ecure confinement is expected to be reserved for the most serious, violent, or chronic offenders.

The serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offender (SVCJO) component involves the development of a system of graduated sanctions of increasingly intensive treatment and rehabilitation services, including immediate interventions, intermediate sanctions, and secure confinement. Programs such as restitution, community service, and victim mediation are to be included among the range of sanctions adopted. Development of an aftercare program to assist juveniles leaving residential facilities in their reentry to the community also may be part of this component. The approach anticipates that youth will be assigned to appropriate levels of intervention or sanctions based on the use of risk and needs assessment tools developed by the community. Secure confinement is expected to be reserved for the most serious, violent, or chronic offenders. For those juveniles who are placed in residential facilities, aftercare programs are envisioned to facilitate positive reentry to the community. Funding for this component is provided for a maximum of $100,000 per year to each SafeFutures site under Part C of the JJDP Act.

As noted earlier, approaches using graduated sanctions, although not fully implemented, have generally been shown to be associated with positive outcomes. A study of the Massachusetts system of community-based programs found that the “regions that most adequately implemented the reform measures with a diversity of programs did produce decreases in recidivism over time” (Coates, Miller, and Ohlin, 1978, p. 136). A second study of this program found that it had comparatively lower recidivism rates than other jurisdictions (Krisberg, Austin, and Steele, 1989). A similar program in Utah was also found to have a “suppression effect” that reduced the frequency and severity of delinquent offending (Krisberg et al., 1988). However, it should be noted that not all programs of this type demonstrated positive outcomes (Howell, 1995).

everal specific aspects of the graduated sanctions model have been shown to be associated with positive outcomes.

Several specific aspects of the graduated sanctions model have been shown to be associated with positive outcomes. The six most commonly cited are (1) continuous case management; (2) emphasis on reintegration and reentry services, including reducing the influence of negative role models and increasing prosocial bonding; (3) opportunities for youth achievement, emphasizing improved self-image; (4) clear and consistent consequences for offending; (5) educational and vocational training; and (6) individual, group, and family therapy (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1984; Greenwood and Zimring, 1985).

Consistent with the focus of this component, various justice system agencies were involved in the provision of virtually all SVCJO services. Two existing community service/restitution programs were expanded under this component— Payback in St. Louis and the DYS Work Crew in Seattle. Several sites blended funds from SVCJO and other components to support particular programs, such as Contra Costa’s Summit Center (discussed in the section “Mental Health Services for At-Risk and Adjudicated Youth”). Some graduated sanctions programs, such as Imperial County’s Peer Court and Fort Belknap’s Tribal Ranch program, were partly funded through the delinquency prevention component because they target first-time offenders, although they also address the SVCJO graduated sanctions objective.

The SVCJO component also may involve developing risk and needs assessment instruments for use in referring youth to appropriate graduated sanctions components. Most sites appear to lack formal tools along these lines, although some have made steps in this direction. For example, Contra Costa’s Probation Department has been working on developing and testing such an instrument, and SafeFutures has been assisting in this effort. King County Department of Youth Services also is developing a risk assessment instrument to drive supervision plans.

Two sites, Imperial County and St. Louis, implemented reduced caseloads for a limited number of probation officers under this component. Reduced caseloads enable closer supervision of youth, who are generally assigned to such caseloads because they are, or are deemed likely to become, SVCJO’s unless concentrated intervention is provided. Smaller caseloads enable probation officers to provide more intensive services than are usually feasible under typical caseload scenarios. This includes more case management/counseling and referral, more family contact (which may also include referrals to services for parents or other family members), and more followup to ensure that services were received. Reduced caseloads are considered an element of graduated sanctioning because they permit more intensive supervision of youthful offenders than is possible under routine circumstances.

Imperial County implemented intensive community supervision specifically targeted to gang members, under the oversight of one of the probation officers assigned to the Law Enforcement Team (discussed in the section “Comprehensive Communitywide Approaches to Gang-Free Schools and Communities”). St. Louis implemented reduced caseload programs under two justice agencies.

St. Louis, MO, Family Court. Two Deputy Juvenile Officers (DJO’s) in the Juvenile Division of Family Court are funded through SafeFutures to provide intensive supervision and case management for youth who have been adjudicated delinquent, live in the target area, are gang affiliated, and have three or more prior offenses. The DJO’s have caseloads of approximately 20 youth each (15 formally placed on supervision and 5 informally—and voluntarily—under supervision without court processing). SafeFutures youth reportedly receive a greater range of services (e.g., employability training, mentors) through referrals to SafeFutures partner agencies and faster access to services than youth on regular supervision. SafeFutures DJO’s have a minimum of one contact per week with youth on their caseload but usually see them more frequently (as often as two to three times per day). DJO’s visit schools weekly to check attendance and meet with school social workers or counselors. They also follow up with parents.

afeFutures enabled establishment of an intermediate level of supervision in what had been a two-tier system (in effect, a systems change).

SafeFutures enabled establishment of an intermediate level of supervision in what had been a two-tier system (in effect, a systems change). Formerly, the two tiers were regular supervision (with caseloads of 25–30 youth) and intensive supervision (with caseloads of 15 youth). The new tier is for youth who have committed more serious crimes than first-tier youth but not as serious as third-tier youth (the latter have committed repeated felony offenses, more of them and more serious in nature than SafeFutures-level youth). Probation administrators noted that it would be desirable to have this second tier available for the entire city, not just youth in the SafeFutures target area.

St. Louis, MO, Department of Youth Services. St. Louis SafeFutures also provides support to enable two Department of Youth Services (DYS) service coordinators (case managers) to have reduced caseloads of 20 or fewer adjudicated youth living in the SafeFutures target area. The normal DYS caseload consists of 25–30 cases. Youth referred to DYS reportedly constitute the more serious, violent, or chronic offenders; those assigned to service coordinators typically are returning from secure or intermediate care facilities (aftercare, in effect), although some are under “direct community care” (e.g., assigned to day treatment or other community-based services).

The role of DYS service coordinators is similar to that of the DJO’s. They meet with caseload youth a minimum of once per week (frequency and length of contact vary according to the needs of the client). Service coordinators seek to involve families in services as much as possible and may refer family members to services. Weekly visits are made to schools to obtain information on attendance and performance and discuss the youth’s behavior with school staff (e.g., counselors) or school police officers. Meetings with parents usually are followups to school contacts. Coordinators may refer youth to SafeFutures services that are unavailable to youth under DYS supervision or to DYS-coordinated services, such as outpatient or residential drug treatment programs.

In contrast to the sites that revised their supervision practices under SafeFutures, Fort Belknap lacked a juvenile justice system (other than the Children’s Court judge). Under SafeFutures, components of an integrated juvenile justice system have been implemented, representing a significant systems change. During year 3, the Tribal Code was revised to include the court positions and functions developed through SafeFutures; this revision enhances the sustainability of this effort.

Fort Belknap, MT. SafeFutures funds support three staff assigned to the juvenile court: a juvenile probation officer, presenting officer, and family court counselor. The three work together to address common issues and service needs, work fairly closely with SafeFutures staff (a memorandum of understanding was developed to enable information sharing), and refer youth to SafeFutures for services. They also developed cooperative working relationships with off-reservation agencies that commonly serve court-involved youth, such as the county social service agency and the juvenile probation department for the region (which supervises youth on probation for offenses committed off the reservation). Such linkages also represent systems change.

he juvenile probation officer provides supervision and case management functions typical of probation officers.

The juvenile probation officer (JPO) provides supervision and case management functions typical of probation officers. The JPO presides over informal hearings held to address minor offenses such as curfew violation or possession of alcohol. The presenting officer performs preliminary review and investigation of youth referred to the court, presenting the case to the judge with recommendations and making referrals to the family court or family services counselor. The family court counselor is assigned to the court that addresses neglect, abuse, and domestic violence. The counselor provides case management and counseling for parents and youth. The counselor also initiated, and has served as the facilitator for, a women’s support group.

Court staff introduced several new graduated sanctions options including house arrest, restitution, fines, and community service, primarily at the Tribal Ranch (discussed in the section “Delinquency Prevention Programs”). Court staff developed arrangements for temporary placement of youth to give them time to find an appropriate placement (e.g., the detention facility at Rocky Boy Reservation, foster homes, or therapeutic foster homes). They also have identified or developed a number of service options not previously available to court-involved youth, often on an ad hoc basis. For example, because of concerns about confidentiality of services on the reservation, sexual abuse cases are referred to a licensed clinical social worker off the reservation.

wo sites, Boston and Contra Costa County, developed day treatment programs.

Two sites, Boston and Contra Costa County, developed day treatment programs. Contra Costa’s Probation Department plans to open a day treatment/transition program in calendar year 2000. It will serve up to 20 youth released from the youth ranch 2 to 3 weeks early to enter this program. It will include education, community service, vocational training, and job search training. This program is expected to be supported by county funds, but it is viewed as part of the continuum of sanctions and services that SafeFutures has helped develop in Contra Costa.

Boston, MA. Boston’s day reporting center, implemented in spring 1999, targets youth returning to the community from locked State DYS facilities and includes four levels of supervision. Programming at the center includes a transitional education program, therapeutic groups (for example, for substance abuse and anger management), and recreational activities. A mentoring program is planned for youth phasing out of intensive services/supervision. Youth are monitored through home visits, meetings at school, and daily contact at the center.

This program represents a systems reform effort in that it involves a contract between the State’s DYS and a community-based organization, Roxbury Youthworks (RYW). The latter has a history of working with court-involved youth, including managing detention diversion programs and clinics. DYS staff provide case management, tracking, and enforcement, while RYW staff provide programmatic aspects, such as workshops, scheduling, outreach, and tracking/monitoring for levels 3 and 4 youth (those needing less intensive supervision). SafeFutures and DYS provide funding for the program.

Contra Costa developed an aftercare program under the SVCJO component, which also is viewed as a systems reform.

Contra Costa County, CA. Contra Costa’s Youth After Care Program (YACP) was developed through the support of SafeFutures funds, which enabled the hiring of a second probation officer for the Orrin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility (OAYRF), a residential youth ranch operated by the probation office for adjudicated boys (typically 14 to 18 years old). Having two probation officers (PO’s) enables each to be assigned to assist youth in their transition back to the community after release, in addition to supervising youth at the ranch. A third officer was added to the ranch in year 3 (because of expansion of the ranch). The addition of this officer, who also provides aftercare supervision and in-ranch supervision, reflects commitment to the program. The funding of this position through “hard” county funds is an indication of the future sustainability of the program. Approximately 35 youth are on each aftercare caseload at a time, in addition to those in the ranch who are also on caseload.

Upon entry to the OAYRF, youth are assigned to a probation officer who supervises their stay at the ranch and, as a result of this program, provides aftercare supervision for 45 days postrelease. This arrangement enables the youth and PO to develop relationships before release (the PO also works with parents at that stage) and helps familiarize the PO with the youth’s experiences while at the ranch. The aftercare component includes more frequent contact than is the case with regular community supervision. It also ensures that youth have contact with a PO immediately after release, whereas prior to the YACP, youth often spent some period of time before having any contact with their assigned PO. Aftercare supervision generally includes visiting the youth at school two to three times weekly, meeting with the youth in the PO’s office in the community, and contacting parents regularly (generally by telephone). In combination, these forms of contact enable identification of problems earlier than would be the case otherwise. Probation officers also refer youth to services, as needed.

key feature of the aftercare program is ensuring that youth return to school after release from the ranch.

A key feature of the aftercare program is ensuring that youth return to school after release from the ranch. To facilitate this, the probation department established a “community school” for the YACP in cooperation with the County Board of Education. The County Board provides a teacher and an aide for a “transition classroom” serving up to 25 youth. The approach of the community school is more flexible than that of regular schools and uses an individualized learning approach to address the different ability levels of youth in the classroom.

After 45 days in the community, the youth has a court date to assess his behavior and attitude and is transferred to a different PO for the remainder of his probation. (If the youth is having problems, the 45-day aftercare period can be extended or the judge can revoke parole and return him to the ranch.) Because of the aftercare, the youth and parents are expected to be more adjusted to the youth being back in the community when the new PO begins working with them than would be the case otherwise.

Comprehensive Responses to Youth At Risk: Interim Findings From the SafeFutures Initiative

OJJDP Summary • November 2000