Youth aftercare and resettlement programs to support transition out of custody have inconsistent effects on re-offending, arrests and conviction
The review in brief
This systematic review finds that youth aftercare/resettlement interventions do not produce consistent benefits or harms with respect to reoffending, including arrests, convictions, or incarceration. Conviction outcome results are promising, but the effect is small and unstable. Importantly, the number of studies in each of the three outcome groups was small, and the overall quality of evidence was hampered by a predominance of moderately strong research designs, small sample sizes, and a lack of peer-reviewed studies. No clear pattern was found regarding the relationship between program and participant characteristics and treatment outcomes. Qualitative data suggest program facilitators face multiple challenges when implementing these programs, such as gaps in service immediately following release and staff turnover. There is a dearth of literature regarding the cost effectiveness of aftercare/resettlement programs.
What is this review about?
Rates of reoffending among young custody-leavers are high, with estimates ranging from 41% to 83% of youth committing a new offense post-release. Youth experience many challenges during community reintegration, including barriers related to their education, employment, mental health, and social needs. To assist youth while they transition out of custody, aftercare/resettlement programs can occur pre-, during, and post-release and generally provide multiple services to address the young person’s individual needs and reduce their risk for reoffending.
This review assessed whether aftercare/resettlement programs reduce future arrests, convictions, and/or incarceration among youth, and whether any program, participant, or study characteristics are linked to stronger treatment effects. Data regarding the strengths and challenges of program implementation, and the available literature on the costs of these programs, were also examined.
What is the aim of this review?
This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of youth aftercare/resettlement programs on re-offending, measured separately as arrests, convictions, and incarceration. The review reports on evidence from 15 intervention impact studies providing 35 independent effect sizes, and 19 qualitative implementation studies.
What studies are included?
Intervention impact studies: Fifteen studies reporting on 21 program sites contributed 35 effects sizes examining arrest (k = 14), conviction (k = 13), and incarceration (k = 8). Studies were published between 1993 and 2021, and were primarily conducted in the United States, with three conducted in Western Europe. Four of the 15 studies were randomized controlled trials.
Implementation studies: Nineteen studies assessing the implementation of 18 programs met inclusion criteria for the review. Studies were published between 1998 and 2021, with six programs implemented outside of the United States.
Cost assessment studies: Seven studies providing cost data were identified. Four programs were implemented in North America, and three in the United Kingdom.
What is the impact of aftercare/resettlement interventions on youth with respect to outcomes of crime?
No strong or consistent evidence suggests that youth aftercare/resettlement interventions are more effective at reducing incidents of arrests, convictions, or incarceration than are regular reentry services.
How is the treatment effect moderated by factors such as participant, treatment, and study characteristics? Are some types of interventions more effective than others?
No program characteristics were related to important differences in reoffending outcomes. When looked at as subgroups, interventions involving community-based service providers and programs without probation officer involvement positively impacted youth conviction rates.
Several study characteristics were related to stronger outcomes; studies rated as having a high degree of design bias produced a negative impact on arrest and incarceration, and studies using non-randomized designs, with larger sample sizes, and with primarily ethnic minority samples showed positive effects on conviction.
What are the barriers and facilitators to effective implementation of aftercare/resettlement interventions?
Aftercare programming often operates without seamless throughcare, which undermines the processes of rehabilitation and identity shifts towards prosocial attitudes. Poor communication, coordination, and data sharing between stakeholders is common and results in gaps in services and poor program fidelity. At times, sentencing and correctional practices seem to work in opposition to reentry processes; for example, short custodial sentences may not allow for proper transitional supports to be put in place. Dedicated and caring staff, structured communication across agencies, and planned long-term funding can mitigate some of these challenges. Efficient administrative practices should be adopted that minimize the duplication of paperwork and maximize information sharing across agencies.
What does the available research suggest regarding the cost of aftercare/resettlement interventions?
Only seven studies were included; the data were insufficient for synthesis.
How has this intervention worked?
The assessment of the theory of change literature revealed additional factors to consider when implementing aftercare/resettlement programs, including the development of trusting relationships between transition teams and young people, facilitating youth motivation to change through greater program engagement, and the importance of a gradual transition process from custody to the community.
What do the findings of this review mean?
Aftercare/resettlement programs have minimal impacts on youth with respect to recidivism, which may be related to various challenges and barriers faced during program implementation. More rigorous research addressing various program contexts, components, and populations is needed, as well as a greater focus on cost assessment.
How up to date is this review?
Authors searched for studies published up to January 2023.