Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 May 25;20(2):e1404.
doi: 10.1002/cl2.1404. eCollection 2024 Jun.

The effects of aftercare/resettlement services on crime and violence in children and youth: A systematic review

Jennifer S Wong  1 , Chelsey Lee  1 , Natalie Beck  1
Affiliations
Review

The effects of aftercare/resettlement services on crime and violence in children and youth: A systematic review

Jennifer S Wong et al. Campbell Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: High rates of youth re-offending indicate that young custody-leavers face challenges when reintegrating into their communities. Aftercare and resettlement programs can occur pre-, during, and post-release and generally provide multiple forms of support services to address youths' transitional needs.

Objectives: The present review examines (1) the impact of youth aftercare/resettlement programs on crime-related outcomes, (2) how treatment effect is moderated by participant, program, and study characteristics, (3) whether some types of interventions are more effective than others, (4) barriers/facilitators to effective program implementation, (5) the theory of change underlying resettlement interventions, and (6) available research on intervention cost.

Search methods: A comprehensive set of keywords and synonyms was combined in a Boolean search across 26 electronic databases. Multiple gray literature sources were also searched, including 23 journals, 4 meeting archives, 11 organization websites, 3 open access journal websites, and the CVs of 8 well-known researchers in the field. The search was completed in January 2023.

Selection criteria: For objectives 1-3, studies were included if they utilized a randomized controlled design or quasi-experimental comparison group design in which participants were matched on at least some baseline variables and included at least one quantitative individual-measure of crime. For objective 4, included studies presented process evaluations of aftercare/reentry programs, clearly stated their research goals, and used qualitative methods in an appropriate way to answer the stated research question. For objectives 5 and 6, no specific methods were required; any study meeting the criteria for objectives 1-4 which presented findings on theory of change or cost data were included. For all outcomes, only studies conducted in a westernized country, and published after 1991 in English, French, or German were considered.

Data collection and analysis: Two coders conducted primary data extraction for the included studies. Data were entered into a Microsoft Excel database. After data extraction, the two coders validated the coding by cross-checking the database with each research report. Discrepancies between coders were discussed until consensus was reached. Where consensus could not be reached, a third coder was consulted. Study risk of bias was addressed using the ROBINS-I (Sterne et al., 2016), ROB-2 (Higgins et al., 2019), and the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP, 2018). Objectives 1-3 were addressed by synthesizing quantitative outcomes from rigorous impact evaluations of aftercare interventions using random effects models and meta-regression. Thematic and narrative analysis was conducted to address objectives 4-6.

Results: The search resulted in 15 impact studies, representing 4,718 participants across 21 program sites, and 35 effect sizes. The 21 impact evaluations were rated as having either low/moderate bias (k = 11) or serious bias (k = 10). The synthesis of 15 impact studies found no significant effects for arrest (k = 14; OR = 1.044, 95% prediction interval [0.527, 2.075], t = 0.335) or incarceration (k = 8, OR = 0.806, 95% prediction interval [2.203, 1.433], t = -1.674). A significant pooled effect was found for conviction (k = 13, OR = 1.209, 95% prediction interval [1.000, 1.462], t = 2.256), but results were highly sensitive to the inclusion of specific studies. No meaningful pattern of results emerged in moderator analyses with respect to study, sample, program component, or program delivery characteristics. The 19 process studies were rated as either high quality (k = 12) or moderate quality (k = 7). Thematic synthesis of the process evaluations revealed 15 themes related to the strengths/challenges of program implementation. The assessment of program cost (k = 7) determined a lack of data within the literature, preventing any summative analysis.

Authors' conclusions: Current evidence is promising with respect to conviction outcomes but overall does not find that aftercare/resettlement interventions have a reliably positive impact on crime-related outcomes for young people who have offended. High variability across outcomes and reported data resulted in small sample sizes per outcome and limited moderator analyses. Multiple challenges for program implementation exist; additional rigorous research is sorely needed to further investigate the nuances of the program effects.

Keywords: aftercare; meta‐analysis; qualitative; recidivism; resettlement; re‐entry; youth.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Youth aftercare/resettlement theory of change.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Search process flow diagram.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias assessments for randomized design studies (RoB‐2).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Risk of bias assessments for non‐randomized design studies (ROBINS‐I).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Forest plot for arrest outcome (k = 14).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Funnel plot for arrest outcome (k = 14).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Influence analysis for arrest outcome (k = 14).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Forest plot for research bias moderator for arrest outcome (k = 14).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Forest plot for conviction outcome (k = 13).
Figure 10
Figure 10
Funnel plot for conviction outcome (k = 13).
Figure 11
Figure 11
Influence analysis for conviction outcome (k = 13).
Figure 12
Figure 12
Forest plot for conviction outcome: Removing 1 study (k = 12).
Figure 13
Figure 13
Forest plot for experimental design moderator for conviction outcome (k = 13).
Figure 14
Figure 14
Forest plot for treatment group sample size moderator for conviction outcome (k = 13).
Figure 15
Figure 15
Forest plot for sample ethnicity moderator for conviction outcome (k = 13).
Figure 16
Figure 16
Forest plot for probation officer delivery moderator for conviction outcome.
Figure 17
Figure 17
Forest plot for community service provider delivery moderator for conviction outcome.
Figure 18
Figure 18
Forest plot for incarceration outcome (k = 8).
Figure 19
Figure 19
Funnel plot for incarceration outcome (k = 8).
Figure 20
Figure 20
Influence analysis for incarceration outcome (k = 8).
Figure 21
Figure 21
Forest plot for bias score moderator for incarceration outcome (k = 8).
Figure 22
Figure 22
Forest plot for gender moderator for incarceration outcome (k = 8).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Aalsma, M. C. , Brown, J. R. , Holloway, E. D. , & Ott, M. A. (2014). Connection to mental health care upon community reentry for detained youth: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 117. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-117 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aalsma, M. C. , White, L. M. , Lau, K. S. L. , Perkins, A. , Monahan, P. , & Grisso, T. (2015). Behavioral health care needs, detention‐based care, and criminal recidivism at community reentry from juvenile detention: A multisite survival curve analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 105(7), 1372–1378. 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302529 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abbott, R. , Orr, N. , McGill, P. , Whear, R. , Bethel, A. , Garside, R. , Stein, K. , & Thompson‐Coon, J. (2019). How do “robopets” impact the health and well‐being of residents in care homes? A systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence. International Journal of Older People Nursing, 14(3), 1–23. 10.1111/opn.12239 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abrams, L. S. (2006). From corrections to community: Youth offenders' perceptions of the challenges of transition. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44(2/3), 31–53. 10.1300/J076v44n02_02 - DOI
    1. Altschuler, D. M. , & Armstrong, T. L. (1994). Intensive aftercare for high‐risk juveniles: A community care model. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/intensive-aftercare-...

INCLUDED STUDIES

    1. Abrams, L. S. , Shannon, S. K. S. , & Sangalang, C. (2008). Transition services for incarcerated youth: A mixed methods evaluation study. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 522–535. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.003 - DOI
    1. Barton, W. H. , Jarjoura, G. R. , & Rosay, A. B. (2008). Evaluation of the Boys & Girls Club of America: Targeted Re‐entry initiative: Final report. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/evaluation-boys-girl...
    1. Beausoleil, V. , Renner, C. , Dunn, J. , Hinnewaah, P. , Morris, K. , Hamilton, A. , Braithewaite, S. , Hunter, N. , Browne, G. , & Browne, D. T. (2017). The effect and expense of redemption reintegration services versus usual reintegration care for young African Canadians discharged from incarceration. Health & Social Care in the Community, 25(2), 590–601. 10.1111/hsc.12346 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bergseth, K. J. , & McDonald, T. D. (2007). Reentry Services: An Evaluation of a Pilot Project in Clay County, MN. Report for Minnesota Department of Public Safety Office of Drug Policy and Violence Prevention. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reentry-services-eva...
    1. Bouffard, J. A. , & Bergseth, K. J. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile offenders' recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295–318. 10.1177/1541204007313384 - DOI

REFERENCES TO STUDIES AWAITING CLASSIFICATION

    1. Beckworth‐Belford, M. A. (2015). The impact of alternative education on re‐entry outcomes for youth offenders (Publication No. 3706802) [Doctoral Dissertation, Trevecca Nazarene University].
    1. Bergseth, K. J. (2009, Nov. 6). Youth characteristics, intervention, and recidivism: The case of aftercare for youth returning from placement. American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting 2009, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
    1. Bowers, Jr. D. A. , & Flynn, N. (2002). Process evaluation of juvenile intensive aftercare program in Mobile, Alabama. American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting 2002, Chicago, IL, United States.
    1. Cantora, A. , & White, M. D. (2008). The development of a reentry initiative for youth returning home from detention. American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting 2008, St. Louis, MO, United States.
    1. Clemons, R. (2013). Juvenile rehabilitative programs and their affects on the juvenile recidivism rate (Publication No. 3571083) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of La Verne].

LinkOut - more resources