In this article we examine the facility-to-community transition experiences of formerly incarcerated youth in the sample who remained in the community for 1 year following release from the juvenile correctional system. Specifically, we studied the relationship of selected predictor variables to engagement status (a transition outcome based on working, going to school, or both activities) at two points in time after the participants exited the juvenile correctional system: 6 months post-exit (Time 1) and 12 months post-exit (Time 2).The data for the study were gathered in a 5-year longitudinal study that examined the community reintegration of 531 incarcerated youth from Oregon's juvenile justice system. Data were gathered on the sample while they were still in custody and then every 6 months through phone interviews in order to describe their work, educational, living, and social experiences in the community. Data on their return to the juvenile correctional system were gathered from an extant database maintained by the state agency. Findings suggest that (a) transition and post-exit services may need to be focused to particular subgroups and (b) career/vocational instruction in the juvenile correctional setting coupled with services offered upon returning to the community could have a positive impact on the adjustment of incarcerated youth.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Benz, M. (2000). YTP decade report: 1990— 2000. Eugene: University of Oregon, Institute on the Development of Educational Achievement.
4.
Benz, M., Lindstrom, L., & Latta, T. (1999). Improving collaboration between schools and vocational rehabilitation: The youth transition program model. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 13, 55—63.
5.
Bullis, M. (1994). Investigation of the institution-to-community transition of adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Funded grant proposal, Office of Special Education Programs, Field Initiated ResearchStudies.
6.
Bullis, M. (1999). Achieving rehabilitation, independent living, and employment success: Final report on the ARIES project for adolescents with serious emotional disturbance or severe mental illness. Eugene: University of Oregon, Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior.
7.
Bullis, M., & Cheney, D. (1999). Vocational and transition interventions for adolescents and young adults with emotional or behavioral disorders. Focus onExceptional Children, 31(7), 1—24.
8.
Bullis, M., & Fredericks, H. D. (Eds.). (2002). Providing effective vocational/transition services to adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Champaign-Urbana, IL: Research Press.
9.
Bullis, M., Fredericks, H.D., Lehman, C., Paris, K., Corbitt, J., & Johnson, B. (1994). Description and evaluation of the Job Designs program for adolescents with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 19, 254—268.
10.
Bullis, M., & Yovanoff, P. (1997). Return to close custody: Analysis of the Oregon Youth Authority's data set. Eugene: University of Oregon, Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior.
11.
Bullis, M., Yovanoff, P., Mueller, G., & Havel, E. (in press). Life on the “outs”: Examination of the facility-to-community transition of incarcerated youth. Exceptional Children.
12.
Bullis, M., Yovanoff, P., Havel, M.E., & Mueller, G. (2001). Transition research on adjudicated youth in community settings: Final report on the TRACS project. Eugene: University of Oregon, Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior.
13.
Cheney, D., Hagner, D., Malloy, J., Cormier, G., & Bernstein, S. (1998). Transition services for youth and young adults with emotional disturbance: Description and initial results of project RENEW . Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 21, 17—32.
14.
Clark, H. B., & Davis, M. (Eds.). (2000). Transition of youth and young adults with emotional/behavioral disturbances into adulthood: Handbook for practitioners, parents, and policy makers. Baltimore : Brookes.
15.
DeStefano, L., & Wagner, M. (1992). Outcome assessment in special education: What lessons have we learned? In F. Rusch, L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch , L. Phelps, & E. Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life (pp. 173—207). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
16.
Elam, S., Rose, L., & Gallup, A. (1994). The 26th annual Phi Delta Kappan Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan,26, 42—56.
17.
Halpern, A. (1990). A methodological review of follow-up and follow-along studies tracking school leavers from special education. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 13, 13—27.
18.
Halpern, A. (1993). Quality of life as a conceptual framework for evaluating transition outcomes. Exceptional Children, 59, 486— 498.
19.
Hasazi, S.B., Gordon,L.R., & Roe, C. (1985). Factors associated with the employment status of handicapped youth exiting high school from 1979 to 1983. Exceptional Children, 51, 455—469.
20.
Hollingshead, A. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Sociology .
21.
Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (1989). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.
22.
Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd. ed.). New York: Wiley.
23.
Kazdin, A. (1993). Adolescent mental health: Prevention and treatment programs. American Psychologist, 48, 127—141.
24.
Keppel, G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
25.
Koop C.E., & Lundberg, G. (1992). Violence in America: A public health emergency: Time to bite the bullet back. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3075— 3076.
26.
Levine, P., & Edgar, E. (1994). An analysis of respondent agreement in follow-up studies of graduates of special and regular education programs. Exceptional Children, 60, 334—343.
27.
Marder, C. (1992). Secondary students classified as seriously emotionally disturbed: How are they being served?Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
28.
Menhard, S. (1990). Longitudinal research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
Pampel, F. (2000). Logistic regression: A primer (Sage University papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Patterson, G.R., Reid, J., & Dishion, T. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR : Castalia.
31.
Rudas, T. (1998). Odds ratios in the analysis of contingency tables (Sage University papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences, series no. 07-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Rusch, F. (1995). Reflections—Ten years of the Transition Research Institute. Interchange, 13(4), 1—2.
33.
Rutherford, R., Bullis, M., Wheeler Anderson, C., & Griller, H. (in press). Youth with special education disabilities in the correctional system: Prevalence rates and identification issues (Invited monograph). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Prevention and Office of Special Education Programs.
34.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
35.
Thompson, B. (1999). Improving research clarity and usefulness with effect size indices as supplements to statistical significance tests. Exceptional Children, 65, 329— 338.
36.
Todis, B., Bullis, M., D'Ambrosio, R., Schultz, R., & Waintrup, M. (2001). Overcoming the odds: Qualitative examination of resilience among adolescents with antisocial behaviors. Exceptional Children, 68, 119—139.
37.
Valdes, K., Williamson, C., & Wagner, M. (1990a). The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students: Vol. 3. Youth categorized as emotionally disturbed . Palo Alto, CA: SRI International .
38.
Valdes, K., Williamson, C., & Wagner, M. (1990b). The National Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students: Vol. 7. Youth categorized as learning impaired . Palo Alto, CA: SRI International .
39.
Wagner, M. (1992). Analytic overview: NLTS design and longitudinal analysis approach. In M. Wagner, R. D'Amico, C. Marder , L. Newman, & J. Blackorby (Eds.), Trends in postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities (pp. 2-1 to 2-14). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
40.
Walker, M., Schnidt, L., & Lunghofer, L. (1993). Youth gangs. In M. Singer, L. Singer, & T. Anglin (Eds.), Handbook for screening adolescents at psychosocial risk. New York: Lexington Books.
41.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594—604.
42.
Will, M. (1984). OSERS program for the transition of youth with disabilities: Bridges from school to working life. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation .
43.
Wright, R. (1995). Logistic regression. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 217—244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
