Juvenile delinquency generally refers to violent and non-violent criminal activity committed by minors. The matter of incarcerated youth is a difficult issue. The occurrence of recidivism among juvenile delinquents is estimated to be 50% to 70% when such persons are released from custody with no aftercare treatment (Wiebush et al. 2000). The significance of this is that juvenile recidivism causes correctional overcrowding and increased costs of confinement. Therefore, correctional institutions develop aftercare programs to reduce an individual’s criminal lifestyle (Zhang et al., 2005). Unfortunately such programs currently, when evaluated, fail to produce consistent, significant results (Baltodano, et al., 2005); (Josi et al. 1999).

The literature on this subject suggests that several factors can result in delinquent behavior. A juvenile who shows poor school performance, has poor family relationships or abuses drugs is more likely to participate in delinquent behavior than normal youths (Zhang et al., 2005).

Current aftercare programs try to tackle these issues in mass and are typically uniform for everyone. Even though these programs make an honest attempt to cover all possible reasons why a single juvenile might recidivate, not all juveniles suffer the same combined risks. Studies suggest that treatments planned around an individual’s specific needs have more positive results (Josi et al., 2007).

An aftercare program will only be successful when specifically addressing these issues on an individual level. The factors, then, that will allow for the successful reintegration of juvenile offenders are heightened treatment interaction, smaller program staffing and individualized job-assistance or academic tutoring.

The literature focuses largely on factors that may deter juveniles from successful reintegration. It is generally acknowledged that those who are at a higher risk of re-offending often have severe issues in one or more of the following areas: education, family life, substance abuse and cognitive function. (Zhang et al., 2005); (Baltodano, et al., 2005); (Josi et al. 1999). Juvenile aftercare programs typically focus on helping high-risk offenders manage these issues by offering daily life skills management and counseling. Altschuler et al., (1998) suggests that more structured transitions from correctional facilities to the community may have more positive outcomes; although, it is interesting to note that low-risk offenders are typically not supervised as intensely as those of high-risk profile since it seems to generate a negative result, possibly due to invasive pressure. Therefore, correctional facilities must distribute their resources effectively so those who are most likely to re-offend receive the most concentrated supervision (Zhang et al., 2005).

Studies illustrate that high-risk juveniles in aftercare programs begin to demonstrate significant improvements in performance immediately following their release from incarceration. However, when compared to control groups over longer periods of time, this experimental group fails to advance further and often falls into decline (Baltodano, et al., 2005); (Josi et al. 1999).

In Baltodano, et al., (2005), a study of 120 adolescences were surveyed regarding their perception of the transition process and its effectiveness. Many thought that one of the leading challenges of reintegration was attempting to go back to school. Participating parole officers in Josi et al. (1999), a research evaluation study of the reentry program “Lifeskills95″, argued that many individuals demonstrate genuine enthusiasm toward reintegration but, with time, became discourage over daily routines and low-paying employment. This, they claimed, contributes to reintegration failure. For that reason, it is important to conduct an additional study of this leap of positive outlook in order to better determine the factors that may prolong its course.

Delinquent youth, on average, have lower academic achievements than non-delinquents. Also, those with disabilities characteristically have poor social skills and reduced impulse control (Baltodano, et al., 2005). Keeley’s research on factors that help juveniles return to school, claims that youth with disabilities are more likely to become involved in crime. And also these rates increase even more if the youth drops out of school (Keeley 2006). Therefore, particular care must be used when studying the successful reintegration of juveniles with disabilities because such success may require additional factors and support.
Altschuler et al., (1998) claims that a quality program design alone cannot guarantee success but it is the staffing of these programs that will determine overall success. This requires additional funding and a strongly supervised staff who are well qualified and completely devoted to their mission. Josi et al. (1999) focused closely on the effects of a highly trained staff and a positive atmosphere on the effects of juvenile reintegration. In Zhang et al. (2005), many youths complained that returning to school was a challenging aspect of reintegration because they had missed too much schoolwork (Zhang et al., 2005). This study was a detailed research evaluation of an intensive juvenile aftercare program in Los Angeles. However, one issue with this study is that participants were selected based on the convenience of where they lived and factors such as a neighborhood’s poverty in relation to levels of delinquency or a juvenile’s distance from school were not addressed. In taking all such factors into consideration it may be possible to determine what factors assist in the successful reintegration of juvenile offenders.

Altschuler, M. D., Armstrong L. T. (1998). Intensive juvenile aftercare as a public safety approach. Corrections Today, 60(4), 118-123. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Criminal Justice Periodicals database.
Baltodano, M. H., Platt, D., Roberts, W. C. (2005). Transition from Secure Care to the Community: Significant Issues for Youth in Detention. Journal of Correctional Education, 56(4), 372-388. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Criminal Justice Periodicals database.
Josi A. D., Sechrest K. D. (1999). A pragmatic approach to parole aftercare: Evaluation of a community reintegration program for high-risk youthful offenders. Justice Quarterly : JQ, 16(1), 51-80. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Criminal Justice Periodicals database.
Keeley, H. J. (2006). Will Adjudicated Youth Return to School After Residential Placement? The Results of a Predictive Variable Study. Journal of Correctional Education, 57(1), 65-85. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from Criminal Justice Periodicals database.
Smith, W., R, Aloisi, M. F. (1999). Prediction of recidivism among “second timers” in the juvenile justice system: Efficiency in screening chronic offenders. American Journal of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 23(2), 201-222. Retrieved November 6, 2007, from Criminal Justice Periodicals database.
Wiebush, R.G., McNulty, B., & Le, T. (2000). Implementation of the intensive community-based aftercare program. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved November 5, 2007 from http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/ojjdp/181464.pdf
Zhang, X. S., Zhang, L. (2005). An experimental study of the Los Angeles County repeat offender prevention program: It’s implementation and evaluation. Criminology & Public Policy, 4(2), 205-236. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Criminal Justice Periodicals database.