U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

J. Robert Flores, Administrator Juvenile Justice Practices Series 

September 2005 

Alternatives to the Secure Detention and 


Confinement of Juvenile Offenders


James Austin, Kelly Dedel Johnson, and Ronald Weitzer 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is presenting a Juvenile 

Justice Practices Series to provide the field with updated research, promising practices, and 

tools for a variety of juvenile justice areas. These Bulletins are important resources for youthserving professionals involved in developing and adopting juvenile justice policies and 

programs, regardless of their funding sources. 

This fifth Bulletin in the series promotes reducing the court’s reliance on detention and 

confinement through administrative reforms and special program initiatives informed by an 

objective assessment of a youth’s risk level. 

Court officials must balance the interests of public safety with the needs of youth when making decisions 

about which program to place a juvenile offender and which level of restriction is required. Juvenile 

offenders who commit serious and/or violent crime may require confinement to protect public safety and 

intensive supervision and intervention to become rehabilitated. On the other hand, many offenders can be 

effectively rehabilitated through community-based supervision and intervention. 

Secure detention differs from secure confinement both in terms of the reasons a youth is being held and in 

the range and intensity of programs available to an offender in each setting. Secure detention refers to the 

holding of youth, upon arrest, in a juvenile detention facility (e.g., juvenile hall) for two main purposes: to 

ensure the youth appears for all court hearings and to protect the community from future offending. In 

contrast, secure confinement refers to youth who have been adjudicated delinquent and are committed to 

the custody of correctional facilities for periods generally ranging from a few months to several years. 

These confinement facilities have a much broader array of programs than detention facilities. 

Status offenders do not require secure detention to ensure their compliance with court orders or to protect 

public safety. However, recent data indicate that one-third of all youth held in juvenile detention centers 

are detained for status offenses and technical violations of probation (Arthur, 2001). Detaining youth in 

facilities prior to adjudication should be an option of last resort only for serious, violent, and chronic 

offenders and for those who repeatedly fail to appear for scheduled court dates. Secure detention and 

confinement are almost never appropriate for status offenders and certain other small groups of 

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. 

Office of Justice Programs • Partnerships for Safer Communities • www.ojp.usdoj.gov 
offenders—those who are very young, vulnerable, first-time offenders; those charged with nonserious 

offenses; and those with active, involved parents or strong community-based support systems. 

It is the large group of offenders who fall in the middle in terms of the seriousness of their crimes that 

prove challenging to the juvenile justice system. The public’s heightened concern about crime and the 

increased emphasis on juvenile accountability in the past two decades may have further contributed to the 

juvenile justice system’s reliance on secure detention and confinement for most juvenile offenders. 

Clearly, quality and accessible community-based alternatives must exist to enable the judicious use of 

expensive detention and confinement programs to meet the needs of both the juvenile offender and the 

community. 

The Need for Alternatives to Secure Detention and Confinement 

Alternatives to secure detention and confinement are needed for several reasons, two of which are 

described below: 

♦ Crowding. Over the past 15 years, crowded detention and confinement facilities have become more 

common. Between 1990 and 1999, the number of delinquency cases involving detention increased by 

11 percent, or 33,400 cases (Harms, 2003). Over the same time period, the number of adjudicated 

cases resulting in out-of-home placement (e.g., training schools, camps, ranches, prviate treatment 

facilities, group homes) increased 24 percent, from 124,900 in 1990 to 155,200 in 1999 (Puzzanchera, 

2003). As a result, approximately 39 percent of all juvenile detention and confinement facilities had 

more residents than available beds (Sickmund, 2002). As the system becomes more crowded, 

detention staff must learn how to manage continuous admissions and releases and the general lack of 

stability in such a setting. 

Crowding can create dangerous situations in terms of facility management; it also is detrimental to the 

rehabilitation and treatment of the youth who are confined. In addition to the logistical problems 

inherent in crowded conditions (e.g., where youth will sleep, how they will be fed, how they will be 

educated), crowded conditions can also give rise to violence. Youth are more likely to have to be 

transported to the emergency room as a result of injuries sustained during interpersonal conflicts in 

crowded facilities (Sickmund, 2002). Youth who are detained for long periods of time usually do not 

have the opportunity to participate in programming designed to further their educational development 

(e.g., obtaining a general equivalency diploma). In addition, treatment programs in detention facilities 

are not designed to address chronic problems (e.g., substance abuse, history of physical or sexual 

abuse) requiring sustained and intensive interventions. Instead, programming in detention facilities is 

generally designed to assist youth in adjusting to the correctional environment, ease the transition 

back to the community upon release, and identify problems needing long-term intervention. Thus, 

while the youth is in detention, long-term educational and mental health needs are often put on hold. 

Between 50 and 70 percent of incarcerated youth have a diagnosable mental illness and up to 19 

percent may be suicidal, yet timely treatment is difficult to access in crowded facilities (Wasserman, 

Ko, and McReynolds, 2004; Mears, 2001). In the worst case scenario, crowded facilities lead to 

increased institutional violence, higher operational costs, and significant vulnerabilities to litigation to 

improve the conditions of confinement. 

♦ Unproven effectiveness of detention and confinement. The time a youth spends in secure detention 

or confinement is not just time away from negative factors that may have influenced his or her 

behavior. Detaining or confining youth may also widen the gulf between the youth and positive 

influences such as family and school. Research on traditional confinement in large training schools 

(i.e., correctional units housing as many as 100 to 500 youth), where a large majority of confined 

youth are still held in the United States, has found high recidivism rates. As many as 50–70 percent of 

2 
previously confined youth are rearrested within 1 or 2 years after release (Wiebush et al., 2005; 

Krisberg, 1997; Winner et al., 1997; Fagan, 1996). Some states have limited the size of these 

facilities, while others continue to operate 300- and 400-bed training schools. In either configuration, 

although the long-term nature of a youth’s sentence affords a greater opportunity to provide necessary 

treatment, educational, vocational, and medical services, confinement in these facilities represents a 

significant separation from the communities to which all youth will return and therefore creates a 

substantial obstacle in terms of community reentry upon release. 

Community-based programs are cost-effective solutions for a large number of delinquent youth. These 

alternatives to secure detention and confinement are intended to reduce crowding, cut the costs of 

operating juvenile detention centers, shield offenders from the stigma of institutionalization, help 

offenders avoid associating with youth who have more serious delinquent histories, and maintain positive 

ties between the juvenile and his or her family and community. 

Between the 1960s and mid-1990s, significant research demonstrated that community-based programs 

(e.g., intensive supervision, group homes, day reporting centers, probation) were more effective than 

traditional correctional programs (e.g., training schools) in reducing recidivism and improving community 

adjustment (see Howell, 1995, for a review of these studies). Even studies with less favorable results 

showed that community-based programs produced outcomes similar to those of traditional training 

schools but at significantly reduced costs (Howell, 1995). 

Studies conducted on state and local levels also testify to the effectiveness of well-structured, properly 

implemented, community-based programs as alternatives to secure correctional environments. For 

example, Massachusetts relies less on holding youth than most other states, turning instead to a network 

of small, secure programs for serious offenders (generally fewer than 20 youth per facility), 

complemented by a full continuum of structured community-based programs for the majority of 

committed youth. These programs allow for a greater connection between the youth and his or her family, 

school, and other community-based support systems and have shown powerful effects in reducing 

subsequent involvement in delinquency (Coates, Miller, and Ohlin, 1978; Krisberg, Austin, and Steele, 

1989). States can reduce their reliance on secure detention and confinement, choosing instead to place 

youth in graduated sanctions programs that are responsive to the risks and needs of the delinquent youth. 

Expanding the Use of Alternatives to Secure Detention and 

Confinement Through Systems Change 

Strategically matching youth with needed programming requires a cross-system commitment to the 

objective assessment, classification, and placement of youth. Assessment and classification tools designed 

for this purpose require buy-in from multiple stakeholders in various youth-serving agencies. New publicpublic and public-private partnerships need to focus on the common goal of expanding the use of 

alternatives to detaining or confining youth. Jurisdictions must forge new relationships with program 

providers and other state agencies to ensure the delivery of a comprehensive continuum of care and to fill 

gaps in service delivery. Further, integrating new methodologies (e.g., objective classification and risk 

assessment instruments) into juvenile justice decisionmaking processes will rely on key systems change 

strategies, especially in the use of data and scientific research to structure those decisions. 

Four approaches are used to reduce the reliance on detention and secure confinement and to improve the 

overall conditions of confinement in secure facilities. These reform or systems change strategies can be 

categorized as— 

♦ Special program initiatives—often funded by federal, state, or local governments or private 

foundations—that entice jurisdictions to implement new alternative programs. 

3 
♦ New legislation that requires changes in current agency practices. 

♦ Administrative reforms, whereby an agency issues a new procedure designed to process youth in a 

manner that does not require additional funding or new legislation. 

♦ Litigation that either local interest groups or the federal government initiate to confront gross 

violations of juvenile offenders’ constitutional rights. 

Each approach has its own relative strengths and weaknesses in initiating systemic changes that affect the 

number of youth held in secure facilities. 

Special program initiatives are designed to test innovative approaches in a select number of highly 

motivated jurisdictions. Typically, the jurisdiction must be willing to craft a relatively small pilot program 

that delivers treatment services to youth who otherwise would be detained or placed in secure 

confinement. Absent the delivery of intensive treatment services, targeted youth will recidivate in 

increasing numbers. Jurisdictions implement special program initiatives most often for several reasons, 

the primary of which is they face little risk of failing on a large scale because the pilot efforts are 

relatively small. However, many structural problems that limit its ability to effect large-scale change are 

associated with this strategy. Usually, the amount of available funds is limited, which means that the 

number of youth who can be diverted from custody is small. Limited funding also means that high-quality 

and effective treatment services may not be delivered as promised. Further, when the special funds are 

exhausted, pilot programs are often discontinued. Even if the program proves to be successful, local 

conditions that provide incentives in one jurisdiction may not be present in others, making it difficult to 

simply export the model to other jurisdictions. 

Legislative reforms are, by nature, more systemic in scope and are less dependent on the use of treatment 

services as a condition of reform. In this approach, the state legislature—based on a perceived need for 

change—enacts new laws requiring the juvenile court or juvenile correctional agencies to alter current 

practices. In recent years, many states have implemented laws requiring youth adjudicated for certain 

offenses to be held for a specific period of time or to be tried and sentenced as adults—policies that have 

resulted in the increased use of detention and confinement. However, legislative reforms can also be used 

to depopulate juvenile correctional facilities and, in certain key areas, legislative reforms could be quite 

powerful. For instance, many jurisdictions allow adults in pretrial detention to be released on bail. In 

addition, adults are, by statute, credited for time spent in pretrial detention. Juveniles generally are not 

afforded these same options or credits, nor do youth generally receive time off for good behavior, which 

would reduce the length of their confinement after they have been adjudicated and committed to the 

juvenile correctional system. Legislative reforms regarding these policies could be a powerful tool in 

effecting a significant change in the reliance on confinement for juvenile offenders. 

Similarly, administrative reforms are rarely employed to effect reductions in confinement, but they 

could be extremely productive. Most states grant the juvenile correctional agency the authority to decide 

when to release youth from secure confinement. Internal policies and criteria based on agency priorities 

are developed to govern these decisions. The most attractive feature of administrative reforms, unlike the 

other approaches noted here, is that they do not necessarily require additional funding, staff, or other 

resources. 

Through its Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), the Annie E. Casey Foundation has 

invested significant resources in developing new administrative practices and alternative programs to 

reduce the use of secure detention.1

 Among the models developed were several administrative practices 

1

 Read the Foundation’s Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform for guidance on planning, executing, promoting, 

and sustaining juvenile detention reform (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2000). 

4 
that have proved to be quite successful in large jurisdictions struggling with a burgeoning detention 

population (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2000). Key reforms included establishing objective screening 

criteria and risk assessment instruments (like those described below) to limit the use of secure detention to 

high-risk cases; case processing reforms (e.g., new police referral procedures, 24-hour intake, reduction of 

attorney continuances, fast-tracking hearings, case expediters, increased automation) to speed caseflow 

and to ensure that youth are not held in detention unnecessarily; and alternatives to secure detention to 

reduce facility overcrowding and to lower operating costs. 

Litigation-based reforms are the most divisive and protracted means of achieving systems change. They 

often require both parties to invest in years of expensive investigation and negotiation to reach a 

settlement. Although consent decrees have been the vehicle for correcting conditions of confinement such 

as inadequate medical, mental health, and educational services, passage of the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act (PLRA) of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-134) has severely restricted this approach. The PLRA restricts 

litigation by prisoners and also curtails the involvement of federal courts in the operations of state 

correctional facilities. In some cases, however, litigation may be the only method to achieve systemic 

reforms. 

This Bulletin discusses in detail the model of integrating administrative reforms and special program 

initiatives such as those undertaken by the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s JDAI. In this model, an objective 

assessment of risk and a knowledge of programs that have been shown, through rigorous research, to be 

more effective than others in reducing recidivism and meeting the diverse needs among juvenile offenders 

should inform the choice among alternative programs. Specifically, two key companion approaches are 

required: (1) the development of objective, valid, and reliable tools to make placement decisions among 

these programs; and (2) the expansion of the existing range of program alternatives to ensure that 

evidence-based programs with varying levels of restrictiveness and types of services are available. Both 

approaches must coexist and be enhanced and sustained by ongoing training and development of new 

programs and public and private partnerships. 

Objective Classification and Risk Assessment 

Research has shown that approximately 54 percent of males and 73 percent of females arrested will have 

no further contact with the juvenile justice system (Snyder and Sickmund, 1999). Even without juvenile 

justice programming, most youth will have no further involvement in the system. The critical task is to 

target only those youth who need intervention services and to match them with the appropriate kinds and 

levels of programming they need, rather than to serve youth who are unlikely to commit another crime. 

In general, “classification” refers to the process of determining at what level of custody an offender 

should be assigned. “Risk assessment” refers to the process of determining an offender’s risk of 

reoffending, receiving technical violations, failing to appear before the court, or other negative outcomes. 

Classification and risk assessment play a vital role in determining the number and type of youth best 

suited for either diversion or release from confinement. Diversion programs have been criticized at times 

for expanding the use of sanctions for more minor offenses rather than decreasing the overall number of 

youth in secure settings. Some critics have claimed that diversion programs are often unable to attract the 

large number of candidates needed to reduce the size and costs of the detained and confined population 

(Austin and Krisberg, 1982; Austin, 2001). 

To guard against these problems, states should consider both the attributes of good risk assessment and 

classification instruments and how they can be used at different decision points when developing 

alternatives to detention and confinement. Without objective classification and risk assessment procedures 

and policies that have been tested to ensure their reliability and validity, it is extremely difficult for even 

the best-intentioned program to succeed. 

5 
The key attributes of objective classification and risk assessment instruments are: 

♦ They employ an objective scoring process. 

♦ They use items that can be easily and reliably measured, meaning that the results are consistent both 

across staff and over time as they relate to individual staff members. 

♦ They are statistically associated with future criminal behavior, so that the system can accurately 

identify offenders with different risk levels. 

The type of risk one is trying to predict can range from risk of failure to appear to risk of rearrest, to risk 

of probation or parole failures on technical grounds, to risk of institutional misconduct, to risk of escape. 

Classifying confined youth according to their propensity to escape or to commit violent or other serious 

acts while incarcerated is desirable. However, because these events are quite rare, it is often difficult to 

develop a predictive instrument. Types of risk vary—so, too, the criteria used to assess risk should vary. 

Therefore, more than one risk assessment instrument should be used, although they may share many 

common features. 

At times, the level of risk an offender presents becomes secondary to policy objectives and facility 

priorities. For example, an administrator might want to ensure that certain types of youth are not placed in 

a low-security setting regardless of their risk of escaping or committing violent crimes (e.g., sex 

offenders, high-profile inmates). In these situations, the classification system minimizes the potential for a 

highly publicized negative incident to maintain the integrity of the facility and correctional agency. 

Some states have yet to implement any form of objective classification system, some use an objective 

process at each decision point throughout the system, and some use objective classification instruments to 

guide certain decisions but not others. When thinking about which type of instrument to use, states should 

consider how different types of classification and risk assessment systems are appropriate for different 

decision points in the juvenile justice process (see figure). Key points include the initial detention 

decision, the decision to use dispositional alternatives (which may include commitment to a secure 

facility), initial classification, internal classification, and reclassification. At each decision point, an 

assessment instrument is needed to categorize offenders into the relevant categories, which depend on the 

objective at each point. 

Research and evaluations have shown objective classification and risk assessment systems to be both 

reliable and valid. The systems ensure that detained and confined youth are assigned to the most 

appropriate program considering public safety and their needs while permitting them to maintain close 

relationships with their families and communities when possible. If a youth is assigned to a secure 

facility, classification and risk assessment procedures help those in authority decide where the youth will 

be housed, with whom, and to which programs or services he or she will be assigned. Finally, as the youth 

nears release, classification and risk assessment tools should help staff to determine when and how the 

youth will be returned to his or her family and community. 

Classifying youth should not be arbitrary. To ensure that offenders are classified systematically according 

to risk level and program needs, specially designated classification staff must be given the authority to 

transfer and place youth. By understanding the attributes of the confined youth population and combining 

this knowledge with accurate population projections, juvenile correctional agencies can better estimate 

their future facility, staffing, and program needs, thereby structuring the facilities to meet the needs of 

confined youth. 

6 
Risk Assessment and Classification at Various Decision Points 

Youth enters the system. 

Youth is adjudicated. 

Youth is committed to a secure 

facility. 

Youth is transferred to an 

appropriate facility. 

Youth is transferred to a 

designated housing unit. 

Detention Decision 

• Straight release. 

• Day/evening reporting center. 

• Supervised release. 

• Electronic monitoring. 

• Home detention. 

Dispositional Alternatives 

• Probation. 

• Day/evening reporting center. 

• Residential placement. 

• Secure confinement. 

Initial Classification 

• Custody assessment. 

• Program needs assessment. 

• Facility designation. 

Internal Classification 

• Housing assignment. 

• Program assignment. 

Reclassification 

• Custody classification. 

• Internal classification (facility, housing, and 

programming; community programming). 

7 
The Process 

Detention risk assessment. After arrest, the first major decision is whether the youth should be detained. 

In most jurisdictions, the court makes this decision; in others, probation or detention agencies are 

authorized to determine whether detention is warranted. The initial decision is often reviewed and 

finalized in a formal detention hearing conducted shortly after a youth’s admission to a detention facility 

(i.e., within 72 hours). If a judge determines that continued detention is required, the youth remains in 

juvenile hall pending his or her adjudication and disposition. In general, most youth are detained for only 

a few days and the courts efficiently dispose of their cases. However, youth with more complicated or 

serious offenses, or those who are awaiting transfer to a commitment program, often remain in detention 

for weeks or months. When youth languish in detention facilities for a long period, they usually do not 

have access to the treatment, education, and vocational services that they need. 

Much like a pretrial release process in the adult system, an objective detention risk assessment system is 

needed for juvenile courts and correctional agencies to determine whether youth should be placed in 

secure confinement while awaiting adjudication and disposition hearings. The two major concerns in 

reaching such a decision are whether the youth will appear for court hearings and whether the youth is 

likely to commit additional crimes if released from custody. Such risks should be assessed through 

objective, valid, and reliable means. Secure detention can then be used sparingly. 

The factors to be considered in objective detention risk assessments (and in other classification and risk 

assessment instruments) can be separated into four categories2

: 

♦ Number and severity of the current charges. 

♦ Earlier arrest and juvenile court records. 

♦ History of success or failure while under community supervision (e.g., preadjudication, probation, 

parole). 

♦ Other “stability” factors associated with court appearances and reoffending (e.g., age, school 

attendance, education level, drug/alcohol use, family structure). 

Typically, jurisdictions construct an additive point scale to quantify the level of risk that each youth 

reviewed for release or detention presents to help decisionmakers ensure that low-risk youth charged with 

nonserious crimes are not placed in detention. Conversely, such instruments also serve to ensure that 

youth who pose a serious risk to themselves and others are not readily released without proper 

supervision. 

A number of jurisdictions use objective detention risk assessments to reduce the number of youth 

detained prior to formal adjudication. Sacramento, CA; Multnomah County, OR; and Cook County, IL 

implemented risk assessment instruments as part of their involvement with the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation’s JDAI. Administrators in Cook County, IL, for example, combined the use of a validated risk 

assessment instrument with an array of alternatives to detention for those youth who do not require secure 

custody. Immediately upon a youth’s arrest, on-call probation staff complete an objective detention risk 

assessment before the initial detention decision. The assessment’s numerical score produces a 

recommendation to either detain or release and, if release is recommended, the assessment outlines any 

special conditions that may be required. 

2

 These categories have been shown to have statistically significant relationships to recidivism among juvenile 

offenders (see, e.g., Johnson, Wagner, and Matthews, 2002; Hardyman, 1999). 

8 
These new programs and procedures ensured that law enforcement had additional options for dealing with 

delinquent youth. The implementation of this detention risk assessment system in the 1990s, which was 

part of the county’s larger effort to reduce crowding in its detention facilities, resulted in the effective 

diversion of many youth who previously would have been detained (Lubow, 1999). The number of annual 

admissions to the Cook County detention center was reduced by approximately 1,100 cases between 1995 

and 1997, with the rate of admission for detention referrals decreasing from 70 percent to approximately 

45 percent (Stanfield, 2000). A copy of Cook County’s Detention Risk Screening Instrument is presented 

in appendix A. 

A similar effort is now underway in Georgia where a comprehensive detention risk assessment system has 

been implemented as part of a memorandum of agreement between the state and the U.S. Department of 

Justice (resulting from a Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act investigation). Preliminary results 

indicate that the system has not had as much impact on the detention system’s crowded conditions as 

originally hoped. In contrast to Cook County, which significantly decreased crowding after recalibrating 

some of the items and category weights3

 (Stanfield, 2000), Georgia has not, to date, experienced those 

same decreases due to lack of complete buy-in from all stakeholders. Whereas a pilot test of the 

instrument showed it to be both valid and reliable, the state’s sporadic use of the instrument in all 

jurisdictions has limited its effectiveness. A copy of the instrument is provided in appendix B. 

Risk assessment to guide court dispositional alternatives. The juvenile court has wide discretion over 

who shall be committed to confinement and, in certain cases, the length of that sentence. Unlike the 

structured guidelines that the adult system has adopted, few jurisdictions have attempted to develop a 

structured mechanism to guide juvenile placement decisions among an array of dispositional alternatives. 

This is not surprising because most states have retained an indeterminate sentencing structure without 

guidelines. Nonetheless, states should, at a minimum, examine regularly the level of disparity in 

sentencing that may occur within their juvenile courts and try to minimize any differences through 

training and legislative reform. Systems change efforts may be required to leverage the power of both 

laws and policies to ensure sentencing decisions are free from bias and inconsistency. 

States that decide to develop placement guidelines for the juvenile court should base them on both policy 

considerations and empirical research. Using a consensus-building process, representatives from a crosssection of juvenile justice decisionmakers determine the items to be included, their relative weights, the 

severity ranking of current offenses, and which types of placement will be available to different types of 

offenders. Once validated, scores representing the risk to reoffend can be combined with a matrix 

identifying various placement options. Using such instruments, the court can suggest community-based 

alternatives for offenders with lower scores, while offenders with higher scores are considered for secure 

custody. 

Wiebush and colleagues (1995) highlight the benefits of the matrix approach—most importantly, that the 

two dimensions of risk and proportionality are derived separately (the former, empirically, and the latter, 

from a consensus-based process). This separation permits decisionmakers to make distinctions among 

youth who commit similar offenses but who differ in their risk to reoffend. Two examples of placement 

instruments are presented in appendixes C and D. 

External/custody classification. If a youth is assigned to secure confinement, staff should apply a 

specific classification instrument to establish custody level, thereby determining the type of facility to 

which the youth should be assigned. Some youth may require long-term placement in a maximum 

security facility, while others may be better suited to a short-term program with fewer security 

3

 Cook County changed the wording on some items and increased or decreased the number of points awarded for 

various items to ensure that scores on the instrument were statistically associated with risk. 

9 
restrictions. These decisions should be based on the seriousness of the youth’s current offense, prior 

system involvement, history of escape, and other factors shown to be related to the risk posed to public 

safety. In the detention risk assessment process, youth are sometimes placed in restrictive settings 

regardless of their level of risk because agency policy or state law requires it. The custody classification 

system strives to place the youth in the least restrictive custody level required to ensure the safety of staff 

and other youth. 

Custody classification has four essential components—initial screening, initial classification, 

reclassification, and program needs assessment: 

♦ Initial screening. Trained intake staff should screen youth immediately after their assignment to 

secure confinement. The most common type of screening instrument is a checklist with questions 

regarding the youth’s medical and mental health needs, substance abuse history, and other 

information that might indicate the need to place the youth in a special housing unit for further 

assessment and observation by medical, mental health, and classification staff. The major objective of 

this review is to ensure that youth with severe mental health, medical, and other management issues 

are identified so they can be separated from the general confinement population until a more careful 

assessment can been made. 

Initial screening is also important for detention facilities. As indicated earlier, the high volume of 

admissions and the relatively short length of stays reflect a detained population that is in constant 

flux. Because many youth only spend a few days in detention, often there is not enough time to secure 

all of the public records required for a rigorous classification assessment. 

♦ Initial classification. Classification staff determine a youth’s custody level using an initial 

classification form that includes standard risk factors for escape or institutional misconduct. Because 

many youth are experiencing their first admission to a custodial setting, initial classification places 

emphasis on the youth’s current offense, prior juvenile record, success or failure on probation, and 

various measures of community stability (e.g., age, school attendance, family structure). If the youth 

has been confined previously, his or her earlier institutional conduct should also play an important 

role in the initial assessment. A copy of Georgia’s initial classification form is provided in appendix 

E. 

♦ Reclassification. The reclassification form is used to reassess the youth’s initial classification 

designation through a review of his or her conduct during the first 60 to 90 days in a facility. 

Consequently, it places more emphasis on institutional behavior and less on the youth’s prior offenses 

and criminal history. Youth with the longest period of confinement will occupy the greatest 

proportion of a facility’s bed capacity and are most likely to be reclassified on a regular basis. 

Because most youth will not become involved in serious misconduct, the reclassification process 

allows youth with positive behavior patterns to be placed in lower custody levels and thus will 

conserve expensive high-security bedspace. A copy of Georgia’s custody reclassification form is 

provided in appendix F. 

♦ Program needs assessment. The final component of a custody classification system requires that 

each youth’s need for services and treatment be assessed in a more indepth manner than during the 

initial screening.4

 The resulting data are used to assign a youth to a facility, housing unit, or program 

that provides the most appropriate and most needed services commensurate with the youth’s custody 

level. For example, if a needs assessment reveals a youth’s heavy involvement with alcohol and/or 

drugs, his or her placement in a residential substance abuse treatment housing wing or program would 

be appropriate. Staff with expertise in mental health, education, vocational training, and medical care 

4

 The needs assessment looks for issues requiring long-term treatment, whereas the initial screening typically looks 

for issues that would put the youth in immediate danger (e.g., suicidal behavior, medical conditions). 

10 
should conduct the needs assessment process. In some systems, separate assessments are required to 

learn if the youth is eligible for special education services, has mental health disorders, or has other 

special needs that staff without specialized training may not have detected. Specialized assessments 

need to be reviewed and consolidated into a single comprehensive treatment plan under the direction 

of a caseworker or treatment committee. 

Internal classification. After the youth is assigned to a facility through external classification, internal 

classification should be used to determine where the youth will be housed and in which programs he or 

she will participate. The housing decision is critical, as many incidents that require staff to use force often 

stem from either an improper housing decision or lack of proper supervision. Most juvenile correctional 

facilities have self-contained housing units with one or more youth to a room and open areas in which 

large numbers of youth congregate to watch television, play card games, and engage in other recreational 

activities. It is in these environments that internal classification systems play a critical role. If 

implemented properly, the number of adverse incidents can be reduced. 

In making internal classification decisions, a number of factors should be considered. For example, 

physical size, history of mental illness, medical condition, and gang involvement are reasons to either 

separate certain youth from one another or house them in specialized units. It may also be useful to create 

special housing units that reward youth for good institutional conduct. A copy of Georgia’s internal 

classification form/housing matrix are provided in appendix G. 

Parole/community release and reentry. The last critical decision point to be governed by objective 

classification is the decision to release a youth from custody. This decision has gained greater attention on 

a national level under the rubric of “reentry” or “offender transition.” In some states (e.g., California, 

Illinois), a juvenile parole board makes the decision; in others, it is the judge’s decision. Elsewhere, the 

juvenile correctional agency has broad discretion about whom to release and when. The agency’s ranking 

of offense severity and risk of recidivism often governs this decision. The release decision is very similar 

to the detention risk assessment decision, as both are primarily concerned with risk to public safety. 

A number of jurisdictions use the same instrument to determine the level of community supervision that 

probationers and parolees need, typically modeled after the Model Case Management System (Baird, 

Sturrs, and Connelly, 1984; Wiebush et al., 1995). Using a set of eight items shown to have a statistical 

relationship to the likelihood of reoffending, the instrument distinguishes groups of offenders with 

different levels of risk, suggesting that different levels of community supervision are needed. A template 

for such an instrument is presented in appendix H. 

Common Attributes of Classification and Risk Assessment Systems 

The foundation of systems change relies on data and accountability. Criminal justice data are used, for 

example, in estimating the need for specific services among the at-risk population, projecting the number 

of eligible participants for a new program or service, and identifying an intervention’s effectiveness in 

reducing recidivism or attaining other long-term outcomes. Nowhere, however, is the need to rely on data 

more critical than in the development of objective classification and risk assessment instruments. 

Although common sense and professional experience may certainly guide the initial construction of the 

tools, the individual items and the weights used in scoring must be found to be statistically related to the 

targeted outcome (e.g., risk of failure to appear, risk to reoffend). Further, solid data and statistical 

relationships are at the heart of developing training modules to ensure the proper use of the instruments. 

Ensuring that two staff would classify a given youth in the same way and ensuring the integrity of 

override provisions are particularly critical. 

11 
Objective classification and risk assessment systems must allow for some level of discretion through the 

use of overrides. Any classification or risk assessment system will produce a substantial number of false 

positives (offenders who were predicted to recidivate but do not) and false negatives (offenders who were 

expected to succeed but do not). Consequently, staff must have the ability to alter, or override, the scored 

custody level based on their professional judgment and consideration of other factors that may not be 

related to risk. The danger is that overrides, if used excessively, can easily undermine consistent 

decisionmaking. Conversely, if overrides are underused, staff may not be exercising the appropriate level 

of professional judgment, which also serves to misclassify youth. 

The general standard is that 5 to 15 percent of the confined population should be classified based on an 

override and not the original classification score. Furthermore, override decisions should be balanced: 

half of the overrides should result in a lower custody or risk level and half should result in a higher 

custody or risk level. 

Override factors should be separated into two types—discretionary and nondiscretionary. The former 

reflects a decision by the classification staff to depart from the scored custody level. For example, if a 

youth is scored as minimum custody but the staff believes that he or she poses a higher risk to the security 

of the facility’s operations, the scored custody level can be overridden to medium custody. However, a 

supervisor must review and approve such overrides to ensure staff are using them in an appropriate 

manner. 

Nondiscretionary overrides, as their name implies, are mandatory and must be used in certain situations. 

For example, the agency may have a policy that all youth tried as adults or who will be transferred to the 

adult correctional system after reaching age 18 will never be classified lower than medium custody. 

Similarly, a jurisdiction may have a policy that youth adjudicated for serious sex offenses may not be 

placed in minimum custody until they are within 60 days of their scheduled release dates. 

Objective classification and risk assessment systems are important tools for ensuring that youth are placed 

in assignments that provide a level of supervision commensurate with the level of risk that the youth 

presents. Many youth can do well under community supervision or in community-based programs that 

avoid the negative consequences of secure custody (e.g., high program costs, separation from family and 

community). The key is selecting the youth who are appropriate for these alternative programs without 

jeopardizing public safety. Objective instruments, such as those described above, can provide a systematic 

method for placement in alternative programs and can guide the sensible use of expensive, secure-custody 

beds. 

Special Program Initiatives 

The second resource needed to decrease reliance on secure custody is an array of alternative programs 

that feature varying levels of supervision and types of services. In FY 2000, 16 states and territories used 

OJJDP funds to reduce their reliance on secure custody. Of these, seven states had done so from 1995 to 

2000. Funded program activities included victim and offender mediation and rehabilitation, workshops, 

peer courts, electronic monitoring, and home detention. Unfortunately, very few of these programs have 

conducted rigorous evaluations to measure their effectiveness. 

However, rigorous evaluation of a number of other programs that provide alternatives to secure custody 

have been shown to be effective. Because relatively few studies have been done on any one type of 

program, replication evaluations of comparable programs in different jurisdictions are clearly needed. In 

many cases, evaluation studies of a particular program type differ in the research methods and juvenile 

samples used (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998), making it difficult to compare results across sites even within 

the same program category. Finally, some programs have been evaluated soon after implementation. Such 

12 
evaluations must be treated with caution because, typically, some time after initial implementation is 

needed for a program to become fully institutionalized and to produce consistent results. As Lipsey and 

Wilson (1998) noted, programs more than 2 years old tend to produce larger positive effects on their 

clientele than newer programs. 

Examples of Alternatives to Secure Detention 

Several alternatives to secure detention are outlined here—from outright release to supervised release to 

residential programs. 

Outright release. Few published studies have examined directly or indirectly the effectiveness of 

releasing youth to their families prior to adjudication. A study from Kentucky reported that when court 

personnel strictly adhered to criteria for detaining youth, the number of youth released to their families or 

nonsecure residential alternatives was substantially increased. The result was a slight increase in the 

number of failures to appear before the court but no increase in rearrests prior to final case disposition 

(Kihm and Block, 1982). 

Supervised release. Youth judged too risky for outright release, either because they are unlikely to 

appear for adjudication or are likely to commit new offenses, can be placed on supervised release rather 

than in secure detention. Federal mandates to reduce the number of youth held in secure detention have 

fostered the development of various enhanced supervision programs aimed at youth considered too risky 

for traditional unsupervised release. The programs discussed below—home detention, electronic 

monitoring, intensive supervision, day and evening reporting centers, and skills training programs— 

provide more intensive supervision than ordinary probation, and many also provide services to help 

troubled youth and their families. 

♦ Home detention. In contrast to outright release, home detention requires offenders to remain at home 

during specified time periods: (1) at all times, (2) at all times except when in school or working, or (3) 

at night (curfews). Additional conditions such as drug testing may also be imposed. Youth who 

violate these conditions risk being placed in secure detention. Home detention programs vary in the 

intensity of contact between supervisors and youth, but contacts are more frequent (often daily) than 

in the case of traditional probation. Many, but not all, home detention programs use paraprofessional 

outreach workers in lieu of probation officers to both mentor and supervise youth. Home detention 

provides considerable cost savings compared with secure and nonsecure placements (Ball, Huff, and 

Lilly, 1988). 

Descriptive studies report high levels of success: most youth appear for adjudication and only a small 

proportion are returned to detention for new offenses. An evaluation of a program in Tuscaloosa 

County, AL, found that home detainees were no more likely to recidivate than a preadjudicatory 

group held in secure detention (Smykla and Selke, 1982). A study of seven different home detention 

programs, six of which provided counseling or other services in addition to supervision, found that 

most youth (71–89 percent) completed the programs without incident and appeared in court (Young 

and Pappenfort, 1979). Between 8 percent and 25 percent of the youth were returned to secure 

detention, mostly for violations of their conditions of release but very few (2–5 percent) for 

committing new offenses. In Ohio, 91 percent of youth detained at home did not reoffend, appearing 

in court for adjudication. A San Diego program reported a 97-percent success rate for home detention 

clients (Ball, Huff, and Lilly, 1988). 

♦ Electronic monitoring. Electronic monitoring, often used in conjunction with home detention, 

monitors an offender’s whereabouts via an electronic device attached to the wrist or ankle and by 

random phone calls to his or her residence. Electronic monitoring is intended to reduce the costs of 

13 
supervision, reduce institutional populations, allow the offender to remain in school while under 

supervision, and enhance the potential for rehabilitation by keeping offenders at home and in close 

contact with family members. Few published evaluations of electronic monitoring exist, even though 

such monitoring is widely used for juveniles (Cohn et al., 1997; Torbet, 1999). Some evidence does 

show that youth differ from adults in their response to electronic monitoring (Roy, 1997). Vaughn 

(1989) reviewed eight electronic monitoring programs. Most were used as alternatives to prehearing 

detention, four were used to supplement probation, and three were used for offenders released early 

from an institution. Failure rates in the programs ranged from 4.5 percent to 30 percent; most of the 

failures resulted from technical violations rather than new offenses. A study of youth detained at 

home in Lake County, IN, reported that those assigned to electronic monitoring had a higher program 

completion rate (90 percent versus 75 percent) and a lower recidivism rate (17 percent versus 

26 percent) than youth who were not monitored electronically (Roy and Brown, 1995). 

♦ Intensive supervision. Many intensive supervision programs (ISPs) function primarily as alternatives 

to confinement for adjudicated offenders (to be discussed later). But ISPs can also serve as 

alternatives to secure detention for juvenile arrestees. One model program is San Francisco’s 

Detention Diversion Advocacy Program (DDAP), an ISP that incorporates rehabilitative treatments 

tailored to offenders’ special needs. Parents, the public defender’s office, the probation department, 

and community agencies refer juveniles to DDAP. Among the referred youth, DDAP identifies those 

likely to be detained prior to adjudication, designs a release plan that includes a list of community 

services and specific objectives that DDAP will oversee, and presents this plan to the court. Offenders 

live at home or at a suitable alternative site in the community and meet with DDAP case managers a 

minimum of three times a week. Offenders’ families are also provided with needed services. 

An evaluation study that the Youth Guidance Center conducted in 1997 compared 271 DDAP clients 

with a random sample of 271 youth who spent at least 3 days in detention (Sheldon, 1999). Using 

various measures of recidivism and controlling for age, risk score, number of prior referrals, number 

of previous out-of-home placements, nature of prior offenses, and race, the center found that the 

DDAP group was significantly less likely to recidivate than the detained group. The overall 

recidivism rate for the DDAP group was about half that for the detained group (34 percent versus 60 

percent, respectively). Similarly large differences were found in recidivism involving violent crimes. 

DDAP success rates are even more striking because the DDAP group had a greater percentage of 

high-risk youth than the control group. 

Sheldon (1999) suggests a number of reasons for DDAP’s success: small caseloads, caseworkers’ 

freedom from bureaucratic restrictions of the juvenile justice system, the similar backgrounds of 

DDAP caseworkers and clients, and an emphasis on rehabilitative services coupled with specific 

goals to track clients’ progress. Any assessment of the program must consider that DDAP personnel 

selected DDAP clients, raising the possibility of selection effects on the outcome. DDAP case 

managers may have selected clients who were most likely to succeed in the program. It is thus 

difficult to determine how much of the program’s remarkable success is due to the clients selected or 

to the program itself, but if the positive results were largely due to the program, this would appear to 

be a model worth replicating elsewhere. Further details on the program are available in the OJJDP 

Bulletin, Detention Diversion Advocacy: An Evaluation (Sheldon, 1999). 

For additional information, contact: 

Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 


54 Dore Street 


San Francisco, CA 94103 


415–621–5661 


14 
415–621–5466 (fax)


or 


1234 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite C1009 


Washington, DC 20005 


202–737–7270 


202–737–7271 (fax)


cjcj@cjcj.org 


www.cjcj.org


♦ Day and evening reporting centers. Day and evening reporting centers are nonresidential programs 

that require offenders to report daily activities to case managers. They are a mechanism for enhanced 

supervision of offenders but differ from ISPs because they provide services such as drug treatment, 

job training referrals, life skills services, and counseling. Little research exists on juvenile reporting 

centers. 

One promising program model for juveniles is found in Cook County, IL, where minors charged with 

a probation violation or apprehended on a warrant participate 5 nights a week in county-funded 

evening reporting center programs. The goal of these programs is to prevent prehearing detention— 

the focus is exclusively on preventing delinquent behavior and ensuring that youth appear in court. 

Evening reporting centers operate from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. daily, and participants are involved with the 

program for between 5 and 21 days (generally, until their next court date). Youth participate in 

educational and vocational programs, counseling, recreational activities, and life development 

workshops (e.g., lectures on delinquency, local government, alcohol and drugs, and health issues; 

workshops on conflict resolution, employment, and parenting skills). Dinner is provided as an 

incentive for participation. Center staff work closely with home confinement officers and probation 

staff to transport youth to and from the program. Seven facilities currently handle about 25 youth 

each; the newest center targets families. The program evidenced a success rate of 92 percent from 

December 1995 to August 2001. Youth were determined to be successful if they were not rearrested 

while participating in the program. The average length of participation for successful youth was 21 

calendar days. As of August 2001, Cook County’s evening reporting centers have served 7,730 youth. 

For additional information, contact: 

Mark Morrissey, Deputy Chief Probation Officer 


Juvenile Probation and Court Services


Circuit Court of Cook County


1100 South Hamilton Avenue 


Chicago, IL 60612 


312–433–6569 


www.cookcountycourt.org/services 

♦ Skills training programs. One example of a nonresidential skills training program is Fresh Start, 

Baltimore, MD. Fresh Start was established to provide hands-on training and education for juvenile 

delinquents in the Baltimore area. The primarily voluntary program targets youth ages 16–19 who are 

convicted of nonviolent crimes and who typically come from low-income, high-crime neighborhoods. 

The 40-week program is designed to help youth learn practical skills such as carpentry and boat repair 

and to integrate education and employment experience. Fresh Start has recently partnered with local 

colleges so that program graduates can attend college-level courses at a reduced cost. In 2000, Fresh 

Start added a Workforce Development Center to its array of program services. Each Fresh Start 

graduate is assigned to a job retention counselor who helps the youth navigate common workplace 

15 
challenges. Approximately 90 males graduate from the program each year. Approximately 50 percent 

of those who enter the program complete all modules, and those who finish the first 8 weeks have an 

80-percent completion rate. Fresh Start tracks its graduates for 3 years after program completion. 

Graduates from 1997 to 2000 had a rearrest rate of 19 percent and a reincarceration rate of 7 percent, 

well below the rearrest rate of 75 percent that other Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice 

programs reported.5

 About 66 percent of the graduates were employed, and 15 percent continued their 

education (figures provided by Fresh Start). Currently, another Fresh Start program is being 

established in Washington, DC. Seventy percent of the funding comes from a contract with the 

Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice, and the remainder comes from philanthropic and corporate 

donations. 

For additional information, contact: 

Greg Rapisarda 

Fresh Start 

Living Classrooms Foundation 

802 South Caroline Street 

Baltimore, MD 21231 

410–685–0295 

202–479–6710, ext. 240 

410–752–8433 (fax) 

www.livingclassrooms.org 

Residential programs. Not all youth can reasonably or safely be returned to their homes, but neither do 

they warrant secure detention. Residential programs for youth awaiting adjudication are less studied than 

at-home alternatives. Young and Pappenfort (1979) analyzed foster home programs, detention homes, and 

programs for runaways that serve as alternatives to secure detention. Youth in these programs had 

negligible rates of new offenses while awaiting adjudication and low rates (10 percent or less) of running 

away. Many jurisdictions administer combinations of residential programs and various at-home 

alternatives. Lubow (1999) evaluated three JDAI programs that the Casey Foundation sponsored in Cook 

County, IL; Multnomah County, OR; and Sacramento County, CA. The programs combined home 

confinement, day or evening reporting centers, and temporary, nonsecure shelters. In all three sites, the 

alternative programs were implemented without sacrificing appearance-in-court rates or pretrial rearrest 

rates. In Cook County, for example, the failure-to-appear rate was reduced by 50 percent (Lubow, 1999). 

More recent data on the Cook County programs for youth served between January 1997 and August 2001 

indicate the completion rate6

 for program participants was 93 percent for home confinement, 92 percent 

for evening reporting centers, 94 percent for electronic monitoring, and 96 percent for nonsecure shelters 

(figures provided by Cook County Circuit Court). 

5

 See PEPNet’s Web site. 
 6

 Remaining free of arrest while in the program, not after release. 


16 
For additional information, contact: 

Mark Morrissey, Deputy Chief Probation Officer 

Juvenile Probation and Court Services 

Circuit Court of Cook County 

1100 South Hamilton Avenue 

Chicago, IL 60612 

312–433–6569 

www.cookcountycourt.org 

An example of a residential skills program that is not combined with an at-home alternative is the Gulf 

Coast Trades Center (GCTC), a private, nonprofit organization that has served troubled youth in the 

Houston, TX, area since 1971. GCTC serves youth ages 16–19 who are referred by the Texas Youth 

Commission or by a probation officer. The program provides education, job training, life skills planning, 

and aftercare programs. GCTC also runs the Youth Industry Program, which trains youth in carpentry 

skills, and the Raven School, which prepares students to take the General Educational Development test. 

Other youth are trained and permitted to work in the culinary arts, horticulture, automotive technology, 

desktop publishing, and secretarial positions. Recent evaluation results demonstrate that from September 

1999 through August 2000, 84 percent of the participating youth completed the program and 70 percent 

were employed when they left the program. In addition, 1999–2000 graduates had a 16-percent rearrest 

rate, compared with a rearrest rate of approximately 54 percent among all youth released from the Texas 

Youth Commission in 1999.7 

For additional information, contact: 

Thomas Buzbee 

Gulf Coast Trades Center 

143 Forest Service Road, #233 

New Waverly, TX 77358 

936–344–6677 

936–344–2386 (fax) 

gctc@gctcw.org 

www.gctcw.org 

Examples of Alternatives to Secure Confinement 

In the 1970s and 1980s, alternative programs for juveniles targeted status offenders and less serious 

delinquents. Since then, an increasing number of programs, including intensive supervision and home 

detention, serve more serious offenders along with status offenders and minor delinquents. Other 

programs, such as group homes, are specifically designed to accommodate the needs and risks of chronic 

or serious and violent offenders outside the walls of traditional correctional facilities. 

Diversion. Diversion takes place when law enforcement and court personnel exercise their discretion to 

keep individual youth from entering the court’s jurisdiction. This has long been an integral, and largely 

unstudied, part of the juvenile justice system. Diversion programs began to appear in the 1970s in 

response to concerns regarding deteriorating conditions in crowded juvenile institutions, federal mandates 

and funding, and legal action by youth advocates. Diversion programs divert youth from traditional forms 

of secure detention and confinement into a variety of alternative treatments and modes of supervision. 

7

 Figures provided by GCTC and found on the Texas Youth Commission’s Web site. 

17 
Generally, youth in diversion programs are not wholly removed from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court 

and its traditional sanctioning powers. 

Empirical studies of diversion conducted in the 1970s yielded mixed results: some studies found that 

recidivism was reduced, others found no positive effects on recidivism, and still others yielded mixed 

results (Stanford, 1984; Ezell, 1992). More recent studies of diversion (Rojek, 1986; Davidson et al., 

1990) have found significant effects in reducing recidivism. More compelling evidence of the efficacy of 

diversion is found when a diversionary philosophy is embraced on a statewide basis. In 1974, 

Massachusetts closed its training schools and developed a range of alternative community-based 

programs and small-scale secure facilities. An initial analysis of statewide data did not indicate lower 

recidivism rates for community-based clients than for training school offenders, but in areas of 

Massachusetts where community-based programs were implemented properly, with a diversity of 

programs available, recidivism among the youth in community-based programs decreased (Coates, Miller, 

and Ohlin, 1978). A later study of the Massachusetts system found that recidivism rates in the state were 

better than or equal to those in other states studied (Krisberg, Austin, and Steele, 1989). Utah closely 

replicated the Massachusetts example and, after the first year, experienced a significant decline in 

recidivism among serious and chronic juvenile offenders (Krisberg and Howell, 1998). The example of 

Massachusetts suggests that “what works” may not be any one particular alternative program but rather a 

variety of programs that can be drawn on to meet the different needs of a diverse population of juvenile 

offenders and their communities. 

Intensive supervision programs. ISPs are sometimes only nominally intensive. Some differ very little 

from traditional supervision, with intermittent contacts and surveillance. Some studies of ISPs find little 

difference in recidivism rates compared with either traditional probation or confinement (Greenwood and 

Turner, 1993; Murray and Cox, 1979), while other studies report lower recidivism rates for program 

youth or recidivism rates comparable to youth released from confinement, often at a lower cost (Barton 

and Butts, 1990; Fratto and Hallstrom, 1978; Wiebush, 1993). 

Sontheimer and Goodstein (1993) found that intensive supervision and aftercare paid off for serious 

juvenile offenders in Pennsylvania in that they were less likely to reoffend than offenders who received 

traditional probation. Studying a North Carolina project, Land and colleagues (1990) found that intensive 

supervision and aftercare reduced future offending more significantly among youth who committed less 

serious offenses—primarily status offenses (e.g., running away, truancy)—than did traditional 

supervision. In addition to concerns about the appropriateness of placing status offenders in an intensive 

supervision program, after 31⁄2 years, researchers also found no long-term difference in subsequent 

delinquency between youth assigned to intensive supervision and those assigned to traditional supervision 

(Land, McCall, and Parker, 1994). Whether an ISP is linked to appropriate rehabilitation services or is 

based simply on monitoring and control seems to influence an ISP’s chances of success (MacKenzie, 

1997). 

Several demonstration ISPs exist, including those in Wayne County, MI, and Lucas County, OH. Barton 

and Butts (1990) conducted a 5-year evaluation of three home-based ISPs in Wayne County, comparing 

juveniles randomly assigned to the home-based programs with similar groups of youth committed to state 

institutions. Recidivism rates, measured using official charges and self-report data, were comparable for 

experimental and control group youth. The latter were more likely to be charged with serious offenses and 

less likely to be charged with status offenses than the former. The controls were also likely to reoffend 

more quickly after release than the youth assigned to an ISP. 

Wiebush (1993) conducted a similar study in Lucas County, OH. This ISP involved small caseloads, 

frequent contacts with offenders, mandatory community service, involvement in treatment services, and 

control measures such as random drug tests and curfews. Wiebush compared youth in an ISP with those 

18 
paroled after release from a Department of Youth Services (DYS) facility. Both groups registered fairly 

high recidivism rates within 18 months of release—82 percent for the ISP youth and 83 percent for the 

DYS youth. No significant differences existed between the groups in rates for felony, misdemeanor, or 

status offense charges, but the ISP youth were significantly more likely to be charged with technical 

violations of probation/parole. 

An example of a successful intensive probation program that includes a wide range of services and 

programs for youth and their families is the Tarrant County Advocate Program-North (TCAP) in Texas. 

Started in November 1994, TCAP is funded by Tarrant County Juvenile Services. Approximately 50 

youth at a time participate in the 4–6-month program, which serves an average of 210 youth per year. 

Most are male (95 percent) and Hispanic (49 percent) or white (47 percent), and approximately 80 percent 

are involved with gangs. TCAP uses paid mentors or advocates to link youth and their families with 

community-based services. These advocates contact the families three or four times per week, tailoring 

the program to fit individual family needs. Program activities include counseling, job training, subsidized 

youth employment, vocational training, anger management classes, tutoring, community service 

restitution projects, character development courses, and parent education classes. During 2002, TCAP 

served 527 youth and their families; 385 families completed the program. Of these youth, 96 percent were 

successfully maintained in the community or were diverted from out-of-home placement or commitment 

to the Texas Youth Commission.8 

For additional information, contact: 

Belinda Hampton, Director 

Tarrant County Advocate Program-North 

112 NW. 24th Street, Suite 118 

Fort Worth, TX 76106 

817–625–4185 

817–625–4187 (fax) 

Community-based treatment and therapy. Multisystemic therapy (MST) has been introduced in at 

least 25 locations in the United States and Canada. As of 1998, more than $10 million has been spent 

researching its effectiveness. Designed to address multiple factors linked to juvenile antisocial and illegal 

behaviors, MST may be appropriate for youth with serious behavior disorders, including violent and 

chronic offenders who might otherwise be confined. MST youth remain at home and receive treatment 

focused on their interpersonal, peer, family, and school problems and needs. One goal is to promote 

parental supervision and authority. A review of research evaluating MST programs in a number of 

southern states showed decreased rates of recidivism among violent and chronic juvenile offenders 

(Henggeler, 1997). Available literature suggests that MST is one of the most effective treatments (Lipsey 

and Wilson, 1998; Krisberg and Howell, 1998; Cullen and Gendreau, 2000). 

Studies of violent and chronic juvenile offenders find that MST programs register between 25- and 70­

percent reductions in rates of rearrest and are also linked to decreases in youth’s mental health problems 

and improvements in family functioning (Mihalic et al., 2001). MST has been evaluated in multiple welldesigned clinical trials (Henggeler et al., 1998; Kazdin and Weisz, 1998; Thorton et al., 2000). These 

studies, conducted in Memphis, TN, and South Carolina, show that MST participation can have 

significant positive effects on juvenile offenders’ problem behavior (including conduct problems, anxiety 

withdrawal, immaturity, and socialized aggression), family relations, and self-reported offenses 

immediately after treatment. Fifty-nine weeks after referral, MST youth had slightly more than half as 

many new arrests than control group youth, spent an average of 73 fewer days incarcerated in juvenile 

8

 See Tarrant County’s Web site. 

19 
justice facilities, and showed reductions in aggression with peers. After nearly 21⁄2 years, MST youth were 

half as likely to be rearrested as control group youth. 

One promising MST program is the Family and Neighborhood Services (FANS) project in South 

Carolina. Operating out of a community mental health center, the project is based on the principle that 

multiple types of interventions (family, community, school, etc.) are needed for juvenile offenders. FANS 

assigned small caseloads to therapists who worked with juveniles and their families for an average of 4 

months. Caseworkers had frequent, often daily, contact with these families. Juveniles in the program had 

substantial offense histories, averaging 3.5 arrests and 9.5 weeks of confinement prior to program entry. 

In evaluating FANS, Henggeler, Melton, and Smith (1992) compared program youth with control group 

youth who were on normal probation and had similar offense histories. More than a year after the project 

began, significant differences were found between the FANS and control groups in the following areas, 

among others: absence of rearrest (FANS: 58 percent; control: 38 percent) and subsequent confinement 

(FANS: 20 percent; control: 68 percent). In addition, FANS youth experienced increased family cohesion 

and reduced aggression with peers, and the FANS program was judged cost effective, at about a fifth the 

cost of institutional placement. 

MST is a model program of the OJJDP-funded Blueprints for Violence Prevention project (see Mihalic et 

al., 2001). For additional information, contact: 

Marshall E. Swenson 

Manager of Program Development 

MST Services 

710 J. Dodds Boulevard 

Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 

843–856–8226 

843–856–8227 

marshall.swenson@mstservices.com 

www.mstservices.com 

Scott Henggeler, Ph.D. 

Family Services Research Center 

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences 

Medical University of South Carolina 

171 Ashley Avenue 

Charleston, SC 29425 

843–876–1800 

843–876–1808 (fax) 

heggesw@musc.edu 

Residential treatment. Community residential centers provide 24-hour supervision of offenders, usually 

nonviolent offenders. Studies in the 1970s of group homes found that they either performed better or no 

worse than state institutions in reducing recidivism. However, Lipsey and Wilson’s (1998) review of the 

literature found that teaching family homes (where a small number of delinquents live with supervising 

adults who focus on modifying behaviors) were effective in reducing recidivism. This type of program 

was one of only two interventions out of 83 studied shown to be consistently effective in reducing 

recidivism among institutionalized youth. Teaching family homes produced an approximately 30–35 

percent reduction in recidivism rates (juveniles not receiving treatment had a recidivism rate of 

50 percent). 

20 
Treatment foster care (TFC) programs use adult mentors and nondelinquent peers to isolate delinquent 

youth from the negative influences of criminally involved peers. Youth receive treatment and intensive 

supervision at home, in school, and in the community. TFC also provides services to the youth’s 

biological family with the ultimate goal of family reunification. TFC programs target youth with serious 

and chronic histories of delinquent behavior who are at risk of confinement. Evaluations have 

demonstrated that, compared with control group youth, TFC youth spent 60 percent fewer days in 

confinement over a 12-month period, ran away from the program three times less often (on average), and 

used drugs less often (Chamberlain and Mihalic, 1998). 

Another model program is VisionQuest. Founded in 1973, VisionQuest is a national program through 

which serious juvenile offenders spend several months in outdoor programs, such as wilderness camps, 

followed by 5 months in a residential home in the community. The group home component prepares 

youth for reintegration into their families and communities by formulating education goals, improving 

relationships with family members, and establishing plans for the future. As a multidimensional program, 

it is not possible to separate the effects of the outdoor program from the group home experience. 

Greenwood and Turner (1987) evaluated San Diego, CA’s VisionQuest by comparing program youth 

with offenders who had been incarcerated in a county correctional institution.9

 Although the VisionQuest 

group contained more serious offenders than the control group, offenders in the former were less likely to 

be rearrested during the year after release (55 percent versus 71 percent). After controlling for differences 

in group characteristics, the VisionQuest group were about half as likely to reoffend as the previously 

incarcerated group. 

For additional information, contact: 

VisionQuest National, Ltd. 

600 North Swan Road 

P.O. Box 12906 

Tucson, AZ 85732 

520–881–3950 

visionquest@vq.com 

www.vq.com 

Common Characteristics of Promising and Effective Program Initiatives 

The existing body of research suggests that, overall, community-based alternatives to secure detention 

and long-term confinement of juvenile offenders tend to be at least as successful in reducing recidivism as 

traditional detention and confinement. The literature evaluating various alternatives is uneven and mixed, 

but some general conclusions can be drawn regarding programs that appear to produce positive results. 

The most successful programs are based on interventions that are intensive (involving frequent contacts 

with offenders), sustained (involving continuous monitoring for a substantial period of time), holistic 

(covering several aspects of the juvenile’s life), and linked to serious rehabilitative services (Dryfoos, 

1990; MacKenzie, 1997). Krisberg and Howell’s (1998:360) survey of research concluded that 

“alternatives to secure confinement for serious and chronic juveniles are at least as effective in 

suppressing recidivism as incarceration, but are considerably less costly to operate.” They identified nine 

studies of community-based alternatives to confinement that appear to demonstrate that such alternatives 

perform well in reducing recidivism. However, only three of these studies used randomized experimental 

designs. 

9

 Although more recent data were unavailable at the time this Bulletin was written, a description of VisionQuest was 

included here because the program remains one of the most well-known and best regarded. 

21 
By contrast, programs that are unsuccessful in reducing recidivism include deterrence programs such as 

boot camps and “shock” probation programs (e.g., Scared Straight), and individual or group counseling 

sessions that lack clear plans to address offenders’ problems (Andrews et al., 1990; Dryfoos, 1990; Jensen 

and Rojek, 1992; Lipsey, 1992; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; MacKenzie, 1997). MacKenzie (1997) found a 

preponderance of evidence showing that the boot camp and shock types of deterrence programs either did 

not affect subsequent offending or actually increased recidivism. Similarly, most wilderness programs for 

juveniles have not been shown to effectively reduce recidivism. 

Results are mixed for intensive supervision, home confinement, and community residential programs: 

their success depends on the inclusion of appropriate rehabilitative services. Structured rehabilitative 

treatments focused on specific skills and behaviors appear to have beneficial effects regardless of where 

they take place. 

Lipsey’s (1992) meta-analysis of 443 studies of juvenile programs (both inside correctional institutions 

and in community-based environments) found that treatment programs that were employment- or 

behavior-oriented and that provided multimodal treatment were the most successful. His analysis also 

indicated that rehabilitative treatments in community settings reduced recidivism more effectively than 

treatments in custodial institutions, though Lipsey notes that further research is needed to sort out possible 

confounding factors. Lipsey classified studies into several “treatment modality” categories and 

statistically evaluated their effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Following are the categories in order of 

effectiveness, with the estimated percentage of recidivism rates for treatment and control groups, 

respectively: 

♦ Employment (32/50). 

♦ Multimodal (38/50). 

♦ Behavioral (38/50). 

♦ Skill oriented (40/50). 

♦ Community residential (42/50). 

♦ Release, probation/parole (45/50). 

♦ Reduced caseload, probation/parole (46/50). 

♦ Restitution, probation/parole (46/50). 

♦ Individual counseling (46/50). 

♦ Group counseling (47/50). 

♦ Other enhancement, probation/parole (47/50). 

♦ Family counseling (49/50). 

♦ Vocational training (59/50). 

♦ Deterrence programs (62/50). 

Lipsey and Wilson (1998) conducted an updated 1998 meta-analysis of 117 programs targeting serious 

offenders but found no significant differences in the effectiveness of treatment programs based in the 

community and those operating within institutions. However, this does not undermine Lipsey’s earlier 

finding regarding the possible benefits of community-based alternatives because he includes within the 

22 
“institutional” category residential treatment centers, group homes, and camps in addition to more 

traditional correctional facilities (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). 

Among the interventions for noninstitutionalized serious offenders, interpersonal skills training, 

individual counseling, and behavioral programs have consistently shown strong positive effects in 

reducing recidivism (Lipsey and Wilson, 1998). Multiple service programs and restitution ordered as the 

sole condition of parole/probation were less effective. Wilderness/challenge programs, early release from 

probation/parole, deterrence, and vocational programs were clearly ineffective. The effectiveness of 

academic programs, advocacy casework, and family counseling was unclear. Based on the 1998 analysis, 

recidivism figures for the most successful programs, compared with recidivism rates among the control 

group, were as follows: 

♦ Individual counseling (28/50). 

♦ Interpersonal skills (29/50). 

♦ Behavioral programs (30/50). 

♦ Multiple services (36/50). 

♦ Employment (39/50). 

Some important caveats should be borne in mind when evaluating findings in the literature on alternatives 

to incarceration, particularly with regard to reported recidivism rates for traditional correctional versus 

alternative programs. Many of the alternative programs, such as intensive supervision and day reporting, 

may result in greater scrutiny of offenders and, hence, higher rates of reported recidivism. This might 

account for the lack of significant differences found in some studies between these programs and more 

traditional approaches. Higher or similar recidivism rates for youth in alternative programs compared with 

youth in traditional detention and confinement may be, at least in part, a “program effect” rather than a 

substantive program weakness. For example, because ISPs impose greater supervision and often more 

constraints than traditional forms of probation, participating offenders have a greater number of technical 

violations and thus returns to correctional institutions. When combined with treatment programs and other 

services, however, evidence exists that recidivism is reduced (Parent et al., 1995). 

Another important issue is the extent to which program participants have been selected appropriately 

according to an objective assessment of risk and needs. As noted throughout this document, the way in 

which offenders are assessed and targeted has everything to do with the extent to which programs will 

produce quality outcomes and whether their cost effectiveness can be demonstrated. Unfortunately, not all 

alternative programs utilize quality risk assessment and classification systems, leaving them vulnerable to 

competing theories about the reasoning behind the outcomes produced. For example, if an ISP is 

determined to be effective in reducing recidivism but does not document the proper selection of program 

participants, it could be argued that the program simply accepted offenders who were not at high risk of 

reoffending to begin with. Thus, program integrity, and the quality and usefulness of outcome 

evaluations, depends on the certainty with which the program was delivered to its intended target 

population. The success of alternative programs rests on the careful selection of appropriate clients (via 

risk and needs assessment) and the delivery of sound programming that responds to the constellation of 

needs for services and supervision that individual youth present. 

Conclusion 

Despite recent decreases in juvenile crime, many jurisdictions continue to struggle with crowding in their 

detention and secure confinement facilities. In addition to the negative impact of crowding on the 

facility’s ability to deliver quality programming and to maintain safety and security, it is quite clear that 

23 
many youth do not require secure detention or confinement to ensure their appearance in court or to 

prevent future reoffending. To reduce their reliance on these types of programs, jurisdictions must 

develop and use objective assessment tools and make available a continuum of evidence-based programs. 

Current literature offers insight into the types of programs shown to be most effective in deterring 

juvenile crime and in addressing the root causes of delinquency. Most of these do not feature secure 

custodial settings but instead work with youth in the communities in which they live, go to school, and 

work. Further, the use of objective classification and risk assessment instruments at various decision 

points in the juvenile justice system has been shown to lead to the appropriate alternative placement of 

juvenile offenders without compromising public safety. These reforms can be achieved by several 

methods. Whether through new program initiatives or legislation-, administrative-, or litigation-based 

reforms, each jurisdiction bears the responsibility for enhancing its programmatic alternatives to meet the 

needs of the youth it serves. 

References 

Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., and Cullen, F. 1990. Does correctional 

treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology 

28(3):369–404. 

Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2000. Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. 

Casey Foundation. 

Arthur, L. 2001. Ten ways to reduce detention populations. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 52(1):29– 

36. 

Austin, J. 2001. Controlling Prison Population Growth Through Alternatives to Incarceration: Lessons 

Learned From BJA’s Corrections Options Demonstration Program. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 

Austin, J., and Krisberg, B. 1982. Unmet promise of alternatives to incarceration. Crime and Delinquency 

28(3):374–409. 

Baird, S.C., Sturrs, G., Connelly, H. 1984. Classification of Juveniles in Corrections—A Model Systems 

Approach. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Ball, R., Huff, C., and Lilly, J. 1988. House Arrest and Correctional Policy: Doing Time at Home. 

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 

Barton, W., and Butts, J. 1990. Accommodating innovation in a juvenile court. Criminal Justice Policy 

Review 4(2):144–158. 

Chamberlain, P., and Mihalic, S. 1998. Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Book Eight: Multidimensional 

Treatment Foster Care. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. 

Coates, R., Miller, A., and Ohlin, L. 1978. Diversity in a Youth Correctional System. Cambridge, MA: 

Ballinger. 

Cohn, A., Biondi, L., Flaim, L.C., Paskowski, M., and Cohn, S. 1997. Evaluating electronic monitoring 

programs. Alternatives to Incarceration 3(1):16–24. 

24 
Cullen, F., and Gendreau, P. 2000. Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. 

In Criminal Justice 2000, vol. 3, edited by J. Horney. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, pp. 109–160. 

Davidson, W., Amdur, R.L., Mitchell, C.M., and Redner, R. 1990. Alternative Treatments for Troubled 

Youth: The Case of Diversion From the Justice System. New York, NY: Plenum Press. 

Dryfoos, J. 1990. Adolescents at Risk: Prevalence and Prevention. New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press. 

Ezell, M. 1992. Juvenile diversion: The ongoing search for alternatives. In Juvenile Justice and Public 

Policy, edited by I. Schwartz. New York, NY: Lexington. 

Fagan, J. 1996. The comparative advantage of juvenile versus criminal court sanctions on recidivism 

among adolescent felony offenders. Law and Policy 18(1 and 2):77–113. 

Fratto, J., and Hallstrom, D. 1978. Conditional release and intensive supervision programs. Juvenile and 

Family Court Journal 29(4):29–35. 

Greenwood, P., and Turner, S. 1993. Evaluation of the Paint Creek Youth Center: A residential program 

for serious delinquents. Criminology 31(2):263–279. 

Greenwood, P., and Turner, S. 1987. The VisionQuest Program: An Evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND. 

Hardyman, P. 1999. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice External Classification System Users 

Manual. Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice and Corrections at The George Washington 

University. 

Harms, P. 2003. Detention in Delinquency Cases, 1990–1999. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Henggeler, S. 1997. Treating Serious Anti-Social Behavior in Youth: The MST Approach. Bulletin. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Henggeler, S., Melton, G., and Smith, L. 1992. Family preservation using multisystemic therapy: An 

effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical 

Psychology 60(6):953–961. 

Henggeler, S., Mihalic, S.F., Rone, L., Thomas, C., and Timmons-Mitchell, J. 1998. Multisystemic 

therapy. In Blueprints for Violence Prevention, edited by D. Elliot. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and 

Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder. 

Howell, J.C. 1995. Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent and Chronic 

Juvenile Offenders. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Jensen, G., and Rojek, D. 1992. Delinquency and Youth Crime. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. 

25 
Johnson, K., Wagner, D., and Matthews, T. 2002. Missouri Juvenile Risk Assessment Re-Validation 

Report. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

Kazdin, A., and Weisz, J. 1998. Identifying and developing empirically supported child and adolescent 

treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66(1):19–36. 

Kihm, R., and Block, J. 1982. Response to a crisis: Reducing the juvenile detention rate in Louisville, 

Kentucky. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 33(1):37–44. 

Krisberg, B. 1997. The Impact of the Juvenile Justice System on Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile 

Offenders. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

Krisberg, B., Austin, J., and Steele, P. 1989. Unlocking Juvenile Corrections. San Francisco, CA: 

National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 

Krisberg, B., and Howell, J. 1998. The impact of the juvenile justice system and prospects for graduated 

sanctions in a comprehensive strategy. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders, edited by R. Loeber and 

D. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Land, K., McCall, P., and Parker, K. 1994. Logistic versus hazards regression analyses in evaluation 

research: An exposition and application to the North Carolina Court Counselors’ Intensive Protective 

Supervision Project. Evaluation Review 18(4):411–437. 

Land, K., McCall, P., and Williams, J. 1990. Something that works in juvenile justice: An evaluation of 

the North Carolina Court Counselors’ Intensive Supervision Project, 1987–1989. Evaluation Review 

14(6):574–606. 

Lipsey, M. 1992. Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. 

In Community Crime Prevention: Does it Work? edited by D. Rosenbaum. New York, NY: Russell Sage 

Foundation. 

Lipsey, M., and Wilson, D. 1998. Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. In Serious and 

Violent Juvenile Offenders, edited by R. Loeber and D. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Lubow, B. 1999. Successful strategies for reforming juvenile detention. Federal Probation 63(2):16–24. 

MacKenzie, D. 1997. Criminal justice and crime prevention. In Preventing Crime: What Works, What 

Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

National Institute of Justice. 

Mears, D. 2001. Critical challenges in addressing the mental health needs of juvenile offenders. Justice 

Policy Journal 1(1):41–61. 

Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Elliott, D., Fagan, A., and Hansen, D. 2001. Blueprints for Violence Prevention. 

Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Murray, C., and Cox, L. 1979. Beyond Probation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

26 
Parent, D., Byrne, J., Tsarfaty, V., Valade, L., and Esselman, J. 1995. Day Reporting Centers. 

Monograph. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute 

of Justice. 

Puzzanchera, C. 2003. Juvenile Court Placement of Adjudicated Youth, 1990–1999. Bulletin. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Rojek, D. 1986. Juvenile diversion and the potential of inappropriate treatment for offenders. New 

England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement 12(2):329–347. 

Roy, S. 1997. Five years of electronic monitoring of adults and juveniles in Lake County, Indiana. 

Journal of Crime and Justice 20(1):141–160. 

Roy, S., and Brown, M. 1995. Juvenile electronic monitoring program in Lake County, Indiana: An 

evaluation. In Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s, edited by J. Smykla and W. Selke. 

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. 

Shelden, R. 1999. Detention Diversion Advocacy: An Evaluation. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Sickmund, M. 2002. Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2000: Selected Findings. Bulletin. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Smykla, J., and Selke, W. 1982. Impact of home detention: A less restrictive alternative to the detention 

of juveniles. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 33(2):3–9. 

Snyder, H., and Sickmund, M. 1999. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report. Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

Sontheimer, H., and Goodstein, L. 1993. Evaluation of juvenile intensive aftercare probation. Justice 

Quarterly 10(2):197–227. 

Stanfield, R. 2000. Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform Overview. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey 

Foundation. 

Stanford, R. 1984. Implementing the multigoal evaluation technique in diversion programs. In Juvenile 

Justice Policy: Analyzing Trends and Outcomes, edited by S. Decker. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Thornton, T.N., Craft, C.A., Dahlberg, L.L., Lynch, B.S., and Baer, K. 2000. Best Practices of Youth 

Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community Action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 

Torbet, P. 1999. Holding Juvenile Offenders Accountable: Programming Needs of Juvenile Probation 

Departments. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

Vaughn, J. 1989. A survey of juvenile electronic monitoring and home confinement programs. Juvenile 

and Family Court Journal 40(4):1–36 

27 
Wasserman, G., Ko, S., McReynolds, L. 2004. Assessing the Mental Health Status of Youth in Juvenile 

Justice Settings. Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Wiebush, R. 1993. Juvenile intensive supervision: The impact on felony offenders diverted from 

institutional placement. Crime and Delinquency 39(1):68–89. 

Wiebush, R., Baird, C., Krisberg, B., and Onek, D. 1995. Risk assessment and classification for serious, 

violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. In A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile 

Offenders, edited by J. Howell, B. Krisberg, D. Hawkins, and J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Wiebush, R., Wagner, D., McNulty, B., Wang, Y., and Le, T. 2005. Implementation and Outcome 

Evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Winner, L., Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D., and Frazier, C. 1997. The transfer of juveniles to criminal 

courts: Reexamining recidivism rates over the long term. Crime and Delinquency 43(4):548–563. 

Young, T.M., and Pappenfort, D.M. 1979. Use of Secure Detention for Juveniles and Alternatives to Its 

Use. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute 

of Justice. 

Acknowledgments 

James Austin, Ph.D., is the President of JFA Associates, LLC, in Washington, DC. Kelly Dedel Johnson, 

Ph.D., is Director of One in 37 Research, Inc., in Portland, OR. Ronald Weitzer, Ph.D., is a professor of 

sociology at The George Washington University in Washington, DC. 

This Bulletin was prepared under contract number OJP-2000-298-BF from the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention. 

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. 

NCJ 208804


28 
Appendixes 

A. 	 Cook County Juvenile Probation Department Risk Assessment Instrument 

Adapted from Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2000 

B. 	 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Detention Assessment Instrument 

Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

C. 	 Louisiana Office of Juvenile Services Secure Custody Screening Document 

Source: Wiebush et al., 1995 

D. 	 Indiana Juvenile Corrections Placement Matrix (Proposed) 

Source: Wiebush et al., 1995 

E.	 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Custody Assessment System: Initial Assessment 

Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

F. 	 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Custody Assessment System: Reassessment 

Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

G. 	 Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice Housing Assignment Matrix 

Source: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

H. 	 Juvenile Probation and Aftercare Sample Risk Assessment Instrument 

Source: Wiebush et al., 1995 

29 
Appendix A: Cook County Juvenile Probation Department 


Risk Assessment Instrument 


Screen Date: ____/____/____ Screen Time:_______a.m./p.m. Screener: _________________________________________ 

Youth Officer: ______________________________________ District: _____________________________________________ 

Minor Respondent: ______________________________________ DOB: _________________ Age: ___________________ 

Sex: M / F Race: White / Black / Hispanic / Asian / Other YD: ______________________________ 

Factor (Choose only one item per factor.) Score 

1. Most Serious Instant Offense_________________________ 

Automatic transfer cases 15


Violent felonies (murder, armed robbery with handgun, home invasion, ACSA, UUW-gun, agg.
 15 batt.—bodily harm, agg. vehicular invasion, agg. discharge of a firearm, agg. battery with a firearm)


Other forcible felonies (robbery, kidnapping, intimidation, CSA, hate crime, agg. batt., vehicular
 10 invasion) 

Other offenses


Felony sale of cannabis (class 1 or 2 felony amount), arson, DCS 10 


PCS w/intent to deliver, residential burglary, UUW (no gun), possession of explosives 7 


Felony possession of narcotics/drugs for sale or other felonies 5 


Misdemeanor possession of narcotics/drugs or other weapons possession 3 


Other misdemeanors 2 


Not picked up on new offense (warrant) 0 

2. Prior Court Referrals 

Prior IDOC commitment 7 

Prior court referral within the last 24-hour period 5 

Prior court referral within the last 7 days 4 

Six or more total court referrals within the last 12 months (# ) 2 

No court referrals within the last 12 months 0 


3. Past Findings of Delinquency-Closed Proceedings 

Past finding of delinquency on a violent felony 5 

Past finding of delinquency on a felony 4 

Past finding of delinquency on a misdemeanor (# of findings x 1 up to a total of 3 points) 1 / 2 / 3 


No past finding of delinquency 0 


4. Current Case Status 

IPS 6 

Probation (# ) Supervision (# ) Multiple Dispo Dates 5 

Probation (# ) Supervision (# ) Single Dispo Date 3 

Not an active case 0 

5. Petitions Pending Adjudication 

3+ petitions pending (# ) 3 

2 petitions pending 2 

1 petition pending 1 

No petitions pending 0 

6. Under Preadjudicatory Order of Home Confinement 4 

7. Warrant Cases 

Category 1: Mandatory detention 15 

Category 2: Nonmandatory detention 8 

8. Violation of Juvenile Electronic Monitoring 15 

Total Score ______ 

Decision Scale 

Score 0–9 Authorize Release (with notice of prioritized date for 5–12 conference) 


Score 10–14 Complete Nonsecure Detention Options Form


Score 15+ Authorize Detention (for minors age 13 and older) 


(Complete nonsecure custody options for minors younger than age 13 before placement in secure detention) 

Administrative Override (supervisory approval is required) 

No/Yes (reason) _____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Final Decision 

Detain Release Release With Conditions 
_____ 

_____ 

Appendix B: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

Detention Assessment Instrument ==================================================================================================== 

Youth’s Name: _______________________________________ DOB: ______/______/______ DJJ #: _____________________ 

Gender: 1. Male 2. Female Race: 1. White 2. African-American 3. Hispanic 4. Asian 5. Other:__________________ 

Worker: ________________________ County:________________ Date: ______/______/______ Time: ___________ a.m./p.m. 

==================================================================================================== 

The purpose of the Detention Assessment Instrument is to provide greater consistency and equity in detention decisionmaking. The 

criteria used reflect an emphasis on public safety concerns. The instrument helps operationalize the detention criteria specified in 

OCGA 15-11-18 and 15-11-18.1. Complete the assessment for all initial detention decisions. 

A. Reason for Detention Referral (check all that apply) 

1.__ New Offense Alleged 2. __ Court Detention Order/Warrant 3. __ DJJ Apprehension Order 4. __ Other:_________________ 

Point Value Score 

B. Detention Assessment 

1. Detention/Apprehension Order Status 

Current detention referral includes court detention order/warrant or DJJ apprehension order 15 


Current detention referral based on new charge only 0


 _____ 

2. Most Serious Current Charge __________________________________ __________________ 

(Offense name) (DJJ Offense Code) 


Class I: Aggravated sexual battery; agg. child molestation; agg. sodomy; armed robbery with


firearm; murder; rape; voluntary manslaughter


Class II: Agg. assault; kidnapping; att. kidnapping; att. murder; arson (1st and 2d degree); agg.
 15 battery; robbery; carry weapon to school; child molestation; highjacking; poss/sale of schedule I or II 

drugs 12 Class III: Escape by force or w/weapon; vehicular homicide; poss/sale of schedule III, IV, or V drugs; 

poss/use schedule I, II drugs; poss >100 lbs marijuana; 1st degree criminal damage; cruelty to 10 children 

Class IV: Escape; arson (3rd deg); burglary; invol. manslaughter; poss/sale/use >1oz but <100 lbs 8 marijuana; assault teacher 6 Class V: All other felony offenses 4 Class VI: All misdemeanor offenses 2 Class VII: Status or administrative offenses (technical violation of probation, DJJ placement, 0 parole/aftercare) 

No new charge; court detention order/warrant or DJJ apprehension order ONLY 

_____ 

3. Additional Current Charges 

Two or more additional current felony charges (actual #: ____ ) 3

One additional felony charge 2

One or more additional misdemeanor, or status offense, or VOP charges 1 


No additional current charges 0 


_____ 

4. Additional Charges Pending Adjudication 

3+ additional pending charges (actual #: ____ ) 3

2 additional pending charges 2 

1 additional pending charge 1 


No other pending charges 0

 _____ 

5. Prior Adjudicated Charges 

2+ prior adjudications for violent felony offenses (Class I - IV) 6

3+ prior adjudications for felony charges (actual #: ____) 5

2 prior adjudications for felony charges 4

1 prior adjudication for a felony charge 3

2+ prior adjudications for misdemeanor charges (actual #: ____) 2

1 prior adjudication for misdemeanor 1 

No prior felony or misdemeanor adjudications, but one or more adjudications for status offenses 1 


No prior adjudications 0


 _____ 

6. Prior Escapes, Runaways, or Failures to Appear 

Youth has had one or more court orders/warrants or DJJ apprehension orders for escape, runaway, 3 

or failure to appear (FTA) 


No prior court orders/warrants or DJJ apprehension orders for escape, runaway, or FTA 0


7. Current Legal Status 

Committed to DJJ as a designated felon 5

Committed to DJJ for a delinquent offense 3

On probation for delinquency or committed as a status offender 2 

On probation for status offense 1 


No current legal status 0 


8. Total Detention Assessment Score _____
____ 

____ 

____ 

C. Detention Decision 

9. Assessment-Indicated Initial Detention Decision 

Score Level Indicated Decision 

12 or higher 3 Detain 

8–11 2 Release to alternative program 

2–7 1 Release to parent, guardian, or other responsible adult 

10. Override to Indicated Decision (check override type and note applicable reasons) 

______ No override 

______ Detain pending court approval for alternative placement 

______ Mandatory court policy override (only as specified per DJJ-local court agreement) 

 Indicate applicable policy: ___________________________________ 

______ DJJ policy override (check all applicable items) 

Aggravating Factors (override to detention) Mitigating Factors (override to less restrictive placement) 

___ Explicit threat to flee if released ____ Multiple (“stacked”) charges from one incident 

___ Poss./use firearm during offense ____ Youth marginally involved in offense 

___ Actual/threatened mass school violence ____ No offenses in past 6 months 

___ Interstate case ____ Parent willing/able to provide close supervision 

___ Other: _________________________________ ____ Offense less serious than indicated by charge 

Aggravating Factors (override to detention alternative) ____ Other: _________________________________ 

___ Parents unwilling/unable to provide close supervision Override justification/explanation: 

___ Child may be in danger if returned home ________________________________________________ 

___ Intercounty case ________________________________________________ 

___ Other: _________________________________ ________________________________________________ 

11. Initial Detention Decision 12. Court Detention Decision (48/72 Hr Hearing) 

___ Detain Specify RYDC: ______________________ Hearing Date: _____/_____/______ ______ Not Applicable 

 (released initially) 

___ Release to alternative ____ Continue detention 


___ Contract Home


___ Intensive Super 
 ____ Release to alternative 


___ House-bound 
 ____ Contract Home


___ Other: __________________ 
 ____ Intensive Super 

 ____ House-bound 

___ Unconditional release ____ Other: ___________________ 

If released to alternative or unconditional, indicate to whom ____ Unconditional release 

released: 

If released to alternative or unconditional, indicate to whom 

Name: ___________________________________ released: 

Relationship: ______________________________ Name: _______________________________________ 

Address: _________________________________ Relationship: __________________________________ 

_________________________________ Address: _____________________________________ 

Phone: __________________________________ _____________________________________ 

Phone: ______________________________________ 
_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

Appendix C: Louisiana Office of Juvenile Services 

Secure Custody Screening Document 

Score 

1. Severity of Present Adjudicated Offense 

Level 0 felony = 10 Level 3 felony = 3 

Level 1 felony = 7 Level 4 felony = 1 

Level 2 felony = 5 All other = 0 

2. If Present Adjudication Involves 

Possession/Use of firearm = 2 

Multiple felonies = 2 

3. Number of Prior Adjudications 

Two or more felony adjudications = 2 

One felony or two or more misdemeanors = 1 

None = 0 

4. Most Serious Prior Adjudication 

Level 0 or Level 1 felony = 5 

Level 2 felony = 3 

Level 3 felony = 0 

5. For Offenders With Prior Adjudications 

Age at first adjudication: 

Age 13 or younger = 2 

Age 14 = 1 

Age 15 or older = 0 

6. History of Probation/Parole Supervision 

Offender currently on probation/parole = 2 

Offender with probation/parole revocation = 1 

7. History of In-Home/Nonsecure Residential Intervention 

Three or more prior failures = 3 

One or two prior failures = 1 

None = 0 

8. If the Offender Had a Prior Placement in OJS = 2 

9. Prior Escapes or Runaways 

From secure more than once = 3 

From secure once or nonsecure two or more times = 2 

From nonsecure once = 0 

Total Score 

Recommended Actions 

0–6 = Consider nonsecure placement 

7–8 = Consider short-term secure placement 

9 or more = Consider secure placement 
Appendix D: Indiana Juvenile Corrections 

Placement Matrix (Proposed) 

Offense Severity 

Risk Level 

High Medium Low 

Violent offenses Violent offender program; 

assaultive sex offender 

program; staff-secure 

residential 

Violent or sex offender 

program; staff-secure 

residential 

Boot camp; intermediate 

sanctions program 

Serious offenses Boot camp; staff-secure 

residential; job corps; 

intermediate sanctions 

program 

Intermediate sanctions 

program 

Intermediate sanctions 

program; day treatment; 

specialized group homes 

Less serious offenses Intermediate sanctions 

program; day treatment; 

specialized group homes 

Proctor program; tracking; 

community service 

Community supervision; 

community service; mentor 

Minor offenses Proctor program; tracking; 

community supervision 

Community supervision; 

mentor 

Mentor 
_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

Appendix E: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

Custody Assessment System: Initial Assessment 

I. Identification 

Name: __________________________________________________ DJJ ID#:_______________ SSN#:______________ 

Facility:__________________________________________________ DOB:_________________ Gender: Male / Female 

Race: Black/NH White/NH Other/NH White-Hispanic Black-Hispanic Other-Hispanic Am. Indian/Alaskan 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

II. Initial Assessment 

1.	 Severity of Current Charge/Adjudication 


 Superior court/Person-to-person offense with injury ........................................................................................................... 4


 Weapons offense/Person-to-person offense without injury ................................................................................................. 3


 Felony property/Drug-related offense ................................................................................................................................. 2


 Misdemeanor offense......................................................................................................................................................... 1


2.	 Type of Prior Institutional Commitments or Placements (include short term, RYDCs, YDCs, and out-of home placements)


Commitment to state youth development campus .............................................................................................................. 4


Prior short-term program ................................................................................................................................................... 3


Prior residential placement by court, DFACS, or DJJ.......................................................................................................... 2


Prior residential placement by parent/guardian or no prior out-of-home placements........................................................... 0


3.	 Number of Runaways/Escapes From Prior Placements

 One or more....................................................................................................................................................................... 2

 None .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0 

4. 	 Current Age 


 18 + ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3


15 to 17.............................................................................................................................................................................. 2


12 to 14.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1


 11 or younger..................................................................................................................................................................... 0


5.	 Severity of Prior Adjudications


 Superior court/ Person-to person offense with injury .......................................................................................................... 3


 Weapons charge/Person-to-person offense without injury.................................................................................................. 2


 Felony property/Drug-related/Misdemeanor offense........................................................................................................... 1


 Status/Traffic offense ......................................................................................................................................................... 0


6.	 Severity of Prior Institutional Misconduct Reports


Predatory major with injury, closed unit placements, and/or new charges filed ................................................................... 4


 Nonpredatory major .......................................................................................................................................................... 2


 Minor.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1


 None .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0


7.	 Number of Prior Authorized Institutional Misconduct Reports (during last 2 calendar years)


 13 or more ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3


7 to 12................................................................................................................................................................................ 2


2 to 6.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1


0 to 1.................................................................................................................................................................................. 0


Total Score _____ 
III. Custody Assessment (Circle the appropriate level.) 

Minimum 0–8 on Items 1–7 

Medium 9–13 on Items 1–7 

High 14 on Items 1–7 

IV. Mandatory Overrides (Circle all that are applicable. Explain below in comments.) 

Current superior court case Institutional predatory offense (rape, sexual/agg. assault)


Pending superior court case High-profile/Notorious case


Institutional referral to DA


V. Discretionary Override (Circle all that are applicable. Explain below in comments.) 

Poor institutional performance Protective custody 


Mental health risk Exceptional institutional performance


Suicide risk Medical needs ______________________________ 


Mental disability


VI. Recommended Custody Level (Circle appropriate level.) 

Minimum Medium High Special Management 

Signature: ___________________________________________ Date:_____/_____/_____ Time: ___________a.m./p.m. 

VII. Supervisor-Approved Custody Level (Approval required if override indicated. Circle appropriate level.) 

Minimum Medium High Special Management 

Supervisor Signature: ___________________________________ Date:_____/_____/_____ Time: ___________a.m./p.m. 

VIII. Comments 
_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

Appendix F: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

Custody Assessment System: Reassessment 

I. Identification 

Name: __________________________________________________ DJJ ID#:________________ SSN#:_______________ 

Facility: _________________________________________________ DOB:___________________ Gender: Male / Female 

Race: Black/NH White/NH Other/NH White-Hispanic Black-Hispanic Other-Hispanic Am. Indian/Alaskan 

Asian/Pacific Islander 

Date of Prior Assessment: ________________ Current level: MIN MED HIGH SM Room: ______________ 

II. Reassessment 

1.	 Severity of Current Charge/Adjudication 


 Superior court/Person-to-person offense with injury ........................................................................................................... 3


 Weapons charge/Person-to-person offense without injury.................................................................................................. 2


 Property/Drug-related offense ........................................................................................................................................... 1


 Misdemeanor, status, or traffic offense............................................................................................................................... 0


2.	 Type of Prior Institutional Commitments or Placements (include short term, RYDCs, YDCs, and out-of home placements)


Commitment to state youth development campus .............................................................................................................. 2


Prior short-term program ................................................................................................................................................... 1


Prior residential placement by court, DFACS, or DJJ.......................................................................................................... 0


No prior court-ordered out-of-home placements ................................................................................................................. 0


3.	 Current Age 


 18 + ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2


15 to 17.............................................................................................................................................................................. 1


12 to 14.............................................................................................................................................................................. 0


 11 or younger................................................................................................................................................................... –1


4.	 Severity of Prior Adjudications

 Superior court/Person-to-person offense with injury ........................................................................................................... 2

 Person-to-person offense without injury/Weapons/Drug-related offense............................................................................. 1 

Felony property, any misdemeanor, status, traffic offense.................................................................................................. 0 

5.	 Severity of Institutional Misconduct Reports


1+ predatory major report, closed unit placement and/or new charges filed during past 90 days ........................................ 6


1+ predatory major report, closed unit placement and/or new charges filed during past year.............................................. 4


1+ nonpredatory major report during past 6 months ........................................................................................................... 2


 1+ minor report during past 90 days ................................................................................................................................... 1


 None .................................................................................................................................................................................. 0


6.	 Number of Institutional Misconduct Reports During Past 90 Days


 13 or more ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3


7 to 12 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 2


2 to 6.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1


0 to 1................................................................................................................................................................................ –1


7.	 Performance on Behavior Management Treatment Training (BMTT)/Behavior Management System (BMS) 

 White status ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 

Pink or green status (level II or III)...................................................................................................................................... 0

 Gold status....................................................................................................................................................................... –2 

8.	 Treatment Plan Performance 


In compliance with 0–24% of performance goals................................................................................................................ 2


In compliance with 25–49% of performance goals.............................................................................................................. 1


In compliance with 50–75% of performance goals.............................................................................................................. 0


In compliance with 76–100% of performance goals.......................................................................................................... –1


Total Score _____ 
III. Custody Assessment (Circle the appropriate level.) 

Minimum 0–8 on Items 1–8 

Medium 9–13 on Items 1–8 

High 14 on Items 1–8 

IV. Mandatory Overrides (Circle all that are applicable. Explain below in comments.) 

Current superior court case Institutional predatory offense (rape, sexual/agg. assault)


Pending superior court case High-profile/Notorious case


Institutional referral to DA


V. Discretionary Override (Circle all that are applicable. Explain below in comments.) 

Poor institutional performance Protective custody 


Mental health risk Exceptional institutional performance


Suicide risk Medical needs ________________________________


Mental disability


VI. Recommended Custody Level (Circle appropriate level.) 

Minimum Medium High Special Management 

Signature: _____________________________________________ Date: ____/____/____ Time: ___________a.m./p.m. 

VII. Supervisor-Approved Custody Level (Approval required if override indicated. Circle appropriate level.) 

Minimum Medium High Special Management 

Supervisor Signature: _____________________________________ Date: ____/____/____ Time: ___________a.m./p.m. 

VIII. Comments 
Appendix G: Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice 

Housing Assignment Matrix 

I. Identification 

Name: __________________________________________________ DJJ ID#:________________ SSN#:________________ 

Facility: _________________________________________________ DOB:___________________ Gender: Male / Female 

Custody level: Minimum Medium High Sp. Mgmt. Age: _____ Height: _____ Weight: _____ Size: _____ 

Date of admission: ________________ Current housing type: Initial I II III Special 

II. Housing Assessment (Circle the category for each housing criteria that best describes the youth. For example, if the youth’s 

current charge is burglary, circle “Nonpredatory felony.”) 

Housing Criteria Type I Type II Type III 

Current offense Superior court—Person 

Person-to-person offense with 

injury 

Nonpredatory felony (weapon, 

property, drug) or 

misdemeanor 

Status/Traffic offense 

Age 18+ 13–16 Low through 12 

Most serious prior offense Superior court—Person 

Person-to-person offense with 

injury 

Nonpredatory felony (weapon, 

property, drug) or 

misdemeanor 

Status/Traffic offense/None 

Most serious prior institutional Predatory major disciplinary Major—Nonpredatory Minor/None 

misconduct during past 12 report 

months 

Number predatory institutional 

reports during past 12 months 

3+ 1–2 0 

Sexual behavior Predatory Nonpredatory Victim 

Medical Contagious No medical 

problems/Noncontagious 

Pregnant 

Placement/Housing Matrix 

Population Definition Housing Decision Room Selection 

Type I 1+ type I category Single room Single room 

1+ type I category but 30 days Double room after 30 days Type I 

free of major, person-toperson institutional 

misconduct report 

Type II Mix of type II or type III 

categories 

Dorm or double room Type II and type III 

Type III 4+ type III categories Single or double room Type II or type III 

Housing Selection Criteria: 

Match Age:	 Low–12 12–14 14–16 17+ 

Match Size:	 Above average—above average or average 

Average—average or below average 

Below average—below average 
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

III. Overrides 

Discretionary override, place in a single room. 

Pregnant Mental health 

Developmental disability/Delay Medical 

IV. Recommended Housing Category (Circle the appropriate housing category.) 

Type I 

Type II 

Type III 

Special housing: ____________________________________________________ 

JCO:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 Date 

Shift commander: 

Placement: 

 Unit Room Bed 

Comments: 
_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

_____ 

Appendix H: Juvenile Probation and Aftercare 

Sample Risk Assessment Instrument 

Select the highest point total applicable for each category: 

Score 

1. Age at First Adjudication 

16 or older = 0 


14 or 15 = 3 


13 or younger = 5 


2. Prior Criminal Behavior 

No prior arrests = 0 


Prior arrest record, no formal sanctions = 2 


Prior delinquency petitions sustained, no assaultive = 3 


Prior delinquency petitions sustained for assaultive offense = 5


3. Institutional Commitments or Placements of 30 Days or More 

None = 0 


One = 2 


Two or more = 4


4. Drug/Chemical Use 

No known use, or no interference with functioning = 0 


Some disruption of functioning = 2


Chronic abuse or dependency = 5


5. Alcohol Abuse 

No known use, or no interference with functioning = 0 


Occasional abuse, some disruption of functioning = 1 


Chronic abuse, serious disruption of functioning = 3


6. Parental Control 

Generally effective = 0 


Inconsistent and/or ineffective = 2


Little or none = 4 


7. School Disciplinary Problems 

Attending, graduated, or GED = 0


Problems handled at school level = 1 


Severe truancy or behavioral problems = 3 


Not attending/expelled = 5 


8. Peer Relationships 

Good support and influence = 0 


Negative influence, companions involved in delinquent behavior = 2 


Gang member = 4


Total _____