An Evaluation of Redeploy Illinois on Juvenile Reoffending

• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20928021
• Date: 01 August 2021
• Published date: 01 August 2021
• Author: Jonathan A. Grubb,Sesha Kethineni
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

An Evaluation of

Redeploy Illinois on

Juvenile Reoffending

Sesha Kethineni

1

and

Jonathan A. Grubb

2

Abstract

The Redeploy Illinois (RI) program was created to provide services to nonviolent,

moderate to high-risk youth who were likely to be committed to the Illinois

Department of Juvenile Justice (IDJJ), which oversees juvenile correctional institu-

tions. Participating counties received financial support from the state to offer various

community-based services to youth instead of incarceration. The current research

evaluated the impact of the RI program in reducing recidivism from the four pilot

sites during state fiscal years (FY) 2006 through 2010. Results showed that youth

who completed the program had fewer convictions compared with pre-program

(Pre-RI) youth as well as those who were deemed unsuccessful. The findings also

demonstrated a longer survival time for RI successful youth relative to those who

were unsuccessful and pre-program youth. A discussion of limitations, implications,

and future directions was also provided.

Keywords

Redeploy Illinois, juveniles, recidivism, community-based services

1

Prairie View A&M University, TX, USA

2

Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jonathan A. Grubb, Assistant Professor,Department of Criminal Justice & Criminology, Georgia Southern

University, Statesboro, GA 30460-1000, USA.

Email: JGrubb@georgiasouthern.edu

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2021, Vol. 65(10–11) 1192–1223

!The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X20928021

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Introduction

Over the past two decades, researchers and juvenile justice practitioners have

implemented various juvenile diversionary programs, some of which were

evidence-based or promising interventions, to reduce juvenile reoffending and

the cost of juvenile incarcerations. The programs have ranged from pre-trial

diversion to post-adjudicatory interventions offered in institutional or commu-

nity settings. Although there was substantial evidence available that evidence-

based programs reduced juvenile offending, fewer than 5% of eligible youth

were placed in these programs (Greenwood, 2008).

According to Greenwood (2008), community-based programs that emphasize

a family-oriented approach are some of the most successful programs. Others

have reported that diversionary programs structured around risk and protective

factors and youth needs tend to reduce reoffending (Dembo et al., 2008;

Henggeler et al., 2009; McBride et al., 1999). Almost a million youth are proc-

essed through the juvenile justice system in any given year, yet only a handful of

states have begun implementing evidence-based or other promising programs.

Moreover, sending youth to juvenile institutions has placed an enormous f‌inan-

cial burden on states. In 2014, approximately 975,000 delinquency cases were

handled by the juvenile courts for criminal law violations in the United States.

Of those cases, juveniles younger than 16 years accounted for 53% of all delin-

quency cases. The same age group accounted for 61% of offenses against per-

sons, 53% against property, 50% involving public-order offenses, and 40%

involving drug offenses. The most common court disposition was probation

(63% of adjudicated cases, n¼183,200), followed by residential placement in

detention, correctional, and shelter facilities (26%, n¼75,400; Hyland, 2018).

In addition to juveniles being handled within the juvenile justice system, about

200,000 youth annually enter the adult criminal justice system, mostly for non-

violent offenses (Lahey, 2016). On any given day, anywhere from 10,000 to 12,000

youth are housed in adult prisons and jails (Lahey, 2016). Incarcerating these

youth costs the United States $8 to $21 billion annually (Shock, 2015).

The high cost of incarceration and reports of abuse of youth in juvenile

correctional facilities coupled with the limited success of incarcerating youth

have caused some states to rethink their priorities and reallocate funding from

state-funded youth prisons to treatment and services within the local community

(The Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2011; Sakala et al., 2018). These funds are not

intended to duplicate existing services, but to develop evidence-based commu-

nity services. Despite the skyrocketing costs of juvenile incarcerations and the

lack of evidence that incarceration reduces further offending, progress toward

the implementation of effective programs has been slow (Greenwood, 2008;

National Research Council, 2013). One of the main challenges has been involv-

ing the family in juvenile justice processes. The National Research Council

Kethineni and Grubb 1193

(2013) indicates the need for further research on successfully involving parents in

the juvenile justice processes.

Another problem is connecting risk/needs assessment with treatment. Studies

have shown that interventions for low-risk offenders have not been as effective in

reducing recidivism as they were for high-risk offenders (Lowenkamp et al., 2006;

Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2002). In addition, many of the programs do not inte-

grate comprehensive community-based programs using the wraparound pro-

cess—“a long-term approach to planning and coordinating the provision of

both formal and informal services in the community” (Burns et al., 2000, p.

283). Therefore, it is crucial to address whether programs that incorporate risk/

needs assessment, individualized and family-centered approaches, and wrap-

around services are successful (or promising) in reducing or preventing juvenile

offending and reoffending. The current research evaluates the impact of Redeploy

Illinois (RI), a community-based program that emphasizes family-oriented

approaches to treatment, in addition to structuring the program around

youth’s risk and protective factors and needs as well as a wraparound process.

Evidence-Based Delinquency Prevention Programs

Researchers have recommended different approaches to implement evidence-

based prevention and intervention programs for juveniles. Lipsey et al. (2010)

suggested three methods: (a) conduct a direct evaluation of individual programs

used in practice, (b) select a list of model programs used in practice with f‌idelity,

and (c) implement a program that has shown to be effective from meta-analyses

with at least an average effect. Each of these approaches applies to specif‌ic

situations. Direct impact evaluations are used to test unique or innovative pro-

grams that have not been implemented or have been implemented in different

circumstances. In the model program approach, selection of a well-developed

and tested model programs, such as Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and

Aggression Replacement Therapy (ART), is an ideal method. Another approach

is to review meta-analyses of interventions that evaluate both brand-name and

generic programs and select the ones with at least an average positive effect

(Lipsey et al., 2010).

Generic programs mixed with model programs often show a positive effect.

Lipsey (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 548 delinquency intervention pro-

grams from 1958 through 2002. The study found large positive effects for group

counseling, mentoring programs, behavioral interventions such as cognitive-

behavioral programs, and family counseling programs. The family counseling

programs covered both generic programs and model programs such as FFT and

Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Although the model programs showed positive

effects on recidivism, some of the generic programs had more substantial effects

than the model programs (Lipsey et al., 2010).

1194 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 65(10–11)