MENTORING JUVENILES AS A FORM OF AFTERCARE

G. Roger Jarjoura

Associate Professor

School of Public and Environmental Affairs

Indiana University Purdue University, Indianapolis

Paper presented at the conference, Central Indiana’s Future: Understanding the Region and Identifying Choices

November 10, 2000.

THE AFTERCARE BY IUPUI THROUGH MENTORING (AIM) PROGRAM:

MENTORING JUVENILES AS A FORM OF AFTERCARE

Abstract

The mission of the program is to aid in the successful transition and reintegration of identified “high-risk” juvenile offenders from secure confinement back to their communities through the use of volunteers as mentors, facility-based life skills training, and a university-justice system-community partnership, to lessen the likelihood of failure and relapse. This program provides mentors to youths being released from juvenile correctional facilities in the State of Indiana. Mentors assist the youths in the preparation of a reentry plan, and provide mentoring support to the youths upon their release from the facilities. Results from the program show that this type of intervention can reduce reincarceration and save money.

THE AFTERCARE BY IUPUI THROUGH MENTORING (AIM) PROGRAM:

MENTORING JUVENILES AS A FORM OF AFTERCARE

There is a perception that juvenile delinquency is all too common.[1] In fact, evidence indicates that a substantial amount of juvenile offending can be attributed to a rather small group of chronic offenders. Indeed, while most juveniles offenders desist after one arrest, those who have been arrested three, four, or five times are highly likely to continue reoffending. Rather than focusing get-tough policies at the general teenage population, our efforts are better served in trying to reduce the likelihood of recidivism among the juvenile offender population. A key aspect of such efforts must focus on aftercare (treatment provided to assist in the transition back to the community).

The national consensus is that aftercare is the weakest component of any juvenile justice system and must be given more attention.[2] In Central Indiana, this is certainly the case. The budget for the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) is much more heavily weighted towards incarceration of offenders than towards the provision of programming for aftercare. This is compounded by the fact that once juvenile offenders are released from the DOC, they are not supervised by the probation departments in their counties of residence (Howard County is one exception, however). Despite these structural limitations, there is widespread agreement among juvenile justice practitioners that aftercare is an absolute necessity. In a series of public forums held in the early months of 1997 around the state, the issue of juvenile crime was discussed by “judges, prosecutors, probation officers, law enforcement officials, nonprofit agency representatives, and laymen. . . The most common criticism was that without aftercare to supplement a juvenile’s treatment from a public or other facility, the time and resources devoted to the juvenile during the referral period are essentially lost.”[3]

Much of what is needed in the form of aftercare services to juvenile offenders is already in place in the community. For example, it is critical that these youths are in school or gainfully employed. There are already good resources in place in many communities to prepare at-risk youths for employment. Many school districts have also developed resources to address the needs of troubled youths in their school systems. The critical problem, though, is how to help good programs find the youths they wish to serve and how to help interested youths find the services they need. Creating such linkages is a crucial element of successful juvenile aftercare programs.[4]

Services are currently available from literally hundreds of agencies around the state to youths released from correctional facilities. In fact, the best use of funding to provide more effective aftercare is not to develop more services, but to facilitate the linkages between the services and the juvenile offenders. This is the unique contribution of the AIM (Aftercare by IUPUI through Mentoring) Program. Our approach is simple: we assess the needs of juvenile offenders who will soon be released from state-run correctional facilities and then bring these youths together with community agencies that effectively meet their needs. Rather than reinventing any wheels, we work to make connections between strong programs in the community and the youths who need supportive services to turn their lives around.

Development of Program

In the summer of 1994, I began working as a volunteer at the Indiana Boys’ School, a state-run juvenile correctional facility. The following spring I was asked by the institution to develop a service-learning course that would involve students from IUPUI working at the institution as part of the course. It became clear as I taught that course (which has now been offered six times) that planning for and providing aftercare was being neglected. This led to a one-year effort at developing and pilot testing an aftercare program provided by students and faculty on a volunteer basis from IUPUI. I began working with two groups of youths. This allowed me to get a sense of the needs of these boys once they are released and the resources in the community available to them.

The initial strategy was to access services from as many different community partners as possible. We hosted a statewide conference (in September 1997) on juvenile aftercare to facilitate the building of coalitions for aftercare programs. Finally, based on a successful model program based initially in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State University, I built in a mentoring component that involves the mentors (mostly college students to date) working one-on-one with the youths.

The basic design of our program was shaped by discussions with all of the involved parties: groups of IUPUI students, DOC personnel, and groups of youths at the facility. Further redesign of the program has occurred as the program has been in operation. At least three times each year, I meet with DOC administrators to further clarify how we can best operate our program within their structure. By maintaining contact with the youths after their release, we are constantly aware of key issues we are still not addressing very well. By conducting exit interviews with the mentors, and assessing the mentor/mentee relationships, we learn how better to equip and motivate our mentors. Finally, through developing partnerships with other agencies, we are learning how best to access needed services.

As the program has evolved, we have learned as much from our failures as we have from our successes. We originally conceived that by developing a plan and identifying resources in the communities, the youths would follow through upon their release. We learned, however, for most of the youths, we need to be there to walk them through the initial steps. We also found that we needed to focus on the whole of each youth — it was not enough to focus on employment and school issues. These youths also need to know where to go for low cost health care, low cost mental health counseling, how to arrange transportation, ways to facilitate safe sex and birth control, and perhaps most important, how to structure their leisure time. I am encouraged to discover the actual breadth of services available. In fact, more often than not, service providers are interested in developing linkages to our program since they are in need of ways to identify potential clients. We have created a partnership with Goodwill Industries in which they provide employment assistance to our youths. We are working with a network of local churches and community centers to provide support within the local neighborhoods these boys return to. We are also currently working with the YMCA to develop opportunities for structured leisure activities.

The role of the mentor in the transition back to the community is another area in which experiences have helped shape the structure of this program. From working with over 50 youths through the prerelease and post-release periods, we learned several important lessons. First, it is crucial that the relationship between the mentor and the youth be established prior to the release of the youth. Second, the first week after release is vital to the successful compliance of the youth with his reentry plan. Third, the ways in which the youths deal with obstacles that arise will really determine the ultimate success of those youths. The involvement of mentors at these times has often made the difference between the youths experiencing success or going back to a correctional facility. Finally, mentoring is particularly effective if it can be maintained over the long term.

In the fall of 1998, we moved from a one-on-one mentoring approach to a team mentoring strategy. Here, a team of 4-5 mentors works with 15-20 youths. This strategy was imposed because of the low number of mentors involved, but has led to many positive results. Namely, we have maintained a greater number of youths in our program than was previously the case. Currently, we have over 150 youths active in the program. In addition, we have increased the likelihood that each youth will find a mentor he can relate to, rather than hoping a one-to-one match would work. We have also increased the quality of our services by strategically pairing mentors to accent each other’s skills and by encouraging mentor teams to engage in problem solving and case management regarding their mentees.

Structure of Program

The mission of the AIM Program is to aid in the successful transition and reintegration of identified “high-risk” juvenile offenders from secure confinement back to their communities through the use of college students and volunteers as mentors, facility-based life skills training, and a university-justice system-community partnership, to lessen the likelihood of failure and relapse. To prepare these youths for success after their release, we provide a life-skills training program that focuses on educational planning, employment preparation, financial management skills, leisure time planning, health issues, transportation and living arrangements, and interpersonal skills. The mentors work with the youths to develop plans to guide their activities after release, targeting specific goals in each of the areas described above. We identify resources in the community based on the needs identified by the youths and the mentors work to develop and maintain the linkages between the youths and the community agencies.

In their latest in a series of bulletins published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention on the Intensive Aftercare Program, David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong identify five key points that we can conclude from the past several years of research at the national level.[5] First, aftercare must begin in the correctional facility and must include “careful preparation” for what will come after release. Second, enhanced services must be provided along with increased levels of surveillance and both need to be adequately funded to be effective. Third, assessment is a critical aspect of preparing these youths to return to the community and is a prerequisite for identifying enhanced services to provide. Fourth, smaller caseloads and more frequent contact are key for the successful reintegration of juvenile offenders. Finally, correctional programs need to become more reintegrative in nature, whereby aftercare is the final piece of a continuum of services.

The AIM Program is designed to address each of these five points. Through careful assessment of each youth participating in the program and thoughtful planning for the transition back to the community, this program is meant to supplement the monitoring from parole agents and Youth Service Coordinators. The involvement of mentors allows for youths to have more frequent one-on-one support during the critical reintegration phase. Finally, with a new grant from AmeriCorps, the AIM Program now has enough coverage in the facilities to serve the majority of the youths for the entire length of their stay, making the focus of the facilities even more reintegrative than is already the case.

Consider a typical case: a 16-year-old male from a lower-income, single-parent family who has a history of poor attendance and low achievement in school, has been involved with drugs and alcohol for several years, and has a lengthy record of involvement with the criminal justice system. Our approach is to identify the support systems that exist within the school this youth will return to and ask for assistance. This may be coordinated through the Bridges to Success program or by funneling the youth through an alternative school program as a transition to the mainstream school. We will match the youth with services for tutoring through a local group or program. We will refer the youth to a program, such as the Southeast 70,001 program, to help him find afterschool part-time employment. We will also identify as many structured recreation opportunities as we can in that youth’s community. This may include the Boys and Girls Club in their neighborhood, the local community center, or the local parks and recreation department. We will find a neighborhood church group that is willing to get involved with the youth and his family. Finally, we will assign the youth to a team of mentors from the AIM Program to help facilitate his participation with these other groups and agencies.

There is evidence to point to the effects of mentoring as a delinquency prevention strategy.[6] Research at the national level evaluating the effects of Big Brothers/Big Sisters programs found that having a mentor was associated with lower levels of involvement in truancy, violence, and drug and alcohol use. From the evaluation of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters Program, we know that the most effective mentoring programs had the following characteristics: (a) the programs reported at least 12 hours of personal contact between mentors and participants each month, as well as contact on the phone; (b) the mentors sought to develop relationships with the youths in which the role of the mentor was that of a friend, and not a teacher; (c) an effective screening of volunteers so that we protect the youths from abuse and so that we take on mentors willing to make at least a one-year commitment; and (d) mentors were trained on communication and limit-setting skills and strategies for being an effective mentor. Mentors in the AIM Program are screened and trained to fit these criteria.

How is this program different from other mentoring efforts? We are different in that we focus specifically on a portion of the population most likely to be left behind by other initiatives. Typically, when programs are effective at dealing with at-risk youths, they tend to focus on those youths who have the best chance of benefitting from the program (i.e., those who are younger or who have only begun to get in trouble) rather than those who need the most help. The AIM Program is committed to serving those youths who have spent time in correctional facilities and who, by virtue of being locked up for at least one year, have to make a major adjustment in their reintegration back to the community. This program is important in that it will make sure these youths are not neglected by effective intervention efforts. Instead, the program will actively seek to create linkages between these youths and the agencies that provide the needed services.

Previous research has established that (1) aftercare should be an integral part of any juvenile justice system, and (2) the most effective aftercare begins in the institution. The AIM Program model is based on these assertions. The initial contact with youths takes place in the juvenile facility, beginning as early as possible in their stay. Through a grant from AmeriCorps, we now have 22 aftercare coordinators who work an average of 17 hours per week and are assigned to a particular living unit within the different correctional facilities. These aftercare coordinators will work with all youths in the particular living unit to which they are assigned, regardless of offense, projected release date, or area of the state to which the youth will return. They will work to assess the needs of the youths, offer life-skills training, and guide the development of reentry plans, all of which are necessary to successfully reintegrate youths back into the community. The aftercare coordinators will work closely with the treatment teams at the facilities and will prepare the youths for participation in the mentoring component of our program.

At about 90 days before release, the youths will have the opportunity to sign up for the mentoring program. We have a good track record of selling the program to a majority of eligible youths and, in fact, over time, word of mouth from the youths participating in the program has increased the numbers of youths looking to have a mentor. We believe that 80% of the eligible youths will choose to work with a mentor, if given enough information. Youths are eligible based on the area of the state to which they are being released. To date, we have focused our efforts on those youths returning to the Indianapolis metropolitan area.

Once they are participating in the mentoring program, youths will attend a series of eight life-skills classes and will finalize their reentry plans. The development of each youth’s reentry plan involves input from the youth, facility treatment staff, mentors, employers (if appropriate), parents, and school personnel. Experts in the field stress that there are critical areas to address in an effective intensive aftercare program. These areas include: vocational skills; drug/chemical and alcohol abuse; communication skills; academic achievement, learning disabilities, school attendance; family and parent problems; recreation/leisure time; residential stability; employment/work performance; peer relationships; health; sexual adjustment, relationships with opposite sex; life skills, residential living skills; and financial management. These subjects are introduced in the eight-week life-skills curriculum and then used as a framework for developing the youths’ reentry plans. The active role the youths play in the identification of goals and the creation of the reentry plan generates ownership for the plan. It is believed that this ownership will facilitate the accomplishment of the identified goals and completion of the overall plan.

This program is based on a theory of change, which underscores the logic that the reentry plan must be in place before the youths are released to increase the likelihood that the youths will actually work towards the goals identified. The underlying assumption of this theory is that if the youths actually complete the initial steps within the first few weeks post-release, they have a greater likelihood of progressing toward and accomplishing their goals during the first several months after release. By focusing attention on personal goals, we expect the likelihood of criminal activity and parole violations to be reduced. Staying out of trouble in the first few months after release (when a significant number of youths violate their parole and return to the institution), will increase the likelihood of realizing longer-term goals such as maintaining gainful employment, achieving a specified level of educational attainment, setting up an independent household, and so on. Finally, we expect achievement of the longer-term goals to ultimately reduce the likelihood of continued criminal involvement.

Immediately following release, the youths returning to Indianapolis are expected to participate in our Support Center that is based at the Lockerbie Square United Methodist Church. The focus of the Support Center is to assist the youths in obtaining their legal identification, enrolling in school, and finding a job. Mentors will participate with the youths at the Support Center. This component of our program is designed to last 30 days after the release from the correctional facility. It is possible that if they are successfully enrolled in school or employed, that they would not attend the Support Center for the full 30 days.

Once the youth has completed the Support Center program, then he or she will work primarily with the mentor on the goals set out on the reentry plan. The focus of their interaction may be on tutoring, working through problems, following through on counseling and NA/AA appointments, or a variety of leisure time activities. The youths have the option of participating with their mentors for as long as they choose. Once they are discharged from parole, the youth may continue to participate in AIM at no cost to DOC.

The young men we serve are taught to access services in the community to help achieve their goals. The mentors serve as the links between the youths and the community groups and programs. This program has entered into many successful partnerships to enhance the opportunities for the youths we serve. For instance, participants receive assistance in job preparation and job search through the 70,001 program. Health issues are addressed through partnerships with Community Centers of Indianapolis and the IU School of Nursing. Mentors are able to model effective use of leisure time through a partnership with the Boys and Girls Clubs of Indianapolis. Participants are provided a variety of opportunities for meaningful involvement in community service projects through a partnership with the Center for Youth as Resources. Advocacy on behalf of the youths we serve is made possible by members of the Ten Point Coalition, an organization we work with to increase the numbers of youths connected to mentors. Finally, the youths served by the AIM Program are linked with a church in their neighborhood–this affords them the opportunity to develop relationships with positive adult role models close to home and makes available support for their whole family.

The community is involved in the planning and implementation of this program. Two different advisory groups operate on a regular basis to inform the further development of this program. One group is comprised of leaders from several different community churches interested in helping these youths succeed when they are released. This group meets on a monthly basis and is charged with identifying support services in the specific neighborhoods to which these youths are returning. A second group is comprised of human resource professionals interested in helping to shape the opportunities available to youth served by this program. This group meets on a quarterly basis and assists the program in the development of long-term career opportunities for the youths in the program, as well as technical assistance in preparing these youths for employment. The AIM Program also has a Board that is made up of representatives from several key state organizations, representatives from private businesses committed to making a difference in the lives of troubled youths, and other key stakeholders. These Board members work actively with the Executive Director and the Program Manager of the AIM Program and meet as a whole group three to four times each year.

Mentors

Historically, the AIM Program mentors have been primarily students from IUPUI. The majority of our mentors have been undergraduate students, with a smaller number coming from among the ranks of graduate students on our campus. The real value in using students as mentors comes from the structure of the service-learning course from which the students derive. As part of a service-learning course, the mentors are reading about and reflecting on the nature of juvenile aftercare, the backgrounds of the juvenile offender population, the state of adolescent development programming, and mentoring skills. In addition, students are participating in the program at a level at least twice that of community volunteers. That said, we have, over time, realized the value in developing a diverse base from which to recruit mentors.

At least half of our mentors at this time are community volunteers. Community volunteers are attractive as mentors in that they tend to be older and are typically more settled. They are often more likely to come from the same communities as the youths, and are usually willing to make a longer commitment to the program than students will initially make. We have, though, over time, been more and more successful at engaging students in our program for 12 months and longer. We will continue to recruit a mentor pool consisting of undergraduate and graduate students from universities and colleges all over the state, and community volunteers from the communities to which the youths are returning after their release from correctional facilities.

The specific qualifications to be a mentor in this program are few. We are looking for people who can be good role models and who want to make a difference in the lives of young people. We currently require criminal history background checks on all mentors in the AIM Program so that we can screen out mentors who may victimize the young people served by this program. In addition, our screening process will identify those individuals that are able to make a year-long commitment and can be comfortable working with our target population. Mentors are assigned based on a careful assessment of their strengths and preferences. New mentors complete a survey and application that helps us match them to a particular facility and mentoring team. We match mentors to the different facilities based on the perceived fit with the different types of offenders in each of the three facilities. Mentors are matched to teams based on the current makeup of the team and its needs. The assignment of mentors takes place while the youths are still in the institution, allowing for a one- to two-month period to build relationships before release. This reduces the likelihood that the mentoring relationship will be rejected and allows the mentors to begin establishing rapport and trust.

We have developed a strong program of training and technical assistance for students and volunteers. We have developed a handbook for mentors that includes a manual on mentoring. Incorporating material drawn from some of the best mentoring programs in the country, the manual describes the role of a mentor, what is known about effective mentor-mentee relationships, tips for building relationships, the benefits of mentoring for mentors and the youths they serve, tips on effective communication, and information on goal setting, problem solving, decision making, and tutoring. There is also a section on normal adolescent development. Policies of the program are included, along with samples of the various reports the mentors are involved in preparing. The handbook includes a directory of community resources to use as a starting point in working with the youths assigned to them. It also includes forms the mentors will complete on a weekly basis documenting the amount of contact each youth receives from the program and assessing the youth’s progress. Finally, the handbook contains a series of readings on a variety of topics geared at the personal development of the mentors.

Mentors attend a three-part orientation program before they are assigned to work with youths. The topics to be covered include the history and mission of the AIM Program, mentoring, the role of mentors, responsibility of mentors, profile of population served, how to engage youths in program, safety issues, mission of DOC, policies of facility, role of facility staff and volunteers, procedures to follow at facility, communication skills, goal setting, team-building exercises, and strategies to engage youths. The focus here is on helping the new mentors have more realistic expectations and some strategies for getting started with the program. The new mentors are then assigned to a team. Each team is responsible for a specific number of youths and it is up to the team to decide how best to serve each youth on their caseload. Team meetings become an integral part of the development of each mentor.

Mentors are expected to meet regularly with their teams, under the direction of the facility coordinators. Facility coordinators are trained to guide the mentors in reflecting on and processing their experiences. It is through the team meetings that mentors learn from one another about different strategies that may be useful and effective. In addition, mentors are asked to attend weekly instructional sessions during their first four months with the program. During these sessions, more attention is paid to specific issues that mentors may have to work with youths on, such as: employment, educational advocacy, anger management, drugs and alcohol, health issues, sex and parenting, peer pressure, and violence. Guest speakers are brought in to help prepare the mentors to tackle these issues. Over time, we have developed a strong network of professionals that regularly meet with our mentors to provide technical support. Twice each year, we hold one-day retreats for program staff and mentors. In addition, as we become aware of useful training provided by other organizations, we make these opportunities available to the mentors.

The mentors take an active role in the monitoring of the youths served by this program. The mentors keep detailed information on the level and type of contact they have with their assigned mentees. In addition, the evaluation of the program involves surveys of the youths served by the program. The surveys allow the youths to evaluate their progress related to their goals, their subsequent involvement in criminal and antisocial behavior, and their follow through on leisure time plans. The evaluation also focuses on the youth’s compliance with parole conditions and involvement in school and work.

We will closely with the staff at the correctional facilities to prepare them for the needs of the mentors to be assigned to each facility. In addition, we work with facility staff to ensure their cooperation with the service to be provided by the mentors. Similarly, we work with service providers in the community to build bridges for the mentors. The program staff for the AIM Program will continue to monitor and troubleshoot the relationships between the mentors and community agencies and schools. Concerns are addressed in training sessions.

A typical day for a mentor involves working with youths in small groups and individually. For instance, at the facilities, mentors are involved in small group instruction on life skills. At the Support Center, mentors are also involved in small group instruction. Mentors may present topics themselves or participate with guest speakers from other organizations. We typically include a series of motivational speakers from local organizations or church groups, and professionals from programs offering services to these youths such as employment preparation, GED instruction, low-cost health care, and structured recreation. In addition to the small group interactions, mentors also provide one-on-one assistance to the youths. This individualized contact can be in the form of specific hands-on help with the youths’ reentry plans, support in following through on specific tasks, or emotional support with issues of concern to the young people. Mentors may also spend time in contact with parents, teachers, or other community professionals to advocate on behalf of the youths assigned to them. Finally, mentors may spend time in preparing written reports to support the work of the teams to which they are assigned. For each youth in the program, a case management plan is developed prior to their release and quarterly progress reports are completed subsequent to their release.

Youths who participate in the AIM Program make a commitment to carry out at least one group service project in conjunction with Youth as Resources. Mentors are responsible for serving as adult coordinators on at least one of these service projects. As part of the development of such projects, the mentors will engage in a variety of team building exercises, some of which encourage civic responsibility and good citizenship. Mentors in this program will also spend time in weekly meetings considering ways to best encourage the youths they serve to become more productive citizens in our society. Mentors model good citizenship to the youths they serve and to the community in general. The goal is to help these youths develop a stronger ethic of service through our efforts–it is through this ethic of service that we hope to inspire these youths to become more empathetic and, thus, less likely to victimize others.

Service Learning

The unique element in this program is the use of college students as mentors to the youths. Students earned college credit in a service-learning course. In this course, students learned about mentoring, delinquency prevention, community resources, and program evaluation. As mentors, my students learned the magnitude and severity of obstacles faced by juvenile offenders when they return to their old neighborhoods and were involved in the actual development of a non-profit youth development organization.

A combination of undergraduate and graduate students have taken on a variety of roles in the growth of this program from a pilot effort with ten mentors serving ten youths in the Fall of 1996 to our current contingent of several teams of mentors serving 150+ youths, the majority of whom are back in the community. Students in this course complete reflection essays tied to specific experiences. The structure of the essays includes a detailed description of the experience, an examination of how each individual experienced the event, a discussion of what was learned and how it applies to readings and discussions in the course, and some prescriptions on how a similar situation may be handled in the future. I am currently offering this course for the 13^th consecutive semester.

Benefits

Youths receive a number of benefits as a result of their involvement in the AIM Program. They are provided an opportunity to establish valuable connections with community-based service providers, potential employers and a pro-social support system that provides the necessary tools and skills they need to be productive members of the community. In large part, the benefits incurred by the youth are derived simply from the mentor acting as a supportive, positive, pro-social role model. This type of interaction between a youth and an adult is often lacking for juvenile offenders. Mentors provide the youth with someone to look up to, to share thoughts and feelings with, and to turn to for support and guidance.

Participants are also introduced to crucial educational opportunities while in the program. Youth who have earned their GED or diploma are able to take college courses while still incarcerated, through distance learning and correspondence courses supervised by IUPUI students. Moreover, individuals interested in attending college after their release receive guidance and aid in obtaining and completing the necessary paperwork for entrance, financial aid and so forth. For those youth who still have not earned a high school diploma, the program provides help in reintegrating back into the public school system, or in obtaining their GED.

Ultimately, the benefits afforded to both the youth and college mentors involved in the program represent substantial benefits to the community. The principal gain for the community would come in the form of the decreased likelihood of criminal involvement of youth in the program. Fostering a sense of self-worth and responsibility for not only self, but the community is a key element in the program model; as such the improvements, both financial and social, should be great as the youth will not be supported through the public welfare systems or the correctional systems. Further, the involvement in the community of both youth mentees and college student mentors will likely foster a commitment to community enhancement and preservation. Assisting in the eventual success and civic-mindedness of the future generations is an important aspect of the AIM Program.

It is my hope that the program and its subsequent evaluation will provide the opportunity to share academic expertise and practical knowledge of aftercare, mentoring, and program implementation to vested stakeholders in the community. The AIM Program is dedicated to fostering cooperative partnerships and knowledge building among all youth-serving organizations, government agencies, and educational institutions within Marion County and throughout the state.

This project is also important in that it fulfills the different missions of the contexts from within which it operates. It serves to fulfill specific aspects of the mission of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) by reinforcing continuing relationships with public agencies and nonprofit organizations and by combining academic course work with practical experiences that may ultimately help students find jobs and enhance their careers. This project also fulfills several aspects of the mission of IUPUI by serving as a model for collaboration and interdisciplinary work through partnerships between the university and the community, by enhancing the public and private lives of students through effective academic programs, and by developing and applying knowledge to issues of social well-being through teaching, research, and service. Finally, the DOC benefits by being able to fulfill part of their mission to enhance their aftercare programming with a mentoring component. Provision of community-based aftercare programming can ultimately enhance the reputation of DOC with the general public.

Results

As part of the evaluation of this program, ongoing written documentation includes much of the following. For each youth, we will maintain:

status at the end of the follow-up period

Since August 1996, 330 youths from the Plainfield Juvenile Correctional Facility have participated in the AIM Program. On an annual basis, this program costs $1,954 per youth (compared to over $43,000 to house a youth in the Plainfield facility for a year). The savings to taxpayers are substantial because this program makes a difference in the outcomes. We know that 80% of youths leaving the facility want to go to school. Yet, without the assistance of a support person or program, fewer than 15% actually enroll in school. In contrast, 56% of AIM participants get back into school. This includes education at all levels. We have even had 12 youths from this program attend IUPUI, with another 8 already admitted for the 2000-2001 school year. Finally, we know that 99% of youths at Plainfield want to get a job after their release. 80% of the youths in AIM get a job soon after their release.

For the year 1997, all youths leaving the Plainfield Juvenile Correctional Facility and returning to the Indianapolis metropolitan area were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: (1) those who received pre‑release preparation through the AIM Program and were assigned a mentor to work with them after their release; (2) those who received pre‑release preparation through the AIM Program, but were not assigned a mentor to work with them after their release; and (3) those who did not participate in any way with the AIM Program. As of the end of 1999, it has been at least 24 months since the time of release for each of the youths we are tracking. We are able to identify which subjects were recommitted to the Department of Correction (juvenile or adult), either because of a parole violation or because of a new offense. Here is what we find:

	Percent Reincarcerated
	after 12 months	after 24 months
In AIM, with mentor	25%	31%
In AIM, no mentor	29%	45%
Not in AIM	39%	49%
Assigned to mentor‑mentor and youth worked closely together	13%	18%

Policy Implications

What does this mean? First, youths participating in the full AIM Program were significantly less likely to be reincarcerated. Compared to those not participating in AIM, there was a 36% reduction in reincarceration in the first year after their release and a 37% reduction after two years in the community. The positive benefits of the program are maintained over time.

Second, prerelease preparation, in the absence of mentor support, seems to at least give the youths a better chance for success initially. After 12 months, this group looked more like the group experiencing the full AIM Program in terms of their rate of reincarceration. Over a longer term, however, this group more closely resembled those who did not participate in the AIM Program at all. The support of a mentor is important for the long‑term success of these youths.

Third, when we can point to a mentor‑youth combination and show that both the mentor and the youth followed through on their commitment to one another, the results are even more impressive. Only 13% of these youths were reincarcerated in the first year after their release, and after 24 months in the community, only 18% of this group had been recommitted to the Department of Correction. This represents a 64% reduction in reincarceration relative to those not participating in the program. Clearly, this is a program that when done properly can make a significant difference.

How about the costs? For the control group, those youths returning to prison would spend an average of 513 days incarcerated, which translates into an average cost to the taxpayers of this State of $32,369 per youth. Annually, it costs just $1,954 for each youth in the AIM Program. This is money well spent. For every additional 100 youths in the program over a 24-month period, the cost would be $390,800, but would save the State (that is, the taxpayers) $1,003,454.

If this program is well implemented, it can also realize major savings in terms of both criminal justice system costs and in crimes prevented. The National Institute of Justice estimates that on average, one robbery costs society $19,000 and one burglary costs $1,400. This cost includes the full consequences of each type of crime, including the actual loss and intangible quality-of-life losses. In addition, a recent study by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy pointed to several interventions that could lower crime rates and lower total costs, if the programs were implemented well. These interventions included mentoring and improving the coordination of service delivery between community-based agencies. These programs realized savings in terms of criminal justice system costs of between $2,000-3,000 per individual. Successful interventions targeting high-risk youths were found to save $6,000 or more per individual.

This does not take into account that if the youths succeed, they are also probably working and/or going to school. At some point, they are gainfully employed and supporting themselves (and their partner and children, if there are any), rather than serving time in a correctional facility. In the State of Indiana, it costs over $40,000 to keep one youth at the Plainfield Juvenile Correctional Facility for one year. That money is wasted if there is no support for these youths when they are released. It is vital that aftercare programming be in place to support all youths released from correctional facilities. Otherwise, we cannot expect these youths to stay out of problem, regardless of the quality of the programming available while they are incarcerated.

Looking To The Future

The AIM Program currently serves fewer than 10% of the youths in state correctional facilities in Indiana. With adequate funding, we could serve them all. A contract with the Indiana Department of Correction provided for the creation of a Program Manager position. We recently received a grant from AmeriCorps to provide for 30 mentors to be assigned throughout the State. Faculty on IU campuses in Fort Wayne, South Bend, Gary, and Kokomo are prepared to serve as directors of the program in their communities. The mentors they recruit and supervise in service learning courses will also work with youths in regional juvenile correctional facilities. We are hoping to raise the funding to allow us to create a program that is truly state-wide, serving all youths in all DOC facilities. In communities not served by IU, we may look to Youth Service Bureaus as host agencies for the mentoring program.

[1] Mayer, William G., “The Changing American Mind: How and Why the American Public Opinion Changed between 1960 and 1986,” The University of Michigan Press, 1993.

[2]Wilson, John J. and James C. Howell, "Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders," in J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson (eds.) A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, & Chronic Juvenile Offenders, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1997.

[3]Okesun, H. John, Edmund F. McGarrell, and Gregory P. Brinker, “Indiana Juvenile Crime Forum Proceedings”, Hudson Institute, 1997.

[4]Altschuler, David M., and Troy L. Armstrong, “Managing Aftercare Services for Delinquents,” in Barry Glick and Arnold P. Goldstein (eds.), Managing Delinquency Programs That Work, American Correctional Association, 1995.

[5]Altschuler, David M., Troy L. Armstrong, and Doris Layton MacKenzie, “Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare,” Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999.

[6]Grossman, Jean Baldwin, and Eileen M. Garry, “Mentoring -- A Proven Delinquency Prevention Strategy”, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997.