treatment:
schizophrenia
Currently receiving treatment: other
problem/diagnosis
Currently not receiving treatment for any
condition
Doctor prescribed medication for
emotional/psychological problem during
this period of confinement
Received the prescribed medication
Any victimization (6 months before
confinement)
Victimization frequency/severity before
confinement (0–30: >worse)
Substance Use
Ever drank any type of alcoholic beverage
Age at first drink

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

167

0.14 (0.35)

0.03 (0.18)

2.37

167

0.28 (0.45)

0.34 (0.48)

−0.97

116

0.14 (0.35)

0.16 (0.37)

−0.26

116

0.02 (0.13)

0.02 (0.13)

0.00

116

0.10 (0.31)

0.14 (0.35)

−0.57

116

0.03 (0.18)

0.03 (0.18)

0.00

116

0.00 (0.00)

0.02 (0.13)

−1.00

116

0.07 (0.26)

0.07 (0.26)

0.00

116

0.19 (0.40)

0.21 (0.41)

−0.23

116

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

—

116

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

—

116

0.02 (0.13)

0.00 (0.00)

1.00

116

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

—

116

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

—

116

0.05 (0.22)

0.00 (0.00)

1.76

116

0.55 (0.50)

0.53 (0.50)

0.18

336

0.18 (0.39)

0.15 (0.36)

0.78

56

1.00 (0.00)

0.96 (0.19)

1.00

337

0.70 (0.46)

0.63 (0.48)

1.25

337

4.64 (5.70)

5.44 (6.74)

−1.18

337
284

0.91 (0.29)
12.17 (3.01)

0.83 (0.37)
12.46 (3.14)

2.08
−0.80
(continued)

A-6

Appendix A — Data Tables

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Substance Use (continued)
Used alcohol 30 days before this period of
confinement
Age at last drink if no alcohol 30 days prior
Ever used drugs
Number of drugs used in lifetime
Used drugs 30 days before this period of
confinement
Number of drugs used 30 days before this
period of confinement
Used drugs other than marijuana and
steroids 30 days before this period of
confinement
Ever used sedatives
Age first used sedatives
Used sedatives 30 days before this period
of confinement
Age last used sedatives
Ever used tranquilizers
Age first used tranquilizers
Used tranquilizers 30 days before this
period of confinement
Age last used tranquilizers
Ever used stimulants
Age first used stimulants
Used stimulants 30 days before this period
of confinement
Age last used stimulants
Ever used pain relievers
Age first used pain relievers
Used pain relievers 30 days before this
period of confinement
Age last used pain relievers
Ever used methadone
Age first used methadone
Used methadone 30 days before this period
of confinement
Age last used methadone
Ever used anabolic steroids
Age first used anabolic steroids
Used anabolic steroids 30 days before this
period of confinement
Age last used anabolic steroids
Ever used marijuana

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

335

0.55 (0.50)

0.49 (0.50)

1.22

119
337
337

14.96 (1.66)
0.88 (0.33)
2.19 (2.15)

14.80 (2.38)
0.87 (0.34)
2.11 (2.39)

0.45
0.13
0.33

337

0.59 (0.49)

0.61 (0.49)

−0.35

337

1.03 (1.29)

1.09 (1.54)

−0.43

337

0.45 (0.50)

0.36 (0.48)

1.59

336
43

0.11 (0.32)
14.71 (2.05)

0.14 (0.35)
14.42 (1.39)

−0.76
0.54

336

0.05 (0.22)

0.05 (0.23)

−0.04

25
337
49

16.33 (1.66)
0.16 (0.37)
14.08 (2.64)

15.38 (1.02)
0.14 (0.35)
14.36 (1.80)

1.80
0.61
−0.43

337

0.06 (0.24)

0.08 (0.27)

−0.78

25
337
31

15.27 (1.58)
0.08 (0.27)
13.58 (3.18)

15.20 (1.03)
0.10 (0.30)
14.00 (1.83)

0.12
−0.75
−0.41

337

0.01 (0.11)

0.04 (0.19)

−1.46

22
337
52

15.50 (0.85)
0.14 (0.35)
14.36 (1.97)

15.67 (0.89)
0.17 (0.37)
14.77 (1.97)

−0.45
−0.57
−0.83

337

0.07 (0.25)

0.05 (0.22)

0.68

32
336
6

16.00 (0.77)
0.01 (0.08)
16.00 (.)

15.95 (1.02)
0.03 (0.16)
15.20 (0.84)

0.14
−1.49
—

336

0.00 (0.00)

0.01 (0.10)

−1.42

4
337
2

17.00 (.)
0.01 (0.08)
15.00 (.)

16.67 (0.58)
0.01 (0.07)
14.00 (.)

—
0.14
—

337

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

—

2
337

16.00 (.)
0.88 (0.33)

14.00 (.)
0.85 (0.35)

—
0.56
(continued)

A-7

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
N
Substance Use (continued)
Age first used marijuana
287
Used marijuana 30 days before this period
335
of confinement
Age last used marijuana
94
Ever used hallucinogens
336
Age first used hallucinogens
81
Used hallucinogens 30 days before this
335
period of confinement
Age last used hallucinogens
57
Ever used cocaine
337
Age first used cocaine
85
Used cocaine 30 days before this period of
337
confinement
Age last used cocaine
46
Ever used heroin
337
Age first used heroin
12
Used heroin 30 days before this period of
337
confinement
Age last used heroin
7
Ever used amphetamines
337
Age first used amphetamines
35
Used amphetamines 30 days before this
337
period of confinement
Age last used amphetamines
18
Ever used inhalants
337
Age first used inhalants
32
Used inhalants 30 days before this period of
336
confinement
Age last used inhalants
28
Received alcohol/drug treatment before this
336
period of confinement
Current Confinement and Delinquency Historya
Duration of confinement at Wave 1
337
interview (years)
Wave 1 adjudicated offense(s) category:
335
Person/violent crime
Robbery
335
Assault
335
Lethal crime
335
Sex offense
335
Other person/violent crime
335

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

12.18 (2.06)

12.50 (2.12)

−1.26

0.58 (0.49)

0.59 (0.49)

−0.08

14.82 (1.19)
0.30 (0.46)
14.70 (1.62)

14.72 (1.83)
0.19 (0.39)
14.74 (1.34)

0.31
2.44
−0.14

0.08 (0.27)

0.06 (0.25)

0.53

15.50 (1.40)
0.25 (0.43)
14.73 (1.63)

15.48 (1.16)
0.26 (0.44)
14.94 (1.29)

0.06
−0.20
−0.66

0.10 (0.30)

0.14 (0.34)

−1.03

15.65 (1.30)
0.03 (0.18)
16.80 (1.92)

15.39 (1.23)
0.04 (0.19)
16.14 (0.90)

0.70
−0.24
0.80

0.01 (0.11)

0.02 (0.13)

−0.23

15.67 (0.58)
0.10 (0.30)
14.60 (1.30)

16.00 (0.82)
0.11 (0.31)
15.35 (1.31)

−0.60
−0.28
−1.68

0.05 (0.21)

0.05 (0.23)

−0.33

15.13 (0.83)
0.12 (0.32)
14.28 (2.30)

15.90 (0.74)
0.08 (0.27)
13.71 (1.94)

−2.09
1.31
0.74

0.02 (0.14)

0.01 (0.07)

1.15

15.13 (1.30)

14.92 (1.04)

0.47

0.32 (0.47)

0.24 (0.43)

0.15

1.87 (7.27)

1.05 (.057)

1.39

0.45 (0.50)

0.46 (0.50)

−0.21

0.14 (0.35)
0.21 (0.41)
0.01 (0.08)
0.10 (0.30)
0.03 (0.16)

0.11 (0.31)
0.29 (0.45)
0.01 (0.07)
0.06 (0.24)
0.03 (0.16)

0.80
−1.66
0.13
1.29
−0.06

t-statistic

(continued)

A-8

Appendix A — Data Tables

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

SVORI
Mean (SD)
Characteristic
N
Current Confinement and Delinquency Historya (continued)
Wave 1 adjudicated offense(s) category:
335
0.46 (0.50)
Property crime
Burglary
335
0.30 (0.46)
Theft
335
0.09 (0.29)
Car theft
335
0.16 (0.37)
Fraud/forgery
335
0.01 (0.11)
Other property crime
335
0.05 (0.22)
Wave 1 adjudicated offense(s) category:
335
0.11 (0.31)
drug crime
Drug dealing/manufacturing
335
0.01 (0.08)
Drug possession
335
0.10 (0.30)
Other drug offense
335
0.00 (0.00)
Wave 1 adjudicated offense(s) category:
335
0.20 (0.40)
Public-order crime
Wave 1 adjudicated offense(s) category:
335
0.01 (0.11)
other crime
Currently confined for probation or parole
337
0.50 (0.50)
violation
Currently confined for probation violation
337
0.13 (0.33)
Currently confined for parole violation
337
0.38 (0.49)
Parole violation: technical violation
135
0.45 (0.50)
Parole violation: new crime
135
0.57 (0.50)
Age at first arrest
331
12.85 (1.99)
Number of lifetime arrests
318
5.67 (4.80)
Number of lifetime adjudications
327
2.90 (2.48)
Ever confined in a juvenile correctional
337
0.88 (0.33)
facility for committing a crime
Number of times confined in a juvenile
facility (only those who reported ever
327
2.97 (2.64)
being confined)
Ever been in jail/prison more than 24 hours
337
0.60 (0.49)
at one time
Any disciplinary infractions during this
334
0.60 (0.49)
period of confinement
One disciplinary infraction during this period
334
0.07 (0.26)
of confinement
Two or more disciplinary infractions during
334
0.52 (0.50)
this period of confinement
Placed in administrative segregation during
334
0.43 (0.50)
this period of confinement

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

0.49 (0.50)

−0.47

0.25 (0.43)
0.16 (0.37)
0.18 (0.39)
0.01 (0.07)
0.07 (0.25)

0.91
−1.85
−0.38
0.71
−0.50

0.19 (0.39)

−2.24

0.06 (0.24)
0.19 (0.39)
0.00 (0.00)

−2.85
−2.31
—

0.32 (0.47)

−2.64

0.00 (0.00)

1.42

0.45 (0.50)

0.94

0.13 (0.34)
0.32 (0.47)
0.43 (0.50)
0.57 (0.50)
13.19 (1.96)
6.61 (4.77)
3.25 (2.80)

−0.13
1.08
0.25
−0.07
−1.59
−1.72
−1.16

0.93 (0.26)

−1.67

3.65 (2.77)

−2.27

0.48 (0.50)

2.16

0.56 (0.50)

0.71

0.10 (0.31)

−1.00

0.45 (0.50)

1.27

0.35 (0.48)

1.54
(continued)

A-9

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

SVORI
Mean (SD)
Characteristic
N
Current Confinement and Delinquency Historya (continued)
Current gang member
336
0.13 (0.33)
Considers gang to be family
45
0.53 (0.51)
Relatives are members of the gang
45
0.74 (0.45)
Any perpetration of violence (6 months
336
0.79 (0.41)
before confinement)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

0.14 (0.35)
0.58 (0.50)
0.42 (0.50)

−0.39
−0.33
2.15

0.70 (0.46)

1.84

Note: GED = General Education Development credential.
a
Results for Wave 1 Adjudicated Offenses may not sum to 100% because some respondents reported being
adjudicated for multiple offenses.

A-10

Appendix A — Data Tables

Exhibit A-3. Proportion of respondents who reported needing specific services, by group

Service
Transition services
Legal assistance
Financial assistance
Public financial assistance
Public health care insurance
Mentor
Documents for employment
Place to live
Transportation
Driver’s license
Access to clothing/food banks
Health Services
Medical treatment
Mental health treatment
Substance use treatment
Victims’ group for abuse
Anger management program
Employment/Education/Skills Services
Job
Job training
More education
Money management skills
Life skills
Work on personal relationships
Change attitudes on criminal behavior
Domestic Violence Services
Batterer intervention program
Domestic violence support group
Child Services
Child support payments
Modification of child support debt
Modification of child custody
Parenting skills
Child care

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

324
334
333
330
337
332
336
336
317
335

0.60 (0.49)
0.50 (0.50)
0.21 (0.41)
0.53 (0.50)
0.62 (0.49)
0.54 (0.50)
0.26 (0.44)
0.65 (0.48)
0.90 (0.30)
0.40 (0.49)

0.51 (0.50)
0.48 (0.50)
0.24 (0.43)
0.55 (0.50)
0.59 (0.49)
0.51 (0.50)
0.28 (0.45)
0.62 (0.49)
0.91 (0.28)
0.35 (0.48)

1.52
0.41
−0.68
−0.28
0.44
0.54
−0.53
0.60
−0.45
0.95

337
337
337
336
336

0.45 (0.50)
0.23 (0.42)
0.30 (0.46)
0.05 (0.21)
0.47 (0.50)

0.48 (0.50)
0.20 (0.40)
0.35 (0.48)
0.03 (0.18)
0.58 (0.49)

−0.50
0.67
−1.08
0.62
−1.98

337
337
337
336
336
337
337

0.87 (0.34)
0.89 (0.31)
0.93 (0.25)
0.62 (0.49)
0.76 (0.43)
0.58 (0.50)
0.66 (0.47)

0.86 (0.34)
0.88 (0.33)
0.95 (0.23)
0.64 (0.48)
0.68 (0.47)
0.54 (0.48)
0.76 (0.43)

0.10
0.54
−0.45
−0.33
1.45
0.80
−1.99

337
334

0.06 (0.24)
0.09 (0.28)

0.06 (0.24)
0.08 (0.28)

−0.01
0.14

30
1
27
30
29

0.25 (0.45)
—
0.21 (0.43)
0.56 (0.51)
0.20 (0.41)

0.14 (0.36)
1.00 (.)
0.23 (0.44)
0.43 (0.51)
0.21 (0.43)

0.71
—
−0.10
0.71
−0.09

t-statistic

A-11

Reentry Experiences of Confined Juvenile Offenders

Exhibit A-4. Proportion of respondents who reported receiving specific services, by group

Variable Label
Coordination Services
Received needs assessment
Received release-specific needs assessment
Met with case manager
Developed reentry plan
Worked with anyone to plan for release
Received help to access case/social worker
Met with caseworker or social worker
Transition services
Participated in programs to prepare for release
Took class specifically for release
Received legal assistance
Received assistance accessing financial assistance
Received assistance accessing public financial assistance
Received assistance accessing public health care
assistance
Received mentoring services
Received assistance obtaining documents
Received assistance finding transportation
Received assistance finding place to live
Received assistance getting driver’s license
Received assistance accessing clothing/food banks
Health Services
Received any medical treatment
Received dental services
Received preventive medical services
Received medical treatment for physical health problems
Received prescription medicine
Received information on accessing physical health care
in community
Received any mental health treatment for emotional
problems
Received individual counseling for mental/emotional
problems
Received group counseling for mental/emotional
problems
Received information on accessing mental health care in
community
Received any substance use treatment
Participated in Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics
Anonymous
Participated in drug education
Received group counseling for substance use problems

N

SVORI

NonSVORI

t-statistic

328
326
336
317
335
329
333

0.83 (0.38)
0.46 (0.50)
0.90 (0.30)
0.55 (0.50)
0.78 (0.41)
0.26 (0.44)
0.42 (0.49)

0.78 (0.41)
0.43 (0.50)
0.88 (0.33)
0.41 (0.49)
0.65 (0.48)
0.24 (0.43)
0.30 (0.46)

1.08
0.56
0.76
2.47
2.72
0.28
2.19

333
335
331
336
337

0.65 (0.48) 0.54 (0.50)
0.43 (0.50) 0.42 (0.49)
0.24 (0.43) 0.20 (0.40)
0.09 (0.29) 0.07 (0.26)
0.03 (0.18) 0.02 (0.13)

2.05
0.31
0.96
0.75
0.97

335

0.10 (0.30)

0.17 (0.38)

−2.01

337
334
337
337
318
337

0.39 (0.49)
0.20 (0.40)
0.22 (0.42)
0.30 (0.46)
0.18 (0.38)
0.11 (0.31)

0.39 (0.49)
0.18 (0.38)
0.17 (0.37)
0.19 (0.40)
0.16 (0.37)
0.05 (0.23)

0.00
0.48
1.30
2.31
0.45
1.71

336
336
336
335
336

0.73 (0.45) 0.68 (0.47)
0.47 (0.50) 0.53 (0.50)
0.54 (0.50) 0.43 (0.50)
0.45 (0.50) 0.46 (0.50)
0.44 (0.50) 0.39 (0.49)

0.91
−0.97
1.92
−0.19
1.02

334

0.23 (0.42)

0.17 (0.38)

1.29

336

0.25 (0.44)

0.31 (0.47)

−1.25

336

0.19 (0.39)

0.24 (0.43)

−1.28

336

0.19 (0.39)

0.19 (0.39)

−0.09

335

0.18 (0.38)

0.15 (0.36)

0.65

337

0.60 (0.49)

0.57 (0.50)

0.48

336

0.40 (0.49)

0.28 (0.45)

2.42

337
337

0.53 (0.50)
0.43 (0.50)

0.50 (0.50)
0.40 (0.49)

0.43
0.51
(continued)

A-12

Appendix A — Data Tables

Exhibit A-4. Proportion of respondents who reported receiving specific services, by group
(continued)

Variable Label
Health Services (continued)
Received individual counseling for substance use
problems
Received residential treatment for substance use
problems
Received methadone
Received detox
Received information on accessing substance use
treatment in community
Participated in groups for victims of abuse
Participated in anger management program
Employment/Education/Skills Services
Received any employment services
Participated in employment readiness program
Participated in job training program
Talked to potential employer
Was given advice about job interviewing
Was given advice about answering questions about
criminal history
Was given advice about how to behave on the job
Was given names of persons to contact in community to
find job
Put together a resume
Received any educational services
Received money management services
Received other life skills training
Received assistance with personal relationships
Received training to change criminal behavior attitudes
Domestic Violence Services
Participated in batterer intervention programs
Participated in domestic violence support groups
Child Services
Received assistance getting child support payments
Received assistance modifying child custody
Participated in parenting classes
Received assistance finding child care

N

SVORI

NonSVORI

337

0.24 (0.43)

0.29 (0.45)

−1.03

332

0.10 (0.30)

0.12 (0.33)

−0.64

335
336

0.01 (0.08)
0.02 (0.14)

0.01 (0.07)
0.02 (0.13)

0.13
0.24

337

0.42 (0.50)

0.29 (0.45)

2.60

337
337

0.07 (0.25)
0.51 (0.50)

0.05 (0.22)
0.62 (0.49)

0.68
−2.13

335
334
335
335
335

0.43 (0.50)
0.21 (0.41)
0.23 (0.42)
0.11 (0.31)
0.36 (0.48)

0.27 (0.45)
0.11 (0.32)
0.15 (0.35)
0.07 (0.25)
0.23 (0.42)

3.08
2.28
1.97
1.31
2.75

335

0.32 (0.47)

0.15 (0.36)

3.57

335

0.37 (0.48)

0.22 (0.41)

3.08

335

0.19 (0.40)

0.10 (0.30)

2.42

335
337
337
335
337
335

0.22 (0.41) 0.18 (0.38)
0.94 (0.24) 0.95 (0.22)
0.24 (0.43) 0.17 (0.38)
0.52 (0.50) 0.47 (0.50)
0.39 (0.49) 0.35 (0.48)
0.70 (0.46) 0.79 (0.41)

0.90
−0.43
1.60
0.80
0.80
−2.00

337
336

0.03 (0.18)
0.12 (0.32)

30
30
30
30

t-statistic

0.02 (0.15)
0.08 (0.27)

0.62
1.29

0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
0.06 (0.25) 0.00 (0.00)
0.56 (0.51) 0.14 (0.36)
0.19 (0.40) 0.14 (0.36)

—
1.00
2.55
0.32

A-13

 

 

Prisoner Education Guide side
Advertise here
The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side