The author(s) shown below used Federal funding provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice to prepare the following resource: 

Document Title: Environmental and Personal Factors in a 

Community-Based Juvenile Offender 

Intervention 

Author(s): Gerri Hanten, Ph.D., Adam Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Document Number: 251100 

Date Received: August 2017 

Award Number: 2012-MU-FX-0003 

This resource has not been published by the U.S. Department of 

Justice. This resource is being made publically available through the 

Office of Justice Programs’ National Criminal Justice Reference 

Service. 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and 

do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
Environmental and Personal Factors in a Community-Based Juvenile Offender Intervention

Final Report

PI: Gerri Hanten, Ph.D.

Dept. of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Baylor College of Medicine

ghanten@bcm.edu

713.798.7420

Co-I: Adam Schmidt, Ph.D. 

Dept. of Psychology

Sam Houston State University

ATS013@SHSU

This project was supported by Grant #2012-MU-FX-0003 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and 

conclusions or recommendations expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily 

reflect those of the Department of Justice.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
2

Abstract

Research demonstrates that youth violence is perpetrated by relatively small numbers of repeat 

offenders (Kennedy, Braga et al. 2001). Low success rates of rehabilitation strategies underscore the 

need for new intervention models. Evidence supports efficacy of community-based intervention 

programs, but implementation of such programs has not been consistent, nor has research on factors 

that promote success been systematic. Further, many programs measure communitywide success, 

but not the individuals’ success. Here we report preliminary findings of a study of youth offenders in 

Houston, TX within the context of readiness-for-change. In addition to preliminarily evaluating a 

community-based intervention, the overarching aim of the study was to gain understanding of factors 

that affect recidivism in order to inform development of successful community-based interventions for 

juvenile offenders. Findings include support for the effectiveness of community-based intervention on 

the rate of recidivism in youth offenders, the importance of factors related to readiness-for-change in 

response to intervention, and the sensitivity of a measure of personal prosocial attitudes in relation to 

recidivism. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
3

Table of Contents

Abstract......................................................................................................................... 

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................3 

Enrollment and Follow-up, Table 1.....................................................................................5 

Status of Goals and Project Objectives, Table 2...... ............................................................6 

Objective 1 .....................................................................................................................7 

Objective 2......................................................................................................................8 

Objective 3.....................................................................................................................10

Objective 4.....................................................................................................................11

Objective 5.....................................................................................................................12

Modification in the implementation of the project strategy .................................................13

Current timeline..............................................................................................................13

Problems and requested technical assistance...................................................................13

Discussion of additional program management accomplishments and concerns...................13

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................14

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
4

Categorical Assistance Progress Report 

(CAPR) Format

GRANTEE NAME: Baylor College of Medicine PI Gerri Hanten

GRANT NUMBER: 2012-MU-FX-0003

REPORTING PERIOD: August 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015

1. TOTAL NUMBER OF YOUTH SERVED DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD: N/A

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

We had 5 primary goals for this project: 1, to obtain individual and environmental data on 75 youth

offenders; 2, to relate these data to recidivism; 3, to relate these factors to prosocial change; 4, to 

relate mentor and officer factors to intervention success (prosocial change + decline in recidivism); 5, 

disseminate our findings. Our partners included ReVision, a community-based, mentor-centered youth 

support organization in Houston, Texas, and Harris County Juvenile Probation Department (HCJPD) 

in Houston, Texas. 

Goal 1: Our original enrollment included enrollment and data collection of 75 youth. We fell short of 

that number by 23 youth, but nonetheless, because effect sizes were generally large, we obtained 

data sufficient to complete analyses for Objectives 1-3. 

Goal 2: Analyses are ongoing on this rich dataset, as well as on the comparison data obtained from 

Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, but the findings to date include: 1, a strong 

endorsement of community mentor-based programs (specifically ReVision); 2, the finding that rate of 

reoffending is a more sensitive and powerful predictor than the number of offenses; 3, there is a very 

weak relationship between violations of probation and later reoffending; 4, there appears to be a cubic 

relationship between time in placement (including detention) and rate of recidivism; 5, individual 

variables including cognitive skills such as memory updating, cognitive styles encompassing

processes of thinking about change, and personality-related factors such as self-efficacy appear 

related to decreases in recidivism. Interestingly, and contrary to our initial hypotheses, a youth’s 

readiness for change did not predict his initial response to the ReVision program or his initial rate of 

recidivism. However, we believe this is a problem with a restricted range of scores within the initial 

sample. Future analyses are planned on the longitudinal data to determine if trajectory of readiness 

for change is related to future decreases in recidivism and a longer-term positive response to the 

ReVision program (we provide more details regarding this null finding later in the progress report).

Goal 3. As a part of this project, we collaborated with ReVision to develop a ProSocial Status 

instrument to measure characteristics and attitudes that may signal a youth’s movement away from 

criminal behavior and towards pro-social behavior in youth offenders. Our preliminary findings 

endorsed the use of the instrument as a strong predictor of decreased rate of recidivism. 

Goal 4. Data collection of mentor and officer factors is ongoing (via OJJDP 2014 JU-FX-0001), but 

was less robust than originally expected for this project. However, steps have been implemented to 

ameliorate this weakness. To date, 28 mentors have completed measures and interviews, with 5 

additional mentors scheduled for January 2016. Due to changes in the ReVision mentor program, the

potential for additional mentor participation going forward is high, with 250 mentors in the ReVision 

database of volunteers. Officer recruitment will continue, but we have also developed new 

approaches to address the question of the influence of officers on the youth offenders’ response to 

intervention (please see details below). 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
5

Goal 5. Dissemination of findings. Although analyses are ongoing, we have presented 2 major papers 

at the American Criminology Society meeting in Washington D.C., which took place in late November, 

2015. A paper was also presented at the National Association of Social Workers Texas Chapter 

conference in Galveston, TX in October, 2015 In addition, we have 3 manuscripts nearing completion, 

which we hope to submit soon. 

In the next phase of the extended project (2014-JU-FX-0001), we will extend follow-up assessments 

to 24 months as we continue analyses with the data collected to answer many fundamental questions 

regarding the prediction of intervention response based on cognitive and environmental status. 

Table 1 Notes

Total Referrals from HCJPD 133

39 ineligible because not in ReVision service 

area;

7 of these were ineligible because of previous 

history with ReVision (therefore unable to 

provide true pre-intervention baseline); 

3 declined participation in ReVision

4 other: did not fit criteria for enrollment in 

ReVision – pre qualifying IQ, mental disorder, 

specific type of criminal history (i.e., sex 

offenders), etc. 

Number eligible 80

8 refused participation in study

15 parents or youth unresponsive to requests 

for consent or scheduling

1 deceased 

Number consented/enrolled 51

Additional number agreed, 

pending consent 5 

Baseline Assessments 

completed 51 

2 dropped – IQ (assessed after enrollment)

revealed not eligible for ReVision

2 deceased (following BL)

1 reoffended, discontinued ReVision services

1 refused to continue ReVision or study

participation

3 month assessments 

completed 25

6 month assessments 

completed 12 

12 month assessments 

completed 6 

Number lost to follow up (or 

missed assessment) 6 

Mentors 28

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
6

Other accomplishments. 

As a consequence of our findings on this project, HCJPD has taken under consideration certain of our 

results that inform the calculation of risk with regard to releasing individual youth into the community. 

We are pleased that we have also been invited to participate in a county-wide initiative to enhance the 

efficiency and efficacy of HCJPD. As well, several opportunities to aid the rehabilitation of youth in 

collaboration with the ReVision program and HCJPD are under discussion.

3. STATUS OF PROJECT GOALS/OBJECTIVES:

Table 2 (from the grant submission) shows Objectives, Benchmark Measures, Source and Target 

Goals for the project. 

Table 2: Performance measures by objective, data provided, source and target goal

Objective Benchmark measures Source of data Target goal

(1) Obtain 

measurements of 

youth offenders 

environment, 

individual factors

(A) Number of youth 

screened, recruited and 

consented for project.

Grantee (BCM 

research team)

~3 youth per 

month. 100 in 

30 months

(B) Number of youth 

completing assessment at 

baseline, 3-, 6- & 12 months. 

Grantee (BCM 

research team)

74 by 12 month 

follow-up

(2) Relate factors 

to recidivism

(A) Bimonthly reports of 

number of youth who violated 

conditions of probation.

HCJPD 100% reports

(B) Bimonthly reports of 

number of youth who 

reoffended.

HCJPD 100% reports

(3) Relate factors 

to pro-social 

change

(A) Monthly reports on 

positive tokens of prosocial 

change

ReVision staff

100% reports 

for youth in 

intervention

(4) Relate 

probation officer 

/mentor factors to 

intervention 

success

(A) Number of Mentors & 

probation officers recruited 

and consented for project.

Grantee (BCM 

research team) 90%

(5) Disseminate 

information

(A) Description of analyses 

and preliminary findings

Grantee (BCM 

research team)

Anticipate 

prelim findings 

by end of Year 

2

(B) Number of presentations 

and manuscripts (in 

preparation, submitted, in 

press or published).

Grantee (BCM 

research team) 2 per year

(C) Number of collaborative 

group meetings, 

teleconferences and inservice presentations with 

HCJPD & ReVision.

Grantee (BCM 

research team) 6 per year

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
7

Project Objective 1: Obtain cognitive, environmental, and personality measures of youth offenders 

involved in the ReVision program at (A) baseline, and (B) follow-ups at three, six months, and one 

year following detainment.

Target Goal 1A: Recruit approximately 3 youth per month to participate in the study. By grant’s end, 

we recruited 51 youth, a shortfall of approximately 30%. 

Status: Completed Partially met Not met at all 

Indicate Number of Youth Served: N/A

Activity: Referral, recruitment, consenting, and testing participants.

Postmortem: Largely, the shortfall we experienced was a product of policy change by Harris County 

Juvenile Probation Department that in turn affected ReVision by directly, and dramatically reducing

the number of youth who qualified for referral to ReVision. Specifically, HCJPD changed the pattern of 

placement of youth so that the youth to be placed in facilities within our and ReVision’s purview

included a much greater proportion of youth referred to treatment for mental disorder and for 

intervention specific to sex offenders, both of which were excluded from our study. Due to this change 

in referral policy of HCJPD, we suffered a steep decline in recruitment shortly after our process was 

fully established. Because we were not notified a priori of this change, there was a lag between the 

implementation of the new HCJPD policy and our realization that our numbers falling off was not just a 

seasonal cycle. Once we uncovered the cause of the decline, discussions and plans we implemented 

with ReVision and HCJPD to correct this situation proved effective, and baseline recruitment generally 

returned to predicted levels, although did not increase enough to allow us to make up for the incurred

shortfall. Of note, we will continue baseline testing duration of the current project (2014-JU-FX-0001) 

until we reach our recruitment objectives, which will add to the means of the early time points and 

reduce variability, as well as allow for secure findings for the predictive models we developed. 

In addition to reducing the power of in our analyses, as mentioned in earlier Progress Reports, we had 

concerns about the new HCJPD policies possibly creating a bias in recruitment. Although discussions 

with all parties led us to tentatively conclude that the methods used to restrict the number of 

participants in ReVision were not likely to lead to bias in the data, (that is, they use a first-come-first 

serve policy for youth when a opening is available, we nonetheless felt compelled to perform analyses 

on the data to establish that the nature of the study sample did not fundamentally change over time. 

To that end, we examined the factors that emerged as predictors as well as selected study-specific 

factors (please see Table 3). 

Target Goal 1B: Obtain follow-up data on youth participants at 3, 6, and 12 months after enrollment. 

Following directly from the situation with the baseline testing, we experienced a shortfall in follow-up 

assessments. 

Status: Completed Partially met Not met at all 

Indicate Number of Youth Served: N/A

Activity: Follow up testing.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
8

Progress: We have completed 25 three-month follow-ups, 12 six-month follow-ups, and 6 twelvemonth follow-ups. There are 3 six-month, and 10 twelve-month assessments due for follow up (via 

2014-JU-FX-0001) in the next several weeks. 

Postmortem: A portion of our difficulty in obtaining follow-up data was a consequence of the HCJPD 

policy change, as reported above. The approximate percentages are shown in Table 1. Further, many 

youth transitioned out of ReVision programming as probation requirements became less demanding, 

e.g. number of PO check-ins decreased, etc. Over this time, youth became more engaged in family 

and school activities, and scheduling became difficult. Youth often viewed assessment scheduling as

competing with other preferences for free-time activity (despite gift cards for their time and 

participation). Another challenge was the transient nature of youth’s housing and changes to phone 

numbers, which made it difficult to continue contact. Lastly, despite much of the success of 

community-based programming, some youth committed additional charges which placed them in-outof-state treatment facilities or the adult criminal justice system. 

Project Objective 2: Relate cognitive, environmental, personality, and relationship factors to 

recidivism.

 

Target Goal 2A and 2B: Obtain information from HCJDP on number of youth who have violated 

terms of probation and who have reoffended. 

Status: Completed Partially met Not met at all 

Indicate Number of Youth Served: N/A

Activity: Obtain information on re-offenses and probation violations for study youth from HCJPD. 

Postmortem: We were able to obtain all variables of interest for the demographically matched nonReVision control participants and participants in ReVision. These datasets were large and 

comprehensive, and unexpectedly required a great deal of time to verify (as there was significant 

variability in data quality, possibly due to the number of persons entering data), organize, code, and 

format. We conducted extensive analyses of the two groups (ReVision youth and non-ReVision youth) 

and were able to ascertain that the groups were largely closely matched on demographic variables, 

and also on history variables and other proximal and distal influences (please see Table 3). We also 

verified that the ReVision program was associated with a significantly decreased rate of recidivism 

over time. 

An ancillary activity was to create and test models that best predict recidivism, which was successfully 

completed. This involved testing the effect of important potential predictors by including the specific 

variable in models with group and follow-up-time controlled. The potential predictors were: age-at-firstoffense, age-at-index-offense, race, severity-of-first-offense (felony vs. non-felony) , severity-of-indexoffense (felony vs. non-felony), most-severe-offense-before-index-offense(felony vs. non-felony), 

number-of-offenses-in-the-past, number-of-placements-in-the-past, cumulative-time-stayed-inplacement-in-the-past. Although , age-at-first-offense, severity-of-index-offense, most-severe-offensebefore-index-offense, cumulative-time-stayed-in-placement-in-the-past and number-of-placements-inthe-past were significantly related the recidivism, when follow-up-time, linear and quadratic form of 

age-at-index-offense, race and number-of-offenses-in-the-past were included in the model, the effect 

of other variables were no longer significant. Therefore those variables were dropped from the model.

The model was then used to test various of environmental and personal predictors of recidivism and 

prosocial status. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
9

Table 3 Characteristics of ReVision vs Control Youth. 

Variable Control Mean 

(SD)

ReVision Group 

Mean (SD)

Significance 

test value

P value

Age at first 

offense

13.0 (1.22) 14.07 (1. 52) t = -0.73 0.468

Age at index 

event

14.90 (1.14) 15.17 (1.12) t = -1.36 0.176

Severity of 1st

event % felony

29.75 30.95 Chi-square = 

0.021

0.883

Severity of 

index event % 

felony

33.06 26.19 Chi-square = 

4.86

0.087

Race (% Black 

vs other)

57.02 45.24 Chi-square = 

1.74

0.187

Notable Findings: 

Using the model created (described above), examination of number of offenses committed per month 

(rate) revealed that the youth in the ReVision community-mentoring program had a lower re-offense 

rate than did the control group, and that the difference in rate did not change significantly with time 

(please see Figure 1). Our analyses also revealed that the re-offense rate for both groups changed 

with time out of placement (Free Follow-up Time) and is associated with age at the index event 

(please see Figures 1& 2). 

Cognitive variables were less consistently related to recidivism. We had predicted that basic academic 

skills, specifically the Woodcock-Johnson tests of reading, would be related to recidivism, following 

the general literature. However, for our youth in the ReVision study, reading fluency did not emerge as 

a significant factor in recidivism. 

However, we did find that a measure of updating memory, a challenging executive memory measure, 

was predictive of recidivism, in the expected direction. That is, the better able a youth was to update 

his memory in a continuous task, the less likely was he to re-offend, estimate = - 0.0124, z = -2.20, p 

= 0.0281.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
10

Surprises: Our hypotheses included a predictive role for Readiness for Change, as measured by a 

modified version of the University of Rhode Island Change Assessment (URlCA). In our preliminary 

analyses, we saw a strong relationship between a high Precontemplative Score and subsequent 

recidivism. This, it turns out, was an artifact of the HCJPD database system, in which the “index 

event” that is, the event that caused the youth to be referred by HCJPD to ReVision, was tagged, and 

any infractions entered after that were labeled as “recidivism”. The artifact arose when charges

ancillary to the index event were considered later than the index event, and so were entered into the 

“subsequent offenses” column. Once we discovered the problem, we went through the data line-byline, to ensure that charges were appropriately categorized. Analyses of the re-classified data 

revealed a notable lack of relationship between Readiness for Change and recidivism. However, 

pending completion of all of our twelve and twenty-four month follow-up we intend to re-analyze the 

data examining the influence of the trajectory in readiness for change to determine if this influences 

the rate or likelihood of recidivism. 

In contrast, in one instrument, Processes of Change, which is theoretically linked to Readiness for 

Change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992), several subscales were associated with recidivism even 

after controlling for the above-mentioned variables. These were: 1) Counter Conditioning (that is, 

learning prosocial behaviors as substitutes for antisocial ones), estimate = - 0.1612, z = -3.10, p = 

0.0019; 2); Dramatic Relief, estimate = -0.1760, z = -2.32, p = 0.0203; Environmental Reevaluation

(marginal), estimate = - 0.1033, z = -1.80, p = 0.0719; Self Reevaluation, estimate = - 0.0993, z = -

2.04, p = 0.0413; Self Liberation (marginal), estimate = - 0.0873, z = -1.77, p=0.0775. 

In addition, Self-efficacy (consistent with the Transtheoretical Model of Change) was found to be 

significantly and negatively related to recidivism: estimate = - 0.0810, z = -2.11, p = 0.0345.

Project Objective 3: Obtain information on prosocial change from participants in the study.

Target Goal 3A: Obtain prosocial change data on all youth enrolled in the study for assessment time 

point period. This dataset was limited to youth enrolled in ReVision, as we did not have the resources 

to administer the Prosocial Status instrument to all HCJPD youth. 

Status: Completed Partially met Not met at all 

Indicate Number of Youth Served: N/A

Activity: Acquire data on prosocial status and examine its efficacy in prediction of recidivism. 

Postmortem: Although work remains to be done on this instrument, it shows great promise in the 

identification of youth at least risk for recidivism. Of the measures we administered, it was among the 

most powerful predictors of decreased rate of recidivism. The measure included an internal validity 

scale, comprising elements unrelated to prosocial status. 

On this measure, we found that within our initial model (which did not account for variables of interest 

related to recidivism), ProSocial Status was negatively associated with recidivism, estimate = -0.02, z 

= -3.75, p = 0.0002. In contrast, the internal validity measure showed little associated with recidivism, 

estimate = 0.04, z = 0.48, p = 0.6284, as would be expected.

Even when all variables related to recidivism were entered into the model, ProSocial Status remained 

powerfully associated with recidivism, in the expected direction, that is, the greater the ProSocial 

score, the lower the recidivism, estimate = - 0.0195, z = -3.75, p = 0.0002.

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
11

Finally, we found that ProSocial Status was related (Pearson Correlation Coefficient) to elements of 

Readiness for Change as listed below:

Overall Readiness for Change Score: r = .368, p = .0092

PreContemplative Stage: r = .274, p = .056

Contemplative Stage: r = .311, p = .029

Action Stage: r = .375, p = .008

Maintenance Stage: r = .154, p = .310

Barriers to Obtaining Objectives:

None.

Corrective Action:

None indicated.

Project Objective 4: Relate probation officer/mentor factors to intervention success.

Target Goal 4A: Obtain data from probation officers and mentors assigned to the youth study 

participants.

Status: Completed Partially met Not met at all 

Indicate Number of Youth Served: N/A

Activity: Recruit and obtain data from probation officers, peer outreach workers and community 

mentors regarding their interactions with and attitude towards study participants.

Postmortem: As stated in previous progress reports, there was a much higher than expected turnover 

among ReVision mentors and JPOs involved in the ReVision program. This made it significantly more 

difficult to recruit and establish a consistent relationship with these individuals. Despite repeated 

attempts to recruit sufficient numbers of JPOs and mentors to participate in the study, concerns 

regarding the time necessary to complete study measures and frequent turnover of JPO staff involved 

in the ReVision program could not be overcome. 

Officers: we had proposed to survey juvenile probation officers (JPOs) regarding their relationships 

with the youth and determine if this relationship influences outcomes. Despite repeated attempts to 

recruit JPOs and the support of Harris County and ReVision, we were largely unsuccessful in 

recruiting more than a handful of extremely motivated JPOs to participate in the current study. 

Further, regular and frequent turnover in JPOs staff made it difficult to build long-standing 

relationships with specific JPOs therefore limiting our ability to recruit over time. Nonetheless, in order 

to address this goal, with the support of the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, we have 

obtained data regarding the types of JPO contact with ReVision youth (e.g., face-to-face contacts, 

officer home visits, quick curfew checks, etc.) and are in the process of preparing these data for 

analysis to determine if the type and frequency of contact influences outcomes among ReVision 

youth. Additionally, we are examining another variable thought to influence the JPO youth relationship 

that is the number of JPOs assigned to a youth during their time in the system. By analyzing both of 

these types of data (i.e., number and types of contacts and total number of JPOs assigned to a youth) 

we anticipate being able to sufficiently address this goal of the proposal.

Mentors: Partly as a consequence of the data we provided, ReVision has changed its process for 

recruiting and training mentors and we have received a much stronger response from new mentors 

entering the ReVision program as part of the follow-up study (2014-JU-FX-0001). In the original 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
12

proposal, we indicated we would develop a smart-phone based application in order to facilitate the 

tracking of mentor-mentee contact and the quality of the relationship. Although this application was 

subsequently developed, pilot testing indicated that it was not regularly accessed and used by 

mentors despite repeated requests both from ReVision and from research personnel. Thus, the data 

that was obtained through this approach was non-random and highly influenced by specific mentor 

characteristics. In order to address aspects of this aim, we have proposed to analyze qualitative data 

from interviews with mentors regarding their relationships with ReVision youth. Further, we are in the 

process of obtaining the records logging official contact between mentors and ReVision youth in order 

to determine if the number of contacts influences a youth’s response to ReVision, changes in 

prosocial behavior, and rate of recidivism. Additionally, we are in the process of analyzing data from 

the Mentor Youth Alliance Scale to determine if the quality of the relationship from the youth’s 

perspective influences the effectiveness of ReVision, changes in prosocial behavior, and decreases in 

recidivism. 

Project Objective 5: Disseminate information regarding the study and its findings.

Target Goal 5A: Description of analyses and preliminary findings 

 

Status: Completed Partially met Not met at all 

 

Indicate Number of Youth Served: N/A

 

Activity: Disseminate information about the study and its findings.

 

Barriers to Obtaining Objectives:

No significant barriers.

Target Goal 5B: Presentations and manuscripts (2 per year).

Status: Completed Partially met Not met at all 

Indicate Number of Youth Served: N/A

Postmortem: We have presented several conference presentations regarding our findings including 

presentations at the Annual Neurotrauma Conference in 2014 and two recent presentations at the 

American Criminology Society annual meeting in late 2015. We have also presented our findings on 

several occasions both to ReVision staff in order to facilitate improvements in the program as well as 

to staff including executive staff at Harris County Juvenile Probation. These presentations have 

contributed in a great deal of cross-talk between researchers, Harris county, and ReVision and have 

resulted in re-evaluation of policy / procedural changes at Harris County based upon our data. 

Further, we are in the preparation phase of several manuscripts based upon our baseline data. We 

anticipate these being submitted for publication in 2016 after which time we will begin work on papers 

relating to predictive models and longitudinal analyses. Finally, our initial paper relating to this 

population was positively reviewed and we are in the process of revising that paper based upon these 

initial comments and resubmitting it for publication. 

Target Goal 5C: Collaborative Group Meetings (6 per year)

Status: Completed Partially met Not met at all 

Indicate Number of Youth Served: N/A

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
13

Postmortem: Throughout the project period, cooperation and collaboration between researchers, 

ReVision, and Harris County has remained strong, collegial, and beneficial. Following some initial 

difficulties in maintaining consistent communication between the parties leading to the dip in 

recruitment described elsewhere, communication and interactions have remained consistent and 

regular. Further, both ReVision and Harris County Juvenile Probation appear committed to and 

motivated to ensure the success of the research project. This level of enthusiasm and collaboration 

has carried through past the current project to include work on the follow-up study (2014-JU-FX0001), and we anticipate the relationship between all three parties will continue and include other 

programmatic, research, and policy related endeavors. 

4. MODIFICATION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT STRATEGY:

As this project has progressed, it may have been necessary to request approval from your Program 

Manager to modify the plan presented in the approved proposal. Please describe any APPROVED 

changes that occurred during this reporting period and discuss the factors that precipitated the 

changes. Provide details on how changes will be monitored to ensure program goals are effectively 

met.

No significant modifications of the experimental design or research plan were requested. 

5. CURRENT TIMELINE:

As this project has progressed, it may have been necessary to adjust the APPROVED timeline to 

more accurately reflect the program implementation schedule. Please indicate below if your timeline 

needs to reflect substantial alteration, and attach the revised timeline with the submission of this 

progress report.

As described in previous progress reports, initial delays in funding implementation from BCM and 

changes to the referral stream delayed recruitment and baseline testing. However, once these issues 

were resolved, recruitment returned to baseline levels although we were unable to recruit sufficient 

numbers to make up these delays. Nonetheless, we obtained a high-quality robust dataset on a 

relatively large number of youth. More importantly, our access to the Harris County Juvenile Probation 

database has enabled us to match these participants on a variety of demographic factors thereby 

making our analysis of the ReVision program and related to probation officer interactions persuasive. 

The use of a non-intervention control group in the current project is unique and makes this project 

stand out among other programmatic interventions. 

6. PROBLEMS and requested TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

No additional problems other than the issues discussed in the above sections have been 

encountered. 

7. DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND 

CONCERNS.

Overall, we have been very happy with the support and collaborations between ReVision, BCM 

research staff, the Harris County Juvenile Probation Department, and OJJDP. We are excited to 

continue analyzing data and preparing the process of submitting manuscripts on this unique project. 

Further, we look forward to the continuation of the follow-up study (2014-JU-FX-0001) and believe this 

extended follow-up and the information we have and will gain from mentors will prove invaluable for 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice 
14

understanding these initial results, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of ReVision and other 

mentor-based programs, and guiding policy and procedural changes at Harris county and potentially 

within other jurisdictions. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We are grateful for the financial support of the U.S. Department of Justice 

for the conduct of this project. As well, we appreciate the assistance, guidance, and patience of 

OJJDP staff as the project has developed, especially Barbara Tatum Kelley. We would also like to 

acknowledge our outstanding collaborative partners, Harris County Juvenile Probation Department 

and Houston ReVision for their dedication to the project and their believe that research can play a 

large part in bettering the lives of the youth under their care. Finally, we very much appreciate the 

University of Houston-Central and University of Houston-Downtown for supporting the internship 

program that provided our much appreciated research assistants, without whom this project would 

have faltered. 

This resource was prepared by the author(s) using Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not 

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice