Intensive Juvenile Aftercare Reference Guide

Transcription

1

2 Intensive Juvenile Aftercare Reference Guide David M. Altschuler, Ph.D. Co-Director, JRAC Institute for Policy Studies The Johns Hopkins University Troy L. Armstrong, Ph.D. Co-Director, JRAC Center for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies California State University, Sacramento Contributors (JRAC Staff and Senior Consulting Associates) David Altschuler Troy Armstrong William Barton David Bennett Valerie Boykin Lonnie Jackson William Lane Jack Lawson Barbara Mendenhall Julieann Myers Mark Randelson Judith Ryder Robert Salsbury Randy Thomas Prepared by the Juvenile Reintegration and Aftercare Center (JRAC) 7750 College Town Dr., Suite 104, Sacramento, CA (916) This project was supported by Grant Number 2002-MU-MU-K001 by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice. March 2004

3 Table of Contents Preface Acknowledgments iii v Section 1: Overview of Aftercare/Reentry in the Juvenile Justice System Topic 1 Historical Perspectives on Intensive Juvenile Aftercare Topic 2 Overview of the IAP Research and Development Initiative Topic 3 The Reintegrative Continuum Topic 4 The IAP Model: Theoretical Underpinnings and Underlying Principles of Programmatic Action Topic 5 Organizational Factors and Structural Characteristics in IAP Planning and Program Development Section 2: Overarching Case Management in the IAP Model: The Five Essential Components Topic 6 Overarching Case Management: The Five Components Topic 7 Component #1: Assessment, Classification, and Selection Criteria Topic 8 Component #2: Individualized Case Planning with a Family and Community Perspective Topic 9 Component #3, Part I: Social Control and Surveillance Techniques Topic 10 Component #3, Part II: Service Provision and Treatment Topic 11 Component #4: Graduated Responses Topic 12 Component #5: Service Brokerage with Community Resources and Linkage with Social Networks Section 3: Special Subpopulations and Issues of Special Problems and Needs Overview Topic 13 Juvenile Offenders with Serious Mental Health Disorders Topic 14 Juvenile Female Offenders Topic 15 Juvenile Minority Offenders Topic 16 Juvenile Sex Offenders Topic 17 Juvenile Offenders with Severe Substance Abuse Problems Topic 18 Juvenile American Indian/Alaska Native Offenders Section 4: Process and Outcome Evaluation, Lessons Learned, and Promising Practices Topic 19 Management Information and Program Evaluation Topic 20 Testing the IAP Model: Program Development and Implementation in Selected Pilot Sites References i

4 List of Tables Table 1: Juvenile Aftercare Matrix Table 2: The Four Conceptual Levels That Configure the IAP Model Table 3: Table 4: Required Program Design Features in the Three Phases of the Reintegrative Continuum Transition Components of IAP Programming Table 5: Sample Incentive Program Outline Table 6: Table 7: Colorado Division of Youth Corrections, Parole Violations and Sanctions Matrix Colorado Division of Youth Corrections Drug and Alcohol Services, Urinalysis Results: Graduated Sanctions and Treatment Interventions Table 8: Evaluation Planning Worksheet # Table 9: Performance-Based Reintegration Standard List of Figures Figure 1: Intervention Model for Juvenile Intensive Aftercare Figure 2: The Structural Configuration of Juvenile Aftercare Across the Institutional- Community Programming Continuum Figure 3: Decompression During Community-Based Phase of Reintegration: Multistage Design for Stepdown and Penetration to the Grassroots Level Figure 4: IAP Reintegration Continuum Figure 5: Assessing and Targeting Factors Predictive of Reoffending Behavior Figure 6: Programming in Transitional Phase Figure 7: The Balanced Approach in Aftercare Programming (A Comprehensive Framework for Planning Effective Reintegration) ii

5 IAP-Preface PREFACE Background During the past decade juvenile justice in the United States has experienced a major paradigm shift focused on the transition and reentry of youth in confinement back into their home communities. A vastly revised sense of how to generate better outcomes through a significantly reconceptualized reintegrative process has emerged. Although youth correctional personnel from senior administrators to line staff have long recognized the problem of unacceptable levels of failure among juvenile populations transitioning from secure facilities, little had been done to address and resolve this in a systematic way. That has now changed and as a result aftercare is no longer an afterthought in American juvenile justice. Juvenile aftercare/reentry program initiatives, often designated as research and development projects, were launched sporadically during the 1970s and 1980s and were generally characterized by mixed results in terms of more effective supervision strategies, improved quality of service delivery and lowered levels of reoffending behavior in the community. Most notable was the Violent Juvenile Offender (VJO) initiative that was funded by The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the early 1980s. Unfortunately, outcomes regarding reduction in rates of reoffending at the VJO pilot sites did not uniformly achieve the anticipated level of success. Despite ongoing attempts to improve programming practices at the deep end of the juvenile justice system, escalating costs of confinement, overcrowding of facilities and unacceptable high rates of recidivism continued to plague youth correctional agencies across the entirety of the United States throughout the 1980s. These problems led OJJDP in 1987 to initiate another major research and development project in the area of transition and aftercare: the Intensive Aftercare Programs (IAP). While this initiative was framed to build upon the existing knowledge base on reintegration, it was also charged with identifying and delineating current promising practices from the field and then developing an innovative model of aftercare/reentry for multi-site testing. Development of the IAP Project The IAP Project extended over a twelve-year period (the demonstration phase ending in June 2000) and played a major role in drawing attention to a variety of commendable and promising approaches to the challenge of reintegrating high-risk juvenile offenders back into their communities. The IAP model and its application within youth correctional systems has served as an impetus for better understanding how to design and operationalize more effective aftercare/reentry programs. Much of the information contained in this Reference Guide derives directly from the experiences and findings of this long-term research and development initiative, especially with regard to program design, implementation and ongoing management. Intended Audience for this Guide Policymakers, public officials, program planners, administrators, managers, researchers, practitioners, private providers, justice system personnel, victims, and interested students of juvenile justice are the intended audience. Some readers will only be interested in obtaining information regarding particular topics or issues, while others may want to read the entire Guide. The format is that of a reference guide, meaning that each topic begins with an enumeration of iii

6 IAP-Preface key points, topic goals, and an introduction, followed by detailed substantive information. This format is ideal for use in trainings, classes and self-study. Purpose of this Guide This Guide is the most up-to-date body of information and insight available on the development and implementation of a comprehensive reintegrative intervention for juvenile offenders placed in correctional, out-of-home settings operating at the local, county and state levels. Based on a set of underlying principles, program elements, and structural requirements, the IAP model serves as a point of reference for describing the nature and sequencing of decisions tied to pre-release planning, transitional activities, and community follow-up. Structure of the Guide The guide has four sections. Section one provides an overview of the evolution of reintegrative programming over the recent past and describes the context in which the IAP initiative emerged. Discussion is included of the theories and research-based principles upon which the model is based. Secton one also emphasizes the generic nature of the model, which is vital because of the need to apply it in numerous jurisdictions characterized by different resources, demographic profiles, statutes and organizational structures. Section two contains seven closely related topics that collectively describe the set of requisite program components comprising overarching case management. To a large extent, this section constitutes the operational and decision making heart of the IAP model. Section three examines six specially designated youth populations who are frequently identified and managed in terms of specific needs and problems, often requiring carefully tailored interventions for responding to the treatment and supervision challenges they pose. Section four covers management information and evaluation considerations, as well as an exploration of lessons learned and promising practices identified during the design, implementation and management phases of the IAP experiment. iv

7 IAP-Preface Acknowledgements The Co-principal Directors, Drs. David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong, want to express sincere gratitude toward the OJJDP Grant Managers who have shepherded the project over the years, especially Jim Burch and Thomas M. Murphy. Special acknowledgement must also be extended to Douglas Dodge, who was Director of the Special Emphasis Division at OJJDP over much of the time when the IAP Model was being developed and tested at pilot sites. His insight, diligence and commitment were critical for the success of this project. Many juvenile justice practitioners throughout the U.S. have contributed toward the development, implementation and improvement of the IAP model through their steadfast efforts to improve processes for successfully reintegrating high-risk youth back into their home communities. Without the work of these people the IAP model would not exist. Drs. Armstrong and Altschuler also thank the contributors who wrote, critiqued, and edited this Reference Guide. Contributions made by these individuals (listed on the title page) were invaluable in developing this document. v

8 Section 1 Aftercare/Reentry in the Juvenile Justice System Topic 1: Historical Perspectives on Intensive Juvenile Aftercare Topic 2: Overview of the IAP Research and Development Initiative Topic 3: The Reintegrative Continuum Topic 4: The IAP Model: Theoretical Underpinnings and Underlying Principles of Programmatic Action Topic 5: Organizational Factors and Structural Characteristics in IAP Planning and Program Development

9 IAP-Topic01 Topic 1: Historical Perspectives on Intensive Juvenile Aftercare Key Points The historical development of intensive aftercare philosophy and practice is important to understanding the design, policies, and procedures that define the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP). Although intensive aftercare services for juveniles evolved from roots in adult probation and corrections, the juvenile court s mission of treatment and rehabilitation played a major role in shaping early programming efforts for severely delinquent youth. Early attempts to implement intensive supervision programs suffered from a lack of conceptual, operational, and philosophical clarity. Numerous factors continue to plague the development and support of aftercare services for juvenile offenders. Topic Goals To provide a historical context for the development of intensive aftercare philosophy and practice for juveniles. To review findings from research and evaluations of earlier intensive supervision and aftercare initiatives. To describe the lessons learned from previous attempts to implement intensive aftercare services and their implications for the development of IAP. 1-1

10 IAP-Topic01 I. Introduction Intensive community-based aftercare services through which more serious offenders can be supervised in a much more structured fashion grew out of attempts, especially in the adult system, to reduce pressure on overcrowded correctional institutions while simultaneously responding to calls to get tough with offenders. Most of these early attempts were aimed at probation and utilized strategies to reduce caseload size and increase levels of surveillance and social control. The use of new technologies and practices, including home detention, electronic monitoring, and drug and alcohol testing, became very popular during this period (and remain so today). Interest in developing community-based supervision services waxed and waned for several decades dependent on politics, institutional crowding, and perceptions of the effectiveness of such programs. Prior attempts to establish intensive supervision services shared common goals such as reduced client-to-officer ratios and higher levels of surveillance. Juvenile programs generally included treatment services for offenders. Most of the early programs suffered, however, from lack of conceptual and philosophical clarity, which resulted in a wide diversity of efforts. Programs for deep-end youth on aftercare status were even less popular and suffered their own unique challenges. II. Historical Development A. Origins of Intensive Supervision in the Community Intensive interventions with high-risk offenders from a community corrections perspective can be traced to the 1960s, when most attention was focused on highly structured, quite intensive programming for adult offenders and, more particularly, on probationers. Intensive community supervision of paroled offenders was fairly rare. According to Clear and Hardyman (1990), this early wave of adult intensive probation supervision centered almost exclusively on identifying strategies to enhance the level of social control and on determining the optimal number of clients amenable to supervision on individual caseloads. In large part these experiments have been characterized as the search for the magic number (Carter and Wilkins, 1984). The widely shared assumption at the time was that once the caseload size was reduced, the supervising officer would be freed to conduct case management activities and to provide required services in a more intensive, responsive, and traditional manner (Latessa, 1987). The next wave of experimentation came in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Interestingly, the introduction of intensive supervision sprang not from a careful assessment of service needs, but largely in response to prison overcrowding and calls for increased public protection. Thus, many of these programs were based on an urgency for achieving an even higher level of supervision and social control. Surveillance and control techniques included electronic monitoring, frequent caseworker-offender contact, strict curfews, drug/alcohol testing, and extending supervision to non-ordinary hours (i.e., the 24/7 concept). Interest in creating intensive community-based services for juvenile offenders was kick-started in the 1980s for the same two basic reasons: (1) the desire to demonstrate a get-tough approach to crime, and (2) the need to alleviate overcrowded juvenile facilities (Clear, 1991). The early 1-2

11 IAP-Topic01 juvenile justice models of intensive supervision shared many of the components of their adult counterparts, including higher levels of offender accountability and social control techniques (using new technologies such as electronic monitoring and random drug and alcohol testing). They diverged, however, in their added attention to treatment and rehabilitation, a longstanding philosophical underpinning of the juvenile system. Some of the earliest juvenile programs focused on reducing caseload sizes as a means of increasing the intensity of interventions. Inherent in this focus was the belief that smaller officerto-offender caseload ratios would result in better supervision and more effective delivery of services. The juvenile intensive supervision movement of the 1980s also began to focus on high-risk offenders and the use of objective assessment and classification systems to determine levels of risk and need. Increased rules, structure, and surveillance, however, greatly increase the chances that an individual will acquire more technical violations, which may in turn lead to increased incarceration and exacerbate the very problem that intensive supervision was intended to solve. Clear (1991) notes several potentially negative consequences of this earlier use of intensive supervision: The inability to select true diversion cases resulted in programs that merely added on to regular probation sentences. The inclusion of many of the least serious offenders generated much higher levels of supervision for this population, while more dangerous offenders were placed on standard aftercare. The increased supervision and more restrictive probation guidelines contributed to higher failure rates. Client selection is especially important in the historical development of intensive supervision programs. Topic Seven of this Guide highlights the importance of targeting high-risk offenders so as not to widen the net and notes research that has shown that low-risk offenders often do worse under intensive supervision. In addition to the traditional focus on caseload size, many of the emerging programs began to insert specific control and treatment features depending on the particular characteristics of the targeted client population. Examples of these program features include employment training and work experiences, drug and alcohol treatment, restitution and community service, and electronic monitoring. B. Evolution of Intensive Aftercare Programming The development and testing of intensive aftercare or parole approaches can be traced back more than 30 years. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the best documented set of experiments were the parole/aftercare programs designed, operated, and evaluated by the California Youth Authority (CYA) (Armstrong, 1991b). These projects were exclusively concerned with the 1-3

12 IAP-Topic01 maintenance of aftercare populations in the community. Little attention was focused on the potential role of institutions and other types of secure facilities in creating or contributing to positive reintegrative outcomes. Overwhelmingly, the central research question was whether decreased caseload size had a positive effect on performance levels. The CYA s Parole Research Project (Johnson, 1962) began in Alameda County in the summer of 1959, creating 10 experimental caseloads of 36 parolees each. These were compared with 5 control caseloads of twice that size, using a random assignment research design. No significant differences were found between standard and reduced caseloads. Subsequently, a number of other experiments with reduced caseload sizes were conducted by CYA. Probably best known was the Community Treatment Project, which began operations in 1961 and continued through 1974 (Palmer, 1971, 1973, 1974a, 1974b). The project matched experimental subjects with controls on the basis of an interpersonal maturity scale and placed these juvenile parolees in the community under intensive supervision (12 youth per caseload). In addition to close monitoring, a wide array of special services and treatment strategies were made available to the experimental cases. Although the degree of success achieved in the project has been widely disputed, some findings were clearly promising. Another CYA-sponsored experimental project, the Narcotic Control Program, was conducted from 1962 through The majority of participants were older adolescent male parolees who were targeted for a variety of special program services including drug testing, assignment to parole officers with smaller caseload sizes, intensive supervision, short-term confinement, and individual and group counseling. It was concluded, however, that the Narcotic Control Program had not been more effective in reducing general or drug-involved recidivism among wards in the program (Roberts, 1970). In 1966, CYA launched a 3-year experimental project, the Los Angeles Community Delinquency Control Project, in which juvenile parolees participated in an intensive rehabilitation program in lieu of regular CYA parole procedures. The average caseload per agent was 25 wards in comparison to the average caseload of 72 wards for a regular parole agent. The principal intervention techniques were increased individual counseling, increased use of foster and contract group home placement, short-term custody to set limits and provide protection, social and recreational activities, remedial academic instruction, and educational backup for the public school system. No statistically significant differences were found between the experimental and regular parole subjects on any of the identified parole performance measures parole revocation, reason for revocation, time to revocation, and severity of revocation offense (Pond, 1970). During the early 1980s, the most ambitious and conceptually complex initiative for intervention with serious juvenile offenders was the Violent Juvenile Offender project. Funded in 1981 by OJJDP at four test sites (Boston, MA, Memphis, TN, Newark, NJ, and Detroit, MI), this research and development initiative focused on adolescent males who had a violent presenting offense plus one or more prior adjudications for a serious felony. Experimentals in this project were placed in small, secure facilities for 6 months; following this, they were reintegrated into the community through transitional housing (i.e., community-based residences). This phase was then followed by a period of intensive supervision in which youth were contacted frequently by parole officers working with small caseloads. Control group youth were placed in traditional juvenile facilities (i.e., larger congregate institutions) for an average of 8 months and then were transitioned into standard parole characterized by less frequent contact and larger caseloads. 1-4

13 IAP-Topic01 The conceptual framework of the Violent Juvenile Offender project was referred to as A Community Reintegration Model (Fagan, Rudman, and Hartstone, 1984). The overriding operational assumption was that the key to effective intervention with serious, confined juvenile offenders resided in strategies to reintegrate them back into their communities successfully. To achieve this goal, a set of principles to drive reintegrative programming was identified by those guiding project design: Social networking. Provision of youth opportunities. Social learning. Goal-oriented interventions. The group of structural elements necessary for guiding daily program operations comprised: Case management. Multiphase programming. Community reintegration. Program monitoring. The results of this multisite experiment were mixed. As Palmer (1991) has reported, the outcomes on a site-by-site basis with regard to rates of recidivism 2 years after institutional release showed the following results: Experimentals outperformed controls with regard to rearrest at one site. Controls outperformed experimentals with regard to rearrest at one site. No significant differences detected across groups at the other two sites with regard to rearrest. No significant differences were detected across groups with regard to rearrest when all four sites were aggregated. Palmer (1991, 1992) has further noted that certain methodological problems with the matching process were detected. Experimentals and controls in most sites were not well-matched on crucial variables such as number of prior petitions and prior adjudications. Fagan and Forst (1996), who were members of the national evaluation team for the project, have also observed that several sites were plagued by problems in the implementation process and that they did not adhere to the basic model. Yet, from the perspective of linking theory and practice, the Violent Juvenile Offender project helped enable the field of youth corrections to rethink how best to prepare and then transition high-risk youth from confinement to successful community living. In addition to the OJJDP-funded Intensive Aftercare Programs (IAP) project being described in detail throughout this Guide, the late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed the proliferation of a number of other aftercare initiatives. Among the design features given special emphasis in this newer wave of programs were: Objective assessment of risk, need, and resilience to drive decision-making. 1-5

14 IAP-Topic01 Matching of youth on an individual basis with appropriate level and type of supervision and services. Prerelease planning and activities to ensure more consistent and systematic followup in the community. Reduced caseload sizes. Utilization of treatment modalities proven to be effective ( what works approaches). Deployment of multimodel interventions. Team approaches to case management. Multiagency collaboration. Four of these projects have been widely cited in the published literature on promising juvenile aftercare/reentry programs: (1) the Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare Program, (2) the State of Maryland s Juvenile Drug Treatment Program, (3) the Skillman Foundation s Intensive Aftercare Project, and (4) the State of Michigan s Nokomis Challenge Program. All four projects were subject to formal or quasiexperimental design outcome evaluations (Greenwood, Deschenes, and Adams, 1993; Sontheimer and Goodstein, 1992; Deschenes, Greenwood, and Marshall, 1996; Goodstein and Sontheimer, 1997; Sealock, Gottfredson, and Gallagher, 1997). Such findings are critical for guiding future program development because rigorous evaluations of intensive aftercare projects have been scant in number. 1. Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare Program The Philadelphia project was developed to test the efficacy of an innovative reintegration approach for confined youth being transitioned from state juvenile correctional facilities to county-level probation supervision. A number of program design features intended to increase the intensity of both service delivery and supervision were incorporated into the model. These included reduced caseload size, supervision during nonordinary hours (evenings and weekends), required contacts with parents and collaterals, and targeted access to a number of specialized resources and services in the community. 2. State of Maryland s Juvenile Drug Treatment Program The Maryland project had a somewhat narrower focus in that it was only targeting chemically addicted or drug-abusing juvenile offenders who had participated in short-term residential treatment. Yet the same basic challenge had to be met; namely, how best to transition and then to normalize this population once released into their communities. One particularly important feature in program design was the provision of many nontraditional activities for these youth during confinement including vocational training, job planning, drug and alcohol counseling, avocational and recreational opportunities, and family intervention. These were closely tied to followup activities initiated during an intensive phase (the first 2 months in the community) when aftercare staff contacted participants daily and held youth support group meetings and family support sessions. Additionally, an addiction counselor provided individual counseling and in-home family therapy. The final aftercare phase included at least two meetings per week with the case manager, two meetings per month with the addiction counselor, and the continuation of family support groups. Again, one sees the development of an aftercare model depending largely on the intensification and further elaboration of services and treatment, some rather 1-6

15 IAP-Topic01 nontraditional for youth correctional systems, targeting the needs and problems of a specially designated population of incarcerated youth. 3. The Skillman Foundation s Intensive Aftercare Project Two experimental intensive aftercare programs for chronic delinquents funded by the Skillman Foundation targeted carefully defined subpopulations of youth returning from secure confinement to the Detroit and Pittsburgh areas. Separate private providers developed and operated these programs in the two urban communities. The Skillman model emphasized five key components: Prerelease contracts and planning involving the assigned aftercare caseworker, the youth, and the family, beginning at least 3 months prior to release. Intensive supervision in the community, starting at several contacts per day and gradually diminishing. Assistance in family stabilization. Mobilization of community resources, particularly in relation to education and jobs. Enlistment of motivated caseworkers who served as role models. The two programs differed markedly in the timing of youth release from confinement, the intensity and thoroughness of implementation with regard to requirements of the basic model, and the ability to deploy community-based sanctions due to legal constraints. Much of the history and eventual lack of success can be attributed for the most part to problems with and unevenness in the implementation. Often, programming features defined as essential were never put into operation. 4. State of Michigan s Nokomis Challenge Program The Nokomis Challenge Program was launched in 1989 by the Michigan Department of Social Services. The project offered an alternative placement to traditional custodial settings for medium- and low-risk adjudicated juvenile offenders, offering 3 months in a remote 40-bed wilderness challenge facility followed by 9 months of aftercare supervision and treatment. The model called for a three-stage wilderness challenge experience that included orientation and assessment, challenge, and community survival. Emphasis was placed on cognitive/behavioral training, social and survival skills, and family work. During the residential stage, the youth and their families were to be seen every 2 weeks at the facility by a community treatment worker (CTW), who was also expected to meet with the family once a week in the community prior to the youth s release. The community-based phase of aftercare included a number of distinct phases, each with separate tasks and goals for the youth and family. Reentry into the community was marked by virtual house arrest for 30 days. During the initial 3 months, the CTW visited the youth three 1-7

16 IAP-Topic01 times per week at a minimum, including one session with the family. The program placed major importance on family participation in the treatment process, with the CTW acting as the primary family worker. Privately contracted agencies provided community workers to conduct surveillance activities, initially at least three times per day with the youth and once per day with the family. 5. The IAP Initiative In responding to the lack of conceptual clarity and definitional precision about how one specifies the essential programming characteristics of intensive juvenile aftercare, the co-principal investigators for the IAP initiative, Drs. David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong, in collaboration with Professor Doris MacKenzie (Altschuler, Armstrong, and MacKenzie, 1999), examined the current state of knowledge about intensive aftercare program design, implementation, and outcome evaluation. This comparative review of program design and operation focused primarily on the four intensive juvenile aftercare projects described above. To explore the first of these key concerns, i.e., program design, the authors developed a matrix for the purposes of comparison based on the essential program components and procedures of the IAP model (see Table 1, page 11). These were organized within the three phases of the reintegrative continuum (i.e., institution, transition, community, see Topic 3 for more detail). The role of structural characteristics and processes in the design and operation of intensive aftercare programs should become readily apparent upon examination of program characteristics delineated in the matrix. This aspect of program development and implementation only began to be fully appreciated and incorporated as a critical dimension of planning and design with this newer wave of intensive aftercare initiatives beginning in the late 1980s and continuing into the 1990s. In addition, issues of implementation and outcome were organized in a similar fashion. The reader is referred to Table 1 (see page 11), which displays the characteristics of the four projects across these dimensions. III. Assessment of Earlier Initiatives and Lessons Learned Evaluations of the earlier waves of intensive supervision efforts (both probation and parole in the 1960s and 1970s) reveal that the programs seemed to have minimal positive effect in reducing recidivism rates. Assessment revealed that reduced caseload responsibilities did not always translate into increased attention paid by the supervising officer to client problems and needs (Latessa, 1979; Latessa, et al., 1979). In fact, Clear and Hardyman (1990) suggest three major lessons of these earlier experimental projects: Intensive supervision is difficult to achieve, in that level of intensity of supervision does not necessarily increase with a reduction in caseloads. Close contact, when achieved, does not necessarily guarantee greater success in crime control. 1-8

17 IAP-Topic01 Inappropriate targeting produces an interaction effect, wherein close monitoring may make community transition more difficult for some offenders and lessen their chances of success. Several factors plagued early experimentation with intensive supervision programs. These can be tied to poor program assessments and evaluations. Other issues serve as ongoing challenges to the implementation of intensive community-based programs for youth leaving institutional programs. The following sections highlight some of these factors. A. Clarity of Purpose In his review of prior efforts, Armstrong (1991b: 22) noted that the current wave of juvenile intensive supervision programs that began in the 1980s suffers in large measure from a lack of conceptual, operational and philosophical clarity. While most projects shared a common theme of heightened surveillance and included some type of treatment services, Armstrong (1991b:15) explained that the actual mix of rehabilitative and control strategies was guided by prevailing community values. Further, in some programs treatment was not identified as an immediate goal and was consequently described as a byproduct of intensive supervision. There was no consensus on even the basic ingredients of these programs (e.g., type, length and intensity of surveillance, types of social control techniques, types of treatment strategies). B. Selection of Participants Consensus on the need to target high-risk youth began to appear in the 1980s. Most of the programs that were reviewed by Altschuler and Armstrong in developing the IAP model indicated that their target population was high-risk youth as defined by their offense history, their current referring offense, and their personal problems and needs. These same programs also frequently attempted to classify youth using some form of an objective risk and needs assessment. Definitions of high-risk or high-need offenders, however, varied considerably from one program to another, as did the classification tools themselves. Potential problems with less formal and quantitative assessments and definitions of high-risk populations were (and still are): Scarce resources may be wasted on low-risk offenders, and low-risk offenders may be incarcerated as a result of their inclusion in these programs. Increased surveillance without matching needed services may result in increased violations and the exacerbation of institutional crowding (which the program was, in part, designed to alleviate). Services may not be appropriately matched to a youth s needs. C. Targeted Services Services are often provided to a group of offenders regardless of their individual needs. For example, youth on intensive supervision may be required (because of their status) to attend anger 1-9

18 IAP-Topic01 management or drug and alcohol education even if that service has not been indicated in the aftercare plan developed prior to release. Previously, rather than: [S]tarting with a careful assessment of juvenile offenders needs, too many contemporary JIPS [juvenile intensive probation supervision] programs... resulted instead from an inverted process. The juvenile justice agency first decides to have a JIPS program, then it defines a sub-population of juveniles appropriate for the program (Clear, 1991:33). Fitting the JIPS component into available services came after the fact. Although outcome evaluations of previous intensive supervision programs were not very promising (Clear, 1991, Gendreau and Ross, 1980; Romig, 1986), as Clear (1991:33) indicated in his review, the few programs that produced positive results seemed to take advantage of specialized services targeted for a specially designated group. D. Hierarchy of Services One problem facing the implementation of intensive juvenile aftercare services is its placement within the hierarchy of the juvenile justice system. Aftercare might be referred to as the unwanted stepchild of the system. Specific reasons for this attitude include: Youth in aftercare are at the back end of the system and are often viewed as having already received all the resources available to juvenile offenders. Many youth leave an institutional placement as a result of aging out (i.e., they have reached the age of majority). Even if extended juvenile jurisdiction is an option, the juvenile justice system is often tired of dealing with the individual and happy to let the adult system deal with any future problems. Directly related to the issues noted above, relatively few resources are allocated to this end of the juvenile justice system. Overcrowding pressure on institutions often decreases interest in supervising, and potentially regressing, youth who have been released from these facilities. E. Ownership/Responsibility Most youth who are committed to institutional care are placed in the custody of the state agency responsible for the treatment of juvenile offenders. In many instances, the committing juvenile court loses jurisdiction of the juvenile at the time of commitment. When these youth return to the community after incarceration, a state agency aftercare/parole officer with few resources for continued services supervises them. The local court is often unable, or unwilling, to allocate resources to this population of youth. The reluctance to supervise these youth may be related to the perceived problem of released youth committing new offenses and therefore returning to secure facilities. 1-10

19 IAP-Topic01 Table 1: Juvenile Aftercare Matrix Program/Study Characteristics (IAP Model) Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare Maryland Aftercare Program Skillman Intensive Aftercare Project Michigan Nokomis Challenge Program PROGRAM DESIGN Institutional Phase Prerelease planning Involvement of outside agencies and individuals in institution Targeted community activities during confinement period Community sources offer input via probation officers. Preparation of postrelease plan. Probation officers meet with institutional staff and juveniles. Probation officers meet with parents on regular basis in the community. Family therapist assesses, diagnoses, develops family contract, and begins weekly family group sessions. (Highly uneven implementation.) Family visits facility at lease once; therapist involves youth in family assessment session. (Less than half of youth involved in family assessment session.) Family attends weekly group sessions with therapist and support groups. (Low family involvement.) Aftercare caseworker commences contacts with youth and family 3 months prior to release. Not indicated. Not indicated. Planning for community reentry is initiated 30 days after placement in residential phase. Parents meet with confined children, institutional staff, and a community worker once every 2 weeks. Community workers see parents once per week at their home. Transitional Phase Testing and probing of reentry prior to placement in community Structured stepdown process using residential placement or intensive day treatment Not indicated. Not indicated. Not indicated. Not indicated. First 6 weeks with very high level of probation officer/ client contact. No use of intensive day treatment or short-term residential treatment. Initial period of intense contact, followed by lesser contact with case manager, addiction counselor, and family therapist. No use of intensive day treatment. First few weeks after release from facility with carefully prescribed program. Average number of monthly contacts was 10 over 67 months in Detroit; 60 over 6 months in Pittsburgh. Contacts tapered off after the first 2 months. Pittsburgh uses a transition group home. Initial month of virtual house arrest. Level of community worker/client contact also high during first 3 months. No use of intensive day treatment or short-term residential treatment. 1-11

20 IAP-Topic01 Table 1 (continued) Program/Study Characteristics (IAP Model) Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare Maryland Aftercare Program Skillman Intensive Aftercare Project Michigan Nokomis Challenge Program Community Followup Provision of multimodal treatment services Discrete case management services Use of graduated sanctions and positive incentives Provision of supervision and surveillance beyond ordinary working hours Reduced caseload size/increased frequency of client contact Multistage decompression process Few prescribed activities, but some emphasis on education and vocational activities. Required procedures neither highly developed nor clearly articulated. Wide spectrum of services offered with links to community resources. Three articulated levels of intervention: prerelease, initial intensive aftercare, and transitional aftercare. Efforts to improve family functioning through counseling and to link clients with education program. Jobs fell far short of expectations. Not highly developed. Not indicated. Not indicated. Incentives not indicated. Pittsburgh sanctions permitted return to group or wilderness program. Thirty percent of contacts by probation officers required to occur outside normal office hours. Aftercare caseload of 12 youth under community supervision versus standard Far higher level of contact than usual. Procedures for gradual, phased reduction in level of imposed control during 6 months of aftercare supervision. A variety of required programming activities. Some major questions about quality of delivery. Not emphasized. Not indicated. Not indicated. Not indicated. Supplemental surveillance activities provided by specialized community workers. Caseload size unknown. Clients had 3.2 average monthly contacts during aftercare or 32.4 contacts over approximately 10 months. Intensive state of aftercare was 33 weeks long, not 8 weeks as planned; youth had less than 1 contact per week on average. During transitional phase of aftercare, clients met with case managers less than once every 3 weeks on average. Caseload size of 6. Experimental group received far more contacts than control group. Contacts tapered off over time in aftercare. Aftercare caseload of 10 youth. Higher level of contact for supervision, treatment, and surveillance. Framework and procedures for a diminishing level of supervision and control during aftercare. 1-12

21 IAP-Topic01 Table 1 (continued) Program/Study Characteristics (IAP Model) IMPLEMENTATION Designated procedures to facilitate full implementation Documentation and tracking of implementation process Extent of intended implementation achieved OUTCOME EVALUATION Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare No special procedures or activities. Research team assessed quality and extent of implementation through selective interviews of staff, clients, and parents. Evaluators determined that program ran smoothly only in later months. Maryland Aftercare Program Skillman Intensive Aftercare Project Michigan Nokomis Challenge Program None indicated. None indicated. No special procedures or activities. Researchers studied implementation through client interviews, official records, staff interviews, and tracking forms. All three phases of aftercare suffered from serious implementation deficiencies, and most objectives of the shortterm residential program were not met. Implementation studied through youth and staff interviews, program records, and official record data. Mixed results. Evaluators observed program activities, administered questionnaires, and interviewed clients and parents. Mixed results in all program sectors. See program summary for more details. Research design Experimental. Nonexperimental with use of comparison group. Target population Sample size Significant findings favoring intensive aftercare Male delinquents committed to state youth corrections and exhibiting chronic histories of severe criminality. 90 cases: 44 in experimental group and 46 in control group. Yes. Source: Altschuler, Armstrong, and MacKenzie, Drug-involved juveniles committed to residential facilities with aftercare compared with drug-involved youth committed to facilities without aftercare. 162 youth entered prerelease aftercare; of these, 54 entered transitional aftercare; of these, 36 completed aftercare. Recidivism: 120 in aftercare and 132 in comparison group. Generally no, though slightly mixed. Experimental. Chronic offenders. 99 cases in Detroit: 50 in experimental group and 49 in control group; 87 cases in Pittsburgh: 46 in experimental group and 41 in control group. No. Quasi-experimental with effective matching procedure. Chronic serious male delinquents committed to state youth corrections. 192 cases: 97 in experimental group and 95 in control group. No. 1-13

22 IAP-Topic02 Topic 2: Overview of the IAP Research and Development Initiative Key Points The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) research and development initiative was based on a multistage process that culminated in a 5-year field-testing of the model in four selected jurisdictions nationwide. The IAP model is a theory-driven and empirically based framework that combines relevant research findings and current best practices. The IAP model is generic in nature and can be readily adapted to the circumstances and needs of any particular jurisdiction. Development of an aftercare model for effectively enhancing service delivery and intensifying supervision must be grounded in a systems approach to intervention (transition and aftercare activities that are not confined to a single program). The design of aftercare programming from an IAP perspective must incorporate a framework consisting of a segmented, reintegrative continuum that achieves coherence through multiagency communication, coordination, and collaboration. Topic Goals To describe the assessment and development process that guided the sequential steps toward specification of a promising IAP model and its testing. To discuss the research and practical assumptions that led to the formulation of the IAP prototype or model. To delineate the IAP model s four conceptual levels and five principles of programmatic action. 2-1

23 IAP-Topic02 I. Introduction The IAP research and development initiative began operation in spring 1988 with funding from OJJDP, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The IAP model that was developed derived from integrated theory and validated risk/need assessments, as well as from promising program components and procedures identified in a national review of current practice. It establishes a set of guiding principles, concrete program elements, and service components that can be used by jurisdictions in their efforts to design, implement, and manage local IAPs. II. IAP Purpose and Project Design Growing concerns about crowding in secure juvenile correctional facilities, higher rates of recidivism, and escalating costs of confinement have fueled renewed interest in changing juvenile aftercare/parole philosophy and practice. The juvenile justice system has compiled a dismal record in its effort to reduce the reoffending rate of juveniles released from secure confinement. Research indicates that these failures tend to occur disproportionately with a subgroup of released juvenile offenders who have established a long record of misconduct, beginning at an early age. Not only do such high-risk youth tend to exhibit a persistent pattern of justice system contact (e.g., arrests, adjudication, placements), they are also plagued by other needs-related risk factors that frequently involve problems associated with family, negative peer influences, school difficulties, and substance abuse. In addition to these common needs-related risk factors, high-risk youth may have a variety of ancillary needs and problems such as learning disabilities and emotional disturbances. While not generally predictive of reoffending, these problems need to be addressed. Responding to these concerns, OJJDP issued a request for proposals in 1987 titled Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs. This research and development initiative was designed to assess, test, and disseminate information on intensive juvenile aftercare program prototypes/models for chronic serious juvenile offenders who initially require secure confinement. The project was viewed by OJJDP as a means to assist public and private correctional agencies in developing and implementing promising aftercare approaches. OJJDP was explicit in stating the program goals: Effective aftercare programs focused on serious offenders which provide intensive supervision to ensure public safety, and services designed to facilitate the reintegration process may allow some offenders to be released earlier, as well as reduce recidivism among offenders released from residential facilities. This should relieve institutional overcrowding, reduce the cost of supervising juvenile offenders, and ultimately decrease the number of juveniles who develop lengthy delinquent careers and often become the core of the adult criminal population. 1 1 Federal Register (1987), pp

24 IAP-Topic02 A. Project Design As formulated by OJJDP, the IAP initiative consisted of four stages: Stage 1: Assessing (a) programs currently in operation or under development and (b) the relevant research and theoretical literature related to the implementation and operation of community-based aftercare programs for serious and chronic juvenile offenders who are released from residential correctional facilities. Stage 2: Developing program prototypes (models) and related policies and procedures to guide state and local juvenile correctional agencies and policymakers. Stage 3: Transferring the prototype design(s), including the policies and procedures, to a training and technical assistance package for use both in formal training sessions and in circumstances independent of organized training sessions. Stage 4: Implementing and testing the prototype(s) in selected jurisdictions. The Johns Hopkins University s Institute for Policy Studies, in collaboration with California State University, Sacramento s Division of Criminal Justice, was funded to conduct this multistage project. Work was completed on all four stages of the project, marked by the conclusion of model testing at pilot sites in June 2001 (see Topic 20 for further information about the pilot sites). III. Initial Assessment and Development of the IAP Model The assessment work conducted in stage 1 involved four major tasks: A comprehensive literature review focused on research, theory, and programs. A national mail survey of juvenile corrections officials intended to identify innovative or promising programs and approaches. Telephone interviews with the directors of 36 recommended programs. Onsite fact finding at 23 different program sites spread across 6 states, including 3 statewide systems. In addition, a prototype, commonly referred to as the IAP model (see Figure 1, page 11) was formulated, which was empirically based and theory driven and intended to guide the development and implementation of intensive community-based aftercare programs. 2-3

25 IAP-Topic02 The results of these tasks are contained in three project documents. The first document, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Assessment Report (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a), focuses on three key aspects of project activities: (1) an update of issues critical to the design and operation of intensive aftercare programs, (2) a description of innovative and promising programs identified through a national mail survey and followup telephone interviews, and (3) a discussion of intensive aftercare approaches and practices examined during a series of site visits. The second and third publications, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and Procedures (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994b) and Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994c), describe the project s background and the theory-driven, risk assessment-based IAP model, which s specifically designed as a generic framework for application in a wide variety of settings and jurisdictions. The project s literature review revealed that risk factors regularly associated with juvenile reoffending behavior include both justice system factors (e.g., age of youth at first justice system contact, number of prior contacts) and needs-related factors (e.g., family, peers, school, substance abuse). In addition, this review found that a variety of other special need and ancillary factors (e.g., learning problems, low self-esteem), while not necessarily predictive of recidivism, remain relatively common among juvenile recidivists. Finally, a small minority of juvenile offenders appears to have still other very serious problems (e.g., emotional disturbance). Given the range of both offense- and needs-related risk factors, as well as other special need and ancillary factors, the challenge is how to link this array of factors to a sufficiently broad-based strategy. Furthermore, any strategy developed to lower recidivism rates must identify specific techniques for providing highly structured supervision and control; carefully monitor performance in the community; and ensure the delivery of a wide variety of essential services. In part, this entails incorporating procedures to guarantee a substantial intensification of services and resources focusing on identified problems and needs. The theory-driven, empirically based IAP model accomplishes all of this by establishing a clear set of comprehensive guiding principles, specifying tangible program elements, and addressing needed services. Central to the IAP model are the guiding principles, program elements, and array of services that establish parameters and boundaries that are specifically tailored to the needs, problems, and circumstances of each jurisdiction. Organizational characteristics, the structure of juvenile justice and adolescent service delivery systems, the size and nature of offender populations, and resource availability differ widely among and within states and communities. In addition, managing high-risk juvenile parolees and trying to reduce recidivism requires the pursuit of multiple goals such as maintaining public protection both in the short and long run, ensuring individual accountability, and providing treatment/support services. Exactly how these goals can be achieved varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction across the country. Moreover, due to current economic constraints on governments in general and correctional budgets in particular, these goals must be achieved with limited resources. The IAP model is purposefully generic in nature and thus can be readily adapted to the circumstances and needs of a particular jurisdiction while remaining consistent with IAP specifications. However, IAP 2-4

26 IAP-Topic02 offers a challenge to the professional community. Successful implementation requires an unequivocal commitment from the major juvenile justice, child-serving, and community agencies/groups, These organizations must, with the assistance of facilitators, jointly develop a detailed plan laying out who will assume responsibility for what, how it will be done, and when. A. Theory, Principles, and Elements Though practitioners are apt to wince when they consider the inadequacy or absence of a conceptual or theoretical underpinning in their programs, many have more than a passing acquaintance with the consequences of this deficiency. First, if the overall mission or philosophy underlying a program is either ambiguous or absent, it can be difficult if not impossible for staff, program participants, or anyone else to be clear on what practices, services, and approaches should be pursued and why; how they should be accomplished and when; who needs to be involved and with which kind of youth; and so forth. Second, it is through a conceptual framework that one can move from identifying risks, problems, and needs that are part of the dynamics of recidivism to developing a coherent, defensible, and assessable program model. In other words, knowing that something is broken is not the same as knowing how to fix it. Tackling recidivism requires knowledge of what can be done to address the multifaceted and complex circumstances that produce, contribute to, and are part of the dynamics of the problem. Numerous previous efforts to develop such a framework for intervention with serious, chronic juvenile offenders have recognized the multifaceted nature of the problem and accordingly have recommended integrating formerly freestanding theories, notably social control, strain, and social learning theories (see Topic 4 for definitions of these theories). The IAP model is consistent with these efforts. Specific to the model, however, is its focus on the numerous issues arising out of the mostly disconnected and fragmented movement of offenders from court disposition to youth authority and/or institution, to parole/aftercare supervision, to discharge. It is eminently clear that if properly designed and implemented, the IAP model directly addresses two of the widely acknowledged deficiencies of the current system of secure correctional commitment: (1) that institutional confinement does not adequately prepare youth for return to the community; and (2) that those lessons and skills learned while in secure confinement are not monitored, much less reinforced, outside the institution. B. Four Conceptual Levels of the Model The IAP model is designed to achieve operational integrity by incorporating four conceptual levels that begin with integrated theoretical assertions about the causes and correlates of chronic, serious delinquency and move on to guiding principles for reintegration, key programming components, and an array of required services (see Table 2, page 10). 2-5

27 IAP-Topic02 1. Integrated theory At the most abstract level of conceptualization (i.e., grand theory), the IAP model is driven by an integration of social control, strain, and social learning theories. Concerted efforts to develop more refined theory-driven program approaches involving the integration of existing theoretical formulations, often referred to as grand theories, have risen to the forefront of applying research to the design of interventions over the past several decades. Integrated theories combine formerly freestanding theories into various new explanatory constellations of principles and axioms. The integrated configurations are important because they reflect the growing recognition that a contributing source of past failure for correctional programs has been the reliance on narrow, unicausal theories of delinquency (Fagan and Jones, 1984; Greenwood and Zimring, 1985; Meier, 1985; Ferdinand, 1987; Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a). 2. Five principles of programmatic action An integrated theory, coupled with research on risk and needs factors, provides a sound basis for identifying general goals around which program elements and specific services must be tailored in an IAP model. It is inadequate and irresponsible to approach the high-risk juvenile recidivist problem in less than a comprehensive, carefully coordinated, multifaceted fashion that cuts across institutional and professional boundaries. At this second conceptual level in the model, one sees a distinctive domain of activity addressing the reintegrative demands for responding to circumstances of a youth s removal and isolation from his or her community and subsequent reentry. Here, the IAP framework offers a very logical and structural set of guidelines to overcome community disconnect. The principles are: Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement. Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g., families, peers, schools, employers) on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the youth s successful community adjustment. Developing new resources and supports where needed. Monitoring and testing the youth and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively. These five principles collectively establish a set of fundamental operational goals and the mission upon which the IAP model rests. The intended outcome is to transition and reintegrate identified high-risk juvenile offenders from secure confinement gradually back into the community and thereby to lower the high rate of failure and relapse. While the principles are general in nature, allowing for a reasonable degree of flexibility in how goals will be achieved, planners and practitioners must consider the following program elements as they seek to translate IAP theory and principles into practice. 2-6

28 IAP-Topic02 3. Program elements The three major program elements are: (1) organizational and structural characteristics, (2) overarching case management, and (3) management information and program evaluation. With respect to daily operational requirements, the second of these program elements, i.e., overarching case management, is especially critical. Five components are subsumed within the case management framework: Assessment, classification, and selection criteria. Individual case planning incorporating a family and community perspective. A mix of intensive surveillance and services. A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions. Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks. These components provide the mechanisms through which objective assessment, coordinated and comprehensive planning, information exchange, continuity and consistency in decisionmaking, service provision and referral, and monitoring of performance can be achieved with juvenile offenders who have been committed to confinement. These youth will need to be transitioned back into the community and than closely monitored throughout a carefully structured decompression process. Each of these program elements will be discussed in greater detail in Section 2, Topics Treatment and service provision Considerable research has focused on the key question of what constitutes the appropriate range of required services and treatment interventions for serious juvenile offenders exhibiting histories of chronic and/or violent delinquent acts (Mann, 1976; Strasburg, 1978; Taylor, 1980; Fagan, et al., 1981; Armstrong and Altschuler, 1982; Agee and McWilliams, 1984; Altschuler and Armstrong, 1983, 1984 ; Bobal, 1984; Fagan and Jones, 1984; Hartstone and Cocozza, 1984; James and Granville, 1984; Greenwood, 1986; Brewer, et al, 1995; Howell, 1997; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; McCord, Widom, and Crowell, 2001). Suggestions for effectively remediating serious and chronic juvenile offending extend across a substantial number of professional disciplines and approaches that include clinical psychology and psychiatry, sociology and social work, educational improvements, social skills development, and vocational training/job development and placement. Two major trends in theory and practice can be readily discerned within these proposed interventions, namely, modalities stressing the importance of either psychodynamics or competency/skill development and enhancement (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1984). Although usually intertwined as essential components in various program models, these two fundamentally divergent approaches are grounded in differing assumptions about the causes and nature of serious delinquent behavior. 2-7

29 IAP-Topic02 The psychodynamic model can be traced to important advances made in the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis during the first half of the 20thcentury. A wide array of therapeutic approaches have been developed applicable both in institutional and community-based settings with special relevance to the problems, needs, and deficits of high-risk delinquent youth. The competency/skills development model reflects a growing sense over the past several decades of the need for a basic redirection and new definition of what constitutes the appropriate parameters and content of the treatment paradigm. Although not grounded in a reputation of psychodynamic theory and technique, this approach represents a basic shift away from the medical model. Many juvenile justice professionals have come to believe that psychodynamic interventions alone are insufficiently inclusive and do not meet the multifaceted challenges posed by many severely delinquent youth. The vast majority of incarcerated youth not only have chronic histories of delinquent behavior, often quite serious in nature, but also tend to lack economic opportunities and be poorly socialized, educated, and equipped with the competitive and adaptive skills necessary to deal with the demands of daily living (Strasburg, 1978; Taylor, 1980; Altschuler and Armstrong, 1983). Even for those youth who are reasonably well-socialized, there is often a history of academic failure and a noticeable lack of work skills and job experience. Further, rarely do youth reach the point of being confined to a facility without manifesting major problems in educational settings; many are chronically truant or dropouts and have experienced multiple suspensions and expulsions. Another problem area that compounds these difficulties is the inadequacy or total lack of reasonable living arrangements for this population upon release. Returning to the homes of natural parents or even extended family members is frequently problematic. Consequently, alternative placement involving strategies such as independent living, longterm group homes, or therapeutic foster care creates another layer of programming demands on youth correctional systems. As a result of all these factors, much of the emerging interest for developing new and highly innovative reintegrative approaches focuses on interventions that emphasize coping and survival skills, job training and placement, vocational skills, and alternative education. A third theme relevant in program development is the heightened focus on strategies for intensifying the level of social control that has become prominent with the growth and consolidation of a national intensive supervision movement. A new generation of highly intrusive techniques relying on enhanced surveillance capacity are now being widely deployed in certain community corrections programs. In addition to the argument that such interactions guarantee a greater degree of community protection is the accumulatory evidence from research on the efficiency of highly structured approaches that seem to indicate the need for blending surveillance with treatment and supportive services. With regard to surveillance, it is often necessary in the short term to deter misconduct, imposing substantial social control to allow treatment and service provision adequate time to make a discernable impact. The revolving door of reincarceration must be avoided if the goal of long-term community normalization is to be achieved. The above considerations about treatment, service provision, and social control led IAP staff to identify 10 separate categories of program activity that appear to be fundamentally important for inclusion in a comprehensive continuum of intervention for the high-risk juvenile offender transitioning from 2-8

30 IAP-Topic02 confinement (see Figure 1, page 11). Obviously, it is highly unlikely that any one youth would require attention across all 10 of these areas; however, this targeted population will require the availability of all 10 areas if their problems, needs, and deficits are to be systematically and effectively addressed. 2-9

31 IAP-Topic02 Table 2: The Four Conceptual Levels That Configure the IAP Model One: Integrated Theory Two: Underlying Principles of Programmatic Action Three: Program Elements Four: Service Areas A synthesis of: Strain theory. Social learning theory. Social control theory. Progressively increasing responsibility and freedom. Facilitating client-community interaction and involvement. Working with both offender and targeted community support systems. Developing new resources, supports, and opportunities. Monitoring and testing. Organization and structural characteristics. Overarching case management: Assessment and classification for client selection. Individual case planning with a family and community perspective. Surveillance/service mix. Incentives and graduated consequences. Service brokerage and linkage with social networks. Management information and program evaluation. Special needs and special populations. Education and schooling. Vocational training, job readiness, and placement. Living arrangements. Social skills. Leisure and recreation. Client-centered counseling (individual and group). Family work and intervention. Health. Special technology. 2-10

32 IAP-Topic02 Figure 1 Intervention Model for Juvenile Intensive Aftercare An Integration of: Underlying Principles Progressively Increased Responsibility & Freedom Facilitating Client- Community Interaction & Involvement Working with both Offenders & Targeted Community Support Systems Developing New Resources, Supports, & Opportunities Overarching Organizational Case Management: Management & Structural Assessment & Classification Information & Characteristics Individual Case Planning Program Evaluation Surveillance/Service Mix Graduated Incentives & Consequences Service Brokerage & Linkage with Social Networks Program Elements Service Areas Special Needs & Special Populations Education & School Vocational Training, Job Readiness & Placement Living Arrangements Social Skills Leisure & Recreation Client-Centered Counseling (individual & group) Family Work & Intervention Health Special Technology 2-11

33 IAP-Topic03 Topic 3: The Reintegrative Continuum Key Points The IAP model defines the overall aftercare function to include staff and programs across a continuum from the point of judicial commitment and residential placement to termination of community supervision. Impediments to effective aftercare programming include lack of communication, coordination, and collaboration between residential facilities, probation and parole agencies, and community-based organizations. The reintegrative continuum is best conceptualized as three distinct yet overlapping phases with accompanying activities. A critical aspect of reintegration is the gradual decompression across program stages during the community-based followup phase. Topic Goals To explain the conceptual underpinnings of the reintegrative continuum that indicate the reasons why this approach constitutes a best practice framework. To delineate the specific programming strategies and techniques that characterize each of the three overlapping phases. 3-1

34 IAP-Topic03 I. Introduction One of the major dilemmas systematically besetting the juvenile corrections process has been the inability to transition offenders successfully from the closely monitored and highly regimented life in a closed institutional environment to the relatively unstructured and often confusing/tempting life in the community. The difficulties posed in providing a continuity of services and supervision across the boundary between these two worlds have long plagued efforts to achieve successful community adjustment for juvenile parolees. Lack of communication, coordination, and collaboration between staff in correctional facilities and other residential placements, probation and parole agencies, and community-based institutions (e.g., schools, local organizations, public mental health agencies, drug and alcohol treatment centers, employment and training programs, faith-based institutions, business associations) have impeded the development of effective aftercare programming. Incorporating a set of procedures to ensure careful prerelease planning and structured transitioning is necessary to address concerns regarding movement across the institutional/community interface. The IAP staff s review of promising juvenile aftercare approaches nationwide, in addition to the model building in the IAP project, indicate the value of identifying the critical points of processing and movement through the juvenile system. The reintegrative continuum can best be conceptualized as three distinct yet overlapping phases with accompanying activities (see Figure 2, page 8): Prerelease planning during confinement. Structured reentry involving the active participation of both residential and community-based agency staff. Long-term reintegrative activities. The first two stages are not necessarily mutually exclusive; their activities, procedures, and goals are often intertwined. Most importantly, a set of required program features must be incorporated into each of the three segments to achieve maximal results (see Table 3, page 6). II. Programming Strategies for the Three Phases Clearly, prerelease planning and structured reentry are related programmatically to overcoming the difficulties posed by the institution/community boundary. Prerelease planning should include consideration of activities that gradually lead to the full-time return of the confined youth to the community. This planning eventually merges into the structured transitioning period of the reintegrative process. This latter phase involves providing well-planned and highly structured situations in which gradual, progressively increased contact by the offender with the community can occur. 3-2

35 IAP-Topic03 A number of strategies initiated at the institutional end of the continuum can be used to test a youth s readiness and suitability for return to the community. These usually entail initial steps such as furloughs, home visits, and brief excursions into the community to make contact with parents or other placement options, educational providers, and potential employers. Once a decision is made to begin formal reentry and to terminate secure confinement, considerable attention may be given to various stepdown procedures prior to final community placement. These focus on relatively brief reintegrative, residential settings such as transitional cottages (often located close to the institution itself), halfway houses in the community, short-term group homes, and preparatory program placement for long-term independent living arrangements. During stepdown programming, it is critical to activate links with identified community services and resources as soon as possible. There can be no extended waiting period for provision of services following community reentry. From a supervision perspective, the period of structured transitioning usually requires: A much higher level of both face-to-face and telephone contact between the aftercare worker and the youth and significant individuals. A more stringent use of curfew. The possible application of tracking services and the temporary use of electronic monitoring devices. The random use of drug and alcohol testing. All of these measures should, of course, be influenced by the circumstances of the youth at the point of release. In addition, this initial level of intense social control and surveillance should be reduced as the youth moves through the aftercare experience, exhibiting improved performance and therefore meriting increased responsibility. Gradual decompression is a critical aspect of reintegration in the IAP model. The community followup phase of the reintegrative continuum constitutes that segment of the system that was historically singled out as the focus of most aftercare or parole activities. Obviously, the IAP conceptualization of the continuum specifies this phase as only one of three critical segments. Yet it is within the community followup phase that the ultimate testing of the program s effectiveness across the entire continuum occurs. During the development of the IAP model, a number of key design features were identified for inclusion in the community followup phase (see Program Design Features for Community Followup Phase, below). Although the benefits of utilizing a number of these features (e.g., multistage program segments, regular reassessments, wraparound services) have long been recognized as critical for successful community-based interventions for serious juvenile offenders following release, the IAP project placed major importance on fully conceptualizing the role of the decompression process in the overall program design. Emphasis is placed on closely monitoring and evaluating the short-term performance of supervised youth and responding with incentives or sanctions as particular situations demand. It is critical to instill in the youth a tangible awareness of expectations for positive daily behavior and of the rewards for responsible actions and rule compliance. In 3-3

36 IAP-Topic03 addition, this formulation was closely linked to the increasing involvement of community organizations and agencies at the grassroots level as the supervised youth moves closer to completing his or her parole/aftercare requirements (see Figure 3, page 9). Program Design Features for Community Followup Phase Multistage decompression process. Multiagency collaboration involving public organizations, private provider agencies, and key stakeholders. Increasing degree of community involvement at the grassroots level. Provision of multimodel treatment and services. Discrete case management framework. Provision of supervision and surveillance beyond ordinary working hours. Reduced caseload size/increased frequency of client contact. Transferring youth from formal, and often legal and contractual, involvements to the more unregulated interactions of daily life is an essential aspect of successful reintegration. Yet mobilizing communities to assume this ongoing role of being the primary agent of informal social control, although requisite for satisfactory normalization, is a formidable task. This challenge of penetrating into communities so that meaningful linkage with individuals, groups, and organizations at a true grassroots level can be achieved has long been a major impediment to the full reintegration of high-risk delinquents. In part, this reflects the inherent difficulty for a formally constituted and highly bureaucratized system, namely, juvenile justice, to collaborate with and gain the confidence of community actors who often have less-than- positive perceptions of probation and parole. It is at this level of community interaction and mobilization that ideas and strategies from the restorative justice movement may prove to be very useful since restorative initiatives have experienced success in initiating and sustaining important grassroots ties as part of a coordinated intervention approach (Bazemore, n.d.). Ideally following release, youth experience a relatively brief period (30 60 days) of intensive supervision and highly structured programming (community transition phase). A number of procedures and activities were developed at the IAP pilot sites (Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia) for use in this initial stepdown phase of decompression (see Table 4, page 7). As adjustment and stabilization begin to occur, youth progress through a series of increasingly decompressed phases characterized by greater freedom of movement and decreased levels of surveillance and supervision. This relaxation of control is triggered by evidence of positive performance and compliance with conditions of parole/aftercare. Progress is measured systematically on a periodic basis that is marked by the completion of a given stage of supervision, a thorough reassessment of performance and decreased level of risk, and specification of behavioral requirements for participation in the next phase. Key to objective decisionmaking for movement through the decompression process is a procedure including formally administered instruments and team review. 3-4

37 IAP-Topic03 IAP pilot sites defined the overall decompression experience in terms of three or four stages extending over a 9 12 month period. At the same time decompression was occurring with respect to formal community supervision, efforts were being made repeatedly to link youth to activities and organizations at the grassroots level. It was anticipated that this restorative strategy defined in terms of mobilizing community resources for the youth would provide ongoing support and stability when another critical transition occurred, namely, completion of parole/aftercare and termination of formal supervision. (See Topic 20 for further information about implementation in the pilot sites.) Advocacy for community involvement with and acceptance of high-risk juvenile offenders returning from confinement is essential if full normalization of this problematic population is to occur. 3-5

38 IAP-Topic03 Table 3: Required Program Design Features in the Three Phases of the Reintegrative Continuum Institutional Phase Transitional Phase Community Followup Prerelease planning. Testing reentry prior to placement in the community. Provision of multimodal treatment services. Involvement of outside agencies and individuals within the facility. Structured step-down process using residential placement or intensive day treatment. Discrete case management services. Targeted community activities occurring simultaneously with the youth s confinement. Provision of supervision and surveillance beyond ordinary working hours. Reduced caseload size and increased frequency of client contact. Multistage decompression process. 3-6

39 IAP-Topic03 Table 4: Transition Components of IAP Programming* Transition Component Early parole planning. Multiple perspectives incorporated in plan. Colorado Nevada Virginia Initial plan complete 30 days after institutional placement; final plan complete 60 days prior to release. Case manager, institutional staff, youth, parents, and community providers routinely involved. Initial plan complete 30 days after institutional placement; final plan complete 30 days prior to furlough. Parole officer, institutional community liaison, institutional staff, and youth; parent participation limited. Initial plan complete 30 days after institutional placement; final plan complete 30 days prior to release. Parole officer, institutional case manager, youth, interagency community assessment team, and parent. Parole officer visits to institution. One to two times per week; routine. Once per month; routine since spring One to two times per month; routine. Treatment begun in institution and continued in community. Youth prerelease visits to community. Via community providers. Includes multifamily counseling, life skills training, individual counseling, and vocational skills training; done routinely. Supervised day trips to community programs beginning 60 days prior to release. Via institutional-community liaison and parole officers. Includes life skills and drug/alcohol curriculums; done routinely until liaison vacancy. Not allowed. Via one provider at Hanover only. Drug/alcohol treatment; sporadic use. State policy discourages contract services by community providers for institutionalized youth. Not allowed. Pre-parole furlough. Overnight/weekend home passes beginning 30 days prior to release. 30-day conditional release to community, prior to official parole. Not allowed. Transitional residence. Transitional day programming. Not part of the design, but occurs for some youth. Two-day treatment programs in Denver; used for almost all youth during the first few months after release. Not part of the design. Two group homes in Norfolk; 30- to 60-day length of stay; used for most youth. One-day supervision/ treatment program; used for most youth. Day treatment used for youth that do not go to group homes. Phased supervision levels on parole. Informal system: contact once per week during the first few months, down to once per month later. * Source: Wiebush, McNulty, and Le, Four-phase system: contact 4 times per week during furlough; 3 times per week next 90 days; 2 times per week next days; once per week next days. Four-phase system: group home; contact 5 7 times per week next 60 days; 3 5 times per week next 60 days; 3 times per week last 30 days. 3-7

40 IAP-Topic03 Figure 2: The Structural Configuration of Juvenile Aftercare Across the Institutional-Community Programming Continuum TRANSITION CONFINEMENT NORMALIZATION Institution Community Commitment Community Reentry Successful Termination Pre-release Planning Structured Reentry Reintegration Activities Critical Structural Considerations in Aftercare A. Pre-Release Planning. B. Structured Reentry. C. Long-term Normalization of Behavior. 3-8

41 IAP-Topic03 Figure 3: Decompression During Community-Based Phase of Reintegration: Multistage Design for Stepdown and Penetration to the Grassroots Level Structured Transition Period Point of Reassessment Point of Reassessment Increasing Social Control Imposition at Formal Supervision: Surveillance and Social Control Point of Reassessment Community Involvement and Prosocial Bonding Decreasing Justice Controls Point of Community Entry Termination of formal aftercare status 3-9

42 IAP-Topic04 Topic 4: The IAP Model: Theoretical Underpinnings and Underlying Principles of Programmatic Action Key Points An integrated theory framework is the basis upon which the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model has been designed and consists of postulates drawn collectively from various grand theories. Consistent with other research initiatives geared toward the development of an intervention framework for serious, chronic juvenile offenders, the IAP model is driven by an integration of social control, strain, and social learning theories. Distinctive to the IAP model is the focus on numerous issues and concerns arising out of the largely disconnected and fragmented movement of offenders from court disposition, to correctional confinement to aftercare supervision. The transitional process is defined in terms of five principles of programmatic action that establish the operational procedures essential for moving youth from confinement to community living. Topic Goals To explain briefly the multifaceted and interrelated set of factors that are frequently associated with the dynamics of chronic delinquency. To discuss the nature of the principles, priorities, and goals driving the IAP model. 4 1

43 IAP-Topic04 I. Introduction There is broad consensus among juvenile justice practitioners that serious and chronic delinquents often have multiple problems. The causes and contributing factors for illegal behavior by this population are multifaceted and interrelated. In recognition of this view, a number of program planners, researchers, and delinquency experts have generated an integrated theory approach. This approach provides a framework through which a comprehensive, clear, and consistent set of goals and a statement of purpose or mission can be linked to promising intervention strategies and programs. A number of previous efforts focusing specifically on chronic and serious juvenile offenders have acknowledged the value of this framework and accordingly have combined freestanding theories, notably social control, strain, and social learning theories. The result has been to highlight the role played by opportunity, family and peer group influences in both the causes and solutions associated with chronic delinquency. Consistent with these efforts, the IAP model is grounded in a similar integration. Distinctive to the IAP model, however, is the focus on the numerous issues and concerns arising out of the mostly disconnected and fragmented handling of serious juvenile offenders from court disposition and institutionalization to parole supervision and discharge. From a programmatic and practitioner perspective, the IAP model is less concerned with articulated theoretical derivations and more with the concrete terms required to explain what a program and staff need to do, with whom, when, how, and why. The IAP model s theoretical framework also suggests what practitioners should not do. Using the sports metaphor, the concern is one of being sure that everyone is operating from the same playbook, knowing what to do, and uniformly understanding the priorities. In the IAP model, the five principles of programmatic action flowing from the integrated theory base form the specific goals of IAP and thus set the stage for the requisite program elements. II. Integrated Theoretical Framework Distinctive to the theoretical framework of the IAP model is the focus on issues and concerns defined largely in terms of special demands that characterize the reintegrative process. The conceptual framework takes into account both psychological and sociological explanations of delinquency in addition to individual and environmental factors. This is achieved by combining the relevant strands of social control, strain, and social learning theories into a unified integrated model. The integrated IAP framework postulates that serious, chronic delinquency is related to: Weak controls produced by inadequate socialization, social disorganization, and strain. Strain, which can have a direct effect on delinquency independent of weak controls and which is also produced by social disorganization. 4 2

44 IAP-Topic04 Peer group influences, which serve as an intervening social force between a youth with weak bonds and/or strain on the one hand and delinquent behavior on the other. The pathways by which these social forces and circumstances produce delinquency or recidivism are multiple and must be addressed accordingly in the design of the intervention model. A. Social Control Theory This theory combines biological, psychodynamic, and psychosocial formulations. In its most widely cited version (Hirschi, 1969), however, the theory suggests that a failure in socialization and bonding to prosocial values and activities is the chief causal factor in delinquency. While control theory generally asserts that all youth have wants and unfulfilled needs (i.e., constant strain), the critical element is the strength of social controls that serve to regulate behavior and restrain the impulse toward delinquent behavior. B. Strain Theory This theory (Cohen, 1955; Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Elliott and Voss, 1974) asserts that delinquency, notably the subcultural variety found in lower-class adolescent males, largely results from blocked opportunities for conformity. From this perspective, delinquency is a response to actual or anticipated failure to fulfill socially induced needs and to meet socially accepted goals and aspirations through conventional channels. C. Social Learning Theory This theory (Akers, 1977; Bondura and Walters, 1963; Conger, 1976;Watson, 1925) explicitly recognizes the influence that both conventional and deviant socializing groups (particularly peers) and activities can have on behavior. The theory also focuses directly on the process whereby youth are socialized into delinquency. Because delinquency is learned and maintained in much the same way as is conforming behavior, it is logical to assume that efforts focused to develop and positively reinforce bonds to conventional groups and activities are critical. Conversely, social learning suggests that ongoing contact with delinquent peers should be minimized. III. Five Principles of Programmatic Action The integrated model provides an empirically informed theoretical base that logically guides the selection of five underlying principles of programmatic action for successful intensive aftercare. These principles, which are derived from the integration of the three key theories, specify a set of goals through which program elements and specific services can be identified. As a constellation of linked principles, they set the stage for the delineation of particular models of operation, which can include a variety of different program components, features, and processes. 4 3

45 IAP-Topic04 A. Preparing Youth for Progressively Increased Responsibility and Freedom In the Community A planned and gradual transitioning process requires that services must be designed so that youth know clearly how they can advance their standing, what is expected of them, and how their accomplishments in the facility will be linked to aftercare services. Whatever comprehensible and predictable pathway is used for transitioning, it is important to provide the youth with frequent reassessments, positive reinforcements, immediate accountability and consequences for misconduct, and clarity as to what is expected and how it relates to the parole plan. Helping youth develop internal controls is recommended to mitigate the effects of weak internal controls carried over from inadequate socialization. Reinforcement of positive behaviors comes through prosocial relationships as well as material gain, and the transitional process constantly provides clear opportunities for success, thereby reducing the strain effect. B. Facilitating Youth-Community Interaction and Involvement The theoretical framework highlights the critical role that family, schooling, peers, and significant others play in the initiation and maintenance of a conventional, nondelinquent lifestyle. This suggests that it is vital to identify sources of external support among a youth s personal social network (e.g., family, close friends, peers in general) and important community subsystems (e.g., schools, workplaces, faith institutions, training programs, community organizations, youth groups). These activities emphasize the development of prosocial support systems to enforce positive social bonding and decrease the effect of prior criminal associations. C. Working with Both the Offender and Targeted Community Support Systems for Constructive Interaction and Successful Community Adjustment It is essential that families, schools, peer groups, and employees, in addition to significant others who can serve as role models and mentors, become both targets of intervention and partners in service provision. Creating an environment conducive to the development of social bonding may mean that as much, if not more, attention has to be focused on the units of socialization as on the youth. The thrust toward maximal offender involvement with prosocial community resources requires that staff take actions to establish and maintain pathways conducive to the development and maintenance of external bonds. D. Developing New Resources and Supports Where Needed To facilitate successful community adjustment of juvenile parolees, staff must work to arrange for convenient and accessible work, education and training, and recreational opportunities. In addition, other services will be needed that are geared to special needs populations (e.g., the emotionally disturbed, learning disabled, developmentally disabled, drug and alcohol dependent, sex offenders, and those who severely act out). The development of new resources and opportunities for success directly counteracts prior strain and disorganization effects. 4 4

46 IAP-Topic04 E. Monitoring and Testing the Youth and the Community on Their Ability To Deal With Each Other Productively Encouraging the formation and reinforcement of bonds to conventional groups and activities, while at the same time providing consistent, clear, swift, and graduated sanctions for misconduct and rule violations, requires close monitoring and supervision of youth. The graduated use of external control systems, combined with cognitive/behavioral training and reinforcement, allows individuals to develop prosocial skills needed for new social relationships and activities. 4 5

47 IAP-Topic05 Topic 5: Organizational Factors and Structural Characteristics in IAP Planning and Program Development Key Points The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model is generic by design and must be tailored to fit the program requirements of each specific environment. Any jurisdiction considering implementing the IAP model must first conduct an assessment of its juvenile correctional system. Juvenile correctional systems vary enormously, and thus their structures and operations must be thoroughly documented and the benefits and costs of adopting the IAP model analyzed across all critical dimensions. Topic Goals To delineate the characteristics and procedures relevant to determining how the aftercare function may be organized and carried out in any particular jurisdiction. To help identify jurisdictions characteristics and procedures that serve either to support or detract from the adaptation of a version of the IAP model for testing. 5-1

48 IAP-Topic05 I. Introduction Conducting an assessment of an existing system to determine the need and feasibility of implementing the IAP model is comprised of numerous separate decisions. Assessments should be comprehensive and include documentation of the juvenile justice system s structure, resource level and allocations, available linkages, governing statutes and guidelines, and local juvenile probation/parole aftercare. It is critical, however, that the jurisdiction first determines who will assume the lead role. Juvenile justice officials within the jurisdiction may conduct the assessment or outside parties may be contracted. If the former approach is chosen, it is vital that key decisionmakers from the various agencies essential to the program s design and operations (stakeholders) jointly assume responsibility. If the latter approach is chosen, local justice officials must achieve consensus on the appropriateness of the outside consultants. Regardless of who assumes the lead, local officials will continue to play a key role in profiling the system by making information available and reviewing all draft materials. II. Assessing the Existing System Within the Target Jurisdiction System assessment is critical when planning for the implementation of the IAP model. The model is generic by design and must be individually tailored to fit the program requirements of a specific environment. The central, underlying reason for a comprehensive assessment is the fact that correctional systems vary enormously across numerous major dimensions. Consequently, the nature of any particular juvenile justice system must be described in terms of those dimensions so that the IAP model can be adapted to the particular environment. The idiosyncratic features of any system can always be incorporated into the assessment. A. Structure of the Juvenile Justice System The system assessment requires a description of characteristics and procedures relative to determining how the aftercare function will be organized and carried out within a specific jurisdiction. Among the features that need to be documented are: Organizational arrangements for managing aftercare. The assessment will consider how aftercare will fit into the existing organization. Variations include housing both juvenile correctional facilities and juvenile aftercare in the same agency, housing juvenile correctional facilities and juvenile aftercare in separate agencies, having juvenile aftercare operate as a statewide function (under jurisdiction of either the executive or judicial branch of government), having juvenile aftercare operate as a county-level function, and having a centralized state agency responsible for aftercare versus a regionalized model of aftercare. Nature of state statutes. The juvenile code is of primary concern, but all bureaucratic guidelines and agency rules/procedures regarding the management and processing of juvenile offenders, especially at the points of institutional confinement and parole, must be reviewed and documented. Of particular importance are the existence of and mechanisms for 5-2

49 IAP-Topic05 transferring juveniles to criminal court and adult corrections. State statutory changes in this arena have been extensive and the effects are widespread. Key issues pertaining to juvenile transfers are discussed in greater detail below (see page 4). Size of system. A determination of the system s size should include both institutional and aftercare components (number of facilities, number of parole units, number of staff) and the number of youth under correctional supervision (both in institutions and on parole). System distribution. This includes the distribution of institutions and aftercare units, staff, confined youth, and parolees across the jurisdiction and reflects the relative importance of urban and rural populations in determining the structure of the system. Specialized aftercare units. The assessment should document the presence of any currently operating specialized aftercare units or programs that primarily define their target populations in terms of risk and/or need factors. B. System Resources The assessment must also include documentation of the system s resource level (amount and nature of available funds) and strategies for resource allocation (the designated use categories and the extent and nature of public versus private/contracted service provision): Resource level. The total amount and nature of available financial resources made available for aftercare vary tremendously from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Further, the sources of funding may be divergent including federal, state, county, local, and private (corporate and foundation) contributions. Strategies for resource allocation. The manner in which resources that are targeted for aftercare are spread across the defined functional categories will be distinctive in each jurisdiction. Further, the way in which community-based resources are made available to parolees will vary. In some jurisdictions, the aftercare agency utilizes extensive purchase-of-service arrangements with private contractors. In other jurisdictions, the aftercare agency itself either operates most of the programs and services available to parolees or locates community resources that provide service at little or no charge to the aftercare agency. The service system must be described in terms of the relative presence and involvement of these two basic strategies. C. Inter- and Intra-Agency Collaboration Collaboration among agencies and various stakeholders is critical. Who and where they are, and their contributions and strengths, must be documented. Such groups include, but are not limited to, the courts, probation, parole, aftercare, schools, employment and training agencies, mental health/social services/substance abuse, and community groups. Given that a substantial number of youth in correctional confinement are labeled/diagnosed as having multiple problems, obtaining appropriate treatment and services suggests the need for 5-3

50 IAP-Topic05 interagency collaboration. In this way, the combined expertise and resources of various agencies can be called upon to address the complex needs of specific youth. Furthermore, aftercare agencies can greatly benefit by obtaining and sharing information with other organizational actors in the system (e.g., courts, probation, institutions) that have previously worked with the youth. Thus, the system assessment must explore the extent of such linkages in the community and the number and range of community agencies/groups that might enter into agreements for purposes of supervision, treatment, and service provision. D. Transfers to Criminal Court and Adult Corrections Over the past decade, there has been a marked increase in the transfer to criminal court of juveniles charged with particular crimes and, subsequently, the adult corrections system assuming authority over those youth convicted in criminal court. There are three mechanisms by which transfer occurs judicial waiver, prosecutorial direct filing, and legislative exclusion and the assessment should make note of which of these, if any, are applicable in the jurisdiction under study. While there is no uniform system tracking transfer activity nationwide, researchers and practitioners generally agree that the proportion of juveniles prosecuted as adults is on the upswing, with a concurrent increase in the number of adolescents under the authority of adult corrections. Advocates for more reliance on criminal court and adult corrections are quite expressly looking for harsher and more punitive sanctions than those typically provided by the juvenile justice system. Some of those espousing this view are driven by retributive punishment motives; deterring others from committing similar crimes or even deterring the offender from committing more crime when released is not really the issue. Rather, the desired outcome is quite simply to deliver punishment that fits the crime, not the criminal. The call is usually for justice, and what is desired is just desserts the more the better. Others firmly believe that harsh and very punitive responses can act as a deterrent to would-be criminals, but regardless, at least the public (or the victim) will be protected for the length of the punishment, especially if the punishment is incarceration. Finally, there are those who support various approaches to getting tough with juveniles to make clear that what is at stake is acquiring a criminal record. The reasoning is that only so many strikes can accumulate, and knowing that, the offender will either be deterred or pay the consequences with certain and lengthy punishment. The unprecedented change that is occurring within both the juvenile and criminal justice systems throughout the country is testimony to the deep dissatisfaction with the current system. While some in juvenile justice would rather not deal with violent and very dangerous juvenile offenders, others would prefer to have more facilities and resources and extended time to address the needs of these individuals. Some in criminal justice would rather not deal with the very young offender because of a lack of expertise, shortage of space, and concern over the far more numerous young adult offenders in their custody. States are experimenting and many are incorporating a wide variety of statutory changes all at once (Altschuler, 1999). Sorting out various impacts through rigorous research is complex and made all the more thorny by the inconsistent and conflicting goals of the very different interests, advocates, and organizations. The questions being debated include: What is more likely to change an offender: punishment or treatment? What about retributive punishment, which may place no value on offender change? 5-4

51 IAP-Topic05 What about marathon incapacitation, which places great value on stopping crime commission during confinement but remains silent about long-term impacts on recidivism and cost? What is at stake is disentangling which goals should prevail or what the balance should be among potentially conflicting goals. The problem of handling violent and serious juvenile offenders is perplexing because in a real sense neither the juvenile or criminal justice system has demonstrated a satisfactory solution. The juvenile justice system has been criticized for being insufficiently punitive for some types of offenders and too time-limited in its jurisdiction. The criminal justice system has been criticized for being insufficiently rehabilitative and potentially detrimental to public safety in the long run. While these criticisms can be addressed through thoughtful and conscientious reform, retribution unaccompanied by a concern for its effect on both short- and long-term recidivism, in addition to a concern for cost effectiveness, is imprudent from the standpoint of sound public correctional policy. E. Juvenile Probation Aftercare at the Local Jurisdictional Level The requirements for continuous, consistent case management of an aftercare youth is qualitatively different from that of a probationer who has never left the community. The current situation must be assessed at the local level before a jurisdiction can design and implement the IAP model. Most sizable juvenile probation departments have long been responsible for operating and/or providing oversight for residential placement options within their jurisdictions. This facilitates achieving certain treatment and public safety goals if out-of-home placement for juvenile probationers becomes necessary. These kinds of resources often range from short-term emergency shelters and detention centers to small, longer-term group homes and treatment units, and sometimes include larger congregate facilities that resemble more traditional youth correctional placement. Not only does juvenile probation have a history of some level of managerial responsibility over residential placement, but there is also an extensive record of juvenile justice systems within a number of states where steps have been taken to retain relatively serious adjudicated youth under local supervision in out-of-home settings. Such practices substantially reduce commitment rates to state youth correctional facilities. As the movement toward retaining substantial numbers of more serious juvenile offenders (i.e., those at higher risk and with multiple problems) in local facilities under the auspices of juvenile probation has grown, several major trends have emerged (Griffin and Torbett, 2002). First, the length of stay and the level of restriction/custodial control have often increased for these more problematic youth. Probation administrators find themselves managing custodial facilities where more extended and comprehensive treatment, in addition to sustained periods of confinement with minimal access to the community, are common. Often, these placement responsibilities and activities are contracted to private providers. Second, longer term confinement with a more chronic and recalcitrant population has become a feature of probation practice. Administrators and staff are realizing that working with adjudicated youth under these circumstances presents a different set of challenges than generally encountered when supervising probationers who have not been removed from their communities and placed in custodial settings for extended periods. Linked to this is the growing realization that special reintegrative strategies and techniques must 5-5

52 IAP-Topic05 be incorporated into the knowledge base and practice repertoire of community-based probation officers. 5-6

53 Section 2 Overarching Case Management in the IAP Model: The Five Essential Components Topic 6: Overarching Case Management: The Five Components Topic 7: Overarching Case Management Component #1: Assessment, Classification, and Selection Criteria Topic 8 : Overarching Case Management Component #2: Individualized Case Planning with a Family and Community Perspective Topic 9: Overarching Case Management Component #3, Part I: Social Control andsurveillance Techniques Topic 10: Overarching Case Management - Component #3, Part II: Service Provision and Treatment Topic 11: Overarching Case Management Component #4: Graduated Responses Topic 12: Overarching Case Management Component #5: Service Brokerage with Community Resources and Linkage with Social Networks

54 IAP-Topic06 Topic 6: Overarching Case Management: The Five Components Key Points Overarching case management is the core of the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model that provides a logical approach to intervention combining assessment, planning, and intervention. Overarching case management is based on specific concepts and five discrete components that guide the implementation of the IAP model. Case management offers valuable feedback to administrators and policymakers about both inadequate and effective strategies and procedures, thereby assisting in utilization of empirical information for planning for any alteration in the provision of services and treatment. Topic Goals To provide a brief overview of overarching case management as applied to the IAP model, delineating the set of concepts that constitute its core. To specify the five specific programmatic components included in overarching case management. 6-1

55 IAP-Topic06 I. Introduction Experience has repeatedly shown that serious problems plague organizational efforts to provide continuous case management for youth transitioning from secure confinement to community supervision. Overarching case management is the process through which jurisdictions can achieve coordinated and comprehensive planning, information exchange, continuity, consistency, service provision and referral, and monitoring for this population. II. Principal Concepts of Case Management Overarching case management in the IAP context provides the critical ingredient for ensuring effective interventions for delinquent youth: a logical approach to intervention that combines assessment, planning, and intervention. Case management in this context is based on implementing comprehensive and balanced interventions with delinquent youth, dealing with more than one dimension of problems, and prioritizing those that are highly related to the youth s delinquent activity. The following 10 concepts are essential to overarching case management and run through all functions, from initial assessment to termination of cases. They set the stage for master planning and are drawn from the work of the Center for Human Resources at the School of Social Work, Brandeis University. 1. Case management means comprehensive, client-centered services. 2. A relationship of mutual respect between the young person and the case manager is important. 3. Case management requires a partnership with the youth sharing responsibility, rather than working on him or her. 4. Effective case management involves the participant s family and significant others. 5. Case management relates client actions to outcomes. 6. Case management is integrated and coordinated. 7. The case manager and system must be accountable. 8. The relationship between case manager and client is ongoing. 9. Case management involves creative problem-solving. 10. Case management is cost-effective in the long run. 6-2

56 IAP-Topic06 A. Five Program Components of Overarching Case Management Overarching case management is the core of the IAP model. It includes five program components that establish the processes used to target appropriate young offenders, determine and integrate the supervision and services that will be provided in the correctional facility and the community, and promote consistency and continuity through collaboration. Particular attention to the five discrete components presented below will help define the specific areas to be coordinated among key staff who are involved with the designated high-risk cases from the point of secure care disposition until discharge from parole status. 1. Assessment, classification, and selection criteria The target population is institutionalized juveniles who pose the highest risk of becoming repeat offenders. Objectively determining the appropriate target population requires design of a riskscreening device that can classify juveniles according to their probability of rearrest or readjudication. Risk assessment instruments are based on aggregate characteristics; they do not predict exactly which individuals within a subgroup will become repeat offenders, but distinguish among groups of offenders exhibiting different levels of risk of becoming repeat offenders. The most sound risk assessment scales generally contain a combination of need- and offense-related predictors. This first component will be discussed in detail in Topic Seven. 2. Individual case planning incorporating a family and community perspective Related to risk assessment are generic needs assessment and procedures to classify juvenile offenders according to their problems and deficits. Assessing needs may have very little to do with predicting recidivism; instead, a needs assessment may center on matching offenders underlying problems with the appropriate intervention strategy. Individualized planning is required to determine how previously identified need-related risk factors, in addition to the total set of risks, needs, and associated circumstances, will be addressed during a phased transition from the secure facility through aftercare programming. Matching IAP youth with appropriate programs and people in the community requires a clear understanding of each program s intervention strategy and organizing model. Furthermore, aftercare service providers must begin working with IAP youth while they are in the secure facility or on prerelease furloughs so that secure facility and aftercare providers are accessible to one another. Individualized case planning is discussed in Topic Eight. 3. A mix of intensive surveillance and treatment/service provision Closer and more frequent monitoring and supervision of juvenile parolees is critical to IAP, but it must be paired with services and support to be effective. Within the context of IAP, surveillance and supervision are not merely a means to deter misconduct. The various approaches to monitoring high-risk parolees provide IAP staff with the means to immediately recognize when infractions and achievements occur, to know in advance when circumstances may be prompting misconduct, and to respond accordingly, relying on both rewards and graduated sanctions. Although technologies such as electronic monitoring and drug testing have a valuable role to play in surveillance, their limits must be explicitly noted. 6-3

57 IAP-Topic06 Furthermore, a strictly surveillance-oriented approach does not address need-related risk factors, which are common among high-risk offenders. If need-related risk factors are linked principally to the family and the home, school and learning difficulties, negative peer influences, and substance abuse, then IAP must ensure that core services are used and that family and friends are closely and regularly involved in activities, events, and programs. The IAP model requires that a comprehensive system of services be established and that the primary aftercare case manager oversee their delivery. Social control and surveillance techniques will be discussed in Topic Nine and service provision and treatment will be discussed in Topic Ten. 4. A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions Traditionally, juvenile aftercare has been burdened with unrealistic and unenforceable parole conditions, devoid of positive reinforcement, rewards, or inducements. IAP is designed to increase the number, duration, and nature of contacts that aftercare workers have with paroled youth and their families, peers, school personnel, employers, and other service providers. As a result, it is inevitable that more infractions and technical violations will be noted. To do nothing undermines the authority of the aftercare worker; to reincarcerate contributes needlessly to overcrowding. Jurisdictions establishing the IAP model should establish a graduated system of sanctions, possibly revise their juvenile revocation policy, and establish realistic and appropriate incentives. Topic 11 reviews graduated responses in greater detail. 5. Service brokerage with community resources and linkage with social networks Linkage with major social networks is key to programming for youth at greatest risk for repeat offending because such programming must focus on improving the family situation, intervening with the peer group, and reversing the cycle of school failure. Providing comprehensive and intensive services, however, along with close supervision and monitoring, requires a variety of community support systems. Thus, referral and brokerage are essential to IAP. A variety of approaches may be used, but diverse community support systems must provide services and a staff member must be assigned to each youth to actively develop and reinforce a supportive network. Topic 12 discusses service brokerage and linkage with social networks. These five components establish the process used to identify the appropriate offenders for receiving supervision and needed services, to determine and integrate the supervision and needed services that will be provided in the corrections facility and in the community, and to promote consistency and continuity through collaboration (Altschuler and Armstrong, 2001). III. Obstacles to and Requirements of Overarching Case Management The five IAP components require (1) the active involvement of the aftercare counselor or case manager as soon as a juvenile s secure confinement commences and (2) the initiation of service provision by other involved aftercare service providers prior to discharge. Historically, this has not been the case. Some of the more serious problems that have confronted aftercare include: 6-4

58 IAP-Topic06 The lack of meaningful involvement of the aftercare worker until the final phase of confinement, if at all. Little coordination, continuity, or consistency between what is done with a youth inside a secure facility and afterwards during aftercare. Negligible attention to family concerns during most of the confinement period and frequently afterwards. Sporadic monitoring of both the parolee and the aftercare service providers. Factors contributing to these management concerns include: Scarce correctional funding devoted to aftercare and few community program resources. Large caseload sizes, inadequate staffing, and unrealistic coverage (e.g., traditional business hours and no weekends). Fragmented lines of authority. Lack of differential levels of intensity in supervision standards and the associated workload management system. Insufficient attention to prerelease planning and staff capability. Excessive distance between institution and home communities. Professional and organizational rigidity, rivalry, and turf battling and an overall crisis-driven mode of operation. As a result, the courts, correctional facilities, parole agencies, and aftercare service providers have been unable and/or unwilling to enter into an actively functioning, working partnership regarding reintegration and prerelease planning, transitional services, and aftercare supervision and support. A new commitment toward jointly planned and shared funding of aftercare is clearly needed. Overarching case management as delineated in the IAP model provides specific guidance through the five components, including examples of how the goals of these components can best be achieved. Case management is based on comprehensive and balanced interventions with delinquent youth, dealing with more than one dimension of problems and prioritizing those that are highly related to the delinquent activity of youth. To be effective, case management within an IAP context requires continuity of care through effective coordination and communication by those providing case management services. Case managers assume unique responsibilities. They must be supported both within and outside their respective organizations and granted the authority and flexibility to adapt services to the changing needs of youth. They must also be held accountable for the outcomes of their clients. In 6-5

59 IAP-Topic06 this way, case managers can provide valuable feedback to administrators and policymakers about effective delinquency services. 6-6

60 IAP-Topic07 Topic 7: Overarching Case Management Component #1: Assessment, Classification, and Selection Criteria Key Points Contemporary classification and assessment in juvenile justice is based on a basic tenet of the juvenile court movement: the goal of providing individualized assessment for each youth entering the system so that appropriate corrective steps can be taken on a case-by-case basis. Most formal classification schemes employ procedures to assess both risk and needs factors. The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model targets youth at high risk for reoffending; lowrisk offenders tend to react poorly when subjected to intensive community supervision. Validated and standardized risk assessment screening devices are based on group data and predict the percentage of a subgroup of institutionalized youth that is statistically most likely to reoffend not which specific youth will recidivate. Risk assessment and classification for client eligibility and selection purposes provide an objective and defensible basis on which to determine which youth to include in IAP and can inform decisions regarding allocation of limited aftercare resources and workload management. Topic Goals To introduce the general concepts of assessment and classification, distinguishing between risk assessment for client selection purposes and needs assessment for matching a client s problems and deficits with appropriate interventions. To explain the concept of risk for client selection purposes, demonstrating that empirically derived, aggregate risk factors may include those that are either offense- or needs-related. To define the IAP target group and demonstrate how risk assessment identifies this group, noting limitations of the risk assessment process. 7 1

61 IAP-Topic07 I. Introduction The IAP model was developed as a reintegrative intervention for juvenile offenders at high risk for reoffending. Thus, the target IAP population is only that subgroup of institutionalized youth posing the highest risk of becoming repeat offenders after they return to the community. To avoid problems of net widening (serving a much less serious target population than was originally intended) and inappropriate referral, the population targeted to participate in IAP must be precisely defined. Historically, net widening has occurred with alternative correctional programs (Austin and Krisberg, 1982; Cohen, 1985; Klein, 1979), including a number of adult and juvenile intensive supervision programs (Baird and Wagner, 1990; Barton and Butts, 1988; Clear and Hardyman, 1990; Erwin, 1987; Pearson, 1988). Net widening in the IAP model can result in: A mismatch between clients, interventions, and program goals. Exacerbation of the problem the program was intended to ameliorate. Misallocation of scarce resources. Inconclusive evaluation results. Objective determinations of the appropriate target population rely on risk-screening devices that classify juveniles according to their probability of rearrest or readjudication. Such risk assessment instruments are based on aggregate characteristics that distinguish groups of offenders exhibiting different levels of risk of becoming repeat offenders. Related to risk assessment is generic needs assessment and procedures to classify juvenile offenders according to their problems and deficits. Assessing such needs may have very little to do with predicting recidivism; instead, such assessments may focus on matching offenders underlying problems with an appropriate intervention strategy. Thus, classifying individuals into carefully defined subpopulations is useful in providing more specialized and appropriate interventions. Furthermore, needs assessment and classification facilitates individualized case planning, which should begin immediately after high-risk youth are selected for participation in IAP. Through individualized case planning, practitioners can determine the manner in which each juvenile offender s total set of risks, needs, and associated circumstances will be addressed during the youth s stay within a secure facility and throughout the transition back into the community (discussed in more detail in Topics Eight, Nine, and Ten). Together, formal risk and needs assessments determine the probability of reoffending and the specific nature and intensity of individual problems and deficits. II. Defining the Target Population Risk assessment is based on minimizing risk and promoting community protection. Although punishment may be deemed justifiable regardless of the potential to reoffend, from a public safety perspective, IAP is primarily concerned with those at high risk for reoffending in the community (not merely the perceived severity of any one offense). Thus, a juvenile who has committed a severe crime may be institutionalized for punishment, sending a message to others 7 2

62 IAP-Topic07 as a deterrent. One must not automatically assume on the basis of one offense, however, that the offender is likely to reoffend after release. Empirically derived, aggregate risk factors include those that are: Offense-related (e.g., age of onset, number of prior referrals, number of prior commitments). Needs-related (e.g., family dysfunction, negative peer group influences, school disciplinary problems, substance abuse) (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a; Wiebush, et al., 1995). Risk, as a concept in the development of policy and practice in corrections, is frequently misunderstood. Although some may believe that a designated serious or violent offense is a sufficient indicator to flag an individual at high risk for reoffending, research indicates that it is not just criminal history or severity alone that establishes high risk. Research on risk factors indicates that recidivism tends to occur disproportionately with a subgroup of juvenile offenders who have established a long record of misconduct that began at an early age. Not only do such high-risk youth tend to exhibit a persistent pattern of contact with the justice system (e.g., arrests, adjudications, placements), but they are plagued by various needs-related risk factors that often involve a combination of problems associated with family, negative peer influences, school difficulties, and substance abuse. Such needs-related risk factors are often referred to as criminogenic factors (Andrews and Bonta, 1994), and because they are based on aggregate prediction models, they are conceptually distinct from other wide-ranging needs, problems, and deficiencies common to both high- and low-risk youth. Accordingly, not all common problems and needs associated with high-risk institutionalized youth predict who is at high risk for recidivating. Rather, when factors related to delinquency history are found in combination with particular problems or criminogenic needs, a subset of juveniles may fall into a high-risk category for reoffending. A. Risk Assessment and Classification Assessment and classification must be considered when selecting the target population and when planning individualized case management. The former will be addressed in this section, whereas the latter will be discussed in Topic Eight. Generally speaking, risk assessment is the process of determining which subgroups of institutionalized youth meet the IAP program eligibility criteria. Classification is based on the risk assessment and is the process of sorting those selected for IAP into different groups to determine appropriate program interventions. The needs assessment, on the other hand, establishes the basis for the individualized case and service planning of each youth selected for IAP participation. The needs assessment may influence the admissions decision, however, if it identifies a special need or problem that the IAP program is not designed to provide. Risk assessment is used to identify the target population based on group prediction probabilities. As with insurance rates and life expectancy tables, risk assessment instruments and their constituent factors use group data and thus can predict only what percentage of a particular subgroup, not which specific youngsters, will recidivate. It is important to recognize, however, that this actuarial-oriented approach is not infallible and can generate false positives. A certain 7 3

63 IAP-Topic07 percentage of delinquent youth who are classified as high risk will not recidivate and thus, in terms of actual outcomes, they have been misclassified. Determining the acceptable level of false positives is a policy issue that must be explicitly addressed. B. Linking the Target Population to Program Goals Assessment and classification of the target population is geared toward making decisions as to which subset of the juvenile aftercare population will be targeted for IAP. Existing programs have made various decisions regarding whom to target, including: All parolees. Chronic offenders (measured by the number and type of prior offenses). Serious offenders (measured by the nature of instant and prior offenses). High-risk offenders (measured by the statistical likelihood of reoffending). High-needs offenders (measured by the number of offender problems or the intensity of a single problem; e.g., sex offenders). Because the results will affect the nature of program design/interventions, the selection of the target group for IAP should be directly linked to program goals. For example, if the program s goal is to reduce institutional overcrowding, the target group is typically lower risk, nonviolent offenders who can be released early from an institution. Intensive supervision programs, however, almost always result in increased discovery of technical violations (Baird, 1983; Erwin, 1987; Pearson, 1988; Petersilia and Turner, 1990). In an evaluation of the Lucas County, OH, juvenile court IAP, Wiebush (1991) found that during an 18-month followup, more than half (53 percent) of the IAP cases involved youth convicted of technical violations. In contrast, just 29 percent of each comparison group (parolees and probationers) had technical violations. Under these circumstances, if the program serves a relatively low-risk population and if the response to violations is revocation, recidivism rates may be unnecessarily and inappropriately inflated. The program may then inadvertently contribute to institutional overcrowding. On the other hand, if the program s goal is to increase public safety, the logical target group is those most likely to commit new offenses; i.e., high-risk or chronic offenders. Other goals, however defined, will result in different target groups. Target group selection has implications for programming as well. If serious but low-risk offenders are the target group, there is little need for intensive supervision and monitoring to promote public safety. The use of extensive risk controls for low risk offenders may, therefore, constitute a waste of scarce resources and may even backfire. If needs factors are addressed in the target group, program interventions will tend to focus on rehabilitation and be more clinically oriented, highly specialized, and more likely to be delivered by contracted service providers. 7 4

64 IAP-Topic07 III. Selection Criteria Targeting the group most appropriate for an IAP requires a clear definition of the selection criteria and standardized assessments to measure those criteria. To meet these conditions, the use of a formal risk assessment instrument is strongly recommended for the IAP model. A. Clear and Measurable Criteria Policymakers must determine what exactly is meant, for example, by the term serious offender. There is obviously room for considerable variation in the definition for example, a juvenile offender with one or more violent felonies, a juvenile with five or more total offenses, or a juvenile with an instant offense of a certain degree or level. The definition of high-risk youth also varies widely across agencies and across individual workers within any one agency, unless the IAP program is explicit in its definition. Risk and seriousness are frequently confused. As noted earlier, risk refers to an offender s propensity for recidivism in an actuarial sense. Certainly, recidivism can be defined in a variety of ways, and this definition has a direct bearing on the accuracy of risk assessment instruments. Seriousness of the offense is usually either not related or even inversely related to likelihood of reoffending. A serious offender may be high, moderate, or low risk. A high-risk offender may have committed a serious or relatively minor instant offense. In the IAP model, the term high-risk refers to youth who have the relatively greatest likelihood of committing a new offense (in comparison with other aftercare youth in the jurisdiction), as measured by a formal, empirically derived risk assessment instrument. B. Standardized Risk Assessment Instruments Formal risk assessment instruments incorporate objective measures of recidivism potential. The objective measures are the set of variables that have been empirically identified as recidivism predictors. Empirically derived risk assessment tools have consistently shown better results than clinical prediction methods (see, e.g., Monahan, 1981). In addition to providing greater accuracy, they ensure that the same factors are considered for all youth during the assessment and classification process, thereby promoting equity and consistency in decisionmaking. Ideally, each jurisdiction would develop its own risk instrument because the characteristics associated with recidivism will vary somewhat from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Given the fact that aftercare youth are a smaller and unique subset of the total adjudicated population, instruments normed on a probation population may be inappropriate. Where limited resources do not allow for the development of a local instrument, agencies should adopt an instrument validated elsewhere that exhibits good face validity (examples in Howell, 1995). Local validation research should then be undertaken to further fine-tune the instrument. 7 5

65 IAP-Topic07 C. Classification and Cut-Off Scores Classification based on risk assessment involves both policy choices and empirical information. Cut-off scores are those points along the risk continuum that are used to demarcate the several risk categories (i.e., high, medium, low). Cut-off scores determine the proportion of offenders in each risk category and the relative recidivism potential of each risk group. The identification of cut-off scores is not inherent in research results. Rather, agencies must decide what they consider high risk (e.g., rates of recidivism at 20, 40, or 60 percent) and balance that decision against each classification category. Ideally, all youth with a recidivism probability greater than 50 percent might be designated as high risk. If half the aftercare population falls into that category, however, it is unlikely that the agency would have sufficient resources to intensively supervise such a large group. Two general rules for determining cut-offs are: The high-risk group should have 2½ to 3 times the recidivism potential of the low-risk group. The high-risk group should consist of approximately percent of the offender population. Risk assessment instruments are used to structure and guide the decisionmaking process. Allowances need to be made, however, for select cases that, in spite of their risk score, are considered appropriate (or inappropriate) for IAP. Unique circumstances may warrant a level of supervision other than that indicated by the risk score. In these instances, an officer-initiated and supervisor-approved override of the score may be appropriate. Overrides provide a mechanism that allows carefully defined and approved exceptions. In this way, limited aftercare resources can be disproportionately directed toward those high-risk institutionalized youth who most jeopardize public safety. Because overrides can potentially inundate IAP with more youth than the system can handle, overrides must be handled carefully. On the other hand, if reasonable allowances are not made to accommodate aggravating circumstances, there is a risk of encouraging erroneous scoring to ensure a predetermined outcome. Overrides should be closely monitored and should affect generally no more than 15 percent of all classification decisions. D. Additional Selection Criteria Once the intended IAP target group has been determined, agencies may wish to further define program participation through the use of additional selection criteria, such as offense- and needsrelated criteria. As will be discussed in Topic Eight, whether offender needs are used to inform the IAP selection decision, structured needs assessments should be completed on all program participants to provide a foundation for case planning. 1. Offense-related criteria a. Targeting Some programs may want to target high-risk offenders who also have a history of certain kinds of offenses (e.g., violent, burglary, sex) and thereby provide the potential for more specialized 7 6

66 IAP-Topic07 interventions. Note, however, that this strategy may considerably reduce the pool of eligible participants. b. Exclusions Programs may want to exclude from eligibility certain types of offenders (e.g., rapists) because of community acceptance or other reasons. Excluding specific offender types from an IAP may be appropriate if the program is designed as an early release mechanism because the desire may be to keep, for example, the rapist institutionalized for the full term. If, however, the IAP is not built around early release, it would be inappropriate for the program to exclude high-risk and politically sensitive cases because those offenders would be released with substantially less supervision under standard aftercare. c. Serious offenders Some jurisdictions may want to include in IAP certain types of serious offenders (defined by the nature of the instant offense), regardless of their risk score. This approach is basically equivalent to an offense-based override. It can be accomplished by assigning sufficient points for selected offenses to an offender s risk score to ensure that the offender falls into the high-risk group. One state has used an explicit offense-based override provision. All youth with a history of two or more violent offenses were placed into intensive supervision, regardless of their risk score. This was a very precise definition of serious that avoided the problem of flooding the program with non-high-risk offenders who had a single serious offense. This automatic override also helped to ensure acceptance of the empirically based tool: it provided greater face validity and recognized legitimate concerns. 2. Needs-related criteria a. Risks and needs Some programs consider youth who score high on either a risk or needs assessment to be eligible for IAP. Because some youth may be in the high-needs category but only moderate (and occasionally low) risk, the use of these criteria suggests that the program goals are equally focused on offender rehabilitation (regardless of risk) and community protection. b. Exclusions A second option for the use of a needs assessment in client selection is as a basis for excluding youth who may be inappropriate for the program. For example, if the IAP is entirely nonresidential, those whose characteristics indicate the need for in-patient or residential placement may not be considered workable in the IAP. c. Setting priorities Needs assessment instruments are usually developed through a staff consensus-building process that identifies, defines, and prioritizes the types of problems most frequently encountered in clients. Prioritizing or weighing needs factors is frequently based on the relative amount of time believed to be required to address different problems and deficits. Needs assessment instruments lend themselves to transferability across jurisdictions more readily than do risk assessment tools. The NIC Needs Assessment Instrument that was pioneered with adult offenders and subsequently modified for use with delinquents is the foundation for most needs assessment tools that were 7 7

67 IAP-Topic07 introduced into jurisdictions nationwide during the 1980s and 1990s (Baird, Storrs, and Connelly, 1984). Its adoption by a number of jurisdictions nationwide has assumed various forms; in some cases, it has simply been adopted as is, in others it has been modified on the basis of local circumstances or used as the starting point for developing local instruments. E. Other Selection Issues 1. Administrative versus judicial selection Client selection for the IAP model is based primarily on a structured decisionmaking process and risk of reoffending criteria. The availability of an intensive aftercare program, however, may present an attractive alternative for corrections officials and judges who work with resource-limited agencies and communities. They want the best service for all offenders, which, while understandable, presents two potential problems that are important to guard against: Referring more offenders to the program than it is designed to handle. Referring inappropriate (nontarget group) offenders to the program. Both situations would negatively affect program operations and goal attainment. It is critical for IAP programs to work on a regular basis with corrections officials and the judiciary to promote the need for, and benefits of, a structured decisionmaking approach and to understand the potential negative impacts of overrides. 2. Monitoring IAP offender selection The history of alternative correctional programs suggests that the erosion of selection criteria and processes is a significant threat to program integrity and effectiveness. Such erosion will result in net widening. IAP managers must develop mechanisms for monitoring the characteristics of program youth and the process by which they are selected. In particular, the manner in which risk scoring is conducted, agency/officer overrides, and judicial overrides deserve close attention and monitoring to avoid erosion and/or manipulation. 7 8

68 IAP-Topic08 Topic 8: Overarching Case Management Component #2: Individualized Case Planning with a Family and Community Perspective Key Points Generic needs assessments and procedures classify juvenile offenders based on their individual problems and deficits. Assessment information is used to develop a comprehensive institutional/aftercare master plan for supervising each youth and to tailor intervention strategies that address the individual s underlying problems. Case managers oversight of the assessment process is critical for ensuring the effectiveness of interventions and the coordination of the institutional/aftercare master plan. The institutional/aftercare master plan promotes accountability by specifying exactly which outcomes are to be achieved and by selecting only those interventions that will help in attaining those outcomes. Assessment and case planning are continuous processes, requiring constant information collection and analysis to inform appropriate changes as the youth accomplish objectives. Topic Goals To outline the purpose and nature of needs assessments for Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) clients. To present the principal concepts and advantages of case management as applied to individualized case planning for aftercare clients. To describe strategies for developing a master plan for each youth that includes both institutional and aftercare goals and objectives. To examine the logistics of initiating aftercare planning and service provision, including strategies for building working relationships between institutional and aftercare staff. To examine approaches to monitoring the implementation of the master plan. 8 1

69 IAP-Topic08 I. Introduction A needs assessment generates information relevant to the primary goals of youth correctional interventions: protecting the public safety, addressing youth competencies, and ensuring that youth are held accountable for their actions. As noted previously (Topic Seven), needs assessments are not the same as risk assessments, and neither can substitute for the other. The needs assessment establishes the basis for the individualized case and service planning of every youth selected for IAP participation. Thus, it is critical that these high-risk participants be further classified into carefully defined subpopulations so that more specialized and appropriate interventions can be initiated. After assessing each youth s specific needs, practitioners are able to develop individualized case plans that will guide how each juvenile offender s total set of risks, needs, and associated circumstances will be addressed during the youth s stay within a secure facility and through the transition back into the community. Construction of this individualized case management plan (institutional/aftercare master plan) is critical for guiding the decisionmaking of all involved in the process. Clearly, the needs assessment is the logical first step of any case management plan in which accountability for addressing the significant problems of delinquent youth is a priority. For needs assessments and individualized case planning to achieve their potential, several related processes also must be addressed. These include the logistics of aftercare planning and service provision, strategies for building working relationships between aftercare and institutional staff, and approaches for monitoring the implementation of the institutional/aftercare master plan. II. Needs Assessments for Individual Case Planning The IAP client selection process is designed to identify a group of offenders who share some basic characteristics (e.g., they are all high-risk). Yet, there will likely be considerable differences in the specific risk/needs characteristics of IAP clients. The task of a needs assessment at the individual case planning level is to identify the specific and sometimes unique factors that contribute to each youth s delinquency. How these factors are to be addressed by both institutional and aftercare staff constitutes the foundation of the individualized case plan. Overseen by a case manager, a needs assessment is the logical first step of individualized case management; it is the source from which the plan should flow. In order to generate relevant and individualized information useful in developing a comprehensive master plan, the needs assessment must be focused and organized. This does not mean it must be complicated. Indeed, needs scales are fairly straightforward systems for rating the severity of common, potential problem areas. Unlike risk assessments, needs assessments do not rely on the use of predictive scales. Generally, needs assessments are the product of staff efforts to initiate case management procedures by setting up a structured process for analyzing typical client problems. Such assessments combine professional judgment with instruments that address generic problem areas. 8 2

70 IAP-Topic08 A. The Necessity of a Wide-Ranging Needs Assessment High-risk offenders are typically youth with a variety of problems. Because the problems of these youth stem from multiple causes, needs assessment instruments commonly evaluate a diverse set of items. 1. Risk factors A needs assessment must take into account risk factors identified for each youth as a result of the risk assessment screening and factors that may not be included in the target population risk instrument. Such factors include many common needs that are not generally predictive of recidivism, but that may represent significant problems among high-risk youth. For example, there is widespread consensus that learning disabilities and emotional disturbances are not predictive of (or causally linked to) delinquency, but such problems may be individualized risk factors and cannot be ignored. Other individualized risk factors to be considered include: Family violence. History of physical/sexual abuse. Peer relationships. Psychosocial issues. Management of one s finances. Employment/work performance. Medical concerns. Developmental disabilities. Academic achievement/vocational skills. Religion. Neighborhood (geographic location). Community. The needs assessment instrument may flag certain areas as requiring more indepth assessment. For example, a youth with major mental health problems indicated on the needs assessment may warrant an updated psychological exam to determine his or her current status and functioning. Generally, needs-scale items are weighted through a rank-ordering process, although the basis for assigning weights frequently varies among jurisdictions. The most common approach to assigning weights is based on workload factors (the amount of time required to deal with a particular need). Another approach is to base weights on whether a problem s resolution is related to the success or failure of aftercare. 2. Contextual factors Multiple explanations for delinquency suggest that youth take a number of different pathways into delinquency; not all factors in the IAP model that focus on remediation of delinquency apply to each youth. Each youth, however, should be assessed with the following criteria in mind: 8 3

71 IAP-Topic08 The strength of internal and external bonding. Specific sources of strain. Contexts and relationships that provide reinforcement for both anti- and prosocial behaviors. The needs assessment must also take into account other factors that are frequently overlooked, including the nature of and circumstances surrounding delinquent activity. An indepth exploration of offending behavior is important to determine, for example, antecedent conditions, motivations, and influences, as well as reasons why the youth thinks he or she has been involved in delinquent acts. In addition, the assessment must seek to identify the strengths of the youth and those of his or her family and community. Unfortunately, staff and correctional policies often focus solely on the youth s problems and miss those characteristics, accomplishments, and relationships that can serve as the very foundation of interventions. Areas of need and strength will vary among these high-risk offenders, and a wide-ranging and thorough needs assessment should consider the following domains as sources of important data: Basic living situation. Family relationships. Emotional stability. Interpersonal skills. Peer relationships. Substance abuse. School conduct/educational achievement/cognitive abilities. Vocational/technical skills/job readiness/employment. Transportation. Health. Leisure/recreation. It may also be important to assess an individual s internal (feelings, attitudes, values, norms) and external (people, places, events, things) triggers for delinquent behavior. B. Approaching Assessments in a Family Context The following provides an example of a structured approach by which IAP staff can conduct an objective and thorough needs assessment of the delinquent youth and his or her family. The objective is to generate data that will help the case manager develop a plan that targets the most relevant characteristics for change. A carefully structured needs assessment can help identify relapse risk factors and lower the entire family s risk for additional delinquency among siblings. The approach must be as objective as possible, without being unrealistically labor-intensive. It is essential that the assessment is based on observations in natural settings (e.g., the home) and family members responses to appropriate and detailed questions, both face-to-face and through established and reliable self-report questionnaires. In addition, the use of established and reliable behavior checklists (completed by parents and teachers) is important. All of the information 8 4

72 IAP-Topic08 about needs assessments must be communicated to family members in such a way that they will see the benefit of making certain changes and be motivated to begin the process. 1. Reliability and validity The information the IAP worker gains about families is subject to tests of reliability and validity. Reliability requires that the assessment methods produce the same kind of information when used by different IAP workers or on different occasions. Furthermore, in order for assessments to be valid, they have to be relevant to the risk factors that are exhibited by particular families requiring intervention. Dynamic assessments require the IAP worker to make repeated observations and conduct multiple interviews, focusing on the nature of a family as a social system. Rather than analyzing individual, deviant behaviors of the delinquent, parent, or sibling, the focus should be on sequences of behaviors involving two or more family members. Because relationships are the focus of intervention, the individual s behavior must always be viewed in the context of various family relationships. Data collected through observations and interviews will illuminate stable patterns of interaction sequences within the family and between the family and the community. Thus, rather than isolating personality characteristics of family members, which is not useful for deciding where changes to prevent relapse need to occur, the IAP worker will gather information regarding individuals abilities to interact in families. This approach is consistent with the practical, integrationist approach of the IAP model. 2. Sources of assessment information a. Self-report questionnaires Self-report questionnaires enable family members, including the delinquent youth, to report on their own behavior. The questionnaires should be detailed enough that gross distortions are unlikely to occur. Each family member can report on relevant dimensions of family life, such as cohesion and conflict, by completing FACES III (Olson, Partner, and Lavee, 1985), a brief, standardized measure of family life. The delinquent youth also can complete a measure of his or her own delinquent behavior, including substance abuse, using the Hindelang Self Report Measurement of Delinquency (Hindelang, Hirschi, and Weis, 1981). This scale has been found reliable and valid; delinquent youth are surprisingly honest when completing it. Parents can report on their discipline practices with the Discipline Scale (Patterson, Chamberlain, and Reed, 1982), developed at the Oregon Social Learning Center. Interviewers can also administer the Discipline Scale to parents who cannot read. Finally, two brief tools that measure parents attitudes towards criminal behavior and are effective in predicting reoffending are the Identification With Criminal Others Scale and the Tolerance for Law Violations Scale (Andrews, 1980). Regarding family self-reporting, the two instruments that come to mind are one domain of the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT) (see the National Institute on Drug Abuse s Web site, and the Child Behavior Checklist (see more on this instrument below). Many such instruments are being used in an ongoing development and refinement of assessment instrumentation. 8 5

73 IAP-Topic08 Structured interviews are another method for assessing relevant family needs such as parental supervision and disciplinary practices, problem-solving abilities, and communication styles. Highly detailed questions need to be asked about recent events. The more detailed the description elicited, the less distortion and inaccuracy occur. For example, parents who describe an adolescent with an attitude problem need to be asked for recent examples of specific behaviors. Events leading up to these behaviors, and the subsequent reactions of the parents and siblings to these behaviors, including feelings and thoughts, need to be specified. Also, frequencies of problem behaviors should be specified so that the appropriateness of others reactions to them can be gauged. For example, an adolescent who is constantly disrespectful, who in reality makes faces and an occasional comment like Why do I have to do all the work, may be a sign of parents whose expectations about normal adolescent behavior need to be modified. After completing a structured interview, the IAP worker might complete a brief checklist, such as the Global Impressions Rating of Disciplinary Practices (Stouthamer-Loeber, Patterson, and Loeber, 1983), which can later serve as a quick reference to the most salient aspects of parental discipline. b. Observation Observing family interaction patterns can yield very useful information, augmenting what is learned through other measures. For example, self-reports and interviews may occasionally misrepresent family strengths and weaknesses because family members may minimize or deny problems intentionally or unintentionally. For instance, observing the distribution of talk time among family members indicates the power of different family members. Nonverbal facial expressions give clues to unspoken feelings about each others comments. Watching parents respond to the disruptive behavior of a younger child often tells more about their abilities than what they claim them to be. Observing the reactions of other family members when two members are arguing can give indications of the systemwide effect of what may on the surface appear to be isolated conflict between two members. c. Behavior checklists The behavior checklist is a relatively fast method of collecting a lot of information about the delinquent youth s (and other problem siblings ) behavior from people who frequently observe him or her in the natural environment (e.g., home, school, neighborhood). Parents can complete the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983), in which they rate their child s behavior across many dimensions, comparing the child to others of the same age. This measure can be scored simply and yields reliable, valid measures of how that child compares to normal and deviant populations on several important dimensions of behavior. Measures of prosocial, or positive, mature behavior are included to indicate the susceptibility of the child to deviant peer groups. Protective and risk factors are thus scaled objectively. This measure can be used before and after intervention as an objective indication of treatment effectiveness. In the research literature, this measure has demonstrated sensitivity to short-term change. A related measure is the Teacher s Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1986), which is designed for teachers who know the adolescent well. It yields information very comparable to the parents form, but provides insight to the adolescent s behavior in a different setting. Comparing the two completed forms can yield very useful information, illuminating patterns across domains. 8 6

74 IAP-Topic08 3. Efficiency and accuracy of assessment choices When limited time is available to assess the needs and risks of a delinquent youth and his or her family, the IAP worker can rely on self-report questionnaires and behavior checklists instead of repeated meetings with the family and school observations. It is recommended, however, that at least one family meeting be held so the IAP worker can observe and conduct interviews to corroborate the information collected on the paper-and-pencil forms (questionnaires and checklists). Also, the willingness of family members to complete the measures will be enhanced after a face-to-face family meeting, assuming the IAP worker has good relationship skills. When more time is available, and a smaller number of families needs to be assessed, several family meetings can be held, during which the IAP worker can more thoroughly interview and observe patterns of interaction. Accuracy, particularly when trying to detect subtle or well-hidden problems and strengths, is enhanced when repeated meetings occur. When a larger number of families must be assessed, a prescreening can be conducted wherein the families most likely to benefit from intervention are selected for further assessment. Priority should be given to families with younger siblings; such families can benefit from improved parenting practices and lowering their risk for future delinquency and maladjustment. Families without serious parental substance abuse and criminality are also likely to benefit from short-term intervention. A good rule is to reserve the highest levels of intervention (long term; i.e., 3 to 6 months and 12 to 24 weekly sessions) for the families and delinquent youth with higher risk. Lower levels of intervention (short term; i.e., 4 to 15 weekly sessions) can be reserved for families and delinquent youth with moderate risk. 4. Communicating needs assessment data to families Stimulating self-help can be an inexpensive solution for communities where needs outnumber resources. Giving the family feedback about their strengths and weaknesses relevant to the problem behavior will motivate some families to initiate change on their own. Referral to services like parent education can benefit a few families, particularly when the IAP worker provides ongoing encouragement and assists with practical problems like brokering childcare or transportation. Increasing a family s interests in skills development can make them aware of various educational aids such as self-help videotapes, audiotapes, and booklets. Suggesting community members (e.g., relatives, faith community members, civic organization members) who could work with the family with these materials and troubleshoot can be an inexpensive way of increasing services to these families. This type of active community involvement by the IAP worker supports the underlying principles of the IAP model and establishes the IAP worker as the person most knowledgeable and supportive for the delinquent youth and his or her family. III. Individual Case Planning Individual case planning logically flows directly from the needs assessment. The case plan should focus on those deficits that are clearly linked to offending patterns, without attempting to fix everything that may be wrong. 8 7

75 IAP-Topic08 Although all significant stakeholders youth, parents, program staff, institutional staff, service providers, and mentors must be included in the planning process, the case manager is the one who must coordinate all aspects of the institutional/aftercare master plan. The case manager is ultimately responsible for providing oversight of the needs assessment and case plan development. Analysis of the data generated from the needs assessment includes: Prioritizing problems. Determining problem interrelatedness. Assessing the relative intractability of each problem. Analyses should also seek to distinguish between those factors that can be addressed directly (i.e., with the youth and family members) and those that may only be indirectly influenced (e.g., community conditions). Once the information is collected and analyzed and a plan formulated, practitioners must be certain to make the plan truly accountable. This is accomplished by specifically identifying the plan s goals, objectives, action steps, and the responsibilities of all involved parties (Clear, 1981; Center for Human Resources, 1991). Finally, the case plan must be translated into a behavior-oriented, objectives-based contract that Provides guidelines and expectations for all interventions. Focuses on behavior, not values or attitudes. Contains specific and measurable objectives. Helps the youth achieve success through realistic objectives. Fosters ownership by incorporating objectives that are relevant and meaningful to the youth and his or her family. Clearly specifies the potential rewards and sanctions associated with compliance/failure in each area of the plan and contract. In conjunction with the IAP model, jurisdictions may wish to incorporate restorative justice strategies and techniques that seek to repair the harm done to individuals and the community in general (Bazemore and Walgrave, 1999). Such responses include, but are not limited to, restitution, community service, direct victim service, victim-offender mediation, and victim awareness training. The primary goal of such responses is to make amends and rebuild relationships goals that clearly mesh with the IAP model. For incarcerated offenders, much of the effort to make amends should begin in the residential facility. Restitution owed to victims, if not addressed prior to incarceration, should be addressed as much as is possible during confinement. In no case should youth who have met these 8 8

76 IAP-Topic08 obligations be required to do so again, though community service may certainly be an option for offenders as part of their responsibilities within the facility or as a component of aftercare. In fact, many aftercare programs require youth reentering the community to engage in some community service activities because youth reaching the point of secure confinement have arguably committed delinquent acts or engaged in unacceptable behavior, generally disruptive of normal daily living in their communities. Consequently, some restorative gesture on the part of these youth is required. Funds for restitution can be attained through opportunities within the facility and in the aftercare context through, for example, contracts with public works, parks and recreation, and businesses or their representative organizations. Letters of apology might also be encouraged with assistance from staff when offenders are genuinely remorseful and wish to express this to their victims. Community service has become a primary component of the residential experience in a number of juvenile facilities involving both in-house activities (e.g., making furniture for daycare centers; fundraising for charitable organizations) and off-campus activity in local communities. Victim impact panels and/or victim awareness classes are also common. These activities may be viewed as a way of reinforcing and providing a basis of understanding for making amends while meeting other intervention objectives. Community components of programs begun in the facility must be carefully coordinated to reinforce and expand, rather than duplicate, activities while making them relevant to the community context. Although actions geared toward making amends may build support for the offender by changing his or her public image, repairing harm may also require addressing the social relationships among victims, offenders, and their respective communities. Relationship-building in restorative justice often arises out of conferencing processes that bring offender, victim, and community stakeholders together to discuss how to repair harm and meet the needs of stakeholders. In these processes, the dialogue itself, as facilitated by a third party and including the input of others, often helps to mend relationships weakened by crime. Restorative conferences often foster informal connections between victims and supportive participants and between offenders and prosocial adults and peers who provide social support outside the conference setting. In some cases, such practices may also provide new sources of support in a kind of ceremony of reintegration that may create a positive bond between the offender and family, community members, or even between the offender and victim (Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994). Though the number of residential facilities and aftercare programs that have widely incorporated these processes is currently unknown, many are experimenting with family group conferences, mediation, or other processes to resolve conflict or to simply carry on respectful dialogue. When relationship building is a strategic goal, aftercare staff can achieve results from other formal and informal opportunities. As a result, young offenders may come into contact with prosocial adults, community groups, and positive activities such as work experience and career exploration, recreational, and faith-community activities. To sustain and expand these positive relationships, some of the most effective activities involve community service efforts that allow youth to work side-by-side with volunteers in service projects that benefit individuals in need and improve the well-being of the community. 8 9

77 IAP-Topic08 IV. Creating a Master Plan A. Rationale and General Content An institutional/aftercare master plan is essential for ensuring the effectiveness of interventions and the coordination of all aspects of the plan because it provides meaning and direction to all planned activities. By specifying exactly what is to be achieved in terms of outcomes, a master plan establishes milestones against which to measure progress and thereby facilitates accountability for all affiliated parties. Such milestones also break down goals into achievable objectives, allowing youth to succeed at incremental steps along the way to their ultimate goals. Furthermore, an effective master plan will set limits on interventions, selecting only those that will help attain goals. In this way, the plan develops the client s sense of accomplishment and self-esteem as specific goals are achieved (Barton and Butts, 1990). A high-quality institutional/aftercare master plan is a strategically sequenced series of actions, which is written on the part of, and mutually developed by, the client, case manager, and other individuals, such as family members and service providers. Because it is clearly written down, such a master plan can help to resolve disagreements with clients and others on how the case will be handled. In essence, a good institutional/aftercare master plan is a road map to help all decisionmakers move with the youth from the point of secure care disposition until his or her discharge from parole. It represents a coordinated effort to capitalize on the young person s strengths and to overcome his or her deficits and problems on the way to meeting key goals. Neither the case manager nor the youth takes the road map and drives ahead alone. Rather, the youth, the case manager, and many others collaborate to develop and implement the plan. Most experts agree on five basic ingredients for a good supervision plan. The plan should clearly specify: Reasonable goals. Measurable, short-term objectives. Actions of each affiliated party that are necessary to achieve plan objectives. Resources for implementing the plan (including internal family, agency, outside provider, and volunteer resources). Methods for evaluating the plan s effectiveness and accountability. B. Logistical Issues Of all the operational issues that challenge policymakers attempting to implement new aftercare programs, perhaps the most difficult relate to the need to begin aftercare planning and service delivery as soon as youth begin their institutional stay. For aftercare plans to offer their greatest 8 10

78 IAP-Topic08 return, three primary functions must be addressed during the early phases of a youth s residential placement: initiation of aftercare planning, preliminary matching of youth with aftercare/community resources, and involvement of aftercare staff. 1. Early initiation of aftercare planning Service need and placement issues often require extended timeframes to be resolved. Some institutional stays have been shortened and thus there is an increased need for as much advance time as possible to establish the details of the institutional/aftercare master plan. Some systems have been known to require aftercare caseworkers to contact all institutionalized youth within 24 hours of admission; at the least, aftercare planning should be initiated no later than 2 months prior to a youth s discharge. 2. Preliminary matching of youth with aftercare/community resources As the assessment begins to identify critical needs of the youth, it is imperative that the aftercare counselor begin to contact appropriate community resources that address already identified goals and objectives of the institutional/aftercare master plan. In this sense, the aftercare counselor should use an expanded concept of community resources, one that includes traditional and nontraditional service providers and the family, other relatives, and the youth themselves. Generally, the reason youth are initially institutionalized is because they are unable to stay within the bounds of the law and they present a danger to themselves and others. Thus, identifying and addressing problems within the community should be the cornerstone of the youth s total treatment plan. Accessing community resources when the youth is in the institution sends a clear message that the real goal of the justice intervention is successful reintegration, not institutionalization. The sooner attention is placed on the youth s community environment, the more likely the plan will be realistic, effective, and comprehensive. Conversely, the less attention paid to the youth s postrelease environment, the more likely the total plan will be superficial. It may be possible to have community-based program staff actually begin providing services while the youth is institutionalized, a strategy that is bound to benefit the youth and the program. It is not easy, however, for any staff to line up community resources for youth who are outside the community, and aftercare staff will have to be creative and persistent. There are several basic strategies that an aftercare counselor can use to work effectively with resource providers. Among these are clearly establishing: Expectations in the institutional/aftercare master plan. Service provision evaluation measures. Data collection and dissemination measures that will provide the information needed to monitor services. All parties to the master plan must be made aware of any adjustments and must understand the reasoning for a change. The aftercare counselor should also strive to: 8 11

79 IAP-Topic08 Provide clear feedback, both positive and negative. Offer generous praise and appreciation when things go well with the client and when the provider offers superior service. Take action quickly and decisively when information indicates the emergence of a problem.. 3. Involvement of aftercare staff To accomplish early initiation of aftercare planning and early matching of community resources with returning youth, aftercare staff must establish solid contacts with youth early during their institutional stay. This can be accomplished through clearly established policy and management supervision. It is essential, however, that aftercare staff be included as part of the institutional treatment teams if they are to discharge their duties to begin planning and contacts while youth are at the institution. Perhaps the simplest strategy is to actually assign aftercare staff to a certain treatment team at the institution, working alongside other staff providing more traditional institutional services. Another strategy is to integrate aftercare staff within the training and other staff activities. Whatever strategy is chosen, aftercare staff must be perceived as integral to program effectiveness and be included in all significant treatment decisions. V. Monitoring the Implementation of Master Plans If the previous work done with youths cases (i.e., assessments and case planning, resource development and collaboration with key parties) is to be taken seriously, then setting up and following a monitoring system is essential. From the very beginning of the implementation phase, an accountability strategy for following and keeping track of the plan is essential. Although this may sound elementary, taking the time to plan something carefully and then losing momentum once the plan is completed is a common phenomenon among individuals and agencies (Lindgren, 1984). The result is inadequate followup to the earlier accomplishments. As noted earlier, key to an effective master plan are the details of accountability. If case planning is done correctly, the structure of the plan is designed for staying on course, with a monitoring system that identifies the specific actions, timeframes, and parties that are germane to the plan. A. Scheduled Reassessments and Staged Transitioning From the very beginning of the planning effort, establishing a schedule for reassessments of each case at regular intervals is important. Case workers should also be prepared to call for impromptu reassessments at any time that developments in the case so warrant; i.e., when significant changes occur that would necessitate a modification of the plan. 8 12

80 IAP-Topic08 Reassessments should be scheduled at intervals when the youth are entering or completing key transitional points in the plan. The original plan should in fact seek to stage these transitional steps so that youth can succeed in incremental achievements. It is also important for aftercare staff to recognize as early as possible when things are not working and as quickly as possible seek to determine why this is happening and what can be done about it. B. Monitoring Strategies There are at least three basic approaches to effective monitoring of aftercare programs: monitoring the individual case, monitoring the overall program, and monitoring caseworker activity. 1. Individual case monitoring Individual case monitoring is probably the most logical way to establish accountability for the aftercare service. The monitoring system should track the same case objectives established as treatment goals in the institutional/aftercare master plan. Significant activity, progress, problems and obstacles can be noted on each case objective, and a logical tracking system can be established. On a monthly or bimonthly basis, important points can be summarized for each objective in each case. This approach provides a relatively easy procedure to aggregate results for monitoring each youth s entire program. 2. Overall program monitoring Every aftercare program should establish a reliable mechanism for ensuring that important program and case information is collected and reviewed. Numerous formats can be used to record this type of monitoring. The information collected should be relatively easy to acquire in the field, and regular feedback based on the reports should be given to key staff at all levels of the program. Monitoring by overall programs is also an important process for ensuring that the aftercare program is implemented according to established standards and that the program is effective in achieving the stated and desired outcomes. Quality control efforts need to provide reliable and useful feedback to allow program mangers and staff to identify program strengths and weaknesses and to take appropriate action when warranted. Likewise, outcome evaluation efforts that identify and assess the actual youth outcomes in the aftercare program are essential to showing policymakers and funding representatives how well aftercare works. 3. Caseworker monitoring To assess the effectiveness of individual caseworkers in the aftercare program, it is important to establish a monitoring system that reports activity and case outcomes by caseworker. Obviously, a performance appraisal system should be established to regularly assess a caseworker s work performance along the lines of key job duties and functions. A reporting format may be utilized. 8 13

81 IAP-Topic09 Topic 9: Overarching Case Management: Component #3, Part 1: Social Control and Surveillance Techniques Key Points The decision to impose a specified level of social control over individual offenders is guided by formal risk and needs assessments. Technological innovations, which have grown in type and sophistication, have a valuable role in surveillance of offender behavior. Topic Goals To discuss the rationale favoring the use of high levels of social control and intrusive monitoring in the community-based supervision of specially designated juvenile parolees. To present an overview of the most widely used surveillance and social control techniques currently deployed in juvenile intensive supervision programs. To provide suggestions for the most effective utilization of surveillance and social control techniques and tools in the context of the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP). 9 1

82 IAP-Topic09 I. Introduction The IAP model is grounded in the idea that appropriate, comprehensive interventions with carefully targeted, high-risk juvenile parolees must build on high levels of supervision and social control and intensive treatment and service provision. This recognizes that high-risk juvenile offenders not only tend to exhibit a persistent pattern of chronic and severe delinquency, but also are frequently plagued by a multitude of other problems and needs. If there is any hope of achieving long-term alteration of behavior and successful normalization in the community, this reality must be translated into an approach that combines surveillance and supportive services. On one hand, mixing surveillance/social control and treatment/service provision demonstrates the theoretical importance of adhering to the principle of treatment/rehabilitation above and beyond the increased emphasis on social control. On the other hand, it also clearly recognizes that very highly structured programs are often required to stabilize high-risk juvenile offenders so that treatment and services can be delivered. In addition, there is always the need to ensure that every possible precaution is taken to provide a reasonable level of community protection. II. Monitoring, Surveillance, and Social Control Activities It has long been assumed within the correctional field that offenders at high risk for reoffending should be more closely monitored and supervised than other offenders on probation or parole status in community-based settings. Over the past decade, the intensive supervision movement has made technical and organizational advances in providing various ways to achieve this goal. In many instances, programs have been largely defined in terms of their social control techniques and strategies. The IAP model, however, is only partly defined in these terms. Key concerns related to program design for enhanced social control include: (1) determining the nature and frequency of contact required to ensure necessary supervision levels, (2) using constructive and cost-effective monitoring and surveillance activities for specific clients within the program, and (3) deciding which sanctions to impose when technical violations, petty offenses, and more serious crimes are detected. A. Frequency of Contact/Level of Monitoring Research has yet to provide any definitive conclusions regarding whether higher levels of contact guarantee greater success in reducing reoffending rates. Some studies have suggested that increased levels of contact are significant in determining successful program completions. Others have noted that even when more intensive contact with the client is achieved, greater success in crime control is not guaranteed. A major factor in determining success may be the quality rather than the frequency and duration of contacts. Regardless, some level of increased contact beyond standard probation/parole supervision is required. In addition, intensive supervision staff should focus considerable attention on increasing the number and kinds of collateral contacts they make. This category of contact is defined largely in terms of individuals who have extensive knowledge of and may have assumed some level of responsibility for the youth s behavior. Such contacts may include family members, friends, church officials, school staff, employers, staff from other social service agencies, or concerned residents in the community. 9 2

83 IAP-Topic09 Conventional programming wisdom is that the number and nature of contacts should be based on some sense of perceived risk, regardless of how levels are determined. Of course, there has been an increased use of formal risk assessment tools within the correctional field to help guide this decision. (Agencies should be cautioned against wholesale adoption of risk assessment instruments unless field validation procedures have been undertaken to ensure their predictive value.) In addition to assessing risk when determining the nature and frequency of contact, numerous other factors frequently help shape the decision: Agency resources. Staff size and patterns, in addition to other available resources, will influence the supervision approach utilized by the agency. Size of the geographic area to be covered may also serve as a major consideration. Identified needs and deficits. A formal needs assessment will identify the specific nature and intensity of individual problems and deficits. The subsequent treatment/service requirements of the individual youth will play a role in shaping the structure of contacts. Progression through the program. The exact position (i.e., participation in which program stage) at any point in time in a youth s movement through the program will influence level of contact. Frequency of contact should be minimized as the youth demonstrates greater stability and improved performance in various activities in the community. Nature of contact. Contacts can be made on a regular prearranged basis, on a random spot-check basis, or as some combination of these two monitoring techniques. If the purpose of the contact is largely that of surveillance, checks will tend to be conducted more randomly, at various times during the day or night. To ensure compliance, checks should be scheduled so as to diminish the youth s ability to predict when they will occur. These checks may occur in a variety of settings including home, school, recreational centers, job sites, or other known hangouts. The drawback to this approach is the possible intrusion on other individuals, such as family members. If the purpose of the contact is for treatment or other activities, they should occur on a more regularly scheduled basis. In these situations, it may be preferable to schedule the contact so as to be convenient for all parties. In many ways, it is impossible to totally distinguish whether contacts serve a treatment or a surveillance function. Surveillance in some situations may be necessary for instilling enough discipline to make treatment feasible. Likewise, as behavioral problems become less severe or pronounced, surveillance based on random checks may become counterproductive. B. Monitoring and Surveillance Techniques With the recent emergence and proliferation of juvenile intensive supervision programs, a substantial number of specialized techniques and procedures for enhancing social control have been devised and implemented. These innovations include technical advances such as electronic monitoring and broad-spectrum drug/alcohol testing and intensified staffing patterns such as team supervision, community service work crews, specialized surveillance roles (i.e., 9 3

84 IAP-Topic09 surveillance officers), and comprehensive stepdown programming. Collectively, these approaches extend from procedures that are only slightly more structured than standard supervision (i.e., stringently enforced curfew) to highly intrusive and community-incapacitative procedures (e.g., electronic monitoring, house arrest, day treatment). Among the entire set of intensive supervision techniques receiving the widest application and experimentation, seven will be discussed here: reduced caseload size, team supervision/specialized roles, enhanced focus on curfew, drug and alcohol testing, electronic monitoring, house arrest, and transitional residential settings and day treatment. 1. Reduced caseload size Intensive supervision has traditionally been defined, in part, by a marked reduction in the number of offenders per caseload. The underlying logic has been that when officers have fewer cases to manage, they will have more frequent contacts and spend more time with clients on their caseloads. While this is an important consideration when managing high-risk offenders, the potential value of reduced caseloads continues to be debated. Some research indicates that improved offender performance does not necessarily follow from reduced caseloads, and reduced caseloads do not automatically ensure greater frequency of contact. Further experimentation and inquiry need to occur before any definitive conclusion can be reached. 2. Team supervision/specialized roles Team supervision enables monitoring to extend beyond normal working hours and the customary Monday to Friday schedule. The primary result is the ability to achieve saturation supervision, in which crisis intervention can readily be activated, and 7-days-a-week, 24-hours-a-day coverage can be imposed. One common approach to team supervision is the use of larger teams of up to four staff members in which each team member shares equal and identical responsibility for case management. Because each team member knows the particular problems and needs of all youth on the total caseload, any available team member can respond when a crisis arises. Another approach is the use of two-person teams, pairing a surveillance officer (whose primary responsibility is monitoring behavior and investigating possible violations) with a regular field officer (whose primary responsibility is providing standard case management). This bifurcation of roles and duties provides a much clearer sense of the specific relationships that youth must develop with program staff. Another variation in utilization of specialized roles is incorporating the tracker function into the program. Here, individuals can be assigned a variety of different monitoring functions depending on the circumstances of particular youth in the program. 3. Enhanced focus on curfew In principle, curfews should provide a way to impose more stability in a youth s life and to limit the opportunity for inappropriate behavior. The application of this social control technique in delinquency programming, however, has often been erratic. Its use as a tool for intensive supervision is characterized by two primary concerns: (1) more rigorous and thorough enforcement; and (2) more stringent application. Both staff contacts and mechanical monitoring can be used to ensure that compliance occurs. Further, family support and cooperation are vital if curfew is to be successful. Heavy reliance on curfew, however, can become a major inconvenience for families, a factor that programs need to take into account. 9 4

85 IAP-Topic09 4. Drug and alcohol testing Research has clearly shown that a majority of youth participating in intensive supervision programs nationwide exhibit substance abuse problems (Crowe and Sydney, 2000a). Consequently, it is essential to monitor for signs of reoccurrence. Testing can be used as a surveillance tool to monitor compliance, as a treatment tool to provide indication of renewed use and abuse, or as some combination of these two goals. Certainly for the purposes of treatment and long-term behavioral change, it should be approached as an early warning procedure, not as a means of program revocation. Regardless, it is important that programs clearly specify their testing objectives, which may include: Deterring drug and alcohol abuse. Identifying and altering drug- and alcohol-abusing behavior. Removing substance abusers from the program. Procedurally, testing can be conducted through field testing or laboratory testing. Field-read devices are available for the detection of both drug and alcohol use. Although the physical symptoms of alcohol use are generally apparent, many programs find it beneficial to use commercially available devices to detect its use. Typically, the testing process requires obtaining a urine sample that can then be placed in a disposable plastic kit. Color-coded charts are used to determine the presence of drugs in the urine and results are immediately available. While laboratory testing provides greater discrimination in determining types of drugs, in addition to greater accuracy in ascertaining the level of drug use, laboratory-read devices require the presence of a technician. This is more expensive testing and introduces a delay in obtaining results. It is generally accepted within the substance abuse field that Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) is the most accurate form of laboratory testing (Crowe and Sydney, 2000b). In many jurisdictions, legal guidelines may require use of the GC/MS testing procedures for confirmation. There is a wealth of information available regarding policies and procedures for substance abuse abuse testing. Two publications (Crowe and Sydney, 2000a, 200b), which are available free through the internet, offer a good starting place with reference to more detailed publications. 5. Electronic monitoring Electronic monitoring was initially developed and implemented in the adult correctional system but has since been adapted for use in the juvenile justice system. Use with juveniles was limited because of concerns about unintended consequences arising from the nature of this particular technology. These include: Juveniles perhaps not being mature or stable enough to handle the imposed restrictions. Equipment loss and tampering occurring at a significantly higher level than with application to adult offenders. Family members established daily routines being inconvenienced. 9 5

86 IAP-Topic09 The technology not actually ensuring adequate public protection. Experience with electronically monitoring juvenile offenders has indicated that its appropriate utilization can be an aid to other forms of supervision. The technology is a tool and not a program in-and-of itself. The equipment cannot prevent a youth from leaving a specified location nor can it stop a youth from committing offenses. In short, the equipment supplements but does not replace human supervision. a. Equipment selection A wide range of technologies exist. It is important, however, that the technology used not drive the program. Selection of electronic monitoring equipment should be the last step in the intensive supervision program design and development process. Unfortunately, many agencies make the mistake of selecting equipment first and then face having to adapt the program to the technology rather than designing the program and selecting equipment that fulfills their needs. In addition, the type of equipment selected should be determined by the risk level of the targeted program population, the anticipated supervision strategies, and the agency s capabilities. Agencies should avoid buying more sophisticated and complex technology than is needed or can be used. For example, if the monitoring center is not staffed 24 hours a day or field staff cannot respond immediately, having immediate notification of violations is a questionable feature. Another related concern is determining whether to lease or purchase electronic monitoring equipment or to contract with a private service provider that will handle the electronic monitoring function for the program. Agencies may choose to lease equipment or to contract with a service provider during the initial phases of the program. As experience is gained and a more realistic evaluation of equipment needs is possible, a more informed decision can be made about purchasing equipment. Overreliance on and abuse of this technology must be cautioned against. Sustained use may result in an extraordinarily high level of technical violations. The volatility and impulsivity of high-risk delinquents argue against the long-term use of electronic monitoring. The technology may hold the greatest promise when used as a short-term strategy that (1) imposes an immediate consequence for rule violation or (2) provides greater structure for a limited period of time at the very beginning of parole and/or after a setback during community adjustment. 6. House arrest House arrest represents perhaps the most stringent effort to control offender behavior in the community. If properly administered, this monitoring technique achieves a condition of community incapacitation. House arrest is often used in combination with electronic monitoring to ensure compliance. It also requires substantial cooperation on the part of family members to be effective. Although the use of house arrest clearly emphasizes the social control and sanctioning aspects of community supervision, treatment goals need not be totally subordinated. Prescheduled trips outside the home can be readily incorporated into a house arrest plan. Further, the close contact between aftercare agent, youth, and family during this period of home confinement may provide a context in which important communication and interaction occur. 9 6

87 IAP-Topic09 As a strategy, house arrest for juvenile parolees is probably most effective if deployed either briefly as part of the initial transitioning phase or as a short-term consequence for deteriorating behavior or rule violations. 7. Transitional residential settings and day treatment One way to bridge transition from facility to community and to enhance social control and surveillance at the point of stepdown is to place youth in community residential settings such as transitional cottages (often located close to the facility itself), halfway houses, short-term group homes, or other preparatory program placements. This type of short-term stepdown programming (approximately 4 6 weeks) serves to quickly activate those linkages with community services and resources that have already been identified. There can be no extended waiting period for provision of services following community reentry. Such residential settings provide youth with the opportunity to participate in structured activities that begin during the transitional phase of facility programming and carry over into transitional community-based programming. Less intensive or costly but still restrictive is attendance at a day treatment center, which begins with an initial period of intensive supervision, monitoring, and structure to quickly link youth to identified community services and resources at the point of transition to the community. In addition to more restrictive measures such as electronic monitoring or house arrest, day treatment can be required as a less stringent stepdown when more highly structured interventions are not needed. The day treatment facility can serve as a one-stop-shop for a variety of services and activities including education, job skills training, family and youth counseling, urinalysis testing, lifeskills training, recreational activities, community service, and other programs. 9 7

88 IAP-Topic10 Topic 10: Overarching Case Management Component #3, Part II: Service Provision and Treatment Key Points The decision to provide specific services and treatment is guided by formal risk and needs assessments. The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model requires that services and treatment activities be provided within the broader continuum of community-based care for high-risk juvenile parolees. The IAP model incorporates certain core services (defined in terms of aggregate offense-related and needs-related risk factors) in addition to various ancillary services (defined in terms of persistent problems not necessarily predictive of reoffending behavior). Topic Goals To describe generally the types of services and treatment approaches that best address recidivism among high-risk youth. To delineate the specific nature of three areas of special concern family conflict and dysfunction, poor school performance, and negative peer influence and to describe possible core service interventions for these problem areas. 10 1

89 IAP-Topic10 I. Introduction Beyond surveillance and social control techniques, a set of services and treatment approaches must be available to address identified criminogenic needs, problems, and strengths of juvenile offenders. It is important to determine the type and dosage of treatment and services that will be the optimal mix for offenders during confinement and after reentry. Lipsey and Wilson (1998) conducted a meta-analysis that indicates that certain types of treatment have considerable promise in lowering recidivism. Most notable among interventions for institutionalized juveniles were: Facilities providing interpersonal skill training (Spence and Marzillier, 1981; Glick and Goldstein, 1987; Shivrattan, 1988). Teaching family homes (Wolf, Phillips, and Fixson, 1974; Kirigin, et al., 1982). Cognitive behavioral approaches (Schlicter and Horan, 1981; Guerra and Slaby, 1990). Multimodal approaches (Kawaguchi, 1979; Moore, 1978; Thambidurai, 1980; Seckel and Turner, 1985). Lipsey and Wilson s analysis of interventions used with noninstitutionalized juveniles similarly suggested that the following were best at reducing recidivism rates: Interpersonal skill training (Chandler, 1973; Delinquency Research Group, 1986). Behavioral contracting (Barton, et al., 1985; Gordon, Graves, and Arbuthnot, 1987; Jesness, et al., 1975; Kantrowitz, 1980; Schwitzgebel and Kolb, 1964). Individualized counseling that is cognitive-behavioral oriented (Moore and Levine, 1974; Kemp and Lee, 1975; Piercy and Lee, 1976; Lee and Haynes, 1978a, 1978b; Lee and Olejnik, 1981; Moore, 1987; Bean, 1988; Borduin, et al., 1990). Clearly, there is considerable convergence between the types of treatment best at reducing recidivism among youth in both institutional and noninstitutional settings. While not definitive, the overlap of effective treatment types between the institutional and noninstitutional programs certainly suggests the potential for stronger and more lasting recidivism reduction when effective institutional programs are followed up with quality noninstitutional aftercare programs (Altschuler, Armstrong, and MacKenzie, 1999). The overlap of treatment types also suggests that, from a treatment modality and programmatic standpoint, it is advisable to integrate aftercare programs and staff with the planning and treatment activities that occur in the institutional setting. The goal is to establish an ongoing commitment to continuity and reinforcement across the institutional and noninstitutional boundary. 10 2

90 IAP-Topic10 II. Core Services Addressing Three Key Problem Areas Core services in the IAP model are those activities necessary for reducing the probability that high-risk juvenile parolees will reoffend. Such services are designed to intervene in key problem areas characterized by the presence of certain risk and/or needs factors that appear to be most predictive of recidivism. It is important to recognize, however, that highly intensive interventions are not for everyone. As noted in Topic Seven, it is critical to assess the extent and nature of risks and needs when determining the specific type of program that works best for whom. A relatively extensive literature has developed during the past 15 years examining those factors most predictive of reoffending among adjudicated juvenile offenders. For example, Lipsey and Derzon (1998) and Hawkins and colleagues (1998) have shown that risk and need factors associated with serious and violent juvenile offenders include much more than criminal history characteristics (e.g., early age of onset, number of prior referrals to juvenile services, number of prior commitments to juvenile facilities). Rather, it is the combination of factors related to delinquency history and particular problem or needs factors that cumulatively place a juvenile into a high-risk category. Among several risk/needs factors that are commonly included in this potent combination are: Family conflict and dysfunction. Poor school performance, misbehavior, and truancy. Negative peer influence. Core service interventions must be designed to address these three areas of concern. A. Family Services Social science research has firmly established that the roots of delinquency lie, at least in part, within the family and in its failure to adequately socialize and establish strong bonds with and controls over the youth (Rutter and Madge, 1976; Bahr, 1979; Johnson, 1979; Patterson and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1984; Farrington, 1986; Loeber and Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986). Because of weak bonds to the family, the delinquent becomes more susceptible to reinforcement and subsequent influence by deviant peers. Attempts to reduce juvenile recidivism are most likely to be successful when the family is targeted as opposed to the individual juvenile. The potential for control of the delinquent s behavior is greatest within the family. The necessity of selecting a suitable living environment for high-risk juvenile parolees transitioning back into the community raises a difficult issue. If it is possible, return of the youth to his or her natural family is a preferable course of action. Increased parental supervision is a major mediator of peer influence (Dishion, French, and Patterson, 1995; Hansen, et al., 1987), and family involvement and parental support are among the most powerful predictors of reduced delinquency and drug use in minority youth (King, et al., 1992). However, a substantial percentage of chronically delinquent youth returning from secure confinement cannot be placed with their own families because of, for example, a long history of domestic conflict and violence, a high level of family fragmentation and dysfunction, or the absence of any identifiable family 10 3

91 IAP-Topic10 (Armstrong and Altschuler, 1982; Hartstone and Hansen, 1984; Bleich, 1987). Because family problems of various sorts plague many youth, out-of-home placement options (e.g., halfway houses, group homes, foster care, independent living) may be required, with attendant supportive services. The process of making such placements for high-risk parolees may require the gradual transitioning of these youth through a series of staged, alternative living arrangements that ultimately lead to permanent, independent living situations. As a part of determining which alternative placement is best suited for which youth, it may be necessary to test various living arrangements with close regular monitoring and reassessment. The decision to reunify youth with their parents requires flexibility and coordination to meet the multiple and changing needs of the involved parties. Promising approaches include interagency collaboration, known as individualized care or wraparound services that is committed to complete flexibility in arranging services for individual youth and their families (Burchard and Clarke, 1990). Given the likelihood that the majority of youth released from institutions into aftercare will have some form of ongoing contact with their families, intervention methods for the whole family are preferable to those involving only the juvenile. 1. Theoretical framework The IAP model places a great deal of importance on the juvenile offender s social environment and is designed to have a positive impact on several social systems (e.g., family, school, community). The IAP model combines strain, social control, and social learning theories to explain the logical development of antisocial behavior and focuses on improving the youth and family s coping strategies and maintaining and building resiliency factors. Through a comprehensive continuum of care, the IAP model can provide the necessary skills development, support, and individualized case planning to meet a juvenile s needs and aid in successful community reentry while supporting the family s self-sufficiency, skills in navigating various systems, and accessing of community resources. Several family therapy models are consistent with the IAP model, including Functional Family Therapy, Multisystemic Therapy, and Structural Family Therapy. Recent research has demonstrated that family therapy improves family communications, control imbalances, and relationships (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1998). In addition, Tobler and Stratton (1997) found that effective family approaches positively changed the family, school, or community environment over the long-term. The techniques from these evidencebased interactive strategies are consistent with the IAP model. The shared common principles indicative of effective continuity of care with juvenile offenders and their families include: Step-by-step instruction and interventions with the juvenile and the family. Commitment to decreasing risk factors and increasing ongoing family protective mechanisms. Tasks guided by specific instructions from the therapist/case manager. Cultural responsiveness in service delivery and resource development. 10 4

92 IAP-Topic10 Family skills development. Other common themes include systems collaboration, communication, and advocacy for the youth and family involved. 2. IAP intervention strategies The family intervention strategies discussed below are most appropriate when regular contact occurs between a delinquent youth and his or her family. These ideas can be adapted, however, for youth living with foster parents or emancipating to live independently, yet maintaining some level of ongoing contact with their families. The IAP case manager can consult with the foster family or other involved parties to solve problems that are beyond the family s normal resources while simultaneously consulting with the youth s biological family (if possible) to prepare for the gradual reintegration of the adolescent. If the youth is placed in a group home or halfway house, the case manager can use the strategies to consult with the group home parents or staff and improve their ability to handle the delinquent. If the youth is in an independent living situation, the case manager can focus efforts on teaching the family more effective and supportive ways of interaction. When family contact is clearly detrimental to the delinquent, the case manager can use some aspects of the training (communication skills, changing the way the family thinks of the youth s behavior) to teach the family how to positively disengage to minimize rejection and blaming. The following discussion provides an effective framework for intervening with families of juvenile offenders. This approach to providing supportive family services can be used by paraprofessionals or other ancillary health personnel to enhance protective factors with youth at risk for reoffending. This is accomplished by increasing the youth s bond to the family through increased support for prosocial behavior and increased control over deviant behavior. Common interventions used in the IAP model and supported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration s Family-Centered Approaches (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1998) include: Assessment. Identifies the individual s problem behaviors and resiliency (protective factors), family strengths, and general family goals for treatment. Assessment is carried out through detailed interviews with family members and by observation of interactions. Family members, relatives, friends, and other significant collaterals or community members who can assist in developing needed skills are included. Rapport and relationship building. Increases motivation for and ownership of the reentry process. Trust is developed so that specific strategies can be taught that increase feelings of hope, lessen family members defensiveness, and create an openness to change within the family. Working with family members to think differently about each other s motives and behavior is stressed so that all may become open to changing old habits. Selling the family on the need for change is instigated through specific questions and activities that include supportive involvement of the case manager. 10 5

93 IAP-Topic10 Education. Provides the family with specific and useful skills. Structured expectations enable increased responsibility for the youth and family as requirements are met and provide a way for youth to earn increased freedom. To teach communication skills, problem solving, discipline, and praise, the case manager may use a variety of methods, including didactic instruction, rehearsal, role-play, and ongoing feedback. Skills building. Provides the family with strategies for controlling their delinquent child s problems and helps them understand that their child s behavior lies within their control. Techniques for promoting skills transfer to new situations are rehearsed with the families to help them solve future problems. This is accomplished through several modalities, including sessions with multifamily groups and individual families. As families become successful in using these new skills in an increasing variety of situations, they learn how to control their family and their relationships are strengthened. Followup sessions are well-established methods for troubleshooting and preventing escalation of family disruption. Brokerage. Identifies community resources that can provide instruction in needed skills during the assessment phase. Once these are identified, the case manager can concentrate on motivating the family to see the value in community resources. Identifying family members, relatives, friends, or community members who might work with the family member on these instructional programs is recommended. The case manager or therapist can then act as a consultant to individuals carrying out this instruction to prompt, guide, and troubleshoot. Emphasis is placed on locating individuals who will have some ongoing relationship with the family as it weathers various developmental crises. Through a consistent relationship, such individuals are likely to be in positions to prompt and encourage the use of new skills, helping to integrate them into the family s style. 3. Community interventions Serious and chronic juvenile offenders often are from families with a number of characteristics that pose an extra challenge to successful, brief family interventions. Such families require more extensive interventions than are available in an intensive aftercare program; these interventions should be sought in the community. Some of the key factors posing challenges and possible associated interventions include: Parental social isolation. Social isolation produces depression and irritability that can be addressed by encouraging the parent to seek out relatives and friends for more frequent contact (e.g., outings, recreational companions, telephone chats). Intense parental stress. Chronic marital conflict, poverty, and burnout, among other stressrelated factors, decrease parents abilities to be supportive and attentive toward their children and may cause irritable, coercive interactions with the children or neglect of them. By first providing general information explaining the role of these stress factors on parenting and its relationship to the delinquent s deviant behavior, the case manager may be able increase the chances for the parents supportive involvement with the youth. The case manager can then 10 6

94 IAP-Topic10 provide referrals to community agencies for marital therapy, individual therapy, job training, and financial planning. Parental psychopathology. Serious psychiatric disorder or criminality requires referral to appropriate providers (e.g., psychiatrists for medication). Parental criminality, if repeated and visible to the children and if accompanied by procriminal attitudes, may indicate the need for out-of-home placement. Serious parental substance abuse. This is often a sign of the parent s inability to deal with stressful interpersonal relationships. Again, referral to appropriate community agencies, preferably to those programs with some objective evidence of success, can be made concurrently with the case manager s family intervention efforts. Chronic school failure. School problems increase the stress on the delinquent and the family and weakens the bonds of schools (and family) as a positive socializing force. Methods for addressing these problems within the family intervention include increased parent-school communication and increased parental monitoring. Educational services are discussed in greater detail below. Delinquent peer associations. Such friendships frequently occur after the bonds to family and school have been substantially weakened. Increased parental, neighborhood, and school monitoring, with systematic rewards for avoidance of antisocial peers and association with prosocial peers, is emphasized during the family intervention. B. Educational Services Schools are widely recognized as the most influential community institution shaping the lives of youth in U.S. society. In school, critical values become internalized, knowledge is acquired, behavioral patterns adopted, and a complex set of relationships between juveniles and the larger society are established and solidified. Yet it is quite clear that a rewarding educational experience escapes all too many youth. Numerous juvenile offenders, especially those in high-crime urban centers, simply do not attend school. By the time that many of these youth are in their mid-teens, they are marginally educated and rebellious beyond normal levels of youthful behavior. Many are so incorrigible that school authorities ignore them despite state law mandating each youth be educated. 1. School reintegration A particularly difficult task has been the effort by juvenile correctional officials and public schools to coordinate and accomplish the successful reintegration of juvenile parolees back into the public school system. Differing philosophies about the nature of adolescence, conflicting perceptions about how to deal best with disruptive youth, and bureaucratic inertia and distrust have contributed to making these two systems reluctant to enter into collaborative programming initiatives. One expert (Lawrence, 1998) has noted that in the search for promising collaborative techniques, schools and community corrections agencies would improve their ability to deal with delinquent students if they improved working relationships in the following areas: 10 7

95 IAP-Topic10 Informal personal meetings between school and probation/parole officials. Exchange of resources including meeting rooms, offices, or personnel. Joint planning for programs and activities for at-risk and delinquent students. Written agreements and policies regarding sharing of school and court records, student probation/parole status, and educational progress, in addition to supervision and disciplinary policies. These recommendations reflect the underlying dilemma that school officials and probation/parole officers often express sharply divided opinions on matters pertaining to judicial procedures, record sharing, and appropriate supervision strategies for delinquent students in schools (Lawrence, 1995). The search for strategies to facilitate the transition from institutional settings to community educational activities has led to the consideration of various approaches to providing services in both residential and nonresidential environments as part of the reintegrative process. Most innovation in these areas has focused on three conceptual and programmatic issues: Pedagogical concerns such as innovative teaching methods and specialized curriculum design. Intervention strategies to manage classroom behavior and create safer environments to maximize the opportunities for learning. Structural and managerial concerns such as the coordination and flow of information and services across organizational boundaries, in addition to public versus private sector sponsorship. 2. Specialized strategies and alternative educational resources A number of promising pedagogical strategies have been identified. A need exists to integrate various counseling and outside support activities (e.g., individual professionals, agencies, family and community residents) with classroom practices for the purposes of crisis intervention, dispute resolution, and longer-term objectives such as value clarification and personal insight. In addition, because youth on aftercare status have usually established a lengthy history of aggressive, unruly behavior in schools, measures must be taken to ensure appropriate levels of control and supervision over disruptive and aggressive/assaultive acts. Part of the solution is to facilitate the transfer of knowledge from the juvenile justice system so that public school staff and teachers can obtain the training and expertise necessary for working with potentially explosive classroom situations. 10 8

96 IAP-Topic10 Furthermore, an individualized approach to learning is often a vital educational ingredient. Most of these students are academically behind, have performed poorly when using a curriculum designed for an entire class, and are intimidated at the thought of competing scholastically in a group situation. Consequently, the course of study to be pursued by each of these students should be tailored to meet his or her specific academic needs. The odds are generally much lower that juveniles who have been deeply involved in serious delinquent activities can be successfully mainstreamed back into regular, public educational programs. Many educators take the position that public schools should not be expected to handle such youth, especially if they have histories of violent behavior. One option for educational placement in these instances is an alternative school. Alternative programs may operate either as part of the regular public school system or fall under the auspices of independent, outside agencies or for-profit corporations. It should be noted, however, that only a small percentage of these school settings are specifically designed to serve high-risk juvenile offenders. Another structural approach to providing education for this population is premised on the idea that cold turkey reentry back into the public schools is often a formula for disaster. Although some juvenile parolees may eventually perform well in standard classrooms, it is unlikely they will succeed in such settings immediately following their return to the community. This dilemma suggests the need for careful transitioning and the availability of alternative educational resources in specialized learning environments. One approach has been to establish a transitional educational center where recently released parolees undergo careful assessment and also participate in learning experiences in preparation for eventual return to regular classrooms (Armstrong, 1985; Armstrong and Altschuler, 1997). In some instances when return to public school is deemed impossible, these students may participate in alternative educational programs until they have completed all of their high school requirements or have earned their GEDs. A quite sophisticated transitional model entailing close collaboration between juvenile corrections and the public schools has been tested and adopted for use in the State of Washington (Webb, Maddox, and Edgar, 1985). This approach, the Juvenile Corrections Interagency Transition Model, utilized a total of 36 strategies to aid the transition process, focusing on 4 key areas: Awareness of other agency activities and missions. Transfer of records prior to entering or leaving an institution. Preplacement planning for transition before the youth leaves the institution. Maintaining placement in the public school and ongoing communication between the juvenile rehabilitation and public school staff about youth progress. 10 9

97 IAP-Topic10 3. In-school case management In-school case management focuses on a working model for conducting case management of high-risk delinquents within school settings (Fine and Carlson, 1992). In conjunction with the youth s reentry program, the approach utilizes existing school resources and suggests a method for also developing new resources within the school system. The model is consistent with the IAP framework in that it integrates social control, social learning, and strain theories. Usually, academic, behavioral, and peer-relationship problems are related, requiring a coordinated approach. Within this model, identifying problem behaviors is followed by identifying school resources to establish more effective interventions. In addition, a team approach is utilized in which the IAP case manager serves as an advocate for implementation of the case plan in the school. This plan needs to include such activities as contingency contracting, developing anger management skills, and acquiring social skills. Once school staff become experienced using these techniques, the school resources to deal with future problems will have been expanded and improved. Where appropriate, the case manager will arrange for linking with other community services. a. Identifying problem behaviors in the school setting This step should emphasize networking among school staff and the use of objective behavior checklists and interviews, such as the Teacher s Report Form or the Child Behavior Checklist. b. Identifying school system resources Identifying service provision resources avoids duplication of services by the case manager or other community agencies. It is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the school s existing resources (e.g., guidance counselor skills and expertise) and to build rapport with staff who can provide needed services for the client. Negative attitudes toward the delinquent need to be modified to provide a more constructive, creative approach. c. Developing a treatment plan for use in the school setting To build a team approach to treatment, it is necessary to solicit suggestions and support for the major aspects of the plan from school staff (and the delinquent s parents if possible). Consultation with school staff in the treatment plan implementation is the most time-consuming aspect of this model. Methods for effective advocacy can be offered to school staff by the IAP case manager. Providing support and recognition within the school and community for the school staff s active implementation of the treatment plan must be emphasized. In addition, facilitating regular, supportive communication between the school staff and the client s family can enhance the protective factors of increased bonding to family and school. 4. Linkage to other community services Establishing and maintaining communication with mental health agencies, the juvenile court, and protective services, as appropriate to the client s needs, constitutes much of the brokerage role for the IAP worker in these school-based activities. Linking services provided at school with those provided in the community facilitates opportunities for cross-program support and mutual understanding. School-based services offered by school staff will be enhanced by the knowledge that other supportive treatment services are being provided to deal with problems that concern 10 10

98 IAP-Topic10 the school. This process, begun with the reentry plan prior to institutional release to aftercare, continues through the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of services. The case manager s overarching role enables information sharing and coordinated services. This increases expectations of responsibility for the delinquent and may increase the youth s freedom (as appropriate interventions address risk factors, the level of supervision may decrease). C. Peer Services Negative peer influence has long been recognized as a key factor instrumental in generating delinquent behavior. The theory most often cited with reference to interpersonal and situational causes of delinquency is differential association (Sutherland, 1939; Sutherland and Cressey, 1978). A major assumption of this explanatory theory is the belief that human behavior, in this instance delinquent behavior, is flexible and not fixed. Consequently, behavioral inclinations toward misconduct change according to circumstance and situation. Further, delinquent acts are learned behavior and the learning of delinquency occurs primarily in small, informal group settings. A youth will commit an act of delinquency in response to peer pressure. Generally, criminologists who study the role of youth groups and youth culture in generating delinquency view the adolescent in contemporary society as intensely peer involved and peer guided (England, 1967; Scott and Vaz, 1967). Partially divorced from the adult world, adolescents collectively form their own world and their own culture and are guided in many of their daily activities by the standards of this youth culture. Conformity to peer values is a central theme in youth culture because it is through conformity that status and social success among peers are achieved. If the values of one s peer group are largely directed toward socially deviant and delinquent behaviors, the individual youth will be strongly encouraged to participate in such activities and assume attitudes consistent with this behavior. Given the role of negative peer influences in producing delinquent behavior, it may be wise when applying the IAP model to focus considerable attention on gang-involved juvenile offenders who have reached the point of institutional confinement. Training schools have historically been regarded as both a facilitator or direct contributor to gang problems in addition to a response to the problem. Generally, incapacitation (while serving as a simple short-term solution) has led to increased gang cohesion and membership recruitment in the institution and may indirectly worsen the problem on the streets. An assessment effort conducted by the OJJDP-funded National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Project (Spergel, 1989) indicates that substantial numbers of gang-affiliated youth are engaged in serious and violent criminal activities and thus are very likely to be processed deep within the juvenile justice system at some time in their delinquent careers. This suggests that in testing the IAP model, special emphasis be placed on this subpopulation. Those strategies recommended by the National Gang Suppression and Intervention Project (Spergel, 1989) to transition youth gang members back into the community and to normalize their behavior are consistent with the procedures and goals identified in the IAP model

99 IAP-Topic10 III. Ancillary Services It is important to respond to those problems and needs that while not truly predictive of recidivism do pose major obstacles to successful community reentry. Ancillary problems and needs are often present in the cases of youth with multiple problems who have compiled juvenile court/correctional careers characterized by histories of chronic and severe delinquent behavior. In these instances, ancillary services constitute one part of the larger required battery of intervention techniques. While there is widespread consensus in the juvenile correctional field that learning disabilities and emotional disturbance are not causally linked to delinquency, this does not constitute grounds for ignoring these conditions when they are identified as plaguing individual youth

100 IAP-Topic11 Topic 11: Overarching Case Management Component #4: Graduated Responses Key Points Incentives and positive reinforcement in a structured and systematic manner are powerful, positive influences on juveniles behavior and conduct while on parole and aftercare supervision. Consequences for infractions and violations, when meted out judiciously, gradually, and in brief duration, also can be extremely influential. Responses to both negative and positive behavior must be swift, certain, and measured to be effective. Immediate, short-term residential backup that is carefully structured and monitored is necessary to provide stabilization and crisis intervention. Topic Goals To describe the key principles of effective incentive programming and the use of formal and structured incentive-based interventions. To outline the key principles of effective sanctioning programming and the judicious and limited use of punishment. To emphasize the importance of swift, consistent, and graduated consequences. To discuss alternatives to revocation and short-term residential backup. 11 1

101 IAP-Topic11 I. Introduction The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model includes both meaningful incentives and graduated sanctions in recognition of the fact that juvenile aftercare has traditionally been burdened with unrealistic, inappropriate, and unenforceable conditions. Aftercare has also been devoid of a formally structured system of positive reinforcement, rewards, and inducements. As a result, available restrictions and limitations are generally imposed at the initiation of aftercare, leaving little room for proportionately more stringent conditions short of revocation. In addition, recognition of achievement is scarce. II. Reinforcing Prosocial Behavior Respected treatment programs widely acknowledge the importance of tangible and symbolic rewards, in addition to other forms of positive recognition, in demonstrating to youth the benefits and satisfaction that can be derived from socially acceptable accomplishments. Unfortunately, juvenile aftercare is largely void of such practices. While caseworkers who understand the value of incentives often devise their own ways to promote and reward positive behaviors, juvenile justice systems provide aftercare caseworkers with little formal training, and it is even less likely that they make policies and procedures available to guide caseworkers. Incentives of any sort are not customarily part of the parole process, which tends to consist of a laundry list of prohibitions, restrictions, and orders. When parole does incorporate some form of supposed motivator, it is often in the form of reduced time on parole. To adolescents, however, who live for the moment and can barely wait more than a minute for anything, reduced time on parole is likely to have little meaning. If positive reinforcement is to be effectively used, it must consist of immediate and meaningful incentives. Various treatment programs have employed a number of different approaches to routinely monitor progress, reinforce prosocial behavior, and guide advancement. These range from relatively simple mechanisms involving frequent case reviews that incorporate peers, family, and other program staff to elaborately structured token economies in which privileges or rewards are tied to the attainment of specific objectives, goals, or programmatic stages. Two basic approaches for applying incentives start from different ends of the continuum. One approach is to start participants with a maximum number of privileges or points (to be applied to the purchase of rewards or privileges) and then to subtract points or privileges based on the youth s negative behavior. For example, a youth starts with 100 points and is judged daily to determine if his or her behavior is good enough to keep the points. If any undesired behavior occurs, points are lost. This type of program is known as a response-cost behavior management strategy. Responsecost strategies are classified as punishment or aversion approaches because the focus is on an action occurring as the result of an undesired behavior (e.g., getting a burn from touching a hot stove). A second approach emphasizes earning rewards by exhibiting positive and prosocial behaviors. For example, a youth earns points for a variety of tasks, behaviors, attitudes, and daily routines (e.g., 11 2

102 IAP-Topic11 attending school or work, following directives, participating in treatment programs, completing daily chores). A sample incentive program outline is shown in Table 5 (see page 8). This approach is designed to lead to the acquisition and strengthening of positive adaptive behaviors versus the suppression of behaviors through the response-cost approach. This approach also follows the principle of catching youth being good (i.e., looking for positive behavior) and recognizing that good behavior. One specific incentive might include awarding privileges, certificates, prizes, or bonuses that have some significance to young people (e.g., tickets to a concert or sports event, discounts or subsidies for the purchase of records, clothes, or jewelry). Another incentive could be to allow youth greater responsibility and freedom in the community (e.g., selecting recreational outings and events for new IAP participants, participating in an IAP disciplinary council, orienting new IAP youth). The selective use of motivators and recognition is rarely used in aftercare. Such practices may well help to break the cycle of failure and disappointment that many of these youth have often associated with conventional and prosocial pursuits. When status and approval are only derived from deviancy and antisocial behavior in a negative peer group context, it is no wonder lawabiding activity is shunned. III. Key Principles of Effective Incentive Programming Incentives and consequences should carry over from the institutional placement to community aftercare services. This provides familiarity and eases the transition from institution to community, promoting consistency in expectations and, hopefully, behavior. The essential elements and characteristics of effective incentive programming are outlined below. A. Expectations It is important to establish clear and well-defined expectations that are tied to daily behavior and are achievable. Including parents/families in the development of incentive programs can help determine realistic expectations and can assist in monitoring youth s behaviors and delivering incentives. The family as a whole can receive incentives for a youth s and the family s behavioral change. It needs to be clear which behaviors are to be reinforced. Caseworkers (and families) must strive to consistently monitor the youth s performance and provide frequent verbal feedback on his or her behavior and progress. This helps to ensure that all parties know how the youth is faring. B. Types of Incentives Casewokers should incorporate and use a variety of incentive strategies ranging from rewards for behaviors measured on a daily/weekly basis to rewards for achievement of youth competencies/goals within a specific timeframe. While both material and social incentives are important, social incentives (e.g., praise, special activities, certificates/awards) must be utilized as much as possible. Status and recognition, especially positive peer recognition, are very effective motivators. When providing material incentives, caseworkers are advised to have an adequate supply of various incentives to allow for choice. Incentives that promote a connection with youth s 11 3

103 IAP-Topic11 families are effective and appear to be particularly so with girls since much of the gender responsive treatment is relationship based. These may include rewards that can be shared with family members and material objects that can be purchased for family members. C. Implementation Essential to incentive programming is the creation of an environment in which greater emphasis is placed on incentives than on sanctions. This can be accomplished by establishing point systems or an equivalent rating system to encourage positive behaviors and provide objective standards for earning and receiving incentives. Incentives should be delivered frequently and with enough intensity to motivate the youth s behavior. The key is to minimize delays: young people need to be able to see a close temporal association between performance and receipt of incentives and rewards. Finally, other agents of change (e.g., teachers, work supervisors, treatment providers, parents) should be included in the process of reporting and rewarding positive/prosocial behaviors. IV. Judicious Use of Aftercare Conditions and Limitations Because IAP is designed to increase the number and duration and to change the nature of contacts that aftercare workers have with participating youth and collaterals (e.g., family, peers, school, employers, other involved service providers), it is inevitable that more infractions, technical violations, and instances of noncompliance will surface. The problem is that juvenile aftercare has tended to impose quickly on parolees the most stringent conditions and restrictions at its disposal, leaving little opportunity for caseworkers to respond to misconduct in any kind of gradual or proportional fashion. Without guidelines on a hierarchy of consequences at their disposal, aftercare caseworkers have little recourse other than to do nothing, which undermines their authority and the aftercare program, or to impose possibly disproportionate sanctions. In the latter case, a youth may be reincarcerated for a technical violation or a relatively minor offense. Because incarcerating technical violators clearly contributes to the institutional overcrowding problem, some observers regard intensive supervision as much a cause of institutional crowding as a potential solution. The rationale underlying a graduated sanctioning system is that serious consequences short of revocation can be imposed when needed and that not all the available sanctions will be squandered at the initiation of IAP. In addition, if aftercare youth are not initially placed at the most restrictive end of the IAP continuum, certain privileges can be withdrawn in the event of noncompliance. Finally, reliance upon carefully chosen parole conditions that bear some relation to what the offender specifically needs and that can be enforced is more likely to be taken seriously than a laundry list of conditions. Of course, the placement of youth on a specified level of restrictiveness should also be driven by his or her level of risk to reoffend. V. Swift, Certain, Consistent, and Graduated Consequences While sanctions and consequences form an important part of the IAP model, they must be formulated and used in a way that maximizes their potential impact. This means that responses to 11 4

104 IAP-Topic11 undesired behavior should be swift, certain, and proportional to the violation. The following general concepts (Taxman, Soule, and Gelb, 1999) should guide the development and implementation of the graduated sanctioning plan: Certainty. The perceived certainty of a response to negative behavior deters future deviance. Lax and/or sporadic responses to violations will be exploited. Celerity. Swift responses to violations reduce future violations. Delayed responses, on the other hand, often are perceived as unfair and thus reduce their effectiveness. Consistency. Similar sanctions must be applied for similar violations. Parsimony. Be thrifty. A sanction/punishment should not be more intrusive or restrictive than necessary. Proportionality. The level of sanction/punishment should be commensurate with the severity of the violation. Progressiveness. As violations increase, so must the level and severity of the response/punishment. Neutrality. Sanctions/punishments are more effective when youth view them as impartial, logical, and consistent with the rules established and agreed upon previously. To provide such sanctions, one must take several steps. Youth need to know at the onset that violations will prompt the imposition of increasingly more stringent (graduated) restrictions and conditions. This is accomplished through behavior contracts that are based on each youth s specific needs and circumstances, in addition to the standard behavioral expectations for all youth. Behavior contracts must clearly define problem behaviors and identify the consequences that will be imposed if these behaviors occur. Actual violations must be well-documented and must be followed up with the sanctions that were imposed. Aftercare programs should not immediately impose every restrictive condition available on a new IAP youth. Initially, caseworkers can rely on the imposition of a number of enforceable conditions to which the offender will be held strictly accountable. The entry point in the IAP program can be structured at a mid-range of restrictiveness and intrusiveness. Approached in this way, IAP affords the opportunity to have available a graduated set of sanctions that can be used as a progressive response to technical violations and misconduct. The Ohio Department of Youth Services, Risk-Based Aftercare Program, for example, formulated a sanctioning schedule that links seriousness of infraction or violation to a set of specified graduated sanctions. The less serious violations include violating curfew, associating with negative peers, and failing to attend school; such infractions do not constitute grounds for revocation. Somewhat more serious violations include using illicit substances, failing to attend a court-ordered program, and committing a single misdemeanor against property. Only multiple infractions and/or serious violations may be considered grounds for revocation. In such instances, a regional 11 5

105 IAP-Topic11 administrative review hearing, central office case review, and approval from the Chief of the Division of Aftercare and Community Services are required. The most serious violations include a new adjudication for multiple misdemeanors or a felony. Sanctions extend from a verbal reprimand, stricter curfews, restriction of privileges for the youth, court-ordered house arrest, several days of detention, community service, and recommitment. The Colorado Division of Youth Corrections employs a similar (formal) violations and sanctions matrix (see Table 6, page 9). Violations are categorized according to three different levels. Category 1 violations are relatively minor supervision or program violations (e.g., curfew violations, truancy, school suspension, violating family rules, not participating in treatment). Category 2 violations include chronic Category 1 violations, as well as more serious problems (e.g., substance abuse, expulsion from school, new arrest for misdemeanor or felony). Category 3 violations include the most serious infractions (e.g., conviction of multiple misdemeanors or a felony, carrying a gun or other dangerous weapon, participation in a gang). A sanctioning schedule matches the different levels of violations with appropriate sanctions. Category 1 violation sanctions include reprimands, tightened curfews, short-term home detention and community service. Category 2 sanctions build on the sanctions available for minor violations by adding surveillance levels that may include weekend residential time outs, and a summons for parole violation hearing. The most serious Category 3 sanctions include additional surveillance time and techniques, community residential placement, revocation, and recommendations for direct file in adult court. Table 6 provides the complete list of violations and sanctions (see page 9). The Colorado Division of Youth Corrections developed a similar matrix specific to alcohol and drug violations. Table 7 presents graduated sanctions and treatment interventions that may be used in response to increasing high urinalysis results (see page 10). VI. Limited Duration of Consequences It is important to remember that the potential power of a sanction can become diluted the longer its duration. In fact, lengthy application of a sanction may exacerbate problem behaviors. Thus, unless applied prudently and fairly, sanctions may be more effective at instilling resentment and alienation than deterring misconduct. It may, therefore, be useful to employ particular sanctions as an immediate response to misconduct and to curtail their use as early as is warranted based on the severity of the violation. Many IAP youth are likely to be well-conditioned to punishment, and overused sanctions may have little, if any, deterrent effect. A strong case can be made for using electronic monitoring and drug or alcohol testing (two popular sanctions) only on a selective, short-term basis. If long-term use undermines the deterrent effect, electronic monitoring, for example, might be best used as an immediate consequence for a violation related to defying house arrest, as a parole revocation alternative, or for providing greater structure and control for a limited period of time at the beginning of IAP. In short, electronic monitoring and drug and alcohol testing are likely to be more effective as immediate consequences for IAP violations or to establish an initial IAP tone than as a sole or primary IAP condition. 11 6

106 IAP-Topic11 VII. Alternatives to Revocation In addition to a graduated system of sanctions, jurisdictions considering initiating IAP should carefully review their current juvenile revocation process for possible revisions. Revisions might take the form of restricting reincarceration only to IAP youth with new convictions and creating a special short-term detention unit or backup residential facility specifically for IAP technical violators. Such a unit could serve as a temporary placement for serious IAP technical violators who would be stabilized, assessed, counseled, and, if necessary, referred to an appropriate program, all in preparation for return to the community. The Reflections Unit, run by a private, nonprofit organization for the Colorado Division of Youth Services, was designed to serve just this purpose as a short-term (60 days maximum), secure facility. It holds youth accountable for poor community adjustment and stabilizes their behavior so they can be returned to the community. In this role, the unit operates as an alternative to revocation. The highly structured program environment provides individualized treatment and moves youth through increasing degrees of responsibility, leading to a return to the community. Formal instruction modules are employed with their application depending on the needs and treatment goals of the individual youth. Program termination depends on the assigned length of stay and achievement of treatment plan goals. 11 7

107 IAP-Topic11 Table 5: Sample Incentive Program Outline Behavior Points Possible School Attendance X Participation X Attitude/Behavior Helping others X Concern for others X Following directives X Listening without interrupting X Daily Routine Chores a.m. X Teamwork a.m. X Other a.m. routine X Chores p.m. X Teamwork p.m. X Other p.m. routine X Treatment Attendance (Check all that apply) X Drug/Alcohol X X Individual counseling X Art therapy Anger management X Recreation X Music Cognitive behavior therapy group Other (specify): Treatment Participation (Check all that apply) X Drug/Alcohol X X Individual counseling X Art therapy Anger management X Recreation X Music Cognitive behavior therapy group Other (specify): Work Attendance X Participation X Bonus Specify: Total Points (add each column): Possible Points (add the maximum possible for each behavior rated): Percent: Total points/poss. Points x100 = 64/90 = 71% Level 1 = 0 TO 79% X Level 2 = 80 TO 100% 11 8

108 IAP-Topic11 Table 6: Colorado Division of Youth Corrections, Parole Violations and Sanctions Matrix Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Violations Curfew hours. AWOL < 24 hours. Truancy. Failure to check in. Fired from job. Association with gang members/negative peers. Failure to make restitution payments. Abuse of alcohol or drugs. Not participating in a full-time program. Family rules violation. Not engaging in required treatment. Municipal ticket or FTA. Suspended from school.. Kicked out of home. Failure to report police contact. Sanctions Reprimand. Tighten curfews. Loss of privileges. Increased surveillance. Short-term home detention. Community service hours. Parent-provided sanctions. Youth pays for treatment when not engaging. Chronic repetition of category 1 violations. AWOL > 24 hours. Continued abuse of alcohol/drugs. Fired from job for cause. Abusive behavior or assault in program. Carried weapon. New arrest for misdemeanor or felony. Property damage. Moved from present address without permission. Expelled from school. Continued gang association. Victimizing family. Driving without license/insurance/permission. Category 1 sanction and/or Extended home detention. Increased urinalysis. Administrative review hearing. Weekend time out (residential). Increased supervision level. Supervised work assignment. Parent-supported sanctions. Summons for parole violation hearing. Conviction on multiple misdemeanors. Conviction on felony. Beyond control of program staff. Active participation in gang activities. Refusing to attend or participate in treatment or submit to drug tests. Carrying a gun or dangerous weapon. AWOL > 48 hours. Category 1,2, sanctions and/or Increased supervision level. Community residential placement. Secure placement. Violation report to parole board. Recommended direct file in adult court. Administrative review. 11 9

109 IAP-Topic11 Table 7: Colorado Division of Youth Corrections Drug and Alcohol Services, Urinalysis Results: Graduated Sanctions and Treatment Interventions Graduated Sanctions Treatment Interventions Low (one positive urinalysis) Moderate (two positive urinalyses) High (three positive urinalyses) Verbal reprimand. Formal documentation/incident report. Loss of privileges. Restriction on passes. Level probation. Self-report to family members. Loss of next pass privilege. Level demotion. Self-report to client manager. Community service. Additional supervision while on pass. Placed on higher security status. Community service. Suspension of pass privilege for a period of time. Demotion to lowest level. Detox intervention. Self-report to committing judge (e.g., letter to judge). Self-report to parole board or community review board. Contracts. Individual session to process relapse/develop relapse plan. Client-manager contact. Additional treatment groups. Repeat treatment groups. Reassessment with SUS 1a, ASAP, and/or ASAQ (motivation for change). One on one, peer mentor-sponsor. Family involvement. Outpatient drug/alcohol treatment. Additional relapse assignments. Family treatment. Support group attendance (documented). Pass a peer review board. AA, NA, CA, sponsor. Intensive drug/alcohol treatment. Medical consent for antibuse, for 18 year olds and older Hold a staffing. Financial responsibility for drug/alcohol treatment. Facilitate drug/alcohol group. Severe (four or more positive urinalyses) No pass privilege. Filing of charges. Community review board or parole date removed. Electronic monitoring. Regression. * Developed by the DYC Statewide Drug and Alcohol Coordinating Council. Intensive residential drug/alcohol treatment. Mental health evaluation/medical evaluation. Therapeutic community

110 IAP-Topic12 Topic 12: Overarching Case Management Component #5: Service Brokerage with Community Resources and Linkage with Social Networks Key Points The case manager must consider the youth, his or her social network, and the community in the service brokerage process. Effective service brokerage is based on confidence and accountability in relationships. Senior management has a responsibility to establish system linkages that increase service availability. The case manager should use a variety of linkages and available community-based services. Topic Goals To demonstrate how a youth s social network may be utilized simultaneously as a target of intervention and a partner in service provision. To explore the concept of service brokerage, particularly with respect to its use in a reciprocal manner. To discuss the concept of advocacy and its importance in helping to create or access critical resources and services. To present information on working with faith-based organizations. To describe how the monitoring function is important in client participation and in assessing service delivery, establishing general accountability, and maintaining quality control in the IAP context. 12 1

111 IAP-Topic12 I. Introduction It is unrealistic to expect that comprehensive and intensive service provision coupled with close supervision and monitoring can be provided without the involvement of community resources (e.g., schools, employers, training programs, specialized service providers) and linkage to social networks (e.g., family, peers, significant others). In terms of programming and supervision, it is impractical to expect that the primary aftercare caseworker could spend all the time required with each youth and be capable of providing the full range of services needed. While IAP caseworkers may be directly involved in counseling, role modeling, and so forth, the use of referral and brokerage in the IAP model explicitly acknowledges the need to obtain the expertise of others who have sufficient time, background, and capability to provide required services. In many jurisdictions, the primary role of case manager is supplemented by others who provide direct services and/or surveillance activities. Some jurisdictions use a team approach in which two or more case managers share a caseload. Others develop service teams composed of a combination of paid and unpaid individuals with common responsibilities to reinforce progress and respond to problems. Working with both the offender and community resources highlights the critical role that the local community and social networks play in the lives of youth released from secure correctional facilities. Support from family, peers, teachers, employers, and other community members may well be key to the youth s successful readjustment to the community and to ensuring that the gains achieved both in the institution and in aftercare persist. Thus, once intensive aftercare has ceased, it seems apparent that experiences in the family, peer group, school, and/or job are likely to influence outcomes. II. Nature and Role of the Youth s Social Network and its Implications for the Master Service Plan Everyone involved with the youth is potentially in a position to encourage and reinforce responsible behavior and to provide guidance and support. As noted earlier, however, the problem is that prior research on risk factors suggests that it is precisely those youth with family, peer group, and school problems who are at highest risk for reoffending. It therefore seems quite clear that programming must focus directly on improving the family situation, increasing association with prosocial peers, involving peer group-based intervention, and reversing the cycle of failure associated with school. Staff can encourage and establish constructive linkages in three important ways, each of which can be viewed as an objective that defines generally the nature of the linkage being sought. First, social networks can be provided with various kinds of concrete services, assistance, and support. In this instance, potential sources of support can be viewed as the recipients of service. Applied to families, for example, this might involve anything from formal family counseling or parent education training to staff assisting families with obtaining public aid or locating childcare facilities. If the paroled youth is to return home, the aftercare case manager must see to it that someone works with the family, prepares them to deal with the youth, and identifies for them the nature of the youth s situation as it relates to family strength and problems. Multi-Systemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy are two wellresearched programs that can fit well in the IAP service brokerage approach (Henggeler and Borduin, 1992). Even if independent living is utilized, it is unlikely that family relationships will cease. There is a role that family can play, and this role needs to be established and supported by available services. 12 2

112 IAP-Topic12 A second kind of linkage is using social networks in service provision. For youth returning home, guidance, support, and social control is inextricably connected to the home and community situation. The family, to name one part of the social network, must therefore be enlisted in the formulation and application of reinforcement and accountability. This is all the more critical for the family with problems, which likely needs support and counseling on its role when the youth is released from confinement. In fact, such training and support establishes an overlap with the first type of linkage. Families initially receive the services of a worker who earns their trust and engages them during the youth s confinement. Subsequently, families become part of the aftercare strategy, taking on more of a supervisory, supportive, and facilitating role for the youth. The groundwork for this process is laid during confinement with the formulation of a strategy for the way in which family ties will be managed and contact will be maintained. This constitutes the third kind of linkage involving social networks: providing the youth with exposure to outside influences and experiences first in a carefully controlled way and later in a less overtly supervised manner. The formal stepdown process of institutional transition is followed by decreasing levels of formal supervision in the community. During this decompression process, the case manager gradually invests more support in the family, school, or work situation as the primary agents of successful community reintegration. Although case managers can provide some measure of guardianship and support, the professional relationship with offenders is necessarily time limited and may take on a different connotation because offenders know that treatment providers are paid to spend time with them. Moreover, even the best therapist/client relationships seldom allow an opportunity for the offender to move into roles that allow for the truly transformative experience of giving rather than simply receiving social support (Cullen, 1994:544). As illustrated in the Annie E. Casey Foundation initiative on natural helpers, community volunteers and neighborhood paraprofessionals in addition to noncriminal justice professionals such as teachers, coaches, and clergy play a role that criminal justice officials and therapists are seldom able to fill. In summary, these three kinds of linkages work hand in hand, tapping into a youth s social network as both a potential target of intervention and partner in service provision. III. Community Resources and Organizations Service brokerage with community resources is an equally important aspect of aftercare and can be conceived as meeting the same objectives as does developing linkages with a youth s social network. Schools provide a case in point. It is frequently unrealistic to expect that schools will welcome high-risk parolees openly. Even if public schools enroll such youth because of legal requirements, this does not mean that they are willing or even able to work proactively and supportively with the youngster, to watch properly for early warning signals (as a form of relapse prevention), and to employ teaching methods that are most likely to engage and help the child. In fact, members of the school s administration may be committed to removing delinquent students from their school. The first job of the case manager/service broker is to identify school personnel who can share the commitment to successfully transition returning students. Often this will be a teacher or counselor with support from other individuals at an administrative level. The school and aftercare staff clearly need to develop an all-encompassing strategy, which entails having all necessary information about the youth, monitoring attendance and progress, balancing incentives and consequences, knowing conflict management techniques, and so forth. Aftercare and school staff need to clarify and specify their roles and 12 3

113 IAP-Topic12 responsibilities. For example, who will collect attendance and school performance information and how and when will this be communicated between school and aftercare staff? How are absences handled? Can aftercare staff play a role in behavioral management or conflict resolution at the school and how should this be accomplished? What is possible by way of backup if swift assistance is needed? Some jurisdictions have even placed resource staff within schools where significant numbers of incarcerated youth return. Most cities and service areas have a variety of community-based organizations that serve high-risk youth. Some of these organizations are required by government agencies to serve delinquent youth, and some have a difficult time engaging such youth in their programs. These are ideal opportunities for correctional agencies to develop service partnerships in which the corrections agency provides clients and reinforces their participation in community programs. In many cases, a small amount of correctional funding can be leveraged up to high levels of service provision by matching grants or other funding. In short, in terms of obtaining a wide array of service options for IAP youth, of the need to work closely with providers and the youth, and of establishing coordination and continuity from disposition and institutionalization to aftercare and subsequent followup, brokerage and linkage are critical to the design and implementation of the model. It is important to note that there are a number of different ways that services can be brokered. The specifics will depend on a variety of factors such as the availability, willingness, and ability of private or public providers to play a role; the volume of IAP cases; civil service rules; and collective bargaining requirements. Regardless of how brokerage and linkage are approached, the keys are first to involve a variety of community support systems in service delivery and to see that for each youth there are staff who are actively working on reinforcing, or if necessary, developing a supportive social network. Second, it is essential to ensure coordination and continuity in relation to all work being done on a given case and to monitor the extent and quality of the service provision. Caseworkers must detect as quickly as possible whether policies and procedures are not being followed or are not working so that changes can be made. From a slightly different perspective, community brokerage and linkage for the purpose of responding to victim issues are essential for keeping youth involved in activities reflecting a tangible sense of responsibility and accountability to the community. Restitution or other forms of victim reparation, for example, should be directed at the harm suffered by specific victims whenever possible. Thus, community service when not linked directly to harm caused by an offender (e.g., fixing a window broken by the offender) should be targeted toward the community or community group that suffered the loss or should address genuine needs in that community rather than routine assignments such as picking up paper along highways. Once obligations for accountability to victims and community have been met, reparative activities such as meaningful community service can provide the youth with a sense of accomplishment in that he or she completed an obligation and possibly felt connected to the community. All parties can benefit when communities build on this foundation by providing opportunities for offenders to practice and demonstrate competencies in roles that facilitate reintegration. IV. Employment and Job-Related Training Employment situations are another area in which key individuals can help reinforce youth s participation. Often, entry-level employment supervisors are happy that attendance will be externally monitored and reinforced. Many employers are willing to maintain regular contact with case managers in hopes of 12 4

114 IAP-Topic12 keeping their new employees on track. Case managers can establish positive relationships with employers who can assist the transitional process. Since 1999, the U.S. Department of Labor has supported a multiphase Youth Offender Demonstration Program designed to expand employability services and increase employment of young offenders ages and youth at risk of gang or court involvement (Miller and MacGillivray, 2002). Currently in its third round of demonstration funding, the sites are working to collaborate the efforts of workforce development, justice, education, and other agencies within state and local one-stop delivery systems and to assist in meeting the reentry needs of involved youth. It is well understood that formally linking the workforce development and juvenile justice systems is one necessary step in making available to juvenile offenders both the resources and capabilities attached to the world of work. The research evidence regarding the impact of employment and vocational programs on recidivism is quite mixed (see, e.g., Lipsey, 1992, 2003; Lipsey and Wilson, 1998; Redondo, Sanchez-Meca, and Garrido, 1999). Lipsey has evidence suggesting that the reason for the mixed results may be, at least in part, because employment programs that include actual placement in work are frequently combined with employment programs that include job training but no actual work experience. It is also recognized that a variety of other factors are probably critical to increase the likelihood of success in the labor market, including the involvement of employers early on in the lives of offenders, placement in a paid position as soon as possible, and recognition of age-specific, developmentally appropriate strategies (Sherman, et al., 1997; Walker, 1997; Task Force on Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth, 2000). One avenue through which juvenile offenders could be connected more directly to the workforce development system is the Workforce Investment Act s One-Stop delivery system. The Workforce Investment Act, which was enacted in August 1998 and which succeeded the Job Training Partnership Act, called for the establishment of one-stop centers that were to serve as a single point of entry for young people seeking employment. Some jurisdictions have even established one-stop centers focused exclusively on youth, as distinct from adults. But not all one-stops have been youth friendly or accepting; even fewer can be expected to warmly welcome explicitly labeled offenders. Incorporating youthful offenders into the workforce development system is likely to take an explicit and concerted effort, which is the clear intent of the Youth Offender Demonstration Program. The current Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative being administered by the U.S. Department of Justice also recognizes the need for the justice and workforce development systems to establish formal collaborations and joint efforts at the local level. V. Advocacy for Resources, Services, and Youth Advocating for the creation of services, programming, and opportunities that presently do not exist is clearly an important facet of brokerage and linkage. All the brokerage and linkage activity that can be mounted will be for naught if the programs, schools, jobs, and so forth that are needed either do not exist or are in short supply. There is little doubt that advocacy, whether it focuses on meeting the special needs of individual youth, families, and neighborhoods or on broader questions involving types of programs and services is clearly an important part of any broad based intensive aftercare intervention strategy. 12 5

115 IAP-Topic12 There are a variety of effective strategies for local service development. At the administrative level, memoranda of understanding are often the best vehicle to establish a set of enforceable expectations. Examples of such agreements would be between state corrections agencies and vocational rehabilitation programs or between local corrections programs and county employment offices. In both of these situations, two agencies have overlapping missions that can be more successfully addressed by partnership approaches. At the level of individual case managers, there is often an exchange of information and expertise that can be helpful to both organizations. Specifically, when a correctional case manager or parole agent teams up with school personnel, there are opportunities to exchange information about gangs and patterns of drug use and delinquent behavior and to share effective strategies in preventing and intervening in problem behaviors. VI. Working with Faith-Based Organizations A. What Faith-Based Organizations Can Bring to The IAP Model One important area of service brokerage at the grassroots level is linkage with faith-based organizations. Although many social service agencies have fled from the nation s most distressed communities, there are more than 350,000 faith congregations concentrated in urban residential communities where youthful offenders return following secure confinement (Weiner, et al., 2002). In many neighborhoods, the faith institutions are a central organizing force and may serve as the agency for positive youth development and connection with the larger community. As such, faith-based institutions have tremendous potential for positively affecting a youth s reentry and long-term reintegration. It is critical for faith-based partners to understand that targeted high-risk youth who have committed serious offenses and are at substantial risk of reoffending will require intensive intervention (supervision and service provision). This realization should guide providers in estimating realistic enrollment numbers, youth-to-staff ratios, and types of effective services. According to the National Mentoring Center (2003), characteristics of faith-based organizations successfully involved in youth-serving programs include: A volunteer-rich environment. The youth program connects directly with congregation members who are motivated to give of themselves personally and financially. A committed, diverse core group often is instrumental in starting and developing a new program. A setting and support system for program practice. Programs are typically housed in a church, synagogue, mosque, or in a related faith institution such as a community outreach or social service center. Administrative support offered by the institution contributes to the capacity of the program to serve youth. Strong support from the institution s leadership (e.g., board, pastor, program director, other leaders, congregation) can buffer problems created by the usual high turnover of youth serving program staff and limited financial resources. A commitment to community service and civic engagement. In addition to personal spiritual growth, many faith-based institutions are committed to community transformation through community and social services. Often these activities are nonsectarian and community service is a significant part of youth programming. The faith-based institution serves as a conduit to reach out to the larger community, leveraging support, resources, and involvement. 12 6

116 IAP-Topic12 A framework for values and lifeskills. Although some programs incorporate religious tenets and teachings in their programs, others are largely nonsectarian yet offer a framework for teaching and modeling values and lifeskills for youth. B. What Is Known About Partnering with Faith-Based Organizations In 1997, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV) began a multisite demonstration project to test the effectiveness of collaboration between faith-based institutions and juvenile justice and law enforcement organizations. Assessment of the demonstration sites (Ericson, 2001; Branch, 2002; Hartmann, 2003; National Mentoring Center, 2003) indicates that successful models engage in building relationships with juveniles, placing them into available programs and services, and referring them to other appropriate services. The assessment reports also highlight a variety of lessons learned about faith-based institutions providing programming for high-risk youth: They are open to exploring and have formed successful partnerships with justice and other agencies. Although any one organization may not be able to meet all the needs of high-risk youth, it can create a network of supports through the effective use of referral agencies and collaborative partners. By seeking out partners who have experience and a proven track record in a particular service area, the strength of the overall collaboration is improved. Their weaknesses involve overall system growth issues such as inadequate personnel policies, hiring practices, fiscal management, and fund-raising capacity; a general lack of program knowledge; and uncertainty as to how to communicate with the secular world. Collaborative partners, especially state and local agencies, may need to assist faith-based organizations and other community service programs to build capacity in these areas. Similar to other service providing organizations, focusing on mission is required to keep faith-based programs for high-risk youth on track. It is easy to lose focus and respond to community needs by expanding programs without first planning for expansion. Key to keeping programs focused is strategic planning that clearly outlines the nature of partnership/collaboration and programmatic components, establishes goals and objectives with both short- and long-term benchmarks, sets measurable outcomes, and states persons responsible. These can also be translated into an operational workplan to guide and monitor progress. Workplans that are reviewed and updated regularly by leadership and staff ensure that the program is on target to meet specified goals. They need to work on sustainability by identifying key stakeholders and supporters who can champion the cause with local funding sources. A long-term sustainability plan includes individuals, corporations, foundations, congregations, estates, and government agencies. They tend to avoid proselytizing but rather create programs that are rich in faith content and demonstrate their beliefs through support of the juveniles, programs and the community they serve. Their credibility with their local community and other community sectors is high. 12 7

117 IAP-Topic12 P/PV (Branch, 2002; Hartmann, 2003) has stated that the faith institution, is seen as an asset by the juvenile justice community because of its presence in high-crime communities and because of the respect held for such institutions by community residents. However, while small to medium-sized faith-based organizations have the capacity to form effective partnerships with the justice community and to recruit high-risk youth, they need support when implementing programs that are of sufficient intensity and duration to have an impact on participant behavior. Faith-based organizations do best when creating safe and caring environments where youth can gather to experience an informal, relational approach. They are less adept in the delivery of specific programs such as those related to education and employment. To reach this level of proficiency, small and mid-sized faith organizations need support in organizational development; program design and implementation; provision of materials, instruction, and technical assistance on best practices in programming; and ongoing and reliable financial support. See Resources for Working with Faith-Based Organizations, below, for a list of Web sites that can help state and local agencies and faith institutions interested in collaborating to implement aftercare efforts for high-risk youth. 12 8

118 IAP-Topic12 Resources for Working with Faith-Based Organizations National Mentoring Center ( Public/Private Ventures Assessment Findings of Faith-Based Service Providers ( Federal Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Agency for International Development ( U.S. Department of Education ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ( U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( U.S. Department of Justice ( U.S. Department of Labor ( White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiative ( Please note that Web addresses change frequently; a search on Faith-Based will produce a wealth of resources VII. Monitoring Service Provision for Delivery, Receipt, and Quality Control Too often, it is assumed that by linking a youth with a school, treatment program, or job, aftercare goals have been accomplished. However, making a referral on the one hand and ensuring participation, achievement, and completion in the program/activity on the other are not at all the same. For example, potential problems are that schools, mental health centers, group homes, day treatment programs, and other community resources may (1) deliberately exclude the type of youth in IAP, (2) at the very least, be reluctant to work with such high-risk youth, or (3) have had prior experience with the youth and have already given up. These not uncommon circumstances underscore the need for aftercare caseworkers to establish some form of acceptance agreement with existing providers and, when needed, develop suitable new providers who will work with the IAP population. As described above, correctional administrators and case managers need to look for opportunities to form partnerships with a variety of key community actors. Because corrections authorities are able to exercise a variety of sanctions in response to youth s behaviors, their role is often sought after by those with a stake in the youth s success. It is important that the case manager foster a sense of mutual accountability in these relationships. One effective tool is the use of behavioral contracting. A good behavioral contract is short-term and highly specific as to the action details of who is responsible for doing what and when. When plans are developed, there should be clear expectations of how they will be monitored and enforced. Expected problem behaviors, such as drug use or truancy, should have prearranged consequences so that youth are aware of what will happen if they reoffend. Individuals in direct contact with youth should be able to assist in both sanctioning and rewarding behavior. Case 12 9

119 IAP-Topic12 managers need to follow through by holding periodic meetings and supporting the actions indicated in the behavioral plans

120 Section 3 Special Subpopulations Overview Topic 13: Juvenile Offenders with Serious Mental Health Disorders Topic 14: Juvenile Female Offenders Topic 15: Juvenile Minority Offenders Topic 16: Juvenile Sex Offenders Topic 17: Juvenile Offenders with Severe Substance Abuse Problems Topic 18: Juvenile American Indian/Alaska Native Offenders

121 IAP-Intro to Section 3 Overview of Topics 13 18, Special Subpopulations and Issues of Special Problems and Needs Youth in confinement have been shown on the basis of wide ranging assessment of risk, need, and resiliency to be a heterogeneous group in their propensity to reoffend and in the multiple pathways that have led to their chronic, serious, and sometimes violent misconduct. At the center of the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) research and development initiative was the goal of targeting incarcerated youth who were predicted to reoffend at the highest rates upon release unless handled in a highly structured fashion. Incarcerated youth falling into this subpopulation frequently exhibited a number of risk factors that collectively placed them at a great potential for recidivism. Individual occurrences or constellations of these factors often have led researchers to organize confined youth into various categories defined in terms of special problems, needs, deficits, or other identifying characteristics. The placement of incarcerated youth into categories for purposes of treatment and supervision tends to generate some degree of confusion about how interventions should best be designed and implemented. Special needs/characteristics do not always translate into high risk for reoffending, but they still require appropriately tailored responses if successful outcomes are to be expected. Some youth correctional systems have begun to address this fundamental issue and to develop assessment and treatment technologies that respond to circumstances and needs of special subpopulations. In some cases, the key identifying characteristic of a special needs subpopulation may be predictive of reoffending behavior and, as such, must be directly addressed with appropriate intervention strategies. An example is severe drug and alcohol dependency, which has been shown repeatedly to correlate with reoffending behavior (Elliot and Huizinga, 1984; Fagan, Weis, and Cheng, 1990). As another example severe emotional disturbance has not been shown to be a predictor of reoffending. Unless such emotional problems and their underlying causes are addressed, however, they will continue to confound attempts to normalize affected youth once released from confinement into the community. To provide information and technical assistance to the field, IAP staff members conducted a national survey of intensive juvenile aftercare practices. Several patterns of specialized intervention have emerged from this inquiry. A number of states have developed specialized treatment units within youth correctional facilities to work with various subpopulations. Frequently this is linked to steps to enhance prerelease planning and stepdown activities for these juveniles. Administrators and staff in states utilizing this approach identified the following groups of confined youth for specially designed interventions: emotionally disturbed youth, female offenders, minority youth, sex offenders, and chemically dependent offenders. This focus coincides with a pattern observed in the testing of IAP-derived programs in a number of states, i.e., a tendency to extend this basic framework of aftercare programming beyond its sole application with chronic, high-risk youth into other subpopulations of confined juveniles. In fact, an underlying assumption driving the following discussions of IAP application to special subpopulations is that many IAP principles and components appear to work quite well with other groups in terms of enhanced delivery of aftercare services.

122 IAP-Intro to Section 3 The targeted subpopulations and special needs discussed in this Section follow: Juvenile offenders with serious mental health disorders. Juvenile female offenders. Juvenile minority offenders. Juvenile sex offenders. Drug and alcohol dependent juvenile offenders. Juvenile American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) offenders. It should be noted that confined AI/AN juveniles are addressed as a population distinct from other incarcerated minority youth. Although AI/AN-related discrimination, cultural differences, and ethnic sensitivity are thematically similar to those of other groups, the history and complex circumstances of legal jurisdiction dictate the need for a unique handling of issues involving AI/AN youth.

123 IAP-Topic13 Topic 13: Juvenile Offenders with Serious Mental Health Disorders Key Points Serious mental health disorders is a term used to distinguish youth with more severe emotional disturbances from youth whose mental health problems are temporary, situational, or do not pose obstacles to participation in mainstream correctional programming. The common mental health disorders recognized in this population typically include conduct, alcohol, major depression, attention deficit hyperactivity, bipolar, generalized anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and personality disorders. Practitioners working to meet the needs of incarcerated youth with serious mental health disorders are increasingly concerned by several trends, including the increasing number of such youth entering facilities and the high proportion of co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. Various law enforcement, justice system, and human service practices that are enacted in response to adolescent behaviors are contributing to the increased numbers of youth with serious mental health disorders in the juvenile justice system. Youth with serious mental health disorders are often precluded from being placed in less restrictive environments by their long histories of serious mental health disorders, maladaptive and criminal behaviors, and extreme social impairments. Specialized intensive aftercare programming can be an effective means to improve outcomes for youth with serious mental health disorders. Topic Goals To outline the issues surrounding the presence of youth with serious mental health issues in juvenile corrections populations. To discuss why there is an increased presence of youth with serious mental health disorders in most juvenile corrections systems. To discuss why mental health training is beneficial for youth corrections officials and caseworkers. To describe additional components needed to allow youth with serious mental health disorders to participate in intensive aftercare programming. 13 1

124 IAP-Topic13 To review how Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) principles and case management components can be applied to successfully transition this population. To explore models of service delivery that integrate mental healthcare with components of correctional supervision and case management. 13 2

125 IAP-Topic13 I. Introduction One of the common questions raised by corrections professionals is whether a new type of youth with serious mental health disorders is entering the system or whether juvenile justice systems are getting better at identifying mental health problems. The answer may be that both explanations are true. There is an increasing recognition of mental health disorders in adolescents in general. One reason for this is the exponential increase in the use of psychotropic medications during the past 20 years. In the past, problematic side effects of commonly available medications precluded psychiatrists use of them to treat adolescents. This, combined with the difficulties in diagnosing many forms of mental illness during adolescence, made treatment professionals less likely to address individual problems before young adulthood. One of the most known psychotropics is Ritalin, widely used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and young adolescents. The discovery of what has seemed to be a wonder drug for treating this common condition has been closely followed by common use of antidepressant medications and now wide use of a variety of other commonly prescribed psychotropic medications for adolescents. Because the psychiatric community is convinced that these drugs help to save lives and that they radically improve the treatment outcomes at onset of mental health disorders, their use is now widespread. The fact that both psychiatric care and psychotropic medication are very expensive presents an additional challenge for youth corrections systems. A. Prevalence Concerns The increasing presence of mentally ill juveniles in corrections settings is a serious national problem. As recognition of the problem grows, there are diverse estimates of the actual number of such youth in the juvenile justice system. Obviously, there are variations in prevalence rates between states and local jurisdictions and between program types and sentenced populations. National studies, however, have produced some general estimates of the extent of this problem: Of all the juveniles who enter the juvenile justice system, approximately 20 percent have serious mental disorders (Mears 2001). Between 50 percent and 75 percent of incarcerated youths have a diagnosable mental health disorder and at least half have co-occurring substance abuse disorders (Cocozza and Skowyra 2000; Greenbaum 1996). In a related problem area, an estimated 11,000 juveniles engage in 17,000 suicidal acts in juvenile facilities each year (Hayes 2000). 13 3

126 IAP-Topic13 B. Common Practices Affecting the Increased Presence of Emotionally Disturbed Youth in Corrections Facilities A variety of common practices utilized by law enforcement, justice system, and human service providers responding to adolescent behaviors are contributing to the increased numbers of incarcerated youth with serious mental health disorders. First, arrest practices may tend to increase the number of youth with mental health disorders brought into locked custody. Law enforcement officials generally exercise wide discretion in the decision to take juveniles into custody when abnormal behaviors are observed. The decision to arrest a juvenile and refer him or her for secure detention placement is made primarily to control dangerous or self-destructive behaviors. While most youth will respond appropriately when confronted by law enforcement officers, youth with serious mental illness may exhibit abnormal or bizarre behaviors. Officers sometimes place these youth in detention facilities because these placements are easier to access than mental healthcare settings. Secondly, youth may be referred to the court system by schools or social service agencies for dangerous or self-destructive behavior. Some parents encourage the juvenile justice system to help in intervening with self-destructive behaviors, such as running away, drug and alcohol use, failure to take needed medications, and refusing mental health treatment. Often, public agencies encourage parents to have the juvenile court take jurisdiction over their child to enable controls and services to be court ordered and provided at low or no cost to families. This is particularly true for children whose families lack resources for private care. Managed care and limited mental health services for adolescents are both contributors to this problem. When faced with chronic misbehavior, courts often place youth into the correctional system to prevent youth from running away and self-destructive behaviors. This practice is common with female adolescents, and the pattern of court intervention and incarceration of self-destructive girls may help explain why detained females generally have higher rates of mental health disorders than males. This practice is exacerbated by the tendency of courts and human service agencies to transfer youth with serious mental health disorders from expensive treatment settings to correctional jurisdictions often a cost-shifting strategy that protects local budgets. C. Contributions to Disproportionate Minority Confinement 1 Lack of cultural competence in the screening, assessment, and treatment of mental health disorders in youth of color cause more of these youth to become incarcerated. Differing cultural attitudes towards disclosure of personal and family problems, in addition to the biases of clinicians, cause underdiagnosis in some racial and ethnic groups. The discrepant outcomes in screening, assessment, and treatment of African American youth has been widely documented in current literature (Underwood, 2002). Adjustment problems associated with mental health and dual diagnosis are often decontextualized and described as anger, rage, manipulation, and aggression and are then cited as criminal risk factors for African Americans. Data from Under the JJDP Act s 2002 reauthorization, the term confinement was changed to contact. However, since IAP is concerned with those youths who progress to the deep end of the juvenile justice system, this Guide is concerned with confinement and DMC as used throughout refers to disproportionate minority confinement. 13 4

127 IAP-Topic13 show that while African Americans compose 15 percent of the American youth population, they constituted 26 percent of arrests, 30 percent of delinquency cases, 45 percent of cases involving detention, 32 percent of adjudicated cases, 40 percent of juveniles in residential placement, and 46 percent of cases waived to criminal court (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 1999). A one-day count in 1997 found that for every 100,000 non-hispanic black juveniles in the United States, 1,018 were in residential placement, compared to a rate of 515 for Hispanic youth and 204 for non-hispanic white. Data from 1997 also show that while minority youth represented 34 percent of the population, they represented 62 percent of detained youth. In 1997, minority youth represented 67 percent of juveniles detained in public facilities (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 1999), an increase from 43 percent in 1985 (Hoytt, et al. 2001). (See Topic 15, which discuses issues of disproportionate minority contact and confinement in more detail.) D. Identifying Youth with Serious Mental Health Disorders All youth corrections systems should provide a method for early identification of youth with serious mental health disorders. These methods include gathering information from families, schools, human service agencies, and court officials. Confidentiality often limits how information related to mental health conditions is shared, so agencies should find ways to access information on a need-to-know basis. Youth corrections agencies can also use screening instruments to look for signs of mental health disorders. A well researched, easily used, and available tool is the Massachusetts Youth Screening Inventory (Grisso, Barnum, and Lexcen, 2001). This is a brief screening tool that provides agencies and clinicians with a means of identifying signs of mental disturbance or emotional distress. Another available tool is the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers, which was developed by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The use of screening tools should be linked to a referral process for further mental health evaluation. Many facilities have agreements with community mental health service providers to complete the next steps in examining referred youth. For youth who are placed in correctional treatment systems, a more comprehensive approach to mental health assessment is required. In addition to screening, information should be collected on prior hospitalizations and residential treatment. This can be facilitated by requesting releases of information from parents at the time youth are sentenced or committed to correctional programs. Programs should have the capacity to complete further psychological evaluations and medication evaluations as needed. Risk assessment can help sort out which youth require institutional placement due to criminal reoffense risk versus those who can be placed safely at home or in other community settings. E. Facility Issues Once mentally ill youth enter detention and secure institutional facilities, increased behavioral problems often ensue. Many of these youth do not adapt well to traditional corrections environments. Some of the common problems associated with this group are: 13 5

128 IAP-Topic13 High rates of suicidal behaviors. Depression and decompensation. Poor interpersonal interactions. Aggression. Difficulty with cognitive programming. Mood swings and unpredictable behaviors. Problems associated with medication distribution; such as cheeking, (hiding meds in the mouth), gurping (grinding up and snorting meds), hoarding, selling, and other misuse of psychotropic medication. As these problems emerge, facility managers tend to segregate and isolate these youth. Common correctional practices, such as use of room isolation and physical management interventions, will exacerbate mental health disorders such as post-traumatic stress and depression. As a result, youth with mental health disorders may be more likely to penetrate deeper into the system due to chronic or aggressive misbehaviors in locked settings. When agencies recognize these problems, juvenile corrections officials often look to mental healthcare organizations to assume residential care responsibilities. Many states have laws that require juveniles who exhibit psychotic and/or suicidal behaviors to be transferred to psychiatric care settings. However, constraints on mental healthcare funding, especially in hospitalization of adolescents, cause the mental healthcare system to divert youth with delinquent behaviors back to juvenile justice officials. F. Staff Training Staff training is an important first step for juvenile corrections programs facing the problems presented by youth with serious mental health disorders. As Boesky (2001) strongly recommends, facility personnel need to become familiar with symptoms of mental health disorders and need to be able to make special arrangements to deal with mentally ill youth in corrections settings. Training is certainly one way to transfer such valuable information. Correctional staff should have a basic understanding of how mental health disorders cause abnormal behaviors. Basic training should include some models for dealing with children with mental illness and strategies to communicate effectively. Facilities should provide methods for planning specialized interventions and individual behavior management plans. Staff training in recognizing and dealing with youth with mental health disorders is essential in both institutional and community-based youth corrections programs. Facilities and programs should have access to mental health professionals who can provide education and training to corrections staff and who can interact with individual youth. Specialized mental health training for case managers can help them to understand their clients issues and will better prepare them 13 6

129 IAP-Topic13 to meet the needs of these clients. Also, familiarity with the mental health treatment field helps in communicating with key professionals who can assist in servicing this population. Case managers need training in mental health typology, treatment, and medication and should have opportunities to build working relationships with institutional clinical staff and staff of community mental healthcare centers. II. An IAP Framework for Youth with Serious Mental Health Disorders Correctional program administrators face a myriad of challenges in dealing with this group within traditional settings and programs. Because mentally ill youth often continue to exhibit problem behaviors in correctional facilities, they are difficult to transition back to homes or other community settings. Case managers responsible for community transition also are faced with special challenges when dealing with this population. This is a target population for which the IAP framework can be quite useful in preparing for release and subsequent community followup. A. A Reintegrative Continuum As stated in Topic 3, the IAP model incorporates a continuum for aftercare intervention that consists of three distinct, yet overlapping segments that pertain to the confinement, transition, and community followup phases (see Figure 2, page 3-8). These segments represent a structural response to the systemic dilemma of smoothly transitioning youth across the institution/community boundary. They are: Prerelease and preparatory planning during confinement. Structural transitioning, using stepdown procedures prior to final community placement. Long-term, normalizing activities to ensure adequate service delivery and the necessary level of social control during the community phase. Practitioners may choose to accommodate youth with serious mental health disorders within IAP programs by adding specialized components, or they may choose to develop separate, specialized tracks for these youth that follow the IAP model. In either case, intensive aftercare principles support successful approaches to this special population. Indeed, research has demonstrated that structured treatment programs for youth can reduce recidivism rates by 25 percent to 80 percent (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000). The IAP overarching case management model is especially appropriate for youth with serious mental health disorders. 1. Special considerations Specific components that might be added to the intensive aftercare approach for youth with serious mental health disorders include (1) specialized assessment, (2) specialized training in mental healthcare issues, (3) clinical case management and behavioral health treatment continuity, (4) emphasis on medication management throughout institutional and community- 13 7

130 IAP-Topic13 based care, and (5) strong emphasis on continued access to behavioral healthcare during community reintegration. a. Specialized assessment Provisions should be made for immediate screening and referral of youth with symptoms of mental health disorders. Treatment professionals should provide assessment information in a way that can be applied to correctional treatment planning. Medical assessment is necessary to help identify other problems caused by illness, birth defects, or side effects of medication. Possible brain injury should be explored. Mental health assessment information should include a history of prior treatment, including hospitalizations and prior residential placements. Releases should be obtained from the client and family so that discharge reports and prior psychological evaluations can be obtained. Information on prior diagnosis, medication, and treatment responses should be gathered along with current information about mental health functioning, diagnosis, medication, and other care needs. Mental health issues and needs should be considered in program placement criteria. Ideally, an IAP assessment model will include the involvement of mental healthcare professionals who will be involved in providing services to the client. b. Specialized training in mental healthcare issues IAP service implementation strategies include cross training of key institutional, case management, and community staff (Boesky, 2001). This training should include coverage of mental health issues and the need for mental health treatment. There should be common understanding of how these youth will be managed and how treatment will be accessed throughout the continuum of care. Special training issues include mental health diagnoses, common medications, co-occurring disorders, and therapeutic interventions. Use of the same language and interventions will increase compliance and improve the progress of youth with serious mental health disorders. c. Clinical case management and behavioral health treatment continuity A comprehensive and individualized plan is necessary to address serious co-occurring problems such as drug/alcohol use, medical problems, victimization histories, and family dysfunction. If possible, behavioral healthcare providers should have the opportunity to assist in the preparation or review of treatment plans at the outset of case management. Correctional and educational treatment plans should include sections on behavioral health treatment, including plans for connecting clinical and psychiatric staff with transitional planning meetings where communitybased care providers can be included in the discussion (Underwood, Newton, and Jageman, 2001). If youth require periodic hospitalization, plans should determine how hospitalization will be used and how youth will be transitioned back to other settings. The challenges of transition to the community are greater and more complex for this population. Longer planning and more prerelease activities are needed within a formal IAP planning and accountability model. Community-based services being backed into a facility are necessary in order to share comprehensive information, build relationships, and discover effective, individual strategies. Preplacement visits to community residential programs and/or nonresidential community treatment settings, as recommended in the IAP model, may be critical to successful transition of youth who may have more challenges in adjusting to new environments. 13 8

131 IAP-Topic13 d. Emphasis on medication management throughout institutional and community-based care For most youth, medication evaluation and administration is required. Youth will need monthly medication reviews by psychological and psychiatric staff. Medication needs will change, and so will the youth s attitudes to medication use. Youth may need the opportunity to discuss medication issues with these staff members and experiment with dosages under the supervision of a psychiatrist who specializes in treating adolescents. Overarching case management and parental involvement can help ensure ongoing medication use, and special plans may be needed to reinforce good habits in medication use. e. Strong emphasis on continued access to behavioral healthcare during community reintegration Resources for ongoing behavioral healthcare are critical. Case managers should assist the family in planning for health insurance use or in accessing entitlement programs. Youth should have the opportunity to receive services from community-based providers at the earliest possible point to develop relationships and realistic access to these services in the future. The challenges of community supervision demand a strength-based response system that uses incentives and sanctions within a highly individualized yet predictable system. The clinical case management support and an IAP transition team approach is helpful to avoid burnout or vicarious traumatization of workers who form close relationships with emotionally needy youth. In most cases, graduated stepdown of interventions and assistance, with growing reliance on a noncorrectional system of care, is necessary for successful community transition. B. Operating Principles The five operating principles of the IAP model are discussed below as they relate to youth with serious mental health disorders. 1. Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community Transitions will be more challenging for youth with serious mental health disorders. Longer periods of time may be required to build trusting relationships and to convey complex case information to new service providers. It will be helpful to have individuals with clinical experience and understanding of this special population involved with all aspects of transition. Initial problem behaviors may be the result of anxieties and resistance to changing environments. Caseworkers should expect to see adjustment problems and should provide structured debriefing of experiences to allow youth to learn how they will react to these changes. 2. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement Prerelease home and community visits are critical. Families need to experience having their child back at home and in the community and to realize the impact this will have on the family. Youth participation in community service, attendance at special events, or any kind of community contact will be helpful in preparing youth for change. In some cases, it will be necessary to hold meetings or staffings with community members who may have questions and reservations about the return of the youth. Education about mental illness and associated issues will help to reduce fears on both sides. 13 9

132 IAP-Topic13 3. Working with offenders and the targeted community support systems on those qualities needed for constructive interaction that advance the juveniles reintegration into the community Youth with chronic disorders need to understand the need for ongoing treatment. The specific issue is often medication management. One community-based psychiatrist allows his patients to stop taking medications if they agree to see him at least weekly to discuss the effects of this approach. The wisdom of this approach is that it allows the adolescent s natural developmental response to occur in a controlled manner. Most clients learn a great deal from this experience and are more likely to maintain their medication regime as a result. These youth often require basic behavioral training including such skills as personal grooming and hygiene, dealing with conflicts, and making friends. In general, youth with serious mental health disorders will need opportunities to discuss their experiences and solve problems with people they trust. 4. Developing new resources and supports Community mental healthcare providers have learned that support groups and clubs for adolescents and young adults with mental health disorders help build commitment to ongoing treatment. In most areas, caseworkers can find these groups through community health centers. Parents and other support people should become familiar with these groups to support this involvement. Prerelease visits and participation in community groups are ideal ways to facilitate success. Providing backed-in services from community-based treatment providers is an important method for creating sustainable relationships. Many youth may require life-long care and need assistance with entitlement programs and local community mental healthcare access. Partnerships with community-based programs and a variety of service providers are essential. 5. Monitoring and testing the youth and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively Behavioral contracting is highly recommended. A good behavioral contract will include shortterm, concrete goals, associated incentives and rewards, and specific sanctions that will be used for identified problem behaviors such as illicit drug use. Those responsible for monitoring behaviors should have tolerance and flexibility in dealing with noncompliant and deviant behaviors that are not criminal in nature. Youth may need ongoing remedial training in basic behaviors such as how to interact with peers, bosses, and teachers. Successful transitions will often be long and painful for this group. Caretakers will need ongoing support, understanding, and responsiveness from case managers. Use of case management and service teams is recommended to reduce the potential for burnout and vicarious victimization of professionals who routinely work with this population. C. Overarching Case Management This core component of the IAP model is a good fit with the needs of youth with serious mental health disorders. The five elements of overarching case management are discussed below with promising practices related to youth with serious mental health disorders

133 IAP-Topic13 1. Assessment, classification, and selection criteria Because the IAP model is designed for youth at high risk of reoffense, practitioners should ensure that youth with serious mental health disorders who are selected fit these criteria. It is important to note that some youth are identified as high risk due to assaults that may be more the result of poor institutional management than inherent dangerousness. Because the mental health population is difficult to maintain in programs and within high levels of community supervision, practitioners should be especially certain that they have identified those with high criminal risk to reoffend. Like sex offenders, many of these youth will have completed long clinical treatment periods, and they may be able to describe the triggers and patterns of their delinquent behaviors. 2. Individualized case planning that incorporates family and community perspectives Family and community involvement are absolutely necessary for this population. Whenever possible, family members should be given the lead role in preparing transition and ongoing treatment plans. Use of family advocates or therapists may help enable this process. Strengthbased approaches should apply family and community input to help recognize the potentials of these youth. Cultural competency is a vital tool to assist with appropriate development of roles and expectations. Many families have multigenerational mental health problems that require comprehensive support. While family work may be difficult initially, there is a greater chance of successful compliance if the family and the youth both own the plan. Case managers and service providers may also need to help educate a variety of individuals about specific mental health issues. Team approaches, involving either a group of case managers or a combination of a case manager and other service providers, will make behavioral enforcement easier. Flexibility and creativity are critically important in maintaining individualized plans. 3. A mix of intensive surveillance and services More so than for other correctional populations, successful aftercare must include services and treatment that are integrated with surveillance methods. Common practices in intensive supervision, such as regular office appointments, may not be realistic. Technology such as electronic monitoring may not have good results. Co-occurring disorders and ongoing mental health problems plague this population. All service providers need to be trained in working with mental health issues and recognizing common problem behavior patterns, such as use of illicit drugs to self-medicate. Caseworkers must have realistic and flexible expectations for compliance. 4. A balance of incentives and graduated consequences Many youth with serious mental health disorders are habituated to behavioral management systems from prior residential placements. These youth will require highly structured activities and will be subject to behavioral expectations in the community. Case managers must be creative in developing specialized incentives and enforceable sanctions. Concrete and clear expectations are necessary and constant reinforcement may be required. All members of the youth s support system should assist with the reinforcement process. Flexibility and perseverance are necessary qualities for service providers and caregivers

134 IAP-Topic13 5. Creation of links with community resources and social networks The process of accessing services and future systems of care is one of the most important aspects of case management. In many cases, youth will need to document disabilities to access public care. The case manager needs to begin this process by assisting the family in compiling documentation and records. It is important that youth have open cases in community mental healthcare centers as they transfer to future placements. Many youth will not see themselves as chronically mentally ill, yet need to link with established support and care systems in order to access ongoing treatment. Case managers may need to help to engineer relationships not only with service providers but also with support groups, job clubs, cluster living arrangements, and other features of the mental health support community

135 IAP-Topic14 Topic 14: Juvenile Female Offenders Key Points Females constitute the fastest growing segment of the juvenile justice system. Furthermore, girls are increasingly entering the juvenile justice system at younger ages and for serious and violent offenses, even as status offenses continue to constitute the most frequently charged offenses. Programs and facilities that serve juvenile offenders will need to provide more services and programming that is gender specific for girls. The principles of the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model complement and parallel current literature on promising programs and OJJDP s best practice models for addressing the specific needs of girls reentering the community. Further, IAP s overarching case management framework promotes continuity of care and ongoing relationships that are particularly essential for female offenders. The IAP model, as implemented for adolescent females in confinement, requires committed staff trained in gender-specific issues; individualized case planning and supervision that is sensitive to offense history, family disruption, and girls mental health and abuse histories; collaborative relationships with targeted community systems; and integrated and gendersensitive surveillance and services. Topic Goals To provide a general overview of national trends in female delinquency and associated risk factors. To identify and discuss the unique supervision and treatment needs of female offenders and female-specific risk assessment. To describe the distinctive elements of the IAP model as applied to the supervision and treatment of girls. To provide a framework for implementing the IAP principles and overarching case management framework for gender-specific programming. 14 1

136 IAP-Topic14 I. Introduction To better understand the unique treatment needs of female juvenile offenders and the characteristics of a gender-specific program for girls, this topic will review trends in female delinquency, address the unique treatment needs of female adolescent offenders, and demonstrate the applicability of the IAP model to these offenders. The IAP model has proven effective in male populations and is just now being introduced to female populations. It can be easily integrated with existing programs to provide overarching case management and continuity of care for females, with assistance in assessment and treatment. A. Trends in Female Delinquency Historically, girls have not entered the system at the same rates as boys nor have they entered for the same reasons. While boys have always outnumbered girls in the juvenile justice system, an increasing number of girls are entering the system, revealing a significant trend (Ginsburg and Demeranville, 1999; Poe-Yamagata and Butts, 1996). Until recently, girls have entered the system primarily as status offenders. In the past two decades, however, the number of girls committing violent offenses has increased and raised the attention of the juvenile justice system, researchers, and community treatment providers. Professionals working with female delinquents have observed that girls are getting involved in serious crimes at younger ages and have described them as more angry, aggressive, and violent than in the past (Belknap, Holsinger, and Dunn, 1997:399). New research indicates distinctive patterns in the violent crimes committed by both female and male youth. Girls crimes often involve interpersonal relationships. For example, in a study of juvenile female crime (Loper and Cornell, 1996), while 57 percent of homicides committed by boys in 1993 occurred in conjunction with another crime, homicides by girls generally arose from a personal conflict. Nearly one-third (32 percent) of the victims of homicides committed by girls were family members as opposed to only 8 percent for boys. Furthermore, 24 percent of the girls victims were under age 3 and were frequently their own children (Chesney-Lind, 2001). Key risk factors for girls becoming involved in the juvenile justice system, though similar to those of boys, are often best addressed in a gender-specific manner. These factors include: Running away. Poor academic performance or failure. Untreated mental health issues. Abuse (physical, sexual, emotional). Substance abuse. Family and/or other significant relationship disruption. Poverty. Ethnic minority status. 14 2

137 IAP-Topic14 B. Treatment Needs of Female Offenders Many of the needs exhibited by female juvenile offenders may closely resemble those of their male counterparts, but it is the way in which professionals address those needs that makes treatment gender specific. Female-specific treatment focuses on interventions that are responsive to female adolescent development, gendered societal influences, options for career and life choices, substance abuse, parenting and teen pregnancy, abuse, mental health counseling, and provisions for establishing and maintaining supportive relationships throughout the continuum of care. Female specific treatment includes an understanding of both risk and protective factors that may help female juvenile offenders avoid patterns of delinquency and recidivism. In 1998, OJJDP outlined promising programs in the monograph Guiding Principles for Promising Female Programming: An Inventory of Best Practices (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998). Key elements in programming for adolescent females include: Development of trusting relationships with an adult female role model. Built-in caseworker and counseling components. Attention to gender-related issues such as abuse, pregnancy, and parenting and graduated or alternative sanctions to incarceration for running away. Community-based interventions. Strengths-based interventions and incentives for making healthy and responsible choices. Life skills development. Specialized staff training to address the specific needs of girls. Family involvement in treatment when possible, especially focused on the mother-daughter relationship. Knowledge of mental health and substance use and abuse relevant to females involved in the juvenile justice system. The overarching case management component of the IAP model provides a framework supportive of these programming elements. In addition, IAP s operating principles and practices emphasize individualized treatment plans, enabling practitioners to easily incorporate genderspecific programming. C. Risk Assessment Risk assessments provide information about the level, type, and mix of program and supervision needs for juvenile offenders. Many risk assessment instruments are gendered, e.g. they were developed and normed on males only, just as the treatment and policies governing service delivery were developed and tested on delinquent males. Girls are often incarcerated for far less 14 3

138 IAP-Topic14 serious offenses than their male counterparts (Chesney-Lind, 2000) and are often therefore pigeon-holed into programs designed to provide higher surveillance and security measures than are needed. Thus, assessment tools and practices are especially critical when selecting female offenders who will benefit from participation in IAP. II. A Gender-Specific IAP Framework A gender-specific IAP requires the development of productive collaborations, individualized services, language appropriate services, gender-specific treatment services, family involvement, effective monitoring/supervision, and graduated sanctions. Research and the experiences of best practice programs suggest that youth who are released from closed custody facilities are more likely to succeed when the community, gender-specific treatment programs, and family are involved in developing and implementing the youth s individualized transition plan. A. A Reintegrative Continuum The IAP model incorporates a continuum for aftercare intervention that consists of three distinct, yet overlapping segments that pertain to the confinement, transition, and community followup phases. These segments represent a structural response to the systemic dilemma of smoothly transitioning girls, and all youth, across the institution/community boundary. They are: Prerelease and preparatory planning during confinement. Structural transitioning, using stepdown procedures prior to final community placement. Long-term, normalizing activities to ensure adequate service delivery and the necessary level of social control during the community phase. A gender-specific IAP model designed for girls should address gender issues and concerns beginning as soon as girls enter juvenile correctional facilities and continuing through reintegration back into the community. A gender-specific IAP model can help create a support system that provides appropriate services tailored to fit the individual needs of female youth. B. IAP Operating Principles The five operating principles of programmatic action essential to the IAP model complement and augment the goal of developing a gender-specific program for female offenders. These principles are discussed below as they relate to female juvenile offenders. 1. Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community Making girls feel safe and enabling them to learn healthy coping strategies and decisionmaking skills are key to providing effective service delivery. Allowing girls to work through a point system that is sensitive to their unique needs can help them succeed and give them the 14 4

139 IAP-Topic14 opportunity to build self-confidence and the critical thinking necessary for making healthy decisions in the community. Programs designed to afford girls the opportunity to problem solve with the help of a safe adult will prepare them for facing difficult life situations. Ideally, programs should combine a staged series of smooth transitions from more to less secure settings matched to treatment progress. A continuum of treatment steps linked to the development of a relapse prevention plan with and supervision prior to release is important. 2. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement Collaboration with court officials is important when designing realistic sanctions that do not reinforce punishment for girls learned coping strategies. Working with the court system provides probation officers and other court officials with the information about the reintegration needs of specific girls. A support system for female offenders must not be limited to residential staff but include and facilitate ongoing support in the community. The IAP model calls for a network of supportive relationships to help young women assume responsibility in the community. Programs can provide opportunities for girls to be contributing members of their community by offering choices of community service projects wherein staff members role-model community involvement. 3. Working with offenders and targeted community support systems on qualities needed for constructive interaction and juveniles successful community interaction Regular and systematic collaboration between systems in which the female juvenile offender is involved provides consistent messages about her interaction with other people. Specific behavioral and attitudinal expectations can be rewarded and/or sanctioned as needed to teach effective interactions with others. This allows the female offender to navigate systems and understand expectations in various programs and relationships. Adolescent girls are likely to have a different perspective than that of boys when they are involved with the medical system, or systems related to parenting or childcare. Past abuse issues and/or family and cultural history may hinder girls expression of needs and wants. They may be socialized to accept a power differential, not only with systems and authority figures, but also by virtue of being female in a male-dominated world. For example, girls who have experienced academic failure are less likely to let a teacher know they do not understand a topic or are falling behind because they have learned to associate this as failure not only academically but internally as well as failure as a person. Thus, girls may need more staff direction as to how and when to ask for assistance or to express their needs when navigating systems. 4. Developing new resources and supports where needed IAP case planning for girls focuses on housing, schools or vocational programs, employment, childcare, leisure activities, community supports, and parenting resources and on providing opportunities for developing positive relationships with peers. Another system that may need to be incorporated into the continuum of care is the medical system. Girls need to have access to medical staff and need to know how to obtain health support when needed. Resource development may include day-treatment programs specifically for girls that focus on their individual needs, job readiness training, and vocational options. Resource development should 14 5

140 IAP-Topic14 also include personal support such as helping girls build the skills necessary to finding, developing, and maintaining supportive relationships in their lives. Positive peer relationships may be especially critical, as they can be complex and highly emotionally charged. Girls often are socialized from a young age to compare and compete against each other and encouraged to be indirect with anger or frustration towards another person. Girls can benefit from opportunities where they are made to feel safe from competition and are encouraged to learn to relate to peers in a supportive manner. 5. Monitoring and testing the youth and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively A successful monitoring system for young women involves a number of support systems to assist with the reentry process and requires a well-thought-out and realistic plan with specific reinforcements in place. These reinforcements include concrete graduated sanctions and incentives that can be expected and followed through upon release to the community. C. Overarching Case Management Overarching case management is central to the IAP model. This core component of the model provides a comprehensive operational framework for implementing a successful gender-specific rehabilitation and reentry program. It is highly responsive to girls need for a consistent relationship with a caring adult who provides trust, respect, and validation to foster support through the girls treatment experience and transitional phase. The five elements of overarching case management are listed below with a discussion on promising and effective gender-specific practices related to each. 1. Assessment, classification, and selection criteria High-risk female juvenile offenders, although somewhat similar to male offenders, present unique needs and challenges. As noted earlier, even with the increased number of girls who are committing more violent crimes, most girls enter the juvenile justice system having committed multiple and repeated status offenses. Also, many of the girls offenses pertain to interpersonal relationships. The IAP model is well-suited to working with this particular female population because it emphasizes individualized treatment plans and the need for consistent and continuous relationships throughout the treatment process. Individualized IAP assessment and case planning need to address the history and the details of offenses and the life circumstances that have led the young woman to the juvenile justice system. The levels of risk and security should include a careful examination of the girl s history. Programs addressing the needs of female juvenile offenders must use multimodal means of discovering and prescribing a female-specific risk assessment. An appropriate risk assessment may include administering a formal risk assessment instrument and conducting a clinical interview in order to reach a decision about the level surveillance, counseling, and supervision necessary to respond to female offenders needs. Though female-specific assessments are not widely available, some advances have been made in developing gender-specific instruments. For example, the PACE program in Jacksonville, FL, has collected data regarding girls in long- and short-term care and has developed a risk assessment instrument. 14 6

141 IAP-Topic14 2. Individualized case planning that incorporates family and community perspectives Individualized case planning evolves from information gathered from the female juvenile offender and all of the systems pertaining to her and her family. Systems may include but are not limited to juvenile justice, community, education, family, other significant relationships, and spiritual or religious affiliations. Information given by the client and her family about needs and past history is crucial and one of the first steps in family engagement. An individualized case plan also includes information about the assessment, prior juvenile justice processing, and the events that led up to her placement in the program. Attention to the nature and background of her offenses should also assist in determining the level of treatment and the type and mix of services. Girls and their families often need individualized family attention, but they first need to be individually prepared to work together as a family. This may be contrary to standardized approaches of family therapy that focus on meeting with the entire family from initial session through termination. Preparation meetings can be helpful in diffusing emotional charges: many times the girl s offenses were against a family member and precipitated their involvement in the juvenile justice system. Preparation meetings can assist in providing safety, trust, and modeling of appropriate boundaries for family members. Staff members providing family counseling with girls need to be aware of interpersonal conflicts stemming from gender-related issues such as mother/daughter competition, abandonment and resentment, and familial relationships built on indirect and direct aggression. Counseling must taken into account possible relationship issues that play a part in a girl s offense history, yet hold her accountable with sanctions and incentives if such behavior continues. 3. A mix of intensive surveillance and services A customized IAP model that includes intensive surveillance and services for females should also include an understanding and application of implications for girls when designing and applying sanctions and incentives. For example, girls who have a history of running away and/or escapist behaviors may not have the knowledge or skills to try other ways of coping. Understanding the reasons that girls try to escape their situations could lead to validating that the girl may be escaping from an abusive relationship, which may be a resilient quality. Developing plans to reward girls for resisting escapist behaviors is important. In addition, surveillance options need to be tailored to the needs and personal circumstances of each young woman to avoid counterproductive measures. The social implications of surveillance plans for girls need to be considered. For example, it may be stigmatizing for girls to have to wear a surveillance-related ankle bracelet while wearing a dress or skirt, both in terms of community attitudes toward offenders and social mores for girls. The emotional implications may be a more severe sanction than is necessary or productive. Also, a girl s abuse history may cause her to respond differently to male, as opposed to female, surveillance staff and services. Surveillance might be better received from a woman than a man, while a man may better facilitate treatment issues than a woman, or other combinations and exclusions based on girls individual needs. Each plan needs to take into account the female offender s past history. 14 7

142 IAP-Topic14 Girls and boys tend to be stereotyped psychologically and socially. Girls who act aggressively may be sanctioned more harshly than girls who fit into the expectation of more docile female behavior. Girls of color may be subjected to this bias even more than white girls. Cultural aspects should not be overlooked, not just ethnically or racially but also gender and age. Services must address culturally driven behavior, normal adolescent development, and ineffective or nonproductive behavior. 4. A balance of incentives and graduated sanctions There is a tendency to either overly sanction girls or not sanction them enough, based on the societal need to protect or punish rather than teach girls to be accountable and responsible women. While girls may need more encouragement along the way, they also need balance in learning self-care. This means including sanctions for self-harm, aggressive or risky behavior (whether directed at self or others) and incentives for making decisions and behaving in their best interest without harming themselves or others. An example of a balanced plan may include a written agreement between the girl and her counselor that identifies (1) incentives she will get for resisting escapist behaviors such as substance use and abuse, running away, or engaging in high-risk behaviors and (2) graduated sanctions for participating in escapist behaviors. The plan would include a list of safe people or contacts (relationships that are the most stable and consistent) whom the girl will agree to contact during crisis and a protocol to follow for the girl, her family, and the counselor. 5. Creation of links with community resources and social networks Soliciting community support for young women is crucial. Possibilities for community involvement include involving women s organizations to provide speakers and support, finding female mentors who represent their culture and/or are ethnically/racially helpful to the girl s identity development, and providing girls with the opportunity to contribute through community service. Such interventions should give back to the community or individuals where trust was compromised and assist in helping young women to find self-worth in connection with community members and contribution to others. 14 8

143 IAP-Topic 15 Topic 15: Juvenile Minority Offenders Key Points Disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) 1 is a national problem, caused in part by tougher juvenile crime laws that have especially affected minority communities. Treatment in juvenile correctional facilities has traditionally been a one size fits all approach. Minority youth have unique life and identity experiences, and correctional facilities need to address cultural issues in the treatment process to enhance outcomes. The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model provides an overarching case management framework to assist minority youth in making an effective transition from a correctional facility back into their communities. Culturally specific IAPs require the development and incorporation of productive collaborations, individualized services, language-appropriate services, culturally specific treatment services, family involvement, effective monitoring/supervision, and graduated sanctions. Topic Goals To outline the problem of DMC. To provide an understanding of cultural competency and the role of culture in effectively working with minority youth. To discuss the application of the IAP model in preparing minority youth for returning to their community, establishing links with a range of public and private sector organizations and individuals in the community, and ensuring the delivery of prescribed services and supervision in the community. To describe the operating principles of a culturally specific IAP and to assist participants in developing an action plan for implementing a program in their own juvenile correctional system. 1 Although the 2002 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention Act now uses DMC for disproportionate minority contact this Guide uses the acronym for the deep end of the juvenile justice system and disproportionate confinement. 15 1

144 IAP-Topic 15 I. Introduction This topic discusses the need for developing culturally specific IAPs. It reviews the national problem of DMC and discusses how the IAP model can contribute to the reduction of overrepresentation of minority youth in secure facilities and recidivism rates among juvenile offenders. Key elements of the IAP model are critical in ensuring public safety and youth accountability and compliance. The topic discusses programmatic benefits of cultural sensitivity and outlines key principles of the IAP model, which complement and augment the basic principles of culturally specific programming. A. Disproportionate Minority Confinement The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act considered disproportionate minority confinement to be those situations where the minority (traditionally defined as African American, Native American, Latino, and Asian) proportion of juveniles detained or confined in secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups, exceeds the proportion of such groups in the general population. Although minority youth are one-third of the adolescent population in the United States, they are two-thirds of the youth confined in local detention and state correctional systems (Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata, 1997). Nationally, custody rates are five times greater for African American youth than for whites (DeComo, 1998). The same study points out that custody rates for Latino and Native American youth are 2.5 times the custody rate of white youth. Clearly, minority youth, and in particular African American youth, are confined in public correctional facilities at rates disproportionate to their representation in the general population. Although there is growing national concern about the overrepresentation of minority youth in secure facilities (Poe-Yamagata and Jones, 2000), research indicates that minority overrepresentation is often a product of actions that occur at much earlier points in the juvenile justice system. Tougher juvenile crime laws have especially impacted minority youth and communities, contributing to the minority overrepresentation problem. In Oregon, for example, mandatory sentencing guidelines (Measure 11) require teenagers years old who are charged with certain serious crimes to be tried as adults in criminal courts. In 2001, of the youth in closed custody in juvenile facilities for Measure 11 crimes, 35 percent were minority youth, while the total minority juvenile population for the state was only 19 percent (Jackson, 2002). This does not count juveniles who may be incarcerated in adult facilities. Minority youth are more likely than white youth to become involved in the system, and minority overrepresentation increases at each stage of the process. For example, when white and minority youth were charged with the same offenses, African American youth with no prior admissions were six times more likely to be incarcerated in public facilities than were white youth with the same background and Latino youth were three times more likely than white youth to be incarcerated (Pope, Lovell and Hsia, 2002; Bishop and Frazier, 1996). 15 2

145 IAP-Topic 15 B. Cultural Competency Traditionally, treatment in juvenile facilities has taken a one size fits all approach. Juvenile correctional facilities, however, continue to have an increasingly diverse student and staff population, and minority youth have unique life and identity experiences. Thus, cultural issues must be addressed and incorporated into the treatment process. Cultural competency is a set of ongoing values and skills that enables an individual to interact with and provide services to a diverse community in various environments. Individuals working with a diverse population in a juvenile correctional setting must be knowledgeable of and skilled in addressing issues pertaining to dress, language, values, beliefs, history, and the life experiences of all youth. Such skills will help to ensure that each youth s individual needs are met and will enhance positive outcomes for minority youth. Effective communication methods are necessary for working with all youth, but because juvenile facilities have an increasingly diverse student and staff population, staff need to be sensitive to minority issues and address all youth and community stakeholders appropriately. This requires the following: Cultural acknowledgement, in which cultural differences are recognized and acknowledged rather than denied or ignored. Openness to learning transculturally, expressed in a healthy curiosity about, interest in, and willingness to learn about another s culture. To learn transculturally means to seek knowledge about each other s lifestyles, mannerisms, dress, music, language, perceptions, and other aspects of living. Acceptance (despite acknowledged differences), which supports the development of a mutually enhancing cultural network. There is always the very real possibility that staff will initially resist or not understand the value of cultural competency and culturally specific services. Thus, it is important to incorporate annual cultural competency/diversity training systemwide and to institute ongoing education that stresses the benefits of a culturally competent agency in conjunction with an IAP. Staff must also be held accountable to agency cultural competency goals. Culturally specific services are especially necessary in aftercare planning because they enhance treatment services and provide minority youth with avenues for successful treatment within their own cultural values. In addition, culturally specific services provide staff with another tool for holding youth accountable for their behaviors and attitudes, again within their own cultural values. By working with youth in the context of their own cultural values, staff enhance their relationships with youth, which in turn can help youth develop prosocial skills and become productive members of their community. The following sidebar suggests general rules for effectively communicating with all youth. 15 3

146 IAP-Topic 15 General Rules for Effective Communication With All Youth Speak positively of all cultures. Racial jokes or names are never acceptable. Remember that staff have power and youth do not. Never ignore racial name-calling. Implement a zero tolerance policy. Ask questions. Do not be intimidated by the unfamiliar. When youth use unfamiliar slang or gestures, staff should ask questions or seek clarification to get the true meaning and should not assume that it is negative. Expect change. Do not stereotype youth with negative talk such as: Once in a gang, always in a gang or You will never amount to anything. Be consistent. Implement the same consequences for the same behaviors. Example: White and minority youth congregating in groups. Handle situations in a timely and appropriate manner. Youth often ask staff for advice or support. Even if an immediate response is not possible, staff should make an appointment to respond within an appropriate timeline. Give consequences when appropriate. When a youth has definitely violated cottage or campus policy or rules, staff should give appropriate consequences and should not accept the label of racism. Giving consequences is not necessarily racism. Be aware that the label of racism can be used to manipulate staff. Give positive feedback. Remember to give positive strokes whenever possible. When a youth demonstrates progress or positive change (e.g., improved behavior in the living unit, handling peer relations in appropriate ways, improvement in treatment/educational areas), positive feedback from staff helps to builds relationships. Use common sense. Basic common sense and consistency will improve staff, and more youth will recognize that staff are striving to treat all youth the same. Model positive behaviors. Many youth do not have positive role models in their lives. Positive behaviors can have a productive impact on a youth and on the facility. It is critical that facilities integrate cultural competency at all levels and, in particular, consider their agency mission statement, policies, and procedures in light of cultural competency. To begin, facilities should define specific principles relating to organizational cultural competency. The following sidebar gives examples of such principles. 15 4

147 IAP-Topic 15 Oregon Youth Authority Organizational Cultural Competency Principles* The Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) Mission, Policies, and Cultural Competency Principles provide the framework that supports a culturally competent organization. All OYA employees, contractors, and partners understand these principles and the value of culturally competent efforts. OYA values a culturally diverse workforce that reflects the diversity in the youth offender population. Support from OYA administration and management continues and is a key ingredient in implementing competency goals and plans. Resources and funding are made available to support OYA cultural competency goals and plans. OYA strives to create an environment and worksite that are welcoming, safe, free of discrimination, and supportive of all cultures, races, ethnic groups, religious affiliations, sexual orientations, and persons with disabilities. OYA implements and reinforces civil rights mandates in all aspects of the organization. Equal access and equal services benefit all OYA youth and staff. Changes in population and new trends are evaluated and incorporated into the way OYA does business. Best practices in cultural competency and treatment services are adopted to benefit youth in the OYA system. * Formally adopted by the OYA Juvenile Policy Committee, May In addition, it is critical that all departments and services not only the obvious and select few be assessed for cultural competency. In addition to addressing cultural issues in programs such as mentoring, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health, and anger management, facilities must strive to incorporate cultural competency into areas such as bus pass and clothing voucher systems, education assistance, grief counseling, gang intervention/mediation, and employment readiness services. II. A Culturally Competent Framework A culturally competent IAP may assist in reducing the recidivism rate and the overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. The IAP model is an effective framework requiring 15 5

148 IAP-Topic 15 the development of productive collaborations, individualized services, language-appropriate services, culturally specific treatment services, family involvement, effective monitoring/supervision, and graduated sanctions. Research and best practices indicate that youth who are released from closed -custody facilities are more likely to succeed when community, culturally specific treatment programs, and family are involved in the development and implementation of individualized transition plans. A. A Reintegrative Continuum The IAP model incorporates a continuum for aftercare intervention that consists of three distinct yet overlapping segments that pertain to the confinement, transition, and community followup phases. These segments, which represent a structural response to the systemic dilemma of smoothly transitioning minority, and all youth, across the institution/community boundary. They are: Prerelease and preparatory planning during confinement. Structural transitioning, using stepdown procedures prior to final community placement. Long-term, normalizing activities to ensure adequate service delivery and the necessary level of social control during the community phase. A culturally specific IAP model provides guidelines for positive reintegration of minority youth into their community by addressing cultural issues/concerns when a youth first enters a juvenile correctional facility and continuing to address these issues/concerns throughout the reintegration process. A culturally specific IAP model can help create a support system that provides culturally specific, language-appropriate services tailored to fit the individual needs of minority youth across a continuum of coordinated/collaborative aftercare components. Adherence to such programming will help reduce recidivism and address the issue of overrepresentation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. B. Operating Principles of Culturally Specific IAP Programs The five operating principles of programmatic action essential to the IAP model complement and augment the goal of developing cultural competency. These principles are noted below, with key considerations for applying the model to a culturally competent program. 1. Preparing juveniles for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community During confinement, youth must meet with a case manager who can explain the program goals and expectations and who will develop an individualized transition plan days prior to release. The transition plan should take into account specialized/cultural needs. It is critical for providers to develop relationships prior to the youth s leaving the correctional facility, and there should be clear understandings about expectations and how to address potential barriers in the community. Programs must provide mentors who have experience and are culturally competent 15 6

149 IAP-Topic 15 in working with diverse/ethnic youth to assist them in successfully reintegrating into the community. 2. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement It is essential for juvenile correctional agencies to develop positive relationships with key personnel in minority communities and agencies and to engage them in case management planning for minority youth reintegrating back into the community. Schools can be a point of contact for supporting positive interactions and reintegration; however, the program must identify key personnel and make them part of the ongoing reintegrative process. 3. Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the youth s successful community adjustment Effective case management incorporates roles for families, peers, schools, and employers. There should be clear understanding and coordination of all roles in the process of reintegration. An example of a nontraditional way of developing positive relations with minority families is to meet with a single mother in the evening, recognizing that is difficult for her to take time off from work to meet during regular business hours. Trust is built by being flexible and accommodating families needs whenever possible and being sensitive to cultural differences that exist in diverse communities and families. 4. Developing new resources and support services where needed Youth need to be linked with persons and programs that are culturally competent and, where necessary, can offer individualized services. Key areas include housing, schools, employment, and treatment programs. Staff must continue to develop new relationships within youth s cultural community. 5. Monitoring and testing the youth and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively Cultural competency self-assessment tools and community-based committees can help communities and organizations evaluate their capability to provide culturally competent services and support. C. Overarching Case Management Key to implementing the five IAP principles is overarching case management. As is the case with all IAPs, culturally specific IAPs involve many components and rely on effective communication, collaboration, and support from the education and corrections systems, parole/probation supervisors and officers, community providers, Native American tribes, youth, families, and others intricately involved in issues of juvenile crime. Overarching case management is an operational framework for implementing a successful, culturally competent, rehabilitative program. The five components of IAP case management are noted below, with practices related to each. 15 7

150 IAP-Topic Assessment, classification, and selection criteria The target population for IAP is a subgroup of youth who, on the basis of standard and validated risk assessments, poses the highest risk of becoming repeat offenders upon return to the community. 2. Individual case planning incorporating a family and community perspective Generally, programs must ensure that all participants have a comprehensive individualized aftercare plan in effect days prior to release from secure custody facilities. Family involvement in the development and implementation of the aftercare plan is important Programs should encourage key family members to be involved early on by orienting them to the transition plan, seeking their input, and discussing how they can be supportive. The plan should be reviewed with the youth and the family so that expectations are clear, barriers are known, and providers are identified. Staff should look beyond traditional methods of gathering information about youth and families (e.g., visiting the family neighborhood), to be better prepared to identify community barriers to successful reentry and devise solutions in advance. Potential barriers include gang activity, lack of transportation, drugs and substance abuse in the community, and lack of positive cultural support (such as mentors) in the community. 3. A mix of intensive surveillance and services Integrating surveillance and enhanced services is critical for effective case management once the youth returns to the community. Parole/probation officers and case managers in the facility need to communicate effectively in developing the aftercare plan, including identification of resources needed and available for each youth. Youth s culturally specific, gender-specific, and languageappropriate needs must be met with individualized and funded services, including (but not limited to) job training, educational opportunities, and clothing and medical services (if applicable). It is important to realize that many programs were not created to deal with diverse populations. Contracted programs must demonstrate how they are going to meet the needs of the diverse population of youth they are serving. Control methods may include the use of field surveillance officers to make frequent scheduled and nonscheduled contacts. Other methods include electronic home monitoring devices and drug and alcohol testing. If used well, these contacts can also help to develop better relations with the youth and to revise and individualize the aftercare plan. It is also necessary to develop an emergency response process for youth to call someone in the event of a crisis. 4. A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions The IAP model calls for individualized plans and guidelines that address establishing realistic and enforceable conditions, a continuum of graduated responses, and a range of incentives to acknowledge and reward positive behavior. It is especially important to identify any cultural situations that may facilitate or impede the youth s successful confinement, transition, and reintegration. 15 8

151 IAP-Topic 15 a. Incentives 24-hour access to case manager for youth and family Opportunities for community involvement. The opportunity to speak at conferences and youth summits. The opportunity to speak to other youth about dangers of drugs, gangs, and violence. The opportunity to participate in personal growth enhancing activities: Out-of-town trips. Fishing trips. Youth summits. Learning etiquette and manners while dining at restaurants. Midnight basketball with community mentors. Recognition at graduation ceremony and receiving award certificate. Continuation of case manager relationship with youth and family. b. Consequences Phone call from case manager to parole officer. Structured meeting between case manager, parole officer, youth, and family. Parole violation/revocation hearing. Time out in detention. Placement back at the facility. Suspension of services from the program. 5. Service brokerage with community resources and links with social networks It is critical for facilities to brokerage services with community resources and to develop links with social networks that will enhance culturally specific reintegration planning. Facilities should allow vendors, community providers, other state agencies, volunteers, etc., more opportunities to become involved with juvenile offenders while they are still within the facility. For example, in Portland, OR, a number of small businesses have taken the lead in encouraging private businesses to donate computers, gifts, and clothing and to request others to participate as guest speakers. Other groups provide job-readiness training, assess youth s vocational skill level, provide employment assistance and resume writing, and help youth obtain appropriate identification when they are ready to return to the community. Such community services support the treatment efforts that exist within the juvenile correctional facilities. The individuals involved in these services develop relationships with youth in the facilities and thus are likely to continue working with them when they return to the community. This improves the youth s chances of success. Juvenile correctional facilities need to educate staff about the benefits of community-based services that are backed-in to the facility and how such services support the agency s mission and goals. Facilities need to orient community-based providers and vendors on safety and security procedures/policies and advise them on how they can enhance and support programs and services within the facility. Strategies for developing effective partnerships with community stakeholders include the following: 15 9

152 IAP-Topic 15 Developing a marketing or public relations strategy around the agency s mission, providing press releases, and holding agency press conferences that use the media to advantage by getting positive stories about the program in community newsletters, on TV and radio, and in the local newspaper. Identifying and meeting with key stakeholders, including: Legislators. Business and women s organizations. Community leaders (ministers, advocates, police, educators). Minority community leadership (Urban League, NAACP, Council for Hispanic Advancement, faith-based coalitions, etc.). Participating in minority community events. Exploring the potential for and establishing agency ethnic advisory committees

153 IAP - Topic 16 Topic 16: Juvenile Sex Offenders Key Points Throughout the 1990s, major public concern over sex offenders living in communities triggered legislative actions and placed increasing pressure on juvenile correctional systems to provide effective juvenile sex offender supervision and treatment programs. Juvenile sex offenders a heterogeneous subpopulation of offenders with highly specialized supervision and treatment needs present clear challenges regarding defining risk levels. The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model is well suited as a framework for providing overarching case management strategies to support and direct the reintegration of juvenile sex offenders. The application of the IAP model with high-risk juvenile sex offenders requires well- developed collaborative relationships, reintegrative case planning, intensive and integrated surveillance and services, and recognition and support of the specialized functions of the IAP counselor. Topic Goals To identify and discuss public safety concerns and key legislative trends pertaining to high-risk juvenile sex offenders. To clearly describe the unique supervision and treatment needs of juvenile sex offenders and explain the issues surrounding risk assessment and classification. To conceptually illustrate and outline the application of the IAP model to the reintegrative process with high-risk juvenile sex offenders. To describe the role of the essential components and procedures of the IAP model in the context of intervening with and reintegrating high-risk juvenile sex offenders. 16 1

154 IAP - Topic 16 I. Introduction This topic discusses how the IAP model can be applied to a high-risk subpopulation of juvenile sex offenders who have been placed in juvenile facilities. It begins with a brief review of community protection concerns and the compelling need to balance such concerns with offender rehabilitation and to integrate social control and treatment strategies. The challenges of accurately assessing and selecting the highest risk group for the intensive experience are discussed, as are the advantages of the IAP model for community aftercare with juvenile sex offenders. This topic assumes the reader has a basic understanding of juvenile sex offender typologies and dynamics or can easily access and become familiar with the information. It is designed to provide a framework for applying a promising model to the varied and unique challenges of reintegrating high-risk juvenile sex offenders into the community. A. Community Protection Issues In the 1990s, highly publicized violent sex crimes generated much public fear and outrage and led to a flurry of statutory actions against sex offenders. The laws were attempts by communities to provide higher levels of notification about the movements of offenders in addition to more severe sanctions for sex offending. Most of the legislation can be grouped into four types of laws: Community notification. Longer sentences, longer periods of postrelease supervision, and mandatory treatment. Sex offender registration. Involuntary civil commitment. Of these four, community notification laws and longer sentences/postrelease supervision have the most bearing on juvenile sex offenders reintegrating into communities. 1. Community notification laws The first state to implement such laws, and a model for others, was Washington. Although community notification laws vary by state, they typically fit into one of the following three types: broad community notification, notification to individuals and organizations at risk, and access to registration information (Matson and Lieb, 1997). Usually the level of notification is determined by some evaluation of the level of risk to reoffend. In Washington, for example, the highest risk sex offenders are subject to general media releases, which include names, addresses, photographs, sexual offending and treatment history, and supervising agencies. Community notification laws are intended to increase safety and protect communities and neighborhoods from sexual victimization. The effectiveness of such laws is unknown at this time. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy conducted a study in 1995 (Schram and Milloy 1995) and found a slightly lower, but not statistically significant, rate for a notification group of sex offenders compared with a group released prior to the notification law. They did find that offenders released under the notification statute were rearrested more quickly. 16 2

155 IAP - Topic 16 Community notification creates many challenges for staff supervising high-risk juvenile sex offenders. For example, one of the immediate concerns when reintegrating offenders is establishing a community placement. Often landlords will refuse to rent to sex offenders, particularly those who are subject to broad community notification. Likewise, families may be reluctant to have an adolescent sex offender return home when their address is to be listed on television news, in newspapers, or on Internet registries. Broad community notification may also generate the threat of vigilantism toward both the sex offender and family members, although such actions have been extremely rare. 2. Longer sentences and longer periods of postrelease supervision with mandatory treatment The other category of statutory actions regarding sex offenders involves increasingly restrictive sentences and longer periods of postrelease supervision with specialized conditions. In Washington, for example, juvenile sex offenders are mandated to 24 months of parole supervision, which can be extended up to a total of 36 months depending on public safety and/or treatment needs. These long periods of supervision are most useful for high-risk sex offenders and are probably less so for lower risk offenders. They allow for close monitoring of community behavior and treatment response over an extended period of time and create opportunities to facilitate gradual, staged, and planned normalization to community life. 3. The juvenile justice response It is critical for juvenile justice professionals to be highly aware of public sentiments concerning the presence of sex offenders, while at the same time endeavoring to educate a fearful public and to correct misinformation. It is counterproductive to view the public as an adversary or to be unaware of community concerns about sex offender reintegration. A publication by the Center for Sex Offender Management (Carter, 2000) describes the following key areas for gaining community support: Helping the community understand that it is not feasible to incarcerate all sex offenders indefinitely. Replacing misconceptions about sex crimes with facts. Providing opportunities for citizens to learn more about how supervision and treatment can foster successful and safe reintegration of sex offenders into society and prevent future sexual victimization. Offering qualitative and quantitative data that help demonstrate how supervision and treatment programs are effective in protecting the community from convicted sex offenders. Seeking out community members opinions and including those opinions in policy decisions. Taking community members concerns seriously. 16 3

156 IAP - Topic 16 Providing citizens with opportunities to become involved in implementing their community s sex offender management program. In addition to general community education, staff supervising high-risk juvenile sex offenders must engage in early case planning with key community players. For example, establishing long-term relationships with landlords is critical and has proven fruitful in many jurisdictions when seeking community placements for high-risk sex offenders. Open communication with law enforcement agencies at community meetings is essential to vigilante prevention efforts. Typically, local law enforcement officers chair the meeting, neighbors are invited to attend, and representatives from the local probation or parole office, victim advocacy groups, and treatment providers are available to answer questions and provide information and assurances. A community meeting can be an excellent forum for opening lines of communication, educating community members, warning against vigilante behavior, and explaining the supervision and treatment program for the offender. B. Risk Assessment, Classification, and Treatment Models 1. Risk assessment technologies To provide effective supervision and treatment interventions and thereby reduce the probability of future sexual victimization, providers need adequate risk predictive tools that can identify dynamic (changeable) risk and protective factors. Furthermore, allocating supervision and treatment resources in a responsible and effective manner (assuming that the highest risk juvenile sex offenders receive not only the broadest community notifications but also the most intensive levels of supervision and treatment services) is predicated on effective and reliable assessment and classification strategies. Although improved risk assessment tools have assisted in critical placement, program, and supervision decisions for the general juvenile offender population, the sex offender subpopulation still lacks empirically validated risk assessment tools. The development of new technologies for sex offenders has been hindered by: Low base rates of sexual crime recidivism, making it difficult to find differences and establish cutoffs. The heterogeneity of sex offenders, with crimes and offender types ranging from inappropriate sexual touching among young siblings to violent predatory raping by older adolescents. The long period of postrelease time necessary to capture adequate recidivism data (see Groth, Longo, and McFadin, 1982, and Bynum, 2001, for more on sex offender recidivism). Currently, risk assessment for sex offenders consists of clinical assessments combined with some type of risk tool that provides an objective score and corresponding risk level (although not empirically validated), and a group process that may review the assessment information and make a final determination of risk level (Showers et al., 1983; Rodgers and Terry, 1984; Bemus and Smith, 1988). 16 4

157 IAP - Topic 16 Advances have been made, however, in establishing predictive measures of sexual reoffending. For example, the Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol II (J SOAP II), developed by Prentky and Righthand (2003), is promising, and ongoing research seeks to determine its predictive validity. 2. Treatment models Treatment models for juvenile sex offenders involve cognitive behavioral therapy delivered in group, individual, and family settings and in residential and community contexts. Because the treatment model is specialized and consists of a series of distinct components, some jurisdictions have certification requirements for sex offender treatment providers. Typical components of sex-offender-specific treatment include: Accepting responsibility for sexual victimizing behavior. Understanding the offense cycle. Family support and education. Anger and aggression management. Social skills training. Victim empathy and clarification. Past trauma and abuse. De-arousal conditioning. Relapse prevention planning. Supervising high-risk juvenile sex offenders is a time-consuming and complex process requiring the integration of treatment monitoring with surveillance methods. Subsequent sections in this topic will provide a detailed account of this process. It is important to note that the treatment and supervision components of a well-developed community reintegration plan are the same in almost all cases. A useful model for supervising high-risk sex offenders involves close monitoring and support of the offender s relapse prevention plan (see the following framework). Effective Relapse Prevention Monitoring Know the youth s relapse prevention plan: Early warning signs. High-risk situations. Trigger feelings and thoughts. Support network. Interventions steps, including escape and avoidance strategies. Design and implement a strategy for monitoring the relapse prevention plan: Determine the level of supervision required. Use structured interviews/contacts. Identify and communicate regularly with the youth s support network. Support and enhance youth s internal controls, and ensure that adequate external controls exist. Continued on next page 16 5

158 IAP - Topic 16 Monitor all components of the relapse prevention plan. Continually evaluate the relapse prevention monitoring plan: Is the supervision schedule/level adequate? Is the support system/network adequate? Can it be expanded? Is the youth self-managing and increasing the use of internal controls? What is the treatment provider s evaluation of the youth s relapse prevention efforts? II. An IAP Framework for Juvenile Sex Offenders The population of juvenile sex offenders includes a subpopulation of high-risk offenders requiring intensive treatment and supervision from the point of institutional confinement through community release and aftercare. The IAP model was developed for this target population. Since 1997, the Washington State Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration has been mandated to implement and evaluate the IAP model with the highest risk youth (top 25 percent) across its entire system of juvenile parole. As a policy decision, the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration also included the highest risk sex offenders in the program. Washington has found the adaptable IAP model framework valuable in meeting the needs of high-risk juvenile sex offenders while also addressing the concerns of the public. A. A Reintegrative Continuum The IAP model incorporates a continuum for aftercare intervention that consists of three distinct, yet overlapping, phases that pertain to the confinement, transition, and community followup phases. These phases, defined below, represent a structural response to the systemic dilemma of smoothly transitioning youth across the institution/community boundary. They are: Prerelease and preparatory planning during confinement. Structural transitioning, using stepdown procedures prior to final community placement. Long-term, normalizing activities to ensure adequate service delivery and the necessary level of social control during the community phase. B. Operating Principles The IAP model contains five operating principles for designing program interventions (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c). These principles are listed below along with key considerations for applying the model to a subpopulation of high-risk juvenile sex offenders. 16 6

159 IAP - Topic Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community Programs combining a staged series of smooth transitions from more to less secure settings matched to treatment progress are ideal. Compliance with facility regulations is much less important as a key behavioral indicator because sex offenders are typically fairly compliant residents. More important is the continuum of treatment steps linked to the development of a relapse prevention plan that can be tested in controlled settings with close oversight and supervision prior to release. 2. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement The relapse prevention and reintegration needs of high-risk juvenile sex offenders require a collaborative and highly committed support system. Community members must receive training that is focused on the needs of this group of offenders. One specific role or function for a community or family member is that of a chaperone. This role requires additional training and support pertaining to behavioral observations and the setting and enforcement of clear rules and limits, particularly concerning unsupervised contacts and access to potential victims. 3. Working with the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g., schools, family) on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the juveniles successful community interaction Schools, for example, are an important point of contact for supporting and facilitating positive interactions and reintegration. Regular, close contact between treatment providers, case managers, and targeted support system individuals is critical for feedback. It will allow positive behaviors to be reinforced and negative behaviors to be sanctioned or corrected. The challenges of linking these youth to the grassroots level in the community and developing public acceptance of high-risk sex offenders can be daunting and require ongoing efforts to educate citizens and build community relationships (Little, 2000). Continued isolation of sex offenders puts the community at higher risk because isolating behavior is often a key warning sign in a sex offender s behavioral pattern leading to reoffending. 4. Developing new resources and supports Key areas include housing, schools, employment, opportunities for socialization with positive peer groups, recreation, and sex-offender-specific treatment. Other programmatic elements that can support successful reintegration include day reporting programs focusing on job readiness and/or academic readiness (Jones et al., 1999). 16 7

160 IAP - Topic Monitoring and testing youth and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively As stated previously, the use of a relapse prevention monitoring plan, combined with sufficient reinforcement systems and graduated sanctions, provides a comprehensive supervision system for community reintegration and normalization of high-risk sex offenders. C. Overarching Case Management Central to the IAP model is the concept and practice of overarching case management (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a). This core component of the model provides a comprehensive operational framework for implementing a successful high-risk sex offender rehabilitative program. The five elements of overarching case management are discussed below along with promising and effective practices related to each element. 1. Assessment, classification, and selection criteria The IAP model is designed for high-risk offender populations. Juvenile sex offenders pose challenges in this area, as there is a dearth of empirically validated risk assessments for determining risk for sexual reoffending behavior. Nevertheless, most jurisdictions have created assessment and classification strategies to meet the legislative requirements of community notification laws. Thus, a high-risk group can typically be identified. One of the difficulties inherent in assessment and classification of juvenile sex offenders involves the reluctance of many sex offenders to initially disclose a complete sexual history, including prior undisclosed victims. The fear of possible additional legal charges, in addition to the secrecy inherent in sex offending, often inhibit disclosure and make it difficult to collect accurate risk information. Because of these factors, assessment and selection of high-risk sex offenders for an intensive aftercare program may be hindered. In addition, the ability to obtain complete information may be delayed until offenders reach a point in the intervention process at which they can honestly disclose all sex offending behaviors. 2. Individualized case planning that incorporates family and community perspectives Case planning for reintegration must begin at intake into the institutional/residential program. A clearly defined set of staged treatment goals leading to a functional relapse prevention plan is critical and requires collaborative planning between community and residential case managers. The inclusion of family needs and perspectives is even more of a prerequisite if the sexual victimization of a family member is involved. Protocols concerning clarification and reunification with a family victim need to be followed closely and with a great deal of sensitivity by staff. Case plans need to be tied to clear reintegrative goals and must be regularly reviewed and modified as necessary. Most cognitive behavioral therapy sex offender treatment models involve highly dynamic and individualized programming designed to unfold over time as youth become more honest about sexual histories, offending, and arousal patterns. It is critical that residential and community case managers 16 8

161 IAP - Topic 16 maintain regular, meaningful contact about goals and interventions. The evolution of the institutional case plan into a prerelease transition case plan is a critical process that should include, at a minimum, the following elements: Identification of a community support network. Establishment of the initial supervision plan and conditions. Identification of the community sex-offender-specific treatment provider and needed services (e.g., individual, group, and family treatment). Identification of other treatment providers as required. School and/or vocational plans. Identification and communication of surveillance methods such as polygraphs, electronic home monitoring, surveillance officers, and drug/alcohol testing. The finalized relapse prevention plan. Strategies for the generalization and maintenance of mastered competencies. 3. A mix of intensive surveillance and services The integration of high levels of surveillance and social control with intensive sex-offender-specific treatment is critical for effective community management. Surveillance and control methods may include the use of field surveillance officers to make frequent scheduled and unscheduled contacts (including evenings and weekends) to verify release conditions. Additional methods include the use of electronic home monitoring technology, drug and alcohol testing, and monitoring of polygraph examinations. Developing a victim-centered orientation to supervision is also a necessary ingredient in an effective program, including close monitoring to prevent contact with prior victims and establishing external barriers to future victimization. The intensive levels of surveillance should be phased to decrease in intensity and frequency as key behavioral progress indicators are met over time. The provision, brokerage, and monitoring of substantial levels of treatment is the other key aspect of supervision. The degree to which surveillance and treatment can be integrated and interrelated provides a consistency in practice and expectations for the sex offender, prevents breakdowns in communication, and leaves less room for offender manipulation. This type of intensive supervision also requires smaller specialized caseloads and sufficient training for the community case manager in sex-offender-specific issues. According to a publication by the Center for Sex Offender Management (Gilligan and Talbot, 2000), specialized sex offender caseloads offer the following advantages: Allow community case managers to gain expertise and training related to sex offender management. 16 9

162 IAP - Topic 16 Ensure that sex offenders are not lost in nonspecialized caseloads because they appear to be compliant, and ensure that they are supervised intensively. Support an environment in which sex offenders can talk openly about their thoughts and behaviors. Promote feelings of support among other case managers of sex offender caseloads and help reduce vicarious traumatization. Improve agencywide consistency in sex offender management practices. 4. A balance of incentives and graduated consequences Due to the nature of conditions specified for sex offender supervision, which are usually numerous and target many high-risk behaviors (e.g., prohibiting possession of pornography including computer/internet restrictions, prohibiting unsupervised contact with minor children, and prohibiting access to high-risk areas without supervision), there is great potential for numerous technical and more serious violations. Therefore, it is important to have a readily available system of graduated sanctions that can be applied when violations occur. Typically, graduated sanctions programs use matrices that categorize violations and corresponding sanctions across dimensions of seriousness, e.g., intensity, frequency, duration, and intervals. The use of such matrices as operational tools helps avoid the tendency to move too quickly to immediate revocation and return to confinement. This kind of alternative sanctioning scheme allows for corrective actions to better match the severity of the violation and to retain offenders in the community for purposes of treatment and normalization. Years of behavioral research have consistently demonstrated that sanctioning alone provides some short-term suppression of illegal acts but does not teach alternative behaviors. It can also create a variety of negative side effects for the person being punished. The use of positive reinforcement strategies for desired behaviors, combined with a sanctioning system for misbehavior, provides longterm behavioral change that includes the shaping and reinforcing of new adaptive skills. Communitybased incentive programming is key to strengthening compliance with conditions and helps improve participation and acquisition of skills in treatment and other service areas. Experience in the state of Washington, where all parole offices employ community-based incentive programming for offenders, finds that juvenile sex offenders typically respond very well to these programs. (See Topic 11 for a more detailed discussion of graduated responses.) 5. Creation of links with community resources and social networks The role of the community case manager with high-risk juvenile sex offenders needs to be that of a welltrained service broker. Establishing highly collaborative relationships with sex-offender-specific treatment providers is critical for success, as is the ongoing role of education and resource sharing with other community and social networks. The Center for Sex Offender Management has excellent publications (with ongoing development and update of material) describing model community programs with highly evolved and functional collaborations, including a very strong appeal to involve victim 16 10

163 IAP - Topic 16 advocates and victim service providers in the community management of sex offenders. Community protection issues can also be supported through collaborative relationships with multiple local law enforcement agencies

164 IAP-Topic 17 Topic 17: Juvenile Offenders With Severe Substance Abuse Problems Key Points The development of a youth s substance abuse disorder and related mental health issues may stem from multiple difficulties that are complex and interrelated and that are different from those of an adult. Adolescent substance use occurs on a continuum that extends from experimentation through problem use to disorders of abuse and dependence. Adolescent substance use/abuse occurs with varying levels of severity and involvement. Not all adolescents who use alcohol and other drugs are, or will become, dependent. The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model provides a comprehensive framework for working with certain juvenile offenders in custody who exhibit severe substance abuse problems. Assessment and overarching case management elements support service providers efforts to individually tailor treatment interventions to offenders gender, culture, mental health, trauma exposure, family strengths, and other needs. The IAP model provides for a continuum of care across confinement, structured transitioning, and community reintegration. Relapse prevention services are essential for reducing the risk of recidivism and substance abuse relapse for youth involved in the juvenile justice system; services must consider school, peer relationships, and family systems. Topic Goals To identify and discuss a developmentally appropriate, comprehensive continuum of care pertaining to juvenile offenders who are dependent on alcohol and/or other drugs. To clearly describe how supervision and individualized case planning can assist in reducing criminal and substance abuse relapse among juvenile offenders. To describe the operating principles of the IAP model and their application to high-risk youth who are deeply involved in substance abuse. To describe the overarching case management concept of the IAP model and its use in implementing effective treatment strategies in conjunction with reintegrating alcohol and other drug-involved juvenile offenders back into the community. 17 1

165 IAP-Topic 17 I. Introduction This topic discusses how the IAP model can be applied to a high-risk subpopulation of juvenile offenders placed in custody who are seriously involved in substance abuse. It provides a review of the developmental issues involved in juvenile substance use and abuse, screening and assessment issues, and treatment options. The discussion assumes the reader has a basic understanding of substance abuse treatment approaches for juveniles or can easily access and become familiar with the information. The key elements and subcomponents of the IAP model are described, as are the advantages of the IAP model for community aftercare with juvenile substance abusers. This topic is designed to provide a framework for applying a promising model to the varied and unique challenges of reintegrating high-risk juvenile offenders who are involved in substance abuse back into the community. A. A Developmentally Appropriate, Comprehensive Continuum of Care Substance use can prevent adolescents from completing typical developmental activities of adolescence such as dating, education, exploring the workplace, and building rewarding personal relationships (Havighurst, 1972; Baumrind and Moselle, 1985; Newcomb and Bentler, 1989). Substance use changes the way in which individuals approach and experience interactions. For adolescents, the formation of a strong self-identity is hindered through compromised psychological and social development. Their emotional and intellectual growth is also hindered by substance use. Instead of developing a sense of empowerment from healthy personal development, the substance- using adolescent is likely to acquire a superficial and false selfimage as he or she becomes more deeply entrenched in the experience of using drugs (MacKenzie, 1993). It is important to expedite the treatment of adolescents who have become involved in the juvenile justice system and who have substance use disorders. When treatment is provided quickly, the substances being used will have less time to hinder the achievement of normal adolescent development. As summarized in a federal government report (SAMHSA, 1999): Treatment approaches should account for age, gender, ethnicity, cultural background, family structure, cognitive and social development, and readiness for change. Adolescents must be approached differently than adults because of their unique developmental issues, differences in values and belief systems, and unique environmental considerations (e.g., strong peer influences). Some delay in normal cognitive and social-emotional development is often associated with substance use during the adolescent period. Treatment for these adolescents should identify such delays and their connections to academic performance, self-esteem, and social considerations. Many adolescents have explicitly or implicitly been coerced into treatment. Such pressure, however, is not conducive to the behavior change process. Consequently, treatment providers must be sensitive to motivational barriers to change at the outset of intervention. 17 2

166 IAP-Topic 17 B. Screening and Assessment Not all adolescents who use substances are, or will become, dependent. Programs and counselors must be careful not to prematurely diagnose or label adolescents or otherwise pressure them to accept that they have a disease, since in the long run this may do more harm than good. It is also important that youth who are involved in the juvenile justice system are assessed for coexisting mental disorders, because treatment may be ineffective if coexisting conditions are not treated. One approach to identifying and assessing alcohol and other drug abuse in adolescents is the use of brief screening instruments most commonly self-report questionnaires to determine the possible presence of drug use problems. Screening tools should be used with caution because scores only indicate whether or not a substance use disorder is likely (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 1999). Available tools to screen adolescents for alcohol and other drug use disorders include the Adolescent Alcohol Involvement Scale, Adolescent Drinking Index, Personal Experience Screening Questionnaire, Substance Use Survey, one domain of the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers, and Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index. If an initial screening indicates the need for further assessment, diagnostic interviews can be employed to measure the nature and severity of alcohol problems and other drug use disorders. These diagnostic interviews include the Adolescent Diagnostic Interview, Adolescent Self Assessment Profile, Customary Drinking and Drug Use Record, and Diagnostic Interview for Children and Adolescents. C. Treatment Options for Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System Treatment options and the level of services vary a great deal. The options may include various intensities of outpatient treatment. Brief interventions, which involve screening, anticipatory guidance, and psychoeducational interventions, are primarily appropriate for adolescents in the low to middle range of the severity continuum. 1. Residential treatment Treatment may include 24-hour intensive inpatient care for adolescents requiring a high level of supervision. Inpatient care generally includes a 3- to 5-day detoxification program with intensive medical monitoring and management of withdrawal symptoms. Residential treatment is a longterm model (30 days to 1 year) that includes psychosocial rehabilitation among its goals. Residential treatment is especially beneficial for adolescents with coexisting personality and substance abuse disorders. Therapeutic communities are one type of intensive and comprehensive treatment model, wherein the treatment community itself is both therapist and teacher in the treatment process. The core goal of a therapeutic community is to promote a prosocial lifestyle and identify the behaviors that can lead to drug abuse and that need to be changed. 17 3

167 IAP-Topic Self-help groups Groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Al-Anon, and Alateen can be a valuable addition to outpatient services and residential programs for teenagers. Self-help groups can offer positive role models, new friends who have learned how to enjoy drug-free lives, and a place to learn how to cope with life stress and relapse triggers. A group member usually serves as a sponsor to provide support in times of crisis or when the youth faces life situations that may trigger a return to drug use. 3. Family therapy Treatment programs can include family members to help bring about positive changes in the way family members (family of origin or other significant people) relate to each other. Disrupted family communication may be addressed to decrease stress in the youth s life. Family members, along with the youth, learn how to listen to one another and solve problems through negotiation and compromise. For more information on specific family interventions, see Topic 10. D. Characteristics of Effective Treatment Programs Effective treatment programs are structured and intensive and focus on changing specific behaviors. The most effective programs typically involve intensive training or behavior modification techniques aimed at reducing risk factors for becoming involved in the juvenile justice system (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, 1999). For example, programs that focus on improving interpersonal skills, self-control, anger management, and substance abuse resistance have been found to reduce recidivism by as much as 50 percent. Treatments that are longer in duration and involve more contact hours are associated with better outcomes. For programs based in institutional settings, better outcomes are associated with the use of mental health professionals as treatment providers rather than corrections staff. In general, the most effective programs are highly structured, emphasize the development of basic social skills, and provide individual counseling that directly addresses behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions. II. An IAP Framework for Alcohol and Other Drug-Involved Juvenile Offenders Many youth involved in the juvenile justice system have alcohol or other drug use problems. Many times they are also involved in other systems such as mental health, child welfare, or special education. These youth are best served when services are coordinated and provide an individualized continuum of care plan. The IAP s overarching case management model supports and augments this approach to service delivery. Each youth receives an individualized assessment, treatment plan, and aftercare plan that meets his or her unique needs. All involved systems are incorporated into the service plan and coordinated communication is facilitated by an IAP caseworker. Because the IAP model was developed for and with adolescents, it is developmentally relevant and designed to assist in working toward adolescent developmental 17 4

168 IAP-Topic 17 tasks. Relationships are valued; an adult consistently follows the youth through the system and helps the youth gain trust and the ability to accept help. The case manager is a constant in the juvenile s life and supports and coaches the youth in learning ways to advocate and access people and services to improve his or her life. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (1999) reports that evaluation of interventions using systems of care programs showed reductions of as much as 61 percent in the number of subsequent crimes committed by youth on probation versus those who are not involved in systems of care programs. Additionally, the report indicates that multimodal or multicomponent interventions are more effective than narrowly focused programs for youth involved in the justice system. By integrating substance abuse, mental health, and family disruption issues, treatment is more comprehensive and integrates the many areas of life experiences. Treatment programs providing integrated models are considered the state of the art for youth with co-occurring disorders. A. A Reintegrative Continuum The IAP model provides a continuum of care plan that begins intervening with youth while they are in confinement. The model recognizes that institutions are artificial settings in that they provide limited accessibility to drugs, decreased daily family disruption, and peer influences; it encourages youth in this environment to practice refusal skills, learn new leisure activities, and incorporate stress-relief techniques into their lives. Care continues during the transition back to the community, when youth are faced with familiar triggers, environments, and pressures. The continuum for intervention consists of the following three distinct, yet overlapping, segments that pertain to the confinement, transition, and community followup phases. These segments represent a structural response to the systemic dilemma of smoothly transitioning youth involved in substance abuse across the institution/community boundary: Prerelease and preparatory planning during confinement. Structural transitioning, using stepdown procedures, prior to final community placement. Long-term, normalizing activities to ensure adequate service delivery and the necessary level of social control during the community phase. The IAP model provides guidelines for positive reintegration of substance-involved youth back into their community and addresses issues related to substance abuse when a youth first enters a juvenile correctional facility and continues through reintegration. The IAP model can help create a support system that provides a continuum of coordinated and collaborative aftercare services tailored to fit the individual needs of substance-involved youth and their families. B. Operating Principles The IAP model contains five operating principles for designing program interventions (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a). These principles are listed below along with key considerations for applying the model to juvenile offenders involved in alcohol and other drug 17 5

169 IAP-Topic 17 abuse. 1. Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community The most effective programs are those that structure their services using realistic graduated responses for alcohol and other drug-involved youth. Providing youth the opportunity to work on important developmental tasks, such as decisionmaking, negotiation, and problem-solving skills, is a key component in preparing youth for community reintegration. Teenagers acquire skills in communicating their thoughts and feelings so they can cope with life stressors, and they acquire vocational skills through relationships with people they can trust. Youth have the opportunity to work on such developmental tasks and to progressively take risks when supported by an adult who is part of their continuum of care plan. 2. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement Youth need to have a relapse prevention plan that is realistic and responsive to his or her unique situation. A support system in the community is necessary for youth to successfully follow such a plan. The plan needs to incorporate family and community members to assist the youth in remaining drug free. Information relevant to family members and significant community members must be communicated. Individuals who are important in the youth s life need to understand the youth s triggers for substance use and his or her strengths and weaknesses, and must provide ongoing communication and support. Community support may exist in the form of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings or other community support groups for alcohol and other drug-involved youth. Additional support systems may include cultivation of new friends or alliances with religious or community interest groups. 3. Working with the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g., schools, family) on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the juveniles successful community interaction Developing regular contact between treatment providers, schools, case managers, family members, and targeted support systems (including significant individuals in the youth s life) is critical for the youth s success. The feedback from this contact provides information that allows positive behaviors to be rewarded and negative behaviors to be sanctioned. Youth who have been involved in alcohol and other drug use are faced with the challenge of coping with difficult situations without using drugs. These challenges include peer pressure, fear of failure, stress, and family disruptions. Many youth use drugs to escape, numb their pain, self-medicate, or deal with ongoing disruptions in their lives. Further, feedback may be limited to the youth s perceived failures or struggles rather than his or her actual successes in the community. Youth need the opportunity to experiment with their previous coping behaviors without receiving harsh penalties. They need to learn that living drug free is a process and that their improvement is not measured by all or nothing consequences. 17 6

170 IAP-Topic Developing new resources and supports New resources may include safe and drug-free housing, schools, employment, opportunities for socialization with positive peer groups, recreation, and alcohol and other drug-specific treatment. Programs that have elements in place to support successful reintegration include day reporting, mentoring, job readiness and/or academic readiness, drug-free leisure activities, and development of effective relationship skills. Youth need to be exposed to mainstream adolescent activities that involve peers who are drug free. 5. Monitoring and testing youth and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively The ability to deal with each other productively is achieved through a comprehensive relapse plan with buy-in from a supportive community. The community needs to help the youth celebrate his or her successes and to hold the youth accountable for his or her actions. The IAP case manager is responsible for providing information about how effectively the youth and the community are dealing with each other. An effective monitoring plan that includes reinforcement for successes and graduated sanctions for mistakes provides a comprehensive supervision system. C. Overarching Case Management Overarching case management (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c) is central to the IAP model and provides the framework for implementing a successful reintegration program for youth who abuse alcohol or other drugs. The five elements of overarching case management are discussed below; the discussion includes promising and effective practices related to each element. 1. Assessment, classification, and selection criteria The IAP model is designed for high-risk offender populations. Working with youth involved in substance use and abuse presents a challenge. While there are programs that target this population, many treatment interventions are being adapted from adult models and from programs that target addicted or dependent individuals. The DSM IV diagnosis of substance dependence requires that the user must have taken a substance frequently enough to produce clinically important distress or impaired functioning. Sustained usage is also an indicator of substance dependence. Many youth have not sustained usage long enough for clinicians or for the youth to identify any clear patterns that help to explain the reasons underlying substance use. The IAP model of individualized assessment, classification, and selection allows for recognition of the adolescent s development issues, the type and mix of drug treatment, and co-occurring mental health issues for each youth (Crowley and Riggs, 1995). Interventions and selection criteria for alcohol and other drug treatment are sharpened by using treatment readiness instruments to accurately plan individualized treatment interventions. Some jurisdictions include a screening instrument, in addition to a more indepth substance abuse assessment, in their classification/assessment process. During the classification of risk and level of secure placement, youth are also classified as prevention-, intervention-, or treatment-level substance users. 17 7

171 IAP-Topic 17 Challenges to accurately assessing youth with substance use/abuse problems is the fear of possible additional length of out-of-home placement, placement in a more secure setting, and/or that the initial absence of a relationship with the interviewing staff may inhibit disclosure. Thus, ongoing assessment and reclassification of treatment needs is necessary throughout the youth s treatment. 2. Individualized case planning that incorporates family and community perspectives Family involvement with the juvenile offender is important and, whenever possible, should begin as early as intake. Incorporating family and community perspectives assists in realistic case planning and in designing individualized reintegration programs. Contact with the family is inherent in the overarching case management activities that occur throughout the IAP continuum of care. Obtaining the family s buy-in enhances the effectiveness of the IAP model. Attending to the family s needs, in addition to the youth s needs, is a more comprehensive approach in helping youth reintegrate back to their community. Many families involved in the juvenile justice system share some common themes, including family disruptions, financial concerns, and intergenerational patterns of substance abuse. Family therapists involved in implementing the IAP model have found (as have researchers such as Canino and Canino, 1980) that family therapy for alcohol and other drug abuse that is action oriented and directed toward problem resolution is most effective for low-income, multiproblem families. Furthermore, many families involved in the juvenile justice system have had numerous treatment experiences and are more concerned with the present than with the past. Focusing on a case plan that includes problem resolution assists in mobilizing the youth and the family to cope with stressful life situations, and this in turn can help to reduce stress and stress-related alcohol and other drug use and abuse. The case plan should focus on reintegration. Designing a clear set of goals and expectations with designated timelines is essential. Collaboration between the community, family members, and facility staff is crucial. The family needs to understand the youth s triggers, substance abuse cycles, and mental health issues before attempting to reintegrate the youth back into the home or into the community. Additionally, structures and support need to be in place. Case plans need to be tied to reintegrative goals and must be regularly reviewed and modified, as necessary. It is critical that residential and community case managers maintain regular, meaningful contact regarding goals and interventions. The evolution of the institutional case plan into a prerelease transition case plan is a process that should include the following elements: Identification of a community support network for the youth and his or her family. Family support of the initial supervision plan and treatment conditions. Identification of community alcohol and drug-specific treatment providers and necessary services for the youth and family (e.g., individual, group, and family treatment). School and/or vocational options where drug availability and culture have been assessed. 17 8

172 IAP-Topic 17 Identification and communication of surveillance methods such as random urinalysis and drug/alcohol testing, electronic home monitoring, and surveillance staff. A final slip/relapse prevention plan. Strategies for maintaining skills and tools to remain drug free. 3. A mix of intensive surveillance and services The integration of intensive surveillance and services with juvenile offenders involved in substance use/abuse may include methods such as the use of electronic home monitoring technology, random urinalysis drug testing, day treatment, outpatient groups, and community support groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, or Alateen. Developing a slip/relapse prevention plan with the level of necessary supervision is part of an effective program. With sustained nonuse of alcohol or drugs, youth receive less intensive surveillance as they build internal limit-setting skills. The intensive levels of surveillance should be phased to decrease in intensity and frequency as progress indicators are met over time. Surveillance services need to be closely linked with treatment services to maintain the youth s ability to practice refusal skills and alternative coping skills in his or her attempts to remain drug free. The provision, brokerage, and monitoring of treatment is the other key aspect of supervision. The surveillance plan and treatment plan can be integrated, providing consistency in practice and expectations for the youth. Designing intensive supervision that is interrelated with the necessary level of alcohol and other drug treatment for juvenile offenders also requires specialized knowledge of adolescent development, substance abuse, co-occurring mental health issues, and the IAP model, which requires smaller caseloads and sufficient training. 4. A balance of incentives and graduated consequences Effective, developmentally appropriate substance use/abuse case management practice rewards positive choices that youth make related to not using or slipping. When youth choose to get back on track after they make a mistake, they are rewarded. Normal adolescent development includes experimentation with coping mechanisms, such as using substances (old coping mechanisms) when they are faced with stress, and is common for juvenile offenders during reintegration. Referring to the choice as a slip rather than a relapse allows the case worker to use graduated sanctions rather than falling into the all or nothing trap that is common in many drug treatment interventions. Youth are developing their identity and need to know that improving is a process rather than being solely a success or a failure. Typically, graduated sanctions within the IAP model focus on categorized violations with corresponding sanctions that are consistent with the seriousness of the youth s action, e.g., intensity, level of stress, frequency of use, and duration. Graduated sanctions help avoid the tendency to move too quickly to immediate revocation and return to confinement. This allows youth to learn from mistakes and remain in the community for the benefit and purpose of treatment and normalization. 17 9

173 IAP-Topic 17 Equally important as using sanctions to suppress juvenile delinquency and substance use/abuse is using incentives to promote positive decisions and acts. Many youth have a history of low selfesteem and low self-efficacy and have experienced many failures. Rewarding positive behavior allows youth to experience success, which can enhance their self-efficacy and teach an alternative behavior that returns positive feedback. The use of a reinforcement system that is connected with behaviors sanctions for unwanted behaviors and incentives for desired behaviors teaches youth how to change. Incentives must be realistic and consistent with community opportunities. Incentives must include both nonmonetary and monetary rewards that are relevant to actual rewards the youth can reproduce upon successful completion of the IAP. 5. Creation of links with community resources and social networks Service brokerage is key in the role of the IAP case manager. The case manager must be in tune with available community resources and social networks to support the drug- or alcohol-involved juvenile offender in the reintegration process. The case manager is responsible for linking community service providers in a collaborative process. Activities include team case reviews, integrated learning opportunities across systems the youth is involved in, and treatment that matches the youth with drug treatment services. The case manager must have effective communication and relationships with all parties involved in the case plan and will be the ongoing link between service providers. The case manager may serve several roles to effectively manage a case. He or she may serve as a liaison between programs the youth is involved in, a resource specialist, an educator for other community agencies, and a role model for effective advocacy, networking, and communication for the juvenile offender and his or her family

174 IAP-Topic 18 Topic 18: Juvenile American Indian/Alaska Native Offenders Key Points American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) youth experience disproportionate minority confinement 1 (DMC) at higher per capita rates than any other minority group. By substantially reducing the level of probation/parole revocation and recommitment among this population of youth after release into their home communities, the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model can have a direct and major impact on the DMC problem. The IAP model is useful for planning the actual transitional process, whether release is back onto a reservation or into an urban setting. Due to the unique nature and complexity of the government-to-government relationship between county, state, federal, and tribal governments, significant barriers exist that often impede the implementation of the IAP approach with tribally enrolled AI/AN youth. Culturally relevant treatment that addresses the issues of AI/AN youth in juvenile corrections facilities has traditionally been nonexistent or extremely limited. The IAP case management framework provides procedures to incorporate these types of intervention modalities. Implementation of a reentry model tailored to the needs and circumstances of tribes with the responsibility for managing this population upon release requires the development of collaborative relationships between county, state, federal, and tribal governments. These relationships must extend beyond the juvenile justice system s traditional partnerships. Topic Goals To develop an understanding of DMC as it relates to AI/AN communities. To understand the unique status of tribally enrolled youth who are adjudicated and confined. To develop an understanding of the special nature of treatment and supervision modalities related to transitional and aftercare programming intervention with AI/AN youth. To develop strategies for creating effective collaborations between tribal governments and other government agencies to implement the IAP approach for transitioning AI/AN youth from confinement back into their communities. 1 Although the 2002 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act changed DMC to disproportionate minority contact, this Guide focused on youth at the deep end of the juvenile justice system uses DMC with reference to confinement. 18 1

175 IAP-Topic 18 I. Introduction This topic discusses the need to provide culturally relevant IAP caseplans for AI/AN youth. It reviews the unique status of AI/AN youth who are members of a federally recognized tribal government and the importance of establishing government-to-government relationships to address the key elements of the IAP model relevant to working with tribally enrolled youth who are confined within the juvenile justice system. This topic also discusses collaboration with tribal governments to address culturally relevant treatment modalities that will augment existing treatment and reformative efforts and provide a way to increase treatment opportunities and success. In addition, this topic will discuss how these steps will assist in reducing AI/AN recidivism rates and the overrepresentation of these populations in the juvenile justice system. A. Disproportionate Minority Confinement The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act considered DMC to exist in those situations where the minority (traditionally defined as African American, AI/AN, Latino, and Asian) proportion of juveniles detained or confined in secure detention facilities, secure correctional facilities, jails, and lockups exceeds the proportion of such groups in the general population. Although minority youth make up one-third of the adolescent population in the United States, they make up two-thirds of the youth confined in local detention and state correctional systems (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999). Nationally, custody rates for African American youth are five times greater than for white youth (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999). Custody rates for Latino and AI/AN youth are 2.5 times the custody rates for white youth (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999). AI/AN youth have a rate of prison incarceration that is about 38% higher than the overall national rate (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1999). In February 2001, 74% of the youth in custody in the Federal Bureau of Prisons system were AI/AN, a 50% increase since 1994 (Greenfield and Smith, 1999). However, the DMC rate varies among states. In states that have reservations or AI/AN communities, the rate increases significantly. AI/AN youth make up 16% of the population, but they make up 34% of state prisoners (Disproportionate Representation of Minorities in Alaskan Juvenile Justice System, 1997). Minnesota s AI/AN juveniles (under 18) make up 1.6% of the juvenile population, but make up 16% of the 87 juveniles incarcerated by the Minnesota Department of Corrections on January 1, 2003 (personal communication, September 5, 2003). South Dakota s American Indians/Alaska Natives make up about 10% of the population, but make up 21% of incarcerated males and 34% of incarcerated females (Steinberger, 2001). 18 2

176 IAP-Topic 18 B. Understanding the Unique Status of Tribally Enrolled Youth The unique nature and complexity of the government-to-government relationships that exist among local, state, federal, and tribal governments create significant barriers that often inhibit the implementation of coordinated aftercare programs with tribally enrolled AI/AN juvenile offenders. Further, many government agencies are unaware of tribal resources and the unique circumstances of AI/AN juvenile offenders who are enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. The overarching case management framework of the IAP model can readily guide decisions for engaging tribal services. The approach is grounded in a set of policies and procedures that are easily adapted to engage tribal governments in the development of transitional and aftercare programming for the delivery of services and supervision to AI/AN juvenile offenders. There are two categories of AI/AN youth: those who are enrolled members of federally recognized tribes and those who are not enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. While there are significant transition concerns for both groups and they often have comparable issues, the focus of this topic will be the development of collaborative intergovernmental efforts focused on AI/AN youth who are enrolled members of federally recognized tribes. As a member of a federally recognized tribe, the AI/AN youth is a member of a sovereign nation. If he or she lives on a reservation, state juvenile justice systems may not have developed appropriate policies and procedures for working with the tribal government that ultimately holds jurisdiction over this youth. Without formal agreements, efforts may be severely limited. The absence of tribes as decisionmakers in these activities may contribute to high recidivism rates. For example, the AI/AN juvenile offender placed in an off-reservation correctional facility may reappear in the tribal community without any contact or coordination of services with the tribe prior to release. This experience in not unusual; more often than not, it is the standard practice. Tribally enrolled AI/AN youth may fall into one of the following categories when returning to their communities: The youth may be returning to a reservation or federally recognized community, in which case there may not be sufficient linkage to the tribe to effectively transition the youth back into his or her community (i.e., the reservation). State governments usually do not have jurisdiction over decisions made and activities conducted on reservation lands. The youth may be an enrolled member of a tribe but live off the reservation (i.e., usually in an urban environment). In this situation, reintegration decisions and activities are tied to leadership and resources in the local AI/AN community. Determining whether a youth is an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe is critical to planning for aftercare services. Members of federally recognized tribes are eligible for Indian Health Service benefits, which may include medical, mental health, dental, and substance abuse treatment. If the tribe hosts an Indian Health Service clinic, the enrolled AI/AN youth would be eligible for services from that clinic. The tribe may also have exclusive services that they provide 18 3

177 IAP-Topic 18 to their members. These services may include mental health and substance abuse treatment and family therapy. In addition, the tribe may have law enforcement capabilities, including tribal police and tribal court. The tribe may also have juvenile counselors, probation officers, and detention facilities. 1. Tribal resources for reintegration and aftercare However, there are concerns about the resources available to tribes in planning reintegration services. Tribal authority to sentence offenders is limited to 1 year of imprisonment or a $5,000 fine, or both (25 U.S.C. 1302(7)). In June 2001, a total of 68 jails, confinement facilities, detention centers, or other correctional facilities were supervising 2,030 persons in Indian country, an increase of 10% from the previous year; these facilities were operating at 126% of capacity on their peak day (Minton, 2002). At mid-year 2001, juveniles younger than age 18 accounted for 16% of the total custody population. Clearly, tribes do not have enough resources and have limited confinement options. In some cases, juvenile offenders are confined with adult offenders, which has led tribes to purchase beds from other juvenile justice agencies. This practice has frequently resulted in even less coordinated efforts to develop reintegration and aftercare plans with those youth who have been placed farther away from their home communities. Juvenile justice detention facilities and tribal detention facilities function very differently from each other. In the juvenile justice system, detention facilities are usually short-term options for holding purposes. In contrast, tribal detention facilities are also used for long-term correctional placement. In addition, many tribes have not implemented a programmatic strategy to address the treatment, reformation, and transition needs of their delinquent youth. In 1992, OJJDP funded the Native American Community Based Alternatives for Adjudicated Youth project. In coordination with IAP, this project provided guidance and stabilization of services to adjudicated youth in four tribes over several years. More recently, OJJDP has offered Tribal Youth Program funding for a range of prevention and intervention projects, including development of reintegration and aftercare planning and programs. 2. Tribal sovereignty To fully understand the significance of youth who are enrolled members of federally recognized tribes, one needs to have a working knowledge of tribal sovereignty and government. The Saginaw Chippewa tribe describes tribal sovereignty as follows: An Indian Tribe is a distinct political community. A Tribe retains its inherent powers of self-government absent action by Congress to limit those powers. A State cannot limit the powers of a Tribe. The source of Tribal powers rests in its people. 2 Tribes have had the inherent right to govern themselves from time immemorial per Worchester v. Georgia, 515, 558 (1832). With some exceptions, tribal governments have the same powers as federal and state governments to regulate their internal affairs. For instance, tribes have the power to form a government, make decisions about their own membership, regulate property, maintain law and order, and regulate commerce. 2 See the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe s Web site at

178 IAP-Topic 18 Tribal governments receive their sovereign authority by act of Congress through negotiated treaties that were enacted on a government-to-government basis between 1776 and There are many issues at the interface between federal, state, county, city, and tribal governments. The presence of an explicit, ongoing process for informal and formal engagement between nontribal and tribal governments is critical. The informal level includes the development of partnerships between collateral positions within governmental entities. The formal level involves government-to-government agreements that include policies, procedures, and key principles to conduct collaborative partnerships between federal, state, county, and/or city governments and tribal governments. When tribal governments are not included in collaboration with federal, state, or county juvenile justice systems that work with tribally enrolled AI/AN youth, the situation isolates tribal governments from their youth. This creates outcomes in which AI/AN youth will most likely not receive comprehensive appropriate treatment and reformative services that address the specific needs of the youth. In addition, the juvenile justice system loses the opportunity to include additional resources that can adequately provide services that are understandable and relevant to AI/AN youth. Key protocols for working with tribal governments are to: Recognize tribal governments as sovereign nations. Understand the unique status of enrolled members of the tribes. Utilize workers of comparable stature when engaging tribal governments. Understand that tribal government leaders are elected officials of their tribes and are politically invested in their communities. Resolve concerns at the lowest possible level of interaction. C. Understanding Treatment Issues Relevant to the Needs of AI/AN Juvenile Offenders for Successful IAP There are many factors and variables to consider when providing treatment services to AI/AN juvenile offenders. Treatment providers need to be familiar with AI/AN history, the socialpolitical climate of the community from which the youth comes, and the particular tribal government. While the needs of individual AI/AN juvenile offenders are diverse, the following basic information can assist the treatment provider in understanding the context of AI/AN youth: 100% of American Indians/Alaska Natives are directly or indirectly affected by alcohol, alcohol abuse, and alcoholism (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration, 1999). AI/AN youth (younger than age 18) are incarcerated for alcohol-related offenses at twice the national rate. AI/AN alcohol-related delinquent acts are five to six times higher than the 18 5

179 IAP-Topic 18 national rate (Greenfield and Smith, 1999). The presence of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and Fetal Alcohol Effect is extremely high in some American Indian/Alaska Native communities (May and Gossage, 2001). Rates of diabetes are higher in AI/AN communities than in other populations: 12.2% of those over age 19 have diabetes (American Diabetes Association, 2003). Gangs and gang-related crimes have increased substantially in just the last 10 years in AI/AN communities (Major and Egley, 2002). American Indians/Alaska Natives have experienced severe historical oppression of culture and language, along with U.S. Government and state-sponsored historical attempts at assimilation (Gallegos, 2003). As a result of historical trauma, many AI/AN tribes, communities, and individuals have developed patterns of internalized oppression and domestic violence (Gallegos, 2003). Many AI/AN communities hold strong and very distinctive cultural values, which help to suppress problem behaviors such as substance abuse, violence, and criminal activities. Successful treatment programs consist of utilizing Native culture to engage youth in culturally relevant treatment modalities that can be combined with a correctional agency s standard treatment interventions. In some cases, tribally enrolled AI/AN youth who are confined in the juvenile justice system will have little or no orientation toward or knowledge of their native heritage. Culturally relevant treatment may be most important for these youth who are alienated from their heritage and who are searching for identity through delinquency. Redirection can occur by sharing culturally accurate information, providing culturally appropriate mentoring, and participating in culturally relevant treatment practices that enforce a positive self-identity and attachment to spiritual and ceremonial traditions, such as sweatlodge. 3 Although there is no guarantee that youth residing on a reservation will have strong ties to his or her culture, an array of tribal services may be available to these youth. Tribal service involvement as soon as possible following adjudication and placement in a facility ensures a stronger probability for the provision of culturally relevant treatment along with positive community contact and the possible use of tribal traditional healing. Collaborating with a tribal government in the implementation of an IAP model reentry program provides a framework for tribal engagement with their youth who have penetrated deeply into the juvenile justice system. This involvement offers an avenue for positive community contact and culturally relevant treatment, allows the tribe to demonstrate authority over decisions concerning these confined youth, provides for ownership of culturally relevant services, contributes to continuity of services 3 Originally Sioux, sweatlodge is a traditional purification/renewal ceremony/practice that includes preparation, prayer, meditation, talk, and chant in a specially built structure where water poured on ceremonially heated stones creates intensely hot steam. The elements of the sweatlodge are sacred and symbolic and both challenge the participant and reconnect him or her to the entirety of creation, nature, community, family, and self. 18 6

180 IAP-Topic 18 when the youth returns to the community, and provides tribes with an opportunity to prepare the community for reentry of these youth while they are still in confinement. The application of an IAP approach to intervening with those youth who are not reservation based can promote collaboration among intertribal organizations that provide a variety of culturally relevant treatment opportunities. These organizations can also assist in preparing reservation-based youth for the IAP transition program while they are still in confinement. D. Developing Strategies to Engage Tribal Governments The fundamental principles of the IAP model can help guide tribal governments in treatment and reformative efforts for youth. The following key points are important in the development of relationships between governmental entities: Informal relationship building with key partners within the nontribal and tribal government systems. Formal development of procedures, policies, and defined practices that engage the tribal and nontribal governments. Following is an example of a blueprint for this formal process of collaboration between state and tribal governments (also see the sidebar on cultural competency principles, page 18-8). In 1996, the governor of Oregon directed all state agencies to develop formal government-togovernment agreements with the state s nine federally recognized tribal governments (Executive Order 96 30, later codified into state law). Stipulated requirements are that state agencies: Submit a written report to the governor s office about activities carried out for linkage with tribes. Participate in an annual summit that brings tribal and state governments together. The order established cluster groups organized by functional responsibility: Education, Health Services, Natural Resources, and Public Safety. The state youth authority is a member of the Public Safety cluster group along with the state police, corrections department, liquor control commission, National Guard, public safety department, law enforcement standards and training, and tribal law enforcement agencies. The cluster grouping provides regular, ongoing opportunities to generate dialog between the involved state governmental agencies and tribal entities to identify and explore key issues and work toward problem resolution through a collaborative process. The youth authority employs a Native American Coordinator within an Office of Minority Services to assist with inclusion of tribes in collaboration and joint decisionmaking, and to develop, coordinate, and monitor agreements between the state and the federally recognized tribes. The coordinator is also a liaison between the tribal governments and the youth authority to aid in the development and implementation of culturally relevant treatment modalities for AI/AN 18 7

181 IAP-Topic 18 youth in the state s closed custody facilities. Organizational Cultural Competency Principles for Minority Reintegration Program* The agency s Mission, Policies, and Cultural Competency Principles provide the framework that supports a culturally competent organization. All agency employees, contractors, and partners understand these principles and the value of culturally competent efforts. The agency values a culturally diverse work force that reflects the diversity in the youth offender population. Support from agency administration and management continues and is a key ingredient in implementing competency goals and plans. Resources and funding are made available to support agency cultural competency goals and plans. The agency strives to create an environment and work site that is welcoming, safe, free of discrimination, and supportive of all cultures, races, ethnic groups, religious affiliations, sexual orientations, and persons with disabilities. The agency implements and reinforces Civil Rights mandates in all aspects of the organization. Equal access and equal services benefit all agency youth and staff. Changes in population and new trends are evaluated and incorporated into the way the agency does business. Best practices in cultural competence and treatment services are adopted to benefit youth in the agency system. *Based on principles developed by the Oregon Youth Authority, Office of Minority Services. The youth authority jointly developed Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the federally recognized tribes. In regard to tribal juvenile offenders, the MOUs outline the shared responsibilities between the state and each of these tribes. Also, the MOUs identify a representative from the tribe and the youth authority s Native American Coordinator as key contacts and outline mutual areas of concern such as culturally appropriate treatment, tribal notification (at the point of a tribal youth entering the system), and procedures for ongoing communication. The MOUs also outline the youth authority s and tribal supportive services. 18 8

182 IAP-Topic 18 The youth authority recognizes that there will be continuing issues between the agency and tribal governments. Consequently, a process has been implemented to address a wide range of issues; this process includes establishment of a Native American Advisory Committee. The committee meets on a regular basis at various locations to work through issues, collaborate on treatment options, share ideas, and advise the youth authority on matters concerning AI/AN youth who have been committed to that agency. The advisory committee includes a tribal representative from treatment agencies in each of the state s federally recognized tribes. In addition, the advisory committee is mandated with the responsibility to assist in meeting the needs of those confined AI/AN youth whose tribes are not located in the state or who are not tribally enrolled. The Native American Advisory Committee approved the following set of goals: Establish community links between the youth authority and the state s AI/AN communities. Provide consultation to assist in the incorporation of cultural competency into programs, services, and policies targeting AI/AN youth within the youth authority. Recruit volunteers to participate in the provision of services offered by the youth authority for AI/AN youth in custody. Recruit and retain AI/AN staff (the youth authority is expanding as an agency and is committed to having an employee workforce that reflects the diversity of the youth population being served). Provide consultation regarding transitional services for AI/AN youth. Provide staff training on AI/AN culture and tribal structure. Establish resources for out-of-home placements. Ensure acceptable levels of safety in community and youth authority facilities. Advocate for the best interests of AI/AN youth and their families. Develop communication and trust between the youth authority and the tribes. E. IAP Principles of Programmatic Action and Relevance to Reintegration of AI/AN Youth The five principles of prerelease programmatic action, which are the basic conceptual reintegrative requirements of the IAP model, suggest a strategy for systematic involvement and collaboration on the part of youth correctional agencies and federally recognized tribal governments. For many juvenile justice systems, inclusion of these principles begins to fundamentally change the landscape for interaction within juvenile justice partnerships to respond to circumstances of removal and isolation from the community and the resulting complex process of reentry. The IAP model offers a guideline to this condition of community 18 9

183 IAP-Topic 18 disconnect. The focus is on the numerous issues and impediments arising out of the disconnected and fragmented movement of juvenile offenders from court disposition to out-of-home custodial placement, to community stepdown and aftercare supervision, and finally to discharge from the juvenile justice system. These disconnections are particularly apparent in reintegrating AI/AN youth. These prerelease action principles are as follows: Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement. Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g., families, peers, schools, employers) on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the juveniles successful community adjustment. Developing new resources and supports where needed. Monitoring and testing the youth and community on their ability to deal with each other productively. These five prerelease principles establish objectives and a mission highlighting the fact that the reintegration of confined youth requires more than intensive supervision and service provision following release. Reintegration also requires planning and program activities that prepare these youth for what they will confront in the community. These prerelease activities, linked to street readiness, are followed by a carefully structured reentry process with close monitoring of performance and progress of individual youth, and close collaboration between support and monitoring systems. Through the adoption of these principles, AI/AN governments can begin to share common agendas and operational procedures with state juvenile justice agencies for the well-being and safety of their communities and the remediation of delinquent behavior exhibited by their youth. Utilizing AI/AN community expertise in addressing issues critical to the successful reintegration of AI/AN youth brings additional and innovative strategies to bear on the overriding issues of supervision, treatment, and resource provision for this population that has historically been served in an inappropriate and inadequate manner. The IAP principles also generally correspond with AI/AN cultural values about the role of community, collaboration, and holding youth accountable for their behaviors. AI/AN governments can provide an additional level of direct, firsthand accountability over these youth. This is fully compatible with the mission statements of many juvenile justice agencies in many states with sizeable AI/AN populations and offers support in supervising areas where juvenile offenders may have traditionally slipped through the cracks in the transition and aftercare planning process. In addition, the collaboration will greatly increase culturally relevant treatment opportunities and treatment successes. An example of an effort to collaborate with a tribal government during transitioning is the development of and funding for a special program position: the minority youth transition 18 10

184 IAP-Topic 18 specialist. This individual works directly with the state s federally recognized tribes to coordinate services for AI/AN juvenile offenders who are transitioning back into their communities. Prior to the release of the youth, the transition specialist coordinates a plan with the tribe to reintegrate the youth back into the community. This collaborative effort includes the identification of ongoing treatment needs, specification of contracted treatment providers, linkage with vital tribal resources, and the requirement for intensive monitoring of the youth once he or she is released into the community. 1. Tribal, state, and federal concerns addressed by collaboration When the federal government becomes a party in the commitment, confinement, and reintegrative process, additional factors add to the complexity of the situation. This occurs when an AI/AN youth commits a crime on a reservation that comes under the Major Crimes Act of The case is sent to the federal prosecutor s office. However, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does not operate juvenile correctional facilities but contracts with state juvenile correctional agencies for placement services. The federal government uses this arrangement with many states, which may be at considerable distance from the home community of a federally prosecuted youth. A juvenile offender from a reservation in South Dakota may be sent to the California Youth Authority and may not have the benefit of interagency communication, collaboration, or joint decisionmaking in the transition process. Recently, the BOP has set a policy to place juveniles no more than 250 miles from their home community. Due to placement distance, lack of contact, and lack of transitional agreement between the contracted state youth correctional agency and the tribe, the tribal community and family frequently lose all contact with the youth. When the youth returns to the community under these circumstances, there is usually insufficient transitional planning and procedure to generate a smooth and successful reentry process. Positive outcomes regarding remediation of delinquency and heightened public safety fall by the wayside. One strategy that has begun to emerge to respond to this serious problem has been the development of collaborative partnerships between the state and tribal governments to advocate for the placement of federally adjudicated AI/AN youth in local state or tribal youth correctional facilities. This strategy greatly increases the possibility of making tribal transitional service planning and service provision available and also allows the youth to remain closer to family and community contacts throughout the period of confinement. For example, the Oregon Youth Authority is contracting to provide facility placement for the BOP. Under this provision, youth from an Oregon tribe, who are adjudicated in federal court for crimes committed on the reservation, are retained in local state confinement. The contract negotiations include representatives from the BOP, the state attorney general s office, tribal groups, and the state youth authority. There are many obstacles that must be addressed, including statutory constraints imposed on this process. However, these problems can be resolved and federally adjudicated tribal youth are being placed within secure state facilities. As a requirement for placement, the BOP requires two major conditions: BOP must be allowed to conduct a site visit to the facility

185 IAP-Topic 18 BOP must be kept apprised of the youth s treatment and the status of his or her adjustment in confinement. Not only have these tribal youth been able to access culturally appropriate treatment, they are also able to remain in ongoing contact with their family and community. 2. IAP overarching case management and AI/AN juvenile offenders The IAP case management framework provides operational guidelines for the transitional process of movement from secure confinement to community living that offers major benefits for tribal youth in confinement. The process involves several key programming dimensions: assessment, case planning, treatment, service provision through public and private agencies, and appropriate levels of supervision. Key staff include individuals designated to work with these high-risk youth from the point of secure care disposition until discharge from parole/aftercare status. In the case of tribally enrolled AI/AN youth, one or several tribal representatives need to be identified as key participants in the process. This incorporation of the tribe in the overall process should occur as soon as possible once adjudication has occurred and the decision to commit has been made to provide a seamless level of care and accountability. Activities should be defined and steps taken that depend on collaboration from both appropriate youth correctional agency staff and tribal representatives. This enhances and strengthens the use of case management. 3. Assessment and classification From an IAP perspective, the central concern in targeting AI/AN youth for assessment and classification is the ability to determine the full array of needs, problems, and deficits toward which appropriate and comprehensive interventions should be directed. For juvenile offenders living on reservations who have been committed to tribal, state, or federal custody, a number of complications may arise in accessing critical records and other relevant information with which valid assessment can be conducted. In certain instances this may require developing new procedures for collecting essential information that was not previously available. Some level of capacity building may be required to achieve this goal. A key to the success of these endeavors will be strong, ongoing collaboration between tribal authorities and other juvenile justice agencies and individuals who are responsible for identifying and transferring relevant information for assessment purposes. IAP case management provides procedural guidelines at the early stages of decisionmaking that will greatly aid the assessment process. Further, this assessment framework requires the consideration and exploration of factors in major risk, need, and resiliency areas for the development of more holistic profiles of these youth. Only in this way can the special circumstances and needs of AI/AN youth be identified and then utilized to guide decisions and activities that constitute appropriate intervention. F. Individual Case Planning Incorporating a Family and Community Perspective Case planning, as it relates to AI/AN youth who are from federally recognized tribes and reside within the boundaries of a reservation, assumes a fundamentally important role in the 18 12

186 IAP-Topic 18 transitioning of this population in a manner that guarantees the delivery of appropriate services and levels of supervision. The issues involve matching youth with interventions that work best for them and then ensuring consistency and reinforcement of these services once youth return to their home communities. Although state juvenile justice agencies may not have jurisdiction on a reservation, a cooperative agreement can be developed that ensures meaningful collaboration between the state and tribe without invading the sovereignty of the tribal government. These joint efforts should be designed to address concerns expressed by both jurisdictions for achieving the most positive, long-term results. The family members of AI/AN juvenile offenders who have been confined may be more willing to engage in a process that involves tribal services. The tribe, through its agencies and governmental structure, may be better able to address the relevant needs of confined youth, provide positive role models, and offer culturally appropriate mentoring. In addition, the tribe will be better equipped to address the cultural issues, social networking, close friends, and peers in general. The matching of services to the needs of youth who are returning to the reservation will encourage a collaborative partnership within the network of tribal treatment services. The sooner a tribal representative can be included in decisionmaking about service provision, the better the understanding will be about how service providers, whether state or tribal, may interconnect and complement each other. G. A Mix of Intensive Surveillance and Services Achieving a balance between intensive surveillance activities and services provided to tribally enrolled juvenile offenders returning to their community will require collaborative efforts by tribal and state agencies working together to arrive at a clear understanding about the mix of roles and responsibilities of each party. Although tribal entities may be able to provide an array of services for this population once they are released back into the community, there remains a need to set these activities in motion and then monitor them. In regard to followup with offenders after they are released back to the reservation, one substantial challenge often faced by tribes that enter into collaborative agreements with state agencies is whether there will be adequate resources for more intensive and structured aftercare. In addition, there may be concerns about the existence of the necessary level of knowledge and expertise to assume these responsibilities. Transfer of knowledge, capacity building, and augmented resources become issues in developing this collaboration. H. Service Brokerage With Community Resources and Linkage With Social Networks Effective and ongoing communication is the key to any service brokerage, along with monitoring and evaluation of services provided. In the public sector there are avenues to control and monitor treatment resources through contractual agreement within the juvenile justice agency. Tribal governmental agencies, on the other hand, act on their own behalf with their own set of guidelines, policies, and practices, once again highlighting the need to define roles and responsibilities carefully and concretely between the tribe and the state agency. The tribe will very likely be able to and will want to provide valuable linkages with culturally 18 13

187 IAP-Topic 18 relevant treatment opportunities for AI/AN youth who reside within the reservation boundaries. In addition, for the tribally enrolled youth residing off the reservation, the tribe may be able to broker or assist in providing certain services that are similar to those being offered on the reservation. In most states with sizable AI/AN youth populations in confinement, large AI/AN communities are located in urban settings where culturally relevant services, treatment, and activities are available. I. Management Information and Program Evaluation The development of a formal process to facilitate communication between state and tribal governments is imperative. One avenue for achieving this goal is to establish key contacts at the tribal and state level; this allows for regular and open communication across this boundary. Since the effectiveness of the IAP model depends on timely information sharing and collaboration, the protocols established for communication on a government-to-government basis are critical. In cases that involve AI/AN juvenile offenders with tribal affiliation, an information system must be developed jointly with and must have direct relevance to the needs and interests of the participating tribes and state agencies. Through this collaborative effort, state juvenile justice agencies and tribal governments will be better equipped to address the issues of success and failure in these collaborative programming efforts. Program improvement and innovation can best be facilitated where these data are available for review and discussion by both tribal and state agencies. II. Summary Tribal governments and reservation communities can become essential partners in the process that involves the confinement and reintegration of enrolled AI/AN juvenile offenders. The communication and collaboration necessary to work effectively across boundaries of sovereignty and jurisdictional barriers is often absent between state juvenile justice agencies and tribes. Yet, being sovereign nations, tribal governments are invaluable in providing critical support both through service provision and consultation to the state agency for tribal youth who are placed in confinement and are eventually released. Youth correctional agencies at state and county levels need to establish protocols for government-to-government collaboration. In this process, key contact persons from both the tribe and state agencies need to be identified. The effectiveness of transitional and aftercare programming for confined AI/AN juvenile offenders depends, in part, on culturally relevant treatment services, most of which can best be obtained from tribal governments and agencies that have responsibility for their youth. These services can be identified and mobilized for use with these juvenile offenders through collaborative efforts involving tribes and youth correctional agencies outside the tribe. Fortunately, the IAP framework and particularly its case management components provide a mechanism to target, assess, and match these types of special offender populations with appropriate services, including those that are culturally relevant. The IAP approach provides an effective way to address the multidimensional and intense needs of high-risk AI/AN youth at the deep end of the juvenile justice system. Many challenges face 18 14

188 IAP-Topic 18 those systems that are committed to the implementation and maintenance of the IAP model. One of the issues is collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries where tribal, county, state, and/or federal governments may be involved. However, the IAP model provides a comprehensive and coherent framework that incorporates critical procedures, including assessment, case planning, a balance of surveillance and services, and a strategy for deploying incentives and graduated consequences, along with procedures for service brokerage to obtain essential services and resources. The model contains sufficient flexibility to adapt programming to a myriad of circumstances, but at the same time offers guidelines and procedural options to ensure collaborative decisionmaking across jurisdictional boundaries. As a result, opportunities to establish collaborative partnerships with tribal governments to facilitate effective reintegration can be created. This topic has focused on a number of critical concerns in designing and managing effective aftercare programming for AI/AN youth from an IAP perspective. One key consideration has been the need to provide culturally relevant services for AI/AN youth and how the IAP model may help achieve that goal. Another important consideration has been the unique status of AI/AN youth who are members of a federally recognized tribal government and have been committed to secure correctional facilities. Attention has also been directed to the importance of establishing government-to-government relationships that can begin to draw upon key practices in the IAP approach in working with this targeted population. Emphasis has also been placed on how collaboration with tribal governments to provide culturally relevant treatment modalities will greatly enhance and improve existing treatment efforts being offered by off-reservation correctional agencies. Finally, arguments favoring the value of an IAP approach were tied to ongoing concerns about the critical need to reduce AI/AN recidivism rates and overrepresentation of AI/AN youth in the nation s juvenile justice system

189 Section 4 Process and Outcome Evaluation, Lessons Learned, and Promising Practices Topic 19: Management Information and Program Evaluation Topic 20:Testing the IAP Model: Program Development and Implementation in Selected Pilot Sites

190 IAP-Topic19 Topic 19: Management Information and Program Evaluation Key Points Evaluations serve a variety of purposes and can answer a range of very different kinds of questions. Different questions require different evaluation designs, each of which has its own unique set of strengths and weaknesses. Multiple measures and indicators help to determine the full array of effects, impacts, and answers. Topic Goals To explain the purposes of evaluation activities and to identify the main programmatic questions that evaluations can answer. To present the basics of planning an evaluation, including the types of information needed and the variety of data collection methods used. To pose key questions that help address a range of program implementation and outcome issues. To discuss how to interpret and constructively use evaluation results. 19 1

191 IAP-Topic19 I. Introduction Program evaluation is the systematic use of information to answer questions about program performance. Critical questions about a program may include whether IAP is doing what it is intended to do and serving the population it is designed to serve; how well is it operating; what changes or modifications are needed; how can improvements be made; and how much does it cost? The answers to such questions may assist program administrators in activity planning, ongoing program development, staff supervision, and marketing. In addition, because clients, funding sources, other professionals, the media, and the general public often need (or demand) answers to these types of questions, findings may also support performance accountability. There are two primary sets of evaluation questions. The first concerns program implementation: whether a program is serving the appropriate clients, providing services as intended, providing services consistent with the program s principles, and employing and deploying staff appropriately. The second pertains to program outcomes: what effect(s) is the program having on its participants and on the broader system of which it is a part. In the case of juvenile IAP, key participant outcomes include recidivism and observed changes in cognitive, emotional, and behavioral indicators; examples of system outcomes include observed changes in court processing, institutional populations, or length of stay (Hatry et al., 1996). To obtain valid answers to any of the critical evaluation questions, a program must routinely collect reliable and relevant information about its clients, staff, and activities. A computerized management information system can greatly facilitate data collection, for both administrative and evaluation purposes. The information must then be analyzed and interpreted in the context of the questions asked. This topic introduces evaluation methods for intensive community-based aftercare programs. The discussion, which is intended for program administrators and other staff who do not necessarily have an extensive background in research. The section will help staff plan for and make decisions that facilitate evaluation activities, hire and manage appropriate personnel to perform the technical evaluation tasks, and use evaluation results constructively (Kosecoff and Fink, 1982). II. Why Evaluate? Program administrators in the human services are continually asked whether their program is working, whether it is cost-effective, and whether they can be sure that any positive outcomes are really the result of program activities. Unfortunately, program administrators and staff sometimes view evaluation as a necessary evil thrust upon them by funding sources or other outsiders. The evaluation may disrupt routine staff activities, absorb limited program resources, and produce results that fail to capture the essence of the program. Administrators and staff can be threatened by the possibility that an evaluation may produce negative results. Programs that do not come up with glowing cost-effectiveness results may face a major overhaul or even termination. Evidence that certain program components are not operating as intended may be perceived as an indication that someone is not doing his or her job. 19 2

192 IAP-Topic19 On the other hand, an evaluation can provide the information necessary to assess and improve a program s operations and outcomes (Patton, 1996). Responsible administrators will welcome objective indicators of performance and participate in the design of meaningful evaluations. Evaluation results can assist program administrators in five key areas: planning, documenting activities, improving performance, satisfying funding requirements, and marketing. A. Planning Evaluations can generate information about the amount of staff time and other resources needed to meet program requirements, which can lead to better allocation of resources. Outcome results linked to program activities and costs can help administrators readjust priorities or redesign budgets, if necessary. B. Documenting Program Activities Evaluations are an excellent, and much needed, mechanism for documenting program activities. Such documentation can be used both as an aid to staff supervision and for general accountability purposes. C. Improving Program Performance Evaluation can reveal which aspects of a program are operating as intended and which are not, and suggest targets for improvement. It can also indicate whether various program components, even if operating as intended, are producing effective outcomes at a reasonable cost. D. Satisfying Funding Requirements Generally, funders require some evaluation on which to base further funding decisions. E. Marketing A sound evaluation component can help administrators market their programs to various audiences by providing objective indicators of program performance. It can also enhance a program s credibility by demonstrating willingness to withstand close scrutiny and to be guided by evaluation results. Any negative evaluation results, however, can be a cue to examine some part of a program s operations more closely. Perhaps the program (as intended) had not anticipated some implementation obstacle (e.g., the lack of a particular type of service in the community, or political fallout from an unrelated program s scandal). Perhaps a finding that a program s case managers were providing insufficiently frequent surveillance points to the possibility of hiring additional, less costly trackers for surveillance. In short, a program should consider a variety of explanations for a negative evaluation finding to see whether there are feasible modifications that might help. The approach to evaluation presented here focuses on: 19 3

193 IAP-Topic19 Questions that are meaningful to the program itself. Data collection strategies that minimize demands on staff and other program resources. Frequent feedback that lets a program make use of the evaluation results. The approach also reflects the idea that an evaluation can and should provide cost-effective results and other measures for program accountability. III. Evaluation Planning Thorough planning will maximize the value of evaluation for a program. Careful planning ensures that the program will include input on the focus and design of the evaluation from all interested and relevant individuals; frame important, answerable evaluation questions; and point scarce evaluation resources toward the most important questions. Evaluation planning should proceed through six phases or steps, described below. A. Assemble a Stakeholders Group Stakeholders are persons from within and outside the program who have a stake in the performance of the program. Stakeholders may include program staff (from various levels, especially line staff); staff from other agencies that refer or receive clients from the program (e.g., juvenile court, youth corrections agencies, law enforcement, schools, and other service provider agencies); individuals from funding sources and/or oversight committees; and representatives of client and client advocacy groups. These key people must be carefully identified and then brought together to learn about and participate in the early planning. Including stakeholders in the planning process promotes a shared sense of ownership of the evaluation and ensures that the evaluation will focus on meaningful questions and that the groups represented will be able to fully understand the methods, context, and results of the study. B. Formulate Questions In general, evaluation questions should cover aspects of a program s performance that are deemed most important, measurable, and amenable to change. It must be possible to answer the questions given available resources. Questions may begin with general concepts (e.g., Does the program reduce reoffending? ) but must eventually be focused and reduced to highly specific terms (e.g., Do graduates of the program have fewer arrests in the first 12 months after release than do similar youth from other programs? ). Furthermore, it is essential to determine in advance the points of comparison that will be used (e.g., other programs, similar youth, program goals) so that findings can be placed in a meaningful context. A stakeholder group is likely to generate a wide range of potential evaluation questions, which must then be prioritized according to relative importance and answerability. 19 4

194 IAP-Topic19 C. Design the Evaluation To Answer the Questions Once the group has selected the evaluation questions, it must design the evaluation in response to those questions. Different questions may involve different designs, and a given question may be answered using many alternative designs (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). Not all designs are equally strong. For example, the strongest design for assessing program outcome effectiveness is based on a random assignment of eligible persons to two groups: one group receiving the program and one not. Alternatives include using nonrandom comparison groups, comparing different program cohorts over time, and using other benchmarks for comparison (e.g., outcomes reported in other studies). The task is to select the strongest feasible design within legal, ethical, and material constraints. The following sidebar lists some alternative standards of comparison. Alternative Standards of Comparison Control group of highly similar clients Random selection from program-eligible population. Matched on key characteristics (e.g., age, race, record). Comparison group of somewhat similar clients Other youth in similar programs. Youth in other juvenile justice programs. Youth of similar age in same community. Comparison with previous clients from the same program. Comparison with outcomes reported in other studies of juvenile justice programs. Comparison with stated program goals. Comparison with program s contractual goals. D. Specify Data Sources and Collection Methods Once a design has been selected (e.g., to compare the recidivism outcomes of a cohort of program graduates with those of a group released from the same institution but placed on regular parole status), the next step is to specify the sources and methods for data collection. For example, to answer a question about client outcomes, one could specify the clients themselves, their families, program staff, and/or official agency records as the source(s) of outcome information. Depending on the source, alternative data collection methods may be considered (e.g., personal interview, telephone interview, mail questionnaire, group-administered questionnaire) (Patton, 1980). Each source and method has its strengths and limitations. For example, the clients may have the best and most complete knowledge of how they are doing but may not be able or willing to report this information reliably. Family members may be more reliable but have less complete information. Interviews allow the evaluator to probe for clarity and completeness, but questionnaires may be quicker, cheaper to administer, and easier to code. Official records may be more readily accessible to the evaluators and require less time and effort to collect but may be incomplete. The following sidebar presents a partial list of types and sources of evaluation information. 19 5

195 IAP-Topic19 Information Types and Sources Information needed for evaluation: Client characteristics at time of entry (e.g., age, sex, race, offense history, placement history). Results of assessments. Record of individual intervention plans. Record of services delivered. Cost of services delivered. Client characteristics and behavior at termination. Client characteristics and behavior at followup periods (6, 12, 18 months). Perceptions of the program by clients/staff/others in juvenile justice system/general public. Sources of information: Records from juvenile court/schools/other agencies. Program administrative forms. Questionnaires for clients/staff/others. Interviews with clients/staff/others. Observations of program activities. The strongest evaluations use as many sources and methods of data collection as resources will permit. It may be helpful to create a worksheet for developing data collection plans (see Table 8, Evaluation Planning Worksheet, page 18). When complete, the worksheet will list each evaluation question and indicate the information needed to answer the question, the source(s) of that information, the data collection methods to be used, and the timing of data collection (e.g., at entry, program completion, and 1-year followup). E. Specify Data Analysis Strategies Data analysis strategies cannot be completely planned in advance because the process of collecting the information and preliminary results often suggest unanticipated ways to examine the data. Some preplanning, however, is essential to ensure that the right kind of data are collected. For example, an outcome study using a nonrandom comparison group design may need to collect data on certain client characteristics for use in matching the groups or statistically controlling for preexisting differences between groups. A recidivism study using time to failure analyses must be sure to collect the dates of any arrests during the followup period. A good way to plan for data analysis is to draft sample tables of what the results might look like. F. Specify Task Responsibilities and Timelines Once the evaluation questions, design, and methods have been specified, one must determine who will carry out the various tasks and when the tasks need to be accomplished. For example, line staff may perform some data collection in the routine course of their activities. Including line staff in the stakeholders group should generate the cooperation necessary to collect the data and 19 6

196 IAP-Topic19 should also ensure that data collection requirements do not unduly burden staff. Clerical staff may perform other tasks (e.g., extracting information from agency records, collating information about a case from multiple sources, performing computer data entry). The evaluation may require outside consultants for some of the more technical tasks, such as designing or tailoring the management information system, modifying or critiquing the evaluation design, locating or developing measurement tools, and analyzing and interpreting data. Although the program administrator must retain overall responsibility for the evaluation, assigning someone else to handle day-to-day management of the evaluation is a good idea. The program may decide that hiring an outside consultant as evaluation manager enhances the credibility of the evaluation. IV. Two Types of Evaluation The two general types of evaluation implementation and outcome are both essential. Implementation and outcome evaluations address different kinds of questions but can complement each other. This section describes each type of evaluation in detail, together with a model that links the two. A human services program, such as an IAP, intends to deliver intervention activities, using staff and other program resources (inputs), with or on behalf of specified clients (inputs) to achieve certain outcomes. In an IAP program, relevant program activities might include assessment and case planning, case management, surveillance, and service brokerage. Outcomes refer to observable changes in program participants or their situations after they receive services. Outcomes may include changes in the following: Knowledge (e.g., participants now know where to find resources in their communities). Attitudes (e.g., participants now think that education is a good thing to acquire). Beliefs (e.g., participants now believe that using illegal drugs can impair their health). Behavior (e.g., participants use verbal problem-solving skills instead of fighting to resolve conflict). Environment (e.g., the program has helped create new job opportunities for youth). The following sidebar outlines this process. 19 7

197 IAP-Topic19 Program Logic and Evaluation* Inputs: resources dedicated to or consumed by the program (e.g., money, staff time, facilities, equipment, and supplies); and clients (e.g., for an IAP program, serious juvenile offenders released from institutional placement). Activities: what the program does with the inputs (e.g. strategies, techniques, and types of treatment or services offered). IAP activities might include assessment, individual case planning, the surveillance/service mix, graduated incentives/consequences, and service brokerage. Outputs: volume of work accomplished (e.g., number of units of service delivered, number of clients or participants served, quantity of materials distributed). Outcomes: benefits or changes for individuals or populations during or after participation in program activities. Outcomes are usually expressed in terms of the KABBE model: Knowledge e.g., cognitive gains. Attitudes e.g., attitudes regarding school, work, peers. Beliefs e.g., beliefs in laws. Behavior e.g., reduced recidivism or improved social skills, school, or work performance, etc. Environment e.g., improvements in the juvenile justice system. Program logic (or theory of action): logical link between inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. Can be articulated in two directions From intended outcomes backward by asking how do we expect participants to attain the intended outcomes. From inputs or activities forward by asking why we are gathering these inputs or providing these activities. Outcome chain: logical or temporal chain from immediate (proximal) outcomes to intermediate outcomes to long-term outcomes. For example, an IAP program component focusing on parent education could have the following outcome chain: by increasing parents knowledge of child development and parenting techniques (immediate outcome), we expect their interactions with their children to become more positive (intermediate outcome), strengthening the bond between youth and parents (intermediate outcome) in a way that enhances positive youth development (long-term outcome) and decreases the probability of delinquent behavior (long-term outcome). *Adapted from the United Way of America model (Hatry et al., 1996). 19 8

198 IAP-Topic19 For a successful evaluation, all aspects of this intervention system must be measured and linked. Often, evaluations fail because they neglect to measure the interventions themselves (type, intensity, frequency, duration, and/or quality of program activities actually delivered to clients); as a result, any outcomes, even if measured carefully, cannot be attributed to the program interventions. In other words, a good evaluation must be able to show what actually happened (or did not happen) to whom and with what results. For example, if some clients did not show reduced recidivism after 12 months, one might be tempted to conclude that the IAP model was ineffective. However, perhaps the clients never actually received intensive surveillance and services. Their poor outcomes may reflect not a failure of the IAP model but rather a failure to actually implement the model with those clients. Suppose that a program had a goal of reducing recidivism for 80 percent of its clients, but an outcome evaluation showed that only half showed reduced recidivism after 12 months. Again, one might be tempted to conclude that the IAP model was ineffective. Perhaps, however, many of the clients referred to the IAP were inappropriate for such a program, or perhaps the successful 50 percent were systematically different from the unsuccessful 50 percent. In this example, rather than abandon the IAP model, one could instead refine the referral process or adjust the interventions for some subgroups of clients. Only thorough measurement of client characteristics and careful analysis of relationships among client characteristics, interventions, and outcomes can produce understandable and truly useful results. V. Evaluating Program Implementation Implementation evaluation focuses on a program s ongoing activities and thus can be incorporated into a program s routine supervision functions. This type of evaluation asks who is doing what for whom, when, and how? Are these activities being conducted as intended? If there are discrepancies, what do they mean? What can be altered to bring the reality more into line with program intentions, or, alternatively, what can be altered to modify the intentions in the face of reality? Although implementation evaluation may use quantitative information (e.g., number of staff/client contacts, number of clients enrolled in job training, average length of time for clients to progress through various steps of the program), qualitative information may be especially useful in developing an understanding of how and why certain program components actually function as they do. Open-ended interviews with staff about their perceived frustrations and satisfactions may reveal a great deal about unanticipated obstacles to program implementation. Observation of a few intake sessions may clarify why an assessment process is not working as intended. In addition to client records, other program documents, such as mission statements, contracts, press releases, internal memos, and meeting minutes, can all contribute valuable information. Implementation evaluation is most useful as a frequently repeated process of testing, reporting, modifying, and retesting. Several potential questions for an implementation evaluation of IAP programs are discussed below. Although a given program will develop its own questions through the planning process described above, the following suggestions should be helpful. 19 9

199 IAP-Topic19 A. Are the Participants Appropriate? The IAP model is designed to reintegrate into the community youth with serious delinquency histories. The intense support IAP provides should permit the earlier release of such youth from institutional placement than would otherwise be possible. It is conceivable, however, that some judges and probation officers may view IAP so favorably that they will direct more youth (not just the most seriously delinquent ones) into IAP programs. Committing more youth to institutions, perhaps for short periods, may strain aftercare programming resources that are available for seriously delinquent youth. IAP programs must carefully monitor the characteristics of incoming clients as well as the referral and intake process to detect discrepancies from the intended target population. B. Is Case Management Implemented as Intended? Overarching case management is at the heart of the IAP model. One way to evaluate the implementation of case management is to conduct a thorough review of a small sample of cases (perhaps selected at random from each case manager s clients). Such reviews will examine all relevant records and include interviews with the clients, staff, and others in the community (e.g., families, schools, employers). The reviews should encompass all aspects of case management, as follows: 1. Assessment, classification, and selection Were risk assessments, academic assessments and any other relevant tools implemented as intended? Were the results used appropriately in case planning? 2. Individual case planning Did case planning start from the beginning of a youth s institutional placement? Who was involved (family members, institutional staff, community support persons)? Were plans truly individualized or do all of the program s plans look alike? Was the plan routinely reassessed and modified as conditions warranted? Did the plan include measurable criteria for assessing progress? 3. Surveillance/service mix What was the timing and frequency of surveillance activities (e.g., were weekend and evening hours well covered)? Did the surveillance reflect the client s assessed risk level? Were services provided to meet the needs identified in the assessment? For brokered services, was there any followup after referral to ensure that the services were actually delivered? 19 10

200 IAP-Topic19 4. Graduated responses Was a system of graduated incentives and consequences clearly communicated to clients? Is there evidence that graduated incentives and consequences were actually used? Did the responses seem to have an effect? If cases were referred back to court for violations, is there evidence that several other incentives/consequences had been used first? 5. Service brokerage and community linkages How many other agencies and individuals from the community were involved in providing services and support to clients? Are there any gaps in the array of services available to the program s clients? C. Does Program Implementation Reflect IAP Principles? Program implementation should reflect IAP s five underlying principles of programmatic action (as discussed in Topic Four): Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement. Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems. Developing new resources, supports, and opportunities. Monitoring and testing the youth and the community. By examining a small selection of cases and including other observations and interviews with staff, clients, and others in the community, one should get a good sense of the extent to which the IAP principles guide a program. Well-implemented case management e.g., management that is individualized, flexible, and multitargeted; uses graduated incentive/consequences; develops community supports; and uses feedback to modify and improve case plans necessarily reflects the underlying principles. D. Is the Program Well-Structured and Managed? The following areas of staff organization and management merit attention. 1. Formal organization Several alternatives for structuring an IAP program may be effective. How many supervisory levels exist? Are case managers organized into teams? Are the surveillance and service support roles combined or separated? If problem areas exist, can structural modifications help? 2. Staff qualifications What are the hiring requirements for staff at various levels? Are there any training requirements for staff? Is specialized training provided by the program? Are staff encouraged to seek outside training? 19 11

201 IAP-Topic19 3. Staff satisfaction A program s success depends heavily on the quality of staff/client relationships, in addition to basic staff competency levels and the availability of resources. Enthusiastic, creative staff are more likely to develop quality relationships. Implementation evaluation can examine several indicators of staff satisfaction. Confidential questionnaires can be used to ask staff about their level of satisfaction and their perceptions of program strengths and weaknesses. Less directly, a high turnover rate may indicate a low level of staff satisfaction. E. How Does the Program Relate to Its Environment? How a program relates to and is perceived by other agencies and persons in the community can greatly affect its operation. This is especially true for programs that are as dependent on community linkages as IAP. To assess a program s interactions with its environment, implementation evaluation studies can ask about indicators such as formal and informal agreements between the program and other agencies, the frequency of interagency interaction, and the inclusion of nonprogram personnel on advisory committees and task forces. To assess perceptions of the program, the evaluation can conduct interviews or send questionnaires to representative persons in related agencies and in the general public. An inexpensive way to get information about community perceptions is to monitor reports in the local media. Implementation evaluation questions, as discussed above, are important in their own right. In addition, a program can learn from its experiences if it is willing to examine its operations carefully. The next section discusses an excellent tool for monitoring IAP program implementation: Performance-based Standards (PbS). VI. Performance-Based Standards for Aftercare: Utility for Program Implementation Performance-based Standards (PbS) for aftercare programming are derived from the operational guidelines for the IAP model and define the set of activities that should be used for implementing and managing this type of approach to reintegration. The original PbS project was funded by OJJDP and managed by the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators. The initiative emerged in response to findings from the Conditions of Confinement study conducted by Abt Associates (Parent et al., 1994) between 1990 and This study resulted in the development of 22 standards covering 6 functional areas of facility operations: safety, order, security, programming, health and mental health, and justice. A partnership between the PbS project and the IAP initiative was established in spring 2002 to extend the existing standards into the arena of transitional and aftercare services for confined youth. A separate area of facility responsibility, reintegration, was added to the six previously identified operations areas. Six separate standards were then delineated as necessary to put the goal of reintegration into operation. Also associated with these standards is a set of procedural guidelines that ensure that the standards are mobilized through clearly identified processes and practices and then monitored through a data collection process tied to tangible outcome measures 19 12

202 IAP-Topic19 (see Table 9, Performance-based Reintegration Standards, page 19). Essential design features of the IAP model were used as a basis for generating the reintegrative standards, procedural guidelines, and outcome measures. At this stage in the extension of standards to transition and aftercare, the standards are limited to tasks carried out while youth are confined in the facility, although such tasks occur both in the facility and the community. Corresponding standards, outcome measures, expected practices, processes, and data elements remain to be developed for the postrelease phases of IAP. These are likely to encompass topics such as the existence of formal agreements among relevant service providers in the community, the accessibility and quality of services, the role and activities of the case manager, the source and distribution of resources, and the involvement of youth and families in decisionmaking. As useful as a PbS model and corresponding management information system dataset can be, they do not in themselves answer the bottom-line questions about program implementation. Because no program is likely to implement every aspect of the IAP model perfectly, local IAP staff and stakeholders still must exercise judgment regarding what level of performance is acceptable. What the PbS model can do is point out areas of excellence, gross inadequacies, and information that can usefully guide decisions regarding program modifications. Implementation evaluation results can also help explain a program s outcomes, as the next section will make clear. VII. Evaluating Program Outcomes The main purpose of IAP programs is to provide individually tailored support and supervision services to help seriously delinquent youth successfully return to community life after some period of institutional placement. At a broader level, a successful IAP program will assist the overall juvenile justice system by permitting the earlier release of youth from institutions, thus relieving overcrowding and/or reducing the use of expensive residential placement resources. Outcome evaluation is designed to determine to what extent these goals are met. In general, a successfully reintegrated youth will stay out of trouble with the law, become productively involved in work or school activities, maintain positive relationships with family and peers, and develop positive self-attitudes and behaviors. On the surface, it would seem easy to tell whether an IAP program is successful. A quick look at the experiences of its clients should reveal how many stayed out of trouble and were successfully reintegrated into the community. This, of course, is easier said than done. It is essential that outcome measures reflect the program s goals as completely as possible, that the followup period is as long as resources allow, and that the sample size is as large as possible (Rossi and Freeman, 1993; Hatry et al., 1996). After briefly discussing sample size and comparison groups, this section will suggest several potential outcome evaluation questions pertinent to IAP. A. What Is an Adequate Sample Size? A good evaluation requires adequate sample sizes. Basing a study on a small number of clients makes it difficult to determine the reliability of a given result. For example, if a 3-month tutorial program truly produced an average gain of 1 grade level in reading performance, a given sample 19 13

203 IAP-Topic19 of 10 clients might show no gain or an average gain of 3 grade levels. If one measured the outcomes of hundreds of clients, the average gain would eventually approach the true gain of one grade level. The larger the sample size, the more likely it is that the observed gain will approximate the true value. Larger samples also permit more analyses of client subgroups. Of course, the more clients included in a study, the longer the study will take (since only a limited number of participants enter the programs at any point in time), and the more costly the study will become (data collection can be expensive). There are ways to determine the sample size needed for a given study, but they require either a good knowledge of the effects being measured (unlikely in the case of innovative programs) or assumptions that may be difficult to justify. Consultation with a statistician may help. In any event, the main point is that an evaluation should use as large a sample as time and resources will permit. B. Why Include Comparison Groups? Even if one carefully measures a broad range of outcomes, considers an adequate followup period, and uses a large sample, how can one tell if the outcomes were actually the result of participation in the program? Moreover, how can one interpret a finding of, say, 45-percent rate of recidivism after 12 months or an improvement of one grade level in reading after 6 months? Is that good or bad? Would these results have occurred without the program? As mentioned previously, some standards of comparison are essential. Sound outcome evaluations compare the outcomes of a program s clients with those of a randomly assigned control group, matched comparison group or, at least, relevant comparison group of somewhat similar clients. 1. The value of random assignment Whenever possible, the design of an outcome evaluation should include randomly assigning cases to a program and a control group (Rossi and Freeman, 1993). In a random assignment design, one first defines the target population for a program (e.g., all youth committed to an institution for a major felony offense who are within 6 months of parole eligibility). A random selection process directs some of these youth to the IAP program and others to the regular aftercare process. This latter group is the control group. Random selection assures that the youth in each group are as similar as possible, except for the aftercare experience. The evaluators collect the same outcome data for youth in both groups. Any differences in outcomes between the groups cannot be the result of preexisting differences between the groups (such as age or offense history) because the random assignment eliminated such differences. Thus, one can conclude that the differing aftercare experiences caused the different outcomes. Random assignment is seldom used because many persons object to the idea that individuals assigned to a control group may be denied services purely as a matter of chance. One should not assume, however, that a new program is necessarily good. The point of outcome evaluation is to find out whether the program works. Random assignment is most important, and the objections to its use least tenable, in the evaluation of new, innovative programs when it is not known that the new programs will be better than the alternatives. It is also most feasible when the number of potentially eligible clients is greater than the capacity of the new program. Then, random assignment is a fair way to decide who participates

204 IAP-Topic19 All other designs try to reduce or control for preexisting group differences, but none does so as effectively as random assignment. The following sidebar lists various designs and their relative strengths and weaknesses. Basic Design Alternatives for Outcome Evaluations One group (posttest only): You will know: participants level on outcome measures (KABBE; see sidebar, page 8) after receiving services. You won t know: whether participants changed or what caused changes. One group (pretest and posttest): You will know: whether participants changed with regard to the measured outcomes. You won t know: what caused the change. Quasi-experimental (time series or nonequivalent control group designs): You will be able to rule out some potential confounding factors, making it more likely that observed outcomes were caused by the program. Experimental (random assignment to program or control group): You will be able to rule out almost all potential confounding factors, making it very likely that observed outcomes were caused by the program. In any study, the evaluator must use the best standards of comparison possible and try to demonstrate that participation in the program, rather than some other factor, is responsible for observed outcomes. The following discussion of client outcome questions, including recidivism, assumes that some standards of comparison are employed. C. Did the Program Affect Recidivism? Recidivism is the term commonly used to refer to an individual s criminal activity following some period of correctional intervention. Specific measures of recidivism may be based on rearrests, reconvictions, and/or reincarcerations; may be derived from official police or court records, self-reports, or both; may cover followup periods of various lengths; and may or may not include the nature or seriousness of the new offenses. Too many studies merely report the percentage of some group of program cases rearrested within a given time period after release, without taking into account the nature or timing of the offenses. It is unrealistic to expect most seriously delinquent youth to stay completely out of trouble; perhaps a reduction in the frequency or seriousness of offending should be considered a positive outcome. A good recidivism study will include multiple sources of data (e.g., records and self-reports), cover at least 12 to 18 months following the intervention (longer if resources permit), and look at several factors, including the nature, timing, and consequences of the new offenses. Some of the best studies use measures of suppression (comparing the rate of offending before and after program participation)

205 IAP-Topic19 D. Did the Program Affect Other Client Outcomes? Although recidivism may be the most critical client outcome, IAP programs are designed to positively affect clients educational, occupational, emotional, and behavioral development. Such outcomes are valuable both in themselves and as means to reduce subsequent criminal activity. An outcome evaluation should include pre- and post-intervention measures of these outcomes to assess change associated with program participation. Such measures should be obtained for both program clients and a control or comparison group to determine whether program participation, rather than maturation or some other factor, was responsible for any observed improvements. Scales measuring cognitive development, self-esteem, and emotional development exist (check with local educational testing specialists for specific instruments). Programs will need to develop measures for other outcomes, such as attainment of job skills, employment, independent living skills, and other outcomes identified in individual case plans. Some of these measures can be straightforward (e.g., a client either does or does not have a job upon program completion or 12 months later). E. Did Outcomes Differ Among Participant Subgroups? The initial definition of the target population for IAP programs is fairly general. It may be the case that an IAP program, even if implemented perfectly, works better with some types of clients than with others (e.g., perhaps it is better suited to clients old enough to obtain meaningful jobs or, alternatively, to clients young enough to be reintegrated into regular schools). Careful analysis of the relationship between outcomes and client characteristics can help answer such questions. If an evaluation shows subgroup differences in outcomes, it may not necessarily mean that the program cannot succeed with certain subgroups. Instead, modifications may be necessary to better address the needs of these subgroups. F. How Are Outcomes and Specific Program Activities Related? An outcome evaluation should ask whether certain program activities are more likely than others to produce desired outcomes. For example, perhaps youth who receive extensive job training and job placement services or those who receive a particular form of drug treatment show the best recidivism outcomes. To answer such questions, the outcomes of clients who participated in specific program activities should be compared with those of nonparticipants. G. What Did the Program Cost? In the context of scarce resources, it is not enough to demonstrate that a program effectively produces desirable outcomes; it must also do so as efficiently as possible (Thompson, 1980). The simplest cost indicator for evaluation purposes is the per diem cost per participant (i.e., annual operating expenses divided by 365 divided by the average daily number of active clients). Also useful is the average cost per participant (the per diem cost multiplied by the average number of days clients remain in the program). These cost indicators can be used to compare IAP programs with other alternatives. True cost-benefit analysis (placing dollar values on the outcomes as well as the costs) can be done but is not necessary, providing that good outcome measures have been obtained for both program clients and comparison groups

206 IAP-Topic19 H. Did the Program Affect the Juvenile Justice System? The introduction of a new program in a jurisdiction will affect other parts of the juvenile justice system in expected and unexpected ways. Some effects are desirable and intentional (e.g., reduced institutional lengths of stay), while others may be less obvious and less desirable. For example, the existence of a good aftercare program will create demand beyond the original target population. Judges and probation officers may try to find ways to get more youth into such programs. If the IAP only accepts youth returning from institutions, more youth may end up being committed to institutions in the hope of moving them into IAP. For a more positive example, a well-functioning IAP may stimulate the development of additional community services to meet the needs of its clients. These services may then expand and become available to other referral sources. A comprehensive evaluation study will try to detect such outcomes by monitoring other aspects of the juvenile justice and youth services systems to the extent possible. Results from components of the implementation evaluation (e.g., interviews and/or surveys of staff in other agencies and the general public) may reveal areas to investigate for broader system outcomes. VIII. Toward an Evaluative Mindset To make evaluation meaningful and worth the time, effort, and resources required, program administrators and staff should develop an evaluative mindset. The key ingredient of an evaluative mindset is a willingness to seek and be guided by evidence. Such evidence may or may not agree with one s preconceptions, theories, and previous experiences. An evaluative mindset allows one to assimilate new evidence, weigh alternative explanations, and develop ideas for improving practice. Another important part of the evaluative mindset involves considering the perspectives of a range of stakeholders when deciding what evaluation questions are important. Important to whom? What are the implications of potential results for different stakeholders interests? Finally, the evaluative mindset directs one to focus on the big picture at all times. In the case of IAP programs, this means above all asking how the program can better provide supervision and support to the clients, not necessarily how the program can acquire more funding or maintain certain staffing levels. As an organization develops, its focus often shifts from providing service to maintaining its own existence. Full respect for and use of evaluation can keep the organization focused on its primary goals

207 IAP-Topic19 Table 8: Evaluation Planning Worksheet #1 Evaluation Question Information Needed (What) Source(s) of Information (Where) Data Collection Method(s) (How) Timing of Data Collection (When) 19 18

208 IAP-Topic19 Table 9: Performance-Based Reintegration Standard Reintegration goal: To prepare youth for successful reintegration into the community while they reside at the facility through: Individualized planning from the perspective of family and community. Programming and activities that prepare a youth for transition that continue, when appropriate, after the youth leaves the facility. These activities shall be provided collaboratively by facility and aftercare case manager. Linkages and activities with key community agencies such as schools, churches, boys and girls clubs, recreation centers, and specific service providers outside the facility that involve facility and aftercare case manager. Standards: Treat youth in the context of his/her family by including families in programming. Develop and maintain personal relationships through in-person meetings and other contacts between each youth and a) his/her aftercare case manager and b) community services/agency staff. Facilitate in-person contact between parent(s)/guardian(s) and aftercare case managers while each youth is at the facility, regardless of meeting location. Ensure that youth are referred to and accepted by/admitted to community programs before release. Provide programming that prepares youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community. Create a transition program that provides culturally sensitive and language-appropriate services tailored to fit the individual needs of minority youth

209 IAP-Topic19 Table 9 (continued) Outcome Measures Expected Practices Processes Standard 1: Treat youth in the context of his/her family by including parent(s)/guardian(s) in programming. Percent of youth who have had in-person contact with parents/guardians. Rate of visits per month per youth. Nature of visit. Percent of youth with individual treatment plans that include family information (tracking). Facility staff and aftercare case manager work together to arrange in-person contacts with parents/guardians. Facility staff and aftercare case manager assist in transportation and scheduling to accommodate parents/guardians. Parents/guardians are recognized at holidays/ events. Facility implements its philosophy/mission and designs training to include the importance of family contact. Staff report regularly on family situation. Staff schedule time to accommodate parents/ guardians. Staff treat parents/guardians appropriately and try to develop good relations. Facility maintains an up-to-date directory of parent/guardian addresses and telephone numbers. Staff notifies parents/guardians of events/ visiting opportunities. Facility staff and aftercare case manager have memorandum of understanding regarding responsibilities/roles for youth s reintegration. Facility articulates a philosophy/mission regarding the importance of family contact. It is included in training curriculum, facility policies, and staff reviews and job descriptions

210 IAP-Topic19 Table 9 (continued) Outcome Measures Expected Practices Processes Standard 2a: Develop and maintain personal relationships through in-person meetings and other contacts between each youth and his/her aftercare case manager. Percent of youth who have had in-person contact with aftercare case manager. Rate of in-person contacts with aftercare case manager. Nature of contact (precoded). Percent of youth with aftercare case manager. Percent of youth who know the name and phone number of their aftercare case manager. Facility staff work with aftercare case manager Facility staff and aftercare case manager regularly share information on the youth s progress. Initial contact within 15 days. Regular treatment planning meetings every 30 days. Prerelease plans signed by youth, facility staff, and aftercare case manager Memorandum of understanding establishes responsibilities for facility staff and aftercare case manager. Mission. Training curriculum. Staff reviews. Case plan is written by facility staff

211 IAP-Topic19 Table 9 (continued) Outcome Measures Expected Practices Processes Standard 2b: Develop and maintain personal relationships through in-person meetings and other contacts between each youth and community services/agency staff. Percent of youth who have had in-person contact with community services/agency staff. Rate of in-person contacts with (a) aftercare case manager and (b) community services/agency staff. Facility staff work with community services/ agency staff to arrange in-person contacts Facility staff and aftercare case manager regularly share information on the youth s progress. Memorandum of understanding establishes responsibilities for facility staff and community services/agency staff Mission. Training curriculum. Staff reviews. Nature of contact (precoded) Percent of youth assigned community services/agency staff. Percent of youth who know the name and phone number of the community services/agency they have been linked with before release. Initial contact within 15 days Regular treatment planning meetings every 30 days. Prerelease plans signed by youth, facility staff, and aftercare case manager Case plan is written by facility staff

212 IAP-Topic19 Table 9 (continued) Outcome Measures Expected Practices Processes Standard 3: Facilitate in-person contact between parent(s)/guardian(s) and aftercare case manager while youth is at the facility, regardless of meeting location. Percent of youth with contacts between families/ guardians and aftercare case manager. Facility staff/aftercare case manager arrange inperson contacts for parents/ guardians and aftercare manager, not necessarily at the facility. Facility articulates a philosophy/mission regarding the importance of aftercare case manager having in-person contact with parents/guardians, youth. It is included in training curriculum, facility policies, and staff Percent of youth with initial, regular, and prerelease contacts between parents/guardians and aftercare case manager. Aftercare case manager meets with youth s parents/guardians within 30 days of arrival. Within 30 days of youth s arrival, family receives orientation, review of aftercare placement options, list of available community services, and forum to express concerns and ideas. Standard 4: Youth are referred to and accepted by/admitted to community programs before release. Percent of youth who have been referred. Percent of youth who have been accepted/admitted to a community program. Facility staff meet regularly to review youth s individual treatment plan. Individual treatment plans are shared by facility staff with aftercare case managers and community agencies. reviews and job descriptions Space is provided at the facility for aftercare case manager to meet with youth and parents/guardians. Facility has up-to-date list of diverse community agencies. Facility maintains on-going formal relationships with community agencies. Percent of community programs (state/private) that send staff to the facility for in-person contacts. Individual treatment plans include a minimum of one referral and acceptance by/link to a community service before youth is released. Facilities support links to community programs, including prenatal care and childbirth, parenting, and related services

213 IAP-Topic19 Table 9 (continued) Outcome Measures Expected Practices Processes Standard 5: Provide programming that prepares youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community. Rate of eligible youth receiving authorized leaves/passes from the facility tied to the reintegration plan (furloughs, home visits, passes). Facility program is designed to provide a clear basis to know standing and expectations. Program links/relates accomplishments within facility to reintegration plan. System of points and levels allows youth to benefit from good behavior (e.g. passes) Facility articulates a philosophy/mission regarding the importance of preparing youth for progressively increasing responsibility and freedom. Procedures are developed to facilitate authorization for leaves/passes from the facility tied to the reintegration plan. Standard 6: Create a transition program that provides culturally sensitive and language-appropriate services tailored to fit the individual needs of minority youth. Percent of staff who are aware that the facility has adopted cultural competency principles. Number of cultural diversity training sessions given per year. Percent of staff who have attended cultural diversity training. Ratio of minority youth to minority staff. Percent of non-english-speaking youth who have treatment and reintegration plans written in another appropriate language. Facility managers adopt the language and actions of those principles as a model for staff. Facility develops a plan to implement systematic change to become culturally competent. Cultural diversity training is mandated for all new staff and must be taken by veteran staff within given timeframe. Culturally specific and language-appropriate assessment and orientation of services at intake. Culturally specific and language-appropriate reintegration plans developed for all minority youth. Facility staff identify and develop relationships with community resource agencies that have staff who are culturally specific and language appropriate. Facility develops or adopts cultural competency principles that lay the foundation for cultural sensitivity in the staff Facility develops or adopts cultural diversity training for staff. Facility has available foreign language translations of assessment instruments and orientation handouts, where appropriate. Facility maintains a directory of culturally specific and language-appropriate resources in the community

214 IAP-Topic19 Table 9 (continued) Outcome Measures Expected Practices Processes Percent of minority youth with reintegration plans that include referrals to or participation in culturally sensitive and language-appropriate programs. Facility staff and aftercare case manager work with culturally sensitive community resources to develop reintegration plans for minority youth. Minority youth s reintegration needs are met, including clothing and transportation. Facility and culturally sensitive community services have memorandum of understanding regarding responsibilities/roles for minority youth s reintegration

215 IAP-Topic20 Topic 20: Testing the IAP Model: Program Development and Implementation in Selected Pilot Sites Key Points The IAP model was initially tested at pilot sites in four states during a 5-year period of program demonstration. During pilot testing of the IAP model, a substantial body of descriptive information was generated with regard to how a generic model of reentry/aftercare can be adapted and tailored to the circumstances and needs of juvenile correctional systems in various jurisdictions. A retrospective examination of the overall IAP research and development project has provided a number of insights about lessons learned and has identified promising practices for program design, implementation, and operations. Topic Goals To describe the implementation and testing of the IAP model at a number of pilot sites nationwide. To delineate the key factors that appeared either to facilitate or to impede implementation at IAP pilot sites. To discuss lessons learned and promising practices identified for program design, implementation, and operations as a result of a 5-year test of the IAP model at multiple sites. 20 1

216 IAP-Topic20 I. Introduction Topic 2 provided background information about the circumstances and historical factors that led to the initial funding of the IAP research and development initiative, as well as an overview of the IAP model s integrated theory framework, underlying principles of programmatic action, program elements (most importantly overarching case management), and essential areas of treatment and service provision. This exploration of the key conceptual dimensions is vital for understanding the intent of the model, its required structural characteristics and operational procedures, and its design for delivery of appropriately matched services and levels of supervision. Yet, much can also be learned from a review of the actual project demonstration experience at pilot sites where administrators and staff first faced the challenge of adapting and tailoring this particular aftercare model to the needs and circumstances of individual jurisdictions. Consequently, this final topic provides a detailed account of the following: 1) steps taken to select and prepare pilot sites for testing the model, 2) the process of adapting and tailoring the generic model to specific programmatic requirements of the various pilot sites, 3) findings from the process of implementing the model in different settings, and 4) the larger lessons learned in designing and testing the model. II. Program Implementation and Operations at IAP Pilot Sites OJJDP, in collaboration with IAP project staff early in the research and development effort, drafted and released a Request for Proposals in spring 1992 announcing the opportunity for a small number of states to apply for and obtain multiyear funding to test the IAP model. Based on nationwide responses, eight states were selected to participate in a preliminary training and action-planning process to better understand the model and its possible application and to determine their ability and willingness to engage in a long-term project that involved both implementing the model and being part of the multisite, experimental design (random assignment) evaluation. A. IAP Pilot Site Selection and Descriptions Four of the eight states that participated in the initial 3-day training conferences about IAP were awarded contracts to become demonstration sites for testing the IAP model. The four states (Colorado, Nevada, New Jersey, and Virginia) pursued a variety of tasks involved in fine-tuning essential features and components of their programs in preparation for moving to full operational status. The major challenge faced by the four sites in the early stages of implementation was the complexity of adapting the generic model to the specific problems, needs, and circumstances of the individual jurisdictions. By design, the model allows for a considerable degree of flexibility as long as implementation is consistent with basic underlying principles and program components. This strategy anticipated the fact that program settings for aftercare nationwide will comprise diverse social, economic, political, and organizational environments, often requiring considerable ingenuity in tailoring the conceptual model to the demands and constraints of specific, concrete situations. 20 2

217 IAP-Topic20 Following are thumbnail sketches of the three pilot sites (Colorado, Nevada, Virginia) that participated throughout the 5-year demonstration phase of this project. 1 These descriptions emphasize how pilot sites took the generic IAP model and adapted it to their own needs and circumstances. This flexibility in design and implementation is a critical characteristic of the IAP framework, allowing correctional administrators and staff to exercise a substantial level of innovation and ingenuity. 1. Colorado The Colorado IAP project was operated by the State Division of Youth Services (DYS), Department of Institutions. The catchment area for eligible youth in confinement comprised parts of Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Denver counties, including greater metropolitan Denver. The designated youth correctional facility for this project was Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center (LMYSC), located 18 miles from downtown Denver, close to the eligible juvenile offenders home communities. LMYSC was the state s most secure facility, housing the most severely delinquent youth in the DYS system. Project design required that all IAP participants be housed in a single cottage at LMYSC. Decision making about matching services with offenders and determining levels of supervision benefited from the availability of a battery of comprehensive assessment tools, including the Youth Level of Service Inventory, the Adolescent Living Independently Via Education and Employment instrument, and a variety of privately provided tools focusing on the assessment of family, vocational, and drug/alcohol problems and needs. These instruments supplemented the standard set of educational and psychological tools, completing other case file data already gathered to develop a youth s social, legal, medical, and personality profile. Within 60 days of confinement, a discrete case plan that established goals and procedures for successful community reintegration was developed. This master plan established guidelines for both institutionally based treatment and followup activities in the community. To ensure adequate levels of supervision and service delivery, an IAP client manager (DYS employee) provided oversight for each client from the point of institutional referral through transition and stepdown into the community and throughout followup and eventual discharge. Specific standards for client management included monthly face-to-face contacts with the youth during confinement and weekly contacts that began 60 days prior to release and continued throughout community placement. The program also maintained a relatively intense level of contact with ancillary individuals and agencies in the community, including family members, school officials, employers, and other involved parties. Caseload size was capped at 18, with a maximum of 6 institutional and 12 community clients. Although client managers assumed primary responsibility for all community contacts, various service providers aided in the supervision process. Trackers employed by private providers were used extensively for daily face-to-face contacts. These trackers were trained to make random spot checks, monitor daily schedules and use electronic surveillance technology (following 1 New Jersey pulled out of the demonstration due to administrative reorganization that occurred in the state s juvenile justice system. These reorganizing efforts did not occur because of the IAP project but made it difficult to develop stability among the IAP demonstration project staff. 20 3

218 IAP-Topic20 discussion with and approval by case managers). The majority of tracker contacts occurred outside normal working hours. Each service provider developed an individualized treatment plan for referred youth, establishing goals and timeframes for treatment consistent with the directives of the master case plan. Client managers handled coordination and monitoring of these services through a brokerage model for contracted treatment and resource provision. A graduated response framework, which used both positive incentives and consequences/sanctions, greatly influenced the shaping of client behavior. 2. Nevada The Nevada IAP project was operated by the State Division of Youth Corrections, Youth Parole Bureau. Clark County (Las Vegas), which had the greatest concentration of serious juvenile offenders in state confinement, was selected as the IAP pilot site. The participating correctional facility was Caliente Youth Center, located approximately 150 miles from Las Vegas. The factor of geographic distance presented a substantial challenge in implementing the IAP model. In the Caliente Youth Center, particular emphasis was placed on a special prerelease curriculum taught during the month prior to reentry into the community. The curriculum focused on social skills training and issues related to street readiness. An aftercare worker (parole agent) from Las Vegas resided and worked in the Caliente facility and served as an ongoing liaison between the institution and community, ensuring regular, sustained contact and communication. All IAP youth returning to the Las Vegas area were required as part of transition to step down into a highly structured and intensive day treatment program, the Center for Independent Living. This transitional setting offered the option of short-term residential placement for youth who were not prepared to return immediately to their homes for some reason. The Clark County School District collaborated by employing an educational liaison specialist who spent considerable time at the institution and had primary responsibility for reintegrating IAP youth into public schools. Unfortunately, this strategy only achieved mixed results since retention proved to be a much greater obstacle than simply the act of enrollment. The community supervision component relied on a team approach in which three parole officers assigned to the IAP project were collectively responsible for supervising 45 IAP parolees. This approach afforded 24-hour coverage in the community and facilitated a quick response when problems arose. Each officer managed a small individual caseload but also contributed specialized expertise to the larger group of clients. The officers were encouraged to develop expertise in areas such as substance abuse treatment, family therapy techniques, vocational education and training techniques, and job development and placement skills. These officers also traveled several times per month to Caliente to work with staff and IAP youth. Additional personnel augmented the IAP supervision team. Two community outreach trackers provided expanded hours of supervision during evenings and weekends. Outreach workers blended surveillance with service provision (including life skills training) and monitored recreation. 20 4

219 IAP-Topic20 3. Virginia The Virginia IAP project, commonly referred to as IPP (Intensive Parole Program), was designed to intervene and provide structured transition and community followup for serious, chronic juvenile offenders who had been committed to the Beaumont Juvenile Correctional Center by the Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The Norfolk Court Service Unit appointed two senior parole counselors who supervised all IPP participants and coordinated the delivery of family services. These counselors visited confined youth at Beaumont at least once per month. On release, participants were contacted face-to-face at least three times per week. The average caseload for parole counselors in this project was 15 clients. The counselors held weekly family meetings; conducted unannounced spot checks at school, home, and place of employment; held weekly client meetings to continue the life skills curriculum that had been initiated in the institution; and coordinated other group activities involving participants and their families. The counselors also worked closely with the Norfolk school s transition specialist to address educational needs. A paraprofessional parole aide assisted with monitoring, transportation, and other functions related to community supervision. Every 30 days, IAP youth on parole status were required to appear in court for a judicial review during which the counselor updated the court on the participant s progress. As was the case in the Nevada pilot program, a considerable distance separated the institution and the reentry community in Virginia. To help overcome this difficulty, the Virginia program adopted a strategy similar to Nevada s. A parole staff member was assigned to work exclusively with IAP youth at the Beaumont facility and serve as liaison between Beaumont and the community. B. Problem of Drift in Reentry/Aftercare Programming A consistently disruptive pattern observed across all IAP pilot sites was drift: substantial slippage of design features and operational procedures away from the IAP model s intended principles, components, and processes. The problem, which arose during both implementation and daily operations, was to be expected, given the scope of the reintegrative continuum. Although retaining fidelity to the IAP model constantly posed some level of difficulty, administrators and providers appeared able to address the problem through vigilance. Within the juvenile justice program arena, reintegrative models are especially prone to drift because they extend across organizational boundaries, require the marriage of disparate philosophical visions of troubled youth, have multiple lines of authority and communication, and depend on linkage between organizations and agencies that do not usually participate in collaborative efforts. The need to retain coherence and consistency poses a special challenge to those responsible for administering and staffing effective aftercare programs and has implications for justice professionals involved with youth in the deep end of the system. First, senior administrators and managers must constantly monitor all aspects of program design and operations. Second, midlevel supervisors and line staff must strictly adhere strictly to established guidelines and regularly review assigned tasks and responsibilities. 20 5

220 IAP-Topic20 One tool that has proven essential in reducing drift is a well-designed, readily accessible management information system that allows quick and thorough review of ongoing operations. Information generated by such a system is very helpful in tracking the extent to which designated activities are occurring, objectivity is used in matching clients with treatment modalities, appropriate youth are targeted for participation, and the treatment regimen is administered for the specified length of time and with the required level of intensity. Another strategy that helps reduce drift is bringing in consultants to review operations and determine whether daily activities comply with established guidelines. C. Lessons Learned From the Implementation Process Pivotal to successful implementation of this project at the demonstration sites has been the need for the co-principal investigators to provide extensive ongoing technical assistance to guarantee that the essential theoretical principles, program elements, and service provision dimension of the model, as generically designed, were fully and accurately incorporated into the operational aspects of the programs. Particular emphasis was placed on seeing that the five overarching case management subelements were applied and used in a way that was consistent with the intentions and stated requirements of the original model. Also critical were key thematic features such as interagency collaboration, closer linkage and communication between institution and community-based aftercare, and strategies to facilitate linking community agencies, services, and significant others with the institution. The following sidebar provides a brief summary of factors that had positive and negative effects on the implementation process at IAP pilot sites. Although some of these factors affect many types of youth correctional programming, others are specific to reentry/aftercare programs. 20 6

221 IAP-Topic20 Factors Affecting Implementation Positive Facilitators Well-established history of multiagency community collaborations for troubled youth, in which clear guidelines and procedures and guidelines have been identified and followed. Presence of scientifically valid assessment tools, in the areas of both risk and need, to help match offenders with appropriate levels of supervision and relevant services. Availability of experts who can regularly provide technical assistance and training in how to enhance and refine aftercare programs. Frequent interaction between institutional and parole staff to help overcome diverging interests and perceptions of relevant interventions. Presence of, or capacity to develop, formal program structures and/or procedures to facilitate the transition from institution to aftercare. Jurisdictional history of contracting and brokerage for specialized services from various vendors in the community. Impediments Parole/aftercare line staff s difficulty adjusting to changes in their supervisors expectations and in their job description and responsibilities as aftercare evolves away from traditional casework practice. Substantial distance between the home community of confined offenders and the institutions where they are housed. Reluctance of grassroots agencies and groups to embrace and provide opportunities for youth who have been identified as chronic, serious juvenile offenders and have been incarcerated because of the threat they pose to the community. Reluctance of families essential players in the intervention process to participate fully and openly in treatment and counseling along. Inability to provide a condition of short-term lock-up as the most stringent measure in a graduated sanctioning framework. An approach to intensive supervision that relies almost exclusively on surveillance and social control techniques. Lack of creative approaches to working with older adolescent offenders in aftercare caseloads (generally tied to tendency to be inflexible in managing this population). Inability to find a common meeting ground, programmatically and philosophically, when working with other organizational entities in the community, such as public schools and mental health. 20 7

222 IAP-Topic20 Perhaps the most objective observations about implementation can be found in the process evaluation conducted by the national evaluation team from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) (Wiebush, McNulty, and Le, 2000). In discussing the degree of success achieved at the pilot sites in fully implementing the IAP model, NCCD cited the following common programming factors that aided the implementation process: High-risk, program-eligible youth are identified through the use of risk instruments that are 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. Substantial coordination and continuity in case planning and case management exist across the institutional and aftercare phases; this coordination is facilitated by a team approach. Team involvement and more frequent interaction between institutional and parole staff have helped overcome traditional turf and communications barriers. Planning for aftercare begins shortly after the youth s institutional placement and is finalized at least 30 days prior to release into the community. Formal structures exist to facilitate the transition from institution to aftercare, including the use of transitional facilities, furlough with intensive monitoring, or service delivery by community treatment providers that begins during the institutional phase and continues into the community. Special services designed specifically for IAP youth have been developed and implemented in both the institutional and aftercare phases. Aftercare services represent a mix of control measures and treatment interventions. Positive incentives and graduated sanction systems have been developed for the institutional and parole phases. One should note that all of these factors are consistent with requirements of the IAP model and represent doing business in a way that is quite different from traditional, standard aftercare practice. III. Promising Practices Associated With Managing IAP-Derived Aftercare/Reentry Programs Other than the insights gained and experiences noted during the implementation phase of the IAP research and development initiative (described above), the lessons learned across the entire 20 8

223 IAP-Topic20 research and development process can best be categorized along six dimensions. Although the existing literature on what works focuses almost exclusively on issues of effectiveness related to treatment modalities and rehabilitative activities, steps toward achieving positive outcomes from aftercare programming need to be defined more broadly. The six dimensions identified for promising and best practice consideration are as follows: Evidence-based program modalities. Structural characteristics of the reintegrative continuum. Overarching case management. Collaboration. Staffing, leadership, and training. A balanced approach for appropriately mixing surveillance/social control and treatment/service delivery. A. Evidence-Based Program Modalities The assertion of the mid-1970s that nothing works in treatment and rehabilitation of youth offenders has been shown in numerous highly publicized studies simply not to be true in many situations. The fact that correctional treatment can reduce recidivism among adjudicated youth has special relevance in efforts to reduce antisocial behavior of severely delinquent juveniles. A meta-analysis conducted by Lipsey and Wilson (1998), which drew on the results of 200 experimental/quasi-experimental studies of serious and violent offenders, discerned a significant treatment effect marked by an average reduction in recidivism rates of 6 percent. The focus on issues of effectiveness with a particular offender subpopulation suggests important considerations deriving from the what works debate and bearing on the effectiveness of reintegrative programs. Of fundamental importance is carefully profiling confined youth who will participate in transitional, reentry, and aftercare programs and be matched with required levels of supervision/social control and linked with appropriate services and treatment modalities. In large part, this is a serious, chronic, and often violent offender population characterized by early onset of delinquency, frequent misconduct, and a variety of social and personal problems. The axiom about what works best, with whom, and under which circumstances is especially relevant to situations where matching treatment involves youth who have experienced multiple failures in the juvenile justice system, are obviously resistant to interventions, and have reached the deep end of the system. Selection of appropriate modalities must reflect a comprehensive understanding of the nature and intensity of the problems, deficits, and needs of this difficult group of youth (Borum, 2003). In an article on effectiveness of aftercare programming, Altschuler and Armstrong (2002) noted that two bodies of research bear on positive reintegrative outcomes. First is research that draws on the nature of the confinement experience and its impact on subsequent success and failure in 20 9

224 IAP-Topic20 the community. Here, findings indicate the benefits of incorporating into the routine of confinement the delivery of services and activities that maximize the choices of successful community reintegration. Second is research that that examines the community side of transition and reentry. Community intervention refers to what occurs in neighborhoods; with families, friends, and acquaintances; and with various socializing institutions (e.g., schools, faith-based organizations, neighborhood groups, recreational programs and clubs, employers). Correctional oversight and supervision must extend well beyond the formal role played by aftercare staff. Altschuler and Armstrong further note several risk factors that must be targeted for intervention because they are highly predictive of reoffending. These factors include family dysfunction and conflict, negative peer group influence, school conflict and disruption, and drug/alcohol dependency. Specific programming/treatment principles and situational factors with proven relevance for severely delinquent youth include the following: Role of the juvenile justice system Service delivery site is not located in a juvenile justice or law enforcement facility. Program participants are identified and referred by a juvenile justice agency, which mandates participation. Program is sponsored by a juvenile justice or law enforcement agency and has a tangible sense of requirements/performance standards and individualized accountability associated with operations. Amount/intensity/duration of services Duration of service is more than 18 weeks. Average weekly service is more than 5 hours. Targeted services Services targets dynamic characteristics and problems (i.e., those that can be changed in treatment). The most intensive programs are targeted to offenders at highest risk of recidivism. Other promising strategies The level of therapeutic integrity is high; i.e., services are delivered as planned and designed (fully implemented and staffed by trained personnel). Research personnel play a major role in designing and monitoring program activities

225 IAP-Topic20 Promising treatment modalities Intensive supervision with reduced caseloads (both probation and parole). Behavioral-based intervention (based on social learning or cognitive theories of change that emphasize positive reinforcement contingencies for prosocial behavior). Skill-oriented approaches that translate into improved interpersonal relations and readiness for more effective daily living. Multimodal approaches that allow simultaneous intervention in multiple problem areas of a single individual. A full complement of employment-related services, including job training, job development, job placement, job shadowing, and associated activities. Service brokerage using specialized providers in both public and private sectors and exhibiting state-of-the-art assessment and followup. B. Structural Characteristics of the Reintegrative Continuum Research in juvenile aftercare has made it clear that discussions of effectiveness and planning must go beyond treatment modalities to address structural characteristics and operational features. This broader conceptualization imposes new challenges. The lesson was not lost on IAP developers, who identified structural characteristics of the reintegrative continuum early in the initiative and required pilot sites to incorporate these fundamental features in their programs. A research bulletin (Altschuler, Armstrong, and MacKenzie, 1999) describes this set of essential structural features in detail, based on the program design and implementation experiences of the IAP pilot sites. The bulletin s authors argue that continuity of program activities must begin early during confinement, move through a carefully designated transitional phase involving both institution and community, and conclude with a multiphase decompression process when the youth returns to the community (see Table 3, page 3-6, for a streamlined version of required activities in each of the three reintegrated phases). From an organizational perspective, each phase should have overlapping, highly structured procedures that lend themselves to open communication, joint decision making, and continuous reinforcement of progress made at each preceding stage. The sequencing of the three phases and how their linkage is intended to form a seamless continuum is illustrated in Figure 4, page Phase 1 of the reintegration continuum: institutionally based The institutionally based phase of the continuum is defined in terms of a number of activities that constitute aftercare planning and decision making prior to a youth s release. A major challenge in this phase is developing a sense of reintegrative orientation among facility administrators and staff who are busy with the demands of managing an offender population where issues of 20 11

226 IAP-Topic20 security and safety are critical and ongoing. However, an orientation toward reintegrative goals at this phase is essential for optimal results across the entire continuum. Another key feature in the first phase is a comprehensive assessment of a youth s problems, needs, strengths, and deficits. The assessment, which should be completed early during confinement, is used to shape the treatment regimen in the facility and also to establish guidelines for interventions continuing after release into the community. Much of this activity revolves around identifying criminogenic factors that can lead to reoffending if not directly addressed (see Figure 5, page 19). Further, assessment at entry should incorporate variables for measurement and clinical consideration along three dimensions: risk, need, and resiliency/protection. A thorough reassessment should be conducted just prior to release into the community. This information is critical for determining the degree of positive change achieved during confinement and for identifying behavioral, attitudinal, and skill areas still in need of improvement. Such data are valuable for guiding decisions about timing of release and provide a baseline for subsequent reassessment of performance in the community. Additional reassessments should occur at designated points during the community phase of supervision. 2. Phase 2 of the reintegrative continuum: transition The transitional phase of the reintegrative continuum has historically received the least attention. Unlike the institutional and community-based phases, this phase does not have a tangible reality. Administrators and staff at all of the IAP pilot sites emphasized designing and implementing the transitional phase, where potential exists for the highest level of communication, joint decision making, and collaborative activities by institutional and field staff. Because responsibility for supervision and treatment changes hands during this phase, interaction is important to ensure a smooth stepdown process. The IAP initiative recommended several possible transitional design features for testing at the pilot sites (see Figure 6, page 20). The sites elaborated on the recommended features to create distinctive sets of transitional activities and program components (see Table 4, page 3-7). 3. Phase 3 of the reintegrative continuum: community followup The community followup phase of the reintegrative continuum has historically been the focus of most aftercare or parole activities. Although IAP specifies community followup as one of three critical phases, it is the part of the continuum where program effectiveness or ineffectiveness is ultimately demonstrated through offenders outcomes (i.e., successful reentry or failure to adjust). The following sidebar lists the IAP model s key design features for community followup. Program Design Features for Community Followup Phase Multistage stepdown process from institution into community. Multiagency collaboration, including public organizations, private provider agencies, and key stakeholders

227 IAP-Topic20 Increased community involvement at grassroots level. Multimodal treatment and service provision. Discrete case management framework. Supervision and surveillance beyond ordinary working hours. Reduced caseload size/increased frequency of client contact. Although the importance of a number of these features has long been recognized as critical for successful community-based programming, the IAP project was the first to fully conceptualize the role and importance of the decompression process for designing the structure of community supervision. IAP also emphasized the increasing involvement of community organizations and agencies at the grassroots level as youth under formal supervision move closer to completion of parole/aftercare status (see Figure 3, page 3-9). Release from confinement ideally is followed by a brief period (30 60 days) of intensive supervision and highly structured programming as the youth moves into the community (community transition phase). IAP pilot sites developed a number of procedures and activities for this initial stepdown phase (see Table 4, page 3-7). As adjustment and stabilization begin, the youth progresses through a series of stages characterized by greater freedom of movement and decreased surveillance and supervision. This relaxation of control is triggered by evidence of positive performance and compliance with conditions of parole/aftercare. The case manager systematically measures the youth s progress through the stages, reassessing performance and level of risk at each stage and then specifying behavioral requirements for the next stage. The key to objective decision making during this process is a procedure that includes formally administered instruments and team reviews. IAP pilot sites defined decompression in terms of three or four stages extending over a period of 9 to 12 months. As formal supervision decreased, IAP pilot sites made repeated efforts to link youth with grassroots activities and organizations in the community. This mobilization of community resources was also strategically important for another critical transition point: the completion of parole/aftercare and termination of formal supervision. Advocacy for community involvement with and acceptance of high-risk juvenile offenders returning from confinement is essential for successful reintegration of these youth. C. Overarching Case Management Overarching case management lies at the heart of operational effectiveness. As described earlier, this aspect of program design consists of five discrete, sequential components that facilitate continuous, integrated case planning and management. The IAP model s specifications for case management reflect a number of factors. First, certain management components are necessary because of the nature of the target population: high-risk juvenile offenders with multiple needs. Second, because research has shown that sole reliance on a casework approach is ineffective, multiagency, collaborative arrangements through networking and service brokerage play a 20 13

228 IAP-Topic20 fundamental role. Third, a comprehensive, state-of-the art assessment package is critical for guiding case management decision making across the reintegrative continuum. Coherence to insure linkage and continuity across the set of case management components is best facilitated through the development of a unified or master case planning document. This tool must incorporate information derived from a number of sources and at various points in time beginning with the court s decision to commit a youth to confinement and continuing throughout the residential, transitional, and community-based followup phases of the reintegrative experience. All IAP pilot sites were required to develop such a tool to guide decision making and programming activities for each youth participating in the project. D. Collaboration The concept of multiagency collaboration is fundamental to the IAP model. The target population s deep-seated, wide-ranging problems encompassing issues of mental health, substance abuse, violence, and family dysfunction clearly require the input of many different professions and specialists. The IAP initiative conceptualized collaboration at many levels. At the highest level, stakeholder organizations that helped to configure the IAP model resolved philosophical and procedural issues, often through a Memorandum of Understanding agreed to by senior officers. In addition, collaborative discussion and decision making took place throughout these key organizations, involving top administrators, mid-level supervisors, and line staff. Multilevel collaboration is critical because key decisions and activities occur throughout the organizations. IAP pilot sites concurred that the multilevel collaborative approach worked best. E. Staffing, Leadership, and Training Ongoing training is important because the IAP model is complex, extends across multiple lines of authority and communication, and involves staff who often have fundamentally different views of their professional roles and goals. The training format should mirror the assumptions and design of the model. Part of the challenge in training is that the IAP model of reintegration represents quite a departure from traditional practices in youth corrections, and institutional and parole/aftercare staff must discard old assumptions and formulate new ones. Training helps individual staff understand why and how changes are to occur. Informed, committed leadership is critical in accomplishing this task. Cross-training bringing together staff from various parts of the system is critical because it helps staff develop a sense of common mission in reintegrating youth. IAP pilot sites found that cross-training needs to occur throughout implementation and should always include staff and other interested parties from the confinement facility, field services, and private provider agencies. Action planning groups can use cross-training settings to gather input from all three sectors

229 IAP-Topic20 A key first step is helping facility staff develop a reintegrative orientation and become part of the reintegration team. Although facility staff continue to work primarily inside the walls, their philosophical acceptance of an institutional role in aftercare is important. F. Finding the Appropriate Mix of Surveillance/Social Control and Treatment/Service Delivery: A Balanced Approach Because of their origins in the adult justice system, intensive supervision programs for juveniles tend to emphasize surveillance and social control. However, research indicates that this tendency has negative implications for the long-term success of participating youth, whose development of skills and competencies depends on availability of rehabilitative services (Armstrong, 1988). High-risk, serious juvenile offenders need programs that balance social control and treatment features. Key to achieving this balance are sophisticated tools for assessing both risks and needs. These assessment tools guide individualized decision making in case management and provide a basis for designing the appropriate mix of surveillance/supervision and services. Developers of the IAP model directly addressed the challenge of achieving a logical blending of social control and rehabilitation (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c). An integrated theory framework demonstrating the risk and need factors that predict reoffending provided direction for selecting appropriate interventions. Key principles that guided this blending process are community protection, accountability, and competency development. Decision making that determines how these principles are applied (i.e., intensity, duration, and specific techniques) is grounded in the concept of individualized assessments (see Figure 7, page 22). This result is known as The Balanced Approach (Maloney, Romig, and Armstrong, 1988; Armstrong, Maloney, and Romig, 1990), and the IAP model tailors this approach to transitional and aftercare settings. The Balanced Approach is a convenient, objective point of reference for practitioners responsible for matching high-risk juvenile offenders transitioning from confinement with appropriate social controls and rehabilitative services. Of the three key principles embodied in the Balanced Approach, the most important is protection of the public from crime. Deciding to move offenders back into the community even though they pose some level of risk requires supervision that markedly reduces the possibility of reoffending. IAP techniques allow for high levels of control, surveillance, and, security-related intervention. The second key principle of the Balanced Approach, offender accountability, is rooted in the idea that the justice system must respond to illegal behavior swiftly and firmly so that offenders quickly become aware of (and responsible for) the harm they have done. Imparting some sense of individual awareness and responsibility is a critical component of the juvenile justice system s response to serious delinquency. IAP programs have used a variety of techniques to achieve this goal. The last of the three principles, competency development, speaks to the value of rehabilitation in juvenile justice programming. Its preeminence derives from research characterizing youth as incompletely developed persons in need of guidance and nurturance. Another factor is a growing awareness among practitioners of the need for a basic redirection and redefinition of what juvenile justice treatment practices should be. At the center of this reformation process is an 20 15

230 IAP-Topic20 acknowledgement of the shortcomings of a pure medical model that relies on intensive psychotherapy to address delinquent behavior. The central issue is not whether to treat but rather how to treat, given what is known about the needs and developmental problems of delinquent youth. Because high-risk juvenile offenders in confinement exhibit so many developmental deficits, completing their basic habilitation is the primary challenge facing youth corrections (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1983)

231 IAP-Topic20 Figure 4: IAP Reintegration Continuum Point of Community Point of Re-entry Reentry Point Point of Re-entry 20 17

232 IAP-Topic20 Figure 5: Assessing and Targeting Factors Predictive of Reoffending Behavior Institutional Phase of Reintegration Point of Completion of Formal Supervision Assessment Set of Criminogenic Factors to be Addressed: Family Issues Substance Abuse School Conflict/Performance Peerage Other Problems/Need Areas Facility Transition Community 20 18

233 IAP-Topic20 Figure 6: Programming in Transitional Phase Point of Reentry Design Features 1. Transition Specialists 2. Backing Agencies/Individuals into Facilities 3. Specialized Curriculum Introduced During Confinement and Continuing in Community 4. Probing and Testing Youth Activities in the Community Prior to Release 5. Structured Step down (Short term Residential, Intensive Day Treatment, Day Reporting) Days 20 19

234 IAP-Topic20 Figure 7: The Balanced Approach in Aftercare Programming (A Comprehensive Framework for Planning Effective Reintegration) Key Principles: Community protection Accountability Competency development Individualized assessment 20 20

235 References

236 IAP References References Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T.M., and Edelbrock, C Manual for the Teacher s Report Form and Teacher Version of the Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Agee, V.L., and McWilliams, B The role of group therapy and the therapeutic community in treating the violent juvenile offender. In Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology, edted by R. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.S. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp Akers, A.K Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach, 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Altschuler, D.M Trends and issues in the adultification of juvenile justice. In Research to Results: Effective Community Corrections, edited by P.M. Harris. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L Four models of community-based interventions with serious juvenile offenders: Therapeutic orientations, educational strategies and reintegrative techniques. Journal of Corrective and Social Psychiatry 29(4): Altschuler, D.M., and Atrmstrong, T.L Intervening with serious juvenile offenders: A summary of a study on community-based programs. In Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology, edited by R. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.S. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L. 1994a. Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Assessment Report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs,U.S. Department of Justice. Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L. 1994b. Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and Procedures. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L. 1994c. Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L Reintegrating high-risk juvenile offenders into communities: Experiences and prospects. Corrections Management Quarterly 5(3): References-1

237 IAP References Altschuler, D.M., and Armstrong, T.L Juvenile corrections and continuity of care in a community context the evidence and promising directions. Federal Probation 66(2): Altschuler, D.M., Armstrong, T.L.,and MacKenzie, D.L Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. American Diabetes Association Diabetes Among Native Americans. Andrews, D.A Some experimental investigations of the principles of differential association through deliberate manipulations of the service system. American Sociological Review 45(3): Andrews, D.A., and Bonta, J The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company. Armstrong, T.L Teaching and toughies: Mainstreaming delinquent youths in custody back into community-based educational settings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas, NV. Armstrong, T.L National survey of juvenile intensive probation supervision, part I and II. Criminal Justice Abstracts 20(2and 3). Armstrong, T.L. 1991b. Introduction. In Intensive Interventions With High-Risk Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole, edited by T.L. Armstrong. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Armstrong, T.L., and Altschuler, D.M Community-Based Program Interventions for the Serious Juvenile Offender: Targeting, Strategies and Issues. Chicago IL: National Center for the Assessment of Alternatives to Juvenile Justice Processing, School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago, IL. Armstrong, T.L., and Altschuler, D.M Reintegrating high-risk juvenile offenders from secure correctional facilities into the community: Report on a four-state demonstration. Corrections Management Quarterly 1(4): Armstrong, T.L., Maloney, D., and Romig, D The balanced approach in juvenile probation: Principles, issues, and application. Perspectives 14(1):6 13. Bahr, S.J Family determinants and effects of deviance. In Contemporary Theories About the Family, edited by W.R. Burr, R. Hill, F.I. Nye, and I.L. Reiss. New York, NY: The Free Press. Baird, S.C Report on Intensive Supervision Programs in Probation and Parole. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. References-2

238 IAP References Baird, S.C., Storrs, G.M., and Connelly, H Classification of Juveniles in Corrections: A Model Systems Approach. Washington, DC: Arthur D. Little, Inc. Baird, S.C., and Wagner, D Evaluation of the Florida Community Control Program. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Barton, C., Alexander, J.F., Waldron, M., Turner, C.W., and Warburton, J Generalizing treatment effects of functional family therapy: Three replications. American Journal of Family Therapy 13(3): Barton, W.H., and Butts, J.A The ever-widening net: System adaptations to the introduction of new programs in a juvenile court. Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, November, Barton, W.H., and Butts, J.A Viable options: Intensive supervision programs for juvenile delinquents. Crime and Delinquency 36(2): Bazemore, G. n.d.. Restorative justice and reentry: Practice, outcomes, and principles in the aftercare environment. Draft document prepared for JRAC. Bazemore, G., and Walgrave, L. eds Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Bean, J.S The effect of individualized reality therapy on the recidivism rates and locus of control orientation of male juvenile offenders. Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International 49(06):2370B. (University Microfilms No ). Belknap, J., Holsinger, K., and Dunn, M Understanding incarcerated girls: The results of a focus group study. The Prison Journal 77(4): Bishop, D.M. and Frazier, C.E Race effects in juvenile justice decision making: Findings of a statewide analysis, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Bleich, J Toward an effective policy for handling dangerous juvenile offenders. In The Role of the Juvenile Court. Vol. 2 of From Children to Citizens, edited by F.S. Hartman. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Bobal, C An unconventional approach to providing educational services to violent juvenile offenders. In Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology, edited by R. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.S. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp Boesky, L Why Train Juvenile Justice Staff on Mental Health Issues? Juvenile Correctional Mental Health Report 5(3). References-3

239 IAP References Borduin, C.M., Henggeler, S.W., Blaske, D.M., and Stein, R.J Multisystemic treatment of adolescent sexual offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 34(2): Borum, R Managing at-risk juvenile offenders in the community. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 19(1): Branch, A.Y Faith and Action: Implementation of the National Faith-Based Initiative for High-Risk Youth. Philadelphia, PA: A Collaboration of Public/Private Ventures and Branch Associates. Brewer, D.D., Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.R., and Neckerman, H.J Preventing serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offending: A review of evaluations of selected strategies in childhood, adolescence, and the community. In Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp Burchard, J., and Clarke, R The role of individualized care in a service delivery system for children and adolescents with severely maladjusted behavior. Journal of Mental Health Administration 17(1): Bynum, T Recidivism of Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex Offender Management. Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Canino, I., and Canino, G Impact of stress on the Puerto Rican family: Treatment considerations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 50(3): Carter, M The Collaborative Approach to Sex Offender Management. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex Offender Management. Carter, R., and Wilkins, L.T Caseloads: Some conceptual models. In Probation, Parole and Community Corrections, 2d ed, edited by R. Carter and L. Wilkins. New York, NY: Wiley and Sons. Center for Human Resources A Guide to Case Management for At-Risk Youth. Waltham, MA: The Heller School, Brandeis University. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Screening and Assessing Adolescents for Substance Use Disorders. Number 31, Treatment Improvement Protocol Series (DHHS Pub. No. (SMA) ). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Chandler, M.J Egocentrism and antisocial behavior: The assessment and training of social perspective-taking skills. Developmental Psychology 9(3): References-4

240 IAP References Chesney-Lind, M What to do about girls. In Assessment to Assistance: Programs for Women in Community Corrections, edited by M. McMahon. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association, pp Chesney-Lind, M Girls, violence and delinquency: Popular myths and persistent problems. In Youth and Justice (Handbooks of Law and Social Science), edited by S.O. White. New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp Clear, T.R Objectives-Based Case Planning. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University. Clear, T.R Juvenile intensive probation supervision: Theory and rationale. In Intensive Interventions with High-Risk Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole, edited by T.L. Armstrong. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, pp Clear, T.R., and Hardyman, P The new intensive supervision movement. Crime and Delinquency 36(1): Cloward, R.A., and Ohlin, L.E Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs. New York, NY: Free Press. Coalition for Juvenile Justice Handle with Care: Serving the Mental Health Needs of Young Offenders Annual Report. Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice. Cohen, A.K Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York, NY: Free Press. Cohen, S Visions of Social Control: Crime, Punishment and Classification. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Conger, R.D Social control and social learning models of delinquent behavior: A synthesis. Criminology 14: Cocozza, J.J., and Skowyra, K Youth with mental health disorders: Issues and emerging responses. Juvenile Justice 7(1):3 13. Crowe, A.H., and Sydney, L. 2000a. Developing a policy for controlled substance testing of juveniles. Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Crowe, A.H., and Sydney, L. 2000b. Ten steps for implementing a program of substance testing in juveniles. Bulletin. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Crowley, T.J., and Riggs, P.D Adolescent substance use disorder with conduct disorder and comorbid conditions. In Adolescent Drug Abuse: Clinical Assessment and Therapeutic Interventions, edited by E. Rahdert and D. Czechowicz. Research Monograph Series, Number 156. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, pp References-5

241 IAP References Cullen, F.T Social support as an organizing concept for criminology. Presidential address to the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Justice Quarterly 11: De Como, R.E Estimating the prevalence of juvenile custody by race and gender. Crime and Delinquency 44(4): Delinquency Research Group An Evaluation of the Delinquency of Participants in the Youth at Risk Program. Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate School, Center for Applied Social Research. Deschenes, E.P., Greenwood, P.W., and Marshall, G The Nokomis Challenge Program Evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Dishion, T.J., French, D., and Patterson, G.R The development and ecology of antisocial behavior. In Manual of Development Psychopathology, edited by D. Cicchetti and D. Cohen. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., pp Elliott, D.S., and Huizinga, D The relationship between delinquent behavior and ADM problem behaviors. Paper prepared for the ADAMHA/OJJDP State of the Art Research Conference on Juvenile Offenders with Serious Drug/Alcohol and Mental Health Problems, Bethesda, MD. Elliott, D.S., and Voss, H Delinquency and Dropout. Lexington, MA: C.C. Heath. England, R.W A theory of middle-class delinquency. In Middle-Class Juvenile Delinquency, edited by E. Vax. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Ericson, N Public/Private Ventures Evaluation of Faith-Based Programs. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Erwin, B.S Evaluation of intensive probation supervision. In Georgia: Final Report. Atlanta, GA: Department of Corrections. Fagan, J.A., and Forst, M Risks, fixers, and zeal: Treatment innovation and implementation for violent juvenile offenders. The Prison Journal 76(16):5 21. Fagan, J.A., Jones, S.J., Hartstone, E., Rudman, C., and Emerson, R Background paper for the Violent Juvenile Offender Research and Development Program, Part I. San Francisco, CA: URSA Institute. Fagan, J.A., and Jones, S.R Toward a theoretical model for intervention with violent juvenile offenders. In Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology, edited by R. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.S. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp References-6

242 IAP References Fagan, J.A., Rudman, C.J., and Hartstone, E Intervening with violent juvenile offenders: A community reintegration model. In Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology, edited by R.A. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.S. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp Fagan, J.A., Weis, J.G., and Cheng, Y Drug use and delinquency among inner city students. Journal of Drug Issues 20(3): Farrington, D.P Parenting and delinquency: Parent training and delinquency prevention. Today s Delinquent 5: Ferdinand, T The methods of delinquency theory. Criminology 25(4): Fine, M.J., and Carlson, C The Handbook of Family-School Intervention: A Systems Perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Gallegos, C Building brighter futures in Indian Country. Material developed for training course: Training of Trainers. Albuquerque, NM: Native American Alliance Foundation. Gendreau, P., and Ross, R.R Effective Correctional Treatment. Toronto, Canada: Butterworths. Gilligan, L., and Talbot, T Community Supervision of the Sex Offender: An Overview of Current and Promising Practices. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex Offender Management. Ginsburg, C., and Demeranville, H Sticks and stones: The jailing of mentally ill kids. The Nation (December 20): Glick, B., and Goldstein, A.P Aggression replacement training. Journal of Counseling and Development 65(7): Goodstein, L., and Sontheimer, H The implementation of an intensive aftercare program for serious juvenile offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior 24(3): Gordon, D.A., Graves, K., and Arbuthnot, J Prevention of adult criminal behavior using family therapy for disadvantaged juvenile delinquents. Unpublished manuscript. Athens, OH: Ohio University. Greenbaum, P.E., F-Johnson, L., and Petrila, A Co-occurring addictive and mental disorders among adolescents: Prevalence research and future directions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 66(1): Greenfield, L.A., and Smith, S American Indians and Crime. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. References-7

243 IAP References Greenwood, P.W Correctional Supervision of Juvenile Offenders: Where Do We Go From Here? Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation. Greenwood, P.W, and Zimring, F One More Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation. Greenwood, P.W., Deschenes, E.P., and Adams, J Chronic Juvenile Offenders: Final Results from the Skillman Aftercare Experiment. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Griffin, P., and Torbett, P. eds Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Grisso, T., Barnum, R., and Lexcen, F Promoting mental health screening in juvenile corrections: The MAYSI-2. In Juvenile Correctional Mental Health Report. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute, Inc. (See also for a complete list of references on the MAYSI-2.) Groth, N.A., Longo, R.E., and McFadin, J.B Undetected recidivism among rapists and child molesters. Crime and Delinquency 28(3): Guerra, N.G., and Slaby, R.G Cognitive mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders: II. Intervention. Developmental Psychology 26(2): Hansen, W.B., Graham, J.W., Sobel, J.L., Shelton, D.R., Flay, B.R., and Johnson, C.A The consistency of peer and parent influences on tobacco, alcohol, and marijuana use among young adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 10(6): Hartmann. T.A Moving Beyond the Walls: Faith and Justice Partnerships Working for High-Risk Youth. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Hartstone, E., and Cocozza, J Providing services to the mentally ill, violent juvenile offender. In Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology, edited by R. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.S. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp Hatry, H., van Houten, T., Plantz, M.C., and Taylor, M Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America. Havighurst, R.J Nurturing the cognitive skills in health. Journal of School Health 42(2): Hawkins, J.D., Herrenkhol, T., Farrington, D.P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R.F., and Harachi, T.W A review of predictors of youth violence. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp References-8

244 IAP References Hayes, L.M Suicide prevention in juvenile facilities. Juvenile Justice 7(1): Henggeler, S.W., and Borduin, C.M Family Therapy and Beyond: A Multi-System Approach to Treating the Behavior Problems of Children in Adolescence. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Hindelang, M.J., Hirschi, T., and Weis, J.G Measuring Delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Hirschi, T Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Howell, J.C., ed Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Howell, J.C Youth gang homicides, drug trafficking, and program interventions. In Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence, edited by J.C. Howell. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp Hoytt, E.H., Schiraldi, V., Smith, B.V., and Ziedenberg, J Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: Reducing Racial Disparities In Juvenile Detention. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Jackson, L The Oregon Youth Authority s Gangbusters Program and Office of Minority Services. In Juvenile Justice Today: Essays on Programs and Policies. Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association. James, T., and Granville, J Practical issues in vocational education for serious juvenile offenders. In Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology, edited by R. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.S. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency, pp Jesness, C.F., Allison, F.S., McCormic, P.M., Wedge, R.F., and Young, M.L Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Contingency Contracting with Delinquents. Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority. Johnson, B.M Parole Performance of the First Year s Releases Parole Research Project: Evaluation of Reduced Caseloads. Research Report No. 27. Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority. Johnson, R.E Juvenile Delinquency and Its Origins. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Jones, N., Matson, S., Ney, B., and Weinbaum, E Identifying Resources for Managing Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Sex Offender Management. References-9

245 IAP References Kantrowitz, R.E Training nonprofessionals to work with delinquents: Differential impacts of varying training/supervision/intervention strategies. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Dissertation Abstracts International 40(10):5007B. (University Microfilms No ). Kawaguchi, R.M Camp Fenner Canyon Evaluation: Final Report. NCJ Downey, CA: Los Angeles County Probation Department. Kemp, M., and Lee, R Project Crest: A Third Year Experimental Study. Gainesville, FL: Project Crest. King, J., Beals, L., Manson, S.M., and Trimble, J.E A structural equation model of factors related to substance use among American Indian adolescents. In Ethnic and Multicultural Drug Abuse: Perspectives on Current Research, edited by J. E. Trimble, C.S. Bolek, and S. J. Niemcryck. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press, pp Kirigin, K.A., Braukmann, C.J., Atwater, J.D., and Worl, M.M An evaluation of teaching family (achievement place) group homes for juvenile offenders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 15(1):1 16. Klein, M Deinstitutionalization and diversion of juvenile offenders: A litany of impediments. In Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 1, edited by N. Morris and M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kosecoff, J., and Fink, A Evaluation Basics: A Practitioner s Manual. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Latessa, E.J Intensive supervision: An evaluation of the effectiveness of an intensive diversion unit. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. Latessa, E.J The effectiveness of intensive supervision with high risk probationers. In Intermediate Punishments: Intensive Supervision, Home Confinement and Electronic Surveillance, edited by B. McCarthy. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Latessa, E.J., Parks, E., Allen, H., and Carlson, E Specialized supervision in probation: Implications, research, and issues. Prison Journal 59(2): Lawrence, R Controlling school crime: An examination of interorganizational relations of school and juvenile justice professionals. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 46(3): Lawrence, R School Crime and Juvenile Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lee, R., and Haynes, N.M. 1978a. Counseling delinquents: Dual treatment revisited. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 22: References-10

246 IAP References Lee, R., and Haynes, N.M. 1978b. Counseling juvenile offenders: An experimental evaluation of Project Crest. Community Mental Health Journal 14(4): Lee, R., and Olejnik, S Professional outreach counseling can help the juvenile probationer: A two year follow-up study. Personnel and Guidance Journal 59: Lindgren, J Continuous case management with violent juvenile offenders. In Violent Juvenile Offenders: An Anthology, edited by R. Mathias, P. DeMuro and R.S. Allinson. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. Lipsey, M.W Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A Casebook, edited by T.D. Cook, H. Cooper, D.S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L.V. Hedges, R.J. Light, T.A. Louis, and F. Mosteller. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Lipsey, M.W Effective correctional treatment enhances public safety. The ICCA Journal on Community Corrections. Lipsey, M.W., and Derzon, J.H Predictors of violence or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: A synthesis of longitudinal research. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp Lipsey, M.W., and Wilson, D.B Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp Littel, K Engaging Advocates and Other Victim Service Providers in the Community Management of Sex Offenders. Silver Spring, MD. Center for Sex Offender Management. Loeber, R., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M Family factors as correlates and predictors of juvenile justice conduct problems and delinquency. In Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, vol. 7, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Loper, A., and Cornell, D.G Homicide by adolescent girls. Journal of Child and Family Studies 5: MacKenzie, D.L Boot camp prisons in National Institute of Justice Journal 21(28): Major, A., and Egley, A Survey of Gangs in Indian Country. Tallahassee, FL: National Youth Gang Center, Institute for Intergovernmental Research. References-11

247 IAP References Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Armstrong, T.L Juvenile probation: The balanced approach. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 39(3). Mann, D Intervening with the Convicted Serious Juvenile Offender. Washington, DC: National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Matson, S., and Lieb, R Megan s Law: A Review of State and Federal Legislation. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. May, P., and Gossage, J.P Estimating the prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome: A summary. Alcohol Research and Health 25(3): McCord, J., Widom, C.S., and Crowell, N.A. eds Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Report from the National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Mears, D.P Critical challenges in addressing the mental health needs of juvenile offenders. Justice Policy Journal 1(1): Meier, R Theoretical Methods in Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Miller, E., and MacGillivray, L Youth Offender Demonstration Project Process Evaluation. Washington, DC: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. Minton, T.D Jails in Indian Country, Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Monahan, J Predicting Violent Behavior: An Assessment of Clinical Techniques. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Moore, C.B Ego strength and behavior: A study of a residential treatment programs for delinquent girls, Doctoral dissertation 1977, The California School of Professional Psychology. Dissertation Abstracts International 38(10):5033B. (University Microfilms No ) Moore, R.H Effectiveness of citizen volunteers functioning as counselors for high-risk young male offenders. Psychological Reports 61(3): Moore, R.H., and Levine, D Evaluation Research of a Community-Based Probation Program. Lincoln, NE: Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska at Lincoln. National Mentoring Center National Mentoring Center Bulletin. 12(Summer). References-12

248 IAP References National Research Council and Institute of Medicine Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice. Panel on Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and Control, edited by, J. McCord, C.Spatz Widom, and N.A. Crowell. Committee on Law and Justice and Board on Children, Youth, and Families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Newcomb, M.D., and Bentler, P.M Substance use and abuse among children and teenagers. American Psychologist 44(2): Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Guiding Principles for Promising Female Programming: An Inventory of Best Practices. Report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Minorities in the Juvenile Justice System. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Olson, D.H., Partner, J., and Lavee, Y Faces III. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. Palmer, T.B California s Community Treatment Program for delinquent adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 8(1): Palmer, T.B The Community Treatment Project in perspective: Youth Authority Quarterly 26(3): Palmer, T.B. 1974a. The Youth Authority s Community Treatment Project. Federal Probation 38(1):3 14. Palmer, T.B. 1974b. The Community Treatment Project: A Review of Accumulate Research in the California Youth Authority. Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority. Palmer, T.B Intervention with juvenile offenders: Recent and long-term changes. In Intensive Interventions With High-Risk Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole, edited by T.L. Armstrong. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. Palmer, T.B The Re-Emergence of Correctional Intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Parent, D.P., Lieter, V., Kennedy, S., Livens, L., Wentworth, D., and Wilcox, S Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Patterson, G., and Stouthamer-Loeber, M The correlation of family management practices and delinquency. Child Development 55: References-13

249 IAP References Patterson, G.R., Chamberlain, P., and Reed, J.B A comprehensive evaluation of a parent training program. Behavior Therapy 13: Patton, M.Q Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Patton, M.Q Utilization-Focused Evaluation, The New Century Text, 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pearson, F Final Report of the Evaluation of New Jersey s Intensive Supervision Program. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for the Study of Crime and Delinquency. Petersilia, J., and Turner, S Comparing intensive and regular supervision for high risk probationers: Early results from an experiment in California. Crime and Delinquency 36(1) Piercy, F., and Lee, R Effects of a dual treatment approach on the rehabilitation of habitual juvenile delinquents. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 19: Poe-Yamagata, E., and Butts, J Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System. Pittsburg, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. Poe-Yamagata, E., and Jones, M And Justice for Some. Building Blocks for Youth. Pond, E.M The Los Angeles Community Delinquency Control Project: An Experiment in the Rehabilitation of Delinquents in an Urban Community. Research Report No. 60. Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority. Pope, C.E., Lovell, R., and Hsia, H.M Disproportionate minority confinement: A review of the research literature from 1989 through 2001, Juvenile Justice Bulletion, Washington, D.C., Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Prentky, R., and Righthand, S Juvenile Sex Offender Assessment Protocol II (J-SOAP-II) Manual. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Redondo, S., Sanchez-Meca, J., and Garrido, V The influence of treatment programmes on the recidivism of juvenile and adult offenders: A European meta-analytic review. Psychology, Crime & Law 5: Roberts, C.F A Final Evaluation of the Narcotic Control Program. Research Report No. 58. Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority. References-14

250 IAP References Rodgers, C.M., and Terry, T Clinical intervention with boy victims of sexual abuse. In Victims of Sexual Aggression: Men, Women, and Children, edited by I.R. Stuart and J.G. Greer. New York, NY: Nostrand Reinhold. Romig, D Juvenile intensive probation supervision: The defensible basis. Paper presented at a symposium on juvenile intensive probation supervision, Minneapolis, MN. Rossi, P.H., and Freeman, H.E Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 5th ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Rutter, M., and Madge, N Cycles of Disadvantage: A Review of Research. London, England: Heineman. Schafer, N.E., Curtis, R.W., and Atwell, C Disproportionate Representation of Minorities in the Alaska Juvenile Justice System. Phase I Report. Anchorage, AK: Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage. Schlicter, K.J., and Horan, J.J Effects of stress inoculation on the anger and aggression management skills of institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Cognitive Therapy and Research 5(4): Schram, D., and Milloy, C Community Notification: A Study of Offender Characteristics and Recidivism. Olympia WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Schwitzgebel, R., and Kolb, D.A Inducing behavior change in adolescent delinquents. Behavior Research and Therapy 1: Scott, J.W., and Vaz, E.W A perspective on middle-class delinquency. In Middle-Class Juvenile Delinquency, edited by E. Vaz. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Sealock, M.D., Gottfredson, D.C., and Gallagher, C.A Drug treatment for juvenile offenders: Some good and bad news. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 34(2): Seckel, J.P., and Turner, J.K Assessment of Planned Re-entry Programs (PREP). Sacramento, CA: California Youth Authority. Sherman, L.W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D.L., Eck, J., Reuter, P., and Bushway, S Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn t, What s Promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Shivrattan, J.L Social interactional training and incarcerated juvenile delinquents. Canadian Journal of Criminology 30(1): References-15

251 IAP References Sickmund, M., Snyder, H.N., and Poe-Yamagata, E Update on Violence. Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Sontheimer, H., and Goodstein, L An evaluation of juvenile intensive aftercare probation: Aftercare versus system response effects. Justice Quarterly 10(2): Spence, S.H., and Marzillier, J.S Social skills training with adolescent male offenders II: Short-term, long-term, and generalized effects. Behavior Research and Therapy 19: Spergel, I.A Youth Gangs: Problems and Response. Chicago, IL: The School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago. Steinberger, R Many voices. Incarcerated Indians 1(19). Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Patterson, G.R., and Loeber, R Parental monitoring and antisocial behavior among boys. Unpublished manuscript. Eugene, OR: Oregon Learning Center. Strasburg, P Violent Delinquents: A Report to the Ford Foundation from the Vera Institute of Justice. New York, NY: Monarch. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Family-Centered Approaches. Prevention Enhancement Protocols Systems (PEPS). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Treatment of Adolescents with Substance Abuse Disorders. Treatment Improvement Protocol, Series 32. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Sutherland, E.H Principles of Criminology. New York, NY: Lippincott. Sutherland, E.H., and Cressey, D.R Criminology. New York, NY: Lippincott. Task Force on Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth Employment and Training for Court-Involved Youth. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Taxman, F., Soule, D., and Gelb, A Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison Journal 79(2): Taylor, L The serious juvenile offender: Identification and suggested treatment responses. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 31:2. References-16

252 IAP References Thambidurai, G.A A comparative outcome study of a contract parole program for individuals committed to the youth correctional complex in the state of New Jersey. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, New Jersey. Dissertation Abstracts International 41(01):371B. (University Microfilms No ). Thompson, M.S Benefit-Cost Analysis for Program Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Tobler, N.S., and Stratton, H.H Effectiveness of school-based prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention 18(1): Underwood, L.A Screening and assessing the mental health and substance abuse needs of African-American youth. Juvenile Correctional Mental Health Report 2(4). Underwood, L.A., Newton, J.A., and Jageman, M.A Integrating juvenile correctional and community mental health approaches: A promising program for juvenile offenders with mental health disorders. Juvenile Correctional Mental Health Report 1(3). Walker, G Out of school and unemployed: Principles for more effective policy and programs. In A Generation of Challenge: Pathways to Success for Urban Youth. Baltimore MD: Sar Levitan Youth Policy Network. Watson, J.B Behaviorism. New York, NY: Norton. Webb, S., Maddox, M., and Edgar, E.B The Juvenile Corrections Interagency Transition Model. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Experimental Education Unit. Weiner, S.J., Kirsch, A.D., McCormack, M.T., Weber, M.A., Zappardino, P.H., and Collyer, C.E Balancing the Scales: Measuring the Contributions of Non-Profit Organizations and Religious Congregations. Washington, DC: Independent Sector. Wiebush, R.G., Baird, C., Krisberg, B., and Onek, D Risk assessment and classification for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. In A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, edited by J.C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J.D. Hawkins, and J.J. Wilson. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp Wiebush, R.G., McNulty, B., and Le, T Implementation of the Intensive Community- Based Aftercare Program. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. References-17