This section presents highlights from all other Bulletins in the JAIBG Best Practices Series. Each Bulletin addresses one or more of the JAIBG program purpose areas.

Construction, Operations, and Staff Training for Juvenile Confinement Facilities
David Roush, National Juvenile Detention Association and Michigan State University, and Michael McMillen, corrections architect

This Bulletin addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 1. The authors assert that building more confinement facilities should be the last option for achieving juvenile accountability, despite overcrowding and deterioration of existing facilities and the increasing volume of court orders for placement.

The Bulletin discusses construction decisionmaking, summarizing information on reasons for and alternatives to new construction, and presents a “master planning” process to guide facility planning once the decision to build has been made. It then describes in detail the following elements of facility development:

• Architectural and operational programming.

• Space considerations.

• Design issues, including security and safety, direct supervision, resident group size and classification, environmental concerns, staff needs (support, communication, and supervision), housing (cited as a critical design issue), and programs and services.

• Site selection issues.

• Construction and operational costs.

The Bulletin also addresses facility operations, noting the scarcity of models for successful operation and offering guidelines for three key elements of operation: organizational prerequisites (components of organizational structure on which to base programming), program principles (“core values” that define program purpose and content), and staffing and management principles. The Bulletin then discusses staff training needs and resources and presents a six-step model for developing a staff training program.

Developing and Administering Accountability-Based Sanctions for Juveniles
Patrick Griffin, National Center for Juvenile Justice

Addressing JAIBG Purpose Area 2, this Bulletin provides specific examples of juvenile accountability programs and notes a change in the approach of juvenile justice systems away from the “traditional offender-centered, treatment- and rehabilitation-oriented philosophy . . . and toward an approach that emphasizes additional social goals, including the protection of the public and the promotion of individual accountability.” The Bulletin describes Pennsylvania’s State Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, which developed a new accountability-based “juvenile justice system role” recognizing victims as clients and emphasizing that offenders should understand the impact of their actions and make reparation to their victims.

The Bulletin focuses on the importance of changing the past “inattention to accountability at the system’s entry level” by involving community members in juvenile diversion decisionmaking and in enforcement of diversion agreements, particularly through community accountability boards. Volunteer board members work with young people who live in their neighborhoods. Family group conferences are another approach to enlarging the “circle of accountability.” The conferences include extended families of young offenders and their victims, plus other individuals whose opinions matter to the young offender or who can voice the community’s concerns about the offense.

In the Bulletin, the components of accountability—acknowledgment of personal responsibility, various forms of reparation, and victim and community involvement in the corrections process—are applied to the intermediate-level sanctions, which include intensive juvenile probation, electronic monitoring, outdoor challenge programs, and work to earn funds for restitution. The Bulletin also describes in detail the development of one county’s juvenile accountability efforts in a school-based probation program. Although community accountability may not be possible when youth are incarcerated, the Bulletin does provide examples of secure facilities in which awareness of the victim, empathy, and personal responsibility are stressed.

Workload Measurement for Juvenile Justice System Personnel: Practices and Needs
Hunter Hurst III, National Center for Juvenile Justice

This Bulletin, which addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 3, reviews workload measurement methods and related issues for juvenile court judges, court-appointed defense counsel, probation officers, and pretrial services personnel. The author asserts that a thorough understanding of current juvenile court workloads and the ability to forecast future workloads are necessary if jurisdictions are to make the best possible use of JAIBG resources.

The Bulletin reviews three dominant approaches to determining reasonable caseloads for the judiciary (the weighted caseload, Delphi, and normative methods) and provides examples of implementation and results for each method. With regard to defense counsel, the Bulletin concludes that “the literature addressing approaches to measuring and assessing . . . workload burdens is sparse to nonexistent” and notes that a national assessment of juvenile defense counsel, A Call for Justice,⁸ found that high caseloads were the most important barrier to effective representation. The Bulletin characterizes the literature on caseload standards for probation officers as extensive and notes the currently endorsed caseload standard of 35 juvenile offenders per probation officer.

The Bulletin states that a court’s eligible child population is the best indicator of need for juvenile justice system personnel and proposes the development of a flexible, affordable template for measuring juvenile court workloads. A State or local government might refer to this Bulletin in planning for additional juvenile court personnel in the context of strategies for streamlining case management (addressed in the Bulletin on enhancing prosecution).

Enhancing Prosecutors’ Ability To Combat and Prevent Juvenile Crime in Their Jurisdictions
Heike Gramckow, American Prosecutors Research Institute, and Elena Tompkins, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

In this Bulletin, the authors assert that the JAIBG requirement for coordinated planning at the State and local levels is critical to prosecutors, as it “ heightens the prosecutor’s ability to respond to juvenile crime within a jurisdiction” and also “supports what many successful prosecutors recognized long ago: the role of a prosecutor is not just enforcing the law but also caring for the safety of the community.” The Bulletin cites the Ohio RECLAIM project as an example of a coordinated statewide strategy that “provides for a balanced approach of enforcement, intervention, and prevention to hold juveniles accountable.”

The Bulletin offers guidance on the application of JAIBG funding as a coordinated initiative within Purpose Areas 4 and 6. It cites a need for hiring more well-trained prosecutors, providing them with the tools they need, developing good case management strategies, and positioning new prosecutors carefully within the existing organization. It cautions that how and where new prosecutors can be most effectively used are questions that must be answered locally, with consideration of factors such as the nature of juvenile problems, statutes governing juvenile justice, and local policy leaders’ interests and experience in this area.

The authors make specific suggestions for improved use of prosecutors: reducing delinquency case processing time; improving management and organization of prosecutors’ offices; and using a variety of processing strategies, including case screening by experienced personnel, vertical prosecution, fast-track and selective fast-track prosecution, and specialization. The Bulletin also discusses implementation, challenges and barriers, and coordination with other systems and provides examples of models for using and training additional prosecutors.

The Bulletin also offers an overview of issues related to enhancing prosecution of youth through technology. Topics discussed include juvenile record systems, automated case management systems, electronic communication devices, hardware and software, fingerprinting and other identification mechanisms, and drug testing.

Enabling Prosecutors To Address Drug, Gang, andYouth Violence
Heike Gramckow, American Prosecutors Research Institute, and Elena Tompkins, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This Bulletin addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 5 and focuses on trends in juvenile violent, drug-related, and gang-related crimes and the impact of these trends on the court system. The Bulletin provides a statistical summary of crime trends, discusses prosecutorial responses, and describes several prosecutor-led programs to combat the problems of juvenile violence, drugs, and gangs. The programs described range from comprehensive to less extensive in scope; strategies range from prevention to enforcement. Descriptions include information, as available, on benefits, successes, and obstacles to implementation.

Focus on Accountability: Best Practices for Juvenile Court and Probation
Megan Kurlychek, Patricia Torbet, and Melanie Bozynski, National Center for Juvenile Justice

State and local governments involved in designing accountability programs for juveniles will find valuable guidance in this Bulletin, which addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 7. It summarizes complex research on delinquency and offers specific guidelines for effective programming based on that research. The Bulletin describes exemplary juvenile accountability programs, from diversion to intensive supervision to aftercare, and asserts that the following elements are key to effective programs:

• Use of research findings to guide program development. This element involves adopting an approach based on an understanding of risk and protective factors, focusing on behavioral change and development of problem-solving and prosocial skills, and using multiple modes of intervention in a highly structured and intensive intervention.

• Effective implementation and evaluation. This element involves identifying problems, service gaps, and possible approaches; researching and adapting existing programs; making a commitment to quality in implementation; and conducting both a process evaluation and an outcome evaluation that uses comparative data to document client outcomes.

• Consideration of the impact of the program on the system and its clients. This element involves recognizing that systemwide transformation is required if effective juvenile accountability programs are to succeed and thrive.

The exemplary accountability programs described in the Bulletin incorporate these key elements and represent a variety of approaches, including:

• Diversion. These programs hold offenders accountable for their offenses, take steps to repair the damage caused, and provide swift and certain consequences.

• Mediation and restitution. These programs involve offenders and their victims in mediation sessions, in which offenders come to understand the harm caused by their actions, victims gain insight into the offenders’ motivations, and both parties agree on plans for repaying victims/restoring their losses to the extent possible.

• Specialized probation supervision. Specialized probation supervision programs can be effective if they incorporate such critical elements as small caseloads and community involvement.

• Community reintegration: Aftercare. These programs provide an extended period of supervision, surveillance, and service delivery for youth returning to the community after confinement, to help prevent recidivism during this transitional period.

Juvenile Gun Courts: Promoting Accountability and Providing Treatment
David Sheppard and Patricia Kelly, COSMOS Corporation

Juvenile gun courts strive to make youth aware of the dangers of firearms and reduce their reliance on guns as a means of dispute resolution. The hallmarks of gun courts are immediate intervention in response to gun possession, attendance as a condition of release or probation, and required parental involvement.

This Bulletin, which addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 8, describes the steps in developing a juvenile gun court with an expanded role for the judge as educator, not just adjudicator, and the involvement of victims, older youth formerly involved with guns, and other community members. It describes in detail a successful juvenile gun court in Birmingham, AL, including its staffing and services from arrest to aftercare. Program outcomes are encouraging. Gun court youth spent less time on probation (but with strict curfews, drug testing, and nighttime home visits by trackers or probation officers) than youth who did not participate fully in the program. In addition, the rates for parental involvement and youth participation in educational programs were higher (82 percent and 90 percent, respectively) and the rate for recidivism was lower (17 percent) among gun court youth than among youth who did not receive the full benefits of the program.

Juvenile Drug Court Programs
Caroline S. Cooper, The American University

The goal of juvenile drug courts is to help young people lead crime- and drug-free lives and strengthen their family support and school involvement. In detailing the steps to implement a juvenile drug court, this Bulletin, which addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 9, emphasizes strong assessment; intensive family, treatment, and skills-building services; parental involvement; and a constructive relationship with local schools. Juvenile drug court teams supervise frequent drug testing and coordinated services.

The Bulletin notes retention rates of 56 to 77 percent for seven exemplary juvenile drug courts nationwide. The author concludes, “Measured by indicators such as recidivism, drug use, and educational achievement, juvenile drug courts appear to hold significant promise.”

Establishing and Maintaining Interagency Information Sharing
Julie Slayton, attorney and consultant

This Bulletin, which addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 10, cites research on the importance of interagency coordination to benefit children and families at risk and lists the entities that need to be involved in such coordinated cross-agency efforts. The Bulletin offers an overview of Federal and State laws that must be considered when creating an interagency information-sharing program and notes that, although the laws themselves often do not pose significant problems, the policies associated with the laws or simple misunderstandings of the laws or policies can unnecessarily inhibit information sharing.

The Bulletin discusses key elements of an effective information-sharing program; presents an extensive review of policy and legal issues (including applicable Federal laws); provides an overview of evaluation plans and tools; reviews potential barriers to success (such as lack of funding, lack of trust and collaborative experience among agencies, and technological incompatibilities); and highlights several exemplary information-sharing programs.

Increasing School Safety Through Juvenile Accountability Programs
Scott H. Decker, University of Missouri

School safety programs can hold young people accountable for making dangerous choices before such choices bring them to the attention of the juvenile justice system. In this Bulletin, which addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 11, the author advocates involvement of students, parents, teachers, and the community in enhancing school safety. Student accountability in school is viewed as consistent with the OJJDP Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, combining neighborhood involvement, strong police response to delinquency, and the OJJDP SafeFutures program’s expanded network of social services for adjudicated juveniles and their families.

The Bulletin notes that successful programs for making schools safer emphasize student involvement, include graduated sanctions appropriate to the seriousness of the misconduct and the history of the offender, and mandate a response to every act of misconduct. The Bulletin also cites Gottfredson’s 1997 study of 149 school safety programs,⁹ which found that successful programs do the following:

• Increase the school’s capacity to support innovation.

• Communicate clear messages about acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

• Enforce rules consistently.

• Emphasize responsible decisionmaking and problem solving.

• Provide high-risk youth with exposure to thinking skills that enable them to consider alternatives.

The Bulletin lists steps in implementing a school safety program and discusses the potential impact of such programs. It also reviews exemplary programs.

Developing a Policy for Controlled Substance Testing of Juveniles
Ann H. Crowe and Linda Sydney, American Probation and Parole Association

As noted in this Bulletin, which addresses JAIBG Purpose Area 12, the use of alcohol and other drugs is a central factor in the delinquent behavior of many young people, including their involvement in violence and income-generating crimes. The Bulletin cites statistics documenting the extent of substance abuse by youth and summarizes possible consequences of abuse.

Controlled substance testing is a juvenile accountability approach when the test results are used immediately to reinforce abstinence and to discourage use. The Bulletin advises that an intervention should follow every drug test. Youth whose test results show no substance use should receive positive reinforcement and should be challenged to continue their drug-free status. Interventions for youth whose tests indicate drug use should include graduated sanctions and treatment services, as appropriate.

The Bulletin lists the following key elements of a successful drug testing program:

• Involvement of all potentially affected persons in program planning, development, and implementation.

• Good fit between the program’s purpose and the agency’s mission.

• Clearly defined rationale and procedure for identifying youth to be included in the program.

• Written policies and procedures available to, and read and understood by, all staff.

• Tests administered with sufficient frequency and randomness.

• Intervention following every test.

• Ongoing training for staff.

• Ongoing evaluation to be used for continuous program improvement.

The Bulletin lists 10 steps for implementation (which are covered in detail in the companion Bulletin described next). The Bulletin also discusses the potential impact of drug testing on accountability, and provides program examples including juvenile and family drug court models, testing in juvenile detention facilities, and testing in probation programs.

Ten Steps for Implementing a Program of Controlled Substance Testing of Juveniles
Ann H. Crowe and Linda Sydney, American Probation and Parole Association

Also addressing JAIBG Purpose Area 12, this Bulletin presents a detailed 10-step process for effective substance testing in juvenile probation and detention settings. It includes information for estimating testing costs, a review of significant case law regarding voluntary and coerced testing, and descriptions of successful testing programs around the country. In probation and detention settings, the Bulletin notes, testing is used not to bring further drug-related charges against youth, but rather to design immediate and ongoing intervention. The Bulletin addresses such issues as the reliability of test results, testing prior to adjudication, testing technologies, specimen handling, and effective treatment.