■青年再次犯罪的高比率表明,年轻的监护离开者在重新融入社区时面临挑战。善后和安置计划可以发生在前,during,和释放后,通常提供多种形式的支持服务,以满足青年的过渡需求。
■本审查审查了(1)青年善后/重新安置计划对犯罪相关结果的影响,(2)参与者如何调节治疗效果,程序,研究特点,(3)某些类型的干预措施是否比其他类型的干预措施更有效,(4)有效计划实施的障碍/促进者,(5)移民干预潜在的变化理论,(6)关于干预成本的现有研究。
■在26个电子数据库的布尔搜索中组合了一组全面的关键字和同义词。还搜索了多个灰色文献来源,包括23种期刊,4个会议档案,11个组织网站,3个开放获取期刊网站,以及该领域8名知名研究人员的简历。搜索于2023年1月完成。
■对于目标1-3,如果研究采用随机对照设计或准实验比较组设计,其中参与者至少在一些基线变量上进行匹配,并包括至少一种定量个人犯罪测量,则将其包括在内。对于目标4,包括对善后/重返计划进行过程评估的研究,明确说明了他们的研究目标,并以适当的方式使用定性方法来回答所提出的研究问题。对于目标5和6,不需要特定的方法;包括满足目标1-4标准的任何研究,这些研究提供了关于变化理论或成本数据的发现。对于所有结果,只有在西化国家进行的研究,1991年后以英文出版,法语,或者德国人被考虑。
■两名编码人员对纳入的研究进行了原始数据提取。将数据输入到MicrosoftExcel数据库中。数据提取后,两位编码人员通过将数据库与每份研究报告进行交叉检查来验证编码。在达成共识之前,讨论了程序员之间的差异。如果无法达成共识,咨询了第三个编码器。使用ROBINS-I解决了研究偏倚风险(Sterne等人。,2016),ROB-2(Higgins等人,2019),和批判性评估技能计划(CASP,2018)。目标1-3通过使用随机效应模型和元回归对善后干预的严格影响评估综合定量结果来解决。进行了专题和叙述分析,以实现目标4-6。
■搜索产生了15项影响研究,代表21个项目网站的4,718名参与者,和35个效果尺寸。21个影响评估被评为具有低/中等偏差(k=11)或严重偏差(k=10)。对15项影响研究的综合发现,对逮捕没有显著影响(k=14;OR=1.044,95%预测区间[0.527,2.075],t=0.335)或监禁(k=8,OR=0.806,95%预测间隔[2.203,1.433],t=-1.674)。发现定罪有显著的合并效应(k=13,OR=1.209,95%预测区间[1.000,1.462],t=2.256),但结果对纳入具体研究高度敏感.在关于研究的主持人分析中没有出现有意义的结果模式,样品,程序组件,或程序交付特征。19个工艺研究被评为高质量(k=12)或中等质量(k=7)。过程评估的主题综合显示了与计划实施的优势/挑战有关的15个主题。对项目成本的评估(k=7)确定了文献中缺乏数据,防止任何总结性分析。
目前的证据在定罪结果方面是有希望的,但总体上没有发现善后/重新安置干预措施对犯罪的年轻人有可靠的积极影响。结果和报告数据之间的高度差异导致每个结果的样本量较小,主持人分析有限。计划实施存在多种挑战;迫切需要进行更严格的研究,以进一步研究计划效果的细微差别。
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.