1. Provide Immediate Intervention and Appropriate Sanctions and Treatment for Delinquent Juveniles

Overview

The increased volume and changing composition of juvenile delinquency caseloads have overloaded the juvenile justice system. Slightly more than half of the juveniles in detention and 62 percent of juveniles in long-term placements in the United States in 1989 were housed in facilities where juvenile populations exceeded design capacities.1

To accurately assess the juvenile justice system and its role in delinquency prevention, it is imperative to take into account the nature and volume of cases coming before the juvenile court. In 1992, an estimated 1 million juveniles in the United States were charged with approximately 1.5 million delinquent acts, a 26-percent increase from the volume of cases reported in 1987. In addition, a disproportionate increase occurred in violent offenses (56 percent) and in weapons offenses (86 percent) among young people.2

Statistics also indicate that violent juvenile female offending is rising and that the increase is greater proportionately than that of males. Between 1988 and 1992, the number of females under age 18 arrested for all violent crimes increased 63 percent, whereas the number of males under age 18 arrested for violent crimes increased 45 percent.

Most arrested juveniles, whether male or female, have not committed serious or violent crimes, but rather property crimes or status offenses. Even violent juvenile offenders rarely commit crimes exclusively against persons. They are likely to also engage in significant property or drug-related crimes.

As figure 2 indicates, juveniles are responsible for a far greater share of all property crime arrests (33 percent) than either violent crime arrests (18 percent) or drug arrests (8 percent).3 In 1992, the highest percentage of juvenile arrests, compared to adults, was for arson (49 percent), vandalism (45 percent), and motor vehicle theft (44 percent). The juvenile property crime arrest rate in 1992 was five times greater than the juvenile violent crime arrest rate.4

In addition to handling increased delinquency cases, juvenile courts have jurisdiction over status offenses -- acts that would not be considered crimes if committed by an adult. Compared to delinquency cases, the number of status offense cases is modest. In 1992, an estimated 97,000 status offense cases were formally adjudicated, an increase of 18 percent from 1988, with the largest increases in run-away (31 percent) and truancy (21 percent) cases.

The juvenile justice system must be equipped to address the full range of juvenile problem behaviors. Often the presenting offense is merely the "tip of the iceberg," and good case management and needs assessments can help to identify and address individual service needs.

However, the juvenile justice system is often so overwhelmed that juvenile offenders receive no meaningful interventions or consequences, even for relatively serious offenses. This neglect serves neither rehabilitation nor accountability goals, and young people need to know that if they break the law, they will be held accountable. Clearly, a revitalized juvenile justice system that ensures immediate and appropriate accountability and sanctions is a key to reversing trends in juvenile violence.

This section of the Action Plan discusses the causes of increased juvenile violence and delinquency and sets forth the "balanced and restorative justice" model as a philosophical underpinning for the juvenile justice system's handling of juvenile offenders. The keys to this model are individual assessment and case management, a system of graduated sanctions, and an emphasis on aftercare services. This section also supports the rights of victims, including the right to receive information about juvenile offenders. It also provides examples of programs that support the balanced and restorative justice model, and a summary of issues surrounding disproportionate minority confinement and gender-specific services.


Figure 2: Juvenile arrest offenses in 1992

Juveniles accounted for a much larger proportion of all property crime arrests (33% than violent crime (18%) or drug arrests (8%) in 1992

Table

Note: Running away and curfew violations are not presented in this figure because, by definition, only juveniles can be arrested for these offenses.

Data Source: FBI. 1994. Crime in the United States 1993; Uniform Crime Reports.

Source: Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995 (August). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.


Current Status and Analysis of the Problem

A separate juvenile justice system, which originated in the United States in 1899 and quickly spread to all the States and Territories, has not been able to respond effectively to the increases in juvenile violence this society currently faces. In fairness, however, it has never been given sufficient resources to operate effectively to meet this challenge.

At the turn of the century, the juvenile justice system operated in a world very different from the one we live in today. Then, more Americans lived in rural areas and small communities, juvenile offenses were generally less severe, and victims would be more likely to know the consequences for individuals who had harmed them. Today, the juvenile justice system is unable to devote sufficient resources to dealing with status offenders and minor delinquency because of the growing number of serious and violent juvenile offenders. These offenders require a greatly enhanced response, and greater coordination among the system's components. Use of the balanced and restorative justice model of accountability, multidisciplinary assessment teams, and a system of graduated sanctions can help to provide the response and coordination that are required to effectively address juvenile violence and delinquency.

Causes of Delinquency

What causes juvenile delinquency? Before formulating proposed remedies to a juvenile justice system in need of support, the causes and correlates of juvenile delinquency need to be examined to ensure that those factors are targeted.

There is no single cause of delinquency and violence. Delinquents, especially chronic delinquents, exhibit a variety of social and psychological deficits in their backgrounds. These deficits, often referred to as risk factors, stem from breakdowns in five influential domains in juveniles' lives: neighborhood, family, school, peers, and individual characteristics.5

Risk factors, such as community disorganization, availability of drugs and firearms, and persistent poverty, make children more prone to involvement in delinquent behavior than if those factors were not present. Additionally, when a child's family life is filled with violence, problem behaviors, poor parental monitoring, and inconsistent disciplinary practices or maltreatment, a child's risk of delinquency increases. Although a variety of other risk factors exists, research shows those listed in figure 3 to be linked to delinquency and violence. Youth exhibiting combinations of these deficits in multiple domains of their lives are at highest risk of delinquency.

In sum, delinquency and violence have multiple causes, which often occur simultaneously, exacerbating one another and making them more difficult to ameliorate. Identifying those factors most prevalent in a community is the essential first step toward developing effective programs to prevent or control delinquent behavior.

The second step requires identifying programs that help youth, families, and communities protect themselves from these risks. (See Objective 4 for a discussion of protective factors.) Recent research sheds considerable light on the issue of "what works" in the prevention and control of delinquency.6 Based on thorough analyses of the research literature and programs identified in a nationwide search, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Guide), provides examples of effective prevention programs and concludes:

The most effective programs are those that address key areas of risk in the youth's life, those that seek to strengthen the personal and institutional factors that contribute to healthy adolescent development, those that provide adequate support and supervision, and those that offer youth a long-term stake in the community.7


Figure 3: Risk factors for health and behavior problems

Table

Data Source: Hawkins, J.D., and R.F. Catalano. 1995. Risk-Focused Prevention: Using the Social Development Strategy. Seattle: Developmental Research and Programs, Inc.

Source: Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.


Effective and Promising Strategies and Programs

Balanced and Restorative Justice

A strong juvenile justice system must build upon the research and evaluations of promising and effective programs, and must work to reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors to successfully address serious, violent, and chronic delinquency. The establishment of such a system can be guided by the conceptual framework of balanced and restorative justice.

The balanced and restorative justice approach to juvenile justice consists of three related objectives: community protection, accountability, and competency development. (See figure 4 for a graphic depiction of the balanced and restorative justice model.)

Accountability refers to the requirement that juvenile offenders receive sanctions for their offenses and that they make amends to the victim and the community for harm caused. Competency development suggests that youth who enter the juvenile justice system should exit more capable of being productive, responsible citizens. Community protection requires that the juvenile justice system ensure public safety.

Operating in the "best interest of the child," the American juvenile justice system has traditionally focused on the individual juvenile offender's extenuating circumstances and treatment needs. Delinquency case reviews are generally conducted behind closed doors to safeguard the confidentiality of children, distancing or excluding victims from the proceedings. In contrast to the adversarial criminal court, the juvenile court has not relied as much on victims' impact statements in sentencing. Further, it has often been assumed that victims would prefer not to meet their offenders face to face.

In recent years, the juvenile justice system has embraced community service and restitution programs, which emphasize the need to hold juveniles accountable for their actions through repayment of their debts to society and their victims. The balanced and restorative justice approach calls for active participation by the juvenile justice system, the juvenile offender, and community organizations.

Many Native American and Alaska Native communities rely on dual systems of justice, one based on a common law model of justice and another based on indigenous concepts of law and justice. In handling juvenile offenders, these indigenous justice systems have common inherent features based on restorative, reparative, and distributive justice principles. Victim and offender, surrounded by their extended family members, confront each other to resolve conflict in an environment that is emotionally and physically safe. This holistic approach promotes problemsolving in a non-adversarial environment and addresses the healing needs of the victim, the offender, and their families.

Although forcing victims to meet with juvenile offenders is inappropriate, many victims agree to participate in mediation programs. The mediation process personalizes the crime and forces offenders to face the harm they have caused.


Figure 4: The balanced and restorative justice model

Table

Source: Bazemore, G., and M.S. Umbreit. 1994 (October). Balanced and Restorative Justice. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.


Responding to Victims' Concerns

As a civilized society, we need to feel safe in the company of people who walk our streets and attend our schools. Even if we improve the juvenile justice system so that it is capable of providing treatment, skills training, and rehabilitation, mechanisms must be in place to provide information about juvenile offenders and support the rights of victims. Simultaneously, however, we need to ensure that reasonable confidentiality protections are afforded to juvenile offenders.

The Action Plan endorses the presence of victims in the courtroom, particularly in felony cases. Victims of juvenile offenders should be given the opportunity to address the court and be notified of the disposition, parole status, and release of perpetrators. It also supports programs that help young offenders understand the long-term effects of their behavior and learn how to control anger and resolve conflicts without violence. It is in agreement with a number of the recommendations of the American Correctional Association's Victims Committee relating to juvenile offenders and will support Federal activity that assists in their implementation.8 These recommendations include:

Texas has provided victim access to juvenile court hearings. Specifically, the court may not prohibit a victim from attending a hearing unless the victim is to testify in the hearing and the court determines that the victim's testimony would be materially affected if the victim hears other testimony at trial.

The California Youth Authority's Impact of Crime on Victims classes provide a model approach to both rehabilitating offenders and involving victims in the juvenile justice system. As part of the recovery process, victims tell offenders about the impact of crime on their own lives, their families, and the communities in which they live. This approach has been adopted by a number of corrections, probation, and parole agencies for use with both adult and juvenile offenders.

Risk Classification, Needs Assessment, and Case Management

Risk classification and needs assessment. Risk classification and needs assessment are central to an effective juvenile justice system and critical to ensuring the three goals of the balanced and restorative justice model. A National Council on Crime and Delinquency study of 14 States found that an average of 31 percent of incarcerated juveniles could be safely placed in less secure community-based settings.9 This finding should have a significant impact on how States approach the problem of facility overcrowding. Because estimates of the annual cost of incarcerating a youth fall between $34,000 and $64,000,10 reducing unnecessary training school placements would reduce overcrowding and produce considerable savings that could be used to develop and implement effective graduated sanctions programs designed to address the needs of each juvenile requiring intervention services.

Communities developing a graduated sanctions system need tools to determine which and how many youth should be placed at each security level and in an appropriate program in the continuum of services. An effective juvenile justice system uses risk classification instruments and needs assessments to appropriately place juvenile offenders.11 The placement is determined by clearly designed, objective criteria that focus on the seriousness of the delinquent act, the potential risk for reoffending based on the presence of risk factors, and the risk to public safety. Objective risk classification can also be useful in addressing bias in placement decisionmaking, thereby reducing disproportionate incarceration rates for minority populations.

Needs assessments help to ensure selection of the most appropriate program within the determined security level. The needs assessment may identify chronic or multiple needs that warrant placement in specialized programs (for example, programs for sex offenders or violent offenders, or a rigorous wilderness program). Needs assessments can also be used in case planning to identify appropriate youth service needs.

Case management and assessment teams. An effective case management system is also crucial to a strong juvenile justice system. Continuous case management results in greater service coordination and accountability. The case manager follows each youth from the point of intake through initial needs assessment, probation, incarceration, and aftercare to monitor progress and adjust the treatment plan appropriately. Whenever possible, it is best for the youth to be in community-based programs, allowing caseworkers to develop community support networks and to involve the family.

The assessment team approach is an innovative method for integrating the risk classification and needs assessment process of the juvenile justice system, the goal of appropriate treatment, and the need to maximize the use of scarce system resources. The assessment team can serve as a central information or data gathering point within a jurisdiction for all agencies with juvenile service responsibility.

Effective rehabilitation requires maximum use of a broad range of community resources, including health and mental health care, social services, recreation, education, and employment and training services. Each member of an assessment team should be knowledgeable about individual differences that can stem from race, gender, culture, and ethnicity. Central to the assessment team approach is its ability to refer each juvenile, even the most serious offender, to programs and services that address identified needs and integrate the family into the treatment plan. This approach is designed to prevent a youth's further involvement in the system by inducing law-abiding behavior as early as possible through a combination of appropriate intervention and treatments.

Family Assessment Service Teams (FAST), a part of the Norfolk (VA) Police Assisted Community Enforcement effort, use an interagency approach to coordinate resources and improve the effectiveness of juvenile services, such as early intervention and prevention and family counseling and followup.

Statistics show that crime has dropped markedly in neighborhoods targeted by the FAST program. According to one 1993 report, crime decreased by 29 percent in the target areas, police reported fewer service calls, and there was a significant drop in street drug trafficking and gunfire. Participants also believed the program had reduced fear of crime in target neighborhoods.12

If implemented properly, the assessment team concept has the potential to facilitate the delivery of the right "front end" services to the right juveniles in a timely manner. If team approaches are institutionalized and centrally located in assessment centers that either provide comprehensive services or make referrals to community services, the juvenile justice system would have an important tool to achieve the goal of effective and coordinated service delivery.

Graduated Sanctions

For interventions to be maximally effective, they should be swift, certain, and consistent. An effective system of graduated sanctions must also incorporate increasingly severe sanctions when a juvenile fails to respond to initial interventions. As the severity of sanctions increases, so must the intensity of treatment. At each level, offenders must be aware that continued violations of the law will subject them to more severe sanctions and may ultimately result in secure confinement, ranging from a community-based intensive treatment facility to a training school, camp, or ranch.

Effective and fair graduated sanctions that hold juvenile offenders accountable can discourage them from continued involvement in delinquency and crime. In addition, an OJJDP-funded study of existing graduated sanctions systems found that they appear to be more effective and less costly than juvenile incarceration.13 The Guide includes descriptions of promising and proven programs at each graduated sanctions level. The graduated sanctions system set out in the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders includes the following components:

Immediate intervention. First-time delinquent offenders (charged with misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies) and many nonviolent repeat offenders should be placed in programs designed to reduce the probability of their committing more serious or violent offenses. Nonresidential community-based programs, including prevention programs serving at-risk youth, may be appropriate for many of these offenders. These programs are small and open, located in or near juveniles' homes, and involve participants in program planning, operation, and evaluation. They also foster family participation in treatment and facilitate the establishment of law-abiding patterns of behavior.

Intermediate sanctions. Offenders for whom immediate intervention is inappropriate (first-time serious or violent offenders) or offenders who reoffend despite immediate intervention (for example, repeat property offenders or drug-involved juveniles) are appropriate subjects for intermediate sanctions. These sanctions may be residential or nonresidential. For many serious and violent offenders, placement in an intensive supervision or other intensive service program may be appropriate.

In a South Carolina study of 39,250 males born between 1964 and 1971 who had official delinquency records, researchers identified offenders who had been incarcerated or placed on probation as adults. They found that those who had been institutionalized as juveniles were substantially more likely to reoffend as adults. The authors concluded that their findings "effectively underscore the need to bolster programming for early effective intervention in order to prevent the recurrence of delinquent behavior."14

OJJDP's Intensive Supervision of Probationers (ISP) Program Model is a highly structured, continuously monitored, and individualized plan that consists of five phases with decreasing levels of restrictiveness:

The Bethesda Day Treatment Center Program in West Milton, PA, is a model day treatment program.15 Initiated with OJJDP formula grant funds, the program is currently funded through county service contracts. The Center's services include intensive supervision, counseling, and coordination of a range of services necessary for youth to develop skills to function effectively in the community. Client-focused services include intake, casework, service and treatment planning, individual counseling, intensive supervision, and study skills. Group-focused services include group counseling, life and job skills training, cultural enrichment, and physical education. Family-focused services include counseling, home visits, parent counseling, and intervention.

The program provides delinquent and dependent youth, ages 10 to 17, with as many as 55 hours of services a week without removing them from their homes. A unique program feature requires work experience for all working-age clients, with 75 percent of their paychecks directed toward payment of fines, court costs, and restitution. This intensive treatment program has shown promising results. A preliminary study revealed recidivism rates far lower than State and national norms.

Secure corrections. The criminal behavior of many serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders requires the imposition of secure sanctions to hold them accountable and to provide a structured treatment environment. Large, congregate-care juvenile facilities, such as training schools, camps, and ranches, however, have not been effective at rehabilitating juvenile offenders. The continued use of large facilities will remain a necessary alternative for juveniles who require enhanced security to protect the public. Even so, small, community-based facilities providing intensive treatment services and special programming in a secure environment offer the best hope for successful treatment of juveniles who require a structured setting.16 These services include individual and group counseling, educational and training programs, medical services, and intensive staff supervision. Proximity to the community permits direct, regular family involvement with the treatment process, independent living, and a phased reentry into the community.

Since closing its traditional training schools in 1972, Massachusetts has relied on a sophisticated network of small, secure programs for violent youth coupled with a broad range of highly structured, community-based programs for most committed youth. Secure facilities are reserved for the most serious offenders. A study of the State's community-based juvenile system revealed recidivism rates equal to or lower than those of other jurisdictions. In addition, Massachusetts has saved an estimated $11 million a year by relying on community-based sanctions.17

Juveniles whose presence in the community would constitute a threat to public safety or juveniles who have failed to respond to community-based corrections may require extended correctional placement in training schools, camps, ranches, or other secure facilities that are not community based. These facilities should be accredited by the American Correctional Association and offer comprehensive treatment programs that focus on reversing criminal behavior patterns through education, health, skills development, victim impact awareness, teen parenting, and vocational or employment training and experience. In addition, some serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders who have been waived or transferred to and convicted in the criminal justice system prior to the age at which they are no longer subject to the original (or extended) jurisdiction of the criminal justice system may be appropriate candidates for placement in juvenile correctional facilities as part of their criminal court sentence, where State statute permits.

The Florida Environmental Institute (FEI), also known as "The Last Chance Ranch," targets the State's most serious and violent juvenile offenders. Located in a remote area of the Florida Everglades, FEI offers both a residential phase and a nonresidential aftercare program. Two-thirds of its referrals are adjudicated delinquents from the criminal justice system. Yet, because of its strong emphasis on education, hard work, social bonding, and aftercare, recidivism rates of juveniles who have gone through the program are substantially less than rates of traditional training school programs: 30 percent instead of 50-70 percent.18

Intensive aftercare. Standard parole practices, particularly those that focus on social control, have not been effective in normalizing high-risk juvenile parolees' behavior over the long term. If youth successfully complete treatment programs, they should not be abruptly returned to the environment where the misconduct occurred without appropriate supervision and transitional support. Consequently, intensive aftercare programs that provide high levels of social control and treatment services have gained substantial support.

OJJDP has supported the development of an intensive aftercare program, currently being demonstrated in four jurisdictions, that incorporates five principles:

  1. Prepare youth for progressive responsibility and freedom in the community.

  2. Facilitate youth-community interaction and involvement.

  3. Work with both the offender and targeted community support systems, such as families, peers, schools, and employers, to facilitate the youth's constructive interaction with these groups and gradual community adjustment.

  4. Develop needed resources and community support.

  5. Monitor and ensure successful reintegration into the community.19

Cooperation between schools and the juvenile justice system. Two key ingredients for implementing a system of graduated sanctions are (1) strengthening cooperation and communication between school districts and probation departments, and (2) providing schools with alternative strategies for dealing with students who exhibit behavioral problems or students who are suspended or have been expelled from school.

The Allentown, PA, school district developed the Student Assistance Program (SAP) to address the increased number of dropouts, violent incidents, behavioral problems, and drug abuse problems among its students. SAP incorporates three main objectives:

School-based probation officers are the key to SAP's effectiveness. They act as student advocates and coordinators to refer targeted students to resources in the school and the community. Probation officers also visit classrooms to talk to students and faculty members about the juvenile justice system and to clarify the program.

The development of excellent working relationships among education, juvenile justice, law enforcement, other social agencies, and families has been one of the program's most important accomplishments. School-based probation officers are now considered a vital element in the schools' overall operation. Since implementation, the program has served from 91 to 104 students annually. In addition, the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency has allocated more than $2 million to replicate the SAP model in other Pennsylvania jurisdictions. To date, 29 Pennsylvania counties are implementing SAP programs.20

Disproportionate minority confinement and issues confronting juvenile female offenders. Another key component of graduated sanctions is a focus on alleviating disproportionate minority confinement and gender bias in the juvenile justice system. Persons of color, particularly African-American and Latino-American males, are disproportionately represented at every stage of the juvenile justice system. Research shows that disproportionate minority confinement tends to result, in part, from a number of discrete decisions made throughout the system, from the point of arrest through intake and sentencing.21 The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended in 1988,22 requires States to make efforts to reduce the proportion of minority juveniles detained or confined in secure detention or correctional facilities, jails, and lockups if such proportion exceeds the proportion of representation in the general population. Response to this over-representation, as well as to demographic shifts, requires additional or redirected resources, staff training, recruitment, language and cultural programs, and materials and documents translated into languages other than English for juvenile offenders, their families, and crime victims.

Similarly, the 1992 Amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act addressed the issue of gender bias, requiring States to plan for an analysis of the need, types, and delivery of gender-specific services. Delinquency by female offenders has risen dramatically in the past decade, accounting for 23 percent of juvenile arrests as of 1991. Recent data indicate that because of the relatively small number of adjudicated female juvenile offenders, little attention has been focused on their special needs.23 A comparative study of 348 violent adolescent females and a similar number of males revealed that, although half the male offenders were admitted to rehabilitation programs or alternative programs, only 29.5 percent of female offenders received some alternative treatment.24

According to data provided by 85 State corrections institutions, female offenders face many special problems, including the perpetuation of a cycle of generational sexual abuse, teenage pregnancy, early parenthood, and emotional dysfunction. Other research25 supports the conclusion that girls become self-destructive more often than boys when acting out problems. Young females who run away, for example, more often become involved in prostitution or turn to other unhealthy, exploitative, or abusive environments for shelter or survival.

Front-end assessment through the assessment-team approach may help to address some of the race and gender issues in the juvenile justice system and ensure that judgments about treatment and rehabilitation respond to the individual needs of each youth.

Federal Action Steps

Assist in the Development of Model State and Local Programs Through Training and Technical Assistance

OJJDP will provide training and technical assistance to jurisdictions in developing a balanced and restorative justice model.

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), through its Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and National Institute of Justice (NIJ), will underscore the importance of accountability for juvenile offenders by recognizing the rights and concerns of victims and by emphasizing community service restitution programs. This will include support for and strengthening of indigenous tribal justice systems that apply reparative and restorative justice principles.

Ensure That the Rights of Victims of Juvenile Offenders Are Recognized

OVC will provide funding for crucial victim services and for training of a broad range of professionals who work with crime victims and will develop projects to enhance victims' rights and services. In addition, OVC will fund workshops to increase the number of trainers qualified to train others in assisting victims of juvenile offenders.

Provide Communities With Guidance for Implementing a Comprehensive Strategy That Reflects Delinquency Prevention and Effective Graduated Sanctions

OJJDP will widely disseminate the Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders to practitioners, educators, community activists, policymakers, city managers, governors, State attorneys general, and others to aid in establishing effective prevention programs and improving State and local juvenile justice systems.

OJJDP will also provide communities interested in implementing a continuum-of-care model with a range of training and technical assistance through a series of regional conferences, satellite video teleconferences, a CD-ROM package, and focus groups to determine community needs for building capacity to implement the Comprehensive Strategy.

OJP will support demonstration programs that provide a continuum of treatment services and sanctions. These programs might include weekend detention, inpatient treatment for drug abuse, electronic monitoring, and community-based residential facilities.

Provide Model Protocols for Intake, Assessment, and Aftercare

OJJDP will support programming to develop and demonstrate methodologies to improve the front end of the juvenile justice system through refined assessment protocols and interdisciplinary case management teams. The Guide provides sample forms and guidance for developing a risk classification process for making placement, detention, probation and parole, and institutional custody decisions. The Guide also provides information on placement projections, client needs assessments, continuous case management, and management information systems. Programming, training, and technical assistance will be provided to assist communities in strengthening their assessment processes and the delivery of aftercare services.

OJJDP will continue to support the 3-year multisite implementation and evaluation of its Intensive Community-Based Juvenile Aftercare Program (IAP). The overall aim of IAP is to identify and help high-risk juvenile offenders make a gradual transition from secure confinement into the community. This program is being implemented in Denver, CO; Las Vegas, NV; Camden and Newark, NJ; and Norfolk, VA. OJJDP will also continue to support aftercare training and technical assistance to these sites and to other jurisdictions across the country.

In addition, OJJDP will continue to support the Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program (SHOCAP). This information and case management program seeks to improve efficiency in handling serious habitual juvenile offenders by providing relevant case information for more informed decisionmaking by juvenile-serving agencies and organizations. The SHOCAP identification and intervention process is included in OJJDP's Police Operations Leading to Improved Children and Youth Services (POLICY) training courses provided to local law enforcement representatives and interagency teams.

Provide Research on the Effectiveness of Intermediate Sanctions

In a collaborative effort, NIJ, OJJDP, the OJP Corrections Program Office, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) will provide funding to develop boot camp programs and research the effectiveness of high-intensity, short-term programs, such as boot camps, wilderness programs, and other intermediate sanctions that combine vocational education, discipline, and life skills. This intra-agency research will assess the rationale underlying boot camp programs and examine boot camps nationwide.

Address and Support Efforts To Reduce Disproportionate Minority Confinement in Secure Facilities

As a condition of full participation in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grants Program, States must gather and analyze data to determine whether disproportionate minority confinement exists and, if so, to plan, implement, and evaluate programs designed to address the problem. Program planning should be accompanied by training, education on the issue, policy revision, and legislation.

OJJDP will continue to provide training and technical assistance to State and local governments, community-based organizations, national organizations, and others on all aspects of this statutory core requirement.

OJJDP will disseminate a planning manual to assist States in addressing disproportionate minority confinement. This manual will include sections on data collection and analysis, corrective action planning, program implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. This information will assist communities in effectively responding to demographic shifts that are leading to increased confinement of Latino-American and African-American offenders.

Highlight and Address Issues Confronting Female Juvenile Offenders

OJJDP will provide training and technical assistance to States that have demonstrated a commitment to addressing gender bias and lack of gender-specific programming within the juvenile system.

OJJDP will also support innovative community-based programs that provide comprehensive, gender-specific prevention, intervention, treatment, and rehabilitative care. OJJDP's Program To Promote Alternative Programs for Juvenile Female Offenders will include case management and followup for at-risk and delinquent females as both a freestanding program and as a component of its overarching demonstration program, SafeFutures.

In addition, OJJDP will develop and disseminate a report synthesizing current literature and best practices that address the problems of at-risk young females and juvenile female offenders. The report will contain information on trends and risk factors for female delinquency as they relate to behavior, family and community experience, the amelioration of those risks, and best practices for prevention, intervention, and treatment models. OJJDP will hold a national conference to share information in the report with policymakers, researchers, practitioners, judges, lawyers, and the media.

Suggestions for State and Local Action

Endnotes

1. Allen-Hagen, B. 1991 (January). Public Juvenile Facilities: Children in Custody 1989. OJJDP Update on Statistics. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

2. Snyder, H., and M. Sickmund. 1995 (August). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

3. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 1994. Crime in the United States, 1993: Uniform Crime Reports. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

4. Snyder and Sickmund, 1995.

5. Hawkins, J.D., and R.F. Catalano, Jr. 1992. Communities That Care: Action for Drug Abuse Prevention. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

6. Thornberry, T.P., D. Huizinga, and R. Loeber. 1995. The prevention of serious delinquency and violence: Implications from the program of research on the causes and correlates of delinquency. In J.C. Howell et al., eds., Sourcebook on Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Hawkins and Catalano, 1992.

Howell, J.C., ed. 1995 (May). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Tolan, P., and N. Guerra. 1994 (July). What Works in Reducing Adolescent Violence: An Empirical Review of the Field. Boulder, Colo.: The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado.

7. Howell, ed., 1995.

8. American Correctional Association Victims Committee. 1994 (August). Report and Recommendations on Victims of Juvenile Crime. Lanham, Md.: American Correctional Association.

9. Krisberg, B., and J.F. Austin. 1993. Reinventing Juvenile Justice. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.

10. Camp, G.M., and C.G. Camp. 1990. Corrections Yearbook, 1990: Juvenile Corrections. South Salem, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Institute.

Cohen, M.A. 1994. The Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.

11. Howell, ed., 1995.

12. Pratt, G. 1994 (December). Community-based comprehensive wrap-around treatment strategies (paper presented at the Arizona Supreme Court Juvenile Justice Research Symposium. Phoenix, Ariz.).

13. Wilson, J.J., and J.C. Howell. 1993. Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

14. Rivers, J., and T. Trotti. 1989. South Carolina Delinquent Males: A Follow-Up Into Adult Corrections. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina Department of Youth Services.

15. Howell, ed., 1995.

16. Palmer, T.B. 1971 (January). California's community treatment program for delinquent adolescents. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency 8(1):74-92.

17. Krisberg, B., J.F. Austin, and P.A. Steele. 1989. Unlocking Juvenile Corrections: Evaluating the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services. Final Report. San Francisco, Calif.: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

18. Howell, ed., 1995.

19. Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994 (September). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model. Program Summary. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

20. Delinquency Prevention Works. 1995 (May). Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

21. Roscoe, M., and R. Morton. 1994 (April). Disproportionate Minority Confinement. Fact Sheet #11. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

22. Public Law 93-415.

23. Chesney-Lind, M., and R.G. Sheldon. 1992. Girls: Delinquency and Juvenile Justice. Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

24. Sheldon, R.G., and S. Tracey. 1992. Violent female juvenile offender: An ignored minority within the juvenile justice system. Juvenile and Family Court Journal 43(3):33-40.

25. Baggett, G., et al. 1990. Oregon Girls' Advocacy Project: Final Report. Ashland, Ore.: Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee, Oregon Commission on Children and Youth Services.

Burke, V.B. 1992 (March). Reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: Testimony Before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Human Resources. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

Reilly, P.P. 1978 (December). What makes adolescent girls flee from their homes? Clinical Pediatrics 17(12):886-893.


Contents | Foreword | Acknowledgments | Introduction | Summary
Figures | Objectives | Conclusion | Appendixes