U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Report

Employment

and Training

Court-Involved

for

Youth

Employment

and Training

Youth

Court-Involved
Research and Program Development Division

develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile

delinquency; supports a program for data collection

and information sharing that incorporates elements

of statistical and systems development; identifies

how delinquency develops and the best methods

for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and

analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice

system.

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

enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel;

and private agencies, educational institutions, and

community organizations.

Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary

funds to public and private agencies, organizations,

and individuals to replicate tested approaches to 

delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in

such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders,

community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile

justice system.

State Relations and Assistance Division supports

collaborative efforts by States to carry out the

mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula

grant funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to States, local governments, and private

agencies; and monitoring State compliance with

the JJDP Act.

Information Dissemination Unit produces and distributes information resources on juvenile justice research,

training, and programs and coordinates the Office’s program planning and competitive award activities. Information that meets the needs of juvenile justice professionals

and policymakers is provided through print and online

publications, videotapes, CD–ROM’s, electronic listservs,

and the Office’s Web site. As part of the program planning and award process, IDU develops priorities,

publishes solicitations and application kits for funding

opportunities, and facilitates the peer review process

for discretionary funding awards.

Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes

interagency cooperation and coordination among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of juvenile justice. The Program primarily carries out this

responsibility through the Coordinating Council on

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an independent body within the executive branch that was

established by Congress through the JJDP Act.

Child Protection Division administers programs related

to crimes against children and children’s exposure to

violence. The Division provides leadership and funding

to promote effective policies and procedures to address

the problems of missing and exploited children, children

who have been abused or neglected, and children

exposed to domestic or community violence. CPD program activities include conducting research; providing

information, training, and technical assistance on programs to prevent and respond to child victims, witnesses, and their families; developing and demonstrating

effective child protection initiatives; and supporting the

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention

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

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

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

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

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

seven components within OJJDP, described below.

The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile

offending and child victimization. OJJDP accomplishes its mission by supporting States, local communities, and tribal

jurisdictions in their efforts to develop and implement effective, multidisciplinary prevention and intervention programs

and improve the capacity of the juvenile justice system to protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and provide treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of individual juveniles and their families.
i

Employment and Training for

Court-Involved Youth

Report

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

November 2000

The Task Force on Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth

Jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
ii

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.

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Daniel Marcus

Acting Associate Attorney General

Mary Lou Leary

Acting Assistant Attorney General

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This document was prepared under a purchase order to the Home Builders Institute from the Office of Juvenile

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

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

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

Cover photos copyright ©1997 PhotoDisc, Inc., and copyright ©1997 West Stock.
iii

Foreword

Although we must hold youth who commit status offenses and delinquent acts responsible for their behavior,

we also need to provide them opportunities to learn skills that can help them grow into productive, lawabiding citizens. One way to do this is to offer training and employment to these youth to help them successfully enter the labor market and thus reduce the likelihood of recidivism. It is especially important that we

provide this training to court-involved youth. However, this can be a challenge because of the lack of collaboration between those who specialize in employment and training and those who work with juvenile offenders.

Because we know there is a connection between joblessness and crime and between job preparation and earnings, it is crucial that we strive to overcome this lack of collaboration.

As a starting point, readers involved in one system or the other will find useful information in the two overview chapters, which discuss the structure of both the juvenile justice and workplace development systems.

This information can help practitioners and policymakers in the two systems begin to work together to design

and implement programs that connect court-involved youth to the labor market. The Report also discusses

effective strategies for linking these youth to the job market and describes exemplary practices and promising

programs currently serving court-involved youth. Four promising systems collaboration models, which successfully counter the obstacles and barriers that often limit the involvement of court-involved youth in labor

market activities, are also highlighted.

The Report grew out of the work of the Task Force on Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth.

Task force members included representatives from Federal agencies, universities, national organizations, juvenile justice and corrections associations, youth-serving programs, private foundations, and many other groups.

Together, they worked to develop strategies to help overcome the fragmentation of services and to reverse the

sometimes negative perceptions about juvenile offenders in the labor market. I hope the information in this

Report will help policymakers and practitioners meet the challenge of developing programs that successfully

prepare court-involved youth for future employment and successfully meet the requirements of employers and

industry. When that happens, the dividends for all concerned will be rewarding.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
v

Acknowledgments

The Task Force on Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth gratefully acknowledges the following

individuals and agencies that assisted in preparing this Report:

◆ The following staff of the Home Builders Institute: Dennis Torbett, Senior Vice President for Apprenticeship; Robin Hamilton, National Coordinator; Sarah Maxwell, former National Coordinator; Philip

Polivchak, President; Al Kamikawa, Senior Vice President; and Laura Ivey, National Coordinator, for

coordinating the Task Force and preparing supporting documentation for this Report.

◆ The National Association of Home Builders, for providing meeting space and supporting the Task Force.

◆ Jeffrey Greim, former Senior Program Officer with Public/Private Ventures (now an independent consultant) and Donna Walker James, Senior Program Associate with the American Youth Policy Forum, for their

research and writing for the chapter “Strategies and Promising Programs for Court-Involved Youth.”

◆ Andy Sum, Northeastern University and The Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies, for

statistical information used in the “Connections to the Labor Market” chapter.

◆ Gordon Bazemore, Principal Research Scientist for the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project, Florida

Atlantic University.

◆ David Altschuler, Principal Research Scientist, The Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies,

Intensive Aftercare Program.

◆ Michael Benjamin, Executive Director, Institute for Mental Health Initiatives, for information about learning styles of minority youth.

◆ David Brown, former Senior Policy Analyst, National Governors’ Association, for writing assistance

with the chapters “Overview of the Workforce Development System,” “Connections to the Labor Market,”

and “Systems Collaboration.”

◆ Sarah Ingersoll, former Special Counsel to the Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, for making the Task Force a reality and bringing to light the issues presented in this Report.
vii

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Court-Involved Youth: Description of the Target Population.......................................................... 3

Profile Information ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Factors Affecting Offender Status ................................................................................................................ 5

Issues Centered on Age ................................................................................................................................... 5

Overview of the Juvenile Justice System................................................................................................. 7

Components of the Juvenile Justice System ............................................................................................... 7

Prevention/Early Intervention ................................................................................................................... 7

Diversion..................................................................................................................................................... 7

Intake .......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Detention .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Waiver ......................................................................................................................................................... 8

Adjudication................................................................................................................................................ 8

Disposition .................................................................................................................................................. 8

Probation .................................................................................................................................................... 9

Residential Placement ................................................................................................................................ 9

Residential Programming........................................................................................................................... 9

Community Corrections ............................................................................................................................. 9

Aftercare ................................................................................................................................................... 10

Summary......................................................................................................................................................... 11
viii

Overview of the Workforce Development System ............................................................................ 13

Connecting Workforce Development to the Juvenile Justice System ................................................... 13

Overview of the Workforce Investment Act .............................................................................................. 13

Workforce Investment Act Formula Funds................................................................................................ 14

One-Stop Centers .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Youth Opportunity Movement .................................................................................................................... 15

Job Corps ....................................................................................................................................................... 15

Youth Apprenticeship.................................................................................................................................... 16

School-to-Work .............................................................................................................................................. 17

Connections to the Labor Market............................................................................................................. 19

Overview......................................................................................................................................................... 19

Labor Market Trends .................................................................................................................................... 19

Labor Market Issues for Youth .................................................................................................................... 20

Labor Market Issues for Court-Involved Youth ........................................................................................ 21

Issues Related to Residential Programs .................................................................................................. 22

Summary......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Strategies and Promising Programs for Court-Involved Youth ..................................................... 25

Principles Underlying Youth Connections to the Labor Market ............................................................ 25

Employer Involvement.................................................................................................................................. 25

Intermediaries ................................................................................................................................................ 26

Principles To Improve Youth Programs ..................................................................................................... 27

Academic and Work-Related Skills ......................................................................................................... 29

Age and Development .............................................................................................................................. 31

Long-Term Followup ............................................................................................................................... 31

Effective Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 31

Trust and Effective Adult Support .......................................................................................................... 32

Small, Familylike Settings and Positive Peer Relationships .................................................................. 33

Work-Based Learning .............................................................................................................................. 34

Programs for Court-Involved Youth ........................................................................................................... 35

Residential Programs ............................................................................................................................... 37

Aftercare Programs .................................................................................................................................. 40
ix

Systems Collaboration ................................................................................................................................... 41

The State Juvenile Justice System ............................................................................................................. 41

The State Workforce Development System ............................................................................................... 42

The Education System .................................................................................................................................. 42

Safety ........................................................................................................................................................ 43

Education in Residential Facilities .......................................................................................................... 43

Alternative Education .............................................................................................................................. 43

The Social Services System .......................................................................................................................... 44

Community-Based Support Systems .......................................................................................................... 45

Promising Systems Collaboration Models ................................................................................................. 46

YES: Youth Environmental Service Initiative ........................................................................................ 46

RIO–Y ...................................................................................................................................................... 46

RECLAIM Ohio ...................................................................................................................................... 47

CorpsLINK............................................................................................................................................... 48

Summary......................................................................................................................................................... 49

Steps for the Future........................................................................................................................................ 51

Improving Communication Between System Stakeholders ..................................................................... 51

Implementing Public Education Strategies To Improve Community

Understanding About Court-Involved Youth ...................................................................................... 52

Improving Community-Based Services ...................................................................................................... 52

Improving Residential-Based Services ....................................................................................................... 54

Bringing Individual Effective Programs to Scale ...................................................................................... 55

Appendixes

Appendix A: Members of the Task Force on Employment and Training

for Court-Involved Youth ...................................................................................................A–1

Appendix B: National Employment Trends ............................................................................................ B–1

Appendix C: State and Local Labor Market Information Contacts .....................................................C–1

Appendix D: State Workforce Investment Act Contacts ...................................................................... D–1

Appendix E: Additional Programs for Court-Involved Youth .............................................................. E–1

Appendix F: Juvenile Justice Glossary ................................................................................................... F–1

Appendix G: Employment and Training Glossary ................................................................................. G–1

Appendix H: Sources of Information....................................................................................................... H–1

Index.................................................................................................................................................................... I–1
1

Youth crime and the preparedness of court-involved

youth to enter the labor market are serious concerns

for the Nation. Although many promising and exemplary programs address the job-training needs of atrisk youth, court-involved youth face a unique set

of circumstances that require collaborative solutions.

Collaboration has been a challenge, because policymakers and program personnel who specialize in

employment and training and those who work with

juvenile offenders have not agreed about the relationship between programs that serve court-involved

youth and the labor market and the economy.

From February 1997 through July 1998, the Home

Builders Institute (HBI) convened the Task Force

on Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth, jointly funded by the U.S. Department of

Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), and the U.S. Department of Justice

(DOJ), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP). HBI serves as the educational

arm of the National Association of Home Builders,

one of the Nation’s largest trade associations. The

Task Force examined practices and problems affecting a range of disciplines. The Task Force sought to

develop an effective strategy for improving the skills

of court-involved youth to enable them to enter the

labor market and reduce youth crime and recidivism.

This Task Force met five times, with the goal of improving the delivery of employment and training

services for court-involved youth. The Task Force

consisted of individuals with diverse backgrounds,

experiences, and levels of policy and program involvement. Participants included representatives

from universities, national organizations, juvenile

justice and corrections associations, private not-forprofit community agencies, community-based organizations, State juvenile justice agencies, private

foundations, School-to-Work initiatives, youth service organizations, congressional offices, and Federal agencies. A full listing of Task Force members is

provided in appendix A.

This Report represents a compendium of the opinions and concerns of the Task Force members about

current conditions that affect court-involved youth

and identifies the most promising strategies for connecting court-involved youth to the labor market.

Recognizing the connections between joblessness

and crime and between job preparation and earnings, the Task Force examined labor market issues,

employment-centered programs, and system-level

requirements. A major concern was the impact of

negative perceptions about juvenile offenders in

communities, schools, and the labor market on successful workplace integration. The Task Force also

focused on the fragmentation of services, competition for funding, categorical funding, and the inability of systems to use resources collaboratively.

Challenges addressed by the Task Force included:

◆ Understanding the diverse needs of courtinvolved youth, taking into consideration gender,

race, culture, health, and mental health issues.

◆ Identifying the most promising mix of employment and training strategies to move courtinvolved youth into the mainstream.

◆ Defining the roles and responsibilities of the

agencies and organizations that work with courtinvolved youth.

◆ Recommending ways to move workforce development, juvenile justice, education, social services,

community-based support, and labor market systems toward collaborative solutions and effective

practices.

Introduction
2

The purpose of this Report is to engage policymakers

and juvenile justice and workforce development practitioners in working collaboratively to remove the

barriers that preclude court-involved youth from

participation in the workforce.

The Report includes three introductory chapters,

four chapters related to Task Force discussion areas,

and eight appendixes. These chapters and appendixes include:

◆ Court-Involved Youth: Description of the Target Population. The first chapter provides information about court-involved youth and the

challenges in developing programs and systems

that meet the needs of court-involved youth.

◆ Overview of the Juvenile Justice System. The

second chapter provides information about the

structure of the juvenile justice system for readers

who are not involved in juvenile justice.

◆ Overview of the Workforce Development

System. The third chapter provides information

about the structure of the workforce development

system for readers who are not involved in workforce development.

◆ Connections to the Labor Market. The fourth

chapter provides an overview of youth and the labor

market, including a discussion of labor market opportunities and workforce development issues.

◆ Strategies and Promising Programs for CourtInvolved Youth. The fifth chapter suggests strategies for linking youth in juvenile justice system

programs to the labor market and provides an

overview of the most salient issues related to

youth development, exemplary practices that can

be adapted from programs serving at-risk youth,

and information about promising programs currently serving court-involved youth.

◆ Systems Collaboration. The sixth chapter summarizes strengths and weaknesses of the juvenile justice, workforce development, education, social

services, community-based support, and labor

market systems that affect the delivery of services

to high-risk youth. In addition, the chapter provides examples of successful cross-system

collaboration.

◆ Steps for the Future. The seventh chapter provides recommendations and suggestions to assist

policymakers in more effectively meeting the

needs of court-involved youth for workforce

preparation.

◆ Appendix A: Members of the Task Force on

Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth. Appendix A lists the members of the Task

Force on Employment and Training for CourtInvolved Youth.

◆ Appendix B: National Employment Trends.

Appendix B presents lists of the 10 fastest growing occupations between 1996 and 2006 in terms

of percentages and total numbers.

◆ Appendix C: State and Local Labor Market

Information Contacts. Appendix C provides current contact information for State Occupational

Information Coordinating Committee resources.

◆ Appendix D: State Workforce Investment Act

Contacts. Appendix D provides current contact

information for State Workforce Investment Act

resources.

◆ Appendix E: Additional Programs for CourtInvolved Youth. Appendix E provides a compendium of additional programs that may be resources

for policymakers and program developers.

◆ Appendix F: Juvenile Justice Glossary. Appendix F defines key terms in the field of juvenile

justice to clarify their use in this Report.

◆ Appendix G: Employment and Training

Glossary. Appendix G defines key terms related

to employment and training to clarify their use in

this Report.

◆ Appendix H: Sources of Information. Appendix

H includes contact information for programs,

funding sources, and current initiatives in youth

development, policymaking, juvenile justice, education, and workforce development.
3

Three primary categories of youth are found in literature that addresses at-risk or high-risk youth:

◆ Those at whom primary delinquency prevention

programs are targeted: that is, those who have

not committed illegal acts but who have risk factors associated with the potential for delinquent

behaviors.

◆ Those on whom secondary prevention efforts are

focused: that is, those who are at risk of delinquent behaviors (e.g., because of drug and alcohol abuse, parental abuse and neglect, school

misconduct, and negative peer group associations) and who may have come in contact with

the juvenile justice system as nonoffenders (e.g.,

as victims of child abuse or neglect) or as status

offenders.

◆ Those who have committed delinquent acts and

on whom intervention programs are focused to

interrupt the progression of delinquent behaviors

and prevent recidivism.

The proceedings of the Task Force were focused on

“court-involved youth,” those who have committed

status offenses or delinquent acts. Delinquent acts

typically fall into three categories: crimes against

persons, crimes against property, and crimes related

to substance abuse.

Status offenses may include behaviors such as running away from home, truancy, ungovernability,

curfew violations, and underage drinking. Sometimes youth charged with this category of offense

are placed under juvenile supervision until the situation is resolved; however, most cases are treated as

child welfare cases.

Important characteristics vary within the population

of court-involved youth. These factors include:

◆ Age at onset of delinquent behaviors.

◆ Number of offenses.

◆ Severity of offense.

◆ Penetration in the system (previous levels of involvement with the juvenile justice system, e.g.,

diversion, home supervision, community corrections, or residential placement).

◆ Recidivism.

The level of severity of the delinquent behavior dictates which court-mandated sanctions (involving

placement, supervision, and restitution) are applied

and where jurisdictional control (i.e., local, State,

confined facility, or community corrections) is

placed. The number of previous offenses is typically

considered, especially for youth whose offenses

continue or worsen.

Profile Information

More than 2.8 million arrests of persons under the

age of 18 were made in 1997, representing about

9.3 percent of the U.S. population between the ages

of 10 and 17.1

 An estimated 2.6 million arrests of

persons under the age of 18 were made in 1998.2

The data provided below summarize statistics associated with these court-involved youth:

1

 These data were extrapolated in whole or in part from H.N.

Snyder and M. Sickmund, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999

National Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, 1999.

2

 Data for 1998 were adapted from H.N. Snyder, Juvenile Arrests

1998, Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, 1999.

Court-Involved Youth: Description of the

Target Population
4

◆ One in twenty arrests of juveniles in 1997 was for

a violent crime of aggravated assault, robbery,

forcible rape, or murder.

❖ One in eleven arrests of juveniles involved

youth under the age of 13.

❖ Sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds accounted for

48 percent of the arrests.

❖ Caucasians represented 71 percent of all juvenile arrests.

❖ African American youth represented 26 percent of all juvenile arrests.

◆ In 1998, Caucasians represented 55 percent, and

African Americans 42 percent, of juvenile arrests

for violent crimes.

❖ One in seven arrests was for an alcohol or drug

offense (i.e., drug abuse violation, driving under the influence, liquor law violation, or

drunkenness).

❖ In 1998, African American youth were involved in a disproportionate number of arrests

for murder (49 percent), forcible rape (39 percent), robbery (54 percent), aggravated assault

(37 percent), burglary (24 percent), larcenytheft (26 percent), motor vehicle theft (36 percent), weapons (32 percent), drug abuse

violations (32 percent), and curfew and loitering (27 percent).

❖ Caucasian youth accounted for 70 percent, and

African American youth 27 percent, of property crime arrests.

◆ Fifty-eight percent of those in formally processed

delinquency cases were adjudicated delinquent in

1996.

African American youth constitute a relatively high

proportion of court-involved youth, compared with

their proportion of the total youth population. This

circumstance pervades the juvenile justice system

at all levels, resulting in higher confinement rates

for African Americans than for other youth. This

imbalance is critical to discussions regarding labor

market attachment, especially given the continued

high unemployment rate of young African American males. The imbalance also has implications

for program development. Culturally sensitive

Characteristics of Court-Involved Youth

Some of the characteristics typically associated

with court-involved youth include the following:

◆ Lack of a stable family environment.

◆ Lack of a family support system or poor family

relationships.

◆ Abusive family relationships, including sexual

abuse.

◆ Lack of attachment to school and community.

◆ Poor school performance (e.g., low grade

point average, history of being retained, basic

skills at least two grade levels below expected

grade level, history of truancy, and persistent

tardiness).

◆ Poverty.

◆ Early parenthood.

◆ Negative peer group influences, including gangrelated behaviors.

◆ Early experimentation with illegal substances

(e.g., alcohol and drugs).

◆ Persistent alcohol and drug abuse.

◆ Involvement with the drug culture.

◆ Behavioral disorders (e.g., antisocial or asocial

behaviors and lack of self-control).

◆ Absence of positive adult role models.

◆ Limited social skills.

◆ Mental health issues.

◆ Poor self-esteem/underdeveloped sense of

self-worth.

◆ Delayed developmental stages.

◆ Health issues, including those related to sexual

activity.

◆ Poor communication skills.
5

programming must be a primary consideration for

program developers.

Offenders who begin their illegal activity early and

remain active for an extended period are more likely

to enter the adult (criminal) justice system than

youth whose delinquent behavior is limited to a few

incidents. The risk and public safety factors that are

associated with repeat offenders, especially repeat

violent offenders, also affect the extent to which

court-involved youth may participate in the

workforce.

Factors Affecting Offender Status

If a court-involved youth is charged with a subsequent violation of the law, he or she is considered a

recidivist. However, a youth may be given increased

sanctions or returned to a more secure environment

even without committing another crime if he or she

has violated the terms of a consent decree, probation, or parole. Some examples of these violations

include failure to appear for an appointment with

the probation or parole officer, find employment,

reenroll in school, or comply with treatment requirements (e.g., mental health or substance abuse counseling); chronic truancy; and/or reinvolvement in

gang-related or substance abuse behaviors. In some

instances these youth are placed under house arrest

or may be returned to a commitment facility.

In other instances, a youth may be charged with an

offense that was committed prior to the current one,

and this circumstance may result in a change in supervisory status of the youth. A new charge and its

subsequent disposition may have significant influence on the development of consistent treatment

plans and can reduce the likelihood of youth benefiting from or participating in education or vocational

preparation programs.

Adding to the complicated nature of charges and

jurisdictional control are family circumstances and

community support systems. An evaluation of these

factors often enters into placement decisions. Courtinvolved youth may be placed on probation, assigned

to a community corrections program, committed to

a secure residential correctional facility, and subsequently put in aftercare. Depending on the course of

action taken and the State in which it is taken, youth

and their families may find themselves embroiled in

the complexities of multiple systems, spanning executive and judiciary branches, county and State

levels of government, and juvenile justice, education,

and child welfare agencies. The complexity and

fragmentation of these systems tend to work against

the collaboration and coordination among multiple

agencies that are essential to consistent, efficient,

and effective interventions, such as those addressing

employment and education.

Issues Centered on Age

Age is another factor in working with court-involved

youth. Legally, the age at which the youth commits a

particular crime can determine whether the youth

falls under the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice

system or the adult (criminal) justice system. The

upper age limit of juvenile court jurisdiction in delinquency matters is defined by State statute. In most

States, the upper limit is 17. However, in 8 States,

the upper limit is 16, and in 3 States, it is 15. Further,

many States have provisions to treat youth as if they

were adults for specific violent crimes. For example,

in Vermont, youth as young as 10 can be processed

through the adult (criminal) justice system; in Montana, the age limit is 12, and in Georgia, Illinois,

Mississippi, and North Carolina, the age limit is 13.

The classification “youthful offender” often refers to

youth ages 18 to 25, who may be separated from

older adults in a correctional facility, but who fall

under the jurisdiction of the adult (criminal) justice

system. In some States (e.g., California), a youth may

be retained in a youth facility beyond his or her 18th

birthday, until the expiration of the sentence or until

the youth reaches the age of 24. In other instances,

youth may be administratively transferred from a

youth facility to an adult facility at the age of 18.

The age range of youth in juvenile facilities presents challenges for designers of workforce preparation programs, especially as age relates to labor

market involvement, program services, and systems

collaboration. Youth between the ages of 10 and 13

require significantly different sets of treatment and

skills programming than those between the ages of

16 and 17, regardless of the nature of the delinquent

acts for which the youth are confined.
6

Programming is further complicated by the varied

age limits for services within the education, workforce development, and social service systems. Most

public school K–12 education systems are mandated

to provide services until an individual attains a high

school diploma or until the individual reaches his or

her 21st birthday. Individuals are considered eligible

for enrollment in Workforce Investment Act (WIA)

youth services until they reach the age of 22. Further

information about WIA, which was to be fully

implemented in all States by July 1, 2000, is provided in the chapter “Overview of the Workforce

Development System.” Contact information is provided in appendix D. Many social service programs,

including those funded through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

and the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, use age 24 as the upper limit for eligibility

for youth services.

The implications of age disparities among the various systems and programs that affect court-involved

youth are discussed in later chapters of this Report.
7

Overview of the Juvenile Justice System

Juvenile justice statutes vary significantly among

States. Differences in age limits, jurisdictional control,

and the extent of sanctions for specific offenses create

confusion for those working with court-involved

youth. In most States, the juvenile justice system is

independent of the adult criminal justice system and is

typically administered by a State social service agency

(e.g., a human services agency in 23 States and a children and family services agency in 6 States). In 11

States, the adult corrections system administers juvenile justice.3

 Services provided through the juvenile

justice system have the dual purpose of rehabilitating

court-involved youth and providing for public

safety; the balance between the two goals varies by

locality. Personnel involved in the juvenile justice process include law enforcement personnel (police and

sheriff’s departments), intake and probation workers,

prosecutors, defense attorneys, juvenile court judges,

probation and social service workers, residential facility personnel, and aftercare workers. This chapter

describes common elements of juvenile justice systems

and those elements that may affect collaboration between the workforce and educational systems and

those seeking job training and employment for courtinvolved youth.

Components of the Juvenile

Justice System

Prevention/Early Intervention

Prevention or early intervention programs target

youth who display certain risk factors. Most

unsuccessful juvenile delinquency efforts have failed

because of their negative approach—attempting to

keep juveniles from misbehaving. Positive approaches that emphasize opportunities for healthy

social, physical, and mental development have a

much greater likelihood of success. Successful delinquency prevention strategies must be positive in

their orientation and comprehensive in their scope.4

Diversion

A significant number of youth are diverted from the

juvenile justice system, often into alternative programs. The programs can provide extra support,

guidance, and positive experiences to youth who

may be involved in status offending such as truancy,

violation of curfews, or underage drinking or in

minor delinquency such as vandalism.5

 Other programs directly target at-risk youth.

Early intervention and diversion services are designed to prevent further involvement in the juvenile

justice system. Youth receiving these front-end services are relatively young offenders, typically under

16 years old. These services attempt to involve

young offenders in healthy, prosocial activities and

relationships with peers and adults that will serve as

protective factors and curb their involvement in

further delinquent activity. Because these youth

pose a minimal safety risk to the public, these early

intervention services can be provided to youth in

their communities while they live at home.

3

 M. Sickmund, H.N. Snyder, and E. Poe-Yamagata, Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence, Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997.

4

 For more information on prevention, see J.C. Howell, ed.,

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent,

and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995, p. 11.

5

 Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997.
8

Intake

The court intake function is generally the responsibility of the juvenile probation department and/or the

prosecutor’s office. The responsible agency decides

whether to dismiss the case, to handle the matter informally, or to request formal intervention by the

juvenile court. About half of all cases referred to juvenile court are handled informally. If the juvenile successfully complies with the informal disposition, the

case is dismissed. If the case is to be handled formally

in juvenile court, the agency responsible for intake

files one of two types of petitions: a delinquency petition requesting an adjudicatory hearing or a waiver

hearing to transfer the case to criminal court.6

Detention

Juveniles may be confined in a secure juvenile detention facility for their own or the community’s

protection prior to a hearing. The initial decision

about detention is made by juvenile probation officers or detention workers. Once a court hearing is

held (usually within 24 hours of arrest), a judge

determines whether to continue the detention or

release the juvenile. The original detention may continue beyond the adjudicatory (trial) and dispositional (sentencing) hearings while a juvenile is

awaiting placement.

Waiver

Waiver petitions may be filed by the prosecutor or

intake worker when it appears that a case would be

more appropriately handled in criminal court. In

most cases, the juvenile court judge must make the

final decision to waive juvenile jurisdiction and

transfer the case to criminal court. In an increasing

number of States, the laws permit prosecutors discretion to file in either juvenile or adult (criminal)

court. As stated above, some States specify in statutes the conditions under which youth are to be processed through the adult (criminal) justice system.

Adjudication

Juvenile court proceedings are considered to be

“quasi-civil” rather than criminal, and they may be

confidential. Most often, juveniles enter pleas of

guilt. However, when they do not, an adjudicatory

hearing (similar to a trial in criminal court) is held to

determine whether the youth is responsible for the

offense(s) with which he or she is charged. This

determination is almost always made by a judge.

Only a few States allow juvenile cases to be decided

by a jury. If guilt is established, the youth is adjudicated delinquent (similar to being convicted in

criminal court), regardless of the offense. The youth

has the right to appeal to a higher court.

Disposition

Prior to a final disposition (similar to sentencing in

criminal court), the probation staff develops a disposition plan. The plan is based on an assessment of a

youth’s needs, available support systems and programs,

and community security. At the disposition hearing,

recommendations are presented to the judge, who then

decides the appropriate disposition (sentence).

Balanced and Restorative Justice

Many States have begun to develop and implement a new vision for juvenile justice: balanced

and restorative justice (BARJ). The BARJ model

seeks to balance offender accountability, public

safety, and competency development by helping

juvenile justice systems to become more responsive to the needs of victims, offenders, and the

community. Recognizing both victim and offender restoration as critical goals, BARJ utilizes

alternative sanctions such as community service

and victim restitution to engage youth and involve victims in the justice process. Achieving

these goals also leads to improved community

safety and quality of life.1

1

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative

Justice Model, Report, Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998; P.

Freivalds, Balanced and Restorative Justice Project (BARJ),

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

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996.

6

 Snyder and Sickmund, 1999, p. 97.
9

Probation

Probation is a disposition under which the court

conditionally releases the youth to the community in

the care and custody of a parent, guardian, or custodian under prescribed rules and conditions. In most

cases, the court’s rules and conditions are directed at

the youth to ensure public safety, and they follow a

course of treatment outlined in the probation

officer’s disposition plan. Examples of rules include

ordering a youth to complete drug counseling and

family therapy, pay restitution, and perform community service. In most juvenile courts, the length of

probation may be open-ended (indeterminate) or

specified. Depending on the severity of the offense

and other factors, probation officers have varying

levels of contact with the youth. Caseloads for probation officers are generally very high. Courts often

conduct review hearings to monitor the progress of

youth on probation and may terminate the probation

if all the conditions are met. An estimated 60 percent

of all youth who are adjudicated delinquent are

placed on formal probation.

Residential Placement

Approximately 30 percent of adjudicated delinquents are placed in residential facilities for specific

or indeterminate time periods. These facilities may

be publicly or privately operated (some States contract the operations to private vendors) and may

have secure, prisonlike environments or more open,

homelike settings. Youth may be confined at a distance from their home communities in larger Stateowned facilities (publicly or privately operated) or

in small residential facilities.

Depending on statutory provisions, the placement

and release decisions may rest with the State department of juvenile corrections, once the disposition

decision is made. In other instances, the judge retains jurisdiction and may make determinations

about placement and duration of confinement.

Residential Programming

Residential facilities monitor the presence and activities of assigned youth at all times. These facilities

serve delinquents who have been remanded by juvenile courts to the care of the State because of the

risk they pose to public safety and the severity of

their needs, and/or the nature and seriousness of

their offenses. These facilities are self-contained and

typically provide some level of rehabilitative services

for youth, including health, education, counseling,

recreation, and employment and training. The national average age of youth in residential facilities is

15.8, and the average length of stay is 157 days.

Historically, these facilities have been large “reform

schools” or “training schools,” housing up to 300

youth drawn from wide geographic regions of the

State. Starting in the 1970’s, some States opted to

eliminate or reduce their dependence on large facilities. Instead, they developed smaller, communitybased facilities serving 10 to 50 youth. These smaller

facilities typically allow youth to be placed closer to

their homes and to the communities to which they

will return upon release.

Community Corrections

With community corrections (including prerelease

centers, halfway houses, residential drug and alcohol

treatment facilities, restitution, and day reporting

centers), juveniles are required to adhere to the disposition plan, receive services, and be monitored by

a probation officer. In some settings, court-involved

youth reside at home or with a designated guardian.

In other community corrections models, youth are

placed in a community-based residential setting that

permits treatment flexibility consistent with the disposition plan (probation order). The disposition plan

specifies the education, training, counseling, and

support services required, in addition to restricting

the juvenile’s freedom and certain forms of behavior.

Some youth may be enrolled in prevention programs

that also serve at-risk youth or that are designed for

youth receiving aftercare services. Officers of the

court (e.g., probation or parole officers) are responsible for monitoring the status of the youth and ensuring compliance with court-ordered mandates,

including participation in education, vocational

training, community service, and treatment.

The community corrections approach is not new; it

has roots in the early social reform efforts in the

United States. The approach has been promoted

during the past 25 years in response to the ineffectiveness of traditional systems in reducing recidivism,
10

in stemming progressive involvement of youth in

delinquent behaviors, and in addressing the developmental needs of youth. Community corrections

programs recognize the importance of youth’s reconnecting to their communities and developing

consistent relationships with positive adult role models. These programs provide treatment interventions

that reflect the expectations of the community and

society. Current approaches to community corrections may apply the BARJ, Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), and/or Integrated Social Control (ISC)

models. For more information about these approaches, see sidebars on this page and on pages 8

and 11.

Aftercare

Planning for community reintegration should begin

as soon as the youth is committed to the system.

Most States require youth to undergo supervision

and treatment after release from an institution. This

requirement combines surveillance and participation

in reintegration activities consistent with the services provided in the institution. If the juvenile does

not comply with the terms of aftercare, he or she

may be recommitted either to the same facility from

which he or she was released or to another facility.

Aftercare includes the services that are provided to

youth in preparation for and following release from

Intensive Aftercare Program

The IAP1 model assumes that any attempt to lower

rates of recidivism among court-involved youth

must include intensive intervention strategies that

provide social control and services.2 The IAP model

recommends five principles of programmatic action.

Together, the principles establish a set of fundamental operational goals for IAP:

◆ Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community.

◆ Facilitating youth-community interaction and

involvement.

◆ Working with the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g., families, peers, schools,

and employers) to promote constructive interaction and successful reintegration of the youth

into the community.

◆ Developing new resources and support systems

where needed.

◆ Monitoring and testing the ability of the youth

and the community to deal with each other

productively.3

Data from IAP implementations demonstrate the

importance of the following elements:

◆ Consistent approach to family, peer, school, work,

and drug-involvement issues by all residential

and community-based youth aftercare programs.

◆ Effective development and implementation of

aftercare surveillance to reinforce youth participation in beneficial treatment activities.

◆ Diligent provision of overarching case management services, including:

❖ Risk assessment and classification to establish

youth eligibility.

❖ Individual case planning that incorporates

family and community perspectives.

❖ A mix of intensive surveillance, enhanced

services, and links to social networks.

❖ A balance of incentives, graduated consequences, and realistic, enforceable conditions.

1

 For more information about IAP, contact The Johns

Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies. See

appendix H for contact information.

2

 D.M. Altschuler and T.L. Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for

High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model, Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, 1994. 3

 Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994.
11

residential facilities. The youth remain the responsibility of the State juvenile justice agency and are still

in need of support services. After being incarcerated

for an extended period of time, it is often difficult for

youth to make a positive transition back to their

families and home communities. The structure and

positive supports of the residential facility are no

longer available to them, whereas the community

conditions and factors that contributed to their iniIntegrated Social Control

The Integrated Social Control (ISC) model integrates the central components of control, strain,

and social learning theories. It argues that the

combined forces of inadequate socialization,

strains between occupational and educational

aspirations and expectations, and neighborhood

social disorganization lead to weak bonding to

conventional values and activities in the family,

school, and community. Weak bonding can lead

youth to a delinquent lifestyle through negative

peer influences. The ISC model is a theory of

delinquency among the general adolescent

population and the applicability of its major factors to institution-bound youth should be considered carefully. For example, the model

assumes that involvement with the family keeps

adolescents from delinquent involvement.1

1

 B. Krisberg, D. Neuenfeldt, R. Wiebush, and O. Rodriguez, Juvenile Intensive Supervision: Planning Guide, Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, 1994, pp. 6 and 8.

tial delinquency remain intact. Ideally, aftercare

services are designed to provide adequate supervision and to create a wide range of healthy supports in

the youth’s home neighborhood that will enable the

youth to sustain and develop the prosocial attitudes

and behaviors acquired in the residential setting. In

this way, aftercare, early intervention, and community corrections services are similar in their attempts

to help youth become and remain involved in prosocial, developmentally healthy activities in their

home communities.

Summary

While prevention, diversion, residential commitment, community corrections, and aftercare are often discussed separately, together they are intended

to constitute a flexible continuum of sanctions and

care. Ideally, this continuum enables State and local

systems to provide the appropriate supervision and

rehabilitative services in the least restrictive setting,

while accounting for public safety.

Juvenile justice systems differ from State to State;

however, the basic process from arrest to aftercare is

similar. The varying age range of youth involved in

the system and different jurisdictional schemes make

it difficult to plan and implement workforce development programs. However, recent efforts to identify,

evaluate, and promote program models that work for

court-involved youth indicate that collaborative

planning among the systems that serve these youth

does make a difference. Disseminating these best

practices throughout the juvenile justice system,

workforce development system, and larger communities continues to be a challenge.
13

Overview of the Workforce

Development System

Connecting Workforce

Development to the Juvenile

Justice System

A major developmental task of adolescence is preparing for economic self-sufficiency in adulthood.

Successfully meeting this challenge requires youth

to develop many related skills. First, youth need to

learn how to be productive—how to set a goal and

devise and implement an action plan for attaining

the goal. Second, youth must develop an array of

academic, technical, and social skills to be effective

in work environments that are increasingly complex

and interdependent. Third, youth must connect to

the labor market by investigating and planning to

pursue possible career paths.

In support of youth developing these three skills,

many State juvenile justice agencies provide employment and training services to court-involved youth

as treatment activities integrated into the stages of

sanctions presented in the previous chapter. Unfortunately, the content and quality of these services

vary tremendously within and among State systems.

The variation is due, in part, to the disconnection of

the juvenile justice system, the State workforce development systems, and the Federal youth employment and training system, administered through the

Employment and Training Administration. One

mission of the Task Force on Employment and

Training for Court-Involved Youth is to bring these

two systems closer together and thereby improve

the quality of employment and training services for

court-involved youth. Other causes of variation in

the content and quality of employment and training

services include operational challenges that are indigenous to the juvenile justice system—the varied

needs of court-involved youth, public safety issues,

negative effects of being labeled “a court-involved

youth,” and the logistical impediments created by

out-of-community residential placements.

Five of the most common initiatives that affect youth

who are served through the workforce development

system are highlighted in the following sections of

this chapter. These include Workforce Investment

Act Formula Funds, Youth Opportunity Movement,

Job Corps, Youth Apprenticeship, School-to-Work,

and One-Stop Centers.

Overview of the Workforce

Investment Act

The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was enacted in

August 1998 to develop a more cohesive workforce

development system that will provide easy access to

services and information for individuals and businesses. State and local jurisdictions were required

to fully convert from the existing structure, under the

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), by July 1,

2000. WIA requires collaboration and systems-level

cooperation among diverse, federally funded workforce development initiatives that will result in the

following:

◆ Streamlining services through local one-stop service delivery systems.

◆ Empowering individuals to make career decisions

and select training programs that meet their needs

by establishing Individual Training Accounts.

◆ Providing universal access to one-stop services

through convenient physical locations.

◆ Increasing accountability through the establishment of core performance indicators.
14

◆ Creating a strong role for Workforce Investment

Boards and the private sector by ensuring business leadership and expanding the policy and

oversight role of the boards.

◆ Promoting State and local flexibility that focuses

on local and regional labor market needs.

◆ Improving youth programs by establishing youth

councils to link local labor market needs with community youth services and ensuring connections

between academic and occupational learning.

At the local and regional levels, four program areas

are supported by WIA:

◆ Adult programs, including Welfare-to-Work,

dislocated workers and trade, and adult training.

◆ Youth initiatives, including Job Corps, School-toWork, Youth Opportunities and year-round and

summer youth programs.

◆ Employer/labor services, including Bureau of

Apprenticeship Training, labor liaisons, and employer liaisons.

◆ Workforce Security services, including unemployment insurance (UI) and One-Stop/United States

Employment Services (USES Job Service).

Workforce Investment Act

Formula Funds

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 provides funds

each year to all States and localities in the United

States for separate adult and youth job training programs. These funds are distributed to States and local

areas through a formula based on unemployment and

poverty rates. The local recipients of these funds are

Workforce Investment Boards, which decide how the

funds should be used in their areas. The WIA legislation requires that these local boards establish Youth

Councils to oversee formula-funded youth programs.

These Youth Councils can include members of the

broader Workforce Investment Board, representatives

of youth service agencies and the school system,

employers, union leaders, parents, and former youth

program and Job Corps participants.

The WIA youth formula funds can be used for a

variety of activities to serve both in-school and outof-school youth ages 14 to 21. Each local area must

develop a service strategy for each youth participant

based on an individual assessment of basic skills,

occupational skills, prior work experience, aptitudes,

supportive service needs, and developmental needs.

The local area must have an array of services available for youth, including tutoring and dropout prevention, alternative schools, summer jobs, work

experience, occupational skills training, leadership

development, supportive services, adult mentors,

followup services for at least 12 months, and counseling that includes drug and alcohol abuse counseling and referral. These services can be provided by a

variety of agencies, including the public school system, community colleges, community-based organizations, and trade schools.

Youth ages 18 and older are also eligible for services

provided under WIA adult formula funds, including

individual training accounts to pay for vocational

training. Although applicants to WIA youth programs

must meet low-income eligibility criteria, applicants

for adult services do not need to show low-income

status.

One-Stop Centers

The Workforce Investment Act requires local areas

to develop a one-stop delivery system for employment and training services. The goal is to establish

One-Stop Centers that provide access to a wide

variety of services, including assessment and career

counseling, vocational training, job listings and

placement, unemployment compensation, vocational

rehabilitation, adult education and literacy, trade

adjustment assistance, the Job Corps, and other

education and training services.

One-Stop Centers are open to both adults and

youth, but services to youth who are not from lowincome families must be supported by funding

sources other than WIA. DOL considers One-Stop

Centers an important point of entry for youth to

obtain job training services. DOL expects that creative local programs will have youth entering employment and training services through several

different points, such as schools, sports programs,
15

Boys & Girls Clubs, and other community-based

organizations.

One-Stop Centers are important resources for youth

seeking employment. However, youth require a

menu of support and services different from those

typically provided to adult job seekers. In response

to the unique needs of youth, many jurisdictions

have established One-Stop Centers focused exclusively on youth workforce needs and involved with

the Youth Opportunity Movement. A unified

workforce development system that offers universal

access via One-Stop Center systems should both

provide customized services for each job seeker and

reflect standard youth development principles.

Youth Opportunity Movement

The Youth Opportunity Movement offers a way to

bridge gaps in services and break cycles that lead to

poverty and despair. Youth Opportunity grants are

available to qualifying communities (Empowerment

Zone/Enterprise Community-designated areas and

tribal/State-designated high-poverty areas). This

funding allows communities to establish one-stop

service centers where youth can access a wide range

of services and resources with an emphasis on building strong, communitywide, system-level partnerships. Although all youth between the ages of 14 and

21 are expected to benefit from this initiative, most of

the funds are intended to serve out-of-school youth

and other at-risk or high-risk youth populations.

Funds allocated under the Youth Opportunity Movement are expected to complement the Job Corps,

School-to-Work, and formula-funded youth programs.

The goal is to decrease the high unemployment rates

of youth residing in impoverished communities, thereby helping these communities to reduce crime, youth

gangs, illegal drug use, and welfare dependency.

Youth Offender Demonstration grants are also included as part of the Youth Opportunity Movement.

Funds have been made available to Workforce Investment Boards in selected areas of the country,

juvenile correctional facilities, and community-based

organizations to improve services for at-risk and

court-involved youth.

Job Corps

Job Corps is a national residential education and

training program for severely disadvantaged youth

ages 16 to 24.7

 The program prepares youth for

stable, productive employment and entrance into

vocational/technical schools, junior colleges, military

service, or other institutions for further education

and training.

Job Corps targets the most disadvantaged youth,

who face multiple barriers to employment. The program provides a comprehensive mix of services in an

integrated and coordinated manner. Students spend

about half of their time in basic education and about

half in vocational skills training.

Those who remain enrolled in Job Corps for longer

periods of time are more likely to earn a high school

equivalency diploma, finish skills training, and find

employment at higher wages than early dropouts.

During program year 1997, 80 percent of all Job

Corps students were placed in jobs or enrolled in

education programs. In 1997, more than 65,000 new

students entered the Job Corps.

Private and nonprofit sector organizations operate

87 Job Corps centers under contract with the U.S.

Department of Labor. The U.S. Departments of

Agriculture and the Interior operate 28 additional

job centers on public lands under interagency agreements with DOL.

Job Corps is offered as an open entry, open exit program and allows youth to receive education; training,

including community service projects; and job placement throughout the year. Although Job Corps services are not available in every community, the

program offers substantial opportunities for early

intervention/diversion and aftercare referrals based

on a residential work-preparation model. The Job

Corps program has received significant attention at

the national level for having components that benefit

court-involved youth. The 1994 Crime Bill provides

a funding avenue for States wishing to replicate

7

 For more information about Job Corps, contact the U.S. Department of Labor. See appendix H for contact information.
16

dormitories so enrollees and their children can

receive concurrent services.

◆ Job Corps involves business and industry

through mandated local advisory boards, national

industry support, and regular review and evaluation to ensure that programs reflect current industry practices and requirements.

◆ Job Corps assists youth who have completed the

program to find jobs in locations with strong markets or back in their home communities through

national training and placement contractors, thus

placing youth according to labor market needs.

National volunteer organizations support youth

during the admissions process and provide mentors during both enrollment and the adjustment

period following program completion.

◆ Job Corps has a zero-tolerance policy for violence

and drugs.

◆ Job Corps provides a readjustment allowance to

each youth who successfully completes the program.

The allowance can be applied to rent, transportation, or other essentials for independent living.

Youth Apprenticeship

Youth Apprenticeship programs engage young

people in work and learning settings with training

by skilled workers that may promote youth entry

into apprenticeship programs. Although the original

definition of an apprentice is one who enters into a

work agreement with an employer and works under

a master of a trade, apprenticeship has grown to include new definitions that are designed to strengthen

on-the-job training (OJT) for young, unskilled workers. Apprenticeship programs benefit court-involved

youth by replacing unhealthy peer attachments with

attachments to employers and coworker apprentices.

DOL defines apprenticeship as a training strategy

with the following possible characteristics:9

◆ Employers and others who can hire and train

individuals in the workplace may sponsor apprenticeships that combine hands-on worksite training

with related instruction.

9

 DOL’s Federal committee on apprenticeship, 1992.

Job Corps

Many Job Corps sites have established relationships with juvenile justice agencies, allowing

youth offenders to enter Job Corps programs

upon completion of residential treatment or

other sanctions. One example of cooperation is

in the State of New Jersey. An agreement exists

between the Edison, NJ, Job Corps and the 55-

bed State-run juvenile residential program that is

collocated at the Edison Job Corps site.1 These

agreements typically improve the chances of the

court-involved youth being accepted into Job

Corps. However, many residential youth, already

away from their families for an extended period

of time, prefer returning home rather than entering another residential program.

Based on statistics from 111 centers, the Job

Corps annual report for program year 1995 found

that 75 percent of participants became employed

or entered postsecondary education, the average

starting wage was $5.98, and 46 percent of participants obtained jobs related to their training.

Placement rates were higher for participants who

earned a GED and completed vocational training

than for those who did not. According to a study

in 1982, Job Corps had a larger impact on earnings than other training programs.2

1

 Until recently, the residential youth participated in

vocational programs in many different skill areas offered

to Job Corps residents. However, because funding was

insufficient to allow enough supervisors to accompany the

juveniles to all program sites, this practice of sending

youth to the Job Corps site has been discontinued.

2

 C. Mallar, S. Kerachsky, C. Thornton, and D. Long,

Evaluation of the Economic Impact of the Job Corps Program:

Third Follow-Up Report, Princeton, NJ: Mathematica

Policy Research, Inc., 1982.

theJob Corps model for court-involved youth.8

Significant features of the program are listed below:

◆ Job Corps is the only residential job training program that has childcare services and single-parent

8

 Crime Bill, Part R: Certain Punishment for Young Offenders,

1994.
17

◆ Needs of the workplace and industry dictate the

content and length of apprenticeship training.

◆ Federal and State regulations govern formal

apprenticeships.

◆ Credentials, such as certificates of completion and/

or journey-level status (indicating that one has

learned a trade), can result from apprenticeship.

◆ Apprentices learn by working directly under master

workers in their occupations.

DOL allows flexibility in defining apprenticeship:

apprenticeship jobs are accepted as placements for

court-involved youth if the jobs are recognized by

the employer, industry, or union or approved by

DOL’s Bureau of Apprenticeship Training (BAT) or

State apprenticeship councils (SAC’s). DOL recognizes the value of youth apprenticeship and encourages the development of apprenticeship programs

that allow youth to earn academic credit while learning trades or other occupational skills and working

in settings that allow them to apply these skills.

School-to-Work

Enacted in 1994, the Federal School-to-Work (STW)

Opportunities Act seeks to reduce the number of

youth who drop out of school or graduate from high

school without career direction, marketable skills,

and knowledge about workplace expectations. STW

is a joint effort of DOL and the U.S. Department of

Education.10 To receive Federal or State funds for

STW programs, local communities must form partnerships among employers, schools, and other community institutions, including local private industry

councils (PIC’s) and/or workforce development

boards, public employment agencies, and youth development and community-based organizations. The

local partnerships must seek to build comprehensive

school-to-work systems for all youth, including

those who are college bound, at risk, or dropouts or

who have disabilities. While promoted as a worker

preparation program and considered integral to the

workforce development system, STW is also an important element of recent school reform movements

that focus on high academic standards and improved

graduation outcomes, including enrollment in postsecondary education and employment. STW is

closely aligned with the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act, which focuses on high academic performance and supports State accountability and

assessment goals.

STW represents a new approach to learning, based

on the proven concept that education works best and is

most useful when students are able to apply classroom

learning to real work situations. STW participants

are expected to meet high academic standards and,

through an integrated program of school- and workbased learning, to be prepared to enter college and/

or the labor market upon completion of high school.

The STW system includes three core elements:

◆ School-based learning that includes blended academic and vocational training based on high

academic expectations and industry-defined

occupational skill standards.

◆ Work-based learning that involves youth in workplace settings for career exploration, work experience, structured training, and mentoring.

◆ Connected activities that identify work-based

learning opportunities, match students with employers, train mentors, and build other bridges

between school and work.

STW includes academic and work preparation programs, including vocational education, work-study,

Tech Prep, youth apprenticeship, internship programs, Junior Achievement, and other programs

designed to serve both students who are college

bound and those who are not. To reflect the comprehensiveness of the STW system, many States refer

to their STW initiative as the “school to careers” or

“education to careers” program.

The STW legislation provides seed money for development of STW systems by States and local partnerships. The legislation allows States and their

partners to link education reform, worker preparation, and economic development into a comprehensive system of workforce development. STW intends

to enhance existing efforts to prepare youth for

high-wage, high-skill careers that are responsive to 10 For more information about STW, contact the U.S. Department of Labor. See appendix H for contact information.
18

current and future economic conditions. As of September 30, 1998, all States had received funds to

implement statewide STW reform initiatives.

Although STW legislation does not provide for a

continuous funding stream, Federal STW funds can

be used by States and local partners to develop curriculums, support employer outreach, provide professional development opportunities for teachers,

purchase career exploration materials, and fund

employer-sponsored STW initiatives.

Successful STW initiatives exist in Oregon and Wisconsin. In Oregon, students must achieve a Certificate of Initial Mastery by the end of the 10th grade,

after which they begin either a college preparatory

program or one of a number of vocational or professional curriculums that emphasize applied academics, apprenticeships, or other School-to-Work,

experience-based education models.

In Wisconsin, 10th graders receive a gateway assessment of core competencies that are multidisciplinary

(i.e., reading, writing, science, and computation) and

performance based (i.e., problem solving, analytical

skills, and critical reasoning). School districts establish the technical preparation programs, whereas

youth apprenticeship is authorized through the

Wisconsin State Department of Industry, Labor,

and Human Relations.
19

Connections to the Labor Market

Overview

In the past 25 years, the Nation’s economy has

changed dramatically in response to technological

advancement and global competition. These changes

have profound implications for the labor market, the

American worker, and the workplace. The most critical challenge confronted by court-involved youth and

personnel who design and implement programs for

these youth is to effectively address issues related to

hiring and training the youth for the labor market to

meet employers’ and industry’s requirements.

Jobs are changing, employer expectations are rising,

and work requires higher cognitive skill levels than

ever before. The availability of unskilled jobs has diminished significantly because of technology and the

availability of cheap, unskilled labor abroad. The industrial and occupational composition of employment,

continuous technological changes in the workplace,

corporate restructuring and downsizing, growing diversity in the workplace, and the rising number of

immigrants to the United States have caused significant changes over the past two decades. International

competition has driven U.S. industries to improve

quality and to establish stringent new standards of customer service. Employers have responded to economic

pressures by downsizing, flattening organizational

hierarchies, eliminating layers of middle management,

outsourcing, and increasing the use of temporary, contract, and part-time workers. This increased use of

personnel supply companies, temporary agencies, and

part-time employees has lessened the need for and cost

of hiring unqualified full-time workers.

Labor Market Trends

In addition to changes in labor market needs, the

quality of labor is also changing. The new workplace

is characterized by movement toward efficient production systems, advanced technology applications,

and a skilled flexible workforce. Workforce trends

indicate that employment growth will continue at

a slower pace than in the past 10 years and will be

highly concentrated by industry sectors. Nationally,

the services and retail trade sectors are expected to

account for 16.2 million of the projected new jobs.

Business, health, and education services will account

for 70 percent of the growth in the service industry

sector.11 Local trends may vary from national trends.

Appendix B summarizes national employment

trends. State and local area employment data are

available from State Labor Market Information and

State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (SOICC) contacts; a contact list is provided

in appendix C.

These changes in the labor market demand that

workers possess a new set of skills, including higher

academic attainment; work readiness; generic, highperformance workplace skills; and adaptability. The

demand for workers with higher order skills exceeds

the supply of recent college graduates. In many parts

of the Nation, thousands of jobs that require technical skills, but that do not require a college degree, go

unfilled. Employers value employees who are ready

to work and have a strong work ethic, positive attitude, drive, and initiative. Work-based learning with

employer involvement in curriculum design and job

placement can also have significant positive consequences for court-involved youth—from providing

appropriate workplace skills to making connections

with real employers to providing an income during

11 H.N. Fullerton, Jr., 1996, Tomorrow’s jobs, in The 1996–97

Occupational Outlook Handbook, Bureau of Labor Statistics, retrieved December 16, 1996, from the World Wide Web:

Stats.bls.gov/oco2003.htm.
20

the learning process. Workforce skills development programs should offer youth services that

can address the specialized needs of courtinvolved youth (e.g., mental health or substance

abuse treatment).

The U.S. Secretary of Labor’s Commission on

Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) identified five

sets of competencies. Together, the competencies

constitute the basic skills set that contemporary

workers must possess. The competencies are listed

below:

◆ Resources: Identifies, organizes, plans, and

allocates resources.

◆ Interpersonal: Works well with others.

◆ Information: Acquires and uses information.

◆ Systems: Understands complex interrelationships.

◆ Technology: Works with a variety of technologies.

Workers without the required skills increasingly

will be relegated to lower paying jobs in less competitive industries and afforded an ever-narrowing

range of career options. The state of today’s

economy intensifies this problem. Although the

economy is robust, it does not provide the stability and job security enjoyed by earlier generations

of Americans. Workers can no longer expect to

spend their careers with one employer, within the

same occupation or industry, or even within the

same career field. To remain economically viable,

American workers must continue to upgrade their

skills and be prepared to adapt to evolving skill

demands. They need to become increasingly entrepreneurial, lifelong learners; to anticipate

change; and to continue to obtain education and

training to compete in the changing job market

and economy. Concurrently, as employers continue to outsource work and use independent contractors, more individuals will become part of the

contingent workforce.

Labor Market Issues for Youth

While the Nation’s overall unemployment rate

reached an all-time low in 1997, the unemployment

rate for youth remains high. In October 1997, the

adult unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, but the

unemployment rate for young workers (19 and under) was 15.3 percent. Although the unemployment

rate for African American youth declined significantly between 1992 and 1997, from 42.2 percent to

28.4 percent, it is still twice that of white youth and

six times greater than the national average.

In addition to showing higher unemployment rates

for youth, statistics indicate that the labor market is

relatively unfriendly to young workers in other respects. According to a study that compared young

workers between the ages of 17 and 24 with workers

over age 25,12 labor market entry is more difficult for

younger workers, the prevalence of part-time jobs is

greater, and jobs are more likely to be characterized

by low wages. Youth who want full-time work are

forced to work part-time over three times more often

than adults (7.2 percent versus 2.3 percent). Even

when they work full-time, youth are more likely than

their adult counterparts to make wages that are below

poverty level for a family of three. When taken together, youth experience these labor market problems

at a rate that is more than three times greater (48.7

percent versus 15.6 percent) than the rate for adults.

The decline in real earnings, which has continued for

more than 20 years, is another factor facing youth. In

1973, the median, real weekly earnings in the United

States reached $440 for men and $332 for women,13

a post-World War II peak. Since 1973, the constant

dollar weekly wages (accounting for inflation) have

fallen by more than 31 percent for men and 17 percent for women with full-time jobs. Young workers,

especially young men with no postsecondary schooling, have experienced the most severe deterioration

in their earning power. The steep decline in earnings

has lengthened the time many young adults require

to achieve economic independence and form their

own households, and it has placed many young

12 A. Sum, N. Fog, and N. Fog, Confronting the demographic

challenge: Future labor market prospects of out-of-school young

adults, in A Generation of Challenge: Pathways to Success for Urban

Youth, Baltimore, MD: Sar Levitan Youth Policy Network,

1997, pp. 14–44.

13 D. Rentner, J. Jennings, and S. Halperin, A Young Person’s

Guide to Earning and Learning, Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy and American Youth Policy Forum, data from

Bureau of the Census, Education Attainment in the United

States: March 1993 and 1992 (data for March 1992), 1994.
21

adults and their children at risk of poverty. In

summary, the data show that compared with adults,

young workers experience much higher unemployment levels and significant problems in finding fulltime work, and they are much more likely to earn

poverty-level wages if they find full-time employment.

The education level of youth is a significant factor in

their employability. Education level is correlated

with the following:

◆ Labor market success. Data indicate that individuals with less than 12 years of education have

an unemployment rate of 14.8 percent, whereas

those with high school degrees or GED’s have an

unemployment rate of 10.4 percent. Youth with

13to 15 years of schooling (1 to 2 years of postsecondary education or training) have an unemployment rate of 6.9 percent, and those with 16 or

more years of education (college degree or higher)

have an unemployment rate of only 3.9 percent.

◆ Ability to obtain a full-time job. Although 87

percent of college graduates (16 years of education or more) are employed in full-time jobs, only

36 percent of high school dropouts (less than 12

years of education) are similarly employed.

◆ Earnings. A comparison of earnings indicates

that only 11 percent of high school dropouts are

employed in jobs that pay $300 or more per week—

a good standard for determining poverty level—

whereas 64 percent of college graduates are in

jobs that pay more.

◆ Potential earnings. A worker with a high school

diploma or GED can expect to earn nearly

$212,000 more than a worker without either credential during his or her working life. An individual with a 4-year college degree can expect to

earn $812,000 more than a high school dropout

during his or her working life.14

Labor Market Issues for

Court-Involved Youth

The ramifications of labor market trends for courtinvolved youth are even more pronounced than for

the general youth population. The young adult (18

to 24 years old) labor force is expected to grow from

18.1 million in 1995 to 20.4 million in 2005.15 This

growth will generate increasing competition for entrylevel jobs, with a detrimental impact on courtinvolved youth. The lack of available jobs that have

the potential for high wages and career advancement

is a major issue for court-involved youth, especially

those with low education and few or no training

credentials. In fact, there is a strong association between increased competition, depressed wages, and

incarceration rates, especially among school dropouts.16 To address these circumstances, strategies

need to be developed to decrease unemployment and

underemployment rates of court-involved youth.

One of the biggest issues confronting policymakers,

program implementers, and social service providers

is limited data on the employment of court-involved

youth. However, some findings of the extensive research that has been conducted on the general population of youth workers may be applicable to

court-involved youth.

The most common academic profile of a courtinvolved youth reveals serious educational deficits.

The data indicate that the labor market penalizes

these youth for not completing school—with unstable employment and reduced earnings throughout

their working lives. In addition, court-involved

youth must overcome confidentiality issues or the

release of information on their court-involved status;

jurisdictional control of their “mobility” (especially

for juveniles who are remanded to State-operated

residential facilities distant from their home communities); and competition with other youth who are

atrisk (e.g., youth who are Welfare-to-Work

participants, teen parents, and high school dropouts

or who possess other at-risk characteristics).

In addition, juvenile justice system personnel who lack

knowledge of the labor market can contribute to the

lack of responsive treatment and skill development

programs for youth. On the workforce development

15 Sum, Fog, and Fog, 1997, pp. 14–44.

16 R.B. Freeman, Why do so many young men commit crimes

and what might we do about it? Journal of Economic Perspectives

10(1):25–42, 1996. 14 Rentner, Jennings, and Halperin, 1994.
22

side, employers and personnel who prepare individuals for the workforce may be reluctant to commit resources to court-involved youth. All these

factors increase the separation of court-involved

youth from the primary labor market.

Community and employer concerns about security

and safety are also significant barriers to the employability of court-involved youth. Some employers

resist hiring court-involved youth because they fear

losing their customer base. This is particularly true

of businesses that focus on service and require direct

contact between the worker and customer or where

work must be performed in customers’ homes (e.g.,

trade occupations such as plumbing, electricity,

renovation, and masonry/tile setting). It is also true

in fields where employees are directly involved with

customers’ children, as in childcare, or in settings

where customers’ personal belongings may not be

secured, such as hair salons, medical treatment facilities, hotels, and automotive repair facilities. Employers representing the manufacturing, wholesale

distribution, retail, and financial services industries

may also resist hiring court-involved youth because

of internal security and bonding requirements.

Issues Related to Residential Programs

There are several inherent aspects of residential

programming, in particular, that make it difficult to

provide quality job training and employment services

to youth residents. These factors are described below.

◆ The array of problems of youth in residential

care. The youth frequently perform below grade

level and find it difficult to interact prosocially

with others, especially in frustrating and/or stressful situations. These youth typically start with

relative deficiencies in both the “hard” basic education skills and the “soft” interpersonal skills that

are required to obtain and retain employment.

Also, as noted in the first chapter, “CourtInvolved Youth: Description of the Target Population,” the age range of residential youth includes

16, the age at which youth in most States can

obtain working papers. Therefore, quality residential employment and training programs must

provide a range of age-appropriate, work-based

learning experiences, both paid and unpaid, that

are consistent with child labor laws.

◆ Geographic isolation of residential facilities.

The isolation of many residential facilities makes

it logistically difficult either to bring appropriate

programming to campus or to transport the youth

off campus to where these opportunities exist. In

addition, the number of different neighborhoods

from which the resident youth are drawn makes it

difficult to develop individual training programs

tailored to the different labor markets the youth

will enter when they return home. Use of small,

community-based residential facilities reduces

these logistical problems.

◆ Public safety and risk factors. At the beginning

of their stay in a residential facility, youth generally are not permitted to leave the campus at any

time. Youth gain this privilege only after making

significant progress in their rehabilitative programs, typically during the final 4 months of an

average 8-month stay. When youth are allowed

off campus, they must be closely supervised by

juvenile justice staff. Juvenile justice officials and

staff tend to be very risk adverse and take every

possible precaution to ensure that the youth who

are allowed to leave the campus are both ready

Barriers to Participation in the Labor

Market by Court-Involved Youth

◆ Lack of basic skills.

◆ Low educational attainment.

◆ Poor workforce preparation.

◆ Poor social skills.

◆ Absence of peer and adult role models.

◆ Mobility and jurisdictional control.

◆ Disjointed treatment/aftercare/service delivery

plans.

◆ Low expectations by self and others.

◆ Negative peer influences.

◆ Security/safety risk.

◆ Negative perceptions by community/employers.
23

Reasons for Failure

For a range of reasons, workforce preparation

programs, when they do exist in juvenile justice

systems, often fail to effectively collaborate with

the labor market. In many cases, existing worker

preparation programs are not based on the realities of the labor markets within the youth’s State,

region, or local community. In other cases, the

juvenile justice system’s limited experience and

knowledge of labor market requirements may

limit court-involved youth’s understanding of

employer expectations. External barriers, such as

public opinion, age, and the lure of illegal “jobs,”

contribute to the difficulty of juvenile justice

workers engaging court-involved youth in labor

market activities. In addition, some juvenile justice programs do not take advantage of opportunities to reconcile “mandatory treatment” (e.g.,

academic programming, substance abuse treatment, and aggression reduction therapy) with

workforce preparation and community readjustment requirements or do not have adequate

program infrastructure to hold youth accountable through monitoring, counseling, and assistance to employers. Finally, because of scarce

resources, juvenile justice systems often cannot

afford to implement a cohesive marketing strategy targeted to economic development and

workforce preparation programs. Such a strategy

could educate employers and consumers about

court-involved youth as prospective players in

the labor market and as contributing members to

the economy and society.

for the privilege and closely supervised at all

times.

◆ Performance and perception. Employment and

training providers and prospective employers

have their own set of concerns that extend beyond

the issue of public safety. As a result, they are

sometimes hesitant to engage the juvenile justice

system and to work with youth, even when the

youth are carefully screened and well supervised.

Employment and training providers are increasingly paid under “performance” contracts that

reimburse them for placing their clients in jobs.

Because residential placements are transitional,

working with confined youth may not be a smart

business decision for employment and training

providers. The negative connotations that accompany the label “juvenile offender” may also discourage potential employers from hiring residents.

A solution could be to phase in training while

youth are in residence and during reentry.

Summary

While there may be no “quick fix” strategy, a longer

term sustained strategy that involves principles such

as local market surveys, employer involvement, transition services linked to juveniles’ risks and needs,

progressive education, and social and vocational

skill attainment may be effective. Policymakers and

program implementers should be aware of the constantly changing local labor market requirements

and supply needs. National data and trends may not

reflect the unique circumstances of a local community, and they may not result in responsive local

program development. All too often, occupations

that are in decline at the national level offer good

opportunities in select local labor markets, or skills

that are in demand nationally may not be needed in

all labor markets. Policymakers should know the

local labor market and focus on the most promising

jobs within that labor market to provide careerbuilding opportunities and, ultimately, high-wage

jobs. These factors make it imperative for the juvenile justice, social service, and workforce development systems to work together to create and

implement strategies that develop social and work

skills and provide adequate supervision to protect

community safety.
25

Strategies and Promising Programs for

Court-Involved Youth

Principles Underlying Youth

Connections to the Labor Market

According to a recent publication prepared for

Public/Private Ventures, a youth’s attachment to

work will influence his or her likelihood of success

in the labor market. It is critical that youth have the

following:17

◆ At least one adult who has a strong interest in his

or her success in the labor market.

◆ Awareness that the program has a strong and

effective connection to employers.

◆ Placement in a paid position as soon as possible.

◆ Understanding of the initial job placement as a

first step toward advancing career and income

potential. Placement activities must be viewed

as continuing efforts to establish a permanent

attachment to work.

◆ Recognition of the need for educational skills

and credentials and frequent opportunities to

improve these skills and credentials.

Two additional strategies are also critical to helping

court-involved youth connect with the labor market:

◆ Early and continuous involvement by employers

in the lives of court-involved youth.

◆ Use of intermediaries to provide links to services

and monitor the partnerships between providers

of youth programs, youth, and employers.

Employer Involvement

A recent review of crime prevention programs funded

by the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that

any successful program aimed at increasing labor

market participation in order to decrease crime

“must connect a community or individuals to the world

of legitimate work so that residents will have the

proper incentives to acquire the necessary human

capital needed for success in that world.”18

Employers are essential to creating an attachment

between court-involved youth and the labor market.

Employers can provide critical information about

local and regional labor market needs and worker

preparation requirements, and their strong involvement can also help court-involved youth connect

with treatment plans, academic pursuits, vocational

training, and the labor market. The use of employers

as mentors, role models, and community advocates

provides an alternative route to facility-community

transition and reintegration for youth who are released from incarceration. Employers can help identify community service projects—both residential

and community-based—that provide opportunities

for restitution and community visibility. Employers

may also involve youth in trade and business association activities; promote participation in treatment,

education, or training programs offered by other

employers; and inform youth of other employment

opportunities.

Employer involvement in designing work-based

learning curriculums and activities also ensures that

the skills learned and practiced are those most likely

17 G. Walker, Out of school and unemployed: Principles for

more effective policy and programs, in A Generation of Challenge:

Pathways to Success for Urban Youth, Monograph 97–03, Baltimore,

MD: Sar Levitan Youth Policy Network, 1997, pp. 73–86.

18 L.W. Sherman, D.W. Gottfredson, D.W. MacKenzie, J.W. Eck,

P.W. Reuter, and S.W. Bushway, Preventing Crime: What Works, What

Doesn’t, What’s Promising, Report to the United States Congress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, National Institute of Justice, 1997, chapter 6, p. 44.
26

to lead to employment. It also introduces employers

to youth before the job search process begins. The

Center for Employment Training (CET) in San

Jose, CA, a nationally recognized job training program for at-risk youth and adults, is known for its

cooperation with prospective employers to design

training and place youth in jobs.19

CET provides a work-based training model with no

entrance requirements for individuals 18 and older.

The model integrates basic and human development

skills and uses skills training as the context for learning. Employers determine the standards for training,

audit training courses to determine their accuracy, and

participate on technical advisory committees and industry advisory councils. Skills taught are closely tied

to the labor needs of the immediate area (labor market

surveys are performed to identify jobs that pay more

than $7 per hour), instructors are hired directly from

the industry on which the skills training is based, and

participants do not receive certificates of completion

until they are placed in a job. A Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) study of Federal job training programs found that CET graduates

increased their earnings substantially—more than

$6,700 over 4 years—compared with an average of

$214 across all other programs studied.20

Intermediaries

Effectively bridging juvenile justice workforce

preparation programs and the labor market requires

the assistance of community-based organizations,

nonprofit groups, and job brokers that can serve as

intermediaries. These “intermediaries” can provide a

consistent point of contact between the justice system and employers and can ensure the successful

community reintegration of court-involved youth.

Intermediaries can help youth connect with employers and community services in the location of release

or jurisdictional control, and they can provide the

19 See appendix H for contact information.

Federal Bonding Program

To help employers and youth overcome barriers to

participation in the workforce, DOL supports a Federal Bonding Program (FBP) that employers hiring

court-involved youth can use to meet bonding

requirements.

FBP makes fidelity bonds available to help exoffenders and other high-risk individuals obtain

employment. A fidelity bond is a business insurance

policy that protects the employer in case of any loss

of money or property due to employee dishonesty.

It insures the employer for any type of stealing by

theft, forgery, larceny, or embezzlement. It does not

cover liability because of poor workmanship, job

injuries, or work accidents. Employers can purchase

such bonds commercially, but these commercial

bonds typically exclude anyone who has already

committed a fraudulent or dishonest act.

20 G. Cave, H. Bos, F. Doolittle, and C. Toussant, JOBSTART:

Final Report on a Program for School Dropouts, New York, NY:

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1993.

Bonds from this program are given to the employer

free of charge to serve as an incentive to the company to hire a job applicant who is an ex-offender

or has some other risk factor in his or her background. In most cities, all State Employment Service

local offices (also called State Job Service or OneStop Centers) are certified to issue these bonds.

Other agencies and programs can also purchase

these bonds to help place their clients or enrollees.

A $5,000 bond coverage is typically issued, but

larger bond amounts are also available. To date,

about 40,000 individuals have been bonded by this

program, and 99 percent have proved to be honest

employees. Bonds can be purchased by agencies

and programs in packages of 25 or more, at an average cost of less than $100 per bond.1

1

 For more information, contact Ron Ruben in care of the

McLaughlin Company at 1–800–BOND–JOB.
27

level of monitoring required during the early stages

of employment and transition. Successful intermediaries have credibility with the businesses in their

communities, possess knowledge of justice system

requirements, serve as advocates for the youth and

employers, and facilitate communication among

aftercare program services, employers, and youth.

Intermediaries can also coordinate contact by a variety of initiatives, such as School-to-Work, Welfareto-Work, summer jobs, and aftercare services; provide

continual support while youth secure private sector

employment; provide a coordinated central resource/

case management function; and deliver a consistent

message to employers.

Some programs designate entities and/or individuals

as intermediaries to create and maintain the organizational relationships and interpersonal dialogs that

are essential for high-quality programs. Intermediaries are particularly important because private sector

companies, schools, other youth service organizations,

and juvenile justice agencies often know little about

one another when they begin working together because of various job requirements. An intermediary,

who is familiar with different organizational cultures

and operational procedures and who has the trust of

both the employer and the youth, can help establish

common understandings, resolve misunderstandings, and mediate performance problems. Because

an intermediary is often instrumental in helping

youth retain employment and perform job responsibilities adequately, the use of intermediaries may

increase the likelihood that court-involved youth

will establish acceptable patterns of work behavior.

A good example of an intermediary is Teen Supreme,

a jointly funded effort of the U.S. Departments of

Labor and Justice that supports the startup and

operation of “Career Prep” programs at 40 Boys &

Girls Clubs throughout the country. Additional

funds provided by the Taco Bell Foundation allow

the clubs to establish and operate Teen Supreme

Centers. These centers provide job readiness training and career guidance to youth residing in the

target communities. The centers also provide

healthy socialization outlets.

United Auto Workers/

General Motors Manufacturing

Technology Partnership

The United Auto Workers (UAW)/General Motors

Manufacturing Technology Partnership (MTP)

program in Flint, MI, is a 2-year school-to-career

transition program whose purpose is to help

prepare selected high school students for careers in the skilled trades. Five full-time UAW

journey persons in skilled trades act as mentors

for seven students participating in the program.

Each mentor introduces students to the manufacturing process. Mentors also develop projects

that incorporate the reading and math skills necessary to pass the entry-level test for the skilled

trade’s apprenticeship.

In identifying mentors, MTP looks for individuals

who can develop close relationships with students, exhibit commitment and friendship, and

share real job knowledge and experience with

the students. Program participants were more

likely to be employed at higher wages ($9.79 per

hour, compared with $5.59 per hour), to have

higher grade point averages and similar or higher

class ranks, to earn higher levels of vocational

credits and more math and science credits, and

to have higher average postsecondary education

attendance rates than nonparticipants.1

1

 K. Hollenbeck, Evaluation of the United Auto Workers/

General Motors Technology Partnership, Kalamazoo, MI:

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1996.

Principles To Improve

Youth Programs

To foster understanding between policymakers and

program personnel involved in employment and

training of youth and those who work with juvenile

offenders, the Task Force identified demonstrated

and promising program models for general, at-risk,

and court-involved youth populations. While most

of the principles and programs referenced below are
28

Mentoring

Big Brothers Big Sisters has demonstrated the effectiveness of mentoring in building protective factors

in young people. Another early intervention program that relies heavily on a mentoring component

is the Mentor Plus program operated by the Oakland County Youth Assistance Volunteer Program. At

an early stage of their involvement with the juvenile

court, youth who are deemed appropriate for the

program are assigned to the Mentor Plus program as

an alternative to placement by the State juvenile

justice agency. In this program, the youth are paired

with volunteer mentors with whom they meet regularly. Together, they participate in prosocial activities, some of which are planned by the program

and others by the youth and mentors. This program

has been rigorously researched and found to be

effective in limiting the involvement of mentored

youth in subsequent delinquent activity.

Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) performed an 18-

month experimental evaluation of local Big Brothers

Big Sisters agencies in Columbus, OH; Houston, TX;

designed for working with economically disadvantaged and at-risk populations, they may also be applicable to court-involved youth. Court-involved

youth, especially those involved in early intervention,

aftercare, and community corrections components of

the juvenile justice system, may be served through

the programs described. The principles of effective

practices for court-involved youth are consistent

with the basic principles of effective youth programming for general and at-risk youth populations.

Specific strategies, techniques, methods, and approaches, including behavioral change incentives,

have been used by effective programs implemented

by a variety of organizations to achieve positive

outcomes for youth. Together, these organizations21

share a vision of a seamless system where youth

develop skills, gain experience, and receive the

services and support they need to be successful—

whether in work, in postsecondary school, or in the

community—after they leave high school. Promising

employment, training, and educational initiatives

combine youth development principles and activities

to provide varied and ongoing opportunities for

young people to grow, mature, and successfully

connect to the world of work and/or higher education. In a high-quality program, youth:

◆ Feel connected to caring adults.

◆ Receive positive, consistent, and constructive

support.

◆ Develop a sense of group membership.

Minneapolis, MN; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ;

Rochester, NY; San Antonio, TX; and Wichita, KS.1

Youth were randomly assigned to the experimental

group, which was immediately eligible for mentoring,

or the control group, which was placed on a waiting

list. Youth who worked with mentors were 46 percent less likely than those on the waiting list to initiate drug use and 27 percent less likely to initiate

alcohol use during the study period. Mentored youth

were one-third less likely to hit someone, skipped

half as many days of school and performed better at

school, and reported better relationships with their

parents and peers than youth in the control group.2

1

 For more information on the evaluation, see J.P. Tierney

and J. Grossman, Making a Difference: An Impact Study, Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, 1995.

2

 For more information on mentoring programs, see J.B.

Grossman and E.M. Garry, Mentoring—A Proven Delinquency

Prevention Strategy, Bulletin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1997.

21 The American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF), a nonpartisan,

not-for-profit organization based in Washington, DC, is dedicated

to informing policymakers about effective youth practices. AYPF

published Some Things DO Make a Difference for Youth: A Compendium

of Evaluations of Youth Programs and Practices in 1997. The National

Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC)—a nonpartisan national

organization dedicated to promoting policies and initiatives to

help youth become lifelong learners, productive workers, and

self-sufficient citizens—has examined effective practices through

its Promising and Effective Practices Network (PEPNet). The

National Transition Alliance (NTA) for youth with disabilities

provides another resource. For contact information for each

organization, see appendix H. A fifth resource on what programs

are promising and what works is the University of Maryland

review of labor markets and crime risk factors.
29

◆ Cooperate with family and peers.

◆ Are promoted as resources.

◆ Build a sense of responsibility and leadership skills.

◆ Develop a sense of who they are.

◆ Engage in a range of age- and stage-appropriate

activities.

◆ Have access to support services over time.

The best delinquency prevention programs use a

variety of effective approaches, including mentoring,

afterschool support, employment and training, and

residential, School-to-Work, and college access services. The following paragraphs provide fuller descriptions of some general youth programs that

incorporate mentoring, services, work-based learning,

and employer involvement and may be adaptable for

or directly applicable to court-involved youth.

Academic and Work-Related Skills

Employment and training programs for courtinvolved youth should incorporate the basic principles of youth development. These programs work

even better if their basic design provides long-term

comprehensive services, forms a continuum of activities, and provides the academic skills that are necessary for youth to become productive, self-sufficient,

and law-abiding. One exemplary program that meets

these criteria is the Quantum Opportunities Project

(QOP), a year-round, multiyear comprehensive program for disadvantaged youth (defined as youth in

families receiving food stamps and public assistance)

launched in five communities in 1989.22 QOP

wasoperated by two different community-based

Residential-Based Community

Service Activities

The Indiana State Correctional System provides

funding for Youth as Resources (YAR), a community service model, at each of its facilities and

includes YAR principles in all its staff training, with

obvious benefits for prevention and early intervention. In Indianapolis, IN, YAR programs have

been in correctional facilities since 1987. Inmates

in these facilities serve on boards of directors or

apply to such boards for funding for their community service projects. Activities have included

producing a play about teen parenthood, tutoring, and other in-facility projects.

Private-Sector Participation in

Residential Facilities

The Free Venture Program1 is operated by the

California Youth Authority. The program model

entails a business partnership between the

State and a private industry in which courtinvolved youth at the residential facility are

hired to produce goods and/or to provide services that are sold on the open market.2 The

Free Venture Program is not a prison industry,

and the residential facility is not responsible for

profits or losses. The work performed by the

youthful offenders includes telemarketing, spot

welding, sheet metal fabrication, power sewing,

drafting, microfilming, assembly, packaging, data

entry, and wordprocessing.

One of the program’s ventures with TWA has

operated since 1986. TWA has hired more than

400 youthful offenders as contingent airlines

reservations agents at the Ventura Youth Correctional Facility. More than 25 youthful offenders

have continued their employment with TWA

upon their release from the institution. Evaluation findings for this program (1989) include

lower risk of recidivism than the general prison

population based on age, commitment offense,

and reading ability.3

1

 See appendix H for contact information.

2

 National Office for Social Responsibility, Final Report,

Volume III, 1993.

3

 B. Krisberg and G. Pearce, Employment-Based Youth

Violence Prevention, San Francisco, CA: National Council

on Crime and Delinquency, 1996.

22 For more information on QOP, contact the Opportunities

Industrial Centers of America, Inc. See appendix H for contact

information.
30

showed that, compared with the control group, QOP

participants were less likely to be arrested as juveniles; more likely to have graduated from high school,

to be enrolled in higher education or training, and to

plan 4 years of college; and less likely to become teen

parents.24

organizations. Twenty-five disadvantaged students in

each community were randomly selected to enter the

program beginning in the ninth grade and continuing

through 4 years of high school. QOP focused on educational activities (tutoring, homework assistance,

computer-assisted instruction) and developmental

activities (building life and family skills and planning

for postsecondary education and jobs). Community

service was also stressed. Community agencies provided afterschool service on their premises and, in

some cases, in school settings (where the schools provided time and space).23 Results from the pilot test

23 D.S. Elliott, ed., Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Ten:

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies, Boulder, CO: University

of Colorado, Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science, Center

for the Study and Prevention of Violence, 1998, p. xxviii.

24 Elliott, ed., 1998, p. xxviii.

Out-of-school programs often provide a caring

community where young people can feel comfortable gaining the skills they missed by leaving school.

Youth Service and Conservation Corps involve youth

“crews” led by a youth and an adult that become

familylike units during their stay in the Corps.

The National Association of Service and Conservation

Corps1

 supports State and local youth service and

conservation corps that involve young people from

different backgrounds in innovative efforts to meet

community needs. Funded projects must engage

youth and young adults, who in turn receive job

and skill training, living allowances, and scholarships.

More than 20,000 youth in 32 States are enrolled in

Youth Service and Conservation Corps programs.

The National Association of Service and Conservation Corps organizes out-of-school youth, ages 18

to 25, into crews under the direction of adult staff

to carry out community service projects, usually in

the environmental and human services. Corps activities are intended to provide long-term benefits to

the public, instill a work ethic and sense of public

service in participants, and offer substantial social

benefit by meeting human, educational, or environmental needs (particularly needs related to poverty) in the community where the volunteer service

is performed. Participating in service activities for

The National Association of Service and Conservation Corps

about 32 hours per week and receiving a mix of

services for about 8 additional hours per week,

youth engage in temporary, paid, productive, fulltime work that benefits both youth and their communities. Working in crews, Corps members may

renovate housing, assist human service agencies, or

support park and forestry preservation. Many Corps

members also receive a GED or go to college.

There are 91 year-round programs in 197 sites, serving 22,000 youth annually. Corps members are more

likely to work for pay (99 percent compared with 73

percent), more likely to work more hours per year

(2,030 compared with 1,465), and less likely to be

arrested (12 percent compared with 17 percent)

than non-Corps members. African American Corps

members were more likely to earn an associate’s

degree (4 percent compared with 0 percent) and

more likely to have changes in educational aspirations (66 percent compared with 40 percent), and

Hispanic male Corps members worked more hours

per year (2,300 compared with 1,450) and received

more promotions (33 percent compared with 19

percent) than their non-Corps member peers.2

2

 J. Jastrzab, J. Masker, J. Blomquist, and L. Orr, Evaluation of National and Community Service Programs Impacts of

Service: Final Report on the Evaluation of American Conservation

and Youth Service Corps, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates,

1996.

1

 See appendix H for contact information.
31

Age and Development

Programs should also be age-appropriate to reflect

a youth’s development. One program that incorporates this principle is Work Appreciation for Youth

(WAY),25 operated by the Children’s Village in Dobbs

Ferry, NY. Differences in age, capability, and development are accommodated through a sequenced program; youth move from level to level when they are

ready and able. Once young people trust the staff and

the setting and feel they are valued and offered necessary challenges, guidance, and services, they are

ready to participate in the actual activities of a program. Periodic performance evaluations at worksites

and in living areas, assessments by counselors and

other Children’s Village staff, and the interests of

youth determine whether youth can move up the

WAY ladder, from levels I and II to levels III and IV.

By age 21, 51 percent of WAY participants who had

finished high school or an equivalent were in college

or had attended college; 80 percent were high school

graduates, GED recipients, or enrolled in a GED

program; and only 9 percent had dropped out of

school. Employment over a 5-year period ranged

from 65 percent to 89 percent per year, and 68 percent had worked at least 4 of the 5 years.26

Long-Term Followup

Programs are more likely to be effective if participants

have long-term monitoring and support followup for

6 months to several years after they find jobs or go

on to postsecondary education or training. In particular, long-term employment retention and gains in

earnings occur when programs support participants

through their first jobs and on to more advanced

jobs up a career ladder. Support Training Results in

Valuable Employment (STRIVE),27 an employment

and training program for youth and adults that was

started in New York, NY, provides 2 years of followup

services and support after participants are placed in

jobs. As a result, an average of 82 percent of all participants were employed for at least 2 years.28

Effective Implementation

Well-thought-out programs are more likely to be

effective. This includes planning for ample startup

time, sufficient and timely resources, clear communication of program goals, and thorough staff training.

Job Readiness/

Work Experience Program

The Job Readiness/Work Experience Program

(Jobs Program) is jointly operated by the Missouri

Department of Youth Services (DYS) and the State

Department of Economic Development (DED)

through an interagency agreement. Begun in

1995, the Jobs Program sets aside work experience slots for juvenile offenders who are in residential treatment facilities or in aftercare. The

agreement allows DYS to transfer funds to DED

and county-level economic development agencies

to create and target job training for DYS youth.

The amount allocated for fiscal year 2000 is

$678,335 for the equivalent of one hundred

1,040-hour-per-year employment program slots,

an increase from the 80 slots funded in previous

years. Youth find positions with not-for-profit organizations and government agencies, including

residential facilities. Youth are paid through the

local workforce development administrative entity.

During fiscal year 1999, 667 youth accessed the

Jobs Program. Outcomes for fiscal year 1998

indicate that 84 percent of youth who participated had successful outcomes, including returning to school full-time, obtaining a GED,

obtaining employment, and/or entering further

education or training. Only youth who have not

been recommitted, had their probation status

revoked, been dismissed, or quit a Jobs Program

job are considered successful.1

1

 Outcome information was provided by DYS personnel

on November 2, 1999.

25 See appendix H for contact information.

26 The Children’s Village, Inc., Summary of WAY Scholarship

Research, Dobbs Ferry, NY: The Children’s Village, Inc., 1998.

27 For more information on STRIVE, contact the East Harlem

Employment Service. See appendix H for contact information.

28 J. Ofori-Mankata and B. Won, STRIVE’S Results: Evaluating a

Small Non-Profit Organization in East Harlem, New York, NY:

New York University, Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of

Public Service, 1993.
32

Sometimes established programs with more secure

resources and greater experience have shown better

results than new programs. Larger programs also

can have an economy of scale that is unavailable to

smaller initiatives. It is also important to follow, with

a high degree of fidelity, a proven model.

Trust and Effective Adult Support

Programs that affect the personal attitudes and development of young people are particularly important.

When they first enter a school classroom, alternative

school, job-training, or other special program, youth

(especially court-involved youth) want the presence of

a caring adult. The adult should be a teacher, mentor,

or support person who understands and cares about

youth, provides youth with respect and significant time

and attention, and shows that he or she is “in it for the

long haul.” This individual should receive extensive

training in working effectively and compassionately

with youth. Big Brothers Big Sisters of America29 has

demonstrated proven and effective practices to introduce carefully screened and well-trained caring adults

into the lives of youth with positive results. Caring

adults are also a vital part of Career Academies, DOL’s

29 See appendix H for contact information.

Work-Based Learning

Authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, YouthBuild USA1

 provides

economically disadvantaged youth with concrete

skills through a training program that includes construction work on community rehabilitation projects

and that helps them attain GED’s or high school

diplomas through classroom training in an alternative high school. YouthBuild awards planning and

implementation grants for new construction to provide disadvantaged youth with opportunities for

employment, education, leadership development,

and training in the construction or rehabilitation of

low-income residential housing. Modeled after 14

existing programs across the country, YouthBuild’s

philosophy is based on peer support, education

and training, and job opportunities.

The program allows young people to gain respect

from their families and neighbors by involving them

in an immediate, visible role in rebuilding the community. The staff are trained to involve youth in

significant decisions. The YouthBuild program prepares young people who have dropped out of

school for careers in construction by employing

them as trainees in the actual rehabilitation of a

vacant, usually city-owned, building. During this

time, the young people alternate offsite weeks of

academic and job skills training and counseling with

onsite vocational education and construction.

Youth trainees are expected to participate in the

program full-time, in a group that starts and graduates together in 10 to 14 months, although some

participants may be placed in jobs or colleges before the end of the program cycle if appropriate.

The program serves mostly minority males, 65 percent of whom have had prior contact with the

criminal justice system and 33 percent of whom

have been convicted and incarcerated for felonies.

Between 1994 and 1996, 100 YouthBuild programs

were established through funding from HUD. Average GED achievement of YouthBuild participants in

1996 was 33 percent of all enrollees and 50 percent of all graduates. Sixty-nine percent of the participants achieved favorable outcomes (positive

terminations); YouthBuild participants had an average attendance rate of 85 percent; a higher percentage of YouthBuild participants earned GED’s

than participants in other comparable programs

(33 percent compared with 20 percent); 38 percent were employed full- or part-time with school/

training; and 66 percent of second-year participants

who were employed entered construction-related

jobs with an average wage of $7.60 per hour.2

2

 R. Ferguson and P. Clay, YouthBuild in Developmental Perspective: A Formative Evaluation of the YouthBuild Demonstration

Project, Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996. 1

 See appendix H for contact information.
33

Summer Youth Employment Program, Talent Development High School, Project Redirection, STRIVE,

YouthBuild, Communities In Schools, Quantum

Opportunities Project, Higher Ground, I Have A

Dream, Maryland’s Tomorrow, Sponsor-A-Scholar,

and numerous other youth programs.

Adults need to demonstrate their care by establishing

high expectations, offering guidance, and instilling

personal responsibility and accountability in youth.

They should also try to address the various issues

youth face in their lives. For example, many programs

have found that by providing necessary services such

as childcare and transportation to youth who could

not otherwise participate in the program’s offerings,

they can build youth trust in the program.

Small, Familylike Settings and Positive

Peer Relationships

Programs should develop small, familylike settings.

Positive peer relationships are also very important

to successful youth programs. The influence of

peers and the consequences of negative peer behavior are strongly linked to delinquent actions. Youth

seek the support and approval of peers, and many

program participants must learn to replace patterns

of interaction that result in negative consequences

with those that benefit them, their families, and

their communities. Career Academies and the Talent

Development High School30 in Baltimore, MD, both

Fresh Start

Fresh Start1 is a program of the Living Classrooms

Foundation. It provides hands-on education and

job training for youth ages 16 to 20 who are hard

to serve and from diverse backgrounds. The majority of youth enrolled are African American and have

not completed high school. They are economically

disadvantaged and have a history of serious problems, including sexual, physical, and/or emotional

abuse. Most have been victims of violent crimes,

and nearly all have been arrested more than once.

The program provides project-based education that

teaches academic skills and knowledge through

practical applications and real-work projects. Fresh

Start assists youth with goal setting and preparation

for careers and further education. Its key objectives

are career development, cooperative learning,

community service, self-esteem building, and fostering multicultural exchange.

Fresh Start uses maritime settings to provide experiential learning opportunities. During this 9-month

program, youth repair boats and engines, develop

carpentry and woodworking skills, work in a real

marina, and serve as crew members aboard Living

Classrooms Foundation vessels. The classroom is

located at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, MD, on

the 2-acre Living Classrooms Maritime Institute site.

The classroom is sponsored by Baltimore and the

State of Maryland. The last 2 months of the program

are designed to help youth make the transition into

internships and jobs while they are benefiting from

program support. Forty-six percent of the graduates

pursue further education. A full-time counselor

tracks each graduate for 3 years with assistance

from the Maryland Department of Juvenile Justice.

Of the 46 students served by Fresh Start in program

year 1998, 67 percent entered full-time employment, 25 percent continued their education, 93

percent attended program sessions, 8 percent

were rearrested, and none were incarcerated.2

2

 Outcome information was provided by Fresh Start staff on

November 4, 1999. 1

 See appendix H for contact information.

30 For more information on the Talent Development High School,

contact the CRESPAR Codirector at Howard University or

The Johns Hopkins University. See appendix H for contact

information.
34

nection, any work program is unlikely to succeed in

a substantial way.31

Innovative instruction that uses real-world examples

provides the authenticity youth seek in a program.

Hands-on instruction, project-based learning, servicelearning, school-to-careers, and other methods that

relate academic learning to real life are particularly

successful. Career Academies are schools within

schools in which students take several classes together

with the same group of teachers. Each Career Academy focuses on a career theme such as finance, travel

and tourism, or public service.32 Students engage in

2 to 4 years of career theme-focused course work

use schools-within-schools to foster better connections between young people and caring adults, thus

creating a more comfortable and accessible school

community. QOP also provides a familylike group

that young people become a part of for 4 years.

Work-Based Learning

The authenticity of the instruction and the program

is enhanced in the eyes of young people if they feel

that participation will actually lead to a career (before

or after additional formal education). Work-based

learning makes youth perceive instruction as more

relevant, and it demonstrates that the skills being

learned can be used in an actual workplace. Working can also provide the support, guidance, and structure that come from exposure to caring adults. In the

most effective programs, youth consider their work

worthwhile and of high quality. Without that con31 Sherman et al., 1997, chapter 6, p. 44.

32 The National Academy Foundation (NAF) provides implementation models and curriculums. See appendix H for contact

information.

The Center for Employment Training

The Center for Employment Training (CET)1 is a private, nonprofit education and training program

headquartered in San Jose, CA. CET currently operates a total of 28 programs in California, Florida,

Illinois, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, and

Texas, including 17 replication sites funded by the

U.S. Department of Labor. Earlier evaluations conducted by the Manpower Development Research

Center (MDRC) of New York, NY, and Mathematica

Policy Research of Washington, DC, indicate that the

program produced substantial increases in earnings

in a short time even for participants without high

school diplomas or GED’s. CET’s replication is currently being evaluated by MDRC. Results are expected to be published in 2000. Unlike many

employment and training programs that require

skills assessments and remedial instruction before

providing job training or placement, CET gives participants who do not possess high school diplomas

or GED’s access to job-specific training right away.

Training sites are modeled after actual work environments. If necessary, academic instruction is provided in conjunction with the work-related skills

training. CET also employs an open-entry, open-exit

approach so that participants are placed in jobs

when they believe they are ready. CET helps participants find jobs and, if they are laid off, helps them

find other jobs or retrains them in different occupations. Skills training and job placement services are

developed in close coordination with employers

based on immediate local labor demands. Students

participate 35 to 40 hours per week for approximately 6 months.

CET served 1,063 youth ages 17 to 21 between 1997

and 1998. CET youth had a job placement rate of

72 percent; of these youth, 87 percent entered

training-related jobs. The average pretraining annual

wage was $4,214, and the average posttraining

wage was $15,808.2

2

 Data were provided by the Regional Director at the San

Jose CET on November 2, 1999. These statistics are for sites

nationwide.

1

 See appendix H for contact information.
35

Integrated Work-Based Learning and

Community Services Model

The Caledonia Community Work Camp,1 located in

St. Johnsbury, VT, opened in 1994. The camp is

part of a pilot State corrections program costing

$9 million less to construct than a mediumsecurity facility. The work camp approach involves

72 nonviolent youthful offenders in gardening,

historic preservation, and community service.

Participants work in crews with supervisors and

other employees whose skills include carpentry,

painting, and SheetrockTM masonry. Participants

tend the camp’s garden, participate in educational programs, learn trades, and keep journals.

A youth’s sentence is reduced by 1 day for each

day served at the camp. Once participants have

progressed through established levels and have

demonstrated compliance with disciplinary standards, they qualify for work in the community.

Community service/restitution projects have included building bookshelves for a library, improving a Little League field, and repainting a church.

Participants provided 80,000 hours of work valued at an estimated $365,000 (based on minimum wage) in 35 towns during the camp’s first 18

months. In 1995, 74 percent of the participants

completed the program.

combined with paid summer work experience.33

Talent Development is a Career Academy model that

targets at-risk, inner-city youth in Baltimore, MD.

The model is based on research on student motivation

and teacher commitment.34 In this program, ninth

grade attendance improved by 9.4 percentage points;

schoolwide attendance increased 6.1 percentage

points; ninth grade promotion increased from 47.3

to 69.1 percent; and the teachers’ perception of the

school changed dramatically.

Students in Boston’s Project ProTech, a school-tocareers program, are grouped together for two to

three of their high school courses and study a modified curriculum that reinforces the concepts and skills

learned at hospital worksites.35 ProTech uses youth

apprenticeship as a vehicle for engaging students in

several career cluster areas: allied health, finance,

utilities and telecommunications, environmental services, and business services. The year after graduating,

87 percent of program participants were working,

78 percent were pursuing postsecondary education,

and 52 percent were combining work and school.

Program graduates were more likely than their peers

to work, to earn higher mean wages over time, and

to complete a postsecondary certificate or degree.36

Programs for Court-Involved Youth

A number of promising program models have been

operated through the juvenile justice system, the

employment and training system, and youth service

programs. Some programs, particularly residential

treatment programs for court-involved youth, are supported with funds from multiple sources, including the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

and the juvenile justice system. The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) is an OJJDP initiative that

was designed and piloted by David Altschuler and

33 Separate evaluations of the Career Academies have been

conducted, including one for the Academy of Travel and Tourism (M.T. Orr, C. Fanscali, and C. Springer, New York, NY:

Academy for Educational Development, 1995). In 1989, a study

of 11 California Career Academies was conducted by the University of California-Berkeley (D. Stern, C. Dayton, I. Paik,

and A. Weisburg, Benefits and costs of dropout prevention in a

high school program combining academic and vocational education: Third-year results from replications of the California partnership academies, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,

2(4):405–416, 1989). In July 1996, Manpower Demonstration

Research Corporation conducted an evaluation of 10 Career

Academies nationwide (J.J. Kemple and J.L. Rock, Career

Academies: Early Implementation Lessons from a 10-Site Evaluation,

New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, 1996).

34 V. LaPoint, W. Jordan, D.P. Towns, J.M. McPartland, N.

Legters, and E.L. McDill, The Talent Development High School:

Essential Components, Baltimore, MD, and Washington, DC: The

Johns Hopkins University and Howard University, Center for

Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, 1996.

35 See appendix H for contact information.

36 G. Hall, Boston, MA: The Boston Private Industry Council,

1998.

1

 See appendix H for contact information.
36

Troy Armstrong.37 Elements of these program models can be found in some of the exemplary programs

presented throughout this chapter.

The discussion below provides a summary of exemplary programs, categorizing them broadly according to three service delivery components: residential,

community corrections, and aftercare programs. For

the purposes of this discussion, community corrections programs are considered part of aftercare and

are not listed separately.

Community-Based Work Experiences

The Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center1 in Marriottsville, MD, has operated community work programs for many years. This small residential

program has identified part-time jobs in the surrounding community for a select number of

youth residents deemed ready for this challenge.

Past placements have included jobs at the local

McDonald’s restaurant and summer jobs at a

nearby hospital. Currently, three youth are working 1 day a week with the maintenance department of a nearby town and gaining a wide variety

of work experience. Recently, the center began

experimenting with an offsite job-shadowing

program. Appropriate youth identify and research an employment field of interest, prepare

a list of questions to be answered during the

half-day of job shadowing, and then complete

an essay about the experience that is cataloged

for reference by future residents. So far, youth

have explored the real estate, barbering, and

graphic design fields. The Maryland Department

of Juvenile Justice has approved the program to

run a seven-bed independent living house for

youth ages 161

/2 to 18 who are enrolled in GED

programs and engaged in work activities.

The Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center is currently

serving 45 youth, of whom 25 are special education students and 14 are diagnosed as having an

emotional disability. The majority of youth in the

program return to school; 70 earned GED’s between January 1994 and October 1999, and 8

have enrolled in college in the past 8 years. Between June 1997 and December 1998, the average academic gains for program participants were

1.3 years for mathematics, 0.6 years for spelling,

and 1.2 years for reading. Program participants

have a 30-percent recidivism rate.

1

 See appendix H for contact information.

Entrepreneurship

The Alliance House, a small residential facility in

Stoneham, MA, operated by the Northeastern

Family Institute, has established a business—

Alliance All Purpose.1 This facility uses an entrepreneurial model in which both current and

former program participants own and operate a

business that provides services from housework

to hauling. Alliance All Purpose teaches youth to

transform labor-intensive, unskilled work into a

skilled business. Led by a board of directors

comprising three current and two former residents, the company markets its services to the

local community. It negotiates contracts with its

customers that specify the scope of work to be

performed, the timeframe for its completion, and

the price to be charged. In developing the fee

for each service, the youth include the fee paid

to juvenile justice staff who provide the Statemandated supervision that occurs outside of

their regular working hours. This payment mechanism relieves the Alliance House program of the

supervisory costs that often preclude or severely

curtail offsite employment of residential youth.

1

 See appendix H for contact information.

37 For more information about the Intensive Aftercare Program,

contact The Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy

Studies. See appendix H for contact information.
37

Integrated Facility-Based and Community-Based Model #1

The Gulf Coast Trades Center1 (GCTC) in New

Waverly, TX, a 168-bed residential program, primarily serves adjudicated youth ages 16 to 18.1

 This

program increases the social and economic independence of the residents through an intensive

residential program focusing on job training and

community-based work experience. Services include training in social skills, work attitudes, and

job-specific skills; GED preparation; substance

abuse education; job referral; driver’s education;

discharge planning; and aftercare. Most participants

at the Center are required to provide 200 hours of

community service as part of the learning experience and to build leadership skills. Students are

placed with a large variety of local nonprofit organizations in paid work experiences.

Sixty-five percent of GCTC participants earned GED’s,

and 90 percent found employment—62 percent in

trade-related jobs, with an average starting wage of

$7.50 per hour. GCTC reported a 22-percent recidivism rate over a 12-month period for youth served

by its contracted parole services (provided by GCTC

for 132 counties statewide), and 90 percent of

those confined to the facility did not return after

release. GCTC has served more than 18,000 youth

during its 28 years of operation and is in the first

year of operation of a charter school program.2

2

 Outcome information was provided by the National Youth

Employment Coalition—PEPNet-’99—and GCTC personnel on November 2, 1999.

1

 See appendix H for contact information.

Residential Programs

Youth in residential facilities face numerous barriers to employment, including deficiencies in

education and interpersonal skills, geographic

isolation, public safety and risk factors, and

employer perceptions (see “Issues Related to

Residential Programs,” pages 22–23). Notwithstanding the barriers, there are effective strategies

for preparing residential youth for the workplace

and providing them with quality employment

and training experiences. These strategies are

summarized below.

◆ Most residential facilities operate their own education and counseling programs.38 Making these

programs as effective as possible will help the

youth develop the basic skills discussed in earlier

sections of this Report.

◆ Residential facilities can develop an innovative

sequence of onsite jobs and/or work-based learning

activities through which youth can progress

as they develop the requisite maturity and skills.

Appropriate job opportunities can be found in the

daily operations of all residential facilities. For

example, beginning jobs could include custodial

chores such as maintaining the campus grounds,

cleaning the dorms, and serving meals. Higher

level jobs could include maintaining landscaping

equipment, improving the appearance of buildings

and grounds, making minor repairs to broken furniture and/or equipment, and helping with daily

food preparation. All of these activities can create a

sheltered work experience for residents that will:

❖ Teach youth how to be productive.

❖ Provide the background for successful private

sector work in the community.

❖ Demonstrate youth competencies to prospective off-campus employers.

◆ Juvenile justice administrators can bring outside

employment and training services and private sector

jobs into the residential facility. This strategy increases

job training and employment opportunities for youth

within the shelter of the residential setting, and introduces court-involved youth to private employers.

38 Residential facilities housing high school-age youth are required

to provide up to 5 hours of academic instruction per weekday

that meets State educational guidelines. Such services, however,

do not tend to be well funded or well integrated with community

schools.
38

Integrated Facility-Based and Community-Based Model #2

The Home Builders Institute (HBI), the educational

arm of the National Association of Home Builders,

has operated the Community Restitution and Apprenticeship Focused Training (Project CRAFT) program for juvenile offenders in five States: Florida,

Maryland, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.1

Project CRAFT offers an intensive preapprenticeship

program that integrates comprehensive case management, community service, and a blended program of academic and vocational skills training to

help court-involved youth enter residential and light

commercial construction trade-related jobs. HBI uses

an industry-validated curriculum, Pre-Apprenticeship

Certification Training (PACT), and receives extensive

support from local home builders associations

(HBA’s) in its areas of operation.

Based on the Job Corps model of long-term intervention and other successful HBI targeted-training programs for homeless individuals and adult offenders,

Project CRAFT uses a comprehensive approach to

training juvenile offenders in residential construction

through community service projects. Project CRAFT

incorporates the key components of the IAP model2

and the balanced and restorative justice model.3

Using a combination of documented juvenile justice,

youth employment, and youth development principles, Project CRAFT adds restitution as a component of student skills building and accountability.

Project CRAFT provides 6 months of vocational training, intensive case management followup for 6

months, long-term followup for up to 3 years, extensive employer involvement, and systems-level collaboration. Youth are required to be coenrolled in a

high school diploma or GED program and substance

abuse treatment during the preapprenticeship

phase. Students also receive intensive counseling

and treatment services, making Project CRAFT a longterm intervention similar to Job Corps.

The home-building industry supports Project CRAFT

by offering PACT, hiring youth who have completed

the program, serving as mentors for Project CRAFT

participants and as guest speakers, and providing

support through in-kind contributions. Community

service projects are conducted in conjunction with

local HBA’s, Habitat for Humanity, housing authorities, and local public and private community

3

 G. Bazemore and M.S. Umbreit, Balanced and Restorative

Justice for Juveniles, Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995; G.

Bazemore, What’s “new” about the balanced approach?,

Juvenile and Family Court Judges Journal 48(1):1–19, 1997.

(continued on next page) 1

 See appendix H for contact information.

2

 D.M. Altschuler and T.L. Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for

High Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model, Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994.

◆ Juvenile justice administrators may permit resident youth to leave the facility’s campus during

the day to receive employment and training services, to perform community service, or to work

in paid part-time, private sector jobs. The youth

who participate in these offsite opportunities will

be those who have made significant rehabilitative

progress and have demonstrated their capacity

to meet the challenges presented by these opportunities. This strategy fulfills the intent of the

balanced and restorative justice program model

to have juvenile offenders develop workplace

competencies while either performing community

service or earning income that would go toward

restitution to crime victims.39

In spite of the obvious challenges, there is evidence

of successful and promising approaches that improve

access by court-involved youth to the labor market.

39 A discussion of the balanced and restorative justice model can

be found in G. Bazemore and M.S. Umbreit, Balanced and Restorative Justice, Summary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention, 1997.
39

Integrated Facility-Based and Community-Based Model #2 (continued)

agencies. HBI has trained nearly 400 juvenile offenders and placed 94 percent of graduates since 1994.

Current projections indicate the Project CRAFT program will exceed its goals in numbers of youth who

enroll, complete the program, and are placed in

unsubsidized jobs or apprenticeships. Within 1 week

after graduating from the program or being released

from the facility, all of the students were employed,

with 60 percent still employed after 3 months.

Project CRAFT can be implemented as a prevention

or intervention program. Options include operating

Project CRAFT as an inhouse training program with

community-based services or day treatment on facility grounds, an alternative or vocational school, a

collaborative effort with community agencies, an

alternative to incarceration, or a program that targets

at-risk or runaway youth. HBI provides technical assistance to Project CRAFT programs and other public

and private agencies interested in starting a program.

The curriculum used to train Project CRAFT students is

certified in North Dakota by the State Board of Education, and HBI hopes to continue the certification

process in other States. In Florida, Project CRAFT is

certified as a second-chance school. HBI continues

to seek approval and certifications for its curriculums

in the State and local systems in which it operates.

Project CRAFT was independently evaluated over a

4-year period by Resource Development Group,

Inc. The evaluators documented the following outcomes for graduates of the program in the three

original demonstration sites in Maryland, North Dakota, and Tennessee:4

◆ By September 1998, 94 of 140 Project CRAFT

graduates had jobs in the home-building industry, 35 had jobs in other occupations or trades,

and 55 had entered apprenticeships.

◆ The median starting hourly wage for Project

CRAFT participants was $6, compared with the

national median hourly wage of $4.74 for youth.

◆ The median hourly wage at project completion

was $7.50, compared with $6.58, the national

median wage for all youth ages 24 and younger

during the same reporting year.

◆ The cumulative recidivism rate for graduates of

Project CRAFT was 26 percent, compared with

the national rate of 70 percent.

◆ Project CRAFT’s followup for juvenile offenders after

release and community placement helps juvenile

offenders reintegrate into the community.

4

 Outcome information is adapted from M.E. Kiss, CRAFT

Final Report: 1994–1998, Bowie, MD: Resource Development

Group, Inc., 1999; and R. Hamilton and K. McKinney, Job

Training for Juveniles: Project CRAFT, Fact Sheet, Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999.

Two initiatives that exemplify successful collaboration between the labor market and juvenile justice

system require mention here. The California Youth

Authority’s Free Venture program (see sidebar, page

29) illustrates how local economic development initiatives can be linked to work preparation and employment programs for court-involved youth. Free

Venture operates as a cooperative partnership of

local economic development agencies, employers,

and the juvenile justice system. Tax credits, reduced

costs for rented space, and access to trained workers

are provided to support work opportunities for residential youth by encouraging employers to establish

a base of operations/production within the correctional facility.

In another collaborative initiative, Oregon’s Labor

Market Information System joined the juvenile

justice system in identifying key employment trends

within the State and its various regions. This information is being used to develop worker preparation

programs in Oregon’s youth facilities. Employers

may join vocational education advisory committees

and help design and implement training programs

that respond to the labor market. Participating

employers are asked for their support to ensure that
40

jobs will be available when youth complete the program and return to the community.

Aftercare Programs

Job training and employment for court-involved

youth in the aftercare phase of their treatment tend

to be most effective when youth:

◆ Are in a community setting in which their movement is much less restricted than in a residential

facility, if not totally unrestricted. In such settings,

the logistical problems discussed on page 37 are

greatly reduced.

◆ Are typically of legal working age, so that paid

employment experiences are possible.

◆ Have had the benefit of earlier services—particularly counseling services—that have improved

interpersonal skills and the ability to deal with

frustrations, anger, and stress.

Unfortunately, relatively few designated support

services follow the released youth from the residential environment back to the home community.40

Therefore, developing an array of essential services,

including employment and training services, to support youth in the final stages of rehabilitation is often very difficult, if not impossible. In theory, this

task is the ongoing responsibility of the entire

40 A study by the Eastern Kentucky University Training Resource Center addressed how States were transitioning juvenile

offenders from correctional facilities to home communities (B.I.

Wofford, Youth in Transition: From Incarceration to Reintegration,

Richmond, KY: Eastern Kentucky University Training Resource Center, 1988). Less than half of the States reported that

they combined juvenile programs and social services or that

school enrollment, job training, or placement was a condition of

release from the facility.

juvenile justice system from the time the youth first

becomes involved. However, this responsibility often

falls to the aftercare case manager as a juvenile is

exiting the justice system, and few resources are

dedicated to this crucial phase. The most effective

aftercare job training and employment programs

typically involve formal partnerships between the

juvenile justice system and other institutions or

organizations. Two effective programs, run by the

Missouri Department of Youth Services and the

Living Classrooms Foundation, are described in sidebars on pages 31 and 33, respectively.

Some programs try to place court-involved youth

in residential employment and training programs

that serve at-risk youth after they leave residential

facilities. These programs typically provide the

court-involved youth with a moderately structured

environment in which to hone employment skills

that will enhance their ability to gain and maintain

a substantial job. Job Corps, described on pages

15–16, is one such program.

Acknowledging obstacles and previous failures to

universally address the labor market challenges of

court-involved youth is a first step toward improving systems and programs. Although there are

numerous examples of successful programs that

integrate traditional and nontraditional approaches

to workforce preparation, and although there are a

number of programs that serve at-risk youth, these

programs need to be expanded and brought to scale

to assist the large numbers of court-involved youth

in this country and to ensure their return to a lawabiding and productive life. Collaboration between

juvenile justice, workforce development, education,

and social service agencies and employers can

greatly enhance this process.
41

Systems Collaboration

The Task Force on Employment and Training for

Court-Involved Youth was formed to increase collaboration between the juvenile justice system and

the employment and training system. A number of

other key systems also support the effective collaboration of juvenile justice and workforce preparation

practitioners and policymakers. Other systems that

serve court-involved youth include education, social

services, community-based support, and the labor

market. Improved communication, increased knowledge about system operations, and systemic change

among these entities is equally important to meeting

the needs of juveniles and the public safety. Ultimately, preparation for the workforce is a priority

for each system. How can these diverse systems

work together to develop a cohesive, consistent delivery system that responds to the employment and

training needs of court-involved youth and the ultimate customer, the employer?

Earlier chapters in this Report highlight some of the

obstacles encountered by court-involved youth and

the programs that serve these youth. Some of the

issues and circumstances at the State and system

levels that prevent court-involved youth from participating fully in the workforce are summarized below.

The State Juvenile Justice System

Although the predominant response to youth violence has been to increase penalties for violent

crime, several States have coupled these reforms

with an increase in services for youth. Many have

developed or expanded programs for youth that

have already penetrated the juvenile justice system.

A few States have targeted additional services for

youth who are at immediate risk of placement in

the juvenile justice system (early intervention/

prevention) or have been released from residential

facilities (aftercare). Other States have attempted to

increase job opportunities for youth who have entered the juvenile justice system; some examples

include afterschool academic programs, community

service programs, and supervised work projects. In

Colorado, the legislature has appropriated funding

for a comprehensive violence prevention program

that offers education, employment training, mentoring, and other support services for court-involved

and at-risk youth.41

In spite of these efforts, limited attention is given to

the developmental and workforce preparation needs

of court-involved youth. A recent report by the

Office of Justice Programs, Preventing Crime: What

Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, suggests that

programs that emphasize employment and the skills

needed to find and keep a job are among the most

effective treatments for court-involved youth.42

Many State juvenile justice agencies, however, are

unfamiliar with contemporary youth development,

labor market needs and strategies, workforce development, and School-to-Work principles and practices. The juvenile justice system, the State workforce

development efforts, and the School-to-Work initiative have not been able to establish effective connections. Concerns about serving court-involved youth

and the real and perceived difficulties of placing

these youth in work-based learning opportunities,

and subsequently into permanent employment, have

made other systems reluctant to collaborate with the

juvenile justice system. Other obstacles, discussed at

greater length earlier in this Report, include security, public safety, and risk factors; lack of adequate

41 G. Romero and D. Brown, State Progress in Addressing Youth

Violence, Washington, DC: National Governors’ Association,

Center for Policy Research, 1995.

42 Sherman et al., 1997.
42

resources and facilities; inability to engage employers and employment and training personnel;

underuse of existing resources and systems to promote an integrated program of workforce preparation and treatment; and lack of knowledge.

The State Workforce

Development System

The workforce development system represents a

range of initiatives by a myriad of agencies and organizations, although DOL programs, School-toWork programs, and One-Stop Centers appear to

have the most exposure. Worker preparation programs

undertaken by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture,

Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services,

Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and

Transportation also offer opportunities for courtinvolved youth. Other participants in the workforce

development system include private foundations and

community agencies that operate grassroots-level

programs.

Understanding the complexities of these systems has

been a major challenge both for professionals in the

workforce development system and for juvenile justice system personnel. In addition:

◆ Access to programs offered through the workforce

development system is often hindered by lack of

knowledge about both program availability and

use of program resources.

◆ Competition for resources among the various participants in the workforce development system can

discourage new players from seeking active roles.

◆ Performance requirements often exclude courtinvolved youth from workforce development

programs.

◆ Participation of court-involved youth in programs

that meet their specific developmental and treatment needs even though they were not designed

exclusively for court-involved youth needs to be

emphasized.

◆ Lack of information about the needs and treatment

requirements of court-involved youth can result in

misinformation by workforce development personnel or serve as a barrier to successful participation.

Efforts are under way to develop a cohesive and

seamless system of workforce development. These

reforms will allow the juvenile justice system to become a more active player in the workforce development system and to reevaluate the extent to which

worker preparation can be embraced as an important outcome for participating youth.

The Education System

Court-involved youth have generally experienced

limited academic success and therefore tend to lose

interest in school. The strong link between academic

failure and juvenile offending suggests the need for

education reform to address the specific needs of

these high-risk youth, as prevention, diversion, and

aftercare strategies. The failure on the part of schools

to address the needs of these youth may be due in

part to the overwhelming task the schools face in

meeting the needs of all students. Individual developmental and learning style differences among students are too often not accommodated. Early failure

by youth is compounded as they move through the

education continuum. “Zero-tolerance policies” often alienate certain youth.

Nearly all court-involved youth, regardless of adjudication status (i.e., early intervention, probation, community corrections, residential programming, parole,

or aftercare), are expected to engage in educational

activities stipulated in consent decrees or disposition

plans. Frequently, for example, they are ordered to

regularly attend the same school that failed to engage

them effectively in the first place. Those who dropped

out of school before their commitment to an institution are typically not eager to return to school. Many

of these youth tend to be disruptive in the classroom.

Some youth, returning to the community from residential placement or being diverted from institutional care, are placed in community-based day

treatment programs that too often offer a narrow

range of treatment and educational services. Many

youth have special education needs that may not

have been diagnosed by the school system. Stronger

connections between special education and programs
43

that offer early intervention or prevention services

and serve court-involved youth are critical components of education programming for court-involved

youth and preparation for work readiness.

Safety

Many States require the juvenile justice system to

notify school officials if a student has been adjudicated delinquent or is returning to school from a

court-ordered residential commitment. Requirements to disclose information to schools about the

juvenile records of returning youth often present a

dilemma. Although intended to promote the safety

and security of all students, these laws can make the

adjustment or reintegration process more difficult

for returning youth. It is often very difficult to reintegrate juvenile offenders into the schools, because

schools resist their reenrollment. Further, educators,

concerned about school safety, may have little patience for court-involved youth and may be eager to

suspend or expel from school students who are disruptive or have the potential to engage in disruptive

activities. For court-involved youth, the first misstep

can often be a ticket out the door.

Education in Residential Facilities

Most State juvenile justice systems are bound by

law to operate educational programs that meet State

accreditation standards. However, when the status

of education within residential facilities is examined,

it is clear that youth development and workforce

development principles are applied unevenly from

institution to institution, even within the same State.

Integration of special education and vocational education into the academic program is of particular

importance and concern.

Residential facility education programs accredited

by State education agencies must provide special

education services to youth who fall within the guidelines established under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This Act requires that

individualized education and transition plans be

implemented for those youth who have disabilities.

Institutions using IDEA funds must follow specific

guidelines with respect to educational programming,

class size, and accommodation assistance. Despite

these legal requirements, many State juvenile justice systems do not consistently adhere to IDEA

requirements.

In some States, court-involved youth age 16 and

older may also be eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. The number of youth who are eligible

for special education services may be higher than

the current number actually reported and served. In

too many instances, school failure resulting in the

return of court-involved youth to the juvenile justice

system can be attributed, in part, to undiagnosed

cognitive, physical, and emotional disabilities, including fetal alcohol syndrome, learning disabilities,

remote audio retention problems, limited visual acuity, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, and substance abuse.

Both academic and vocational education could be

substantially improved in residential correctional

facilities. Vocational education is usually most effective when the institution blends academic with vocational skills, offers vocational programs that reflect

industry requirements, involves employers in the

design and implementation of programs, and provides

a practical hands-on method of learning. Many of

the programs highlighted in the previous section offer

this combination. Unfortunately, vocational education is often not given priority. Program content and

equipment are frequently dated, and the quality of

the hands-on activities does not reflect real-life experiences. More often than not, vocational education

is not integrated with other workforce development

strategies such as those of the School-to-Work

Opportunities Act or the Job Training Partnership

Act, nor does it prepare youth to find employment

when they are released from the facility.

Alternative Education

Many communities need alternative education programs for youth who have not been served well by

traditional school programs, have dropped out, or

have been expelled from school. Although alternative schools offer an option for disruptive or violent

students, most of these programs address the needs

of court-involved youth only in limited ways.

Alternative schools may be operated either by the

school district or outside the school system. Many
44

local school districts need to invest greater resources

in the alternative schools they operate. According to

a National Conference of State Legislatures’ survey

report,43 statutes in 50 States permit State per-pupil

education money to follow young people entering

alternative learning environments. This authority is

granted through provisions relating to open enrollment, special transfers, charter schools, postsecondary

enrollment options, public-private cooperation, alternative schools, and learning centers. However,

despite the legal authority to fund alternative learning opportunities for dropouts, per-pupil education

money is rarely used for this purpose. In many

States, only public school districts can establish such

programs, but they have little incentive to do so.

State funds alone are frequently insufficient to cover

program costs, and local school systems are often

unwilling to invest their resources in young people

who have left their schools. This is unfortunate, because alternative or transition schools may offer an

effective way to work with special needs children,

including those returning from placement. Transition schools are generally more flexible and can

work more readily with a juvenile regardless of the

time in the school year he or she is reentering the

system. Transition schools can help prepare the juvenile for reintegration into the regular school.

In States that allow private, nonprofit alternative

schools to access funds, these providers must apply

to and be accredited by the local school system.

Many school systems are not interested in helping

alternative schools develop and compete with their

own schools. Yet in at least three States—Arizona,

Minnesota, and Oregon—and in numerous local

communities, State money is funding programs for

out-of-school youth on a relatively wide scale.

The Social Services System

Although the primary focus of this Report is employment and training for court-involved youth, connections to other support services and sources of

assistance are critical for these youth to become contributing members of society. The primary system

responsible for meeting the social service needs of

youth is the State agency with human services jurisdiction. The name of this agency has many variations

depending on the State (e.g., Administration for Family Services, Department of Social Services, or Department of Human Services). Typically this

department includes a division or office that deals

exclusively with youth issues. Alternatively, a Statelevel agency that is dedicated to youth services may

exist. In some cases, the juvenile justice system is

administered under either the State human services

or the youth services department. It is not uncommon

for youth who come in contact with the court system

to be served jointly by human or youth services department staff and juvenile justice system staff. This

joint service is particularly common for youth who

have been diverted from the justice system or youth

who are operating under a consent decree.

State human or youth service departments provide

funding for an array of services, including but not

limited to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families;

43 D. Gruber, Creative resource development, in A Generation of

Challenge: Pathways to Success for Urban Youth, Monograph 97–03,

Baltimore, MD: Sar Levitan Center for Social Policy Studies,

1997, pp. 87–118.

Education Systems

The issues related to collaboration between

education systems are summarized below.

◆ Education attainment is inextricably linked to

success in the labor market.

◆ Failure of some traditional education systems

to serve the needs of court-involved youth and

other at-risk youth seriously diminishes the

prospects for these youth to become successful in the labor market and to become selfsupporting citizens.

◆ Reoffending behaviors can be linked directly

to lack of educational opportunities and the

resulting lack of educational credentials.

◆ Availability of special programming through

alternative education, special education, vocational rehabilitation, vocational education,

and School-to-Work can enhance the chances

for educational success and provide additional resources.
45

identification of noncustodial parents; housing assistance; emergency funds; family, personal, mental

health, and substance abuse counseling; transportation and childcare assistance; alternative education; youth programming; emergency shelters; and

spousal abuse prevention. Many of these services are

brokered through other publicly funded agencies and

private organizations. Court-involved youth may be

assigned a social service caseworker in addition to a

juvenile justice caseworker. The social service worker

helps the youth find required community adjustment

and treatment services and often serves as an advocate for the youth. Juvenile justice personnel ensure

that youth comply with the court-ordered terms of

early intervention, community corrections, parole,

aftercare, probation, and other requirements.

A number of issues can hamper collaboration between

social service systems and juvenile justice systems:

◆ Lack of clear-cut role definitions among the various divisions within State and local social service

systems contributes to the delivery of fragmented

services and prevents access to needed services.

◆ Inconsistent development of treatment and action

plans, especially for court-involved youth being

served in the community, is an obstacle to these

youth attaining critical goals and transition steps.

◆ Monitoring the status of services is complicated

by joint jurisdiction and oversight of courtinvolved youth, often by multiple agencies within

the social service system.

◆ Absence of a designated “single point of contact”

and lack of systems-level case management result

in disjointed service delivery and inability of systems to address the problems court-involved

youth may encounter.

◆ Fragmented and duplicative roles of various system components diminish the advocacy role of the

social service system.

◆ Social service workers’ lack of knowledge about

what the labor market requires and employers

need creates barriers resulting in job loss or interruption (e.g., appointments are scheduled at times

that compete with work and/or work preparation

responsibilities).

Collaborative strategies and structures can help overcome some of these impediments. For example, joint

teams can provide comprehensive assessments, case

management, and brokerage services for juvenile

offenders.

Community-Based Support

Systems

Not-for-profit community-based organizations

(CBO’s) may provide services similar to Statefunded programs and may receive funds through

subcontracts with State- or local-affiliated agencies.

CBO’s usually offer a limited set of services and

target a specific population, neighborhood, or geographical area. Some local jurisdictions encourage

these organizations to form consortiums to reduce

duplication of effort and maximize their resources.

In addition to funding from State and local public

agencies, CBO’s may receive funds from the United

Way; private foundations; business and corporate

sponsors; religious, ethnic, or nationality-focused

organizations; and others.

Many CBO’s include job preparation services as part

of their human services delivery system. YouthBuild

is an example of a community-based work preparation program funded by the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development. Many CBO’s also

use AmeriCorps funds to provide job preparation

services for youth. Although many CBO’s offer services to youth, few concentrate their resources exclusively on services for court-involved youth. Although

it is desirable to identify and document the types of

support services that court-involved youth need in

treatment and aftercare (transition/reintegration)

plans, these community supports are rarely specified.

Youth may also receive services through public housing communities, churches, education systems,

workforce development agencies, and medical personnel, among others. It is conceivable for a youth to

have multiple “caseworkers” working on his or her

behalf but without consistent coordination. Consequently, competing priorities, multiple action plans,

and the absence of a single point of contact lead many

youth to withdraw from these support service connections in spite of available resources. This situation

necessitates the collaborative structures noted above.
46

Promising Systems Collaboration

Models

Some State-level systems collaboration models effectively counter the seemingly vast number of obstacles

and barriers that contribute to limited involvement of

court-involved youth in labor market activities. Four

of these models are described below.

YES: Youth Environmental Service Initiative

The Federal Youth Environmental Service (YES)44

initiative is designed to increase the capacity of

States and communities to treat and rehabilitate

delinquent youth and to prevent at-risk youth from

entering the juvenile justice system. YES is operated

jointly by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the U.S. Department

of the Interior. Under YES, Federal, State, local,

and private agencies cooperate to develop work

programs on environmentally sensitive lands. Target

populations for YES programs range from youth

who live in unserved communities to serious and

violent juvenile offenders in both nonsecure and

secure confinement programs. YES employs great

flexibility, tailoring onsite residential, offsite residential, or day programs to each community’s special

needs. Seven sites have been established in the

District of Columbia, Florida, Utah, and Virginia.

YES is funded locally and, although no direct Federal funding is awarded to support program operations, the Federal partners help develop YES

programs by providing training, technical assistance,

and resources such as access to Federal lands, facilities, and environmental works projects.

RIO–Y

The goal of Texas’ Re-Integration of Offenders—

Youth (RIO–Y) project is to prepare adjudicated

youth who are committed to the State’s custody to

enter the workforce and/or to access education and

training opportunities that will lead to meaningful

employment. RIO–Y is an example of systems collaboration at the highest levels of State government,

involving a partnership between the State’s juvenile

corrections agency, the Texas Youth Commission

(TYC), and the State’s recently consolidated

workforce development agency, the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). RIO–Y reintegrates

TYC youth into the community by linking TYC’s

resocialization, educational, training, and specialized treatment services to TWC’s job placement

and training programs while youth are incarcerated.

RIO–Y focuses on employment training services

and aftercare services that are available in the

communities.

RIO–Y was established by an act of the Texas legislature in 1995 as a supplement to Project RIO, a job

Community-Based Support Systems

Issues related to collaboration between communitybased support systems are summarized below.

◆ Coordination issues similar to those outlined

under “The Social Services System” affect

community-based support systems.

◆ Limited availability of community-based services or lack of knowledge about communitybased support services by juvenile justice system and social service system personnel may

prevent court-involved youth from receiving

services closely aligned to their reintegration

requirements and other needs, especially from

those programs that focus on the social and

developmental requirements of traditionally

underserved populations.

◆ Misconceptions and lack of knowledge about

the needs and characteristics of courtinvolved youth by providers of communitybased support services may exclude youth

from these services.

◆ The juvenile justice system, other systems, and

community service providers lack coordination

mechanisms. This limits youth participation

and reduces the benefits of participating in

grassroots-level services.

44 For more information about YES, contact OJJDP at the U.S.

Department of Justice. See appendix H for contact information.
47

assistance program that has placed more than

200,000 adult offenders in jobs since 1985. The law

forged a partnership between TYC and TWC and

authorized funding to allow each agency to operate

the program. The funding supports a workforce

development counselor at each TYC residential facility. Resources available through TWC’s RIO–Y

project provide employment assistance and those

available through local workforce development boards

provide other employment and training services to

TYC youth in the community.

RIO–Y funding also supports a TYC coordinator

with experience in workforce development to serve

as a liaison between the RIO–Y community-based

and facility-based staff. The coordinator also works

with community-based service providers across the

State to expand employment and training opportunities for TYC youth and with TYC institutional staff

to more closely align vocational offerings with demand occupations.

All youth committed to TYC receive an orientation

to RIO–Y at least three times during their stay. To

be eligible for RIO–Y services, the youth must be

within 6 months of his or her projected release date,

have earned or be working toward a high school

diploma or GED, and be at or above level three of

TYC’s five-level resocialization system. Once the

youth is accepted in RIO–Y, program staff conduct

an assessment of his or her aptitudes and interests

and develop an employability development plan for

the youth.

In the first phase of the program, RIO–Y participants

explore careers via Texas Career Alternatives Resources Evaluation System (CARES), a computerized multimedia career information system developed

by the Texas State Occupational Information Coordinating Committee. Texas CARES enables youth to

identify and explore occupations that are in demand

and training opportunities in their home community

or community of release. Texas CARES also provides information about employers who have opportunities in demand occupations in each region of the

State.

In the second phase of RIO–Y, youth participate in

a range of services and activities to promote employability, including work readiness and job-seeking

preparation, skills training, job shadowing, and internships on the institution grounds. Two TYC facilities also offer offsite work experience.

Upon release, RIO–Y participants are referred to

the nearest TYC office for employment assistance

and, if needed, to the local One-Stop Center overseen by the local workforce development board. The

One-Stop Centers provide job placement assistance

and referral to appropriate training providers in the

area of operation. RIO–Y participants are assumed

to be job-ready upon release and therefore are not

required to go through the assessment and job readiness program required of other TYC youth. In 1998,

25 percent of youth residing in TYC facilities were

enrolled in RIO–Y.

In 1998, RIO–Y served 1,157 youth, with 833 referred to TWC for employment assistance upon

release from a TYC facility. More than half (56 percent) of the youth referred to TWC found employment. RIO–Y also met or exceeded its performance

targets in other areas. The program’s goal was to

serve 100 percent of youth who volunteered for the

program in 1999.45

RECLAIM Ohio

In 1995, the State of Ohio launched Reasoned and

Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to

Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM) Ohio as part

of a statewide Family and Children First Initiative.46

RECLAIM Ohio provides juvenile court judges

with the means to improve the quality and range of

services available to youthful offenders in their own

communities. By providing alternatives to commitment in the State’s Department of Youth Services

(DYS), RECLAIM Ohio is also helping to address

the problem of overcrowding in the State’s juvenile

correctional institutions.

Prior to this program, funding for State juvenile

corrections programs created a fiscal incentive to

commit adjudicated youth to secure confinement in

45 Outcome information was provided by the National Youth

Employment Coalition, Washington, DC: PEP Net–99, 1999.

See appendix H for contact information.

46 For additional information, contact the Ohio Department of

Youth Services. See appendix H for contact information.
48

a State institution. Commitment to a State facility

was free to the county, while judges had to use court

budgets to fund local alternatives. This resulted in

mixing less serious, first-time delinquents with

serious, violent, repeat felony offenders.

By giving county juvenile judges the resources to

access, develop, or expand effective local alternatives

to incarceration, RECLAIM Ohio empowers them

to make the best decision for the community and the

youth. It also provides judges with the power to purchase State commitment for individuals who require

residential placement or secure confinement.

RECLAIM Ohio is administered by the Ohio DYS.

Ohio’s 88 counties handle the community-based

component, and county commissioners serve as the

fiscal agents. Funds are administered by the juvenile

courts, which work in collaboration with community

advisory boards or Family and Children First councils. Each county receives a funding allocation based

on the number of felony adjudications in the county’s

juvenile court. Each month, counties are debited 75

percent against this allocation for each youth placed

in a DYS institution and 50 percent for each youth

placed in a community correctional facility. Any

funds remaining after debits are deducted are sent to

the counties each month. Counties may use the remaining funds to purchase or develop a broad spectrum of community-based programs for delinquent

youth adjudicated for a felony who would otherwise

have been committed to DYS. The funds may also

be used to develop programs and services for other

adjudicated juvenile offenders. The juvenile courts

contract with private agencies to provide services

ranging from family counseling to electronic monitoring and from day treatment to the development of

skills to prepare these youth to live independently,

including worker preparation programs.

During the first year of implementation, RECLAIM

Ohio provided juvenile court judges with just under

$18 million to serve more than 8,600 youth in community programs. In addition, the number of commitments to DYS dropped, despite an increase

in the number of felony adjudications. In 1996, the

Ford Foundation and the John F. Kennedy School

of Government at Harvard University named

RECLAIM Ohio as a finalist in the Innovations in

American Government Awards program.

During RECLAIM Ohio’s pilot year (1994), the

participating jurisdictions experienced a 42.7-

percent decrease in commitment to the Department

of Youth Services compared with 1993. The average

age of youth served in 1997 was 15.3 years. More

than 37 percent of those admitted to RECLAIM

Ohio were felony offenders. The number of adjudications has continued to decline from 25.67 percent

in 1990 to 17.62 percent in 1997.

CorpsLINK

As a response to the public’s demand for change in

the way juvenile offenders are handled, the State of

Montana uses the balanced and restorative justice

model for administering juvenile justice. As part of

this greater focus on individual accountability, the

Montana Conservation Corps (MCC),47 which operates a full-time conservation corps program for

youth across the State, was selected to implement

two programs specifically targeting young people

involved in the juvenile justice system. The programs

enable juvenile offenders to give back both to their

victims and to their communities while developing

work and life skills. MCC operates a program for

committed youth at a State juvenile correctional

facility and a community-based program in four

regions of the State. To help fund the programs,

MCC has leveraged Federal AmeriCorps and

Summer Youth Employment and Training Program

(SYETP) resources.

MCC’s CorpsLINK program offers juvenile offenders living in the community an opportunity to make

restitution through community service activities and

provides them with mentoring services. The courtordered community service is completed during

afternoons and on weekends. AmeriCorps volunteers set up and supervise the service projects, which

include building trails, clearing public parks, or

painting community buildings, and serve as mentors

to the participants. Key to the programs are their

crew-based structure, through which participants

develop teamwork and communication skills, and

the involvement of participants in meaningful and

tangible community service projects.

47 For more information, contact MCC. See appendix H for

contact information.
49

Four full-time MCC members are assigned to each

CorpsLINK program. In addition, every full-time

MCC member is expected to mentor at least one

CorpsLINK participant during his or her term of

service. This mentoring of participants by full-time

MCC members is a significant factor in the program’s

success. The bonds that are formed while completing a project and participating in activities away

from the project site provide the basis for trusting

relationships.

The program also arranges for mediation between

CorpsLINK participants and their victims. This

generally occurs prior to youth participation in the

program and is conducted by professionals or volunteers from local dispute resolution programs.

CorpsLINK participants also may join an MCC

full-time crew during the summer through SYETP.

Once participants have satisfied their court-ordered

service commitment, they may enroll in the JTPAfunded program, provided they meet income eligibility criteria.

MCC also operates the Montana Youth Alternative program at a State juvenile correctional

facility. This program engages participants in

an intensive 6-week experiential program in the

backcountry, followed by participation in crewbased community service projects for the duration

of their commitments.

Summary

Recent approaches to system change, including identification of locally responsive, portable skills standards and experimentation with new service delivery

systems, offer opportunities for court-involved youth

to participate in the labor market. Opportunities to

prepare for the workforce can be provided through a

variety of routes and can begin at the first involvement with the juvenile justice system, regardless of

the offender’s age. One approach is to link restitution

with community service activities that build both hard

and soft work skills. Developing partnerships with

local businesses to provide employment both inside

and outside a youth residential facility helps youth

connect other education and treatment activities with

workplace requirements. Involvement by employers

and business organizations on a regular basis develops an advocacy base and a cadre of interested role

models. Linking academic learning with workplace

practices, integrating apprenticeship and other

employer-supported training models, and developing

youth entrepreneurship activities provide courtinvolved youth with opportunities for career development while building worker skills and creating an

attachment to the labor market. As practitioners and

policymakers strive to improve individual programs

that serve juveniles, they also need to devote attention

to strengthening the systems that support those programs and determine their failure or success in truly

responding to the needs of young people. Collaboration of the key youth-serving agencies is critical to the

success of efforts to help youth prepare for employment, obtain that employment, and successfully stay

on the job.
51

Steps for the Future

Based on labor market issues and program and system needs, there are five basic steps to improving

employment and training for court-involved youth:

◆ Improving communication and collaboration

between system stakeholders.

◆ Implementing public education strategies to improve community understanding about courtinvolved youth.

◆ Improving community-based services, to provide

linkages and a continuum of care.

◆ Improving residential-based services.

◆ Bringing individual effective programs to scale.

Improving Communication

Between System Stakeholders

The first step is developing common understandings,

goals, and desired outcomes between system stakeholders. Although the juvenile justice and the

workforce development systems are primary players, other systems are also important. As detailed

above, education, social services, community-based

support services, and labor market systems are critical to the delivery of employment training services

to court-involved youth.

Acknowledging that each system has its unique form

of governance, mission, and vocabulary is a first step

toward the cooperation that is essential to the development of an integrated service delivery system.

Court-involved youth, like all people, have multiple

roles (e.g., children, neighbors, school peers, sports

team members, and violators of the law). The cause

of adjudication may be a single incident, ranging

from a status offense to violent behavior, or court

involvement may represent a history of behaviors

that point to a poor prognosis for successful community reintegration. System stakeholders define their

roles in providing services and opportunities for

adjudicated youth in varying ways. These definitions

drive the extent of commitment a particular system

invests in court-involved youth and, further, the

extent to which it becomes a willing partner in assisting these youth in engaging in the labor market

and functioning as contributing members of society.

Clearly, a set of shared terms is needed and will

facilitate collaboration and understanding about the

roles of the respective stakeholders.

Increased emphasis on staff training and development, cross-disciplinary training, and identification

of resources that can be used to improve both community and residential services are also important.

Interagency staff development and forums at the

Federal, State, and local levels can help promote

mutual understanding and commitment to systemslevel collaboration.

For programs to prepare court-involved youth more

effectively for adulthood, the juvenile justice system

must increase its knowledge of the needs of these

youth. Professional development opportunities for

staff and officials at all levels of the system, including intake workers, parole officers, aftercare workers, probation officers, judges, prosecutors, defense

attorneys, and direct care providers (i.e., education,

treatment, and administrative staff) can help. All

participants need to understand the fundamentals of

youth development, the requirements of the contemporary workplace, and the principles of School-toWork programs. Staff responsible for developing

individual treatment programs, aftercare plans, and
52

dispositional options also need to be familiar with

local youth services, the education system, workforce

training delivery systems, and local and regional labor

markets. Workforce programs must participate in this

process, and these programs must be accessible to

court-involved youth.

Implementing Public Education

Strategies To Improve Community

Understanding About

Court-Involved Youth

The second step is overcoming the negative perceptions about juvenile offenders. Negative public

reaction to violent offenses committed by youth is

creating even greater obstacles to court-involved

youth who seek access to community services, including education, employment training, and support assistance. Increased knowledge about the

characteristics of court-involved youth and replication of successful strategies and programs can help

alleviate the concerns of residents, employers, and

prospective service providers. Clear articulation of

policy goals and objectives that simultaneously

address the needs of court-involved youth, make

the public aware of the costs of neglect, and address public safety concerns can help diminish

negative perceptions and misconceptions.

Local leaders, parents, and the public need to understand how a developmentally focused, asset-driven

framework differs from youth intervention strategies

of the past. Providing public forums that enable

young people to tell their stories is an effective way

to engage the media, public officials, and the public.

Public forums can highlight positive outcomes for

court-involved youth and present them as a part of

the general youth population.

Many employers express reluctance to host workbased learning involving minors because of liability

concerns and child labor laws. However, many State

School-to-Work offices are addressing these concerns and have developed information packets for

employers. In addition, the National Alliance of

Business and the National Employer Leadership

Council have developed materials that address employers’ concerns and encourage them to participate

in work-based learning and School-to-Work activities.48 Furthermore, several States have addressed

employer concerns about liability by extending liability or insurance coverage to youth placed in

school-sponsored and unpaid work-based learning

experiences.

Responding to employer recruitment and retention

needs in terms of expenditures for recruitment,

screening, entry-level training, and turnover may

also help employers better understand the return on

investment for hiring court-involved youth. Ensuring that there is a support system in place through

the use of intermediaries, job coaches, and work

adjustment personnel (staff who provide pre- and

postemployment support for job entrants in areas

such as interpersonal skills and work habits) may

also create a positive hiring atmosphere.

Improving Community-Based

Services

The third step is to improve community-based employment and training services for court-involved

youth. This includes integrating youth development

principles into each level of the juvenile justice

continuum, ensuring consistency between youth

readiness, adjustment, and movement into labor

market activities. The principles and approaches

exemplified by successful model programs should be

more fully examined and adapted by residential facilities to enable confined youth to become productive and contributing members of society.

Ideally, services and supports for court-involved

youth who reside at home or who are placed in

community-based settings should be provided by the

existing youth services delivery system. To achieve

this, communities need to acknowledge their responsibility to these youth. The communities, in turn,

must receive the resources they need to provide these

youth with appropriate services, supports, and developmental opportunities, as required. Rather than

continue to establish or expand community-based

programs designed exclusively for court-involved

48 For more information, visit the following Web sites:

www.stw.ed.gov; www.nab.com/content/education

improvement/schooltocareer/index/htm; and www.cord.org.
53

youth or to create new programs that roughly parallel programs serving the general youth population,

the juvenile justice system should encourage integrating court-involved youth in programs that serve

the general youth population. To accomplish this,

the juvenile justice system must be prepared to provide resources, offer technical assistance, and ensure

adequate levels of aftercare intervention.

Many youth service providers are already unknowingly serving court-involved youth, without any

formal relationship or support from the juvenile

justice system. These services tend to be linked to

the broader network of educational, job training,

and community support services rather than to

stand-alone (and often isolated) programs for courtinvolved youth. Turning to community service providers builds community capacity, consolidates

services, and reduces the stigma that often accompanies participation in programs developed exclusively

for adjudicated youth. It also spreads the fiscal burden of these services among a wider array of youth

funding sources. However, it is critical that providers of youth services have demonstrated experience

working with troubled youth; provide an appropriate mix of programmatic elements, including working with employers; and be willing and able to

supplement their services or add components to

address the security, supervision, accountability, and

treatment needs of juvenile offenders. Providing

appropriate services is probably the responsibility of

system components; however, the task can be contracted to the private sector. One collaborative

structure is to have probation or aftercare workers

providing supervision, working in a team with private providers and case managers who provide guidance, broker services, and monitor those services.

The tone of youth-related policies set by State and

local policymakers can significantly affect the degree

to which court-involved youth are integrated with

youth and workforce development initiatives.

Local communities need to be provided with resources that target court-involved youth and the

flexibility to employ the resources effectively. State

and local governments should not impose rigid programmatic models on communities, but instead

should develop an overall framework for youth

policy that encourages the development and expansion of programs that exemplify the principles articulated in earlier chapters of this Report.

Under the leadership of the Governor, mayor, or

chief local elected official, agencies that directly

serve youth—and those that fund or regulate youth

programs—should develop a shared objective to

meet the developmental needs of all youth. Each

agency should identify its role in achieving the objective. Narrow categorical programs that may unduly restrict the flexibility of local communities and

may not contribute to achievement of the vision

should be reassessed. Although this process may

result in turf battles, high-level officials and youth

advocates must remain focused on the overall vision

for serving youth and funding processes that are

most likely to succeed in developing effective programs for youth.

The development of a shared goal for youth services

and the benchmarks for achieving the goal also require substantive input from State and local leaders,

educators, social service workers, juvenile court

judges and prosecutors, local law enforcement personnel, employers, parent groups, youth, communitybased organizations, civic associations, and public

and private not-for-profit youth service providers.

A collaborative and inclusive process will foster

cooperation and eliminate many of the barriers to

implementing a comprehensive local plan.

To stimulate community mobilization in support of

the proposed reforms, State and local governments

should invest in building the capacities of local communities and service providers. Community leaders

should learn techniques for promoting collaboration

and achieving consensus through formal training

programs. Professional facilitators should be available to help community stakeholders resolve turf

issues and reach consensus.

Local leaders and youth service providers may need

training on key adolescent development issues, especially regarding court-involved youth. They may

also require new strategies for identifying and mitigating the most prevalent communitywide risk factors and for increasing the key protective factors.

Increasing the awareness and understanding of all
54

relevant agencies will facilitate the formation of

comprehensive youth and workforce development

strategies.

Improving Residential-Based

Services

The fourth step is for the State or local juvenile justice authority to ensure that the needed services and

supports for juvenile residential-based services are

available onsite or accessible in the nearby community. This entails reassessing the current educational,

vocational, and social development programs and

adapting programs to reflect the principles of youth

development, special needs, and School-to-Work

programs to the extent feasible within secure or staffsecure settings.

Institutional vocational education programs should

offer training only in occupations and industries for

which there is current and projected future demand

within the State or region. Many State and local

School-to-Work partnerships, employment and

training providers, State Occupational Information

Coordinating Committees, private industry councils,

workforce development boards, vocational technical

education providers, community colleges, and economic development agencies have already conducted analyses to determine the growth industries

and occupations in the State or region. These entities can guide the selection and development of

facility-based vocational programs. A major consideration is providing residential youth with occupational skills training that prepares them for jobs that

are in demand in the community or region to which

they will return upon release. To the greatest extent

possible, residential facilities should be small and

located close to home communities.

Once the vocational or industry demand areas are

determined, employers who are in the growth industries or who hire for the demand occupations should

be invited to serve on an advisory body to ensure

that the training curriculum and vocational programs remain current and relevant. Juvenile justice

agencies and residential facilities should also provide

opportunities for employers to interact directly with

youth. Efforts to reach out to employers should also

extend to public sector employers and small and

minority-owned businesses.

Residential facilities should avoid investing heavily

in vocational training equipment, as they can never

keep pace with the rapid technological change that

occurs in the contemporary workplace. Instead,

corrections agencies and facilities should solicit surplus equipment from employers, lease equipment for

short periods, or secure access to equipment from

nearby community colleges, vocational-technical

centers, or employers.

Because of security concerns, many youth in secure

residential facilities are unable to leave the grounds

to take advantage of work-based learning opportunities, so facilities should develop programs that

provide work settings within the institutions.

School-based enterprises are another vehicle for

providing confined youth with opportunities to

learn about the operations of business. Having

employers help direct and support these activities

enables the youth to draw direct connections between the work being performed and the real-life

experiences and education they will need to succeed in the work world.

The pedagogy employed by many institutional academic and basic-skills education programs should be

restructured to accommodate the learning styles of

most committed youth. Workplace context, relevance, and applied learning methods that increase

students’ motivation to learn and their ability to

apply concepts should be built into academic programs. Academic programs should not be restricted

to traditional core academic subjects or GED preparation but should integrate competencies identified by the DOL’s Secretary’s Commission on

Achieving Necessary Skills.

Many job-related and academic competencies can be

developed through well-structured, supervised service activities, either in the community or within the

residential facility. These activities also provide

youth with the opportunity to perform community

restitution.

Youth correctional facilities, local workforce development, education, and youth development providers should work closely together to connect youth to
55

appropriate services prior to their scheduled release

date. These entities should be involved in joint planning for reentry. Youth who need job training or

job placement assistance should be referred to the

One-Stop Center or job service nearest to the location of release. Bonds should be secured for juvenile

offenders before they are released, because they may

find it difficult to secure employment without them.

If the youth is returning to school, the facility should

establish connections with the local education agency

to ease the youth’s transition into a traditional school

setting or to identify a suitable alternative arrangement. School policy, stated or unstated, that restricts

the reentry of juvenile offenders must be reassessed, and schools should be assisted by in-school

services and supervision that facilitate positive reentry. Aftercare planning should include preidentified

arrangements with community-based organizations

and other public or private services, with a special

effort to link the youth with role models and mentors.

Identifying adequate resources is one of the most

significant challenges for States and communities

seeking to provide opportunities that promote selfsufficiency for court-involved youth. Policymakers

should be informed about the outcomes of effective

programs and the cost savings they achieve. Joint

advocacy by juvenile justice, workforce development, and most particularly the business community

may increase resources.

Bringing Individual Effective

Programs to Scale

Many of the programs discussed in previous chapters have engaged community partners to provide an

array of juvenile justice, workforce development,

education, social service, and community-based supports for court-involved youth. Unfortunately, these

programs are only scattered examples of what can

be accomplished through collaborative efforts. The

fifth step is for youth-serving systems to work together and complement one another so an integrated

and effective service delivery system, appropriate

for all parts of the juvenile justice continuum, can be

implemented.

While collaborative efforts provide the potential for

greater service and cost efficiency, they are often

initially accompanied by significant cost requirements.

Systems integration, as exemplified by the Schoolto-Work and One-Stop Center initiatives, requires a

significant investment to ensure proper planning and

to demonstrate effective implementation strategies.

Additional funding at the Federal level by the U.S.

Departments of Justice and Labor can help to bring

the necessary systems to scale. Although both Departments have committed resources to testing program models, the larger challenge of systems

integration may require greater emphasis. Additional work at the Federal level, such as broadening

the base of access to Federal youth offender and

youth opportunity funds (www.doleta.gov), would

benefit court-involved youth, communities, and families throughout the country, not only selected highpoverty areas. Other joint Federal agency efforts,

such as Safe Schools/Healthy Students (supported

by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human

Services, Justice, and Labor) should also be continued and promoted. Continuation and expansion of

efforts to increase collaboration between the employment and training system and the juvenile justice

system, such as allocating the funds now available

from DOL through the Youth Offender Demonstration Projects and Youth Opportunity Demonstration

Project, would benefit court-involved youth, communities, and families.

Many new initiatives are being promoted by the

Federal Government, foundations, and businesses to

combat youth crime and unemployment, which are

among the Nation’s most pressing concerns. These

opportunities promote capacity-building and systemic change through new partnerships and the

realignment of existing partnerships. Program

implementers and policymakers must be diligent in

their assessment of program effectiveness and the

impact of funding on changing the landscape of

youth development programs. Only through these

cooperative ventures and mutual understandings

will dramatic changes—sufficient to stem the rising

tide of youth alienation from the mainstream of

society—occur.
A–1

Appendix A: Members of the Task Force on

Employment and Training for

Court-Involved Youth*

Practitioner Members

David Altschuler

Principal Research Scientist

The Johns Hopkins University

Institute for Policy Studies

Gordon Bazemore

Principal Research Scientist

Florida Atlantic University

Balanced and Restorative Justice Project

Michael Benjamin

Executive Director

Institute for Mental Health Initiatives

David Brown

Senior Policy Analyst

National Governors’ Association

Edgar Cahn

Executive Director and Founder

Time Dollar Institute

Chris Card

President

YMCA

Children, Youth, and Families

Sarasota, FL

Raymond Chase

Project Administrator

American Correctional Association

Ed de Jesus

National Youth Employment Coalition

Promising and Effective Practices Network

Susan Finisclove

Program Manager

Marriott Foundation for People with Disabilities

Mark P. Fontaine

Executive Director

Florida Juvenile Justice Association

Bill Gandy

Manager

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

District 5

Jack Greene

Director of Professional Development

American Correctional Association

Jeff Greim

Senior Program Officer

Project Development

Public/Private Ventures

David Gruber

Independent Consultant

Andrew Hahn

Professor

Brandeis University

Heller Graduate School

Sam Halperin

Executive Director

American Youth Policy Forum

Robin Hamilton

National Coordinator

Home Builders Institute

* The titles listed reflect members’ positions when the Task

Force met. Titles were not available for some individuals on the

Task Force.
A–2

James Hardemann

Corporate Manager

Employee Assistance Program

Polaroid Corporation

Talmira Hill

Program Associate

Annie E. Casey Foundation

Laura Ivey

National Coordinator

Home Builders Institute

Bob Jackson

Director

Occupational Information

Coordination Committees of America

Donna Walker James

Senior Program Associate

American Youth Policy Forum

John Jeffries

Director

National Associates Programs

VERA Institute

John Jones

Acting Executive Director

East New York Urban Youth Corps

Peter Joyce

Vice President

National Alliance of Business

Al Kamikawa

Senior Vice President

Home Builders Institute

Mary Ellen Kiss

President

Resource Development Group

Barry Krisberg

Executive Director

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

Ned Loughran

Executive Director

Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators

Sarah Maxwell

National Coordinator

Home Builders Institute

The Honorable George Mitchell

National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges

John Moore

Administrator

National Institute of Corrections

Office of Correctional Job Placement

Joyce Morrissey

JCC Transition Specialist

New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission

Marty O’Brien

Government Relations and Public Affairs Coordinator

National Association of Service and

Conservation Corps

Everett Oliver

Industrial Manager

Surplus and Salvage

Golden Door Program for Ex-Offenders

Adolph Coors Company

Greg Pearce

Research Associate

National Council on Crime and Delinquency

Marion W. Pines

Director

The Johns Hopkins University

Institute for Policy Studies

Sar Levitan Center

Robert Pleasure

Assistant to the President for Education and Training

AFL–CIO

Raissa Quintal

Legislative Assistant

Office of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell

Ed Ridgway

Director of Site Development

National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning

and Community Leadership
A–3

Paula Seidman

Project Director

Circle Solutions, Inc.

Bill J. Spring

Vice President and District Community Affairs Officer

Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Andy Sum

Northeastern University

Center for Labor Market Studies

Philip Tedeschi

Director

Resource Center for High Risk Youth

Dennis Torbett

Vice President for Apprenticeship

Home Builders Institute

JoAnna Tyler

Senior Manager

KRA Corporation

Rex Uberman

Deputy Director for Operations

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Ernst Wegschaidler

Executive Director

New Jersey Juvenile Justice Commission

Roscoe Wilson

Regional Director

Associated Marine Institute

Alan Zuckerman

Executive Director

National Youth Employment Coalition

Federal Agency Participants

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik

Administrator

Douglas Dodge

Director

Special Emphasis Division

Sarah Ingersoll

Special Counsel to the Administrator

Executive Office for Weed and Seed

Steve Rickman

Director

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis

Director

Marilyn Moses

Program Analyst

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration

Beverly Bachemin

Manpower Development Specialist

John Heinberg

Special Assistant to the Administrator

Office of Job Corps

Marcus Gray

Program Administrator

Elisa Lopez

Vocational Intern

U.S. Department of Education

Richard Smith

Director

Office of Correctional Education

Rich Luecking

National School-to-Work Opportunity Office
B–1

Appendix B: National Employment Trends

Occupation Number* Percentage of Increase

Database administrators, computer support

 specialists, and all other computer scientists 249 118%

Computer engineers 235 109

Systems analysts 520 103

Personal and home care aides 171 85

Physical and corrective therapy assistants and aides 66 79

Home health aides 378 76

Medical assistants 166 74

Desktop publishing specialists 22 74

Physical therapists 81 71

Occupational therapy assistants and aides 11 69

* In thousands of new jobs.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998–99 Occupational Outlook Handbook, online 1998, retrieved 1998 from the Bureau of

Labor Statistics Web site: stats.bls.gov/news.release/ooh.table1.htm.

Table B–1: The 10 Fastest Growing Occupations, 1996–2006
B–2

Occupation Number* Percentage of Increase

Cashiers 530 17%

Systems analysts 520 103

General managers and top executives 467 15

Registered nurses 411 21

Salespersons, retail 408 10

Truckdrivers, light and heavy 404 15

Home health aides 378 76

Teacher’s aides and educational assistants 370 38

Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants 333 25

Receptionists and information clerks 318 30

* In thousands of projected new jobs.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998–99 Occupational Outlook Handbook, retrieved 1998 from the Bureau of Labor

Statistics Web site: stats.bls.gov/news.release/ooh.table2.htm.

Table B–2: Occupations With the Largest Projected Job Growth, 1996–2006
C–1

Appendix C: State and Local Labor Market

Information Contacts

State Occupational Information

Coordinating Committees

State Occupational Information Coordinating Committees (SOICC’s) may provide information directly

or make referrals to other sources. The addresses

and telephone numbers of the directors of SOICC’s

are listed below.1

State Employment Security

Agencies

State employment security agencies develop detailed

information about local labor markets, such as current and projected employment by occupation and

industry, characteristics of the workforce, and changes

in State and local economic activity. Addresses and

telephone numbers of the directors of research and

analysis in these agencies are listed below.

Most States have career information delivery systems

(CIDS’s) in secondary schools, postsecondary institutions, libraries, job training sites, vocational rehabilitation centers, and employment service offices.

The public can use the systems’ computers, printed

material, microfiche, and toll-free hotlines to obtain

information on occupations, educational opportunities, student financial aid, apprenticeships, and

military careers. Ask counselors and SOICC’s for

specific locations.

A computerized State Training Inventory (STI)

developed by the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee (NOICC) is also

maintained by the SOICC’s and available in every

State. Education and training data are organized by

occupation or training program title, type of institution, and geographic area. The database is compiled

at the State level and includes more than 217,000

education and training programs offered by more

than 21,000 schools, colleges, and hospitals. If you

are interested in STI, contact individual SOICC’s

for State-specific data.

State occupational projections are also available on

the Internet at udesc.state.ut.us/almis/stateproj/.

Alabama

Chief, Labor Market Information

Department of Industrial Relations

649 Monroe Street, Room 422

Montgomery, AL 36130

334–242–8859

Executive Director

Alabama Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Alabama Center for Commerce

401 Adams Avenue, Room 424

P.O. Box 5690

Montgomery, AL 36103–5690

334–242–2990

Alaska

Chief, Research and Analysis

Alaska Department of Labor

P.O. Box 25501

Juneau, AK 99802–5501

907–465–4500 1

 This information is taken from the U.S. Department of Labor,

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998–99 Occupational Outlook Handbook, retrieved 1998 from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Web

site: stats.bls.gov/oco/oco20024.htm.
C–2

Executive Director

Alaska Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Research and Analysis Section

P.O. Box 25501

Juneau, AK 99802–5501

907–465–4518

American Samoa

Director

American Samoa Occupational Information

Coordinating Council and Research

Department of Human Resources

American Samoa Government

Pago Pago, AS 96799

684–633–4485

Arizona

Research Administrator

Department of Economic Security

1789 West Jefferson Street

P.O. Box 6123, Site Code 733A

Phoenix, AZ 85005–6123

602–542–3871

Executive Director

Arizona State Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

1789 West Jefferson Street, First Floor North

P.O. Box 6123, Site Code 897J

Phoenix, AZ 85005–6123

602–542–3871

Arkansas

Labor Market Information Director

Employment Security Department

P.O. Box 2981

Little Rock, AR 72203–2981

501–682–3159

Executive Director

Occupational Information Coordinating Council

Employment Security Department

Employment and Training Services

P.O. Box 2981

Little Rock, AR 72203–2981

501–682–3159

California

Chief, Labor Market Information Division

Employment Development Department

7000 Franklin Boulevard

Building 1100, MIC 57

P.O. Box 826880

Sacramento, CA 94280–0001

916–262–2160

Executive Director

California Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

1116 Ninth Street, Lower Level

P.O. Box 944222

Sacramento, CA 94244–2220

916–323–6544

Colorado

Labor Market Information Director

Colorado Department of Labor

1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2

Suite 300

Denver, CO 80202–2108

303–620–4856

Director

Colorado Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2

Suite 300

Denver, CO 80202–2108

303–620–4981

Connecticut

Director of Research

Connecticut State Labor Department

200 Folly Brook Boulevard, Suite 1

Wethersfield, CT 06109–1114

860–566–2121

Executive Director

Connecticut Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

Connecticut State Labor Department

200 Folly Brook Boulevard, Suite 1

Wethersfield, CT 06109–1114

860–566–7963
C–3

Delaware

Labor Market Information Director

Delaware Department of Labor

4425 North Market Street

Wilmington, DE 19809–0965

302–761–8069

Executive Director

Office of Occupational and Labor

Market Information

Delaware Department of Labor

4425 North Market Street

Wilmington, DE 19802

302–761–8050

District of Columbia

Chief of Labor Market Information

Department of Employment Services

500 C Street NW., Room 201

Washington, DC 20001–2187

202–724–7214

Executive Director

District of Columbia Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

500 C Street NW., Suite 200

Washington, DC 20001–2187

202–724–7205

Florida

Chief, Bureau of Labor Market Information

Department of Labor and Employment Security

Hartman Building, Suite 200

2012 Capitol Circle SE.

Tallahassee, FL 32399–2151

904–488–6037

Manager

Workplace Development Information

Coordinating Committee

Bureau of Labor Market Information

Department of Labor and Employment Security

Hartman Building, Suite 200

2012 Capitol Circle SE.

Tallahassee, FL 32399–2151

904–488–1048

Georgia

Director

Labor Information Systems

Department of Labor

223 Courtland Street NE.

Atlanta, GA 30303–1751

404–656–3177

Executive Director

Georgia Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

Department of Labor

148 International Boulevard, Sussex Place

Atlanta, GA 30303–1751

404–656–9639

Guam

Executive Director

Guam Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Human Resource Development Agency

Guam ITC Building, Third Floor

P.O. Box 3358

Agana, GU 96910–2817

671–649–9759

Hawaii

Chief, Research and Statistics Office

Department of Labor and Industrial Relations

830 Punchbowl Street, Room 304

Honolulu, HI 96813–5080

808–586–8999

Executive Director

Hawaii State Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

830 Punchbowl Street, Room 315

Honolulu, HI 96813–5080

808–586–8750

Idaho

Director

Research and Analysis

Department of Employment

317 Main Street

Boise, ID 83735–0001

208–334–6169
C–4

Director

Idaho Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

Len B. Jordan Building, Room 301

650 West State Street

P.O. Box 83720

Boise, ID 83720–0095

208–334–3705

Illinois

Economic Information and Analysis Manager

Department of Employment Security

401 South State Street, 2S

Chicago, IL 60605

312–793–2316

Executive Director

Illinois Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

217 East Monroe, Suite 203

Springfield, IL 62706–1147

217–785–0789

Indiana

Deputy Commissioner for Field Support

and Business Development

Department of Workforce Development

10 North Senate Avenue

Indianapolis, IN 46204–2277

317–233–5724

Director

Indiana Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Workforce Development/Technical Education

Indiana Government Center South

10 North Senate Avenue, Second Floor

Indianapolis, IN 46204–2277

317–233–5099

Iowa

Bureau Chief

Research and Information Services

Department of Workforce Development

1000 East Grand Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50319

515–281–8181

Executive Director

Iowa Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

Department of Education

Grimes State Office Building

Des Moines, IA 50319

515–242–5032

Kansas

Chief, Labor Market Information Services

Department of Human Resources

401 SW. Topeka Avenue

Topeka, KS 66603–3182

913–296–5058

Director

Kansas Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

401 SW. Topeka Avenue

Topeka, KS 66603–3182

Kentucky

Manager

Labor Market Information Branch

Department of Employment Services

275 East Main Street

Frankfort, KY 40621

502–564–7976

Information Liaison/Manager

Kentucky Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

500 Mero Street, Room 2031

Frankfort, KY 40601

502–564–4258

Louisiana

Director

Research and Statistics Division

Department of Employment and Training

P.O. Box 94094

Baton Rouge, LA 70804–9094

504–342–3141
C–5

Director

Louisiana Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

P.O. Box 94094

Baton Rouge, LA 70804–9094

504–342–5149

Maine

Director

Labor Market Information Services

Department of Labor

Bureau of Employment Services

20 Union Street

Augusta, ME 04330

207–287–2271

SOICC Director

Maine Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

State House Station 71

Augusta, ME 04333

207–624–6200

Maryland

Director

Office of Labor Market Analysis and Information

State Department of Labor

Licensing and Regulation

1100 North Eutaw Street, Room 601

Baltimore, MD 21201–2206

410–767–2250

Director

Maryland State Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

State Department of Labor

Licensing and Regulation

1100 North Eutaw Street, Room 104

Baltimore, MD 21201–2206

410–626–2953

Massachusetts

Labor Market Information and Research Director

Division of Employment and Training

Hurley Building, Fifth Floor

19 Staniford Street

Boston, MA 02114

617–626–6556

Director

Massachusetts Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

Division of Employment Security

Charles F. Hurley Building, Second Floor

Government Center

Boston, MA 02114

617–727–5718

Michigan

Deputy Director

Management and Financial Services

Employment Security Commission

7310 Woodward Avenue, Room 510

Detroit, MI 48202

313–876–5904

Executive Coordinator

Michigan Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Victor Office Center

201 North Washington Square, Fourth Floor

Lansing, MI 48913

517–373–0363

Minnesota

Director

Research and Statistical Services

Department of Economic Security

390 North Robert Street, Fifth Floor

St. Paul, MN 55101

612–296–6546

Director

Minnesota Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

Department of Economic Security

390 North Robert Street, Fifth Floor

St. Paul, MN 55101

651–296–2072
C–6

Mississippi

Chief, Labor Market Information Department

Employment Security Commission

P.O. Box 1699

1520 West Charles Street

Jackson, MS 39215–1699

601–961–7424

SOICC Director

Mississippi State Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

301 West Pearl Street

Jackson, MS 39203–3089

601–949–2240

Missouri

Chief, Research and Analysis

Division of Employment Security

421 East Dunkin Street

P.O. Box 59

Jefferson City, MO 65104–0059

573–751–3595

Director

Missouri Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

400 Dix Road

Jefferson City, MO 65109

573–751–3800

Montana

Chief, Research and Analysis

Department of Labor and Industry

P.O. Box 1728

Helena, MT 59624

406–444–2430

SOICC Director

Montana Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

1301 Lockey Street, Second Floor

P.O. Box 1728

Helena, MT 59624–1728

406–444–2741

Nebraska

Labor Market Information Administrator

Department of Labor

550 South 16th Street

P.O. Box 94600

Lincoln, NE 68509–4600

402–471–9964

Administrator

Nebraska Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

State House Station

P.O. Box 94600

Lincoln, NE 68509–4600

402–471–9953

Nevada

Chief, Research and Analysis

Labor Market Information

Employment Security Division

500 East Third Street

Carson City, NV 89713–0002

702–687–4550

Manager

Nevada Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

DETR

500 East Third Street

Carson City, NV 89713–0001

702–687–4550

New Hampshire

Director

Labor Market Information

Department of Employment Security

32 South Main Street

Concord, NH 03301

603–228–4123

Director

New Hampshire Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

64 Old Suncook Road

Concord, NH 03301

603–228–3349
C–7

New Jersey

Assistant Commissioner

Labor Research and Analysis

Department of Labor

CN056

Trenton, NJ 08625–0056

609–292–2643

Staff Director

New Jersey Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Labor Building, Fifth Floor

CN057

Trenton, NJ 08625–0057

609–292–2682

New Mexico

Chief, Economic Research and Analysis Bureau

Department of Labor

Tiwa Building

401 Broadway Boulevard NE.

P.O. Box 1928

Albuquerque, NM 87103

505–841–8645

SOICC Director

New Mexico Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Tiwa Building

401 Broadway Boulevard NE.

P.O. Box 1928

Albuquerque, NM 87103

505–841–8455

New York

Director

Department of Labor

Research and Statistics Division

State Office Building Campus

Building 12, Room 401

Albany, NY 12240

518–457–6369

Executive Director

New York State Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Department of Labor

Research and Statistics Division

State Office Building Campus

Building 12, Room 488

Albany, NY 12240

518–457–7556

North Carolina

Director

Labor Market Information

Employment Security Commission

P.O. Box 25903

Raleigh, NC 27611

919–733–2937

Executive Director

North Carolina Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

700 Wade Avenue

P.O. Box 25903

Raleigh, NC 27611

919–733–6700

North Dakota

Director

Research and Statistics

Job Service North Dakota

P.O. Box 5507

Bismarck, ND 58506–5507

701–328–2868

Program Administrator

North Dakota State Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

1720 Burnt Boat Drive

P.O. Box 5507

Bismarck, ND 58506–5507

701–328–9734
C–8

Northern Mariana Islands

Executive Director

Northern Mariana Islands Occupational

Information Coordinating Committee

Building N, Room N–1

P.O. Box 149

Northern Mariana College

Saipan, MP 96950

670–234–7394

Ohio

Administrator

Labor Market Information Division

Bureau of Employment Services

78–80 Chestnut, Fifth Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

614–752–9494

Director

Ohio Occupational Information Coordinating

Committee

Labor Market Information Division

Bureau of Employment Services

145 South Front Street

Columbus, OH 43215

614–466–1109

Oklahoma

Director

Research Division

Employment Security Commission

305 Will Rogers Memorial Office Building

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405–557–7265

Executive Director

Oklahoma Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

State Department of Vocational/

Technology Education

1500 West Seventh Avenue

Stillwater, OK 74074–4364

405–743–5198

Oregon

Administrator for Research

Tax and Analysis

Oregon Employment Department

875 Union Street NE.

Salem, OR 97311–0101

503–378–8656

SOICC Director

Oregon Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

875 Union Street NE.

Salem, OR 97311–0101

503–378–5747

Pennsylvania

Director

Bureau of Research and Statistics

300 Capitol Associates Building, Third Floor

901 North Seventh Street

Harrisburg, PA 17120–9969

717–787–3266

Executive Director

Pennsylvania SOICC

Bureau of Research and Statistics

Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry

300 Capitol Associates Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120–0034

717–772–1330

Puerto Rico

Director

Research and Statistics Division

Department of Labor and Human Resources

505 Munoz Rivera Avenue, 20th Floor

Hato Rey, PR 00918

787–754–5385

Executive Director

Puerto Rico Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

P.O. Box 366212

San Juan, PR 00936–6212

787–723–7110
C–9

Rhode Island

Labor Market Information Director

Department of Employment and Training

101 Friendship Street

Providence, RI 02903–3740

401–277–3730

Director

Rhode Island Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

101 Friendship Street

Providence, RI 02903–3740

401–272–0830

South Carolina

Director

Labor Market Information

Employment Security Commission

P.O. Box 995

Columbia, SC 29202–0995

803–737–2660

Director

South Carolina Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

1550 Gadsden Street

P.O. Box 995

Columbia, SC 29202–0995

803–737–2733

South Dakota

Director

Labor Information Center

Department of Labor

P.O. Box 4730

Aberdeen, SD 57402–4730

605–626–2314

Director

South Dakota Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

South Dakota Department of Labor

420 South Roosevelt Street

P.O. Box 4730

Aberdeen, SD 57402–4730

605–626–2314

Tennessee

Director

Research and Statistics Division

Department of Employment Security

500 James Robertson Parkway

Volunteer Plaza, 11th Floor

Nashville, TN 37245–1000

615–741–2284

Executive Director

Tennessee Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

500 James Robertson Parkway

Volunteer Plaza, 11th Floor

Nashville, TN 37245–1600

615–741–6451

Texas

Director of Labor Market Information

Texas Workforce Commission

101 East 15th Street, Room 208T

Austin, TX 78778–0001

512–463–2222

Director

Texas Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Travis Building, Suite 205

3520 Executive Center Drive

Austin, TX 78731

512–502–3750

U.S. Virgin Islands

Chief, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Department of Labor

53A and 54B Kronprindsens Gade

Charlotte Amalie

St. Thomas, VI 00802

809–776–3700

Coordinator

Virgin Islands Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

P.O. Box 303359

St. Thomas, VI 00803–3359

809–776–3700, Ext. 2136
C–10

Utah

Director

Labor Market Information

Utah Department of Employment Security

140 East 300 South

P.O. Box 45249

Salt Lake City, UT 84147–0249

801–536–7860

Director

Utah Occupational Information Coordinating

Committee

c/o Utah Department of Employment Security

140 East 300 South

P.O. Box 45249

Salt Lake City, UT 84147–0249

801–536–7806

Vermont

Director

Policy and Information

Department of Employment and Training

5 Green Mountain Drive

P.O. Box 488

Montpelier, VT 05601–0488

802–828–4153

Director

Vermont Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

5 Green Mountain Drive

P.O. Box 488

Montpelier, VT 05601–0488

802–229–0311

Virginia

Director

Economic Information Services Division

Virginia Employment Commission

703 East Main Street

Richmond, VA 23219

804–786–7496

Acting Executive Director

Virginia Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

Virginia Employment Commission

703 East Main Street

P.O. Box 1358

Richmond, VA 23211

804–786–7496

Washington

Director

Labor Market and Economic Analysis

P.O. Box 9046

Olympia, WA 98507–9046

360–438–4804

Executive Director

Washington Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

c/o Employment Security Department

P.O. Box 9046

Olympia, WA 98507–9046

360–438–4803

West Virginia

Assistant Director

Labor and Economic Research

JTP/ES Division

Bureau of Employment Programs

112 California Avenue

Charleston, WV 25305–0112

304–558–2660

Executive Director

West Virginia Occupational Information

Coordinating Committee

P.O. Box 487

Institute, WV 25112–0487

304–766–2687
C–11

Wisconsin

Director

Department of Workforce Development

Jobs, Employment, and Training Services

Division

201 East Washington Avenue, Room 221X

P.O. Box 7946

Madison, WI 53707–7946

608–266–5843

Coordinator

Wisconsin State Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

Department of Workforce Development

DWE/BW1

201 East Washington Avenue, GEF–1

Room 221X

P.O. Box 7944

Madison, WI 53707–7944

608–267–9611

Wyoming

Manager

Research and Planning

Department of Employment

P.O. Box 2760

Casper, WY 82602–2760

307–473–3801

Acting Director

Wyoming Occupational Information

Coordinating Council

P.O. Box 2760

246 South Center Street, Second Floor

Casper, WY 82602

307–473–3809
D–1

Appendix D: State Workforce Investment

Act Contacts

Alabama

Nick D. Bailey

Acting Director

Alabama Department of Economic and

Community Affairs

401 Adams Avenue

P.O. Box 5690

Montgomery, AL 36103–5690

334–242–8672

334–242–5099 (fax)

E-mail: Dewaynef@Adeca.state.al.us

Alaska

Mike Andrews

Executive Director

AHRIC

3601 C Street, Suite 380

Anchorage, AK 99503

907–269–7485

907–269–7489 (fax)

E-mail: Mike_Andrews@gov.state.ak.us

American Samoa

Eneliko Sofa’i

Deputy Director

Department of Human Resources

Employment Training and Development

Division

American Samoa Government

Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

684–633–4485

684–633–5667 (fax)

E-mail: enesofai@samoatelco.com

Arizona

Moises Gallegos

Acting Assistant Director

Division of Employment and Rehabilitation

Services

Arizona Department of Economic Security

1789 West Jefferson Street, AZ 901A

Phoenix, AZ 85007

602–542–4910

602–542–2273 (fax)

E-mail: m.gallegos@mail.de.state.az.us

Arkansas

Director

Arkansas Workforce Development Board

3 Capitol Mall

Little Rock, AR 72205

501–371–1020

501–371–1030 (fax)

E-mail: Arkansaswib@mail.state.ar.us

California

Nancy Pruit

Director

Employment Development Department

P.O. Box 826880, MIC 83

Sacramento, CA 94280

916–654–8210

916–657–5294 (fax)

E-mail: mbernick@edd.ca.gov
D–2

Colorado

Clark Bolser

Executive Director

Colorado Workforce Coordinating Council

Office of the Governor

1580 Logan, Suite 410

Denver, CO 80203

303–894–2077

303–894–2064 (fax)

E-mail: clark.bolser@state.co.us

Connecticut

Susan G. Townsley

Deputy Commissioner

Connecticut Labor Department

200 Folly Brook Boulevard

Wethersfield, CT 06109

860–263–6515

860–263–6529 (fax)

E-mail: susan.townsley@po.state.ct.us

Delaware

Lynn Howard

Policy Advisor for Family Services

820 French Street

Wilmington, DE 19801

302–577–3210

302–577–3118 (fax)

E-mail: lhoward@state.de.us

Lisa Blunt-Bradley

Secretary of Labor

4425 North Market Street

Wilmington, DE 19802

302–761–8000

302–761–6621 (fax)

E-mail: lbradley@state.de.us

District of Columbia

Gregory Irish

Director

District of Columbia

Department of Employment Services

500 C Street NW.

Washington, DC 20001

202–724–7185

202–724–7112 (fax)

E-mail: des15@erols.com

Florida

Lois A. Scott

Director of Jobs and Benefits

Department of Labor and Employment Security

1320 Executive Center Drive

Atkins Building, Room 300

Tallahassee, FL 32399–0667

850–488–7225

805–487–1753 (fax)

E-mail: lois_scott@jb.fdles.state.fl.us

Georgia

Michael Thurmond

Commissioner

Georgia Department of Labor

148 International Boulevard NE., Suite 600

Sussex Place

Atlanta, GA 30303–1751

404–656–3011

404–656–2683 (fax)

E-mail: commissioner@dol.state.ga.us

Milton Martin

Deputy Commissioner

Georgia Department of Labor

148 International Boulevard NE., Suite 600

Sussex Place

Atlanta, GA 30303–1751

404–657–8242

404–656–2683 (fax)

E-mail: mmartin@dol.state.ga.us
D–3

Guam

James H. Underwood

Acting Director

Department of Labor

P.O. Box U

Agana, GU 96932

671–647–7076

671–647–7063 (fax)

E-mail: onestop@ns.gov.gu

Hawaii

Lorraine H. Akiba

Director

Department of Labor and Industrial

Relations

830 Punchbowl Street, Room 321

Honolulu, HI 96813

808–586–8844

808–586–9099 (fax)

E-mail: akiba@aloha.net

Idaho

Tana Shillingstad

Office of the Governor

P.O. Box 83720

Boise, ID 83720–0034

208–334–2100

208–334–3454 (fax)

E-mail: tshillin@gov.state.id.us

Illinois

Herbert D. Dennis

Manager

Job Training Division

Department of Employment Security

325 West Adams

Springfield, IL 62704

217–785–6006

217–785–6454 (fax)

E-mail: hdennis@commerce.state.il.us

Hazel Loucks

Deputy Governor of Education

Statehouse, Room 204

Springfield, IL 62706

217–524–1423

217–557–1733 (fax)

E-mail: hazel_loucks@gov.state.il.us

Indiana

Craig Hartzer

Commissioner

Department of Workforce Development

10 North Senate Avenue

Indiana Government Center

Indianapolis, IN 46204

317–233–5661

317–233–1670 (fax)

E-mail: chartzer@dwd.state.in.us

Iowa

Richard V. Running

Iowa Workforce Development

1000 East Grand Avenue

Des Moines, IA 50319

515–281–5365

515–281–4698 (fax)

E-mail: Richard.Running@iwd.state.ia.us

Kansas

Heather M. Whitley

Director

Division of Employment and Training

Kansas Department of Human Resources

401 SW. Topeka Avenue

Topeka, KS 66603–3182

785–296–7874

785–296–5112 (fax)

E-mail: hwhitley@hr.state.ks.us
D–4

Kentucky

Allen D. Rose

Secretary

Cabinet for Workforce Development

Capital Plaza Tower, Second Floor

500 Mero Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

502–564–6606

502–564–2289 (fax)

E-mail: allend.rose@mail.state.ky.us

Louisiana

Sujuan Boutte

Assistant Secretary

Office of Labor

State Department of Labor

1001 North 23d Street

P.O. Box 94094

Baton Rouge, LA 70804–9094

225–342–7693

225–342–7960 (fax)

E-mail: sboutte@ldol.state.la.us

Maine

Valerie R. Landry

Commissioner

20 Union Street

P.O. Box 309

Augusta, ME 04332–0309

207–287–3788

207–287–5292 (fax)

E-mail: Valerie.R.Landry@state.me.us

Maryland

Eleanor M. Carey

President

Governor’s Workforce Investment Board

1414 Key Highway, Second Floor

Baltimore, MD 21230

410–333–4454

410–333–4467 (fax)

E-mail: scrawford.gwib@erols.com

Massachusetts

Angelo R. Buonopane

Director

Massachusetts Department of Labor and

Workforce Development

One Ashburton Place, Room 2112

Boston, MA 02108

617–727–6573

617–727–1090 (fax)

E-mail: angelo.buonopane@state.ma.us

Michigan

Vicki Enright

Director

Office of Workforce Development

Michigan Department of

Career Development

201 North Washington Square

Victor Office Center, Fifth Floor

Lansing, MI 48913

517–335–5858

517–335–5945 (fax)

E-mail: enrightp@state.mi.us

Minnesota

Earl Wilson

Commissioner

Department of Economic Security

390 North Robert Street

St. Paul, MN 55101

651–297–4336

651–296–0994 (fax)

E-mail: earl.wilson@state.mn.us

Mississippi

Wanda Jean Denson

Director

Employment Training Division

State Department of Economic and

Community Development

P.O. Box 24568

Jackson, MS 39225–4568

601–949–2234

601–949–2291 (fax)

E-mail: jdenson@mississippi.org
D–5

Missouri

John Cope

Deputy Director

Department of Economic Development

Division of Workforce Development

421 East Dunkin Street

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573–751–3753

573–571–5316 (fax)

E-mail: jcope@wfd.state.mo.us

Montana

Pat Haffey

Commissioner

Department of Labor and Industry

1327 Lockey

Helena, MT 59624–1728

406–444–9091

406–444–1394 (fax)

E-mail: phaffey@state.mt.us

Erik Burke

Policy Advisor for Education and Labor

Office of the Governor

State Capitol Building

Helena, MT 59620–0801

406–444–0575

406–444–4151 (fax)

E-mail: eburke@state.mt.us

Nebraska

Fernando Lecuona III

Commissioner

Nebraska Department of Labor

550 South 16th Street

P.O. Box 94600

Lincoln, NE 68509–4600

402–471–9000

402–471–2318 (fax)

E-mail: flecuona@dol.state.ne.us

Nevada

Mayla Florence

Director

Department of Employment, Training

and Rehabilitation

1830 East Sahara Avenue, Suite 201

Las Vegas, NV 89104

702–486–7923

702–486–7924 (fax)

E-mail: maylacf@govmail.state.nv.us

New Hampshire

John Hamilton

Executive Director

New Hampshire Job Training Council

64 Old Suncook Road

Concord, NH 03301

603–228–9500, Ext. 307

603–228–8557 (fax)

E-mail: jhamilt@nhjtc.org

New Jersey

Mark B. Boyd

Deputy Commissioner

New Jersey Department of Labor

P.O. Box 110

Trenton, NJ 08625–0110

609–292–1906

609–292–1987 (fax)

E-mail: mboyd@dol.state.nj.us

New Mexico

Clinton D. Harden, Jr.

Cabinet Secretary

Department of Labor

P.O. Box 1928

Albuquerque, NM 87103

505–841–8409

505–841–8491 (fax)
D–6

New York

James T. Dillon

Executive Deputy Commissioner

New York State Department of Labor

Building 12, Room 592

State Office Campus

Albany, NY 12240

518–457–2270

518–485–6297 (fax)

E-mail: jamesdillon@labor.state.ny.us

North Carolina

Wayne Daves

Executive Director

Policy and Employment Programs

North Carolina Department of Commerce

4327 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699–4327

919–715–3300

919–715–3974 (fax)

E-mail: wdaves@work.commerce.state.nc.us

North Dakota

Fraine Zeitler

Director

North Dakota Workforce Development Council

Department of Economic Development and Finance

1833 East Bismarck Expressway

Bismarck, ND 58504–6708

701–328–5300

701–328–5320

E-mail: fzeitler@state.nd.us

Northern Mariana Islands

Felix Nogis

Administrator

Job Training Partnership

Act Programs

Office of the Governor

CNMI/Mail Civic Center

P.O. Box 1799

Saipan, MP 96950

670–664–1700

670–322–7333 (fax)

E-mail: gov.jtpa@saipan.com

Ohio

Administrator

Ohio Bureau of Employment Services

Department of Job and Family Services

30 East Broad Street, 32d Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

614–466–2100

614–466–5025 (fax)

E-mail: sholesw@obes.state.oh.us

Oklahoma

Glen E. Robards, Jr.

Associate Director

Employment and Training Division

State Employment Security Commission

Will Rogers Memorial Office Building

2401 North Lincoln

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405–557–5329

405–557–7256 (fax)

E-mail: glen.robards@oesc.state.ok.us

Oregon

Annett Talbott

Workforce Policy Coordinator

Governor’s Office of Education and

Workforce Policy

255 Capitol Street NE., Suite 126

Salem, OR 97310

503–378–3921, Ext. 24

503–378–4789 (fax)

E-mail: Annette.Talbott@state.or.us

Pennsylvania

Diane Bosak

Chief Operating Officer

Team Pennsylvania Workforce

Investment Board

901 North Seventh Street, Suite 103

Harrisburg, PA 17102

717–772–4966

717–783–4660 (fax)

E-mail: Dbosak@state.pa.us
D–7

Mike Acker

Executive Deputy Secretary

Workforce Development and Safety

Department of Labor and Industry

1720 Labor and Industry Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120

717–787–8665

717–772–1461 (fax)

E-mail: macker@dli.state.pa.us

Timothy B. Bittle

Director of Operations

Workforce Investment Center

Department of Labor and Industry

1719B Labor and Industry Building

Harrisburg, PA 17120

717–705–2630

717–772–1461 (fax)

E-mail: tbittle@state.pa.us

Puerto Rico

Antonio L. Pabon

Social Welfare Advisor

La Fortaleza

San Juan, PR 00902

787–725–4449

787–721–5336 (fax)

E-mail: apabon@fortaleza.prstar.net

Rhode Island

Marvin Perry

Deputy Director

Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training

101 Friendship Street

Providence, RI 02903

401–222–3648

401–222–1473 (fax)

E-mail: mperry@dlt.state.ri.us

South Carolina

C. Michael Mungo

Executive Director

South Carolina Employment Security Commission

P.O. Box 995

Columbia, SC 29202

803–737–2617

803–737–2642 (fax)

E-mail: mmungo@sces.org

South Dakota

Lloyd Schipper

Deputy Secretary

South Dakota Department of Labor

Kneip Building

700 Governors Drive

Pierre, SD 57501–2291

605–773–3101

605–773–4211 (fax)

E-mail: Lloyd.Schipper@state.sd.us

Tennessee

Michael E. Magill

Commissioner

Department of Labor and Workforce Development

Andrew Johnson Tower, Eighth Floor

710 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37243

615–253–1324

615–741–5078 (fax)

E-mail: mmagill@mail.state.tn.us

Texas

Diane Rath

Chair and Commissioner Representing the Public

Texas Workforce Commission

101 East 15th Street

Austin, TX 78778–0001

512–463–2800

512–463–1289 (fax)

E-mail: diane.rath@twc.state.tx.us

U.S. Virgin Islands

Sonia Jacobs Dow

Commissioner

Department of Labor

2203 Church Street

Christiansted

St. Croix, VI 00820–4612

340–773–1994, Ext. 230

340–773–0094 (fax)

E-mail: sjdow@usvi.org
D–8

Aletha Baumann

Director of Training

Department of Labor

2203 Church Street

Christiansted

St. Croix, VI 00820–4612

340–773–1994, Ext. 204

340–773–1858 (fax)

E-mail: abaumann@usvi.org

Utah

Robert Gross

Executive Director

Department of Workforce Services

140 East 300 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

801–526–9210

801–526–9211 (fax)

E-mail: rgross@state.ut.us

Vermont

Steven M. Gold

Commissioner

Vermont Department of Employment and

Training

5 Green Mountain Drive

P.O. Box 488

Montpelier, VT 05601–0488

802–828–4301

802–828–4181 (fax)

E-mail: sgold@pop.det.state.vt.us

Virginia

Thomas J. Towberman

Commissioner

Virginia Employment Commission

703 East Main Street, Room 300

Richmond, VA 23219

804–786–3001

804–225–3923 (fax)

E-mail: VEC@vaworkforce.com

Washington

Rich Nafziger

Executive Policy Advisor

P.O. Box 43113

Olympia, WA 98504–3113

360–902–0664

360–586–8380 (fax)

E-mail: rich.nafziger@ofm.wa.gov

West Virginia

James Jeffers

Chief

Governor’s Workforce Investment Office

Building 6, Room 617

1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East

Charleston, WV 25305

304–558–7024

304–558–7029 (fax)

E-mail: jjeffers@wvgwio.org

Wisconsin

Secretary Linda Stewart

Department of Workforce Development

201 East Washington Avenue

Room 400–X

Madison, WI 53707

608–267–9692

608–266–1784 (fax)

E-mail: stewali@dwd.state.wi.us

Wyoming

Beth Nelson

Director

Department of Employment

122 West 25th Street

Cheyenne, WY 82002

307–777–6402

307–777–5805 (fax)

E-mail: bnelso@state.wy.us
E–1

Appendix E: Additional Programs for

Court-Involved Youth

Institutionally Based Vocational

Training Programs

Associated Marine Institutes. Adjudicated youth in

nine States build academic and life skills through

experiential marine and outdoor activities. The 31

program sites offer primarily academic education.

Students receive 12 weeks of aftercare when they

complete the residential program.

Contact: Bob Weaver, President

Associated Marine Institutes

5915 Benjamin Center Drive

Tampa, FL 33634

813–887–3300

Charlton Junior and Senior High School—

Indiana Boys School. The school is an educational

and vocational unit inside a correctional facility for

male juvenile offenders ages 12 to 18. The school

exposes students ages 16 years and older to skills,

materials, and techniques in specific vocational

training shops. Each class is tailored to fit the needs

of each student, with each student working at his

own pace and level of ability. The program provides:

◆ Introductory experience in 10 areas of job training.

◆ A curriculum that challenges the most capable

students and trains the least capable.

◆ Motivation and guidance to students who are

interested in work.

◆ Testing and counseling for placement in vocational

training shops.

◆ A limited number of on-the-job training positions.

Contact: H. Gene Combs, Superintendent

Indiana Boys School

Plainfield, IN 46168

Computer Assisted Parallel Education. Computer

Assisted Parallel Education (CAPE) was implemented in October 1988 to provide basic educational/

prevocational instruction for youth placed in the

Pima County Juvenile Detention Center. The CAPE

lab offers extensive offline lessons and supplemental

materials in prevocational, vocational, and critical

thinking skills. The project offers diagnostic assessment, guidance, counseling, placement, and final

evaluations of skills youth have attained while in

the project.

Contact: Pima County Juvenile Detention Center

2225 East Ajo Way

Tucson, AZ 85713

520–740–2000

Criminally At-Risk Youth Demonstration. This

demonstration, jointly funded by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services,

investigates the effectiveness of coordinated services

for youth ages 14 to 22 who have committed crimes,

are involved in gangs or other activities that put

them at risk, or are homeless. This demonstration

seeks to prepare youth for self-sufficiency by improving their employability and well-being, preventing

their involvement in criminal or at-risk activities, and

reducing their arrest and recidivism rates.

Contact: U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20210

202–693–4650

Internet: www.dol.gov/
E–2

Glen Mills School Vocational Program. The primary objective of the Glen Mills educational/vocational program is to place court-involved youth back

in high school, in a trade school, or in a job. The

high school offers 15 vocational areas. They include

small engine repair, photography, carpentry, masonry, radio, and journalism. All students learn how

to write résumés, fill out job applications, and prepare for interviews.

Contact: Jim Chobany, Director of Services, or

Bernard Krieg, Director of Admissions

Glen Mills Schools

Glen Mills Road

Concordville, PA 19331

610–459–8100

Juvenile Employment Opportunities. Juvenile

Employment Opportunities (JEO) in Jefferson

Parish, LA, offers a “juvenile job developer,” who is

in charge of finding employment opportunities in the

community for clients of the Department of Juvenile Services. The program was initially supported

by a juvenile justice prevention grant from the Louisiana Commission on Law Enforcement and is now

funded by Jefferson Parish general funds.

Contact: John Ryals, Director

Department of Juvenile Services

2245 Manhattan Boulevard

Harvey, LA 70058

504–364–3750

Student Transition to Education and Employment

Program. The Ohio Department of Youth Services

(ODYS) Program, Student Transition to Education

and Employment Program (STEEP), teaches students carpentry while they complete their education.

Participants receive $5 per hour for their onsite work

for up to 20 hours per week. They are required to

save 25 percent of their wages and purchase their

own tools. Youth who successfully complete the program receive a $500 bonus from ODYS. The STEEP

program includes five phases:

◆ Selection and program entry.

◆ Onsite aftercare.

◆ Offsite aftercare.

◆ Employment training.

◆ Discharge from ODYS.

Contact: Al Neff, Community Programs

Administrator

Ohio Department of Youth Services

51 North High Street, Suite 531

Columbus, OH 43266–0582

614–466–9349

Youth Services International, Inc. Youth Services

International (YSI), Inc., a for-profit operator of juvenile correctional facilities, now owned by CSC, Inc.,

in Sarasota, FL, incorporates a component called

World-of-Work in each of its facilities. Youth are paid

for work that usually takes place on facility grounds.

Jobs may include janitorial or kitchen cleanup duties.

A portion of youth earnings is placed in a scholarship

fund for college or other continuing education.

Contact: Joel Smith

Youth Services International, Inc.

6 Park Center Court, Suite 211

Owings Mills, MD 21117

Youthtrack, Inc. As a subsidiary of Res-Care, Inc.,

Youthtrack offers training in conjunction with juvenile correctional facilities and programs and the

Federal Job Corps program. Res-Care operates

Job Corps. Youthtrack involves incarcerated and

community-based youthful offenders with program

components including vocational assessment, substance abuse counseling, year-round schools, sex

offender treatment, case management, advocacy,

aftercare, therapeutic milieu, family counseling,

mental health services, and leadership development.

This intensive programming combines job preparation and competency-based programs for vocational

training that offers youth opportunities for succeeding in work.

Contact: Dan Toth, Vice President, Development

10184 West Belleview, Suite 300

Littleton, CO 80127

303–904–0998
E–3

Employment and Training

Programs for At-Risk Youth

Hollywood Diner. The diner is owned by the city of

Baltimore, MD, and offers on-the-job training in

food service skills and socialization for troubled

youth. The program is financed by the Chesapeake

Foundation for Human Development and the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services. The program

lasts 6 months and has a 90- to 95-percent retention

rate. Forty-eight youth have been in the program

since it began.

Contact: Bill Staffa, Manager

Hollywood Diner

400 East Saratoga Street

Baltimore, MD 21202

410–962–5379

Preparation for Adult Living. The Preparation for

Adult Living (PAL) program teaches employment

skills to students who are transitioning out of foster

care in Houston, TX. The program consists of 5

months of intensive training in life skills and GED

preparation, 5 days a week, for 5 hours each day. The

program also teaches participants how to search for

a job and an apartment, manage money, cook, and

shop and instructs students in their legal rights and

the use of community resources. Each graduate of

PAL attends monthly support groups and is paired

with a volunteer mentor. The youth have their own

advisory board.

Contact: Janet Legler Luft, Program Coordinator

Harris County Children’s Protective

Services

5100 South West Freeway, Sixth Floor

Houston, TX 77056

713–599–5570

STEP-UP. The STEP-UP program operates in

Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; and Huntington, WV.

The program provides young residents of public

and Indian housing and other low-income youth

with real work and real wages while they learn marketable skills. Trade unions, educational institutions,

State agencies, and public housing residents have

signed a collaborative agreement in Baltimore to

work together on providing employment opportunities. In Chicago, STEP-UP apprentices work with

union journey workers to rehabilitate public housing

units. In Huntington, students are hired by the Huntington Housing Authority and local contractors.

Local agencies are encouraged to form partnerships

with existing training or service providers to take

advantage of existing local expertise and resources.

Local team members may include housing authorities, resident organizations, elected officials, Weed

and Seed steering committees, private industry

councils, employers, organized labor, and community development corporations.

Contact: U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development

Office of Labor Relations, Room 7118

451 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20410

800–778–3787

Urban Forestry Project. The Urban Forestry

Project is a youth enterprise designed to enhance

the livability of inner cities while introducing and

cultivating businesses and technical skills among atrisk youth. The Urban Forestry Project provides

100 youth with earned income, technical and horticultural skills, and business education. The participating youth are responsible for researching,

marketing, producing, supplying, and investing.

Contact: Michael Grice

Juvenile Justice Youth Employability

Committee

501 North Dixon Street

Portland, OR 97227

503–249–2000
E–4

Restitution/Vocational Program

Juvenile Work Restitution Program. This program

is based on community service, holds youth accountable for their behavior, and helps youthful offenders

repay victims and the community. Court-involved

youth ages 13 to 16 are required to attend courses on

self-esteem building and job training. Youth are assigned to worksites where they acquire positive work

habits under the supervision of adult volunteers.

Contact: John Upchurch

Tuscaloosa County Juvenile Court

6001 12th Avenue East

Tuscaloosa, AL 35405

205–345–4343

For further information, refer to sources of information listed in appendix H.
F–1

Appendix F: Juvenile Justice Glossary

Adjudication—The process for determining a

youth’s involvement in an offense (guilt) and the

actual finding of involvement. Adjudication can be

withheld and conditions imposed which, if met, will

result in dismissal of the charges.

Adjudicatory hearing—The fact-finding (trial)

phase of a juvenile case in which a judge receives

and weighs evidence before deciding whether the

youth is responsible for the offense.

Aftercare—A generic term for a variety of services

and levels of supervision provided following a period of commitment to a residential facility. During

aftercare, the youth is still considered a ward of the

court or State and is supervised by a probation officer or aftercare worker.

Aggravating factors—Factors that may increase the

seriousness of the offense, such as prior offenses,

weapon use, heinous crimes, and threats to victims

or witnesses.

Alternative sanctions—An array of sanctions, appropriate and suitable for a violation of a consent

decree, stipulations of probation, and/or community

corrections placement, that are recommended to the

court for consideration and that a court may impose

as a disposition (sentence).

Arrest—The act of taking an adult into custody,

based on probable cause, when a law enforcement

officer charges the adult with a criminal act or violation of law. A juvenile is often said to be “taken into

custody” rather than arrested.

Bed; commitment bed—An opening in a residential

commitment program where a juvenile lives and

sleeps at night. The term is also used to describe the

number of residential openings in a detention center

(detention beds), nonsecure shelter, respite home,

staff-secure shelter, or any other similar facility. A

State accrediting agency determines the number of

beds available in a facility based on a number of

factors, including safety and risk, health and welfare, and treatment focus.

Boot camp—A residential treatment program that

includes a rigorous program of physical training and

exercise in a military-type setting. Other treatment

services, including educational and vocational training, substance abuse treatment, conflict resolution,

communication skills, and anger management training, may also be provided. Boot camp programs

often include counseling directed at replacing delinquent responses with behavior in accord with acceptable community and societal norms.

Case manager—A person who works with a juvenile to assess his or her needs, develops a plan of

services, refers the juvenile for services, monitors

those services and the youth, and counsels the youth.

Delinquency case managers may combine the duties

of intake and community control officers. These

functions may be performed by public employees

(probation or aftercare workers) or contracted to

private organizations.

Case plan—A written document, also referred to as

a treatment plan, that includes the strategy for intervention based on an indepth risk and needs assessment. The plan specifies the services to be offered,

the goals to be attained, and the responsibilities of

the youth in complying with the plan.

Civil citation—A formal process that permits an

arresting officer to offer a youth up to 50 hours of

community service in lieu of referral to the juvenile

justice system.
F–2

Classification—A legal determination made by a

court or agency official, based on statutory and agency

guidelines, that identifies the category of program

into which an offender is placed. Risk assessment

may be used as a basis for recommending a classification level. The nature of the delinquent act and

other factors, such as previous offense history, may

be considered.

Commitment—Placement of a youth under the

supervision of the juvenile justice system. Commitment dispositions range from low-risk nonresidential

commitment to maximum-risk residential commitment, which is similar to sending a convicted adult to

a jail or prison.

Community arbitration—A process using neutral

arbitrators or arbitration panels for speedy and informal disposition. It is used to divert youth cases

from the formal juvenile justice system. Referral to

community arbitration may be made by the law enforcement officer, case manager (at intake), parents,

State’s attorney, or the court.

Community corrections—A progressive approach

to corrections that offers a full range of programming, including prerelease centers, halfway houses,

residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities,

restitution, and day reporting centers.

Community Oriented Policing Services

(COPS)—A DOJ-funded program that trains police to work in the community on foot, on a bike, or

on a motorcycle. Officers take the time to get to

know the members of the community, especially the

children and youth, and are often involved in

problem-solving or prevention efforts. Every COPS

program is different because every community is

different.

Comprehensive assessment—The act of gathering

information to evaluate a juvenile offender’s physical, psychological, educational, vocational, and social conditions and family environment to determine

the offender’s need for services and recommended

disposition.

Conflict resolution—A variety of actions that use

communication skills and creative thinking to develop voluntary solutions that are acceptable to those

involved in a dispute.

Continuum of care—A comprehensive array of

juvenile justice programs and services ranging from

the least intrusive, serving youth at risk of delinquency, to the most intrusive, serving maximum-risk

youth in secure residential settings.

Curfew—A local ordinance that requires, with specific conditions and exceptions, a specific group of

persons (usually juveniles under a certain age) to

refrain from unsupervised activities or being in the

streets after a designated hour within the confines of

a selected area, city, or county.

Custody; taken into custody—The state of being in

the care of a juvenile justice agency or official. It is

similar to being arrested in the adult criminal system.

Delinquency prevention programs—Programs and

services designed to serve children at risk of entering the juvenile justice system.

Delinquent act—Any act committed by a juvenile

(generally a person who is subject to juvenile court

jurisdiction) that would be a criminal violation of a

Federal or State law or local ordinance if committed

by an adult.

Delinquent juvenile—A child who has been found

responsible (equivalent to an adult’s being found

guilty of a criminal offense) by a juvenile court judge

for having committed a delinquent act and has been

adjudicated delinquent.

Detention—Confinement by the State or local authorities in a secure facility. The term is also used in

circumstances where a youth is in home confinement

while awaiting an adjudication hearing, disposition,

or commitment placement. Also used as “time out”

in domestic violence cases and for postadjudicatory

punishment.

Detention center—Any public or private residential

facility that includes construction fixtures designed

to physically restrict the movements and activities of

juveniles or other individuals held in lawful custody

in such a facility. It is used for the temporary placement of any juvenile who is accused of having committed an offense, of any nonoffender, or of any

individual accused of having committed a criminal

offense.
F–3

Detention hearing—A judicial hearing, usually held

within 24 hours of a youth’s being taken into custody, at which the court determines whether there is

probable cause to believe that the youth has committed a delinquent act, whether a valid court order

exists that requires the continued detention of the

youth, or whether there is a danger that the youth

will not show up for trial or will endanger himself or

herself or others, pending an adjudicatory hearing.

Direct file—The act of filing a petition by the

State’s attorney to try a youth in criminal (adult)

court rather than in juvenile court.

Dispositional hearing—A juvenile case hearing

(analogous to a sentencing hearing in criminal

court) at which the court receives a predisposition

report containing information and recommendations

to assist in determining the appropriate sanctions,

hears from the defense lawyer, and makes a determination for a community-based or other sanction such

as probation or commitment to the custody of the

agency responsible for juvenile justice.

Diversion—A process by which a juvenile is channeled out of police custody or the judicial component of the juvenile justice system and where the

youth may be required to complete a specified treatment plan designed to preclude further delinquent

acts and meet his or her needs.

Electronic monitoring—The use of electronic devices such as ankle bracelets and receivers to track

youth placed in the community or in home detention.

This method of supervision is generally for those

youth deemed to be of moderate to high risk, but

who the court believes do not require secure detention (confinement to a residential facility). Electronic

monitoring also can be used for those youth awaiting

placement in a very restrictive program.

Home detention/house arrest—Temporary custody

of a youth who meets detention criteria but does not

require secure detention. Pending hearings, the

youth is returned to the custody of the parent or

guardian in a physically nonrestrictive environment

under the close daily supervision of juvenile justice

system staff. The level of intensity varies and may

include electronic monitoring, curfew, and other

restrictive requirements. This type of custody may

also be used during preplacement supervision.

Homicide—The killing of one human being by

another. The killing may be legally classified as

justifiable.

Intake—The initial process used for youth referred

to the juvenile justice system. Intake involves

screening each youth to determine the appropriateness of detention, release, or referral to a diversionary program or agency for unofficial or nonjudicial

handling; for medical, psychiatric, psychological,

substance abuse, or educational problems; or for

other conditions that may have caused the child to

come to the attention of law enforcement or intake

officers. Intake also includes the initial screening of

a status offender or child in need of services (CINS)

to determine which actions are in the best interests

of the child, the family, and the community.

Juvenile delinquency program—Any program or

activity related to juvenile delinquency prevention,

control, diversion, treatment, rehabilitation, planning, education and training, and research, including

drug and alcohol abuse programs, or to the improvement of the juvenile justice system.

Mediation—A process by which a neutral party,

called a mediator, encourages and facilitates the

resolution of a dispute between two or more parties.

The objective of this informal and nonadversarial

process is to help the parties reach a mutually acceptable and voluntary agreement. The mediator’s

responsibilities include, but are not limited to,

assisting the parties in identifying issues, fostering

joint problem solving, and exploring settlement

alternatives.

Mentoring—The act of voluntarily spending time

with a child on a regular basis by sharing his or her

free time in activities such as playing sports or

games, shopping, taking hikes, helping with homework, and doing chores. Formal mentoring programs may require the volunteer to have a State

police check prior to acting as a mentor.

Multidisciplinary assessment—Evaluation of a

client, including a psychiatric review, a physical

examination, and a social circumstances report,

completed by experts from different fields.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention—DOJ agency responsible for providing
F–4

national leadership, coordination, and resources to

prevent and respond to juvenile offending and child

victimization.

Protective factors—Among the categories of factors

that help reduce the impact of risk factors in a

young person’s life are positive personal characteristics, positive adult relationships, and healthy beliefs

or clear standards of conduct.

Risk factors—Certain problem behaviors or circumstances in a child’s life that put youth at risk for

juvenile delinquency. These situations or behaviors

include living where drugs and firearms are available in the community, school failure, family conflict, and friends who engage in problem behaviors.

These risk factors fall within four categories or domains; community, family, school, and individual/

peer.

Status offenses—Noncriminal juvenile offenses that

are applied only to children and youth because of

their status as minors. Offenses include being truant,

running away from home, possessing alcohol or

cigarettes, or violating curfew.

Truant—A young person who is absent from school

without permission or authorization.

Venue—The geographic location where a court with

jurisdiction may hear a case. For instance, delinquency petitions may be filed in the city or county

where the offense occurred instead of in the home

community of the youth.

Victimization—The result of a planned or accidental act that causes physical or psychological harm.

Violent crime—Crimes including murder, forcible

rape, armed robbery, robbery, and aggravated

assault.
G–1

Appendix G: Employment and Training

Glossary

Apprenticeship (registered)—A relationship between an employer and employee during which the

worker, or apprentice, learns an occupation in a

structured program jointly sponsored by employers

and labor unions or employee associations. Registered apprenticeship programs meet specific federally approved standards designed to safeguard the

welfare of apprentices. The programs are registered

with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau

of Apprenticeship and Training (BAT) or one of 27

State apprenticeship agencies or councils approved

by BAT.

Basic skills training—Instruction, normally conducted in an institutional classroom or one-on-one

tutorial setting, that is designed to upgrade basic skills

and prepare individuals for further training, transition to postsecondary education, future employment,

or retention in present employment. It may be provided within the framework of competency in basic

skills, including, but not limited to, reading, writing,

mathematics, literacy training, speaking, listening,

problem solving, thinking, reasoning, study skills,

computer skills, and GED preparation.

Cooperative education—Situations in which students alternate or coordinate their high school or

postsecondary studies with jobs in fields related to

their academic or occupational objectives. Students

and participating businesses develop written training and evaluation plans to guide instruction, and

students receive course credit for their classroom and

work experiences. Credit hours and intensity of

placements vary with the course of study.

Employment and Training Administration—DOL

agency responsible for administering employment

and training programs for economically disadvantaged, unemployed, and displaced workers.

Job rotation—A worksite process in which students

move among a number of positions and tasks to

learn what skills and responsibilities are required to

create a product or service, how their own efforts

affect the quality and efficiency of production and

customer service, and how each part of the organization contributes to productivity.

Job search training—A process that enhances the

job readiness of participants by teaching them jobseeking techniques and increasing their motivation

and self-confidence. The training may consist of job

skills assessments, résumé writing, job-finding clubs,

job placement services, or other direct training or

support activities.

Job shadowing—A technique to allow a student to

observe an employee or several different employees

at a company location to learn about a particular

occupation or industry. Job shadowing can help students explore a range of career objectives and select

a career major during the latter part of high school.

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)—A DOL

program for youth designed to improve employability;

enhance educational, occupational, and citizenship

skills; encourage school completion; increase earnings; and assist with transitions from school to work.

Occupational skills training—Instruction conducted in an institutional or worksite setting, but not

on the job, that teaches entry-level skills or upgrades

the primary/technical and secondary/ancillary skills

required to perform a specific job or group of jobs

in fields such as auto mechanics, health services, or

clerical work. May include job-specific and customized training, internships, and preapprenticeship

preparation.
G–2

On-the-job training (OJT)—Training in the public

or private sector that is given to an individual while

he or she is engaged in productive work. It is designed to provide the basic skills or upgrade the

primary/technical and secondary/ancillary skills that

are essential to full and adequate performance on

the job. Typically, a training plan is established by

the employee, the employer, and an external agency,

if matching wages are being paid by that agency.

Private Industry Councils (PIC’s)—Entities established by local elected officials in each service delivery area (SDA) to provide guidance and oversight

for job training programs. PIC’s are key mechanisms

for bringing representatives from various segments

of the private sector into the active management of

job training programs. In some jurisdictions, PIC’s

operate as local workforce development boards.

School-to-Work—A collaborative initiative between

DOL and the U.S. Department of Education to help

young people acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities,

and information about the labor market that they

need to make an effective transition from high school

to career-oriented work and/or further education.

Service Delivery Areas—Administrative districts

into which the Nation is divided for JTPA purposes

and designated by State Governors to receive Federal job training funds.

Work experience—A short-term or part-time work

activity in the public or not-for-profit sector that provides an individual with the opportunity to acquire

the skills and knowledge to perform a job, including

appropriate work habits and behaviors.

Workforce Development Boards/Workforce

Investment Boards—Entities designated by States

to oversee workforce development initiatives within

a specified SDA. They may serve as the administrative entities for JTPA, Welfare-to-Work, Schoolto-Work, One-Stop Centers, and Food Stamp

Employment and Training programs, or for a host of

other authorized workforce development programs

funded by Federal, State, local, and other sources.

Under the new Workforce Investment Act (1998),1

Workforce Development Boards are the designated

entities that oversee workforce development initiatives for SDA’s.

Youth Apprenticeship—A multiyear program that

combines school- and work-based learning in a specific occupational area or occupational cluster and

that is designed to lead directly into a related postsecondary program, entry-level job, or registered

apprenticeship program. Youth apprenticeships may

or may not include financial compensation.

Youth Fair Chance—A DOL-funded program designed to ensure access to education and training

assistance for youth residing in high-poverty urban

and rural areas. The program provides a comprehensive range of services to disadvantaged youth

who are not being served or who are underserved by

Federal education and job training programs, enables communities with high concentrations of poverty to improve the opportunities available to their

youth, and facilitates the coordination of comprehensive services to youth in such communities.

1

 Public Law 105–220, August 7, 1998. For more information,

contact the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. For contact information, see appendix H.
H–1

Appendix H: Sources of Information

Alliance All Purpose

38 Pleasant Street

Stoneham, MA 02180

781–438–6880

American Youth Policy Forum

1836 Jefferson Street NW.

Washington, DC 20036

202–775–9731

E-mail: aypf@aypf.org

Web site: www.aypf.org

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America

230 North 13th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107

215–567–7000

Caledonia Community Work Camp

Route #3, Box 3A

St. Johnsbury, VT 05819

802–748–6628

Center for Employment Training

701 Vine Street

San Jose, CA 95110

408–294–7849

CRESPAR Codirector

Howard University

2900 Van Ness Street NW.

Washington, DC 20008

202–806–8484

CRESPAR Codirector

The Johns Hopkins University

Center for Social Organization of Schools

3505 North Charles Street

Baltimore, MD 21218

410–516–8800

East Harlem Employment Service/STRIVE

1820 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10029

212–360–1100

Free Venture Program

4241 Williamsborough Drive

Sacramento, CA 95823

916–262–1505

Fresh Start

Living Classrooms Foundation

Lighthouse at Pier 5

717 Eastern Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21202

410–685–0295

Gulf Coast Trades Center

FM 1375 West

P.O. Box 515

New Waverly, TX 77358

409–344–6677

Home Builders Institute

1090 Vermont Avenue NW., Suite 600

Washington, DC 20005

800–795–7955

The Johns Hopkins University

Institute for Policy Studies

Wyman Park Building

3400 North Charles Street, Fifth Floor

Baltimore, MD 21218–2688

410–516–7174

410–516–8233 (fax)

Web site: www.jhu.edu/~ips/contact.html
H–2

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Web site: www.ncjrs.org

KRA Corporation

1010 Wayne Avenue, Suite 850

Silver Spring, MD 20910

301–495–1591

301–495–2919 (fax)

Missouri Department of Youth Services

P.O. Box 447

Broadway State Office Building, Fifth Floor

221 West High Street

Jefferson City, MO 65102–0447

573–751–3324

Montana Conservation Corps

406–587–4475

National Academy Foundation

Career Academies

235 Park Avenue South, Seventh Floor

New York, NY 10003

212–420–8400

National Association of Service and

Conservation Corps

666 11th Street NW., Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20001

202–737–6272

202–737–6277 (fax)

E-mail: nascc@nascc.org

Web site: www.nascc.org

National Crime Prevention Council

1700 K Street NW., Second Floor

Washington, DC 20006

202–466–6272, Ext. 152

National Governors Association

444 North Capitol Street NW.

Washington, DC 20001–1512

202–624–5300

Web site: www.nga.org

National School-to-Work Opportunities Office

400 Virginia Avenue SW., Suite 210

Washington, DC 20024

800–251–7236

202–401–6211 (fax)

Web site: www.stw.ed.gov

National Transition Alliance

University of Illinois

113 Children’s Research Center

51 Gerty Drive

Champaign, IL 61820

217–333–2325

E-mail: nta@aed.org

Web site: www.dssc.org/nta

National Youth Employment Coalition

1836 Jefferson Street NW.

Washington, DC 20036

202–659–1064

E-mail: nyec@nyec.org

Ohio Department of Youth Services

614–466–8783

Internet: www.state.oh.us/dys/RECLAIMOhio.html

Opportunities Industrial Centers of America, Inc.

1415 Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19122

215–236–4500, Ext. 251

Project ProTech

Boston Private Industry Council

Two Oliver Street, Seventh Floor

Boston, MA 02109

617–423–3755

Public/Private Ventures

One Commerce Square

2005 Market Street, Suite 900

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215–557–4400

Project RIO

Texas Workforce Commission

101 East 15th Street, Room 208T

Austin, TX 78778–0001

800–453–8140

512–463–0834
H–3

Sar Levitan Center for Social Policy Studies

Institute for Policy Studies

The Johns Hopkins University

Wyman Park Building

3400 North Charles Street, Fifth Floor

Baltimore, MD 21218–2688

410–516–7174

E-mail: jhuips@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu

Web site: www.jhu.edu/~ips/

Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center

7960 Henryton Road

P.O. Box 306

Marriottsville, MD 21104–1103

410–549–6330

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

202–307–5911

Web site: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration

200 Constitution Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20210

202–219–5305

202–219–8739 (fax)

Web site: www.doleta.gov

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

P.O. Box 7841

Madison, WI 53707–7841

608–266–3903

Work Appreciation for Youth

The Children’s Village, Inc.

Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522

914–693–0600, Ext. 1596

Youth as Resources

National Crime Prevention Council

1700 K Street NW., Suite 200

Washington, DC 20006

202–466–6272, Ext. 151

YouthBuild USA

366 Marsh Street

Belmont, MA 02178

617–489–3400

Web Site: www.youthbuild.org.
I–1

Index

1994 Crime Bill, 15–16

Academic programs, 29–30, 34–35

Adjudication, 8, F–1

Adjudicatory hearing, F–1

Adult (criminal) court/justice system, 5, 8

Adult support in youth programs, 32–33

Adult training, WIA and, 14

African American youth, 4, 20

Aftercare, 10–11, 27, F–1

Aftercare programs, 40

Age issues, 5–6, 22

age-appropriateness of youth programs, 31

in residential programs, 22

“juvenile offender,” 23

“youthful offender,” 5

Aggravating factors, F–1

Alliance All Purpose, 36

The Alliance House program, 36

Alternative education programs, 43–44

Alternative sanctions, F–1

Appeal rights, 8

Apprenticeship

Bureau of Apprenticeship Training, 14, 17

definition, 16–17

Project CRAFT, 38

Project ProTech, 35

registered, G–1

State apprenticeship councils, 17

Youth Apprenticeship programs, 16–17, G–2

Arrest, F–1

At-risk/high-risk youth. See also Court-involved youth;

Disadvantaged youth

categories, 3

employment and training programs for, E–3

job competition with court-involved youth, 21

Youth Opportunity Movement and, 15

Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ), 8, 10

Basic skills training, G–1

Bed, defined, F–1

Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, 28, 32

Boot camp, F–1

Boys & Girls Clubs, 27

Bureau of Apprenticeship Training (BAT), 14, 17

Caledonia Community Work Camp, 35

California Youth Authority, 29, 39

Career Academies, 32–34. See also specific programs

Career Alternatives Resources Evaluation System

(CARES), 47

“Career Prep” programs, 27

Case manager, F–1

Case plan, F–1

Center for Employment and Training (CET), 26, 34

Child welfare cases, 3

Children’s Village, 31

Civil citation, F–1

Classification, F–2

Commitment, F–2

Commitment bed, defined, F–1

Community advocates, 25

Community arbitration, F–2

Community corrections, 9–10, F–2

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), F–2

Community Restitution and Apprenticeship Focused

Training (Project CRAFT), 38

Community service/restitution projects, 29, 30, 35

Community understanding, strategies to improve, 52

Community-based organizations (CBO’s)

improving communication between system

stakeholders, 51–52

as intermediaries, 26–27

systems collaboration, 45

Community-based services, 52–54

Community-based support systems, 5, 45–46

Community-based work experiences, 36

Competencies, SCANS, 20

Compliance assurance, 9

Comprehensive assessment, F–2

Confidentiality issues, 21

Conflict resolution, F–2

Consent decree violation, 5

Conservation corps. See Youth Service and

Conservation Corps

Contingent workforce, 20

Continuum of care, F–2

Cooperative education, G–1

CorpsLINK program, 48–49

Court-involved youth

academic profile, 21, 22

barriers to participation in labor market, 22

categories, 3

challenges to, 1

characteristics, 3, 4
I–2

competition with other at-risk/high-risk youth, 21

confidentiality issues, 21

description, 3–6

education system and, 42–44

exemplary programs for, 35–40

Job Corps and, 15–16

labor market issues, 21–23

mobility of, 21

statistics, 3–5

strategies for, 25–27

Cultural sensitivity, 4–5

Curfew, 3, F–2

Custody, taken into, F–2

Day reporting centers. See Community corrections

Delinquency prevention programs, F–2

Delinquent act, F–2, 3

Delinquent behavior, 3

Delinquent juvenile, F–2

Detention, 8, F–2

Detention center, F–2

Detention hearing, F–3

Direct file, F–3

Disadvantaged youth

Job Corps, 15–16

Quantum Opportunities Project, 29–30

Dislocated workers and trade, WIA and, 14

Disposition plan, 9

Disposition (sentence), 8

Dispositional hearing, F–3

Diversion, F–3

Diversion services, 7

Early intervention, 7, 28. See also specific programs and services

Earnings, 20–21

Education. See also School-to-careers programs;

School-to-Work programs

education level and employability, 21

work-based learning, 25–26, 32, 33, 34–35

Education system

alternative education, 43–44

education programs in residential facilities, 43

improving communication between system

stakeholders, 51–52

safety issues and concerns, 43

systems collaboration, 42–44

Electronic monitoring, F–3

Employability, education level and, 21

Employer/labor services, 14

Employer liaisons, 14

Employers. See also Labor markets

concerns and reluctance of, 22, 23, 52

Federal Bonding Program and bonding

requirements, 26

intermediaries and, 26–27

involvement of, 25–26

Employment and training. See also Skills development;

Workforce development system; specific models, programs,

and systems

glossary, G–1

programs for at-risk youth, 40, 51–55, E–3

Employment and Training Administration, G–1

Employment trends. See Labor markets

Entrepreneurship, 36

Family circumstances, 5

Federal AmeriCorps, 48

Federal Bonding Program (FBP), 26

Federal School-to-Work (STW) Opportunities Act, 17–18

Federal Youth Environmental Service (YES) initiative, 46

Free Venture Program, 29, 39

Fresh Start, 33

Full-time work, 20, 21

Geographic isolation of residential facilities, 22

Glossaries

employment and training, G–1

juvenile justice, F–1

Goals 2000: Educate America Act, 17

Gulf Coast Trades Center (GCTC), 37

Halfway houses. See Community corrections

Home Builders Institute (HBI), 38

Home detention/house arrest, F–3

Homicide, F–3

Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, 32

Incarceration. See Residential facilities; Residential programs

Indiana State Correctional System, 29

Institutionally based vocational training programs, E–1

Intake, 8, F–3

Integrated facility-based and community-based models,

37, 38–39

Integrated Social Control (ISC), 10, 11

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), 10, 35–36

Intermediaries, 26–27

Job brokers, as intermediaries, 26–27

Job Corps, 14, 15–16

Job Readiness/Work Experience Program (Jobs Program), 31

Job rotation, G–1

Job search training, G–1

Job shadowing, G–1

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), 13, 35, G–1

Job training programs. See also specific programs

MDRC study, 26

Jury option, 8

Juvenile delinquency program, F–3

Juvenile facilities. See Residential facilities; Residential

programs

Juvenile justice system

adjudication, 8

Balanced and Restorative Justice, 8

community corrections, 9–10

components, 7–11

connecting to workforce development system, 13

detention, 8

disposition plan, 8, 9

diversion services, 7

funding from, 35

general considerations, 7

glossary, F–1
I–3

improving communication between system

stakeholders, 51–52

intake function, 8

Integrated Social Control, 11

Intensive Aftercare Program, 10

intermediaries and, 26–27

knowledge of labor market, 21–22

prevention/early intervention programs, 7

probation, 9

residential placement, 9

residential programming, 9

review hearings, 9

summary, 11

systems collaboration, 41–42, 51–52

waiver petitions, 8

“Juvenile offender,” 23, 52

Labor liaisons, 14

Labor Market Information System, 39–40

Labor markets

barriers to participation by court-involved youth, 22

basis for success in, 25

contingent workforce, 20

economy and, 19, 20

employer involvement and success in, 25–26

improving communication between system

stakeholders, 51–52

issues for court-involved youth, 21–23

issues for youth, 20–21

lack of good, available jobs, 21

overview, 19

State and local contacts, C–1

summary, 23

trends, 19–23, B–1

Living Classrooms Foundation, 33, 40

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC)

evaluation of Center for Employment and Training, 34

study of Federal job training programs, 26

Mathematica Policy Research, 34

Mediation, F–3

Mentor Plus program, 28

Mentoring, 28, F–3

employers as mentors, 25

UAW/GM’s Manufacturing Technology Partnership, 27

Missouri Department of Youth Services, 31, 40

Monitoring, electronic, F–3

Monitoring status and progress, 9, 27, 31. See also Aftercare

programs

Montana

CorpsLINK program, 48–49

Montana Conservation Corps, 48–49

Montana Youth Alternative Program, 49

MTP. See United Auto Workers/General Motors Manufacturing

Technology Partnership

Multidisciplinary assessment, F–3

National Alliance of Business, 52

National Association of Home Builders, 38

National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, 30

National Employer Leadership Council, 52

Nonprofit groups, as intermediaries, 26–27

Oakland County Youth Assistance Volunteer Program, 28

Occupational skills training, G–1. See also Employment and

training; Vocational training programs

Occupations, B–1, B–2

Offender status, 5

Office of Justice Programs, Preventing Crime: What Works, What

Doesn’t, What’s Promising, 41

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, F–3

Ohio, Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local

Alternatives to Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM)

Ohio, 47–48

One-Stop Centers, 14–15

One-Stop/United States Employment Services (USES Job

Service), 14

On-the-job training (OJT), 16–17, G–2

Oregon

Labor Market Information System, 39–40

STW initiatives, 18

Out-of-school programs

Youth Service and Conservation Corps, 30

Parole officers. See Probation officers

Parole violation, 5

Part-time work, 20

Performance contracts, 23

Placement decisions, 5

Prerelease centers. See Community corrections

Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising, 41

Prevention/early intervention programs, 7

Private Industry Councils (PIC’s), 17, G–2

Probation, 5, 9

Probation officers, 9

Probation order. See Disposition plan

Programs for court-involved youth, E–1. See also Employment

and training; specific programs by type and name

Project CRAFT. See Community Restitution and

Apprenticeship Focused Training

Project ProTech, 35

Protective factors, F–4

Public education strategies to improve community

understanding, 52

Public safety and risk factors

education system concerns, 43

employer reluctance and, 22

repeat offenders, 5

residential programming and, 9, 22–23

Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), 28

Quantum Opportunities Project (QOP), 29–30

Reasoned and Equitable Community and Local Alternatives to

Incarceration of Minors (RECLAIM) Ohio, 47–48

Recidivist/recidivism, 5

Re-integration of Offenders—Youth (RIO–Y) project, 46–47

Release from residential facilities, 10–11

Repeat offenders, 5

Residential drug and alcohol treatment facilities. See

Community corrections
I–4

Residential facilities

age range challenges, 5, 22

description, 9

education programs in, 43

geographic isolation of, 22

private sector participation in, 29

release from, 10–11 (See also Aftercare)

Residential placement, 9

Residential programs

community service activities, 29, 30

exemplary programs, 37–40

funding, 35

improving, 54–55

programming issues, 9

strategies for success, 37–40

training and employment service issues related to, 22–23

Restitution projects, 29, 30, 35, E–4. See also specific

projects by name

Restitution/vocational programs, E–4. See also Community

service/community corrections

Right to appeal, 8

Risk factors, F–4. See also At-risk/high-risk youth

Role models, 25

Running away from home, 3

SCANS competencies. See U.S. Secretary of Labor’s

Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS)

competencies

School reform movements, 17

School-to-careers programs

Project ProTech, 35

UAW/GM’s Manufacturing Technology Partnership, 27

School-to-Work programs, 14, 17–18, 27, G–2

Sentence. See Disposition (sentence)

Service Delivery Areas, G–2

Size of residential facilities, 9

Skills development

academic and work-related skills programs, 29–30, 34–35

basic skills training, 13, G–1

Center for Employment Training, 26, 34

changes in labor market and, 19–20

occupational skills training, G–1

SCANS competencies and, 20

Social services system

improving communication between system

stakeholders, 51–52

programs, 6

systems collaboration, 44–45

Socialization issues and opportunities, 27

Sources of information, H–1

State apprenticeship councils (SAC’s), 17

State Employment Security Agencies, C–1

State juvenile justice system, 41–42

State Labor Market Information, 19

State Occupational Information Coordinating Committees

(SOICC’s), C–1, 19

State workforce development system, 42

Status offenses, F–4, 3

STW. See Federal School-to-Work Opportunities Act;

School-to-Work programs

Subsequent violations of the law, 5

Summer Youth Employment and Training Program (SYETP),

48, 49

Summer youth programs, 14, 27

Support Training Results in Valuable Employment

(STRIVE), 31

Systems collaboration

community-based support systems, 45–46

description, 41

education system, 42–44

promising models, 46–49

social services system, 44–45

State juvenile justice system, 41–42

State workforce development system, 42

summary, 49

Taco Bell Foundation, 27

Talent Development High School, 33–34, 35

Task Force on Employment and Training for Court-Involved

Youth, 1–2, A–1

Teen Supreme, 27

Texas

Career Alternatives Resources Evaluation System, 47

Re-Integration of Offenders—Youth (RIO–Y)

project, 46–47

Thomas O’Farrell Youth Center, 36

Truant/truancy, 3, F–4

TWA, Free Venture Program and, 29

Underage drinking, 3

Unemployment insurance (UI), 14

Unemployment rates, 20–21

Ungovernability, 3

United Auto Workers/General Motors Manufacturing

Technology Partnership (MTP), 27

U.S. Department of Education, 17

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 6

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

(HUD), 6

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 27

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL)

apprenticeship definition, 16–17

Bureau of Apprenticeship Training, 14, 17

Career Academies, 32–33

Federal Bonding Program, 26

Job Corps, 15–16

Teen Supreme, 27

U.S. Secretary of Labor’s Commission on Achieving Necessary

Skills (SCANS) competencies, 20

Venue, F–4

Victimization, F–4

Violent crime, F–4

Vocational training programs, E–1, E–4

Wages and earnings, 20–21

Waiver petitions, 8

Welfare-to-Work, 14, 27

Wisconsin, School-to-Work initiatives, 18
I–5

Work Appreciation for Youth (WAY), 31

Work-based learning, 25–26, 32, 33, 34–35

Work camp approach, 35

Work experience, G–2

Workforce Development Boards, G–2

Workforce development system

connecting to juvenile justice system, 13

improving communication between system

stakeholders, 51–52

Job Corps, 15–16

One-Stop Centers, 14–15

School-to-Work programs, 17–18

State, 42

systems collaboration, 42

Youth Apprenticeship programs, 16–17, G–2

Youth Opportunity Movement, 15

Workforce Investment Act (WIA), 6

adult formula funds, 14

overview, 13–14

State contacts, D–1

youth formula funds, 14

Workforce Investment Boards, 14, G–2

Workforce preparation programs. See also Workforce

development system; specific programs

age issues and, 5–6

reasons for failure, 23

Workforce Security services, 14

Workforce trends. See Labor markets

Year-round youth programs, 14

YES initiative. See Federal Youth Environmental Service

Youth Apprenticeship, 16–17, G–2

Youth as Resources (YAR), 29

Youth Councils, 14

Youth Fair Chance, G–2

Youth initiatives. See Youth programs; specific programs by type

and name

Youth Offender Demonstration grants, 15

Youth Opportunities, 14

Youth Opportunity Movement, 15

Youth programs

academic and work-related skills programs, 29–30, 34–35

adult support in, 32–33

age and development issues, 31

age limits for services, 6

bringing effective programs to scale, 55

effective program implementation, 31–32

exemplary programs for court-involved youth, 35–40

fostering youth trust in, 32–33

high-quality program characteristics, 28–29

long-term monitoring and followup, 31

positive peer relationships in, 33–34

principles to improve, 27–35

year-round and summer, 14

Youth Service and Conservation Corps, 30

YouthBuild USA, 32

“Youthful offender,” 5
Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected.

We encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues,

and reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please

cite OJJDP and any other authors found on the title page. We are also interested in your feedback, such as how you received a copy, how you intend to

use the information, and how OJJDP materials meet your individual or

agency needs. Please direct your comments and questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5212 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org
Publications From OJJDP

OJJDP produces a variety of publications—Fact

Sheets, Bulletins, Summaries, Reports, and the

Juvenile Justice journal—along with videotapes, including broadcasts from the juvenile

justice telecommunications initiative. Through

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC),

these publications and other resources are as

close as your phone, fax, computer, or mailbox.

Phone:

800–638–8736

(Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m.–7 p.m. ET)

Fax:

410–792–4358 (to order publications)

301–519–5600 (to ask questions)

Online:

OJJDP Home Page:

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

To Order Materials:

www.ncjrs.org/puborder

E-Mail:

askncjrs@ncjrs.org (to ask questions 

about materials)

Mail:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse/NCJRS

P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000

Fact Sheets and Bulletins are also available

through fax-on-demand.

Fax-on-Demand:

800–638–8736, select option 1 and listen for

instructions.

To ensure timely notice of new publications,

subscribe to JUVJUST, OJJDP’s electronic

mailing list.

JUVJUST Mailing List:

E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

Leave the subject line blank

Type subscribe juvjust your name

In addition, JJC, through the National Criminal

Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), is the repository for tens of thousands of criminal and

juvenile justice publications and resources 

from around the world. They are abstracted 

and placed in a database, which is searchable

online (www.ncjrs.org/database.htm). You are

also welcome to submit materials to JJC for 

inclusion in the database.

The following list highlights popular and recently published OJJDP documents and videotapes, grouped by topical areas.

The OJJDP Publications List (BC000115) offers

a complete list of OJJDP publications and is

also available online.

In addition, the OJJDP Fact Sheet Flier

(LT000333) offers a complete list of OJJDP

Fact Sheets and is available online.

OJJDP also sponsors a teleconference initiative, and a flier (LT116) offers a complete list of

videos available from these broadcasts.

Corrections and Detention

Beyond the Walls: Improving Conditions of

Confinement for Youth in Custody. 1998, 

NCJ 164727 (116 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement: 1997

Update. 1998, NCJ 170606 (12 pp.).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement:

Lessons Learned From Five States. 1998, 

NCJ 173420 (12 pp.).

Juvenile Arrests 1997. 1999, NCJ 173938 

(12 pp.).

Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. 1999, NCJ 175715 (24 pp.).

Courts

Guide for Implementing the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model. 1998. NCJ 167887

(112 pp.).

Innovative Approaches to Juvenile Indigent

Defense. 1998, NCJ 171151 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Court Statistics 1996. 1999, 

NCJ 168963 (113 pp.).

Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1996. 1999, 

NCJ 175719 (12 pp.).

RESTTA National Directory of Restitution 

and Community Service Programs. 1998, 

NCJ 166365 (500 pp.), $33.50.

Trying Juveniles as Adults in Criminal Court:

An Analysis of State Transfer Provisions. 1998,

NCJ 172836 (112 pp.).

Youth Courts: A National Movement Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171149 (120 min.), $17.

Delinquency Prevention

1998 Report to Congress: Juvenile Mentoring

Program (JUMP). 1999, NCJ 173424 (65 pp.).

1998 Report to Congress: Title V Incentive

Grants for Local Delinquency Prevention Programs. 1999, NCJ 176342 (58 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Report).

1996, NCJ 157106 (200 pp.).

Combating Violence and Delinquency: The 

National Juvenile Justice Action Plan

(Summary). 1996, NCJ 157105 (36 pp.).

Effective Family Strengthening Interventions.

1998, NCJ 171121 (16 pp.).

Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants

Strategic Planning Guide. 1999, NCJ 172846

(62 pp.).

Parents Anonymous: Strengthening America’s

Families. 1999, NCJ 171120 (12 pp.).

Prenatal and Early Childhood Nurse Home

Visitation. 1998, NCJ 172875 (8 pp.).

Treatment Foster Care. 1999, NCJ 173421 

(12 pp.).

Gangs

1996 National Youth Gang Survey. 1999, 

NCJ 173964 (96 pp.).

Gang Members on the Move. 1998, 

NCJ 171153 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs: An Overview. 1998, NCJ 167249

(20 pp.).

The Youth Gangs, Drugs, and Violence Connection. 1999, NCJ 171152 (12 pp.).

Youth Gangs in America Teleconference 

(Video). 1997, NCJ 164937 (120 min.), $17.

General Juvenile Justice

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice in State 

Legislatures Teleconference (Video). 1998, 

NCJ 169593 (120 min.), $17.

Guidelines for the Screening of Persons Working With Children, the Elderly, and Individuals

With Disabilities in Need of Support. 1998, 

NCJ 167248 (52 pp.).

Juvenile Justice, Volume VII, Number 1. 2000,

NCJ 178256 (40 pp.).

A Juvenile Justice System for the 21st Century.

1998, NCJ 169726 (8 pp.).

Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National

Report. 1999, NCJ 178257 (232 pp.).

OJJDP Research: Making a Difference for 

Juveniles. 1999, NCJ 177602 (52 pp.).

Promising Strategies To Reduce Gun Violence.

1999, NCJ 173950 (253 pp.).

Sharing Information: A Guide to the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act and 

Participation in Juvenile Justice Programs.

1997, NCJ 163705 (52 pp.).

Missing and Exploited Children

Portable Guides to Investigating Child Abuse

(13-title series).

Protecting Children Online Teleconference

(Video). 1998, NCJ 170023 (120 min.), $17.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival

Guide. 1998, NCJ 170022 (96 pp.).

Substance Abuse

The Coach’s Playbook Against Drugs. 1998, 

NCJ 173393 (20 pp.).

Drug Identification and Testing in the Juvenile

Justice System. 1998, NCJ 167889 (92 pp.).

Preparing for the Drug Free Years. 1999, 

NCJ 173408 (12 pp.).

Violence and Victimization

Combating Fear and Restoring Safety in

Schools. 1998, NCJ 167888 (16 pp.).

Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive

Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic 

Juvenile Offenders. 1995, NCJ 153681 

(255 pp.).

Report to Congress on Juvenile Violence 

Research. 1999, NCJ 176976 (44 pp.)

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders. 1998,

NCJ 170027 (8 pp.).

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk

Factors and Successful Interventions Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 171286 (120 min.), $17.

State Legislative Responses to Violent Juvenile

Crime: 1996–97 Update. 1998, NCJ 172835 

(16 pp.).

White House Conference on School Safety:

Causes and Prevention of Youth Violence

Teleconference (Video). 1998, NCJ 173399 

(240 min.), $17.

Youth in Action

Community Cleanup. 1999, NCJ 171690 (6 pp.).

Cross-Age Teaching. 1999, NCJ 171688 (8 pp.).

Make a Friend—Be a Peer Mentor. 1999, 

NCJ 171691 (8 pp.).

Plan A Special Event! 1999, NCJ 171689 

(8 pp.).

Planning a Successful Crime Prevention 

Project. 1998, NCJ 170024 (28 pp.).

Stand Up and Start a School Crime Watch!

1998, NCJ 171123 (8 pp.)

Two Generations—Partners in Prevention.

1999, NCJ 171687 (8 pp.).

Wipe Out Vandalism and Graffiti. 1998, 

NCJ 171122 (8 pp.).

Youth Preventing Drug Abuse. 1998, 

NCJ 171124 (8 pp.).

Revised 6/21/2000
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 182787

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Report