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

PrProgram Summary ogram Summary

I ntensive Aftercare

for High-Risk Juveniles:

A Community Care Model
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.
September 1994

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Intensive Aftercare for

High-Risk Juveniles:

A Community Care Model

Program Summary

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), Office of Justice Programs, 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 are symptomatic of the problems challenging a growing number of American communities. Constructing new correctional facilities is difficult in a time of competing demands for scarce

tax dollars.

More difficult still is constructing sound solutions that address the underlying

causes of juvenile reoffending. But as is often the case, the hardest course may

prove to be the most rewarding.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention believes that

intensive community-based aftercare—in coordination with graduated sanctions

where needed—offers a substantive contribution to this quest.

This summary reports the interim results of OJJDP’s research and development

initiative to assess, test, and disseminate information on intensive aftercare program models that are theory driven and based on risk assessment. Publication

of this summary reflects our continued commitment to sharing this important

information with the juvenile justice community.

Working together, I believe that we can build something far more lasting than

brick and mortar—a better future for our youth and for our Nation.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
iv
v

Acknowledgments

We are deeply appreciative for 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

many public and private sector people across the country at the State and local

level who spent countless hours talking with us, offering suggestions and

advice, and hosting our onsite factfinding. Though too numerous to mention by

name, we are no less grateful to all of them.

We also want 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

Project design ......................................................................................... 2

Assessing critical issues in intensive aftercare ........ 3

The juvenile intensive supervision movement ................................................ 3

Target populations ........................................................................................... 4

Assessment of risk and need ........................................................................... 4

Identification of promising programs.............................................................. 7

Mail survey and telephone interviews ......................................................... 7

Site-visit factfinding..................................................................................... 8

Intensive aftercare program model ......................................... 9

Theory, principles, and goals .......................................................................... 9

Organizational factors and the external environment ................................... 11

Overarching case management ..................................................................... 12

Assessment, classification, and selection criteria ...................................... 13

Individual case planning incorporating

 a family and community perspective ...................................................... 14

A mix of intensive surveillance and services ............................................. 14

A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled

with realistic, enforceable parole conditions .......................................... 15

Service brokerage with community resources

and linkage with social networks ............................................................ 16

Management information and program evaluation ....................................... 16

Next steps .................................................................................................... 17

References ................................................................................................... 18
viii
1

he juvenile

corrections field has

compiled a dismal

record in its effort

to reduce the repeat

offender rate of juveniles released from

confinement.

Introduction

Growing concerns about crowding in secure juvenile correctional facilities, high

rates of recidivism, and escalating costs of confinement have fueled renewed

interest in bringing change and innovative programming to juvenile aftercare/

parole philosophy and practice. Unfortunately, the juvenile corrections field has

compiled a dismal record in its effort to reduce the repeat offender rate of juveniles released from secure confinement. Research indicates that failure occurs

disproportionately with a subgroup of released juvenile offenders who have

established a long record of misconduct that began at an early age. Such highrisk youth not only exhibit a persistent pattern of justice system contact (for

example, arrests, adjudications, placements), but they also are plagued by a

number of other need-related risk factors. Frequently these risk factors involve a

combination of problems associated with family, negative peer influence,

school difficulties, and substance abuse. In addition to these common needrelated risk factors, high-risk youth often exhibit a variety of important ancillary

needs and problems. Although these factors are not generally predictive of repeat offenders, they must be addressed because these conditions are still present

in some, and at times, many high-risk youngsters. For example, although there

is widespread consensus that learning disabilities and emotional disturbance are

not causally linked to delinquency, these conditions should not be ignored when

present.

Responding to these concerns, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) in the U.S. Department of Justice issued a request for proposals, Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs, in July 1987. The

purpose of this research and development initiative was to assess, test, and disseminate information on intensive juvenile aftercare program models for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders who initially require secure

confinement.

Effective aftercare programs focused on serious offenders which

provide intensive supervision to ensure public safety, and services

designed to facilitate the reintegration process may allow some offenders to be released earlier, as well as reduce recidivism among

offenders released from residential facilities. This should relieve

institutional overcrowding, reduce the cost of supervising juvenile

offenders, and ultimately decrease the number of juveniles who develop lengthy delinquent careers and often become the core of the

adult criminal population (Federal Register, 1987:26238–26239).

T
2

Project design

The intensive aftercare project includes the following stages:

Stage 1: Assessing programs currently in operation or under development

and relevant research and theoretical literature on the implementation and operation of community-based aftercare programs for

chronic juvenile offenders released from residential correctional

facilities.

Stage 2: Developing program models and related policies and procedures

to guide State and local juvenile correctional agencies and

policymakers.

Stage 3: Using the prototype designs, including policies and procedures,

to create a training and technical assistance package for use in

organized and independent training.

Stage 4: Implementing and testing the prototypes in selected jurisdictions.

The Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies conducted this multistage project in collaboration with the Division of Criminal Justice at California

State University in Sacramento. Project staff have completed the first three

stages, including a comprehensive literature review focused on research, theory,

and programs; a national mail survey of juvenile corrections officials to identify

innovative or promising programs and approaches; telephone interviews with

the directors of 36 recommended programs; onsite factfinding at 23 programs in

6 States including 3 statewide systems; formulation of a risk-based, theorydriven prototype intended to guide the development and implementation of

intensive community-based aftercare programs; development of an intensive

aftercare program training curriculum; and selection and training of action planning teams comprising senior level managers from 8 States. Selected through a

competitive RFP process, the eight participating States are Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Michigan.

The results of these tasks are presented in four project documents: Intensive

Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: An Assessment (Altschuler and Armstrong,

1990); Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model

(Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994); Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles:

Policies and Procedures (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994); Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs: Training Manual for Action Planning Conference (Altschuler and Armstrong, eds., 1992).

An Assessment focuses on three key aspects of project activities: an update of

issues critical to the design and operation of intensive aftercare programs, a

description of innovative and promising programs identified through a national mail survey and followup telephone interviews, and a discussion of intensive aftercare approaches and practices examined during a series of site visits.

Policies and Procedures describes the theory-driven, risk assessment-based

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model, which is specifically designed for application in a wide variety of settings and jurisdictions. The Training Manual

(for availability, see page 17) presents in modular form the key aspects and

components of the IAP model, providing examples and illustrations of various

 risk-based,

theory-driven

prototype will guide

the development and

implementation of

intensive communitybased aftercare

programs.

A
3

ntensive

supervision efforts

that focus almost

entirely on social

control have not

been effective.

ways in which intensive aftercare can be implemented. The Community Care

Model summarizes the major findings of the assessment and describes the

framework for the prototype proposed for field testing.

Assessing critical issues

in intensive aftercare

The juvenile intensive supervision movement

The interest in intensive juvenile aftercare can be traced to experiences during

the past decade in adult probation supervision and, subsequently, to experiments

with intensive supervision in juvenile probation (Armstrong, 1991). The recent

development of a nationwide juvenile intensive probation supervision movement (JIPS) has important implications for the design and operation of juvenile

intensive aftercare programs (Clear, 1991; Wiebush and Hamparian, 1991;

Steenson, 1986). Although based on enhanced surveillance and heightened social control over offenders living in the community settings, JIPS has taken a

number of forms. They include various combinations of intensified surveillance/monitoring and highly specialized treatments and supportive service

provision.

The growing interest in juvenile intensive aftercare programs throughout the

Nation is linked to an awareness by juvenile correctional administrators that

standard parole practices have been largely unsuccessful in normalizing the

behavior of high-risk juvenile parolees in the community over the long term

(Altschuler and Armstrong, 1990, 1991; Palmer, 1991). Intensive supervision

efforts that focus almost entirely on social control have not been effective. Consequently, recent experiments in juvenile intensive aftercare and probation have

directed equal attention to the close monitoring of severely delinquent juvenile

offenders and the provision of specialized services to them. Accordingly, the

proposed IAP model assumes that any attempt to lower rates of recidivism with

high-risk juvenile offenders on parole must include a substantial intensification

of intervention strategies providing social control and service provision.

Much of the current insight into design and implementation of intensive

aftercare has been drawn from the movement to expand and improve on

noncustodial correctional alternatives prevalent during the 1960’s and 1970’s.

Some of the approaches and techniques that proved useful in diverting offenders from secure confinement are prime candidates for use in highly structured

and programmatically rich aftercare settings. The following were among such

innovations:

■ Involvement of private agencies and citizens, as well as noncorrectional

public agencies, in the community corrections process through the use of

both volunteers and paraprofessionals and through purchase of service

agreements.

I
4

rior research

suggests that it

is largely property

offenders, not violent

offenders, who are

more likely to repeat

their crimes.

■ Adoption of a new stance by community corrections agencies stressing

resource brokerage and advocacy rather than direct delivery of all services

to offenders.

■ Development of specific techniques such as team supervision and drug/

alcohol testing to ensure higher levels of surveillance and control over

high-risk offenders.

■ Formulation of classification procedures to gauge the likelihood that a

juvenile will commit a crime in the future and to assess service needs to

match individual offenders with appropriate correctional resources and

maximize the effective use of scarce correctional resources.

Target populations

A subgroup of institutionalized juvenile offenders exhibits the highest rate of

failure after release. The implication is that identification of individuals at the

highest risk of becoming repeat offenders is critical. Such youths usually have

established a long record of criminal misconduct beginning at an early age and

are a focus of great concern by the juvenile correctional system and society

(Wolfgang et al., 1972; Hamparian et al., 1978; Shannon, 1978; McCord,

1979). Prior research suggests that it is largely property offenders, not violent

offenders, who are more likely to repeat their crimes (Armstrong and

Altschuler, 1982; Strasburg, 1984; Zimring, 1978; Bleich, 1987). Research

has shown that traditional and conventional intervention strategies are not effective for high-rate offenders (Coates, 1984; Gadow and McKibbon, 1984;

Agee, 1979).

Another subgroup of juvenile offenders who can be considered for inclusion in

certain forms of intensive aftercare are delinquents who exhibit particular problems and needs requiring highly specialized forms of treatment. These offenders evidence a number of emotional, cognitive, and other developmental

problem areas that hinder normal psychological, social, intellectual, and career

development. They have a poor prognosis for successful community reintegration and adjustment. Their special problems need to be addressed through intensified programming and service provision as well as monitoring. Often these

special-needs youth are multiproblem individuals whose challenges may coincide with serious, violent, and chronic delinquent behaviors. Consequently, this

poses an even more difficult problem. The set of special-needs subpopulations

receiving increased attention in the juvenile correctional system includes

youngsters with learning disabilities and drug and alcohol dependencies. Other

youngsters requiring additional attention are sex offenders, those with mental health problems, and those with neurophysiological impairments, or

developmental disabilities, such as mental retardation (Altschuler and

Armstrong, 1992).

Assessment of risk and need

The origins of classification in juvenile justice can be traced to one of the

founding precepts of the juvenile court movement—the goal of providing individualized assessment for each youth entering this system (Maloney et al.,

P
5

orrectional

systems that propose to

identify and intervene

with juvenile offenders

must develop or

adopt a validated risk

assessment instrument.

1988). This goal is based on the seminal idea that each youth and his or her social environment, background, talents, deficiencies, and problem behaviors all

need to be examined on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that the appropriate corrective steps are taken. The current diversity of classification systems for juvenile offenders reflects the recent trend toward stricter crime control and the

emphasis on providing tougher sanctions for serious juvenile offenders. Nevertheless, treatment and rehabilitation continue to exert a strong influence on determining the nature of the specific intervention with each youth. As a result,

most formal classification schemes employ procedures to assess risk and need

factors.

A key task faces correctional systems that propose to identify and intervene

more intensively with juvenile offenders most at risk of becoming repeat offenders upon release from secure correctional confinement. The challenge is to

develop or adopt a validated risk assessment instrument. Risk assessment instruments are based on aggregate characteristics, indicating that they do not predict

exactly which individuals within a subgroup of individuals will become repeat

offenders, but rather predict failure rates for each subgroup as a whole. Growing

interest across the United States in developing such instruments is a positive step

in helping officials make the following decisions: Which offenders should receive priority for intensive aftercare supervision? How many levels of supervision are needed? What contact standards should entail? Which cutoff scores

should be used to designate how many cases can be realistically handled by aftercare workers? How can aftercare resources—including field staff—be used

most effectively?

Although quantitative, validated risk-assessment instruments have been reasonably successful in distinguishing among groups of offenders exhibiting different

levels of risk of becoming repeat offenders, devising scales for predicting recidivism among juvenile offenders is complicated because youth are frequently

volatile and impulsive. Often they experience rapidly changing personal characteristics and needs, and they are unlikely to have developed longstanding patterns of behavior on which to predict future misconduct. Nonetheless, the

soundest risk assessment scales generally contain some combination of needrelated predictors (for example, family, peer group, schooling, and substance

abuse) and offense-related predictors. For example, age at first adjudication,

number of prior justice system referrals, and number of prior commitments have

been shown to be among the best offense-related predictors of future delinquency (Baird, 1986; Baird and Heinz, 1978; Baird et al., 1984).

A common source of confusion in conducting risk assessment has been the difficulty in distinguishing between seriousness of crime and the risk of future criminal activity. Prediction research has repeatedly shown that the relationship

between seriousness of the current offense and the likelihood of committing

future offenses is extremely weak if not inverse (Clear, 1988; Petersilia et al.,

1977; Zimring and Hawkins, 1973). Consequently, the inclusion of a youth who

has only committed one serious offense into a risk-based aftercare program may

well be regarded as a misuse of risk-based aftercare, although under certain circumstances it can still occur. For instance, certain types of offenders who are not

eligible on the basis of validated risk factors can be included in intensive afterC
6

losely linked

to risk assessment

is generic need

assessment and

procedures to classify

juvenile offenders

based on their

problems and deficits.

care on the basis of the override or aggravating circumstance option. In the

same vein, mitigating overrides are sometimes used to assign a risk level category that is lower than the risk score would indicate. However, because overrides can potentially inundate intensive aftercare with more youth than the

system can handle, they must be approached with great caution. At the same

time, if reasonable allowances are not made to accommodate aggravating circumstances, there is a risk of encouraging erroneous scoring in order to ensure

a predetermined outcome.

Closely linked to risk assessment is generic need assessment and procedures

to classify juvenile offenders based on their problems and deficits. Assessing

individuals according to need is crucial because ancillary and “common denominator” need factors must be considered. Furthermore, these factors may

have little to do with which need-related factors “predict” recidivism for

groups of securely confined delinquents. Much of the burgeoning interest

in developing schemes to classify need has centered on making the correct

match between the offender’s underlying problems and the appropriate intervention strategy. Decisionmaking for this purpose has been characterized by

efforts (based largely on technical advances in evaluative and diagnostic procedures) to subdivide juvenile offenders into carefully defined subpopulations.

This classification is useful in providing more specialized and appropriate

interventions.

Unlike risk assessment instruments, generic need assessment devices do not

depend on the use of predictive scales. They are usually developed from staff

efforts to initiate case management procedures through a structured process of

analyzing problems frequently encountered in clients. Need scales should not

be complicated and, in most cases, are rather straightforward systems for rating the severity of common, potential problem areas. Since these instruments

tend to address generic problem areas, they are generally transferable among

jurisdictions. However, minor modifications may be required to reflect differences in targeted populations.

The following are commonly evaluated in need assessment instruments:

■ Vocational skills. ■ Alcohol abuse.

■ Drug/chemical abuse. ■ Emotional stability.

■ Learning disabilities. ■ School attendance.

■ Academic achievement. ■ Employment/work performance.

■ 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.

However, the basis for assigning weights varies among jurisdictions. Basing

weights on workload factors is the most common approach (that is, the amount

of time required to deal with a particular need). Another approach is to base

C
7

he success

of past aftercare

programs is difficult

to determine because

few programs were

adequately evaluated.

weights on whether or not each problem’s resolution is related to the success or

failure of aftercare. Based upon the cumulative rank ordering of the most heavily

weighted items from need scales used in juvenile probation agencies in California, Illinois, Montana, and Wisconsin, it has been noted that the relative priority

assigned to common need items in descending order is as follows:

1. Substance abuse.

2. Emotional stability.

3. Family problems.

4. School problems.

5. Intellectual impairment (Baird et al., 1984).

Some of the common need items can be found among the need-related risk factors that predict recidivism.

Identification of promising programs

Mail survey and telephone interviews

The mail survey and telephone interviews were designed to identify innovative,

promising, or commendable intensive aftercare programs and were used to gather

policy and program information. The mail survey generated 36 recommended programs. These programs were contacted and a detailed telephone interview was administered. Based on the information obtained from these interviews, a program

typology was developed reflecting three possible models of supervision and service delivery: (1) institution-based (prerelease) programs, (2) integrated institutional/aftercare programs, and (3) residential and nonresidential community-based

programs that serve youth after their release from institutional confinement. (See

Altschuler and Armstrong, 1990, for a detailed description of these programs.)

Three institution-based programs, which operated out of State-run correctional facilities, were identified in the survey. Each stressed independent living skills, education, and vocational training. The second type of identified program consisted of

institutional prerelease programs in which aftercare components were more fully

integrated with community-based programs. Four of these programs were identified in the survey. Staff in these programs were often involved in both pre- and

postinstitutional confinement activities. The third program type noted in the survey

was community-based aftercare; not surprisingly the largest number of programs

(29) fell into this category. These programs provided a wide array of services. A

number contracted for tracking and, in several cases, electronic monitoring were

used to ensure compliance.

In summary, the survey indicated that the idea of “promising” or “innovative”

differed greatly among the contacted jurisdictions. Moreover, this idea appeared to

depend primarily upon the level of attention and amount of resources generally

being directed to juvenile aftercare in the jurisdiction. Innovation and promise are

determined by customary practice in the jurisdiction, and, thus, anything different

will likely be conceived as innovative or promising. Additionally, because few of

the surveyed programs were even haphazardly evaluated, it was impossible to say

with any precision whether the programs were successful. This dilemma poses

considerable difficulty for deciding whether a program that appears to be working

T
8

nnovative

intensive aftercare

programs had been

largely concentrated

among a small group

of jurisdictions.

well is actually effective and should be considered for adoption elsewhere. By

 the same token, it underscores the importance of developing an overall program

model for doing intensive aftercare. Having a sound evaluation mechanism that

can determine program integrity and measure outcomes based on a control or

matched comparison group is important.

The identified aftercare programs were diverse in goals, methods, resource levels,

and populations served. In fact, there was a lack of uniformity on what constituted

the primary components of intensive aftercare supervision. Few programs maintained any degree of meaningful staff continuity across the institutional aftercare

boundary and even rudimentary continuity of care was not evident. Consequently,

these shortcomings make the design and implementation of intensive aftercare a

goal worthy of achievement rather than an existing reality. The institutional aftercare chasm remains vast because most of the recommended programs, which were

community based, had limited if any involvement with youth or no dependable

information about them before their release from institutional confinement.

Site-visit factfinding

The major dimensions of the model emerged from the assessment work, which

included the literature review, the mail survey and resulting telephone interviews,

and information provided by policymakers, administrators, practitioners, researchers, and youth corrections professionals. Subsequently, criteria were developed to select the sites for more detailed, firsthand program observation. The

staff recognized early in the project that intensive aftercare programs which embraced the key criteria would be identified as possible candidates for site-visit

factfinding. Strategies targeted for further inquiry included: encouraging the

development of new community resources through purchase-of-service arrangements with private sector providers, ensuring continuity of care and case management across the institution-aftercare continuum, initiating assessment and

classifications systems, and devising a network of coordinated services and

system of supervision suitable for inner-city and rural environments.

When the final determination of sites was undertaken, project staff discovered

that innovative intensive aftercare programs had been largely concentrated among

a small group of jurisdictions. Within these jurisdictions, for a number of reasons,

the momentum for change in juvenile aftercare had led to experimentation and

reform. For example, in Florida the Bobby M. Consent Decree had forced the

State to restructure juvenile corrections in fundamental ways, including the

approach being taken in the provision of aftercare. On the other hand, in Pennsylvania the Juvenile Court Judges Commission’s Aftercare Project spurred the development of numerous aftercare programs that operated through county

probation. This effort included experimentation with intensive aftercare.

It became clear during site screening that for aftercare to provide such things

as continuity of care and staged reentry incorporating graduated sanctions and

positive reinforcement, a systemwide perspective was essential. This broader

approach would involve traditionally separate and sometimes rival justice system

components such as courts, corrections, parole, and community resources, and

human service system components including corrections, mental health, and education. Consequently, the selection of sites was determined by the decision to

focus more on programming that possessed a systemwide orientation (that is,

I
9

isk factors that

predict reoffending

behavior include

the age of the youth,

number of prior

offenses, and the

influence of family,

peers, and school.

R

entire States or regions, multicounty efforts, countywide initiatives) rather than a

single aftercare program.

The resulting approach that was employed during site-visit factfinding was to

maximize efforts to document different practices by targeting six jurisdictions

and then visiting as many recommended programs as possible. Twenty-three

different programs in six States were visited. This number included three States

that were analyzed in considerable detail regarding the development and operation of their statewide aftercare approaches.

Intensive aftercare program model

The project’s review of research revealed risk factors that frequently predict

reoffending behavior generally include both justice system factors (for example,

age of youth at first justice system contact and number of prior offenses) and

need-related factors (family, peers, school, substance abuse). A variety of other

special need and ancillary factors, although not necessarily predictive of recidivism, remain relatively common among juvenile recidivists (for example, learning problems, low self-esteem). Finally, a small minority of juvenile offenders

appears to have still other very serious problems, such as diagnosed emotional

disturbance.

Theory, principles, and goals

Given the range and nature of both offense- and need-related risk factors, as well

as of other special need and ancillary factors, the challenge becomes one of how

to link this array of factors with a sufficiently broad-based, practical strategy that

holds promise in combating recidivism. It is through the intensive juvenile aftercare program model that the project has arrived at just such a strategy. A schematic of this model is shown in figure 1. Linking the risk factors and problems

with a broad-based strategy is accomplished by a theory-driven, empirically

based program model that establishes a clear set of comprehensive guiding principles; specific, tangible program elements; and a set of needed services.

The IAP model’s central requirement is that it fit the conditions of each jurisdiction that attempts to reduce the recidivism of its own juvenile parolee population.

Organizational characteristics, the structure of juvenile justice and adolescent

service delivery systems, the size and nature of offender populations, and resource availability differ widely among States. In addition, managing identified

high-risk juvenile parolees requires the pursuit of multiple goals. These goals

include maintaining public protection both in the short and long run, assuring

individual accountability, and providing treatment/support services. Exactly how

these goals can be achieved may vary in jurisdictions across the country. Moreover, because of current economic constraints on State governments in general,

and correctional budgets in particular, all three goals must be achieved with limited resources.

The principles, elements, and services that establish IAP parameters can be, and

indeed must be configured and applied in different ways. The IAP model offers a

promising direction that holds great potential if the form it takes remains clear
10

he IAP model

must fit the conditions

of each jurisdiction

that attempts to

reduce recidivism.

T

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:

Figure1: Intervention Model for Juvenile Intensive Aftercare

and consistent with IAP specifications. As important, IAP also offers a challenge to the professional community because it requires an unequivocal commitment by the major juvenile justice, child-serving, and community agencies

and associations. They must develop a plan detailing who will assume responsibility for particular tasks and how and when the tasks will be carried out.

The plan must be guided by an underlying conception of the fundamental nature

of the problem. Deficiencies in conceptual or theoretical underpinnings of programs have consequences. If a program’s philosophy is ambiguous or absent, it

is difficult for staff, participants, and others to understand which practices

should be pursued and how they should be accomplished.

Previous efforts to develop a framework for intervention with serious, chronic

juvenile offenders recognized the multifaceted nature of the problem and recommended integrating formerly freestanding theories, notably social control,

strain, and social learning theories (Elliott and Voss, 1974; Conger, 1976;

Elliott et al., 1979, 1985; Weiss and Hawkins, 1981; Fagan and Jones, 1984).

The IAP model is grounded in a similar integration. Distinctive to the IAP

model, however, is its focus on the numerous issues and concerns arising out of

the mostly disconnected and fragmented handling of offenders. This handling

covers all decisions and actions during court disposition, institutionalization,

parole, aftercare supervision, and discharge.

Properly designed and implemented, the IAP model addresses two of the acknowledged deficiencies of the current system of secure correctional commitment: (1) that institutional confinement does not adequately prepare youth for

return to the community, and (2) that lessons and skills learned in secure confinement are neither monitored nor reinforced outside the institution.

Integrated theory and research on risk factors provide a sound basis and rationale for the identification of the model’s general goals, elements, and specific
11

he overall

aim is to identify

and help high-risk

juvenile offenders

make a gradual

transition from

secure confinement

into the community.

T

services. The problem of high-risk juvenile recidivism must be approached with

a comprehensive, coordinated plan that transcends institutional and professional

boundaries. Five principles of programmatic action requisite to the IAP model

embody its theoretical assumptions and the empirical evidence regarding the

multiple causes of and behavioral changes associated with repeat offenders.

1. Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and

freedom in the community.

2. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement.

3. Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (for example, families, peers, schools, employers) on qualities

needed for constructive interaction and the youth’s successful community adjustment.

4. Developing new resources and supports where needed.

5. Monitoring and testing the youth and the community on their ability to

deal with each other productively.

These principles, which flow from the integrated theoretical framework, collectively establish a set of fundamental operational goals for the IAP model. Generally, these principles allow a reasonable degree of flexibility in how the goals

will be achieved. The overall aim is to identify and help high-risk juvenile offenders make a gradual transition from secure confinement into the community

and thereby lower the high rate of failure and relapse. It is essential to give

planners, administrators, and staff sufficient latitude to consider a range of

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

communities and confined youth. Therefore, three major elements and five subelements must be taken into account as planners and practitioners translate IAP

theory and principles into actual practice.

Organizational factors

and the external environment

The administration and organization of juvenile parole varies substantially in

jurisdictions across the country. Differences comprise such factors as State law

and institutional arrangements involving the role of the judiciary, youth authorities, independent boards, and other agencies. Jurisdictions also differ in level

of resources available, number and location of involved youth, and degree of

urbanization. Other differences include reliance upon private providers and

purchase-of-service contracts, civil service and unionization, and community

attitudes. These different factors establish an organizational and environmental

climate within which juvenile parole must function. A complicating characteristic of intensive aftercare is that it must transcend traditional agency boundaries

and professional interests. Consequently, if IAP is to work, a commitment and

sense of ownership is required by the major agencies and interests that play a

role. These agencies include the courts, institutions, aftercare, education, child

mental health and social service, employment and vocational training, and

substance abuse treatment.
12

verarching

case management is

required for high-risk

delinquents to make

the transition from

secure confinement

to intensive aftercare.

Understanding juvenile parole as it functions within the juvenile justice system,

the child welfare service delivery system and the private provider child-serving

system is a crucial first step in an IAP action planning and development process. The goal is to develop a formal mechanism (such as a steering committee)

through which oversight of planning, managing, implementing, and assessing

the IAP will be maintained. Participants should include senior managers from

each of the major interests identified through an initial assessment of juvenile

parole. This is vital to instilling a collective sense of ownership, partnership,

and investment.

Having the support of all potentially involved interests is a necessity since the

IAP can assume a number of different organizational forms, representing variations of the generic model. Possibilities include a collaborative, publicly run

program; a jointly funded purchase-of-service demonstration; or some other

venture based on interagency agreements. In some jurisdictions, the aftercare

agency uses extensive purchase-of-service contracts with private providers,

while in others, the aftercare agency is directly responsible for providing most

of the supervision and service available to parolees. In other cases, the agency

primarily makes referrals to community resources (for example, county mental

health, big brother, local recreation program) that provide service for little or no

charge. Whichever approach IAP uses in a given jurisdiction, incorporating the

experience and recommendations of the major child-service providers is recommended as a way to build community support for IAP.

Overarching case management

In general terms, overarching case management is the process required for highrisk delinquents to make the transition from secure confinement to intensive

aftercare. The process involves several aspects: coordinated and comprehensive

planning, information exchange, continuity, consistency, service provision and

referral, and monitoring. Particular attention is focused on five discrete components or sub-elements that define the specific areas of responsibility that key

staff must coordinate and jointly plan. Key staff include people who are involved with the designated high-risk cases from the point of secure care disposition until discharge from parole status. Case management components include:

■ Assessment, classification, and selection criteria.

■ Individual case planning incorporating a family and community

perspective.

■ A mix of intensive surveillance and services.

■ A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the

imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions.

■ Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social

networks.

These components require the active involvement of the aftercare counselor as

soon as secure confinement begins. Aftercare providers must initiate some form

of service before discharge from secure confinement. The lack of meaningful

involvement on the part of the aftercare worker until the final phase of confinement, if then, is among the more serious problems that have confronted afterO
13

he target

population for IAP

is that group of

institutionalized

juveniles who pose

the highest risk of

becoming repeat

offenders.

care. Other problems include little coordination, transitioning, continuity, or

consistency between what occurs inside a secure facility and after. Furthermore,

family concerns receive negligible attention during most of the confinement

period and frequently afterwards. Another problem is sporadic monitoring of

parolees and aftercare service providers.

None of these problems will surprise parole or institution staff. Indeed, these are

the problems they have recited for years. The following conditions contribute to

the problem:

■ A scarcity of correctional funding devoted to aftercare.

■ A paucity of community programs and resources.

■ Large caseload sizes and inadequate staffing.

■ Fragmented lines of authority.

■ Unrealistic coverage (for example, traditional business hours and no

weekends).

■ A lack of differential supervision standards and an associated workload

management system.

■ Insufficient attention to prerelease planning and staff capability.

■ Excessive distance between institution and home community.

■ Professional and organizational rigidity.

■ Rivalry and turf battling.

■ A crisis-driven mode of operation.

As a result, the courts, correctional facilities, parole agencies, and aftercare

service providers often have been unable or unwilling to work together on reintegration and prerelease planning, transitional services, and aftercare supervision and support. A commitment to jointly planned and shared funding of

aftercare is needed. Case management, as detailed in the IAP model, provides

specific guidance on goals and how they can be achieved.

Assessment, classification, and selection criteria

The target population for IAP is that group of institutionalized juveniles who

pose the highest risk of becoming repeat offenders in the community. Placing

lower risk juveniles in intensive aftercare is inefficient and impractical. Indeed,

growing evidence suggests that intensive supervision of lower risk offenders

leads to increased technical violations and subsequent reincarceration. Objectively determining which juveniles are at high risk of chronic delinquency

requires the design of a risk-screening device that can classify local juvenile

offenders according to their probability of rearrest or reconviction. As previously noted, a number of risk measures seem predictive of continued criminal

involvement across jurisdictions. Even with these measures, however, decisions

on how much weight each risk measure should be given (such as scoring), what

cutoff points should be used to differentiate the various levels of risk, and how

many risk levels to use are not the same everywhere. As a result, these questions

will have major implications for how many staff will be needed and what they

T
14

atching

IAP youth with

programs and people

in the community

requires a clear

understanding of each

potential program’s

intervention strategy.

can realistically accomplish. These implications mean that assessment and classification tools must be validated in the jurisdiction and that projections must be

made regarding the size of the IAP population that will be served.

Individual case planning incorporating

a family and community perspective

Individualized planning related to intensive aftercare needs to begin as soon as

a youth is committed to a secure correctional facility. Once high-risk youth are

identified for participation in IAP, individualized case planning involving institutional and aftercare staff is required to determine: (1) how identified needrelated risk factors will be addressed in the secure facility and through aftercare

programming and supervision; (2) the special needs of youth, with particular

attention to needs linked to the offender’s social network (for example, family,

close friends, peers in general) and community (for example, schools, workplace, church, training programs, specialized treatment programs); and (3) how

the total set of risks, needs, and associated circumstances will be addressed

during a phased transition from secure facility to aftercare.

The matching of IAP youth with programs and people in the community requires a clear understanding of each potential program’s intervention strategy

(that is, degree of change sought and range of attributes targeted for attention)

and organizing model (that is, specific components, features, and processes

such as how reinforcers and sanctions are used, how limits are set, how client

movement or progression through a program is directed, etc.). Certain community programs target limited problem areas and employ specific approaches.

Transition cannot occur without interconnecting aftercare with the IAP youth’s

activities while in the secure facility. To preserve gains made while in secure

confinement, aftercare must build on them. Accordingly, whether aftercare service providers begin working with IAP youth while they are still inside the secure facility or while on prerelease furloughs, contact must be initiated before

discharge. This process can only happen if the secure facility and aftercare providers are accessible to each other and if the community provider is located

nearby. This requires individualized planning for aftercare early in secure

confinement.

A mix of intensive surveillance and services

Although closer and more frequent monitoring and supervision of juvenile parolees is an important aspect of IAP, services and support are integral as well.

As noted, common risk factors include offense and need-related items. A

strictly surveillance-oriented approach does not address need-related risk factors. If need-related risk factors are linked principally to the family and the

home, school and learning difficulties, negative peer influences, and substance

abuse, the challenge for IAP is clear: ensuring that core services are used and

that families and friends are involved on a regular basis in activities, events,

and programs. Day programming that extends into weekends and attention to

evening activity is key. Such programming can be tied to work, chores, assignments, volunteer work, community service, recreation, arts and crafts, etc. Although it is unlikely that any one program would provide the full range of

M
15

eincarcerating

technical violators

contributes to the

institutional crowding

that plagues many

communities.

services, the IAP model requires that a comprehensive system of services be

established and that the primary aftercare case manager oversee their delivery.

Within the context of IAP, surveillance and supervision are not viewed as

merely a means to deter misconduct. The various approaches used to monitor

the movement and behavior of high-risk parolees provide IAP staff with the

means: (1) to recognize immediately when infractions, as well as achievements,

have taken place, (2) to know beforehand when circumstances may be prompting misconduct or leading to problems, and (3) to respond accordingly by

relying on both reward and graduated sanctions. Thus, the limits of electronic

monitoring and drug testing are apparent. They do not provide an early warning

signal; they do not address precipitating circumstances; and they do not detect

accomplishments. While technological innovations have a valuable role to perform in surveillance, their limits must be explicitly noted. Swift and certain

response on the reward and sanction side requires more than new technology.

A balance of incentives and graduated

consequences coupled with realistic,

enforceable parole conditions

The involvement of meaningful incentives and graduated consequences as part

of IAP is a recognition of the fact that juvenile aftercare has often been burdened with unrealistic and unenforceable parole conditions and devoid of any

positive reinforcement, rewards, or inducements. Restrictions and limitations

generally imposed at the initiation of aftercare afford little room to impose proportionately more stringent sanctions short of revocation.

Although it is widely recognized that tangible and symbolic rewards and praise

play an important role in demonstrating to individuals the benefits and satisfactions that can be derived from socially acceptable accomplishments, recognition

of achievement is all too rare in aftercare. A number of different approaches

have been employed by various programs to routinely monitor progress, reinforce prosocial conduct, and guide advancement. These approaches range from

relatively simple mechanisms involving frequent case reviews incorporating

other peers and family, to elaborately structured token economies in which

particular privileges or rewards are tied to the attainment of specific goals.

Because IAP is designed to intensify the number, duration, and nature of contacts aftercare workers have with paroled youth and collaterals (family, peers,

school staff, employers, other involved service providers), it is inevitable that

more infractions, technical violations, and instances of noncompliance will surface. With the absence of guidelines on a hierarchy of consequences at their

disposal, aftercare workers may tend to do nothing—which undermines their

authority—or to impose sanctions disproportionate to the violation. Reincarcerating technical violators contributes to the institutional crowding that plagues

many communities. It is little wonder that some observers regard intensive supervision as much a cause of the crowding problem as a potential solution. Besides having a graduated system of sanctions, jurisdictions considering IAP

should review their juvenile revocation policy for possible revisions. These

changes could take the form of restricting reincarceration only to IAP youth

R
16

with new offense convictions and creating a special short-term residential

backup facility for IAP technical violators.

Service brokerage with community

resources and linkage with social networks

It is unrealistic to expect that comprehensive and intensive service provision

coupled with close supervision and monitoring can be provided without the

active involvement of a variety of community support systems. It is impractical

to expect that the primary aftercare worker could spend all the time required

with each youth and be capable of providing the full range of needed services.

Thus, referral and brokerage become crucial functions, which in turn means that

program monitoring and quality control are paramount concerns. Linkage with

social networks is key. As prior research on risk factors suggests, youth who

have family problems, who associate with negative peer groups, and who are

disruptive in school are at the highest risk of becoming repeat offenders. Accordingly, programming must focus on: (1) improving the family situation,

(2) intervening with the peer group, and (3) reversing the cycle of school failure. These goals require linkage with major social networks.

A number of different brokerage and linkage approaches described in An

Assessment (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1990) are being pursued by various

jurisdictions across the country. Regardless of how brokerage and linkage is

approached, the keys to IAP are first to involve a variety of community support

systems in service delivery and to see that for each youth there is a staff person

who is actively working on reinforcing, or if necessary, developing a supportive

network. Second, it is essential to devise a process to ensure coordination and

continuity in work being done on a case and to monitor the extent and quality

of the service provision.

Management information

and program evaluation

The final program element in the model emerges from all other elements as well

as from the underlying principles. It is imperative to maintain close oversight

over implementation and quality control and to determine the overall effectiveness of the program. With regard to process evaluation, an ongoing management information system is required to ensure the operational integrity of IAP.

This entails the collection of appropriate data to assess day-to-day operations

and performance. No test of the model is possible if implementation diverges

from design principles and elements. The availability of timely information

enables needed adjustments and changes to be made before the program has

veered substantially off course. Besides collecting basic information on who is

served and in what ways, it is also important to assess and document staffing

patterns and selection, job responsibilities, staff turnover, and job performance.

Assessing outcome can be quite complex and should be assigned to wellqualified individuals. Although random assignment may not be feasible, a

sound evaluation design must be part of the IAP initiative. The research design

should focus on finding an appropriate comparison group, including multiple

outh who have

family problems, who

associate with negative peer groups, and

who are disruptive

in school are at

the highest risk of

becoming repeat

offenders.

Y
17

measures of recidivism and cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes.

These outcomes should be followed for at least a year after discharge from

IAP. Moreover, it is important to serve enough high-risk cases

to provide IAP with a large enough sample for reliable data analysis.

Next steps

To date, four reports, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: An Assessment (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1990); Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk

Juveniles: A Community Care Model (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994); Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and Procedures (Altschuler

and Armstrong, 1994); and Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Training Manual for Action Planning Conference (Altschuler and Armstrong, eds.,

1992) have been submitted to OJJDP. Project staff worked closely with a

group of national experts on developing a detailed IAP training curriculum that

was used in training the action planning teams from the eight jurisdictions. The

training manual presents the entire IAP model, relying on step-by-step instruction that outlines the theoretical underpinnings, underlying principles, program

elements, and array of services.

Based on submitted concept papers from interested States and localities, eight

jurisdictions were selected to participate in action planning conferences held

in late 1992 and 1993. The training was designed for senior- and mid-level

administrative staff from jurisdictions interested in adapting, implementing,

and managing pilot IAP programs modeled on the prototype. Currently the

eight States are at various stages in the development and implementation of

their pilot IAPs.

Beyond the initial training, technical assistance, and testing of the model, the

long-term goal for this project over the next decade is to alter substantially the

way in which juvenile aftercare has been traditionally designed and managed

across the United States. The unacceptable rates of failure that have characterized high-risk juvenile offenders on parole must begin to be addressed through

a fundamental rethinking. The focus should be on the basic structures, procedures, and goals that define how more severely delinquent youth are handled at

the points of correctional confinement and transition back into the community.

It is hoped that the eight States that received the training, as well as other jurisdictions, will test versions of the generic IAP model that are appropriate to

their local environments; subsequently, they should move to incorporate these

pilot efforts as part of their larger juvenile correctional systems. If this occurs,

the primary result will be a major transformation in how juvenile parole for

high-risk offenders is conducted in this country.

he long-term

goal over the next

decade is to alter

substantially the way

juvenile aftercare has

been traditionally

designed and managed

across the Nation.

T

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.
18

References

Agee, Vick L. 1979. Treatment of the Violent Incorrigible Adolescent. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.

Altschuler, David M., and Troy L. Armstrong. 1992. Intensive CommunityBased Aftercare Programs: Training Manual for Action Planning Conference.

Submitted to Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Altschuler, David M., and Troy L. Armstrong. 1994. Intensive Aftercare for

High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and Procedures. Submitted to Office of Juvenile

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

Altschuler, David M., and Troy L. Armstrong. 1990. Intensive Aftercare for

High-Risk Juveniles: An Assessment. Submitted to Office of Juvenile Justice

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

Armstrong, Troy L., (ed.). 1991. Intensive Interventions with High-Risk Youths:

Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Armstrong, Troy L., and David M. Altschuler. 1982. Community-Based Program Interventions for the Serious Juvenile Offender: Targeting, Strategies and

Issues. Submitted to Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Baird, S. Christopher. 1986. The Usefulness of Risk Scales to the Treatment of

Offenders. Paper presented at the Conference on Statistical Prediction in Corrections, Rutgers University.

Baird, S. Christopher, and Richard Heinz. 1978. Risk Assessment in Juvenile

Probation and Aftercare. Madison, WI: Division of Corrections.

Baird, S. Christopher, Gregory M. Storrs, and Helen Connelly. 1984.

Classification of Juveniles in Corrections: A Model Systems Approach. Washington, D.C.: Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Bleich, Jeffrey. 1987. Toward an Effective Policy for Handling Dangerous Juvenile Offenders, in Francis S. Hartman (ed.), From Children to Citizens: Vol.

II, The Role of the Juvenile Court. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Clear, Todd R. 1991. Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision: Theory and

Rationale, in Troy L. Armstrong (ed.), Intensive Interventions with High-Risk

Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole. Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press.

Clear, Todd R. 1988. Statistical Prediction in Corrections, in Research in Corrections, 1. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
19

Coates, Robert B. 1984. Appropriate Alternatives for the Violent Juvenile Offender, in Robert Mathias, Paul DeMuro and Richard Allinson (eds.), Violent

Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology. San Francisco: National Council on Crime

and Delinquency.

Conger, Rand D. 1976. Social Control and Social Learning Models of Delinquent Behavior: A Synthesis, in Criminology, 14.

Elliott, Delbert S., and Harwin Voss. 1974. Delinquency and Dropout. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Elliott, Delbert S., Suzanne S. Ageton, and Rachelle J. Canter. 1979. An Integrated Theoretical Perspective on Delinquent Behavior, in Journal of Research

in Crime and Delinquency, 16.

Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne S. Ageton. 1985. Explaining

Delinquency and Drug Use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Fagan, Jeffrey A., and Sally J. Jones. 1984. Toward a Theoretical Model for

Intervention with Violent Juvenile Offenders, in Robert Mathias, Paul DeMuro

and Richard Allinson (eds.), Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology. San

Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Gadow, Dianne, and Janie McKibbon. 1984. Discipline and the Institutionalized

Violent Delinquent, in Robert Mathias, Paul DeMuro and Richard Allinson

(eds.), Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology. San Francisco: National

Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Hamparian, Donna M., Richard Schuster, Simon Dinitz, and John P. Conrad.

1978. The Violent Few: A Study of the Dangerous Juvenile Offender. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Maloney, Dennis, Dennis Romig, and Troy L. Armstrong. 1988. Juvenile Probation: The Balanced Approach, in Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 39.

McCord, Joan. 1979. Some Child-Rearing Antecedents of Criminal Behavior in

Adult Men, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37.

Palmer, Ted B. 1991. Intervention with Juvenile Offenders: Recent and LongTerm Changes, in Troy L. Armstrong (ed.), Intensive Interventions with HighRisk Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole. Monsey,

NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Petersilia, Joan, Peter W. Greenwood, and Marvin Lavin. 1977. Criminal Careers of Habitual Felons. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Shannon, Lyle W. 1978. A Longitudinal Study of Delinquency and Crime, in

Charles Wellford (ed.), Quantitative Studies in Criminology. Beverly Hills:

Sage Publications.

Steenson, David. 1986. A Symposium on Juvenile Intensive Probation Supervision: The JIPS Proceedings. Minneapolis: The Hennepin County Bureau of

Community Corrections, Juvenile Division.
20

Strasburg, Paul A. 1984. Recent National Trends in Serious Juvenile Crime, in

Robert Mathias, Paul DeMuro and Richard Allinson (eds.), Violent Juvenile

Offenders: An Anthology. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and

Delinquency.

Weis, Joseph G., and J. David Hawkins. 1981. Reports of the National Juvenile

Justice Assessment Centers: Preventing Delinquency. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Wiebush, Richard G., and Donna M. Hamparian. 1991. Variations in ‘Doing’

Juvenile Intensive Supervision: Programmatic Issues In Four Ohio Jurisdictions, in Troy L. Armstrong (ed.) Intensive Interventions with High-Risk

Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole. Monsey, NY:

Criminal Justice Press.

Wolfgang, Marvin E., Robert M. Figlio, and Thorsten Sellin. 1972. Delinquency in a Birth Cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Zimring, Franklin E. 1978. Background Paper, in Confronting Youth Crime:

Report of the Twentieth Century Fund on Sentencing Policy Toward Young

Offenders. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers.

Zimring, Franklin E., and Gordon Hawkins. 1973. Deterrence: The Legal

Threat in Crime Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.