U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

The rehabilitation of serious, chronic

juvenile offenders does not end with

their release from secure confinement.

On the contrary, effective aftercare

interventions are key to preventing

recidivism among this challenging

population.

In 1987, the Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention established a research and demonstration

program to develop, assess, and

disseminate an intensive aftercare

program targeted at these offenders.

This program, the Intensive Aftercare

Program (IAP), seeks to reduce

recidivism among high-risk juvenile

parolees by providing a continuum of

supervision and services during

institutionalization and after release.

This Bulletin provides an overview

of the IAP model and describes its

implementation over the first 3 years

by participating sites in Colorado,

Nevada, New Jersey, and Virginia.

The Bulletin also assesses the extent

to which the implementation has been

successful and identifies the factors

that facilitate implementation and

those that impede it.

As the information in this Bulletin

details, IAP programs play an important role in providing serious, chronic

juvenile offenders with the balanced

supervision and services they need

to turn from a path to crime.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

July 2000

record with this most difficult youth

population.

The OJJDP intensive community-based

aftercare research and demonstration

program—known as the Intensive Aftercare

Program (IAP)—is a multistage project conducted by David Altschuler, Ph.D. (Johns

Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies), and

Troy Armstrong, Ph.D. (Center for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies at California State University at Sacramento). The

project’s current and final phases consist

of implementation of the IAP model in selected sites and completion of process and

outcome evaluations by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD).2

 During initial implementation, the participating

sites were:

◆ Clark County (Las Vegas), NV.

◆ Denver, Arapaho, Douglas, and Jefferson

Counties (Metropolitan Denver), CO.

◆ Essex (Newark) and Camden Counties,

NJ (participation ended in 1997; see

page 3).

◆ City of Norfolk, VA.

To support implementation of the IAP

model, OJJDP awarded each site multiyear

grants and supplied ongoing training and

technical assistance through Drs. Altschuler

and Armstrong. Implementation was staggered. Virginia started operations in mid1993, even before Federal funding for the

Implementation of the

Intensive CommunityBased Aftercare Program

Richard G. Wiebush, Betsie McNulty, and Thao Le

In 1987, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) initiated

a research and development program to

design, test, and disseminate information

on an intensive aftercare program for serious, chronic juvenile offenders released

from secure confinement.1

 OJJDP’s desire

to focus attention on aftercare was sparked

by multiple concerns, including:

◆ Escalating juvenile crime rates.

◆ Dramatic increases in the number of

youth entering secure care.

◆ Spiraling costs.

◆ The juvenile correctional system’s

demonstrated ineffectiveness in controlling or reducing delinquent behavior among aftercare populations.

Previous research has shown that recidivism rates among juvenile parolees are

quite high, ranging from 55 percent to 75

percent (Krisberg, Austin, and Steele, 1991),

and that a large percentage of previously

incarcerated juvenile offenders continue

their criminal involvement into adulthood

(Hamparian et al., 1984). The crux of the

problem was that an already overburdened

juvenile corrections and aftercare system

was increasingly likely to face the kind of

youth whom the system historically had

either ignored or failed: serious, chronic

offenders. The OJJDP initiative was an attempt to develop more effective aftercare

interventions to improve the Nation’s track
2

The research evidence and the tenets of

integrated theory led Altschuler and

Armstrong to identify five principles that

should underpin all intervention efforts

geared toward structured reentry and community normalization for high-risk parolees:

◆ Prepare youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in

the community.

◆ Facilitate youth-community interaction

and involvement.

◆ Work with the offender and targeted

community support systems (e.g.,

schools, family) on qualities needed for

constructive interaction and the youth’s

successful community adjustment.

◆ Develop new resources and supports

where needed.

◆ Monitor and test the youth and the

community on their ability to deal with

each other productively.

Central to the model—and the sites’ programs—is the notion of “overarching case

management.” This IAP program element5

focuses on the processes required for

successful transition and aftercare and

includes five subcomponents:

◆ Assessment, classification, and selection criteria. IAP focuses on high-risk

offenders in order to maximize its potential for crime reduction and to avoid

the negative outcomes previously demonstrated to result from supervising

low-risk offenders in intensive supervision programs (Clear, 1988). To accurately identify these high-risk youth,

implementing jurisdictions need to use

a validated risk-screening instrument.

◆ Individualized case planning that incorporates family and community perspectives. This component specifies the

need for institutional and aftercare staff

to jointly identify youth’s service needs

shortly after commitment and plan for

how those needs will be addressed during incarceration, transition, and aftercare. It requires attention to youth problems in relation to their families, peers,

schools, and other social networks.

◆ A mix of intensive surveillance and

services. IAP promotes close supervision and control of high-risk offenders

in the community but also emphasizes

the need for similarly intensive services

and support. This approach requires

that staff have small caseloads and that

supervision and services be available

not only on weekdays, but also in the

evenings and on weekends.

project was assured; Nevada piloted a

small-scale version in mid-1994; New Jersey

started operations in the spring of 1995;

and Colorado began its program in August

1995. All the sites except Colorado started

the project before NCCD began the process

evaluation.

Purpose and Scope of

the Bulletin

This Bulletin provides an update on the

status of IAP implementation in the four

sites. It begins with a brief overview of the

IAP model and describes—using a crosssite approach—how the sites have implemented various aspects of the model. For

a fuller description of the model, see

Altschuler and Armstrong (1994).3

 The

Bulletin also assesses the extent to which

implementation has been successful, both

with respect to the specific components

and the overall model. Finally, a series of

factors that facilitated or impeded program

implementation are identified. This Bulletin is an interim report, reflecting developments during approximately the first 3 years

of implementation (through December

1998).4 The sites will continue implementation at least through mid-2000.

The IAP Model

The goal of the IAP model is to reduce recidivism among high-risk parolees. It is

rooted in research on the dynamics of

recidivism and a theoretical model that

integrates the explanations of strain, social

learning, and social control theories. The

model posits that effective intervention

with the target population requires not only

intensive supervision and services after

institutional release, but also a focus on

reintegration during incarceration and a

highly structured and gradual transition

process that serves as a bridge between

institutionalization and aftercare. Altschuler

and Armstrong suggest the following:

[The] IAP model is most clearly conceptualized as a correctional continuum consisting of three distinct, yet

overlapping, segments: pre-release and

preparatory planning during incarceration; structured transition that requires

the participation of institutional and

aftercare staff prior to and following

community re-entry; and long-term,

reintegrative activities that ensure

adequate service delivery and the

necessary level of social control

(1996:15).

◆ A balance of incentives and graduated

consequences. Intensive supervision is

likely to uncover numerous technical

violations and program infractions. The

IAP model indicates the need for a range

of graduated sanctions tied directly

and proportionately to the seriousness

of the violation instead of relying on

traditional “all or nothing” parole sanctioning schemes. At the same time, the

model points to a need to reinforce youth

progress consistently via a graduated

system of meaningful rewards.

◆ Creation of links with community

resources and social networks. This

element of case management is rooted

in the conviction that the parole agency

cannot effectively provide the range and

depth of services required for high-risk,

high-need parolees unless it brokers

services through a host of community

agencies and resources. Moreover, because interventions will focus on family, school, peer, and community issues,

the case manager and service agencies

need to create strong working relationships with these social networks.

The IAP model is prescriptive in the sense

that each of the implementing sites was

required to use the intervention framework, the program principles, and the program elements as the foundation for the

local program design. However, each site

had considerable flexibility to develop the

specific design that would provide the best

fit between the model’s parameters and the

local context. As a result, the sites share key

IAP features but also have program characteristics that clearly distinguish them from

each other.

The NCCD Evaluations

To test whether and to what extent IAP

addresses the critical issues outlined

above, OJJDP awarded a grant to NCCD

in 1995 to conduct process and outcome

evaluations in each site. The evaluations

are using an experimental design to determine the extent to which IAP differs from

standard institutional and aftercare practices and to assess the program’s impact

on youth outcomes. In each site, NCCD

randomly assigns committed youth who

are assessed as high risk either to IAP or

to a control group that receives traditional

services. For each group, data are collected

on youth characteristics, the extent and

nature of supervision and services provided each month, and intermediate and

longer term youth outcomes. The primary

goal of the process evaluation is to document and assess the extent to which the
3

sites have implemented the programs in

accordance with the national model and

their local design. Using both quantitative

and qualitative data, NCCD has been routinely assessing all dimensions of program

implementation. The implementation evaluation can inform policymakers, juvenile

justice officials, funders, and others about

program successes and shortcomings,

factors that facilitated or impeded implementation, and lessons learned from the

demonstration projects.

The outcome evaluation will examine recidivism among the IAP and control groups

using a 1-year, postrelease followup period

and multiple measures of reoffending

behavior.6

 A series of pre- and poststandardized tests will also be used to

assess intermediate outcomes in selected

areas of youth and family functioning.

The Status of IAP

Implementation in

the Sites

Each of the IAP sites underwent a 6- to 18-

month planning period prior to implementation. During this time, Drs. Altschuler and

Armstrong provided site staff with intensive training on the model’s rationale and

components. They also provided technical assistance on design and implementation issues. Then, as now, the model had

a strong conceptual appeal for administrators and staff. It made intuitive sense to

people, and it addressed what they had

identified as critical problems for parole

in their respective agencies. However, the

sites all had difficulties—to varying degrees

and in different areas of the model—translating design into operational reality. During approximately the first 2 years of each

project, implementation was an ongoing

process that involved incremental steps

and a series of refinements to program

components, policies, and procedures.

Project enrollments have been smaller than

originally anticipated. As of November

1998, approximately 3 years after startup,

Colorado had identified 150 youth to be

randomly assigned by NCCD, Nevada 212,

and Virginia 121. Due in part to low intake

and in part to program design, the sites

have served a fairly small number of youth

at any given time. Typically, the sites each

have had approximately 20 IAP youth in

the institutional phase and an additional

15 to 20 youth on aftercare status in the

community.

Implementation has been strong in three of

the four sites. Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia all have implemented IAP programs

that largely reflect program design. These

programs have also created a correctional

intervention that is quite different from the

supervision and services provided to “regular” parole cases. In New Jersey, however, a

promising first year of implementation was

followed by an extended period during

which program development stalled significantly. After several largely unsuccessful

attempts to reinvigorate the project, OJJDP

decided in December 1997 to end that site’s

participation in the demonstration.7

The following characteristics are common

to the three sites in which implementation

is considered successful:

◆ High-risk, program-eligible youth are

identified through the use of a risk assessment instrument that is site specific

and empirically based.

◆ Both institutional and aftercare case

management are provided by staff who

handle only IAP cases in small caseloads

(i.e., 15 to 20 youth). In the community,

parole officers work jointly with staff

referred to as parole aides, field agents,

or “trackers.”

◆ There is substantial coordination and

continuity in case planning and case

management across the institutional

and aftercare phases. This coordination is facilitated by a team approach.

While the composition of the team

varies across sites, it includes, at a

minimum, institutional and parole staff,

supplemented by service providers,

parents, and/or other agency staff.

◆ Team involvement and more frequent

interaction between institutional and

parole staff have helped overcome traditional turf and communication barriers.

◆ Planning for aftercare begins shortly

after the youth’s institutional placement and is finalized at least 30 days

prior to his release to aftercare. Community interventions/services begin

almost immediately after release.

◆ There are formal structures to facilitate

the transition from institution to aftercare, including the use of transitional

facilities (Virginia), furlough with intensive monitoring (Nevada), or service

delivery by community treatment providers that begins during the institutional phase and continues during

aftercare (Colorado).

◆ Special services designed specifically

for IAP youth have been developed and

implemented in both the institutional

and aftercare phases, including structured life skills curriculums, anger

management training, peer group counseling, and family counseling.

◆ Aftercare services represent a mix of

control measures (e.g., supervision

and surveillance) and treatment interventions to address identified needs.

◆ There is a major emphasis on creating

strong ties to local support systems and

accessing community services.

◆ Graduated reward and sanction systems

have been developed for the institutional and parole phases.

Although IAP has been generally well

implemented in these sites, each program

faced implementation difficulties, including

internal problems (e.g., extended staff vacancies in key positions and difficulties for

some parole officers in executing the intended “intensive” role) and contextual

problems (e.g., competing agency priorities, institutional crowding, and unstable

program environments). Some of the problems have been successfully addressed.

Others persist. On balance, however, the

strengths of each program far outweigh

the shortcomings.

Context and Goals

The impetus for adopting the IAP model

was strikingly similar across sites. They

were all operating in a political environment charged with increasing concerns

about serious offenders and, as a result,

their correctional policy and operations

had been subject to close scrutiny. Each

site was experiencing institutional crowding

in its juvenile facilities. Each knew, or believed, that recidivism and reincarceration

rates were high for parolees (thereby exacerbating the crowding problem). Each felt

that juvenile parole was a neglected component of its correctional interventions. The

introduction of IAP presented an opportunity for the sites to focus attention on a particularly problematic offender population

and to do so with the help of Federal funding and expert technical assistance.

The sites also had very similar goals for

the IAP project, which reflected those of

the national IAP model. Although there was

some variation across sites in the specifics

of the goal statements, each site focused

on the need to reduce recidivism and

reconfinement among high-risk parolees.
4

Planning and Program

Design

During the design phase, the sites developed “action planning teams” to translate

the basic parameters of the IAP model into

a program tailored to the local context.

Each site brought together people with different responsibilities from within the correctional system and from related agencies

to garner as much intrasystem and interagency cooperation and commitment as

possible. The teams, each of which received multiday training and ongoing technical assistance from Drs. Altschuler and

Armstrong, included high-level agency administrators representing institutions, aftercare, the judiciary, and prosecutors’ offices,

and also included mental health, education,

employment, and social services agencies.

These teams developed their site-specific

plan for IAP, the details of which were subsequently fleshed out by internal IAP management teams and/or project staff.

The local versions of IAP all incorporated

into their design the primary components

and features of the national model. However, as discussed more fully below, the

ways in which the components were put

into operation varied considerably.

Management

Administrative responsibility for each of

the IAP projects rests with the respective

State’s juvenile corrections agency. Each

agency has responsibility for operating the

institutions and providing aftercare services, and, in some sites, operating State

programs that serve as alternative placements. Program coordination responsibility is assigned to a midlevel manager in the

parole/aftercare/field services unit within

the larger agency. In Colorado and Virginia,

the program coordinator’s role is supplemented by an IAP management team, which

consists primarily of managers from the

various operational units that are directly

affected by the program. These teams

helped develop program policies and procedures and monitor program implementation. They play an important role in ensuring

coordination and cooperation among different parts of the system that previously

may have had conflicting interests. Nevada did not have a formally constituted

IAP management team until October 1998.

It relied instead on the relationships that

had developed among the key project

actors. It is likely that some of the operational difficulties encountered in Nevada

could have been avoided—or resolved

more expeditiously—if a formal team had

existed earlier.

Generally, administrative and managerial

support for IAP has been strong. Although

the programs have (1) involved a very

small portion of the overall juvenile offender population and (2) had substantial

challenges in terms of competing priorities (e.g., dealing with crowding, implementing new systemwide initiatives), the

basic integrity of the model has been supported in the sites. For example, in spite

of increasing workload pressures in both

the institutional and community settings,

administrators have held firm to their

commitment to keep IAP caseloads small.

They have also recognized the need for

IAP-specific programming and continued

to support it in the institutions and the

community. This commitment was not

necessarily unwavering. In each site,

there are examples of significant actions

taken (or not taken) by administrators

that, although they negatively affected

IAP, were believed to be necessary for the

greater good of the agency.8

 Perhaps more

important, the relatively small size of IAP

and the larger competing interests it encountered in each of the sites meant that

administrators and managers often could

not devote the time or attention to IAP

that may have been desired. However,

that the three projects have succeeded to

the extent they have is due, at least in

part, to an administrative commitment to

support them.

Staffing

Although the central functions of IAP staff

are the same across sites (e.g., case management, some direct service delivery,

aftercare supervision, and the facilitation

or brokerage of services), specific staffing

patterns and role configurations differ

somewhat from site to site (see table 1).

For example, in Virginia (and previously

in New Jersey), separate IAP case management positions were developed for the

institutions and for aftercare. Nevada has

two IAP-dedicated parole officers in Las

Vegas but does not have a designated IAP

institutional case manager. Instead, the

Nevada IAP uses an institutional-community

liaison (a parole officer who is located in

the IAP cottage) with responsibility for

coordinating activities and facilitating

communication between the institution

and the parole unit. Finally, Colorado’s

basic IAP staffing pattern is quite different

from the other sites. There is no bifurcation of case management responsibility

between the institution and the parole

office. The three IAP case managers have

responsibility for their cases during both

the institutional and aftercare phases (as

do all other Division of Youth Corrections

(DYC) case managers).

All the IAP case managers—whether institutional or aftercare—carry approximately

one-half to one-third the number of cases

handled by their counterparts who are

working with non-IAP youth. In Colorado,

for example, the client managers have a

maximum caseload of 18 youth (combined

institution and aftercare) compared with a

typical non-IAP caseload of 35 to 40 youth.

To enhance community supervision, the

sites all use additional staff who provide

case support and monitor program youth

on weekends and during evenings. In Nevada, each IAP case manager is paired

with a field agent. In Virginia, a parole

aide supports the three IAP parole officers. The Colorado project includes a

similar aftercare support/surveillance

function, but it is carried out by contracted trackers who are not part of the

formal IAP staff.

Through IAP implementation, the sites have

successfully overcome the traditional barriers between institutional and aftercare staff

and have developed team-oriented approaches to case planning and case management. Several sites reported that prior

to IAP’s introduction, there was little communication or coordination between institutional and aftercare staff, little understanding of what their respective jobs

entailed, and often the existence of an “us

versus them” mentality. Now, through consistent communication, frequent institutional visits by aftercare staff, joint case

planning, coordinated transitional activities, and joint training, institutional and aftercare staff tend to see themselves as having complementary and supportive roles.

During the first few years of implementation, all the sites experienced some staffing

problems. These problems fell into two

basic categories: (1) staff turnover and

vacancies and (2) role execution.

Turnover and Vacancies

Generally, staff turnover has not been a

major problem in Colorado, Nevada, or

Virginia. However, the latter two sites

have experienced extended vacancies in

key positions that directly affected the

quality of services delivered to IAP youth.

In Nevada, an 8-month vacancy in the

institutional-community liaison position
5

sharply curtailed service delivery in some

areas of transition programming. Similarly, Virginia experienced a 10-month

vacancy in the institutional case manager

position at the Beaumont Juvenile Correctional Center. In addition, Virginia’s parole

aide position has been vacant for two 4-

month periods. Because the parole aide is

largely responsible for evening and weekend monitoring, the vacancies hampered

the IAP community control strategy.

The extent of staff turnover was a major

problem in New Jersey. By early 1997, after

less than 2 years of operations, there was

not one person actively involved with IAP

who had been among the original staff. By

the end of 1997, several key positions had

turned over multiple times, including those

of project coordinator and IAP institutional

case manager. The extent of change was so

sweeping that it produced a general instability in the program because of the constant recruiting and retraining, and the

frequent disruption of working relationships caused by staff turnover.

Role Execution

In Nevada, New Jersey, and Virginia, IAP

parole officers had initial difficulties meeting the program’s expectations regarding

intensive supervision. In each site, the staff

selected for these positions were all highly

experienced parole officers who brought

their traditional understanding of that role

to the new position. As a result, they

struggled with the shift from a one-on-one,

office-bound, 9-to-5 way of doing business

to the more flexible, comprehensive, and

team-oriented approach envisioned in the

IAP model. Adaptation and growth in the

new role took some time (approximately a

year in Nevada and 18 months in Virginia)

and was facilitated by a variety of interventions, including ongoing training, close supervision, and exposure to other intensive

juvenile correctional programs. The Virginia

IAP program, for example, hired an additional IAP officer who had extensive experience in Norfolk’s intensive probation program and who subsequently served as a

strong influence on the other IAP staff.9

Client Eligibility and

Selection

The basic eligibility criteria are the same

across sites. Eligible youth:

◆ Are male.

◆ Have been committed to the custody

of the State juvenile corrections

agency.

◆ Are from a selected county/counties.

◆ Will be placed at a specified juvenile

correctional facility.

Table 1: IAP Management and Staffing

IAP Site

Component Colorado Nevada Virginia

Administrative agency Colorado Division of Nevada Youth Parole Bureau Virginia Department

Youth Corrections of Juvenile Justice

Program coordinator DYC Community Services Clark County Parole Unit Parole Services Manager

Coordinator (Central Manager (Local Office) (Central Office)

Office)

Primary IAP staff

Institution Three IAP client managers IAP institutional/community Two IAP case managers*

liaison*

Community Same three IAP client • Two IAP case managers • Three IAP parole officers

managers • Two field agents • Parole aide*

• Parole unit manager

• Education liaison

Other key staff • Cedar Cottage treatment • “B” cottage manager • Reception facility IAP

team coordinator • IAP data coordinator case manager

• Four group leaders • Data coordinator*

• One to three interns

with master’s degrees

in social work

• IAP researcher*

IAP staff/client ratio**

Institution Liaison = 1/22 (in) Case manager = 1/15 (in)

Client managers = 1/18

Community (in + out) Parole officer + agent = 2/20 Parole officer = 1/15

(out) (in + out)

* Indicates the position is funded by OJJDP through the IAP grant.

** Staff/client ratios shown are based on program design.

† “In” designates work with youth in institutions and “out” designates work with youth in the community.

†
6

The New Jersey Implementation Context

The most significant contextual issue for

understanding the IAP experience in

New Jersey is the turbulent organizational environment in which implementation occurred. The unstable environment

resulted from two major changes that

took place in the organizational structure

of juvenile corrections.

When the program was introduced, and

during the first 6 to 9 months of planning,

youth institutions, community residential

centers (group homes that were to be

used as step-down facilities for IAP

youth), and parole officers were under

the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections (DOC). In the first reorganization

(1993), responsibility for the residential

centers was transferred to the Department of Human Services/Division of Juvenile Services (DJS). In practical terms,

this meant that youth moving through the

three stages of the IAP model (institution, transitional facility, parole) would

move from DOC jurisdiction to DJS jurisdiction and then back again. As a result,

the site was required to obtain the commitment and cooperation of two State

agencies with differing responsibilities

and priorities during program planning

and the initial months of implementation.

The so-called organizational split was one

of the major obstacles to early implementation because so much time was spent overcoming turf issues and getting cooperation

and coordination between the two departments. After the first year of implementation,

however, both DOC and DJS administrators

were reporting that IAP had vastly improved

communication, coordination, and understanding of mutual responsibilities between

the institutions, the transitional centers, and

the parole system. Several staff indicated

that they felt they were functioning for the

first time as “part of a team.” Overcoming

the split was seen as one of the major accomplishments of the project at that point.

Just as these interagency IAP issues were

being resolved, the second major reorganization took place. In December 1995, the

DOC’s juvenile components (institutions

and parole) and DJS residential centers

were put under the auspices of a separate,

third agency—the newly created Juvenile

Justice Commission (JJC). The switch from

DOC/DJS administration to JJC administration involved a transition period that lasted

more than a year. As a result, very little administrative attention was paid to IAP

throughout the second half of 1996 and

into early 1997. During this time, the

project was essentially leaderless, being

maintained solely by the efforts of line

staff, and did not continue to develop

programmatically.

JJC was a large and new bureaucracy

with wide-ranging responsibilities that

included getting established and organized, overhauling the outmoded and

overcrowded New Jersey Training School

for Boys (the major secure juvenile correctional facility), and transforming the

dysfunctional juvenile parole system.

The small IAP project, with no more than

25 to 30 participants at any point, was

not a priority. This is not to suggest that

JJC ignored the project. Both the agency

administrator and the chief of the parole

division believed strongly in the concept.

And the new IAP coordinator (the assistant parole administrator, who took over

IAP in February 1997) made significant

efforts to get the by-then derailed IAP

back on track. It was, however, a question of focus, energy, and priorities. JJC

simply had too much to do and too many

larger issues at stake to spend the time

required for cultivating a small, federally

funded experiment.

◆ Are at high risk of reoffending based

on the results of a site-specific risk

assessment instrument.10

Each site has a limited set of exclusionary

offenses (e.g., sex offenses) or conditions

(e.g., severe mental health problems).

Those youth who meet all the eligibility

criteria are placed in the IAP-eligible pool

and assigned randomly by NCCD to either

IAP or the control group.

Intake Issues

The number of youth enrolled in the demonstration project’s experimental and control groups is lower than expected. Early

planning studies indicated that a minimum

of 200 youth (IAP and control group) in

each site were expected to be enrolled

during the first 2 years of intake. However,

after approximately 3 years (November

1998), all the sites except Nevada had fallen

far short of this goal: Colorado had randomized 150 youth, Nevada had randomized

212, and Virginia had randomized 121.

Two key factors in the reduction of the

IAP-eligible pool were institutional crowding and the system’s efforts to control it.

In Colorado, at about the time that IAP was

being introduced, the State legislature

mandated more extensive use of privately

contracted beds for serious offenders in

an attempt to reduce crowding and costs.

DYC responded by expanding dramatically the number of contracted beds with

organizations such as Glen Mills and the

High Plains Youth Center. Filling these

beds then became a priority, and the unanticipated consequence was a reduction in

the number of eligible youth who remained

at DYC’s Lookout Mountain facility. Approximately one-fourth of all high-risk youth

committed to DYC were not eligible for IAP

because of placement at private facilities.

A similar situation occurred in New Jersey,

where officials aggressively diverted large

numbers of committed youth from the IAP

“host” institution (New Jersey Training

School for Boys) to smaller, less-secure

public facilities. There, too, approximately

one-fourth of the high-risk youth were

made ineligible for IAP because of these

diversion practices. The situation in Virginia was somewhat different. Officials at

the local level (Norfolk) introduced a series of programs designed as alternatives

to institutionalization approximately 1 year

after IAP was implemented. Although no

data are available, it is believed that these

programs helped reduce the overall level

of commitments to the State and lowered

the number of youth who might have been

eligible for IAP.

The lower-than-expected enrollments have

potential implications for the evaluation

(e.g., a smaller study population) but also

had some programmatic ramifications.

For example, IAP and non-IAP youth were

mixed in the IAP-designated cottages in

Virginia during the first 2 years of operation. This presented difficulties for institutional cottage staff as they tried to implement IAP-specific services for one portion

of their unit’s population and not the other.

In addition, the “low and slow” intake

levels meant that the number of youth

actually in the aftercare phase remained

much lower than anticipated during the

first 2 years of implementation.11
7

Each of the sites took steps to address

these intake issues. These included making

case-by-case decisions, in a limited manner, to accept risk scores slightly below

the cut-off (Nevada, New Jersey, Virginia);

lowering the risk scale cutoff points to define more youth as high risk (Nevada, Colorado); prioritizing institutional beds for

IAP youth (Colorado); and lowering the

age eligibility from 16 to 13 years of age and

designating a second institution as an IAP

host facility (Virginia). Only the steps

taken by Nevada, however, appear to have

had a sustained impact on IAP enrollments.

Participant Characteristics

Data on the characteristics of the IAPeligible population indicate that the sites

are in fact serving their intended targeted

population of high-risk, high-need offenders.12 Given the aggressive diversion practices at several of the sites, the youth ultimately selected for the project are in many

ways the most difficult in the correctional

population. One parole officer has commented that “having one IAP kid is like

having two of any other parolee.”

The age of the IAP-eligible population is

quite similar across sites—at least 80 percent of the youth are age 16 or older. The

groups are very different, however, with

respect to ethnicity. In Colorado, the

project population is primarily Hispanic (39

percent) and white (34 percent), Nevada’s

youth are primarily African American (39

percent) and white (37 percent), and

Virginia’s youth are predominantly African

American (83 percent).

Offense histories differ considerably by

site. Colorado youth are significantly more

likely to have been committed for a personrelated offense (49 percent) than youth in

either Nevada (17 percent) or Virginia (14

percent). At the same time, Colorado youth

are less likely to be chronic offenders (three

or more prior adjudications) or chronic

felony offenders (three or more prior felony

adjudications) than is the case in Nevada

and Virginia. In Colorado, only 30 percent

of the high-risk youth have three or more

adjudications (compared with 97 percent

of the youth in Nevada and 88 percent of

those in Virginia), and only 7 percent

have three or more prior felony adjudications (compared with more than half the

youth in the other two sites). These data

are presented in figures 1 and 2.

As shown in table 2, large proportions

of the high-risk youth in each site have

personal and family problems that can

present significant barriers to successful

Figure 1: Nature of Current Adjudicated Offense, by Site

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of IAP-Eligible Population

Probation/Parole Violation

Property

Other

Person

Colorado

(n=125)

Nevada

(n=184)

Virginia

(n=83)

Note: Includes IAP and control youth. Data through November 1998.

Note: Includes IAP and control youth. Data through November 1998.

Figure 2: Percentage of Youth With Three or More Prior Adjudications and

Youth With Three or More Prior Felony Adjudications, by Site

Three or More Prior Felony Adjudications

Three or More Prior Adjudications

Colorado

(n=125)

Nevada

(n=184)

Virginia

(n=83)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percentage of IAP-Eligible Population
8

Table 2: Youth and Family Problems in IAP and Control Groups

IAP Site

Colorado Nevada Virginia

Problem Area (n=125) (n=184) (n=83)

Not attending school 74% 90% 76%

Designated in need of special education 25 24 28

Major mental health problem 32 14 26

Major drug and/or alcohol problem 61 46 35

Victim of child abuse/neglect 45 53 29

Family member with major drug abuse problem 51 45 63

Family member incarcerated 84 49 65

Note: Data through November 30, 1998.

reintegration. At least three-fourths of

the youth in each site were not attending

school at the time of their commitment to

the State juvenile corrections agency. Onefourth were identified as being in need of

special education. Each site also had substantial numbers of youth with major mental

health or substance abuse problems and

youth who had been victims of abuse or neglect. Just as problematic is the family environment to which the youth will likely return

upon release to aftercare. Approximately

half of the youth in each site had a family

member with a major substance abuse problem, and an even larger percentage had a

family member who had been incarcerated.

The Transition

Structure and Process

A central tenet of the IAP model is the need

for a well-planned and coordinated process

for transitioning youth from the institutional setting to aftercare. This has been

largely accomplished in Colorado, Nevada,

and Virginia. There is early and frequent

planning for aftercare, multiple people are

involved in developing the case plan, and

several mechanisms are in place for gradually phasing the youth out of the highly

structured institutional environment. The

key components of the transition process

are summarized in table 3. Although the

specific components are quite different

across sites, the methods each used to

structure the transition constitute a primary strength of implementation.13

Parole Planning

In each site, institutional and aftercare

staff begin thinking about and planning

for parole shortly after a youth’s commitment. Initial plans usually are developed

within 30 days of commitment, at the

same time that the institutional case plan

is developed. Parole plans are then finalized approximately 1 to 2 months prior to

release. In Colorado and Virginia, case

plans incorporate the multiple perspectives of institutional staff, parole staff, and

representatives of community agencies.

Although all the sites attempt to involve

parents in case planning, their degree of

success has differed. Parental involvement

in Colorado has been fairly routine, perhaps because of the proximity of the institution to the Denver area—a 30-minute

drive away. It has been more sporadic in

Nevada and Virginia, however, where the

institutions are located several hours away

from the target communities.

An important outcome of this early aftercare planning is that parole officers can

put needed services in place prior to the

youth’s actual release. In all three sites,

critical services typically begin within the

first week (if not the first day) after release.

This practice stands in sharp contrast to

the traditional parole situation in which

arrangements for services often do not

begin until the youth is released, thereby

creating considerable delays before services are actually delivered.

Parole Officer Contact

During the Institutional

Phase

One of the transitioning mechanisms common to all sites is the ongoing involvement

of the case manager/parole officer with IAP

participants while they are institutionalized. Case managers are required to visit

the institution at least monthly to begin

building relationships with the youth, monitor progress with the case plan, and review

the parole plan. Evaluation data show that

in Colorado, IAP youth are seen by the case

manager approximately 2.5 times per month

during the institutional phase; in Nevada,

they are seen by the parole officer about

once every other month; and in Virginia,

they are seen about 1.5 times per month.

In each case, this contact during the institutional phase is twice as frequent as

among control group youth.

Site-Specific Transition

Practices

Colorado. In Colorado, one of the key

transition processes is continuity in service delivery. During the institutional

phase, community-based providers begin

weekly services (including multifamily

counseling and life skills services) that

continue during aftercare. The extent of

Colorado’s provider involvement across

the institutional/aftercare boundary is

unique and clearly represents Altschuler

and Armstrong’s notion of “backing up”

community-based services into the institution to maximize the transition process.

Sixty days prior to release, IAP youth begin

a series of step-down measures, including

supervised trips to the community and, 30

days before release, overnight or weekend

home passes. Upon release to parole, most

program youth go through several months

of day treatment programming that, in addition to services, provides a high level of

structure during the day. Trackers provide

evening and weekend monitoring during

this period of reentry. As a youth’s progress

warrants, the frequency of supervision

contacts decreases. The planned frequency

of contact is once per week during the first

few months of supervision, with gradual

reductions to once per month in later stages

of supervision.

Nevada. Like Colorado, Nevada’s transition

has programmatic and structural dimensions. Once the parole plan is finalized, all

IAP youth begin a 30-day prerelease phase

during which IAP staff provide a series of

services that continue through the early

months of parole. These consist primarily of two structured curriculums on life

skills (Jettstream) and substance abuse

(Rational Recovery).14 In addition, a money

management program (The Money Program) is initiated. Youth are provided

with mock checking accounts from which

“bills” must be paid for rent, food, insurance, and other necessities. Youth also

can use their accounts to purchase recreation and other privileges, but each

youth must have a balance of at least

$50 at the end of the 30 days to purchase

his bus ticket home.

The initial 30 days of release are considered an institutional furlough (i.e., youth
9

are still on the institutional rolls) that

involves intensive supervision and service,

any time during which the youth may be

returned to Caliente Youth Center for significant program infractions. To ensure

that community staff have the capability of

returning youth to Caliente, two beds are

kept open and in reserve. During furlough,

youth are involved in day programming and

are subject to frequent drug testing and

evening and weekend surveillance. Upon

successful completion of the furlough, the

IAP transition continues through the use of

phased levels of supervision. During the

first 3 months, three contacts per week

with the case manager or field agent are

required. This level of supervision is

reduced to two contacts per week for the

next 2 months, and then to once per week

during the last month of parole.

Virginia. Virginia’s transition differs from

the other two sites in that its central feature is the use of group home placements

as a bridge between the institution and

the community. Immediately after release

from the institution, youth enter one of two

Table 3: Transition Components of IAP Programming

IAP Site

Transition Component Colorado Nevada Virginia

Early parole planning Initial plan complete at Initial plan complete at 30 days Initial plan complete 30

30 days after institutional after institutional placement; days after institutional

placement; final plan final plan complete 30 days placement; final plan

complete at 60 days prior to furlough. complete 30 days prior

prior to release. to release.

Multiple perspectives Case manager, institutional Parole officer, institutional Parole officer, institutional

incorporated in plan staff, youth, parents, and community liaison, case manager, youth,

community providers all institutional staff, and interagency “Commuroutinely involved. youth; parent participation nity Assessment Team,”

limited. and parent.

Parole officer visits One to two times per week; Once per month; routine One to two times per

to institution routine. since spring 1997. month; routine.

Treatment begun in Via community providers. Via an institutional-community Via one provider at Hanover

institution and Includes multifamily liaison and parole officers. only. Drug/alcohol

continued in counseling, life skills Includes life skills and drug/ treatment; sporadic use.

community training, individual alcohol curriculums; done State policy discourages

counseling, and voca- routinely until liaison contract services by

tional skills training; vacancy. community providers for

done routinely. institutionalized youth.

Youth prerelease visits Supervised day trips to Not allowed. Not allowed.

to community community programs,

beginning 60 days

prior to release.

Preparole furlough Overnight/weekend home Thirty-day conditional release Not allowed.

passes, beginning 30 days to community, prior to

prior to release. official parole.

Transitional residence Not part of the design, but Not part of the design. Two group homes in

occurs for some youth. Norfolk; 30- to 60-day

length of stay; used

for most youth.

Transitional day Two day-treatment One day-supervision/ Day treatment used for

programming programs in Denver; treatment program; used youth who do not go

used for almost all youth for most youth. to group homes.

during the first few

months after release.

Phased supervision Informal system: contact Four-phase system: contact Four-phase system: group

 levels on parole once per week during four times per week during home; contact five to

the first few months, furlough; three times per seven times per week

down to once per week next 90 days; two next 60 days; three to

month later. times per week next five times per week next

60–90 days; once per 60 days; three times per

week next 30–60 days. week last 30 days.
10

group homes for a 30- to 60-day period.

The programs and services in which they

will be involved in the community are

initiated shortly after placement in the

group home. As in Nevada, Virginia uses a

formal step-down system to gradually

ease the intensity of parole supervision.

In the 2 months following the youth’s release from the group home, staff are required to contact him five to seven times

per week. This is reduced to three to five

times per week during the next 2 months

and again to three times per week during

the final 30 days.

Virginia has had limited success in initiating

services in the institutional phase that are

then continued during aftercare. IAP staff

developed a comprehensive life skills curriculum designed for this purpose, but it

has not been consistently delivered in both

settings. Because State officials frown on

contracting for services with community

providers for institutionalized youth, this

avenue for transition-oriented, continuous

service delivery largely has been blocked.

The IAP Mix of

Supervision and

Services

The IAP model stresses the need to create

a wide-ranging and balanced mix of interventions designed to control offender risk

and to address offender needs. Colorado,

Nevada, and Virginia have all responded

by (1) providing enhanced, IAP-specific

programming during both the institutional

and aftercare phases and (2) creating a

blend of control and treatment strategies

during aftercare.

Institutional Services

In Colorado and Nevada, the basic intervention for IAP and all other youth is based on

normative culture models that seek to help

youth develop prosocial values. The intervention involves creating a positive peer

culture in the cottage, having daily group

counseling sessions, and using peer pressure to induce behavioral change. In Virginia,

the basic intervention in all Department of

Juvenile Justice facilities since early 1997

has been the militaristic-style LEADER program. Using uniforms, a platoon organization, military drills, and highly structured

days, the program represents an attempt to

develop a new institutional culture based on

structure, discipline, and group cohesion.

Within this larger context, the programs in

each site have developed specialized services for IAP. First, all the sites house IAP

youth in the same living unit, although

they have usually been mixed in with nonIAP youth. Second, because of the reduced

caseloads, IAP youth have much more frequent face-to-face contact with their institutional case managers for purposes of

case planning and counseling than does

the control group.15 Third, each site has

developed programming specifically targeted to its IAP population. For example:

◆ All three sites include a formal system

of rewards and sanctions (see page 13).

◆ Colorado provides a vocational skills

workshop and additional individual

counseling (run by community providers), parent orientation and experiential learning activities (jointly run by

cottage staff and the providers), and

anger management and survival skills

groups. Further, family members of IAP

youth are involved in multifamily counseling groups operated by the providers

at the institution.

◆ In Nevada, IAP youth receive the prerelease services discussed previously.

These include participation in Jettstream, Rational Recovery, and The

Money Program.

◆ In Virginia, IAP youth are involved in a

life skills group, receive specialized vocational assessment, and receive additional individual counseling by their

case managers. Parents of IAP youth are

involved in provider-run groups and

other services in the community while

their sons are incarcerated.

In addition to these specialized services,

IAP youth in each site are provided a wide

array of more traditional services (e.g.,

education, substance abuse treatment)

while institutionalized.

However, as shown in table 4 (see page 11),

IAP youth are not necessarily more likely

to be involved in these traditional service

areas than non-IAP youth. For example, in

Colorado and Virginia, there are no differences in the proportion of IAP and control

youth who have been involved in education, vocational training, counseling, substance abuse interventions, or life skills

training. In Nevada, however, IAP youth

are more likely to be involved in vocational

training, substance abuse interventions,

and life skills programming.

There is a similar pattern with respect to

the intensity of services (i.e., mean hours or

days per service month) provided to IAP

youth. In Colorado, IAP and control youth

receive generally very similar levels of service in each of the basic intervention areas,

although control cases receive slightly

more intensive services in vocational training and counseling. In Virginia, IAP and control youth receive similar doses of services

in all areas except vocational training

(where the IAP group receives less intensive services). In Nevada, however, there

are two service domains (counseling and

life skills) in which IAP youth receive far

more intensive services than control youth.

These data suggest a lack of differentiation

between IAP and control youth in service

delivery during the institutional phase,

especially in Colorado and Virginia. This is

due in part to Colorado’s efforts in recent

years to provide enhanced services for all

institutionalized youth and to the extended

vacancy in the IAP case manager’s position

at the Beaumont facility in Virginia.

It is important to remember, however, that

what is being measured here is the extent of

youth involvement in traditional intervention areas. As shown elsewhere, there are

important differences in IAP institutional

service delivery in connection with case

management (e.g., early release planning,

institutional visits by the parole officers),

the nature of service delivery (e.g., the involvement of community providers in Colorado), the emphasis on transition, and the

provision of unique programming such as

the systems for rewards and sanctions.

Aftercare Supervision

In each site, multiple mechanisms are used

to provide intensive supervision. All the

sites provide a highly structured setting

for the early months of aftercare. Colorado

uses day treatment programming, Nevada

employs administratively revocable furlough coupled with day programming, and

Virginia requires a 1- to 2-month stay in a

group home. The sites also require frequent

contact between the youth and the supervision team. In the first few months of parole, the expected frequency of contact

ranges from once per week in Colorado to

three times per week in Nevada to five

times per week in Virginia.

Each site has made provisions for extended coverage (i.e., supervision that

occurs during evening hours and on weekends). Other monitoring or surveillanceoriented activities include curfews and random urinalysis (all sites), house arrest and

electronic monitoring (as needed in Nevada

and Virginia), and random paging and

monthly court reviews (Virginia). Finally,

IAP parole staff in each site spend a significant portion of their time interacting with

youth and families at community programs,
11

offenders’ homes, and “in the street” instead

of working solely out of the office. Although

the number of aftercare youth for whom

data are available is somewhat limited, it

appears that the intensity of supervision for

IAP youth is greater than that found for controls in all three sites. For example:

◆ In Nevada and Virginia, IAP youth have

substantially more face-to-face contacts with their parole officers each

month than do control youth. IAP

youth in Colorado and Virginia also

have telephone contacts with their

parole officers at a rate that is more

than twice that of control youth (see

table 5 and figure 3, page 12).

◆ In Virginia, the parents of IAP youth

have far more face-to-face contact with

parole officers than do control group

parents.

◆ In all sites, IAP youth are significantly

more likely than control youth to be

subject to some form of evening and

weekend supervision or surveillance

(see figure 4, page 13).

The data on the frequency of contact between parole officers and youth may raise

the question of just how intensive the IAP

supervision is. Seeing a youth two or three

times per month (in Colorado) or even five

times per month (in Nevada) may not seem

to enhance dramatically the levels of supervision. However, these data need to be

viewed in the larger context of how “intensive supervision” is defined in the sites.

The IAP programs do not rely solely on the

contact between assigned parole officers

and youth to achieve intensive supervision.

Instead, the sites use a team supervision

approach that involves several different

parties, including the parole officer, surveillance or tracking staff, treatment providers,

and others. In Colorado, for example, substantial responsibility for social control is

assumed by the two day-treatment providers during the early phases of parole. Instead of relying on multiple contacts per

week with the case manager, Colorado uses

highly-structured, 7-hour-per-day program

involvement as a key mechanism for close

supervision. There, as in the other sites, it

is this type of service involvement, along

with surveillance activities and the frequency of contact, that helps create intensive levels of supervision.

Services while on aftercare. The IAP

model and the three demonstration programs emphasize the need to create links

with a wide range of service providers to

meet the multiple and varied needs of the

target population. Colorado and Virginia

have been quite successful in meeting

this objective, while Nevada has encountered some obstacles.

Colorado has developed a full-fledged

public-private partnership by creating its

multiagency service provider network. IAP

managers and staff view the provider network as the core element of the project. It

involves approximately 25 different agencies and includes both residential and nonresidential programs that provide a full

range of services. In practice, two of the

agencies (the day treatment providers) are

used routinely for almost all paroled youth,

and the others are accessed according to a

youth’s needs. Funding for these services

is provided through a combination of DYC

contractual dollars, IAP funding, and an

additional pool of State subsidy money

that provides flexible funds for specialized

aftercare services.

Virginia has been successful in maximizing the number and type of community

resources that can be made available to

IAP youth. It has done so by creating and

sustaining relationships with key organizations in the community, accessing several different funding sources, and accessing resources that previously may not have

served the juvenile parole population. The

IAP site routinely uses approximately 15

different public and private communitybased organizations for service delivery,

although they are not organized into a

formal provider network as in Colorado.

The services include alternative education

Table 4: Prevalence and Intensity of Service Delivery, Institutional Phase

Colorado

Percentage of Youth Who Mean Hours/Days

Ever Received Service Per Month

IAP Control IAP Control

Service Type (n=80) (n=67) (n=80) (n=67)

Educational 100% 99% 17.3 days 15.8 days

Vocational training 53 49 13.8 hours 17.2 hours

Mental health/counseling 100 99 12.2 hours 15.0 hours

Drug/alcohol treatment 55 54 5.6 hours 4.5 hours

Life skills training 31 43 4.5 hours 5.2 hours

Nevada

Percentage of Youth Who Mean Hours/Days

Ever Received Service Per Month

IAP Control IAP Control

Service Type (n=95) (n=99) (n=95) (n=99)

Educational 97% 99% 15.9 days 13.9 days

Vocational training 77 59 14.7 hours 13.8 hours

Mental health/counseling 97 97 21.5 hours 9.1 hours

Drug/alcohol treatment 95 82 4.4 hours 6.0 hours

Life skills training 96 36 33.5 hours 7.1 hours

Virginia

Percentage of Youth Who Mean Hours/Days

Ever Received Service Per Month

IAP Control IAP Control

Service Type (n=70) (n=35) (n=70) (n=35)

Educational 99% 91% 18.0 days 18.9 days

Vocational training 54 57 11.0 hours 21.2 hours

Mental health/counseling 99 97 3.9 hours 2.7 hours

Drug/alcohol treatment 70 71 2.3 hours 2.0 hours

Life skills training 84 83 1.7 hours 1.6 hours

Note: Intensity-of-services data are based on case months in which the service was received.
12

Table 5: Number of Contacts per Month Between Parole Officer and Youth

and Parents During Aftercare

IAP Site

Colorado Nevada Virginia

IAP Control IAP Control IAP Control

Service Type (n=58) (n=48) (n=81) (n=96) (n=56) (n=34)

Face-to-Face

Parole officer 2.5 1.5 5.0 2.0 11.4 2.3

and youth

Parole officer 1.4 0.7 1.8 1.0 4.8 1.5

and parent

Phone

Parole officer 3.2 1.5 2.4 1.8 5.3 1.4

and youth

Parole officer 2.0 1.1 2.2 1.3 3.2 1.2

and parent

Figure 3: Average Face-to-Face Contacts During Aftercare, by Site

IAP Control

(n=54) (n=76)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

(n=49)

Mean Number of Contacts per Month

(n=33)

Colorado Nevada

(n=89)

Virginia

(n=20)

Nevada’s IAP has struggled to create community links and generally has had less

access to community agencies than is the

case in Colorado or Virginia. Historically,

the Nevada Youth Parole Bureau has had

little experience with service brokerage.

Consequently, for approximately the first

2 years of the project, IAP staff directly

delivered most of the services. In summer

1998, however, Nevada began to move

away from the direct service model. A day

treatment provider assumed the primary

responsibility for the core services received by all youth (e.g., life skills training,

tutoring, anger management, continuation

of the Jettstream and Rational Recovery

classes). Other services are available to

IAP youth, but these are limited to programs that have had long-standing contracts for services to all parolees, are operated by other governmental agencies, or

require fees for service.16 In an attempt to

provide a broader range of services, in addition to more individualized and readily

accessible services, Nevada identified five

potential contractors in mid-1996 who

could provide various levels of treatment

for mental health, substance abuse, and

other problems. Until only recently, however, a series of bureaucratic obstacles

and delays at the State level prevented the

finalization of these IAP-specific contracts.

Service involvement. Regardless of the

variations in service delivery models, large

percentages of IAP youth in each site receive services in several different areas,

and IAP clients, especially in Nevada and

Virginia, are consistently more likely to

receive services than their control counterparts. Data relative to the prevalence and

intensity of aftercare services delivered

to youth are presented in table 6 (see

page 14). These data need to be treated

with caution because of the low number

of control clients with reports on service

delivery in Colorado and Virginia.

In Colorado, a large percentage of IAP youth

are involved in each of the service areas. These youth are more likely than

controls to partake in employment, vocational training, and substance abuse services. The extent of IAP youth’s service

involvement in Nevada and Virginia is striking. In both sites, approximately two-thirds

or more of the IAP youth are involved in

the various services. IAP clients also are

far more likely to be involved in each service area (with the sole exception of employment) than are the control clients.

Although large numbers of IAP youth are

provided services, the data indicate that

programs, a specialized public school reentry class, three vocational training programs, mental health and family preservation services, and substance abuse

treatment and relapse prevention programs. Access to services is enhanced

through the availability of flexible funds,

including IAP grant money and a $2 million State subsidy for community-based

services. In addition to these brokered

services, parole staff provide a series of

direct services including life skills and

substance abuse counseling and youth

and parent groups.
13

Figure 4: Percentage of Youth Subject to Surveillance-Related

Activities, by Site

Note: Includes evening/weekend extended coverage, pagers, electronic monitoring, and other

surveillance methods. Percentage of Youth

IAP Control

(n=49) (n=63)

0

20

40

60

80

100

(n=46)

Colorado

(n=29)

Nevada

(n=67)

 Virginia

(n=18)

they do not necessarily receive more intensive services than control youth. In fact,

the results are quite mixed. In each site,

there are several service areas in which

the intensity of services is comparable for

both groups, other areas in which IAP youth

receive more intensive services, and still

other areas in which controls receive

more intensive services.

It is possible that the supervision practices

described previously and the service delivery patterns shown here could change over

time or with larger samples. However,

based on the current aftercare data, it appears that the sites have been quite successful in accomplishing what is suggested

by the IAP model: because IAP clients are

high-risk, high-need youth, they need to be

handled with both extensive control and

extensive involvement in services.

Rewards and

Sanctions

Each site has developed IAP-specific,

graduated reward and sanction programs

for use in the institutional and aftercare

phases. Working with these programs, IAP

staff are able to consistently reinforce

positive accomplishments and consistently respond to negative behavior in a

way that is proportionate to the violation.

The formality of the systems and how

they have been implemented differ not

only by site, but by phase (i.e., institutional versus aftercare) within sites.

Institutional Rewards and

Sanctions

In Colorado and Nevada’s institutional

phase, staff have developed incentive programs as enhancements to the routine institutional reward/sanctioning systems.

Colorado’s “Bonus Bucks” program allows

IAP youth to earn privileges (e.g., family

visits, extra phone calls) and tangible items

(e.g., favorite food) for significant accomplishments such as attaining a treatment

goal. The program is popular with both

youth and staff, who report that it cut behavioral incidents by two-thirds after implementation. In Nevada, staff in the IAP cottage have developed running, weight lifting,

and reading programs, all of which provide

incentives (e.g., favorite food, late nights,

movies) for reaching predetermined milestones. In Virginia, institutional case managers in the different facilities use an informal

system of rewards and sanctions, but there

are differences in the scope of application

and the consistency with which they are

applied. At Beaumont (the institution with

the majority of IAP youth), the system historically has not been used as routinely or

aggressively as at the Hanover Juvenile Correctional Facility. At Hanover, rewards and

sanctions are applied on a weekly basis to

respond to a youth’s behavior and in special situations, such as completion of a

treatment program or a major rules violation. The Hanover case manager uses a

wide range of motivators including additional phone calls home, access to fast

foods or computer games, and permission

to wear “wave caps” or “doo rags.” Program

infractions or lack of progress in treatment

typically results in delayed or denied privileges. Major violations of institutional rules

result in institution-imposed sanctions and

learning assignments that require the youth

to reflect on and write about the precursors

and consequences of his behavior.

Community Rewards and

Sanctions

The rewards/sanctions systems used in

the community are similar in principle to

those used in the institutions. The community setting, however, generally offers a

wider array of potential rewards (e.g., movie

tickets, passes to sporting events or concerts, dinners out, recreation center memberships, gift certificates) and sanctions

(e.g., more restrictive curfews, community

service, house arrest, increased surveillance, court reviews, revocation). Because

all three sites use some type of phase system for aftercare supervision, movement

to a more restrictive phase in response to

violations, or to a less restrictive phase in

response to sustained progress, is a common tactic. In each of the sites, it also is

possible to place a youth in detention

for a brief period in cases of significant

noncompliance.

The structure of the sites’ rewards/sanctions systems differs. Colorado’s tends

to be fairly unstructured, allowing case

mangers to choose from a whole menu of

rewards and sanctions and apply them

as they think best fits the individual and

his circumstances. Both Nevada and Virginia, however, have developed rather

elaborate systems that involve classifying various behaviors or infractions into

multiple tiers and specifying the types of
14

Table 6: Prevalence and Intensity of Service Delivery, Aftercare Phase

Colorado

Percentage of Youth Who Mean Hours/Days

Ever Received Service Per Month

IAP Control IAP Control

Service Type (n=54) (n=35) (n=54) (n=35)

Educational 52% 51% 12.0 days 15.9 days

Employment 59 40 14.8 days 16.8 days

Vocational training 48 25 8.7 hours 4.0 hours

Mental health/counseling 78 69 8.7 hours 12.7 hours

Drug/alcohol treatment 63 37 4.4 hours 4.3 hours

Life skills training 48 46 8.7 hours 7.7 hours

Nevada

Percentage of Youth Who Mean Hours/Days

Ever Received Service Per Month

IAP Control IAP Control

Service Type (n=71) (n=84) (n=71) (n=84)

Educational 83% 55% 7.4 days 13.1 days

Employment 49 54 14.0 days 14.5 days

Vocational training 63 27 4.1 hours 5.1 hours

Mental health/counseling 66 19 5.8 hours 6.9 hours

Drug/alcohol treatment 76 18 3.3 hours 6.4 hours

Life skills training 77 5 3.5 hours 27.8 hours

Virginia

Percentage of Youth Who Mean Hours/Days

Ever Received Service Per Month

IAP Control IAP Control

Service Type (n=50) (n=18) (n=50) (n=18)

Educational 62% 28% 9.5 days 7.8 days

Employment 40 44 10.5 days 12.9 days

Vocational training 66 39 13.4 hours 5.1 hours

Mental health/counseling 96 39 6.5 hours 11.4 hours

Drug/alcohol treatment 70 22 5.1 hours 5.3 hours

Life skills training 68 22 8.6 hours 5.8 hours

Note: Intensity-of-services data are based on case months during which the service was received.

rewards/sanctions that are considered

appropriate to each tier.17

Reward/Sanction Issues

Although the reward and sanction systems are used routinely in the sites, they

have not been easy to implement, especially in the community settings. Each of

the sites has had difficulties and continues to experiment with its system. For

example, Colorado had to revamp its entire system after youth began to demand

rewards for meeting what were considered

routine expectations (e.g., reporting, attending day treatment). Under the revised

system, rewards are linked only to the

achievement of objectives specified in the

youth’s behavioral contract. Nevada has

experienced problems with older, more

sophisticated youth’s unwillingness to

comply with some of the intermediate

sanctions imposed in response to their

rules violations. Virginia staff have noted

that for some youth, behavior deteriorates

so quickly and dramatically—progressing

from minor to major violations to

reoffending—that staff do not have time

to respond with progressive intermediate

sanctions. Finally, Nevada and Virginia

also have had to amend their approaches

to rewards because the progress among

high-risk parolees is frequently slow and

measured in small increments. As a result,

the reward systems currently emphasize

not only goal attainment, but also intermediate steps toward those goals.

Lessons Learned:

Factors Facilitating

and Impeding

Implementation

IAP implementation experience to date has

brought out several issues that are instructive for the field. This section highlights

factors—both positive and negative—that

have influenced implementation across

the IAP sites.

Facilitating Factors

Following are some of the key factors that

facilitated initial program implementation.

◆ A real need addressed. Site staff believed that the IAP model addressed a

real need. Staff also believed that IAP

had the potential to alleviate many of

the pressing aftercare issues the sites

were experiencing, including high recidivism and recommitment rates,

minimal or disjointed interventions,

and political pressure to do something

about serious juvenile offenders. From

the sites’ perspective, the model was

not just some new programmatic “add

on,” but a new way of doing business.

In addition, IAP had a strong conceptual appeal to administrators and staff,

who thought the model made practical

sense and who wanted to make it work.18

◆ Design flexibility. By specifying underlying program principles rather than a

detailed program design, the model

allowed each of the sites to adapt the

approach to local circumstances. The

high degree of flexibility in model design was a major selling point for local

administrators in their decision to proceed with implementation. Further,

giving administrators and staff the authority and responsibility for determining exactly what the model would look

like at the local level helped ensure a

high level of commitment to the resulting program.

◆ A long-term perspective. The longterm view and multiyear funding provided by OJJDP gave the sites time to

implement a complex project. In spite

of its conceptual appeal, implementation was not a simple undertaking. Instead, building and refining the model

was an incremental, often experimental, multiyear process. OJJDP’s longterm perspective, however, gave the
15

Contacts and Services During the Transition Period

To more closely examine the transition

process, NCCD has conducted analyses

of the extent of contacts and services

during the months immediately preceding

and following a youth’s release from the

institution. The central question is

whether and to what extent service delivery

is intensified for IAP youth during this transition period. The analysis divided the entire

correctional intervention into four distinct

and mutually exclusive phases:

◆ The institutional phase.

◆ The institutional transition phase,

which is the 30 days (Nevada,

Virginia) or 60 days (Colorado)

immediately prior to release.

◆ The community transition phase,

which is the first 30 days on parole

in the community.

◆ The aftercare phase.

The analysis used only the subsample of

study youth who have already been released to aftercare.1

 Selected findings

to date are briefly summarized below.

These data indicate that the IAP programs are in fact focusing on the transition period, especially the first month of

aftercare, and that contacts and services

are substantially more intensive for IAP

youth during this time.

Contacts

The figure compares the Virginia IAP and

control groups on the frequency of

monthly face-to-face contact between

youth and parole officers during each of

the four program phases. The data show

that there is a slight increase in contacts

for IAP—but not control—youth between

the institutional and institutional transition phases (i.e., the 30 days prior to

release). But in each of these first two

phases, there is no substantial difference

between the groups in the frequency of

contact. However, the frequency of contact for IAP youth increases dramatically

during the first month of aftercare, and

there is a major difference between IAP

and controls during this period. The increased frequency is to be expected,

as the youth are back in Norfolk, but the

magnitude of the contacts and the differences between IAP and controls suggest

a strong programmatic focus on this key

transition period. During the ensuing

months of aftercare in Virginia, the frequency of contact drops slightly but still

remains far greater than that which occurs

for control youth. Nevada and Colorado

data showed similar, but less dramatic, patterns of increased contact during the transition periods.

Services

Data on the percentage of IAP youth who

are provided various types of services during the first month of aftercare (see table)

also support the notion of intensified services for IAP youth during the community

transition period. In Colorado, there are

several service areas (employment, counseling, substance abuse) in which a

larger percentage of IAP than control

youth are involved during the first month

of aftercare. Similarly, in Nevada and Virginia, a substantially larger percentage of

IAP youth are involved in education, mental health/counseling, substance abuse

services, and life skills programming.

Average Face-to-Face Contacts by Program Phase, Virginia

Proportion of Youth Receiving Selected Services During First Month of

Aftercare, Community Transition Phase

IAP Site

Colorado Nevada Virginia

IAP Control IAP Control IAP Control

Service Type (n=58) (n=48) (n=81) (n=96) (n=56) (n=34)

Education 38% 36% 58% 30% 43% 6%

Employment 41 15 23 24 21 9

Mental health/ 66 49 36 9 82 12

counseling

Drug/alcohol treatment 41 28 53 9 50 6

Life skills training 33 32 56 3 52 6

IAP Control

(n=56) (n=32)

Institution

(n=54) (n=33)

Institutional

Transition

(n=52) (n=30)

Community

Transition

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

(n=47) (n=19)

Aftercare

Number of Contacts per Month

1

 The youth used for these analyses (1) had been released from the institutions, (2) had a valid release

date available, and (3) had complete data forms for the

month(s) preceding or following the release date. The

samples are smaller for this analysis than in the rest of

the Bulletin. As a result, there will be some differences

between the contacts and services data shown here

and those shown elsewhere in this Bulletin.
16

was necessary to enable the sites to

deal intensively with high-risk youth

with multiple problems and also necessary to allow parole staff to assume

significant responsibilities for youth

during the institutional phase.

◆ Access to specialized grant funds. The

sites had access to specialized grant

funds. All the sites used some portion

of their OJJDP grants to help enrich services for IAP youth. Colorado, Nevada,

and Virginia also had access to a much

larger amount of specialized State juvenile corrections subsidy money that

allowed them to significantly broaden

their access to community services.

Although these funds were not only

targeted to IAP youth, the projects

used them as important supplementary

funding that helped make IAP implementation fuller.

◆ Preexisting agency relationships. In

Colorado and Virginia, preexisting

agency relationships with community

resources (e.g., Colorado’s service provider network) directly affected the

level of implementation achieved in

those sites. Rather than having to start

from scratch in building a network of

service providers, they were able to

build upon already existing relationships

to access a wide range of services for

IAP youth. In contrast, Nevada and New

Jersey did not have these strong prior

connections, and while both sites developed access to several new resources,

their range of services and ease of access remained more limited than in

Colorado and Virginia.

Barriers to Implementation

There also were several cross-site factors

that impeded IAP implementation.

◆ Unstable operating environments. At

various times and to varying degrees,

all the sites attempted to implement

the projects in the face of major and/or

frequent changes in their organizational environments. These changes

affected the level of support and attention afforded the pilots and sometimes

disrupted important relationships or

operating procedures. Nevada, for example, faced not only several administrative changes but also a major reorganization of the agency during the

second year of implementation. In Virginia, the introduction of the LEADER

program and a massive rebuilding

project at Beaumont required almost

all the attention of that facility’s key

managers for more than 18 months.

Finally, New Jersey had to contend—

ultimately unsuccessfully—with two

major reorganizations and the revamping of the entire parole system.

◆ Competing agency priorities. Related

to the impediment described above

were the size of the pilots and competing agency priorities. Unstable environments or not, the IAP projects were

small relative to the general institutional and aftercare populations (e.g.,

15 to 30 youth in institutions that

house between 200 and 500 juveniles).

In spite of the appeal of IAP and general support for the project, agency

administrators and managers in all the

sites had to deal with much larger issues on a day-to-day basis. These issues often drew managers’ attention

away from IAP-related concerns and

likely reduced the amount of proactive

support and routine involvement that

they may otherwise have given the pilots. On the other hand, the size of the

pilots may have protected them from

the kind of negative attention that

could arise in conjunction with larger

program initiatives.

◆ Crowding and aggressive diversion

practices. In all four sites, institutional

crowding was (and is) a major problem. In Colorado and New Jersey, the

corrections agencies were very aggressive in trying to divert as many youth

as possible from secure facilities to

private beds (Colorado) or smaller,

less secure State-run facilities (New

Jersey). In Virginia, substantial diversion was occurring at the local (Norfolk) court level after the introduction

of a series of programs designed as alternatives to incarceration. The result

in all three sites was (1) a reduction in

the number of youth who were eligible

for IAP, (2) lower-than-expected program

enrollments, and (3) a “hardening” of

the IAP target population. In other words,

high-risk youth with better prospects

were placed in alternative programs,

while the most difficult remained at the

secure institution.20

◆ Staff selection and training. In Nevada,

New Jersey, and Virginia, the IAP parole

officers all had difficulty making the adjustment from traditional styles of supervision to what was envisioned by IAP.

Although these problems were eventually overcome, they slowed implementation in the aftercare phase and created

considerable stress. In part, this was a

staff selection issue. Some of the sites

sites sufficient time and resources to

implement the model.

◆ Expert technical assistance. The ongoing training and technical assistance provided by Drs. Altschuler and Armstrong

were indispensable sources of external

support for the projects. They brought

a high level of energy, commitment,

and expertise to the sites. Their expertise was critical, particularly because

the details and nuances of the model’s

practical application cannot be gleaned

from publications or traditional experience. Drs. Altschuler and Armstrong

provided multiple well-received training

sessions, offered highly responsive

support, promoted cross-site learning

experiences, suggested practical alternatives for dealing with implementation

problems, and generally nurtured IAP

program development.

◆ Internal and external support. Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia developed

external and internal support by garnering cooperation from high-level

decisionmakers from related agencies,

managers of various operational units

(e.g., institutions, parole), supervisors,

and line staff. The sites used a variety of

mechanisms to gain support, but essentially they gave these people a role in

planning and/or ongoing program development. Particularly important was

the building of internal support at the

IAP line level by continuously involving

staff in program development and

implementation-related decisionmaking.

◆ Committed leadership. There was committed and strong program leadership

at the operations level. The source of

this leadership varied by site, but each

had program leaders who thoroughly

understood and were committed to the

model, promoted the IAP “cause,” aggressively addressed problems in implementation, and generally worked hard

to make the program successful. In New

Jersey, the weakening of the project coincided with a period when the IAP

leadership position was vacant and

then was assumed by staff who were

unable to devote sufficient time and

attention to IAP because of their additional responsibilities.19

◆ Sufficient staff resources. Colorado,

Nevada, and Virginia all dedicated sufficient staff resources to the project.

Caseloads were about half the size of

those handled by traditional staff. Although this represented a substantial

investment of personnel, this investment
17

assumed that the most experienced staff

would make the best IAP case managers

because of their experience, knowledge,

and skills. There also were personnel

rules that either gave priority to or required preference for veteran staff over

other new hires. However, some of these

staff had fairly entrenched notions of

how to “do” supervision, and it was often an office-bound, 9-to-5, traditional

approach.21 A lack of appropriate or

sufficient staff training in how to do the

“nuts and bolts” of intensive supervision

also contributed to these problems.

◆ Staff turnover and vacancies. While all

the sites experienced some turnover, it

was a significant problem only in New

Jersey. The entire IAP staff and all staff in

positions directly related to IAP operations turned over (some, multiple times)

in a 15-month period between the summer of 1996 and the fall of 1997. This led

to enormous program instability and an

absence of any people with strong roots

in the model during the time that New

Jersey was making efforts to put its program back on track. The staff vacancy

issue loomed large in Nevada and Virginia. In those sites, key staff positions

became vacant and went unfilled for extended periods. These vacancies meant

that there were significant cracks in the

service delivery system. Consequently,

vacancies have hurt the overall level of

implementation in those sites.

◆ Distance between the community and

the institution. In Nevada and Virginia,

IAP youth were housed 2 to 3 hours’

driving time from the community and

the aftercare offices. This presented a

challenge to aftercare staff’s efforts to

maintain a routine schedule of institutional visits, required considerable expenditures of time, and impeded efforts to involve family members in the

visits. Conversely, the Colorado institution is approximately 20 to 30 minutes

away from the community, and this

close proximity facilitated frequent

visits to the institution by case managers, parents, and treatment providers.

The success of IAP in Virginia and

Nevada, however, indicated that geography was a problematic, though not

an insurmountable, barrier.

Conclusion

The IAP demonstrations in Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia have implemented programs that (1) largely reflect their program

designs and the intent of the IAP model and

(2) have resulted in supervision and services for IAP youth that are quite different

from those received by regular parolees.

The sites have generated internal and external support for the program; identified and

selected the high-risk, high-need youth intended by the model; and, using a team approach, have served them through small,

IAP-only caseloads. The projects also have

responded successfully to the central feature of the IAP model by developing a host

of mechanisms to facilitate the transition

between institution and aftercare. These

mechanisms include early parole planning,

routine institutional visits by the aftercare

case manager, and step-down structures

and procedures to modulate community

reentry. Results of the focus on transitionrelated activities include a dramatically improved level of coordination and communication between institutional and aftercare

staff and the ability to involve youth in community services almost immediately after

institutional release.

Finally, the IAP programs in all sites provide

youth with enhanced—and balanced—

supervision and services, especially during the aftercare phase:

◆ Supervision teams (composed of parole officers, parole aides/trackers,

treatment providers) help ensure the

delivery of intensive supervision.

◆ The frequency of contact between the

youth and the parole officer during aftercare is higher for the IAP group.

◆ IAP youth are at least twice as likely as

controls to undergo evening and weekend surveillance.

◆ IAP youth are more likely than controls

to be involved in a range of services

during aftercare.

This is not to suggest that implementation

can be characterized as “complete,” that it

has been problem free, or that what the

sites have achieved has been relatively

easy to accomplish. Each site has labored

continuously to bring together the various

pieces of the IAP puzzle and make them

work in the local jurisdiction. Moreover, as

detailed above, there have been and continue to be areas of weakness in each site’s

implementation.

Now, in the fifth year of implementing IAP,

site staff continue to fine-tune their programs and aggressively address their

implementation issues. In general, however, it is clear that the strengths of each

program considerably outweigh the shortcomings and that IAP has been well implemented in Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

What remains to be determined—through

NCCD’s outcome evaluation—is whether a

well-conceived and strongly implemented

IAP model will have the desired effect of

reducing recidivism and recommitments

among high-risk parolees.

Notes

1. The terms “aftercare” and “parole” are

used interchangeably in this Bulletin. Both

refer to the period of community supervision subsequent to release from secure

confinement.

2. Previous stages included (1) a comprehensive literature review and onsite assessments of promising aftercare programs;

(2) the development of a theory-driven,

multifaceted intensive aftercare paradigm;

(3) the design of policies, procedures, and

training curriculums to support the model;

(4) orientation and training provided to

eight jurisdictions; and (5) selection of the

four demonstration sites.

3. This Summary is available through

OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse by

calling 800–638–8736 or visiting OJJDP’s

Web site, www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org.

4. This Bulletin is based on an interim report

to OJJDP entitled The Intensive Aftercare

Program Demonstration Project: Interim

Implementation Assessment (November 1998).

The assessment report provides a cross-site

summary of IAP implementation and detailed individual reports on each of the four

sites. The data presented in the report and

in this Bulletin are somewhat different in that

the assessment report covered the period

up to June 1998 while the Bulletin includes

information through December 31, 1998.

5. The model’s three program elements

must be considered in local IAP design and

implementation. They include (1) external

environment and organizational factors,

which call attention to the need to ensure

that the locally developed model takes

into account its unique context (e.g., administrative structures) and the need to

build support across the entire spectrum

of agencies that could be involved in or

affected by IAP; (2) overarching case

management; and (3) management information and program evaluation, which

stresses the need to monitor the IAP program carefully to ensure ongoing program

integrity and the need to assess program

impact through a formal comprehensive

evaluation.

6. Outcome data collection began in fall

1998 for the first wave of IAP and control
18

participants, i.e., those who entered the

project during 1995 and 1996 and who

were released from the institution prior

to August 1, 1997. Because program enrollments continued through at least November 1998, final outcome data will not be

available until spring 2001.

7. Because New Jersey was dropped as a

demonstration site, the focus of this Bulletin is on Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia.

However, because New Jersey’s experience

is instructive, there are frequent references

to that site.

8. The primary example of this was in New

Jersey, where the Juvenile Justice Commission redesigned its entire parole system and

included several IAP features in the new design. The change was such that the IAP pilot

had reduced significance and IAP lost some

of its uniqueness. A less dramatic example

occurred in Virginia, where a Department of

Juvenile Justice policy change resulted in

the elimination of furloughs and early releases from institutions. This eliminated

IAP’s ability to use early release to a transitional group home as a major incentive

for program compliance.

9. In New Jersey, the problem was never

really resolved. The original parole officers

made little progress in adapting to the new

model of supervision. They were replaced

in early 1997 by two younger, more energetic staff. For a variety of reasons, however (including the project’s end), these

staff never had sufficient opportunity to

master intensive supervision.

10. The rationale for targeting high-risk

offenders is to ensure that the intensive

services available through the IAP model

are targeted to those most likely to commit

future offenses, thereby increasing the

program’s potential to reduce crime. With

outside technical assistance, the sites developed risk measurement tools using a cohort

of juveniles released to parole in the early

1990’s and outcome measures that included

any new arrest or revocation within a 1-year

period after release. The youth identified as

“high risk” on each of the scales had recidivism rates of 60 to 70 percent, depending on

the site. In Colorado, for example, the recidivism rate among high-risk youth was 68 percent, while it was 41 percent for medium-risk

youth and just 22 percent for low-risk youth.

11. In New Jersey, the low number of intakes

combined with a high rate of program terminations during the institutional phase had a

major impact on the planned use of the

community-based transitional facilities.

New Jersey’s 12-bed facilities were envisioned originally as “IAP only” transitional

units, with attendant IAP-specific services. In

fact, there were rarely more than one or two

youth in them at any given time, and no

IAP-specific services were delivered.

12. All data on youth characteristics include

both IAP and control youth.

13. As used in this discussion, “transition”

refers to those activities intended to reintegrate youth gradually into the community,

regardless of when the activities occur during the institutional and aftercare phases.

This is a slightly broader definition than

one that will be used subsequently, which

focuses on activities occurring during the

30 or 60 days immediately preceding and

subsequent to release from the institution.

14. These services are provided by the

institutional-community liaison. The vacancy in this position from February to

October 1998 created significant problems

for this transitional component. IAP staff

from Las Vegas filled some of the void

when they made their institutional visits.

15. Colorado IAP youth are seen by their

case managers on average 2.5 times per

month (versus 1.2 for controls), Nevada

youth on average 6.7 times per month (versus 2.0 for controls), and Virginia youth 10.4

times per month (versus 4.8 for controls).

16. The Nevada project has been quite successful in creating and sustaining relationships with (1) a wide range of businesses

that have contributed goods or services

that can be used as part of the IAP’s system of rewards, (2) several volunteers who

have provided no-cost specialized classes

for program participants on topics such as

sexually transmitted diseases, and (3) a

group of employers who frequently hire

IAP youth.

17. Nevada’s reward system, for example,

uses four levels of incentives, ranging from

food items and compact discs (level I) to

concert tickets or $50 gift certificates (level

IV). The system also specifies which behaviors or accomplishments should be

rewarded—and at what level—in each of

several areas of functioning. These include

treatment plan compliance, good home behavior, and good school performance. Similarly, the sanction system lists 23 different

potential violations and specifies the appropriate range of responses for each.

18. The appeal of IAP had ramifications for

juvenile parole generally in the sites. In

Colorado and Nevada, experience with the

pilot has led to discussions about how the

model might be implemented systemwide.

Virginia’s early IAP experience strongly

influenced a decision to hire 20 intensivesupervision parole officers to implement

portions of the model throughout the State.

In New Jersey, the new aftercare system

draws heavily on key components of IAP.

19. New Jersey’s leadership issue needs to

be viewed, however, within the larger context of the organizational change and the

Juvenile Justice Commission’s more pressing priorities. That is, limited leadership

was a factor in weakening the program,

but it also was related to larger issues.

20. These comments are intended to describe how crowding and diversion affected

IAP implementation, especially with respect

to achieving planned sample sizes for the

evaluation. They are not meant to suggest

that other sites implementing the IAP model

should discontinue efforts to divert youth

from institutional placement simply in order

to create a larger pool of IAP-eligible youth,

or that institutional crowding and diversion

practices somehow prohibit successful

implementation of the IAP model.

21. This is not to argue that highly experienced case managers cannot or do not make

good IAP staff. What has proven problematic is assuming that they will and therefore making experience a primary criterion

for selection.
19

This research was supported by grant number

95–JN–CX–0023 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 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.

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.

Acknowledgments

Richard G. Wiebush, Senior Researcher, Betsie McNulty, Ph.D., Senior Researcher, and Thao Le, Senior Research Associate, are with the National Council

on Crime and Delinquency.

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 the authors of this Bulletin. 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

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

References

Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L.

1994. Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juvenile Offenders: A Community Care

Model. Summary. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L.

1996. Aftercare not afterthought: Testing

the IAP model. Juvenile Justice 3(1):15–22.

Clear, T.R. 1988. Statistical prediction in

corrections. Research in Corrections

1(1):1–39.

Hamparian, D.M., Davis, J.M., Jacobson,

J.M., and McGraw, R.E. 1984. The Young

Criminal Years of the Violent Few. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,

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

Krisberg, B.A., Austin, J., and Steele, P.

1991. Unlocking Juvenile Corrections. San

Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime

and Delinquency.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 181464

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