PrProgram Summary ogram Summary

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJ DP BJS OVC

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

A Publication of the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

I ntensive Aftercare

for High-Risk Juveniles:

Policies and Procedures
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies

how delinquency develops and the best methods

for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and

analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice

system.

Training and Technical Assistance Division provides juvenile justice training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local governments; law

enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel;

and private agencies, educational institutions, and

community organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to replicate tested approaches to

delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in

such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,

community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate

representation of minorities in the juvenile justice

system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports

collaborative efforts by States to carry out the mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant

funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to

States, local governments, and private agencies;

and monitoring State compliance with the JJDP Act.

Information Dissemination and Planning Unit

informs individuals and organizations of OJJDP

initiatives; disseminates information on juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and missing children;

and coordinates program planning efforts within

OJJDP. The unit’s activities include publishing research and statistical reports, bulletins, and other

documents, as well as overseeing the operations of

the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes interagency cooperation and coordination

among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the

area of juvenile justice. The program primarily carries

out this responsibility through the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an

independent body within the executive branch that

was established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Missing and Exploited Children Program seeks to

promote effective policies and procedures for addressing the problem of missing and exploited children.

Established by the Missing Children’s Assistance Act

of 1984, the program provides funds for a variety of

activities to support and coordinate a network of resources such as the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children; training and technical assistance

to a network of 43 State clearinghouses, nonprofit

organizations, law enforcement personnel, and attorneys; and research and demonstration programs.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93–415, as

amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP’s goal is to

provide national leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice.

OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice

system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by

seven components within OJJDP, described below.

OJJDP provides leadership, direction, and resources to the juvenile justice community to help prevent and

control delinquency throughout the country.
Intensive Aftercare for

High-Risk Juveniles:

Policies and Procedures

Program Summary

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

September 1994

Prepared by

David M. Altschuler, Ph.D.

Principal Research Scientist

The Johns Hopkins University

Institute for Policy Studies

Baltimore, Maryland

Troy L. Armstrong, Ph.D.

Professor

California State University

Division of Criminal Justice

Sacramento, California
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the

National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

This document was prepared under grant number 87–JS–CX–K094 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent

the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
iii

Foreword

Crowded juvenile correctional centers, escalating costs of confinement, and

high rates of recidivism have sparked renewed interest in the need to bring

innovative ideas to bear on juvenile aftercare philosophy, practice, and

programming.

In the summer of 1987, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention launched its Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs initiative to

help public and private corrections agencies develop and implement effective

aftercare services for chronic and serious juvenile offenders who initially

require secure confinement.

Through the use of examples drawn from data and observation, this Summary, a

policy and procedures manual, will provide the reader with a clear overview of

the structure and function of key program elements and components.

Used together with its companion pieces, An Assessment and A Community

Care Model, this manual will help guide corrections agencies as they develop

aftercare programs that meet the needs of chronic and serious juvenile offenders

across the Nation.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
iv
v

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the financial support provided by the Office of Juvenile Justice

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

Justice. Particular thanks go to Douglas Dodge and Frank Smith of the Office’s

Special Emphasis Division.

The research and development work on which this paper is based involved

public- and private-sector people across the country who spent countless hours

talking with us, offering suggestions and advice, and facilitating our onsite

research. Though too numerous to name, we are grateful to all.

We also wish to express our appreciation to the advisory board members who

have provided counsel and guidance throughout: Jerry Hill, Jay Lindgren, and

Ted Palmer.

Finally, we are indebted to Jean Biddinger who prepared the manuscript and

assisted with editing.
vi
vii

Table of Contents

Foreword.........................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................... v

Introduction .................................................................................................. 1

Overview of the proposed intensive aftercare model ................ 2

Theoretical framework .................................................................................... 3

Underlying principles ...................................................................................... 4

Program elements ............................................................................................ 4

Policies and procedures of the IAP model ..................................... 5

Organizational factors and the external environment ..................................... 5

Overarching case management ....................................................................... 7

Assessment, classification, and selection criteria ....................................... 8

Assessment of risk .................................................................................... 8

Cut-off scores ........................................................................................... 9

Overrides .................................................................................................. 9

Assessment of need ................................................................................ 10

Assessment of special needs subpopulations.......................................... 11

Individual case planning ............................................................................ 12

Integrating surveillance and services based on risk factors ....................... 16

Balanced incentives and graduated sanctions ............................................ 18

Service brokerage with community resources and linkage

 to social networks .................................................................................... 21

Management information and program evaluation ...................................... 24

Process evaluation...................................................................................... 25

Outcome evaluation ................................................................................... 26

Conclusion ................................................................................................... 28

Figures

Figure 1: Intervention Model for Juvenile Intensive Aftercare ................... 3

Figure 2: Integrated Control-Strain-Social Learning Model ....................... 4
viii
1

he project will

assist public and

private corrections

agencies in developing and implementing

effective aftercare

approaches for

chronic and serious

juvenile offenders

who initially require

secure confinement.

T

Introduction

In the summer of 1987, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice, issued a request for proposals (RFP)

titled, “Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs.” This research and

development initiative was designed to assess current knowledge and programs

in this field, to develop a promising program model, to disseminate information

about the proposed model, and to test this model in selected jurisdictions.

These goals were sequenced in stages to build cumulatively and lead directly

into a demonstration effort:

Stage 1:

An assessment of (a) programs currently in operation or under development,

and (b) the relevant research and theoretical literature related to the implementation and operation of community-based aftercare programs for chronic juvenile

offenders who are released from residential correctional facilities.

Stage 2:

Developing program prototypes and related policies and procedures to guide

State and local juvenile correctional agencies and policymakers.

Stage 3:

Transferring the prototype design, including the policies and procedures, into a

training and technical assistance package for use in formal training sessions and

for use that is independent of the organized training sessions.

Stage 4:

Implementing and testing in selected jurisdictions the prototype developed in

Stage 2.

OJJDP views this project as one means to assist public and private corrections

agencies in developing and implementing aftercare approaches for chronic and

serious juvenile offenders who initially require secure confinement. The Johns

Hopkins University’s Institute for Policy Studies and the Division of Criminal

Justice, California State University at Sacramento, were funded in the spring of

1988 to conduct this project.

This policy and procedures manual constitutes one of two products developed

during stage two of the project. The other is the Intensive Aftercare Program

(IAP) model, or prototype, that has been described in considerable detail in

other project documents. The IAP model represents an effort to combine coherently the most innovative ideas and strategies that have been identified nationally to facilitate effective transitioning of high-risk juvenile parolees into the

community and to offer a reasonable chance for long-term positive adjustment

and reduced recidivism.

Through the use of examples, this policy and procedures manual will provide

the reader with a clear sense of how program elements and components are

structured and how they function. These examples are drawn from site visits

and other data collection activities (e.g., mail surveys and telephone interviews)

conducted during the assessment stage of the project. This manual can be most

helpful as a guide to programming options if used in conjunction with another
2

New insights about

chronic, serious delinquents and the most

effective ways to manage their behavior in

the community have

recently emerged.

project document, Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs: Training

Manual for Action Planning Conference (for availability, see page 28), that

delineates in modular form the key principles of the model. Each module emphasizes a program element, such as overarching case management, assessment

and classification, individualized case planning, a combination of surveillance

techniques and service provision, balanced incentive and graduated consequences, service brokerage with community resources, and management information and program evaluation.

Overview of the proposed intensive

aftercare model

Growing concerns about institutional crowding, high rates of recidivism, and

escalating costs of confinement have fueled interest in bringing innovative ideas

and programming to juvenile aftercare/parole philosophy and practice. Unfortunately, the correctional field has a dismal record in reducing the recidivism

rate of juvenile offenders coming out of secure, correctional confinement. This

failure appears to occur disproportionately with a subgroup of institutionalized

juvenile offenders who began their long record of criminal misconduct at an

early age. This high-risk group tends to exhibit a persistent pattern of intense

and severe delinquency activity and is plagued by a multitude of other problems. Often, they have emotional and interpersonal problems that are sometimes accompanied by physical health problems; most come out of family

settings characterized by high levels of violence, chaos, and dysfunction; many

are engaged in excessive alcohol and drug consumption and abuse; and a substantial proportion have become chronically truant or have dropped out of

school altogether.

Major innovations have not affected juvenile aftercare services; however, new

insights about this subpopulation of chronic, serious delinquents and effective

ways to manage their behavior in the community have emerged. One aspect of

these efforts has been the development of specially designed programs and

practices that systematically target high-risk parolees, provide highly structured

supervision and control, carefully monitor performance in the community, and

ensure the delivery of many essential services. Any attempt to lower rates of

recidivism with serious and chronic juvenile offenders must entail a substantial

intensification of intervention strategies that focus upon identified problems and

needs. Further, interventions that achieve long-term behavioral changes and

integration into the community must combine increased surveillance and supervision with enhanced and more specialized treatment and services. Principles of

treatment and rehabilitation are as important as increased emphasis on surveillance and social control.

The proposed model of a juvenile intensive aftercare program operates across

four levels, from the most abstract (defined in terms of theoretical considerations) to the most concrete (defined in terms of actual program elements and

service areas). The four levels include: (1) theories of delinquency causation

and change (an integration of social control, strain, and social learning theories),

(2) underlying principles, (3) derived program elements and sub-elements, and

(4) program service areas (see figure 1).
3

ur theoretical

framework focuses

on the reintegrative

process.

Figure 1: Intervention Model for Juvenile Intensive Aftercare

Underlying Principles

Progressively Increased

Responsibility & Freedom

Facilitating Client-Community

Interaction & Involvement

Working With Both Offenders & 

Targeted Community Support Systems

Developing New Resources,

Supports, & Opportunities

Monitoring & Testing

Assessment & Classification

Individual Case PlanningSurveillance/ Service Mix

Incentives & Consequences

Brokerage & Linkages

Special Needs & Special Populations


Education & School


Vocational Training, Job Readiness, & Placement


Living Arrangements


Social Skills


Leisure & Recreation


Client-Centered Counseling (individual & group)


Family Work & Intervention


Health

Special Technology

Case Management Organizational 


& Structural 


Characteristics

Management Information 


& Program Evaluation


Program Elements

Service Areas

Strain Theory Social Learning Theory Social Control Theory

An Integration of:

Theoretical framework

Other efforts to develop an integrated theoretical framework for guiding intervention with serious, chronic juvenile offenders have centered largely on combinations of social control, strain, and social learning theories. Selected

postulates and axioms of the crucial theories are linked together to more fully

explain delinquency and change than is possible when using a single theory.

A larger conceptual framework, one that takes into account psychological and

sociological explanations of delinquency and individual and environmental

factors, combines relevant strands of social control, strain, and social learning

theories into an integrated model. Our proposed model is grounded in a similar

integration of the three theories; however, our theoretical framework focuses

upon the special requirements that characterize the reintegrative process.

The integrated IAP framework postulates that serious, chronic delinquency is

related to: (1) weak controls produced by inadequate socialization, social disorganization, and strain, (2) strain, which can have a direct effect on delinquency

independent of weak controls and which is also produced by social disorganization, and (3) peer group influences that intervene as a social force between a

youth with weak bonds and/or strain on the one hand and delinquent behavior

on the other. The pathways by which these social forces and circumstances

produce delinquency or recidivism are multiple (see figure 2 on next page).

While the effect of strain on delinquency may be mediated by weak controls

and by the normative orientation of the groups to which a youth is bonded,

strain or bonding to delinquent groups may have a direct and independent effect

on delinquency in other cases. The integrated IAP framework highlights the

fact that the joint occurrence of strain, weak controls by conventional groups,

and strong bonds to delinquent groups produces a greater probability of delinquency or recidivism than any of the three alone.

O
4

he principles

offer a sufficient,

sound, and understandable "blueprint"

from which program

design can proceed.

T

Figure 2: Integrated Control-Strain-Social Learning

Model

Underlying principles

The integrated IAP framework is based on a theory-driven, empirically guided

set of principles for programmatic action that are requisite for successful intensive aftercare. These five principles embody the theoretical assumptions regarding both the multiple causes of, and behavioral changes associated with,

reoffending. The principles offer a direction and a set of goals that guide the

design of the program elements and services. The principles are:

■ To prepare youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in

the community.

■ To facilitate youth-community interaction and involvement.

■ To work with both the offender and targeted community support systems

(e.g., families, peers, schools, employers) to establish constructive

interaction and to help youth adjust successfully to the community.

■ To develop new resources and supports where needed.

■ To monitor and test the youth and the community on their ability to deal

with each other productively.

These five principles allow for a flexibility in the program components, features, and processes that will be used to respond to the surveillance and service

needs of selected IAP youth. The chief concern at this level is the extent to

which the principles offer a sufficient, sound, and understandable “blueprint”

from which program design can proceed. Does the IAP model’s rationale and

philosophy make sense given the assumptions regarding the multiple causes and

correlates of, and behavior-change strategies associated with juvenile offending

behavior and recidivism?

Program elements

At the next level of program development—formal implementation—practice

must be judged in terms of whether program components, features and processes, and the population served conform to the principles of the integrated

IAP model. While planners and practitioners must have sufficient latitude to

Inadequate

Socialization

Weak

Controls

Social

Disorganization Strain

Strong Bonding

to Deviant Peer

Group and

Deviant Learning

Environment

Delinquency

Recidivism
5

he first step in

the IAP development

process is to determine

how a jurisdiction

carries out its aftercare

responsibilities within

the broader context of

juvenile corrections.

T

consider the components, features, and processes that best suit the needs of their

own communities and IAP youth, the implementation of the program must meet

expressed policy and procedural requirements. Such requirements are central to

the proper translation of theory and principles into practice.

While the model implemented in any locale depends upon factors that characterize the local system, IAP policy and procedural requirements are defined by the

three major program elements and five sub-elements that are essential to the

model. A discussion of each element follows with illustrations taken from currently operating programs or approaches.

Policies and procedures of the IAP model

Organizational factors and the external

environment

Correctional systems vary enormously across a number of dimensions, including

the scale of the particular system, its ideological and philosophical orientation,

its public and government support base, its structural characteristics, and the

type and number of aftercare programs it offers. Factors related to the aftercare

function include:

■ Level of resources available for aftercare activities.

■ Number of youth adjudicated delinquent and under the supervision of

correctional authority.

■ Urban versus rural distribution of population.

■ State statutes and laws, legislative guidelines, and administrative rules

relevant to aftercare.

■ Reliance upon public versus private service provision.

■ The organizational and bureaucratic configuration of aftercare.

These factors will affect implementation and will result in the model assuming a

different form from one setting to another.

The first step in the IAP development process is to determine how a jurisdiction

carries out its aftercare responsibilities, such as implementing the program,

following its legal mandate, and allocating resources. The structure of the juvenile correctional system must be considered. Possible variations may include

housing both juvenile correctional facilities and juvenile aftercare in the same

agency, housing juvenile correctional facilities and juvenile aftercare in separate

agencies, operating juvenile aftercare as a statewide function under jurisdiction

of the executive or judicial branch of government, operating juvenile aftercare as

a county level function, and having a State agency responsible for aftercare versus a regional approach to parole.

Another major variation is the way that community-based services and resources

are obtained or contracted. In some jurisdictions the aftercare agency uses
6

rivate providers

can allow for greater

flexibility in program

design and vastly

reduce the time and

red tape consumed

in introducing major

change.

extensive purchase-of-service arrangements with private contractors, while in

other jurisdictions the aftercare agency is directly responsible for operating

most of the programs and services available to parolees or for locating community resources, such as county mental health, big brother, or local recreation

programs, that provide service at little or no charge to the aftercare agency.

An Assessment (Altschuler and Armstrong 1990) provides examples of approaches to service provision that fall along the public-private continuum.

The report describes in detail two jurisdictions that represent the opposite ends

of this service continuum. The Arizona Department of Corrections relies

heavily upon a “purchase-of-care” model that uses contracts with private vendors almost exclusively to provide an array of community-based services for

juvenile parolees. Nine different categories of service provision are available:

(1) residential shelter and transitional services, (2) residential treatment services, (3) residential substance abuse services, (4) residential pregnancy and

postpartum services, (5) residential conservation services, (6) day support

services, (7) evening support services, (8) psychological and psychiatric services, and (9) nonresidential substance abuse treatment and urinalysis services.

At the other extreme is the Intensive Aftercare Program in Delaware County,

Ohio, that relies heavily on local community agencies and resources.

The decision to transfer the entire responsibility for operating juvenile correctional facilities and/or aftercare services to a private sector provider offers

flexibility in designing and staffing innovative programs and in vastly reducing the time and red tape consumed in introducing major change. The Eckerd

Youth Development Center (EYDC), a private, nonprofit corporation under

contract with the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,

operates a secure correctional facility and handles aftercare planning for

delinquent male youth 14 to 18 years old who have been committed to the

State for correctional supervision. EYDC assumed control under conditions

specified in a long-term contract for management of one of Florida’s State

training schools (located in Okeechobee) and implemented a correctional

model that combined both institutional confinement and aftercare supervision

and stressed continuity of management and service provision across the

boundary between the institution and the community.

Another set of organizational considerations focuses upon the size of the juvenile correctional system, including institutional and aftercare components.

Some State systems manage small numbers of correctional facilities and juvenile parolees, while other State systems are enormous and must manage many

facilities and thousands of juvenile offenders at one time. These factors can

impose major limitations on the organization and administration of juvenile

aftercare. Closely tied to these issues is the distribution of population across

a jurisdiction or State. Some correctional systems benefit from having most

of their clients concentrated in only one or several urban areas, while others

must provide supervision and service to offenders scattered across many,

largely rural, areas. The latter situation poses problems for implementing a

cost-effective model of intensive aftercare.

P
7

ne major problem

is the inability to transition offenders from

closely monitored life

in a secure institution

to unstructured and

often confusing life in

the community.

Overarching case management

Case management is the overarching mechanism that achieves coordinated planning and continuous, consistent service provision, referral, and monitoring of

juvenile offenders who have been committed to secure confinement and who

will need to be transitioned to aftercare status in the community. One of the

major problems besetting the juvenile correctional system has been the inability

to transition offenders from closely monitored and highly regimented life in a

secure institutional environment to unstructured and often confusing life in the

community. The difficulties posed in providing continuity of service and supervision between institutional confinement and community living have long

plagued efforts to achieve successful community adjustment for juvenile offenders. Lack of coordination and collaboration among staff in correctional facilities, parole agencies, and community social institutions (e.g., schools, local

organizations, public mental health agencies, drug and alcohol treatment centers,

employment and training programs, churches, business associations, and employers) have been a grave impediment to the development of effective aftercare

programming.

While recommendations for improved communications, shared decisionmaking,

coordinated planning, and clear lines of authority have been made many times,

these recommendations have, with certain notable exceptions, met with a modicum of success. Because of funding limitations, bureaucratic and professional

intransigence and turf battles, understaffing and inefficient deployment of staff,

community fear and resistance, and inadequate or nonexistent community resources, the juvenile parole agency, correctional facilities, and community-based

social institutions have been unable or unwilling to enter into a working partnership. The multifaceted needs and problems of high-risk juvenile offenders who

require integration into the community indicate that aftercare field staff and local

social support systems must be directly involved with the staff of correctional

facilities.

The findings of the full assessment report suggest five broad areas of responsibility central to intensive aftercare case management: (1) a process of disposition, confinement, and parole that consists of clearly defined steps that are

closely coordinated, consistent, mutually reinforcing, and continuous; (2) some

form of behavioral, contingency, or social contracting throughout the process;

(3) a comprehensible and predictable pathway for client progress from disposition to the end of parole; (4) each step or phase of reentry directly related to all

successive steps; and (5) a rating or reporting system to monitor a youth’s behavior and measure progress. These five areas of responsibility constitute the

framework for developing an unambiguous, goal-oriented set of expectations

and requirements for clients that is detailed in an “individualized facility-parole

master plan.”

The overarching case management element is composed of five sub-elements

that provide explicit guidance in formulating and implementing the master plan.

This individualized master plan focuses attention on what happens before, during, and after institutional confinement. A discussion of each case management

sub-element follows.

O
8

he offender’s age

at first adjudication,

the number of prior

adjudications, and the

number of prior commitments are the best

offense-related predictors of delinquency.

Assessment, classification, and selection criteria

The origins of assessment and classification in juvenile justice can be traced to

the precept that each youth should be individually assessed upon entering the

system. Each youth, his or her social surroundings and circumstances, background, particular talents and deficiencies, and problem behaviors need to be

examined on a case-by-case basis to assure that the appropriate corrective steps

are taken. The current diversity of classification systems for juvenile offender

populations reflects the fact that treatment and rehabilitation continue to exert a

strong influence despite the recent trend toward crime control and increased punishment of serious juvenile offenders. Further, the growth of intensive supervision programs for juvenile offenders requires the development and application of

structured procedures that will determine which cases should receive enhanced

levels of supervision and service provision.

Assessment of risk. The development of a validated risk assessment instrument

is the key task to identifying and intervening intensively with juvenile offenders

who are at risk of reoffending. The items included on the risk assessment scale,

the weights assigned to the individual items, and the results of an analysis validating the instrument (e.g., first scoring each youth in the identified sample on the

instrument and then comparing that score to the youth’s actual recidivism) must

be considered. Further, risk assessment instruments are based on aggregate characteristics, indicating that they do not predict which individuals within each

grouping will recidivate, but do predict within acceptable limits the failure rates

for each group.

Quantitative assessment instruments have demonstrated considerable accuracy in

estimating risk levels for aggregated juvenile offender populations. In contrast to

assessing adult offenders, devising valid scales for predicting recidivism among

juvenile offenders is more difficult than assessing adult offenders because juveniles are more volatile and impulsive; they experience more rapidly changing

personal characteristics and needs; and they are less likely to have developed

longstanding patterns of behavior and habits on which to predict misconduct.

Nonetheless, the better risk assessment scales contain some combination of features related to delinquent history, family dysfunction, school disruption, and peer

group influences. Items such as age at first adjudication (i.e., early age of onset),

number of prior adjudications, and number of prior commitments have been

shown to be the best offense-related predictors of delinquency.

An example of a formal risk assessment approach currently in use is the Ohio

Department of Youth Services’ (DYS) risk-based community supervision system.

The Aftercare Risk Assessment instrument contains 15 items, each weighted according to its individual predictive power. Based upon the score obtained with

this instrument, juvenile parolees are assigned to one of three supervision levels:

intensive, regular, or low. Intensive-, regular-, and low-supervision youth are

placed on aftercare for 8-, 6-, and 4-month periods, respectively. While a youth’s

supervision category remains static, minimum contact standards can be adjusted

up or down according to a reassessment score based on a youth’s adjustment and

calculated at the end of 90 days of aftercare and at 60-day intervals thereafter.

T
9

rediction

research has shown

that the relationship

between the seriousness of the offense and

the likelihood of recidivism is extremely

weak, if not inverse.

P

The Arizona Department of Corrections also uses a risk assessment instrument

containing nine items that are scored to determine a juvenile parolee’s risk potential. The obtained score guides the assignment of the youth to a communitybased placement marked by a specific risk level. This scale is combined with a

decision tree accompanied by a set of decision guidelines in the form of questions that allow a decision to be scored yes or no. This series of decision steps

offer multiple pathways that lead to a final decision about the appropriate level

of restrictiveness to apply to the youth. The tree designates five levels of restrictiveness for assigning youth to placement options: very high, high, middle, low,

and very low. When a youth scores high or very high on this instrument, outof-home placement is recommended. Further, the instrument determines four

levels of parole supervision: intensive, maximum, medium, and minimum. In

this scheme, the medium level of supervision corresponds to a lower level of

restrictiveness, whereas a minimal level of supervision corresponds to the lowest

level of restrictiveness.

The identification of risk factors to predict types of future misbehavior should be

used cautiously. These behaviors can range from the risk of committing violent

acts to the risk of new offenses to the risk of designated violations of probation

or parole. The efficiency with which these different kinds of misbehavior can be

predicted varies tremendously. In general, predictions of crime categories (e.g.,

violence) are much more difficult to make than are general predictions (e.g.,

recidivism).

Cut-off scores. Another critical issue is the selection of appropriate cut-off

scores that are used to discriminate among different risk groups. Determining

cut-off scores is a decision that needs to take into account budget constraints,

agency policies, and overall program goals and objectives. For example, if it is

decided that youth with an aggregate recidivism rate of 60 percent or more

should receive intensive supervision, then the funding, staff, and services needed

to support this level of supervision must be available. Also, the failure base rate

of the group eligible for intensive supervision should be high enough that improvement is possible.

In the Ohio Department of Youth Services, cut-off risk scores were chosen as the

basis on which youth would be assigned to intensive, medium, and low supervision categories. If lower risk scores are chosen to qualify for higher level supervision, more cases with reduced aggregate rates of recidivism will be included.

Overrides. One source of confusion emerges from the unclear relationship between the seriousness of the crime and the risk of future criminal activity. Prediction research has repeatedly shown that the relationship between the

seriousness of the present offense and the likelihood of committing future offenses is extremely weak, if not inverse. Consequently, the inclusion of a youth

who has committed only one serious offense in a risk-based aftercare program

may be regarded as a misuse of risk-based aftercare. Inclusion of such offenders

may also mean that intensive aftercare is used punitively for social control to

satisfy the public outcry about getting tough with youth crime.
10

he Ohio

Department of Youth

Services uses a risk

assessment instrument that includes

measures of alcohol

and substance abuse,

discipline problems in

the home, parental

criminality, and family

violence.

When a youth commits a violent or other serious crime, the community may

become fearful and may call for widespread punishment and/or prolonged intensive supervision. As a result, even though the relationship between the severity of the present offense and recidivism would not call for enhanced social

control, some mechanism to handle so-called “overrides” or aggravating circumstances must be established.

In Ohio, the Department of Youth Services’ risk assessment instrument determined two situations when override should be considered. In these cases, provisions in the instruments will place a youth into a supervision category

different from that indicated by the score obtained on the risk assessment scale.

The first situation requires automatic intensive supervision when a youth’s offense record (including both present and prior offenses) includes adjudications

for two or more selected violent offenses. The second situation occurs when a

youth’s presenting offense is serious, but the youth has a risk score that specifies a low level of supervision. It is important to recognize that programming

goals and values other than those relating to risk minimization, such as public

pressure to punish juvenile offenders, are involved when overrides are allowed.

Assessment of need. Need assessments, which are closely linked to risk assessments, are those procedures necessary to classify juvenile offenders in terms

of their problems and deficits. Risk and need assessment are often intertwined.

For example, the Ohio Department of Youth Services’ risk-based community

supervision system uses a risk assessment instrument that incorporates measures

concerning alcohol abuse, discipline problems in the home, records of substance

abuse, parental criminality, or family violence. Most classification approaches

that incorporate some combination of risk and need factors represent a variation

on the basic National Institute of Corrections (NIC) Model. Although initially

designed as an assessment tool for managing adult offenders, this instrument

has been tailored and adopted for use in numerous juvenile correctional

systems.

Unlike risk assessment instruments, need assessment devices do not depend

upon the use of predictive scales. They are usually developed from staff efforts

to articulate and formalize case management procedures through a structured

process of identification, definition, and prioritization of problems frequently

encountered in clients. Need scales should not be complicated and, in most

cases, are straightforward systems for rating the severity of common, potential

problem areas. Since these instruments tend to address generic problem areas

for juvenile offenders, they are usually transferable across jurisdictions, although minor modifications may be necessary to reflect differences in the targeted populations.

Among the more common need items that have been identified and are currently used in various need assessment instruments are:

■ Vocational skills. ■ Alcohol abuse.

■ Drug/chemical abuse. ■ Emotional stability.

■ Learning disabilities. ■ School attendance.

■ Academic achievement. ■ Employment/work performance.

T
11

n increasingly

important strand in

assessing the needs

of delinquent youth

involves the identification of special needs

subpopulations.

■ Family problems. ■ Parental control.

■ Parent problems. ■ Peer relationships.

■ Recreation/leisure time. ■ Health.

■ Residential stability. ■ Life skills.

■ Communication skills. ■ Residential living skills.

■ Sexual adjustment. ■ Financial management.

■ Cognitive ability. ■ Relationships with opposite sex.

These need scale items are usually weighted through a rank ordering process.

The basis for assigning weights does, however, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The most common approach is to base weights on workload factors

(i.e., the amount of time required to meet a particular need). Another approach

is to base the weight of each item’s success or failure on supervision, which is,

in essence, a risk scaling of need. The following list, based on prior research,

shows the cumulative rank ordering of the most heavily weighted items from

need scales used with juvenile offenders in various jurisdictions:

■ Substance abuse. ■ School problems.

■ Emotional stability. ■ Intellectual impairment.

■ Family problems.

The Arizona Department of Corrections uses a needs assessment instrument to

categorize juvenile parolees with regard to specific treatment categories. Definitions of moderate and serious needs are applied to a list of behavioral items

germane to identified need areas: psychology, emotions and behavior, substance

abuse, education, vocation, and independent living and social skills. By checking the appropriate boxes, a determination can be made of the youth’s level of

need in each of the categories.

Assessment of special needs subpopulations. An increasingly important

strand in assessing the needs of delinquent youth and matching modalities to

these needs involves the identification of special needs subpopulations. These

diagnostic categories, based on special problems and needs, are frequently used

with youth who are considered the most serious offenders in the juvenile justice

system. Among the subpopulations that have been identified and targeted for

specialized interventions are offenders who are: (1) dependent on drugs and

alcohol, (2) developmentally disabled, (3) learning disabled, (4) emotionally

disturbed or cognitively challenged, (5) neurophysiologically impaired, and (6)

convicted of sex offenses. It is not unusual for juvenile offenders to exhibit

several of these problems simultaneously (commonly referred to as “multiproblem” offenders).

These six juvenile offender subpopulations often form the basis for specialized

interventions in correctional and community-based settings. For example, the

assessment of juvenile sex offenders may help professionals in these settings to

understand better what led to the behavior and to guide decisions about appropriate treatment. Although some nonvalidated guidelines exist as a basis for

evaluation, there are no validated instruments to classify juvenile sex offenders.

A
12

ome aftercare

programs are designed to deal with all

aspects of a youth’s

social interaction,

conduct, and

personality, while

other programs may

seek fewer changes.

Currently, clinical experience is the basis for most decisions about treatment.

The offender’s psychosocial, sexual, and behavioral history is thought to hold

many keys to explaining his or her current behavior, view of the world, selfimage, and level of empathy. There also has been a paucity of screening and

assessment procedures to identify and evaluate the developmentally disabled

youth that are processed through the juvenile justice system. Clinical procedures for diagnosing developmental disabilities in these youth have traditionally

been limited to the use of standardized intelligence tests. Within the justice

system, most probation, parole, and other correctional staff have not been

trained to identify and manage developmental disabled juvenile offenders.

Consequently, assessments designed to identify specific developmental deficits

are not conducted unless a noticeable behavioral problem with developmental

origins is evident. Similar problems have characterized efforts to identify and

assess other special needs subpopulations, such as drug and alcoholdependent juvenile offenders, emotionally disturbed or mentally disordered

juvenile offenders, etc.

Individual case planning

Individual case planning for intensive aftercare should begin as soon as possible

after a youth is committed by the court to a correctional facility. After the identification of high-risk youth with the greatest probability of failure upon release

into the community, these offenders must be targeted for the most appropriate

institutional treatment and prepared for their reentry into the community.

Preparation for aftercare is a matter of individual case planning that determines:

(1) how identified risk factors will be addressed through aftercare programming

and supervision, (2) what need factors exhibited by these youth are tied to their

social networks (e.g., family members, close friends, and peers in general) and

the larger community (e.g., schools, workplaces, churches, training programs,

and specialized treatment programs), and (3) how the total set of risks, needs,

and associated circumstances of each youth will be addressed during the reintegration process.

The matching of youth in terms of risk and needs to agencies, programs, or

individuals in the community requires a clear understanding of the goals of each

potential intervention strategy (i.e., degree of change sought and range of attributes targeted for attention) and the actual mode of intervention (i.e., specific

program components, features, and processes), which in turn determine how

limits are set, what combination of treatment modalities and services will be

used, what sanctions and reinforcement are used to ensure compliance with

conditions of parole, and how client movement through the program is directed

and measured. Some aftercare programs are designed to deal with all aspects of

a youth’s social interaction, conduct, and personality, while other programs may

seek fewer fundamental changes and target a narrower range of client attributes

for intervention.

Since high-risk juvenile offenders, like any other category of offender, emerge

from different situations, have different problems, and can be reached in different ways, all possible intervention strategies must be considered and only those

strategies most suited to the individual youth’s needs and circumstances should

be applied. The goals of institutional placement and reintegrative programming

S
13

he classification

staff of EYDC initiates

behaviorial observations and educational

and psychological

testing of new admissions to ensure

comprehensive case

planning.

and supervision can best be achieved by matching program characteristics (at

both institutional and postinstitutional levels) to the youth’s (1) ability to function socially with family, peers, and in school, (2) general behavior patterns, (3)

cognitive capabilities, (4) emotional state, (5) types of manifest problems (including offense history), (6) prior placement history, if any, and (7) past and/or

present commitment offense(s).

The following procedures are essential to the individual case planning process:

■ Initiation of planning for community reentry early in the period of

institutional confinement.

■ Participation of all individuals and agencies, the institution, and the

community that will play a role in designing and/or supervising the

aftercare activities of the targeted youth.

■ Development of a master plan that guides the intervention strategies used

with the youth while he or she is in the institution and later in the

community.

■ Steps to facilitate easing the reentry experience by using specialized

techniques such as transitional cottages and halfway houses.

■ Monitoring the implementation of the aftercare plan to ensure adherence to

the guidelines.

Each of these procedures can assume a variety of different forms depending

upon the resources and circumstances of the jurisdiction in which individual

case planning for intensive aftercare is conducted.

The approach used by the Eckerd Youth Development Center (EYDC) in

Florida is an excellent example of individual case planning that begins early in

the correctional confinement period, continues throughout institutional assessment and treatment, and culminates in the adjustment period following reentry

into the community. EYDC’s planning strategy uses a number of key procedures that closely resemble those described above. For the purpose of planning,

EYDC identifies three functional phases in their plan, each requiring specific

planning activities to achieve the goal of successful reintegration: (1) the secure

facility, (2) the transitional phase, and (3) community-based aftercare.

At the beginning of the secure phase of their plan, the classification staff of

EYDC initiates behavioral observations, as well as educational and psychological testing, of new admissions to ensure comprehensive case planning. Classification decisions made at this point are intended to shape each youth’s participation in the cottage-based program in the facility and in reentry planning. A

multidisciplinary team is responsible for considering the results of all observations and testing to develop an individualized treatment plan. A series of regularly scheduled staffings and reassessments accompany the movement of all

youth as they progress through each phase of their institutional stay. These

occur at the 15th, the 30th, and the 90th day, and every 90 days thereafter until

reentry occurs. During the initial assessment phase, the community-based reentry counselor (RC) develops a Reentry Needs Assessment package that serves

as the basis for the Individualized Reentry Plan (IRP).

T
14

YDC focuses on

regular face-to-face

contact between the

youth and his or her

aftercare worker,

family members, and

others in the youth’s

social network.

Once the initial orientation and assessment is completed, each youth is assigned

to one of the residential cottages. During the youth’s stay at the cottage, considerable interaction and planning occurs among cottage staff, educational staff,

medical staff, clinical staff, and aftercare workers. Shortly after the youth’s

placement in a cottage, the RC combines the IRP with the Residential Treatment Plan (RTP), producing a single document that specifies the set of reentry

objectives and activities and the facility-based intervention strategy that addresses treatment activities in a number of areas. For example, emphasis is

placed on testing for academic and vocational skills and deficits that will be

addressed while the youth is in the institution and when he or she returns to the

community. Educational testing is completed within 15 days of admission so

that the findings are available for the 15-day assessment. By the time of the 30-

day meeting, special education teachers, GED teachers, and vocational guidance

instructors should be interacting with reentry staff to initiate case planning for

the educational component of community integration.

The transitional phase is that point in institutional programming when, from a

case planning perspective, staff time and energy are increasingly focused on

making decisions about reentry, community placement, and supervision. This

is the beginning of the final reentry phase of programming. Case planning at

this point emphasizes finalizing the agreements and contracts made between the

youth, his or her family, and the cottage and reentry staffs.

The community reintegration phase of the EYDC model occurs when the case

planning procedures and goals developed in the institution are put into motion

and tested. To assure that the case planning process leads to the formulation of

realistic, achievable goals, a series of meetings are held before and after the

release point. On the last day of the youth’s confinement, a transfer conference

is held in the youth’s cottage in which the youth, his family, the RC, and the

cottage staff review the final reentry plans. On the first day following release,

the youth, his family, and the RC meet in the community to review the goals

and expectations of the reentry plan. Another meeting occurs between the RC,

the youth, and his family on the next day to formulate a written weekly schedule. The RC and the youth are expected to meet with a school advocate and/or

potential employer by the third day after release to communicate the requirements of the reentry program. Finally, the RC is required to meet the contract

standards for every youth on the caseload on a weekly basis and to evaluate the

youth’s progress on a monthly basis throughout the 3- to 6-month period after

reentry. The RC completes weekly progress report forms that are submitted to

the reentry supervisor for review.

A number of the techniques conducive to effective individual case planning and

continuous case management were identified in the programs discussed in An

Assessment. For example, the EYDC model emphasizes early and continuous

contact between the youth and the aftercare worker while the youth is in the

correctional facility. EYDC focuses on regular face-to-face contact during the

youth’s confinement between the aftercare worker, the youth, his or her family

members, and other individuals in the youth’s social network.

Within several hours after placement in the secure facility, a youth who has

been committed to EYDC is assigned a Reentry Counselor. This is followed by

E
15

he transition into

the community should

be a carefully planned,

gradual process that

focuses on preparing

youth for increased

responsibility and

freedom.

face-to-face contact between the RC and the youth in the assessment cottage

within 2 days. The RC picks up personal items belonging to the youth that will

not be available to him in the institution and makes plans to return these to the

family. This step paves the way for an initial, personalized contract between the

RC and the youth’s family. After contact has been established with the parents,

several additional meetings between the youth and the RC occur in the secure

facility over the next several weeks. At this point the feasibility of the youth’s

eventual return to his or her parents’ home is explored.

The RC is expected to continue meeting on a regular basis with the youth during the remainder of his or her stay at the secure facility. The level of contact

intensifies as the youth moves closer to the reentry phase of programming. The

contacts occur at key decision points, most notably those meetings with the

cottage team, educational staff, and the social worker. The RC also plays a key

role throughout the youth’s stay in the correctional facility by maintaining contact with the youth’s family and potential community services and resources.

Once the youth advances to the transitional phase of programming, the RC is

expected to meet with the youth at least twice and is also expected to contact the

parents by telephone at least twice a month during this phase.

Another significant point in case planning of aftercare occurs during the transition between the youth’s institutional confinement and release into the community. This stage should be guided by a carefully planned, gradual process that

focuses on preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community. In planning the prerelease transition, it is important to

let youth know how they can advance their progress toward release, how their

accomplishments in facility programming will be linked to and guide the parole

portion of their individualized facility-parole master plan, and what the expectations of facility staff and aftercare workers are as youth begin to integrate into

the community.

The transitional stage and the procedures that occur during this period often

entail the use of specialized techniques such as prerelease planning and activities, transitional cottages, and furloughs. The EYDC model uses a welldesigned set of procedures to accomplish the goals of its transitional stage in

programming. When a youth has successfully completed the required steps in

the institutional phase of the overall program and is within several months of

release from the secure facility, the decision is made to move the youth into the

transitional phase. In addition to the clearly specified case planning activities

described above, the transition emphasizes the use of two transitional cottages,

Eagle and Phoenix, which are specialized, relatively nonsecure facilities located

outside the fence of the secure facility. Eagle Cottage, used to address vocational skills and job development, is a multiphased, highly structured and

closely supervised residential/community support program for youth aged 16 to

18 years. The success of the youth completing assignments and tasks determines their movement through this program. Using area businesses and the

local community in Okeechobee, Florida, Eagle provides transitional support,

training, and employment for youth in preparation for their return to their communities as potential employees. Phoenix Cottage, which focuses on educational mainstreaming of youth, is operated in a fashion similar to Eagle Cottage.

T
16

A relatively nonsecure program located outside the fence of the facility, it is

limited to 15 youth at one time. This program provides an educational transition for younger youth (14 to 16 years old) at EYDC who will return to public

school upon release. Following an orientation to the cottage, these youth attend

an educational program in preparation for the regular classroom. They are then

placed in public schools in Okeechobee, where the staff closely monitors their

academic performance.

While the youth are still in secure confinement, their case planning and reintegration into the community also benefit from the involvement of individuals,

agencies, and resources from the outside community. This involvement promotes the early identification and response to special needs and problems and

provides a way to reinforce continuous case management across the institutional/community boundary. An Assessment describes several examples of

these practices. For instance, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC)

uses Metro Tech, a public sector vocational training provider, in this fashion.

Vocational staff from this school visit one of the ADC juvenile correctional

facilities on a regular basis to provide instruction and work-related counseling

for interested youth prior to their release into the community. At that point, the

youth are enrolled in the school on a regular basis and continuity of services is

ensured.

In a similar arrangement, ADC has a contract with AMITY, a private sector

drug and alcohol treatment agency, to place staff in juvenile correctional facilities to provide drug and alcohol treatment for certain youth before reentering

the community. Staff from AMITY are based in the institution and work daily

with targeted youth. Upon entering the institution, juveniles who are screened

and determined to have serious drug and/or alcohol problems are referred to this

program. Once the youth meet the requirements of the facility-secure phase of

the program, they move with the AMITY counseling staff to a staff secure rural

setting. The active involvement of the parole officers is an integral part of this

programming phase. In addition, aftercare staff in collaboration with the youth,

AMITY staff, and the family begin to plan for the return of the youth to his or

her home.

Integrating surveillance and

services based on risk factors

As discussed above, underlying risk assessment is the identification of those

factors that distinguish between the failure or success (however defined and

measured) of paroled youth. The findings in An Assessment indicate that when

risk factors are used they tend to incorporate both offense-related and needrelated items. For example, risk assessment scales frequently include age at

first referral, the number and severity of prior offenses, and the number of previous commitments as well as family problems, association with negative peer

groups, school-related behavioral problems, and substance abuse. Given the

inclusion of “need-related” items, strictly surveillance-oriented IAP (e.g., frequent, random “eyeball” surveillance; house arrest; electronic monitoring; drug

and alcohol testing) does not address the programming or service side of the

parolee recidivism problem. Simply stated, need-related risk factors are not

being considered in the design of the intervention.

he involvement

of individuals, agencies, and resources

from the community

provides a way to

reinforce continuous

case management.

T
17

The real question to ask about IAP is not simply whether there are more restrictions, surveillance, and consequences, but to what extent and how IAP

programming addresses need-related risk factors, such as those linked to the

family and home situation, school and learning difficulties, negative peer influences, work opportunities, substance abuse, etc. This question raises the

broader issues of what services are needed; who will provide them; how

transitioning, continuity, and case management will be managed; what funding

may be required, and how actual service provisions will be monitored and

assessed.

In terms of programming, IAP programming must have the means to provide

the services listed in the model. As distinct from strictly surveillance approaches, the core programming services must address the need-related risk

factors in different jurisdictions. They must also provide a set of ancillary

programming services that focus on the other needs and problems parolees

may have.1

 While it is highly unlikely that any one program could provide the

full range of services, the IAP model requires that a comprehensive system of

service delivery be established in any locale. Further, individual services must

be routinely monitored for adequacy and quality.

In terms of surveillance and monitoring, the full assessment report found that a

variety of approaches were widely used, including house arrest and/or curfews,

mandatory schedules, electronic monitoring, regular and/or random drug and

alcohol testing, team supervision and unannounced spot-checks during traditional and “nontraditional” times (i.e., all hours and days of the week). In

some cases part-time, contract workers acted as “surveillance officers,” while

in other instances teams of aftercare workers made the contacts. Interestingly,

regardless of the form the supervision took, staff had difficulty drawing distinctions between “hard and fast” surveillance and programming. For example,

a so-called surveillance officer might, in fact, develop more rapport with a

family than would the primary aftercare worker. This blurring of roles illustrates how some forms of surveillance and service programming can benefit

each other. On the other hand, overreliance on special technology such as

electronic monitoring and drug and alcohol testing may tend to preclude the

aftercare officer from active involvement with the parolee and family. This

overreliance can reduce the aftercare worker’s ability to prevent a “relapse.”

In some cases, there is no substitute for face-to-face contact.

This example of personal supervision and crisis intervention also points to the

need to prepare and train IAP staff for new, more specialized roles. If staff

spend more time with service providers, IAP participants, and their families

and peers, they will need more information and better guidelines about their

responsibilities. Regardless of how good an idea IAP is, its success will depend

on the competence, capability, motivation, and commitment of the staff. This

will undoubtedly require careful staff recruitment, screening, training, supervision, and performance evaluation.

verreliance on

electronic monitoring

and drug and alcohol

testing may tend to

preclude the aftercare

officer from active

involvement with the

parolee and family.

1 Even if substance abuse did not distinguish between failure and success on parole (e.g., the proportion of

continued drug use or relapse was similar in both groups), this would hardly be grounds for IAP to ignore

drug treatment. Similarly, even if learning disabilities or other special needs are not strictly associated with

recidivism, this would hardly warrant a programming strategy that excludes special education. These needs

still represent problems that recidivists have and must consequently be addressed.

O
18

If stringent parole conditions and high level surveillance techniques are imposed, it is more likely that technical violations of parole and new offenses will

be detected. As one court services official aptly stated, “When you look under

rocks, you find critters.” Therefore, unless graduated sanctions and alternatives

to reincarceration for technical violators and minor offenders are formulated, an

increase in parole revocations will probably occur, further exacerbating the

crowding problem that IAP is intended to address.

As envisioned in the IAP model, surveillance and monitoring do not only deter

misconduct. These approaches also help staff (1) to recognize immediately

when infractions and achievements have taken place, (2) to know when circumstances may prompt misconduct or lead to problems, and (3) to rely on positive

reinforcements and graduated sanctions. Moreover, close monitoring provides

an important mechanism to ensure that service referrals result in the provision

of service.

Close surveillance and monitoring is one reliable way to be certain that services

are provided as planned and that the youth participates in the program. If a

program is not working, for whatever reasons, this situation needs to be detected and corrected as quickly as possible. Both the service provider and the

youth need to know what is expected of them and how they will be held accountable. It may be necessary to shift a youth into another program or adjust a

program’s service plan and staffing. Critical to IAP is the primary aftercare

case manager working in tandem with every member of the service provision

team and serving as a backup to service providers and the youth. Unfortunately,

all too often the primary aftercare case manager focuses almost exclusively on

the youth rather than the service providers. Under IAP, the case manager has

the responsibility for involving both.

Balanced incentives and graduated sanctions

Traditionally, juvenile aftercare has ignored the use of positive reinforcements

and incentives, relying instead on long lists of unrealistic and unenforceable

conditions and responding selectively to technical violations. This problem has

been compounded by a minimal use of graduated sanctions that could provide

options short of revocation. A serious enough problem for traditional aftercare,

these practices can prove disastrous in achieving the goals of IAP.

Since IAP is designed to increase the number, duration, and nature of contacts

with participating youth and collaterals (family, peers, school, employers, other

involved service providers, etc.), it is inevitable that more infractions, technical

violations, and instances of noncompliance will surface. Unfortunately, juvenile aftercare has tended to impose immediately on parolees the most stringent

conditions and restrictions at its disposal, leaving little opportunity for caseworkers to respond to misconduct with graduated sanctions in proportion to the

infraction. Without a specified hierarchy of consequences at their disposal,

aftercare caseworkers have little recourse but to do nothing—thus undermining

the aftercare program—or to impose sanctions that are not in proportion to the

misconduct. In the case of the latter, the sanction may be reincarceration for a

technical violation or a minor offense. Since reincarcerating technical violators

contributes to the institutional crowding problem, some observers have noted

he primary aftercare case manager has

the responsibility for

involving both the

youth and the service

providers in case

management.

T
19

that intensive supervision is as much a cause of institutional crowding as a potential solution. IAP must carefully and creatively address sanctions on the one

hand and reinforce successes on the other; otherwise, it may exacerbate the

problem it is intended to solve. A number of approaches discussed in the assessment report hold promise for resolving this dilemma.

It is unfortunate that incentives and positive reinforcements are so rarely used in

juvenile aftercare. Although most treatment programs recognize that tangible

and symbolic rewards and recognition show individuals the benefits and satisfaction that come from socially acceptable accomplishments, juvenile aftercare

is largely devoid of such practices. During site visits to intensive aftercare

projects, it was not uncommon to hear that there was no systemwide, programspecific emphasis on incentives and positive reinforcements. However, some

caseworkers who understood the value of incentives devised their own ways to

reward and reinforce the positive behavior of youth on their caseloads.

When pressed further on whether there were any examples of systemwide incentives and rewards, some officials responded that reduced time on parole

could be viewed as serving such a purpose. Most acknowledged, however, that

reduced time on parole could not be expected to break the cycle of failure experienced by many of these youth, that reduced parole time does not create incentives or opportunities for success while on aftercare, and that the aftercare

experience was unlikely to provide parolees with any sense of accomplishment.

By contrast, in the IAP model, the reward or acknowledgement of responsible

behavior is too important to ignore or to approach haphazardly.

A number of different approaches have been employed by programs to routinely

monitor progress, reinforce prosocial conduct, and guide advancement. These

can range from simple mechanisms involving frequent case reviews with other

peers, family members, and other agency staff to elaborately structured token

economies in which privileges or rewards are tied to accomplishing specific

objectives, goals, or phases of the program. Incorporating some kind of peer

group interaction also has potential for creating a positive peer culture. If positive reinforcement is to be given an honest test, it must consist of meaningful

and immediate incentives; the use of a positive peer culture could be helpful in

this regard. Incentives might include earning privileges that have some significance to the youth (e.g., tickets to a concert or sports event, discounts or subsidies toward purchasing records, clothing, or jewelry) or gaining greater

responsibility in the IAP program (e.g., planning group events for new IAP

youth, participating in an IAP disciplinary council, responsibility for orienting

new IAP youth). Certificates, prizes, or bonuses might also be awarded.

While sanctions and consequences also form an important part of the IAP

model, they must be formulated and used in a way that maximizes their potential impact. Swift, certain, and graduated sanctions in proportion to the violation must be used. Several steps should be taken to provide such sanctions. IAP

youth need to know at the outset that violations will prompt the imposition of

additional, increasingly stringent restrictions. Thus, the program must not immediately impose every restrictive condition available on a new IAP youth, but

must arrange for the youth’s entry into the IAP program at a mid-range of restrictiveness and intrusiveness. The program must at first rely on the imposition

aseworkers who

understand the value of

incentives devised their

own ways to reward the

positive behavior of

youth on their

caseloads.

C
20

of a number of enforceable conditions to which the offender will be held strictly

accountable. Approached in this way, IAP offers a graduated set of sanctions

that can be used as a progressive response to technical violations and misconduct. The Ohio DYS Risk-Based Aftercare Program has even formulated a

sanctioning schedule that links the seriousness of infraction or violation to specific graduated sanctions. The least serious violations include violating curfew,

associating with negative peers, and failure to attend school; such infractions do

not constitute grounds for revocation. More serious violations include use of

illicit substances, failure to attend a court-ordered program, and a single misdemeanor against property; only multiple infractions may be considered as

grounds for revocation and require a regional administrative review hearing, a

central office case review, and approval from the Chief of the Division of Aftercare and Community Services. The most serious violations include a new adjudication for multiple misdemeanors or a felony. The sanctions for these

violations range from a verbal reprimand, stricter curfews, or restriction of the

youth’s privileges to court-ordered house arrest to several days of detention,

community service, or recommitment.

The rationale underlying a graduated sanctioning system that places IAP youth

into a midrange of restrictiveness is that serious consequences—short of

revocation—can be imposed when needed and that not all the available sanctions will be squandered at initial entry. In addition, if aftercare youth are not

initially placed in the most restrictive situation, certain privileges can be withdrawn in the event of noncompliance. Finally, carefully chosen parole conditions that relate to the offender’s needs and that can be enforced will be taken

more seriously than will a laundry list of unenforceable conditions.

The potential power of a sanction can become diluted the longer its duration.

Thus, unless applied prudently and fairly, sanctions may do more to instill resentment and alienation than to deter misconduct. It may therefore be useful to

employ particular sanctions as an immediate response to misconduct and to

curtail their use as early as possible based on the severity of the violation.

Many IAP youth may be conditioned to punishment, and overused sanctions

may scarcely be noticed and have little, if any, effect.

For the same reasons, electronic monitoring and drug or alcohol testing should

only be used on a selective, short-term basis. If long-term use undermines the

deterrent effect, then electronic monitoring must be approached cautiously. It

could be used, for example, as an immediate consequence for defying house

arrest, as an option to revoking parole, or as a way to provide greater structure

and control for a limited period at the beginning of the program. Electronic

monitoring or drug and alcohol testing may be more effective as a short-term

consequence for IAP violations or as a way to establish an initial tone than as

the sole or primary condition.

In addition to having a graduated system of sanctions, jurisdictions considering

IAP will want to review and possibly revise their current juvenile revocation

process. These changes could include restricting reincarceration only to IAP

youth with new convictions and creating a special short-term detention unit or

residential backup facility for IAP technical violators. Such a unit could serve

arefully chosen

and enforceable parole

conditions that relate

to the offender’s needs

will be taken more

seriously than will a

laundry list of unenforceable conditions.

C
21

as a temporary placement for serious IAP technical violators who would be

stabilized, assessed, counseled, and if necessary, referred to an appropriate program, all in preparation for return to the community. The Reflections Unit, run

by a private, nonprofit organization for the Colorado Division of Youth Services, was designed to serve this purpose.

The unit, operated by a private-sector provider, is a short-term (60 days maximum), secure facility offering placement for youth from three administrative

regions. It holds youth accountable for their failure to adjust to the community

and stabilizes their behavior so they can later be placed in the community to

complete the program successfully. As an alternative to revocation, the program is highly structured to provide individualized treatment and to help youth

move through increasing degrees of responsibility to a community placement.

Formal instruction in the program is provided by seven modules that are used

with youth depending upon their needs and the goals of their treatment plan.

The program’s termination depends upon two factors: progress toward achieving treatment plan goals and the assigned length of stay.

Service brokerage with community resources

and linkage to social networks

Community support systems, such as families, schools, peers, employers, and

specialized service providers, must be actively involved in providing comprehensive services and effective surveillance. The primary aftercare caseworker

cannot spend the time required with each youth and provide the range of services needed. Because referral and brokerage are crucial functions, program

monitoring and quality control are also of paramount concern. Even though the

IAP caseworker may be involved in counseling and role modeling as a matter of

policy and procedure, the use of referral and brokerage in the IAP model implies the need for the expertise and talent of those who have the time, background, and ability to provide the range and intensity of required services.

IAP referral and brokerage requires that one person or team ensures that the

institution-aftercare process for each youth include:

■ Assessment at disposition that takes aftercare into account when secure

confinement is anticipated.

■ Development of an institutional aftercare master plan that describes the staff

involved in the first prerelease planning, schedules planning sessions, and

discusses the objectives of staffing.

■ Reassessment at regular intervals and revision of prerelease plans.

■ Monitoring the youth’s institutional progress and experience.

■ Arrangement of postinstitutional referrals and placements prior to

institutional release, including prerelease contact between the youth and

postinstitutional service providers.

■ Collection and transferral of all case information to involved providers.

■ Oversight of youth participation, behavior, and progress in the

postinstitutional program or activity.

ommunity support

systems must be

actively involved in

providing comprehensive services and

effective surveillance.

C
22

■ Facilitation and monitoring of the participation of family and “significant

others” if necessary.

■ Facilitation and oversight of postinstitutional programs or activities (for

example, provision of backup, crisis intervention, support, and training).

■ Followup evaluation at specified intervals once aftercare has been

completed.

Linking a youth with a school, treatment program, or job and returning a youth

to his or her home does not accomplish the goal of reintegration. Making a

referral on the one hand and assuring participation in and completion of the

program or activity on the other are not the same. Schools, mental health centers, group homes, day treatment programs, and other community resources may

(1) deliberately exclude the type of youngster in IAP, (2) be reluctant to work

with such “high-risk” youth, or (3) have had prior experience with the youth

and have already given up. These circumstances underscore the need for aftercare caseworkers to establish a quid pro quo relationship with existing providers

and, when needed, to develop relationships with new providers who will work

with the IAP population.

Schools provide a case in point. Schools will probably not welcome youth who

are labeled as “high-risk” parolees. Even if they are enrolled because of legal

requirements, the schools may not be able to work proactively and supportively

with the youngster, to watch for early warning signals (as a form of relapse

prevention), and to employ teaching methods that engage and help the child.

The school and aftercare staff need to develop a strategy that entails having

information about the youth, monitoring attendance and progress, balancing

incentives and consequences, knowing conflict management techniques, etc.

Aftercare and school staff need to clarify and specify their roles and responsibilities. For example, who will collect attendance and school performance information and how and when will this be transferred between the school and

aftercare staff? How are absences handled? Can aftercare staff play a role in

behavioral management or conflict resolution at the school and how should they

do this? What is possible by way of backup, if swift assistance is needed?

Critical to the IAP model, brokerage and linkage can obtain an array of service

options for IAP youth, provide close contact between providers and youth, and

help coordinate the program from disposition to aftercare and followup. Other

factors, however, are equally important. Working with the offender and community resources highlights the critical role that the local community and social

networks play in the opportunities of youth released from secure correctional

facilities. Reinforcement and support from family, peers, teachers, and employers may be key to seeing that the youth’s readjustment to the postinstitutional

community is successful and that gains achieved both in the institution and in

aftercare persist. Thus, once intensive aftercare has ceased, the youth’s

experiences in the family, peer group, school, and/or job are likely to influence

outcome.

Everyone involved with the youth can potentially encourage and reinforce responsible behavior and provide guidance and support. As noted above, however, prior research on risk factors suggests that it is those youth who have

T he school and

aftercare staff should

collect information

about the youth, monitor attendance and

progress, balance

incentives and

consequences, and

practice conflict management techniques.
23

family problems, associate with negative peer groups, and experience school

behavior problems that are at highest risk for reoffending. Programming must

therefore focus directly on improving the family situation, involving peer group

based intervention, and reversing the cycle of failure associated with school. If

the extent and quality of community linkages increase, IAP youth may then

take advantage of the services of more than one program or person. When more

than one organization or different program staff are involved in an IAP case,

a formal process must be established to ensure coordination, continuity, and

consistency.

Jurisdictions across the country are pursuing a number of approaches to brokerage and linkage in order to meet the identified needs and risk factors exhibited

by youth released from secure confinement. Two jurisdictions that were visited

and discussed at length in An Assessment illustrate divergent policies and procedures intended to advance service brokerage and the development of community linkages.

The Juvenile Division of the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) was

among those sites that had gone the furthest in developing an aftercare service

delivery system through formalized purchase-of-service contracts. A separate

purchase-of-service unit within the Juvenile Division contracts with a spectrum

of private agencies to provide a continuum of care for juvenile parolees. Although some private sector programs and services had been available before the

development of the unit in 1981, the transformed system has increased the number and types of services available to parolees. As noted in An Assessment, the

range of service providers is extensive, varying in the level of service, service

objectives and duration, and degree of security.

The continuum of care extends from part-time supervision that offers a minimal

level of supervision to residential placement with high levels of intervention and

service provision. The intensity of supervision also varies from day support

services where participants are largely unsupervised outside regular program

hours to “conservation” programs with 24-hour-a-day supervision in remote,

rural settings. The purchase-of-care unit is responsible for four areas of operation: (1) contractor identification and selection, (2) service specification,

(3) needs assessment and referral, and (4) contract compliance and quality

assurance.

In contrast to the Arizona purchase-of-service aftercare system is the approach

used in Delaware County, Ohio, a rural area outside Columbus, Ohio. In 1987

the Juvenile Court proposed its own intensive aftercare program, believing that

county youth who had returned from State institutions would be better served

by a county-run program. No returning youth is excluded from this program.

Key to the design of the program are trained paraprofessionals who work in the

homes as family advocates; strictly enforced limits and community monitoring

seven days a week and evenings (using part-time, contract staff); four phases of

progressively increased freedom and flexibility; immediate and graduated consequences for rule infractions and technical violations; and heavy reliance on

local community agencies and resources such as the County Council on Alcoholism, County Mental Health, Narcotics Anonymous, and Big Brother. Also

 purchase-ofservice unit within the

Juvenile Division of the

Arizona Department of

Corrections contracts

with a spectrum of

private agencies to

provide care for juvenile parolees.

A
24

important are factors such as involving the family; monitoring through frequent

unannounced spot checks and routine drug screens, when appropriate; working

on problems, special needs, and areas of difficulty; and responding appropriately and proportionately to violations.

These two approaches illustrate the wide range of policies and procedures that

can provide a foundation for a service brokerage strategy and social network

linkages. Clearly, brokering for some or all aftercare services and establishing

community linkages must take into account factors such as State or county control, the number of juveniles, and civil service and collective bargaining requirements. Regardless of the approach, however, the key is to involve community

support systems in service delivery and assign each youth a staff member who

actively reinforces, or if necessary, develops a supportive social network. The

process must also ensure the coordination and continuity of the work on a case

and monitor the extent and quality of the service provision. If the policies and

procedures are not followed or do not work, the problem must be detected as

quickly as possible so that changes can be made.

Closely related to brokerage and linkage in developing policies and procedures

is advocacy for the creation of services, programming, and opportunities. All

the brokerage and linkage efforts will be for naught if programs, schools, or

jobs do not exist or are in short supply. Advocacy, whether it focuses on the

needs of individual youth, families, and neighborhoods or on broader questions

involving programs and services, is also important to any broad-based strategy

for intensive aftercare intervention.

Management information and program

evaluation

The IAP policy and procedural requirements and considerations discussed so far

must be evaluated at the level of implementation. Critiques of recent and past

programmatic efforts to treat offenders and hold them accountable for their acts

have repeatedly commented on the uneven, poor quality of implementation; the

ambiguity or absence of a theoretical rationale and conceptual base; and flawed

evaluations.

Unfortunately, in many programs the basic concept and rationale underlying

both program design and operations are not explained clearly, consistently, or

logically. If staff, program participants, or other practitioners in the field, such

as judges, funders, evaluators, public officials, and the public, do not understand

the underlying rationales, they will not clearly understand the program’s purpose, how it will be accomplished, what clients are suited for participation in

the program, and why the intervention should make a difference. Although

some practitioners may wince when they hear about absent or inadequate theoretical and conceptual frameworks, they have more than a passing acquaintance

with the consequences of this deficiency.

Ambiguous, misconceived, inadequate, or nonexistent rationales make it likely

that the program will become a jumbled, disconnected set of activities where

problems such as the following occur:

ach youth should

be assigned a staff

member who actively

reinforces or develops

a supportive social

network for the youth.

E
25

■ Services provided, sanctions meted out, inducements or incentives used,

and community resources and social networks tapped are determined in an

ad hoc and fragmented fashion that contributes to misallocated resources,

inefficient staff deployment, duplication of effort, and confusion about

program policies and responsibilities.

■ Individual staff will pursue their own direction and inclinations with little

coordination between staff and program components.

■ Target group criteria, client referrals, and client selection are not matched to

the most appropriate program or person, making accomplishment of stated

goals unlikely.

■ Program components, features, and processes do not effectively relate to

each other, operate in tandem, or integrate to form a cohesive, coherent,

mutually reinforcing effort.

■ Supervisors or administrators do not address head-on the clients’ major

problems or needs, leaving gaps in service or wasted opportunities.

In short, the theoretical rationale and philosophy must be sufficiently clear,

logical, and internally consistent to serve as a guide for practical program development. If the initial blueprint is not sound and understandable to everyone

involved, there is little chance that the program will be successful as envisioned.

A related concern is whether intensive aftercare provides the specific intervention it was designed to deliver. The framework implemented must be true to the

original design; the program elements, services, and population served must

conform to the principles expressed and reflect the integrated framework.

Given the unevenness in implementation found in many programs, the issues of

program integrity and the quality of implementation are critical to knowing if

the intensive aftercare program design is really being tested. If there is little

connection between the practice of intensive aftercare and its theoretical framework, or if the level and quality of the implementation is low, then there can be

no valid test of the model.

Process evaluation

The integrity and quality of the program’s implementation should be assessed

using a management information system that provides the data necessary for the

evaluation. A program’s effectiveness is determined on the success of implemented principles, elements, services, and other factors. Thus, a valid test of

intensive aftercare requires objective data collection and analysis of the type of

clients, the nature and amount of programming and supervision, and how the

program is implemented and with what input. The first prerequisite is the presence of a field-tested information system that provides information in a reliable

and timely manner. Whether the information is collected through a manual or

automated system, the key is to identify measurable, clearly defined performance indicators which relate to the policies and procedures that reflect IAP

goals, operating principles, and program elements.

For example, if intensive aftercare is expected to ease crowding and shorten

lengths of institutional stay for confined high-risk offenders, then a valid test of

these goals requires information on the juveniles receiving IAP and the length

he theoretical

rationale and philosophy must be sufficiently

clear, logical, and internally consistent to

serve as a guide for

program development.

T
26

of their stay in the institution. Some intensive aftercare youth, who would have

been previously placed on probation rather than committed, may receive split

sentences to qualify for IAP. This is not as farfetched as it might appear: an

offender might be committed with the assumption that he or she will benefit

from “shock incarceration” and then will qualify for early release into IAP (this

occurred in one jurisdiction visited). However, using split sentences for youth

who would not normally be committed may exacerbate the crowding problem.

Moreover, an intended short institutional stay might backfire if an unexpected

event occurs during confinement, resulting in prolonged incarceration. Data on

the type of offenders in IAP (for example, their overall risk scores and prior

record) should be routinely collected and compared to committed non-IAP

cases and noncommitted youth.

In sum, assessing the eligibility and selection of youth in intensive aftercare, as

well as the quantity and type of programming and supervision provided, will

help determine the adequacy of the underlying rationale and the integrity of the

IAP implementation. Supervisory and administrative functions, staffing patterns and characteristics, staff turnover, job responsibilities, and job performance must also be documented. The availability of timely information on

each of these aspects of IAP will help aftercare workers make the necessary

changes before the program has veered off course.

Outcome evaluation

Some of the common faults in previous efforts to assess outcome include absent

or inappropriate comparison groups; simplistic, narrow measures of outcome,

including an overreliance on recidivism to the exclusion of behavioral, social,

emotional, and cognitive measures2

; inadequate time frames for outcome

followup; small sample sizes; and attrition or loss of study subjects, which is

more problematic the longer the followup period.

Since the methodology for sound outcome evaluation is technical, assessment

of outcome and performance should be the responsibility of an individual who

has demonstrated knowledge and competency. If there are enough participants,

random assignment from an eligible population or sample provides a sound

scientific basis for determining which changes are attributable to the intervention and which to the type of youth selected for participation.

Ethical issues associated with the denial of services to eligible youth are sometimes raised as an objection to random assignment. This concern may be less

of an issue for a high-risk aftercare population which, in most jurisdictions

across the country, is currently receiving traditional forms of parole supervision

and service. In an experimental demonstration program, the control group

would continue to receive standard parole supervision and services. The main

difference is that the experimental group would receive the proposed intensive

aftercare programming and supervision. Although experimental research design

would be more desirable, it is possible to use a quasi-experimental design incorporating matching techniques and statistical controls to identify a comparison

2 Examples of behavioral, social and emotional measures include information on such items as how the youth

is faring in relation to schooling, employment, family life, peer network, self-esteem, social skill development, impulse control, and special needs (e.g., substance abuse).

ssessment of

youth selection,

programming, and

supervision will help

determine the adequacy of the rationale

and integrity of the

intensive aftercare

program.

A
27

group that closely resembles the experimental group. Important characteristics

include frequency and severity of prior offenses, seriousness of current offense,

number of adjudications and incarcerations, age, race, education, and other risk

factors.

Collecting comprehensive information on youth preprogram (background) characteristics and circumstances, inprogram performance, and 12 to 24 months of

postprogram outcomes is critical to a complete corrections evaluation. The

preprogram, inprogram, and postprogram situations as they pertain to behavior,

cognition, emotional state, risk factors, and special needs (for example, substance abuse, psychotic or psychopathic personality), should be assessed, and a

variety of recidivism measures should be used. These would incorporate the

frequency and severity of official and self-reported crime; arrest and adjudication information; number and duration of incarcerations; number and seriousness of crime(s) committed after the program compared to those committed

before; and the length of time between program completion and crime

commission.

Researchers recommend collecting followup data for at least 12 months after

program completion to determine the long-term effects of an intervention. Losing track of study participants (experimental and comparison groups) is a common problem, particularly over longer time frames, and poses obvious difficulties for assessing outcome. Regular contact, knowledge of each youth’s

family and social network, and incentive payments for followup interviews can

aid the data collection process over the long term, but it may be necessary to use

statistical estimating techniques to account for bias introduced by attrition.

In conclusion, programs implementing the proposed IAP framework must collect information for assessment and monitoring purposes. These data should

document:

■ The level of adherence to the integrated theory’s five principles.

■ The extent to which program elements, provided services and activities, and

the population served reflect the philosophy and principles of intensive

aftercare.

■ The quality and nature of the implementation, including staffing policies,

patterns, roles and responsibilities; management structure and lines of

authority; the incorporation of services into program components, features

and processes; the number and type of youth in the program; the services

they receive and from whom (that is, direct or brokered); and the length of

services and their results.

■ The problems, obstacles, and difficulties encountered (for example, funding

and community resources; cooperation from institutions, judges, and other

public and private agencies; and community relations).

Documenting this information will help to clarify the consistency of policies

and practices with the model, the problems and specific issues involved, and the

changes that may be needed. If implementation is not consistent with the

model’s principles and elements, this divergence should be detected as soon as

possible and appropriate changes made.

esearchers recommend collecting

followup data for at

least 12 months after

program completion to

determine the longterm effects of an

intervention.

R
28

AP offers our

best hope of altering

the “revolving door”

that characterizes most

juvenile institutions.

Conclusion

In sum, by designing IAP to address (1) identified, need-related risk factors

associated with reoffending juveniles, (2) the set of ancillary program services

that focus on other needs and problems of high-risk juvenile parolees, and (3)

surveillance and monitoring objectives, the juvenile justice system can begin to

confront the multifaceted and complex circumstances that produce, contribute

to, and are part of the dynamics of recidivism. The theory-driven, empirically

based IAP model is designed to provide public protection; to operate with limited resources; and to be tailored to different jurisdictions that are trying to confront, hold accountable, and treat their own high-risk parolees. As the policies

and procedures make clear, the guiding principles, program elements, and service areas that define the IAP model can be configured and applied in a number

of ways. It is crucial that administrative personnel and line staff from each segment of the juvenile justice system and from other involved groups participate

in the development of and be genuinely committed to the specific form that IAP

assumes in the jurisdiction. If the form IAP takes is clear and consistent with

the principles, elements, policies, and procedures described in this program

summary, then IAP offers our best hope of altering the “revolving door” that

characterizes most juvenile institutions.

Work has concluded on the first three stages of this project. After completing

the training manual, the project staff in collaboration with officials at OJJDP

issued an RFP. This RFP solicited applications from all States that might want

to participate in the R&D initiative and in the training and action planning conferences. Eight States were chosen through the competitive process to participate in the initiative and have completed the required training at a series of

regional conferences. Currently, the project is providing followup technical

assistance as these States move toward formally implementing their IAP pilots.

For a copy of Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs: Training Manual for Action Planning Conference,

write David M. Altschuler, Ph.D., The Johns Hopkins

University, Institute for Policy Studies, Wyman Building,

3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, or call

410–516–7177. The cost of the manual is $20.00.

I
Researchers

Planners

Policymakers

✂

To order copies of Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: An Assessment (NCJ 144018), please complete the following:

Payment: $15.00 (U.S.) $19.50 (Canada and other International)

Total number of copies x Cost (each) = Total $

Enclosed is my personal check or money order (payable to Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse in U.S. funds, drawn on U.S. bank)

Please charge my credit card as follows

 MasterCard VISA Number

 Expiration Date / Signature

Bill to government purchase order number

(Include an additional $1.95 processing fee on your purchase order.)

Please Send My Copies to:

Name: Title:

Organization:

Street Address:

City: State:

ZIP: Telephone: ( )

Enclose payment and mail this order form to Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, Department F, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850.

Orders may also be placed by calling the Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736.

ore detailed information about this study and issues surrounding intensive

community-based aftercare programs is available through the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse.

The full report Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: An Assessment

discusses in detail the study’s findings and its design and research methodologies. The full report is useful for conducting further research, making planning

decisions, or drafting policy.

For your copy of the full report, complete and return the order form below.

A companion program summary Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk

Juveniles: A Community Care Model is also available.

For further information on this or other juvenile

justice topics, call the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at

800–638–8736.

M
National Juvenile Custody Trends: 1978–

1989. 1992, NCJ 131649.

National Survey of Reading Programs for

Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders. 1993,

NCJ 144017, $6.75.

OJJDP: Conditions of Confinement Teleconference (Video). 1993, NCJ 147531, $14.00.

OJJDP Helps States Remove Juveniles

From Adult Jails and Lockups. 1990,

NCJ 126869.

Private-Sector Corrections Program for

Juveniles: Paint Creek Youth Center. 1988,

NCJ 113214.

Privatizing Juvenile Probation Services: Five

Local Experiences. 1989, NCJ 121507.

Public Juvenile Facilities: Children in Custody 1989. 1991, NCJ 127189.

Reduced Recidivism and Increased Employment Opportunity Through Research-Based

Reading Instruction. 1993, NCJ 141324,

$7.70.

General Juvenile Justice

Breaking the Code (Video). 1993, NCJ 146604, $20.65.

Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. 1993,

NCJ 143453.

Gould-Wysinger Awards (1992): Mark of

Achievement. 1993, NCJ 142730.

Gould-Wysinger Awards (1993): A Tradition

of Excellence. 1994, NCJ 146840.

Guide to the Data Sets in the National Juvenile Court Data Archive. 1991, NCJ 132073.

Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected

Juvenile Samples. 1993, NCJ 145326.

Habitual Juvenile Offenders: Guidelines for

Citizen Action and Public Responses. 1991,

NCJ 141235.

Innovative Community Partnerships:

Working Together for Change. 1994,

NCJ 147483.

Juvenile Justice. Volume 1, Number 1,

Spring/Summer 1993, NCJ 141870.

Law-Related Education For Juvenile Justice

Settings. 1993, NCJ 147063, $13.20.

Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System. 1993, NCJ 145849.

Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System

(Full Report). 1993, NCJ 139556, $11.50.

National Juvenile Justice Statistics Assessment: An Agenda for Action. 1989,

NCJ 119764.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Brochure. 1993, NCJ 144527.

Retarding America—The Imprisonment of

Potential (Video). 1993, NCJ 146605,

$12.95.

Study of Tribal and Alaska Native Juvenile

Justice Systems. 1992, NCJ 148217,

$17.20.

Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse—

Initial Findings. 1994, NCJ 143454.

Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse:

Technical Report and Appendices. 1993,

NCJ 146416, $36.70.

Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology.

1984, NCJ 095108, $28.00.

Youth Gangs: Problem and Response.

1991, NCJ 146494, $20.20.

Publications From OJJDP

Status Offenders

Assessing the Effects of the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders. 1989,

NCJ 115211.

Runaways in Juvenile Courts. 1990,

NCJ 124881.

Law Enforcement

Drug Recognition Techniques: A Training

Program for Juvenile Justice Professionals.

1990, NCJ 128795.

Evaluation of the Habitual, Serious, and

Violent Juvenile Offender Program, Executive Summary. 1986, NCJ 105230.

Innovative Law Enforcement Training Programs: Meeting State and Local Needs.

1991, NCJ 131735.

Law Enforcement Custody of Juveniles

(Video). 1992, NCJ 137387, $13.50.

Law Enforcement Policies and Practices

Regarding Missing Children and Homeless

Youth. 1993, NCJ 145644.

Law Enforcement Policies and Practices

Regarding Missing Children and Homeless

Youth (Full Report). 1993, NCJ 143397,

$13.00.

Targeting Serious Juvenile Offenders Can

Make a Difference. 1988, NCJ 114218.

Courts

The Child Victim as a Witness. 1989,

NCJ 118315.

Court Careers of Juvenile Offenders. 1988,

NCJ 110854, $8.40.

Easy Access to Juvenile Court Statistics

1987–1991. 1993, NCJ 148218, $8.55.

Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System: A Program Handbook.

1991, NCJ 139731, $15.00.

Juvenile Court Property Cases. 1990,

NCJ 125625.

Juvenile Court Statistics, 1991. 1994,

NCJ 147487.

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1990. 1993,

NCJ 145128.

Restitution

Guide to Juvenile Restitution. 1985,

NCJ 098466, $12.50.

Liability and Legal Issues in Juvenile

Restitution. 1990, NCJ 115405.

National Trends in Juvenile Restitution

Programming. 1989, NCJ 115214.

Restitution Experience in Youth Employment: A Monograph and Training Guide to

Jobs Components. 1989, NCJ 115404.

Victim-Offender Mediation in the Juvenile

Justice System. 1990, NCJ 120976.

Corrections

American Probation and Parole Association’s Drug Testing Guidelines and Practices for Juvenile Probation and Parole

Agencies. 1992, NCJ 136450.

Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. 1994,

NCJ 141873.

Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation

Practice. 1991, NCJ 128218.

Juveniles Taken Into Custody: Fiscal Year

1991 Report. 1993, NCJ 145746.

The following lists OJJDP publications

available from the Juvenile Justice

Clearinghouse. To obtain copies, call

or write:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20850

800–638–8736

Most OJJDP publications are available free

of charge from the Clearinghouse; requests

for more than 10 documents or those from

individuals outside the United States require

payment for postage and handling. To obtain information on payment procedures or

to speak to a juvenile justice information

specialist about additional services offered,

contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7:00

p.m., e.s.t.

Delinquency Prevention

Education in the Law: Promoting Citizenship

in the Schools. 1990, NCJ 125548.

Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A

Policymaker’s Guide. 1994, NCJ 140517.

Mobilizing Community Support for LawRelated Education. 1989, NCJ 118217,

$9.75.

OJJDP and Boys and Girls Clubs of

America: Public Housing and High-Risk

Youth. 1991, NCJ 128412.

Preserving Families To Prevent Delinquency. 1992, NCJ 136397.

Strengthening America’s Families: Promising Parenting Strategies for Delinquency

Prevention. 1993, NCJ 140781, $9.15.

Missing and Exploited Children

America’s Missing and Exploited Children—

Their Safety and Their Future. 1986,

NCJ 100581.

Child Abuse: Prelude to Delinquency?

1985, NCJ 104275, $7.10.

The Compendium of the North American

Symposium on International Child Abduction: How to Handle International Child Abduction Cases. 1993, NCJ 148137, $17.50.

Investigator’s Guide to Missing Child Cases:

For Law Enforcement Officers Locating

Missing Children. 1987, NCJ 108768.

Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and

Thrownaway Children in America, First

Report: Numbers and Characteristics,

National Incidence Studies (Full Report). 1990, NCJ 123668, $14.40.

Missing Children: Found Facts. 1990,

NCJ 130916.

Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of

Parentally Abducted Children. 1994,

NCJ 143458.

Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of

Parentally Abducted Children (Full Report). 1993, NCJ 144535, $22.80.

OJJDP Annual Report on Missing Children.

1990, NCJ 130582.

Parental Abductors: Four Interviews

(Video). 1993, NCJ 147866, $12.50.

Sexual Exploitation of Missing Children:

A Research Review. 1988, NCJ 114273.

Stranger Abduction Homicides of Children.

1989, NCJ 115213.
PrProgram Summary ogram Summary

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, D.C. 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ 147712

BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

Permit No. G–91