MENU TITLE: Juvenile Detention Training Needs Assessment . Series: OJJDP Published: April 1996 140 pages 243,479 bytes Juvenile Detention Training Needs Assessment Research Report David W. Roush National Juvenile Detention Association Shay Bilchik, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention April 1996 ------------------------------ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) was established by the President and Congress through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Public Law 93-415, as amended. Located within the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP's goal is to provide national leadership in addressing the issues of juvenile delinquency and improving juvenile justice. OJJDP sponsors a broad array of research, program, and training initiatives to improve the juvenile justice system as a whole, as well as to benefit individual youth-serving agencies. These initiatives are carried out by seven components within OJJDP, described below. Research and Program Development Division develops knowledge on national trends in juvenile delinquency; supports a program for data collection and information sharing that incorporates elements of statistical and systems development; identifies how delinquency develops and the best methods for its prevention, intervention, and treatment; and analyzes practices and trends in the juvenile justice system. Training and Technical Assistance Division provides juvenile justice training and technical assistance to Federal, State, and local governments; law enforcement, judiciary, and corrections personnel; and private agencies, educational institutions, and community organizations. Special Emphasis Division provides discretionary funds to public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals to replicate tested approaches to delinquency prevention, treatment, and control in such pertinent areas as chronic juvenile offenders, community-based sanctions, and the disproportionate representation of minorities in the juvenile justice system. State Relations and Assistance Division supports collaborative efforts by States to carry out the mandates of the JJDP Act by providing formula grant funds to States; furnishing technical assistance to States, local governments, and private agencies; and monitoring State compliance with the JJDP Act. Information Dissemination Unit informs individuals and organizations of OJJDP initiatives; disseminates information on juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and missing children; and coordinates program planning efforts within OJJDP. The unit's activities include publishing research and statistical reports, bulletins, and other documents, as well as overseeing the operations of the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Concentration of Federal Efforts Program promotes interagency cooperation and coordination among Federal agencies with responsibilities in the area of juvenile justice. The program primarily carries out this responsibility through the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, an independent body within the executive branch that was established by Congress through the JJDP Act. Missing and Exploited Children Program seeks to promote effective policies and procedures for addressing the problem of missing and exploited children. Established by the Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984, the program provides funds for a variety of activities to support and coordinate a network of resources such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; training and technical assistance to a network of 47 State clearinghouses, nonprofit organizations, law enforcement personnel, and attorneys; and research and demonstration programs. The mission of OJJDP is to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent juvenile victimization and respond appropriately to juvenile delinquency. This is accomplished through developing and implementing prevention programs and a juvenile justice system that protects the public safety, holds juvenile offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services based on the needs of each individual juvenile. ------------------------------ NATIONAL JUVENILE DETENTION ASSOCIATION Executive Office Eastern Kentucky University 301 Perkins Building Richmond, KY 40475-3127 (606) 622-6259 Fax (606) 622-2333 Center for Research and Professional Development Michigan State University 130 Baker Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1118 (517) 432-1242 Fax (517) 432-1787 This document was prepared under Cooperative Agreement number 92-JN-CX-0006 with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. ------------------------------ Foreword At a time when violent juvenile crime is on the rise and juvenile justice system dollars are being increasingly stretched, the cost effectiveness of professional training has never been of greater value. This is especially true in the case of the men and women whose dedicated service enriches the Nation's juvenile detention system. To enhance their efforts in improving our juvenile justice system, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, through the National Juvenile Detention Association, established the Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project in 1992. The project is developing training resources that may be used by corrections managers to increase the knowledge and strengthen the skills of line staff. This report addresses three objectives intended to improve juvenile detention practices: o To provide a review of the literature on job-related skills and related training needs; o To determine common training practices; and o To make recommendations for assessing and improving training. I am convinced that an effective training program can enhance the quality of care provided to detained juveniles and increase the level of safety afforded to facility residents, staff, and the community. I am pleased to provide this report to assist you in accomplishing these complementary ends. Shay Bilchik Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ------------------------------ Acknowledgments Many individuals and organizations played an important role in the development of this document. They provided materials, advice, guidance, and support. The following individuals deserve recognition for their contributions: At the National Juvenile Detention Association, Earl Dunlap and Michael Jones. Also to the many detention practitioners who contributed: Mel Brown, Joe Christy, Michele Foley, Jon Hill, Cathy Lucas, Charly Skaggs, and Don Steitz. At the Juvenile Justice Trainers Association, Gale Smith, Judith Blair, Linda Crouse, Margaret Davis, and Sue Yeres. At the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Jim Toner; and at the National Center for Juvenile Justice, Doug Thomas and Pat Torbet. At the American Correctional Association, Jack Greene, Lloyd Mixdorf, Larry Myers, Rosalie Rosetti, and William Taylor. At the Michigan Juvenile Detention Association, Wayne Liddell and Nervy Oliver; at the Illinois Probation and Court Services Association, Steve Bowker and John Harvey; and at the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, Jim Patton and John Krause. At Michigan State University, John Hudzik; at Ball State University, J. Steven Smith; and at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Kathy Olson. A special note of appreciation goes to Tom Hughes and the staff and trainers in the Detention Basis Training program at the Center for Legal Studies at the University of Illinois-Springfield. The juvenile detention community and the National Juvenile Detention Association are grateful to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for making juvenile detention staff training a priority. We also appreciate the support given to this project by D. Elen Grigg, project monitor. ------------------------------ Table of Contents Foreword Acknowledgments Statement of the Problem Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project Objectives Rationale for Training Chapter 1: Review of the Literature Training Issues in Juvenile Detention Training as a National Priority Training and the Mission of Detention OJJDP Study of Conditions of Confinement Are Training Needs Stable? Different Issues or Different Juveniles? Factors Affecting Detention Training Preemployment Education Obstacles to Training History of Detention Training Pere Marquette Institute National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges American Correctional Association Definition of Job Functions Juvenile Care Worker Job Functions (The "What" of Juvenile Detention) Effectiveness Characteristics (The "How" of Juvenile Detention) Chapter 2: Training Needs Assessments Assessment Strategies Surveys of Workers' Perceptions Key Informant Interview Method Needs Assessments Conducting the Training Needs Assessment Organizational Analysis Task Analysis Person Analysis Training Priorities Chapter 3: Training Services Local Training Services Facility-Based Training Programs Training Videos National Training Services General Training Specific Training Regional and State Association Trainings Formal Education New Training Technology Training Videos Computer Technology Teleconferencing Educational Television Network Distance Interactive Learning Training Design Chapter 4: The Training Needs Assessment Inventories (TNAI) Origins and Purpose Basic Design of the TNAI Content and Organization Purpose and Use of TNAI Information Results Importance and Preference Priority and Need Training Terminology Priority Index (PI) Effectiveness Characteristics Explaining Similarities Training Hours Needed Chapter 5: Implications General Versus Specific Training Information General Information Specific Information Multiple Measures Implications for Training Curricula Importance Preference Priority Components of a Proposed Statewide Training Strategy Recommendations Summary References ------------------------------ List of Tables Table 1: Statewide Comparisons of Rank-Ordered Training Needs Table 2: A Comparison of Priority Index Scores for Categories and Priority Index Percentages for Task Statements for Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska Juvenile Detention Workers Table 3: Skill Deficits Assessment Results for Jefferson County (KY) Line Staff Table 4: Nebraska Needs Assessment Validation: The Use of Key Informant Rankings of Suggested Training Topics for Three Categories of Staff Training Table 5: Juvenile Detention Care Giver Learning Characteristics and Some Related Training Methods and Techniques Table 6: Rank-Ordered Comparison of Training Importance Table 7: Rank-Ordered Comparison of Training Priorities Table 8: Comparison of the Composite Top 10 Training Topics in the Importance, Preference, and Priority Categories from the Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska Data Table 9: Components of a Statewide Training Strategy Table 10: Nebraska Rankings of Importance With Key Informant (K.I.) Preferences Table 11: Indiana Training Priorities with Jefferson County Job Hindrances (J.H.) and Nebraska Key Informant (K.I.) Preferences (Sample Table) ------------------------------ Statement of the Problem The problems burdening juvenile justice are largely external to the practitioner, except one-- professional development. Given the intense competition for fixed or shrinking public revenues, staff training to enhance the knowledge, skills, and ability of entry-level and experienced detention line staff appears to be a cost-effective alternative. Juvenile detention succeeds or fails as a result of highly interpersonal relationships that are established between key staff members and the youth entrusted to them. The combination of low status and low salaries often forces talented people out of juvenile services. The result of this is high turnover among detention center personnel, which disrupts administration, increases the cost of recruitment and training, and has a negative impact on youth. Despite high turnover rates, many capable and experienced staff stay on the job, are satisfied, and do excellent work. The challenge facing the field is to find ways to increase the size of this cadre of skilled juvenile detention personnel. Many plausible strategies exist, but each requires money and resources, running counter to public demands for juvenile detention to offer more services with fewer funds. The most cost-effective strategy may be to increase the effectiveness of line staff (new and current juvenile detention personnel) through training. A high quality training program may be the least costly way to address problems linked to overcrowding, low staff morale, and more difficult youth. The major obstacle in this approach is the absence of a uniform base of knowledge to serve as the content for such a training strategy. Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project In 1992 the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project through the National Juvenile Detention Association (NJDA). The goal of the project is to develop education and training products that can be used by detention professionals to improve the quality of line staff by enhancing their job-related knowledge, skills, and abilities. For this to take place, the state-of-the-art training must provide (1) a basic understanding of juvenile detention, (2) a professional orientation to the job, (3) job-related skills, (4) ideas, examples, and strategies for effective detention practice, (5) structural and functional guidelines for detention practice in the form of policies and procedures, and (6) a usable handbook of information for education and training purposes. Objectives In addition to helping fulfill the goal specified in the Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project, the report has specific objectives. Despite the importance of juvenile detention training, very little formal information is available to practitioners regarding juvenile detention training, training needs assessment, and training methods. Staff frequently make reference to unpublished reports or studies about job-related skills and training needs. This unpublished or "fugitive" literature has not been collected nor evaluated. The first objective is thus to review all such information that can be retrieved and establish a base of staff development knowledge for juvenile detention. The second objective is to synthesize contemporary findings about job skills and training needs to discover patterns or common practices of the training literature that pose the following four questions: o What is the role of the direct careworker in juvenile detention? o What are the training needs of direct care staff? o Are these training needs stable across staff and over time? o Given limited resources, how should juvenile detention training needs be implemented? The goal of the Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project is to begin answering these questions. Finally, the third objective is to make recommendations for future training and training needs assessment efforts in juvenile detention. It may be that some excellent programs have been overlooked in this report. If so, it is hoped that the finding and recommendations presented here will prompt detention professionals to forward additional program information to the NJDA offices for reference in subsequent training resource material. ------------------------------ Rationale for Training The rationale for training and staff development cuts across many disciplines and contains similar components. For example, Pecora (1989) delineates the reasons why staff training is a priority for the child welfare system by identifying factors that are equally relevant to juvenile detention including: o Uneven levels of reemployment education. o Staff turnover. o Lateral shifts in personnel. o Increasingly complex client needs. o Worker liability issues. o Development of new service technologies. o Scarce agency funds. These factors emphasize the need for high-quality staff development programs based on accurate needs assessments. Development of these programs is made even more pressing by recent changes in most child-serving agencies, especially in the areas of juvenile justice. For example, the emphases on community-based services, prevention, and early intervention have diverted many less troubling juveniles from detention. As a result, secure institutional services work with the most difficult youth (Pecora, Dodson, Teather, and Whittaker, 1983). A comprehensive training program can increase the quality of care provided to detained youth. Unfortunately, many detention staff members enter the field without the requisite skills for working with troubled juveniles (Mixdorf and Rosetti, 1992; Norman, 1961; Roush, 1990). For them, training programs provide learning experiences to improve their competence. Detention workers view training as a means of acquiring and demonstrating professional abilities to a public that has denied them this recognition. This emphasis on professional status is supported by the development of standards. For example, both the American Correctional Association (ACA) and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC) have developed professional standards and accreditation programs for juvenile detention. ACA has certification standards for health care programs, and NCCHC recognizes professional achievement by the individual staff member through the Certified Correctional Health Professionals (CCHP) program. By establishing uniform and minimum criteria for performance, standards identify the need for additional training. Furthermore, standards that address training require comprehensive programs of instruction and skill development. These requirements, when implemented, move the detention community to a higher level of professionalism. Liability presents another concern in considering the lack of staff training. In the adult correctional system, recent lawsuits have focused on a "failure to train" allegation by staff. In essence, staff members confronted with liability resulting from alleged negligence or abuse can shift responsibility to the administration by demonstrating that the staff were not properly trained to do the required work. Although NJDA is unaware of a "failure to train" litigation in juvenile detention or corrections, administrators and staff would do well to take a proactive position on this issue. Recent court decisions affecting adult corrections often provide the basis for litigation in juvenile detention and corrections. Training and standards are considered the best methods for decreasing liability. When juvenile detention agencies provide skill-development training based on a comprehensive analysis of job duties and tasks, the likelihood of harmful litigation is reduced. ------------------------------ Chapter 1 Review of the Literature The first step in evaluating published and other documented works related to juvenile detention training was to conduct computer searches of databases in the DIALOG system. The following databases were included in the search: Criminal Justice Periodical Index, ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center), NCJRS (National Criminal Justice Reference Service), PsycINFO, SOCIAL SCISEARCH, KINDEX, and Sociological Abstracts. Citations retrieved by the computer searches were evaluated for relevance to the two assessment areas (training programs and training needs assessments). A small number of sources pertaining to training and training needs assessments were identified. They are reviewed here and included in the bibliography. Several graduate-level research projects included literature reviews on juvenile detention and training. Brown (1985) and Skaggs (1989) conducted a search of the literature as a part of their research on training needs, and they found few references to juvenile detention training. The quality of life research by Roush (1990) used computer searches of social science and related databases with similar results. New literature searches were conducted, updated, and expanded for this project. Unfortunately, the foregoing computer searches and literature reviews produced few references. The juvenile justice profession spends considerable time and energy developing training programs, conducting training needs assessments, and evaluating job-related skills. Given the level of activity (in contrast to the small amounts of published or documented reports), it appears that many of the training-related efforts in juvenile detention are incomplete, informal, unsystematic, unpublished, or deemed to be unimportant. To assess the fugitive literature missed in previous computer searches, NJDA solicited training information and materials in its publications and conferences. With assistance from the Juvenile Justice Trainers Association (JJTA), a request was made to detention and corrections trainers to send training materials to NJDA. Project staff mailed letters to all State-level juvenile detention associations and to the chairperson of each State advisory group. Some followup telephone calls were made, but the primary information-gathering strategy was the solicitation. The remainder of this section and the following three sections describe the information derived from the computer searches, literature reviews, and requests for other unpublished training materials. This section also addresses the five general training issues found in the literature, information on some of the factors that affect training outcomes, and a history of the development of detention training. The remaining information is divided into three sections: Training Needs Assessments, Training Services, and the Illinois Model. The Training Needs Assessments section summarizes training needs assessment reports and presents a classification system for training needs assessment strategies in juvenile detention. The Training Services section describes various training methods, strategies, and materials available to juvenile detention and corrections trainers. The Illinois Model section describes the implementation of a comprehensive training needs assessment strategy used in three Midwest States: Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska. The model provides insight into training needs assessments and serves as the basis for recommendations to the field of juvenile detention about the future of training needs assessment. Training Issues in Juvenile Detention Two general themes appear in the recent detention training literature. First, child-serving agencies, especially juvenile detention, are faced with an increasing number of youth in need of service at the same time funding sources and ancillary services are decreasing (Barlow, 1990; Flintrop, 1991; Hammergren, 1984; Hughes and Reuterman, 1982; Pecora, Dodson, Teather, and Whittaker, 1983; Roush, 1993a). Second, the juvenile detention population has changed. The typical detainee presents more personal, social, and educational problems and requires more services than in the past (Krisberg, 1992; McPherson, 1993; Moone, 1991; National Coalition, 1993; Roush, 1993a; Sheridan, 1988). In other words, the need for training increases as juvenile detention professionals are called upon to maintain (or improve) services to more youth with greater problems while resources shrink. Training as a National Priority Both NJDA and ACA place staff training at the top of the juvenile detention list of priorities. A National assessment by NJDA (Roush, 1992) produced the following list of priorities for the 1990's: o Staff Development, including training programs, improved recruitment, and appropriate salaries. o Resources, including increased demand for services in an era of reduced resources, competition for resources between adult and juvenile systems, and deterioration of physical plants. New architectural designs are needed for juvenile detention that are no more costly than adult jail construction and that do not result in jail-like facilities for juveniles. o Overcrowding, including changes in intake criteria and other means of controlling the number of admissions, modifications of staffing ratios, and the effect of programming or its absence on crowded detention facilities. o Clear Role of Juvenile Detention in light of the exclusion of status offenders, the inclusion of youth with mental and other special problems, the trend toward eliminating sentencing to detention, the inconsistency of programs and practices, the disproportionate incarceration of minority youth, and the need to provide a continuum of services. o Liability and its reduction. A valuable source of information regarding priority issues for detention is the report of the Juvenile Detention Committee of the Illinois Probation and Court Services Association (IPCSA) (Harvey and Bowker, 1990). The recommendations contained in the report supply critical insights about the nature of juvenile detention, and the existence of the report underscores the substantial development of the detention profession. Considerable attention is given to training. Local and national analyses described in the report agree on two basic conclusions about juvenile detention: (1) the problems facing the profession are old but are receiving renewed interest, and (2) training is the most important of these problems. Training and the Mission of Detention Brown (1982) contends that training programs must clarify the mission of detention facilities. Many detention centers do not have mission statements that express the goals and philosophy of juvenile detention. Even though national standards call for a policy that contains a mission statement, considerable debate exists within detention about its proper mission. On October 31, 1989, the National Juvenile Detention Association (NJDA) adopted the following definition of juvenile detention, which includes the components of a mission statement (Stokes and Smith, 1990): o Juvenile detention is the temporary and safe custody of juveniles who are accused of conduct subject to the jurisdiction of the court and who require a restricted environment for their own or the community's protection while pending legal action. o Further, juvenile detention provides a wide range of helpful services that supports the juvenile's physical, emotional, and social development. o Helpful services minimally include: education, visitation, communication, counseling, continuous supervision, medical and health care services, nutrition, recreation, and reading. o Juvenile detention includes or provides for a system of clinical observation and assessment that complements the helpful services and reports findings. This definition was developed from the seven themes for juvenile detention identified by the ACA Juvenile Detention Committee (Smith, Roush, and Kelley, 1990): o Temporary Custody. Of all the methods of incarceration within the criminal justice system, only juvenile detention stresses its temporary nature. Detention should be as short as possible. o Safe Custody. This concept implies freedom from fear and freedom from harm for both the juvenile and the community. This definitional theme refers to a safe and humane environment with programming and staffing to ensure the physical and psychological safety of detained juveniles. o Restricted Environment. The nature or degree of restrictiveness of the environment is generally associated with the traditional classifications of maximum, medium, or minimum security or custody. o Community Protection. In addition to the factors listed above, the court has a legitimate right to detain juveniles for the purpose of preventing further serious and/or violent delinquent behavior. o Pending Legal Action. This theme includes the time spent awaiting a hearing, pending disposition, awaiting a placement, or pending a return to a previous placement. o Helpful Services. Programs are available to detained juveniles that will help resolve a host of problems commonly facing detained juveniles. Because detention has the potential of creating a tremendously negative impact on some juveniles, it is important that programming have the depth of services required to meet the needs of a wide range of juvenile problems. o Clinical Observation and Assessment. Most juvenile codes specifically refer to this theme as a purpose for detention. The controlled environment of juvenile detention is often a time of intense observation and assessment to enhance decision-making capabilities. Competent clinical services are provided by properly credentialed individuals who coordinate and conduct the observation and assessment process. (This service may be provided by staff or through contract.) The NJDA definition builds upon the traditional goals of juvenile detention as expressed by Brown (1983); Christy (1987); Hammergren (1984); Hughes (1971); Jordan (1965); Mead (1980); Norman (1946, 1949, 1951, 1957, 1961); Perkins (1968); Roush (1993b); Smith and Roush (1989); Smith, Roush, Kelley (1990); Stepanik (1986). Christy (1989) outlines the purposes of juvenile detention and provides associated training curriculum issues for each purpose. Training emanates from the need to make the institution's philosophy, goals, and values explicit. In addition to the organization and its environmental context, Christy presents four purposes of detention: (1) secure custody (residents do not escape and the community is protected), (2) safety (both staff and residents are protected from physical and emotional harm), (3) health and well-being (medical, nutritional, and fitness needs are met, and peace of mind is promoted), and (4) youth development (learning, personal growth, a sense of responsibility, and enhanced self-esteem are promoted). These purposes neatly parallel the definition of juvenile detention adopted by NJDA. While lengthy debates have taken place in the past over the "what" of juvenile detention, greater consensus now exists among practitioners. As a result, substantial energy can be devoted to problems surrounding the "how" of juvenile detention training. Effective training programs are those in which the content of training is derived from the underlying philosophy and purpose of detention (Christy, 1989; Wilson, 1989). According to Christy, training usually consists of a series of disconnected and fragmented sessions in various skill areas. This piecemeal approach misses the opportunity to make the training experience a comprehensive tool for staff development. Wilson (1989) notes that when workers are able to make a clear, meaningful connection between what they are taught and how it applies to their everyday work, they are more likely to implement the skills learned in training. Christy (1989) identifies several characteristics of an effective detention training curriculum. First, it is comprehensive, touching on each significant aspect of the organization and job performance. Second, a good curriculum is relevant. It is directly tied to organizational purpose and to the job responsibilities of the trainees. Third, a good curriculum results in observable and measurable behaviors. Many detention administrators think that training has been accomplished when a workshop or session is held and documented in the employee's personnel file. This is a mistaken view; training is accomplished when learning occurs and new behaviors are verified, even though no mention is made of possible measures to verify the learning. Fourth, a good curriculum is both theoretically sound and practical. Training is also a powerful management tool. It can help individual employees increase their knowledge and skills; develop new attitudes regarding residents, other staff, and the profession; and learn how to be successful in a variety of situations. According to Brown (1982), training should create skills that help staff to: o Develop a greater understanding of themselves in relation to the behavior problems of detained youth. o Develop a greater understanding of normal as well as abnormal child and adolescent behavior. o Gain a wider view of their job in relation to other components of the juvenile justice system. Additionally, training should provide practice in the routines of the job and develop special skills and methods for handling unusual behavioral incidents. Leadership development can benefit from involvement in training delivery. Biolosi and Gerard (1980) describe an administrative strategy of staff development for childcare workers in a residential treatment setting. Administrative staff participate intensively in orienting, training, developing, and evaluating staff. Biolosi and Gerard conclude that direct involvement by administrative staff encourages professionalism and provides concrete support for the value of the agency's childcare workers. OJJDP Study of Conditions of Confinement The Study of Conditions of Confinement (Parent, Leiter, Kennedy, Livens, Wentworth, and Wilcox, 1994) contains both direct and indirect references to detention staff training needs. Direct references apply to suicide prevention and concentrate on developing specific skills. These skills include screening for suicidal behavior, monitoring of suicidal youth, and development of suicide prevention plans. This is, however, the only recommendation pointing to areas in which increased staff training could directly impact conditions of confinement. A summary of findings of the OJJDP study indicates that some of the problems with conditions of confinement are related to staff deficits in specific knowledge and skill areas. The Study of Conditions of Confinement thus reinforces prior assessments that identify staff training as a priority for improved services to youth in juvenile institutions. Implicit are recommendations for improved training in new staff orientation (given the high levels of staff turnover), adolescent health care, education, treatment, access issues, juvenile rights, and limits or controls on staff discretion. An immediate impact of the Study of Conditions of Confinement is the further opening of the profession to research and systematic inquiry. Several distinct advantages exist. First, the OJJDP study calls attention to problems and concerns that have been identified by practitioners for several decades, e.g., the link between crowding and violence. This national awareness of institutional problems makes public the issues and concerns requiring intervention and problem-solving. Effective problem-solving begins once problems have been acknowledged and identified. The study will be the focus of discussion and corrective initiatives for many years to come in juvenile detention and corrections. Second, juvenile justice is a profession driven by rhetoric, philosophy, ideology, and politics. Empirical data collected by competent evaluators are particularly helpful when differences of opinion occur. Facts assist in supporting a point of view, and those who advocate for improved conditions of confinement now have a considerably more compelling argument for action. The study will also stimulate research and evaluation efforts for many years. The study highlights the dangers associated with inadequate conditions of confinement. These dangers include harm to residents (suicides, resident-on-resident assaults, and staff-on-resident assaults) and harm to staff (resident-on-staff assaults). In most instances, harm is a function of an institution that does not respect or value the juvenile offenders and the adults who care for them. One of the greatest dangers identified in the study is the implied liability associated with specific and pervasive failures to comply with nationally accepted standards. In these situations, the costs of inadequate conditions of confinement can be excessive when taxpayer dollars are spent for legal fees, court costs, and damages. Are Training Needs Stable? Information generated in Michigan indicates that the training needs of childcare staff are relatively stable (Michigan Juvenile Detention Association, 1981). Two Michigan training needs surveys showed very little change over a 5-year interval. The surveys identified five basic topic areas: (1) the behavior management of children, (2) interpersonal relationship skills, (3) program management, (4) crisis intervention skills, and (5) the psychology of child development (Michigan Juvenile Detention Association, 1981). Other statewide training needs assessments reveal similar basic topic areas: Texas (Skaggs, 1989), Illinois (Roush and Hudzik, 1992), Nebraska (Chambers, 1993), and Indiana (Roush and Hudzik, 1994). Table 1 presents a comparison of findings. Core training curriculum. The similarity in these training needs assessments prompted calls for the establishment of a National core curriculum for training (Roush, 1982). A basic training model could expose new detention staff to important core training experiences. This concept has been implemented by several State correctional training academies' juvenile training school staff. The Detention Basic Training program through the Center for Legal Studies at Sangamon State University provides a 40-hour core training program for new detention staff in Illinois, and it is the only program certified by the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA). Several critical issues surround the endorsement of a basic training curriculum. If there is stability of these core topics, additional research and study are needed to answer the following questions: o If training needs are consistent, is this because there are so few systematic and comprehensive training programs? For example, where behavior management skills are rated as a priority training need, is this due to no training, an insufficient amount of training, or the ineffectiveness of the training program in behavior management? o Do stable training needs reflect the high level of turnover in detention personnel? New personnel are continually entering the field of detention services, many with little or no preemployment education beyond a high school diploma. Since few new staff possess the requisite skills for working with troubled youth, core training topics may require a high priority based on the continuous need to train new employees. o Does the consistency of training needs result from the desire of detention personnel to freshen their skills in basic areas? Knowing the unremitting pressures associated with detention work, staff frequently become tempted to shortcut effective practices and procedures. This permits the development of bad habits that, in effect, reduce the quality of interventions. When bad habits lead to problems from detained youth, staff may perceive the need to review basic training topics. Just as certification in first aid is limited to a 3-year period, the detention community should consider a basic certification process that is valid for a specified period of time or that requires some continuing education for periodic renewal. Again, a model already exists in the certification program of the National Commission of Correctional Health Care. o Does the nature of training delivery systems perpetuate the need for core topics? For example, evaluations of dynamic training sessions usually include participant comments that call for more of the same kind of training. Therefore, is the need for training in core areas masked by enthusiastic responses to well-presented programs in these key areas? The detention community might consider sequential training within basic areas, the development of standard presentation guidelines that allow a certain flexibility for trainers, and evaluation strategies that measure behaviors acquired in training. o Does the need for improving knowledge, skills, and abilities in certain key areas of juvenile detention services outstrip current efforts (preemployment education, on-the-job training, and inservice training) to address these topics sufficiently? That is, the complexity of the job and the skills required to do the job are so great that current training and staff development efforts are leaving many skill development needs unfulfilled. Changing nature of training needs. Accord does not exist among juvenile detention professionals that training needs are stable. Changing training to include current issues implies a changing training landscape. Schinke and Schilling (1980) address the issue of needs assessments as a critical component of childcare staff training. They maintain that training needs are not static and that continued evaluation and reassessment identifies ongoing needs that can potentially enrich childcare programs. Barlow (1990) conducts workshops for adult and juvenile detention/correctional staff on how to adapt to future changes in the profession. He characterizes the upcoming decade as complex, diverse, and changing at a rapid pace. Specific policy issues for the 1990's and beyond include: (1) an increased complexity of delinquent conduct, (2) a wider range of offenders' problems, (3) the development of multiple correctional responses to the courts, (4) a diversity in public opinion and political positions regarding rehabilitation versus punishment, (5) mixed funding strategies, (6) variations in management approaches, and (7) an expanded need for orientation training and development. The expectation of greater complexity and change supports the assumption that training needs will also change and that ongoing needs assessments are important. ------------------------------ Table 1 Statewide Comparisons of Rank-Ordered Training Needs Crisis intervention skills MI 4 TX 1 IL 1 IN 1 NE 1 X 1.60 Behavior management Skills MI 1 TX 5 IL 3 IN 3 NE 4 X 3.20 Self defense MI TX 4 IL IN NE X 4.00 Technical competence MI TX IL 4 IN 7 NE 2 X 4.33 Suicide prevention MI TX 2 IL 2 IN 3 NE 12 X 4.75 Psychology of adolescence MI 5 TX IL IN NE X 5.00 Interpersonal relationship skills MI 2 TX IL 9 IN 2 NE 11 X 6.00 Communications MI TX IL 6 IN 5 NE 7 X 6.00 Results focus MI TX IL 5 IN 14 NE 10 X 9.67 Security MI 6 TX IL 7 IN 10 NE 18 X 10.25 Individual counseling MI TX 3 IL 15 IN 15 NE 8 X 10.25 Behavior observation MI TX 5 IL 14 IN 13 NE 13 X 11.25 Program management MI 3 TX IL 20 IN 20 NE 15 X 14.50 ------------------------------ Different Issues or Different Juveniles? Many of the critical issues facing juvenile detention have remained somewhat constant. What has changed over the past decades is the role juvenile detention plays in the juvenile justice system. In particular, the last several years have seen a renewed emphasis on juvenile detention by OJJDP and professional associations, such as NJDA, NCCHC, and ACA. However, James R. Bell of the Youth Law Center warns that juvenile detention is fundamentally different. That is, the changes in juvenile justice that began in the 1960's and went through the 1980's altered the basic characteristics of today's detained youth. Today's youth is typically older, more aggressive, more emotionally and developmentally troubled, from an urban setting, and more likely to be a minority individual charged with a serious offense (National Coalition, 1993; Pecora, Dodson, Teather, and Whittaker, 1983). Juvenile corrections and probation are still experiencing extensive changes as punitive laws and guidelines are adopted across the country. The policies that decriminalized status offenses, diverted minor or first offenders, and established community-based corrections for all but the most serious offenders have extended the lengths of stay in juvenile detention and corrections facilities (Pecora and Fraser, 1988). These policy trends have increased the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for effective job performance in juvenile detention and corrections. Roush's review of the juvenile justice system identifies four future challenges that detention faces; while each is significant by itself, in combination they create an impending crisis for staff development and training. These problems are: (1) Frequency--the increased rate of referrals to the court for serious juvenile crime, including drug crimes and weapons offenses, has placed a strain on juvenile justice services, e.g., overcrowded institutions and excessive probation caseloads, to the extent that services and effectiveness are suffering; (2) Intensity--in addition to the increased incidence of youth using violence as a problem-solving strategy, the youth entering the juvenile justice system require increasingly more specialized programs and services; (3) Resources--the decreased financial resources available to juvenile justice agencies and institutions are requiring them to do more with less; and (4) Efficiency--the increasing inability of governmental systems to deliver services because of bureaucratic complexity and dysfunction (Roush, 1993b). The lack of resources underscores the need to find the least costly approach to staff development. From a training perspective, this means an increase in inservice or "stay-at-home" training. Factors Affecting Detention Training The juvenile detention training literature references several factors that affect training outcomes. The factors with the most direct impact on training are those that have an inhibiting effect. Many of these were obstacles to the juvenile justice system and juvenile detention training programs. Today they represent important challenges to the development of comprehensive training programs. Preemployment Education Several inferences about training and the general well-being of the profession are drawn from the literature. These inferences address such previously identified priorities as recruitment and skill development. For example, Berk (1985) studied the relationship between education levels and the behavior management skills of teaching staff working with children in institutional settings. Her Illinois-based research shows that college-educated (B.A. level) staff use verbal forms of encouragement and reinforcement three times more frequently than non-B.A. staff. The behavior management skills of B.A. staff were rated three times better than non-B.A. staff and significantly more effective. When staff with 2 years of college were compared with those who did not go beyond completing high school, the same differences were found. Berk concludes that education is the critical variable in increased effectiveness of behavior management and the development of verbal skills in youth. Farkas (1990) specifies many of the commonly held assumptions about education and training and their relationship to professionalization. He stresses three issues. First, the link is strengthened when there are specific educational requirements for the job. While educational requirements frequently produce resistance from veteran staff, educational standards can improve skill development and public image, and perhaps even salaries. The requirement that adult correctional line officers have a college degree is linked to improved professional status, higher salaries, and lower turnover rates (Burke, Rizzo, and O'Rear, 1992). Second, the system must encourage education through tuition programs and promotion incentives. Third, training must be established as an ongoing function of the job. For example, the 1992 edition of the ACA's Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities calls for 160 hours of planned training during a detention care giver's first year of employment, plus 40 hours annually thereafter. These training expectations are quite rigorous but set a clear goal for adequate training development. Staff recruitment. Peters and Getz (1986) assert that one of the greatest challenges to the profession is the recruitment of appropriately qualified personnel. Very few young adults plan a career in childcare work. Peters and Getz point out that there are no academic programs geared for juvenile detention and very few with a concentration in childcare work. (Dr. Thomas Hughes now offers a course on juvenile detention at the University of Illinois-Springfield.) For these reasons, it is not surprising that Peters and Getz find no differences in staff training outcomes when controlling for preemployment education levels. Beyond educational issues, the salary disparity between staff in adult institutions and those in juvenile detention and corrections combines with a smaller candidate pool (more applicants with criminal convictions, assorted abuse histories, and less education) to restrict the talent available to juvenile detention centers (Roush, 1990). Therefore, comprehensive training becomes an essential method to compensate for inadequate or limited skills of entry-level staff. Salaries. Sheridan (1988) notes that careers in juvenile detention and corrections are often less well compensated than those in adult corrections and, for many, juvenile detention and corrections seems to be a dead end. In a national salary survey, Rowan (1993) documented that juvenile detention workers receive an average of $2,115 less annually than correctional officers at the jail within the same jurisdiction. The salary issue is very controversial, for while research states that money is not the primary factor in job satisfaction, our society tends to measure success by income. For juvenile detention and corrections workers, the higher salaries in other allied professions send a message that institutional work is custodial and not professional in nature. The distinction between professional versus custodial staff models is unfortunately most evident in the juvenile court system, where the salaries and status of probation staff exceed that of detention staff. Administrators and professional organizations must work to improve the situation, and priority must be given to career development. Furthermore, the opportunity to advance must be tied to effort and skills rather than to the passage of time. Correctional childcare workers need to believe that their superiors and the public realize the importance of their work. Supervisors and legislative bodies must recognize the need for adequate training. Low salary is the main reason given by correctional staff for turnover (McShane, Williams, Shichor, and McClain, 1991). Obstacles to Training Brown (1982) addresses the question of staff training for juvenile detention care givers and maintains that the problem of role definition is the single greatest source of difficulty. Another major obstacle facing the implementation of a successful training program is the inherent difficulty involved in operating a facility that is open around the clock, 7 days a week. Around-the-clock schedules inhibit the establishment of a regular or consistent training schedule. Much of the responsibility for detention training falls to the detention administrator. Kindall (1970) believes that juvenile detention staff training has been unavailable because detention administrators, as well as the community, are unsure of what they expect of detention personnel. Confusion about roles combines with low professional status to make training a low priority. For these reasons, training is underfunded, if it is funded at all. Poor, inadequately funded training programs do little to clarify the professional identity of detention workers, and the cycle continues. In addition, both Kindall (1970) and Brown (1982) point to the difficulty in providing training for staff without reducing supervision of detained youth. It is a difficult decision to choose between locking youth in their rooms or running the shift short-handed because some staff are in training sessions. Kossman (1990) outlines an innovative staffing pattern that complements ongoing training efforts, particularly inservice training. Instead of the routine three-shift scheduling assignments (a.m., p.m., and night shifts), Kossman distributed staff at the Bexar County, Texas, Juvenile Detention Center into four shifts, with the fourth shift used as a replacement for the shift attending staff training. Kossman's model minimizes the costs associated with staff overtime due to ongoing inservice training. While the model has had very little formal evaluation, the responses of those who use the strategy are very positive. Lack of training funds. In a survey of New Jersey juvenile detention centers, Lucas (1991) reports that over two-thirds of the centers have no training budget. Her findings raise an interesting question about the level of commitment to staff training. How can the single most important priority for staff development fail to warrant budget consideration? Lucas further reports that over one-third of the centers identify interruptions in the training schedule due to staffing problems and overcrowding as a major obstacle to the successful implementation of training programs. Lack of resources remains the primary obstacle to implementing comprehensive training programs. Michigan detention administrators identify the lack of funds as the main problem related to training (Michigan Juvenile Detention Association, 1981). Such economic problems have two profound effects. First, there is a reduction in the number of line staff who can attend regional or national training conferences. Thus, offsite training programs tend to be available to administrators and middle management only. Second, economic cutbacks eliminate numerous training contracts. Without State and Federal support, there are fewer training programs provided to participants at reduced or no cost. The result is a further reduction in training for line staff. Administrative involvement. Gilbert (1985) identifies several managerial attitudes and policies regarding staff training that have historically hindered its impact: (1) training is viewed as a minor or nonessential duty that can be done away with or severely curtailed during economic crises, (2) the hours of training are more important than the quality of training; that is, a lot of training is better than (less) good training, and (3) only correctional practitioners know best how to train and develop correctional staff. These beliefs are common among some juvenile detention administrators and serve to perpetuate a provincial and myopic view of other training experiences. Although Gilbert's criticisms are relevant, it is unfair to characterize all juvenile detention administrators in this manner. Many administrators initiate and revise training programs to keep staff abreast of current issues in the field. Through the improved ability of State and national detention associations to provide reliable information and training about major issues and concerns, administrators have worked to improve the ability of detention care workers to respond to these new issues. For example, the 1980's brought to national attention concerns over residents' rights and staff liability issues. The 1990's are already consumed by training questions related to HIV and other communicable diseases. While these topics are still not part of the daily routine of most juvenile detention personnel, the field of juvenile detention has a better understanding of these issues due to proactive administrators who shaped professional education efforts. Legal issues. Maghan and Collins (1988) stress that the role of correctional (including juvenile detention) staff training has evolved over the past decades to the point where line staff need to be routinely exposed to training on correctional law. Inmates' and juveniles' rights are complex, and the application of constitutionally derived principles to the daily routine of detention and corrections practices requires specialized knowledge and training to reduce the risk of liability. Failure to train or negligent supervision is often at the heart of correctional litigation. These factors underscore the importance of training in correctional law. History of Detention Training Pere Marquette Institute The first documented attempt to convene juvenile detention professionals and experts was the National Institute for Juvenile Detention Home Administrators in the spring of 1968 at the Pere Marquette State Park in Grafton, Illinois. The Institute was the cooperative effort of Dr. Charles Matthews, Director of the Delinquency Study and Youth Development Center at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville, and Gerald Wittman from the Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (H.E.W.). Matthews and Wittman believed that juvenile detention in the United States needed more attention and that nationally respected expert practitioners should set an agenda for the future of the profession. Little had been done for juvenile detention since the publication and revision of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Standards and Guides in 1958 and 1961. Further, the history of practitioner involvement in the development of the field of juvenile detention was sporadic, and those in the profession remained isolated. It was this concept of using training experiences as a way of sharing ideas on a national level that led to the development of the National Juvenile Detention Association (NJDA). NJDA. Two issues emerged from the Pere Marquette Institute. First, in addition to the American Correctional Association (ACA), a separate professional association was needed to represent juvenile detention nationally. The second purpose of the Pere Marquette Institute was to provide a vehicle for detention practitioners to unite and provide national leadership to standardize juvenile detention practices. Institute participants elected LaVon Kindall as the first president of the fledgling association. Among the first group of officers was James M. Jordan, who was responsible for the 1968 incorporation of NJDA as a nonprofit organization under Illinois. Illinois is the birthplace of the juvenile court, public juvenile detention, and the NJDA. Origins of staff training. Another reason for the Pere Marquette Institute was the need for staff training (Grass Roots and NJDA, 1990). Matthews saw national training efforts as a way to sustain ongoing interaction among detention staff. He assigned training responsibilities to Dr. Tom Hughes, a faculty member at the Delinquency Study and Youth Development Center. Hughes secured funding through the Office of Juvenile Delinquency to conduct regional training programs for detention staff. Much of this experience in training detention staff can be found in the Detention Basic Training programs operated by the Sangamon State University Center for Legal Studies. Coordinated by Hughes, the program is a 40-hour introductory training program accredited by the American Probation and Parole Association. In collaboration with Dr. Nick Reuterman, Hughes conducted two national assessments of juvenile detention (Hughes and Reuterman, 1972). In addition to his leadership in training, Hughes' writings have contributed to the understanding of juvenile detention (Hughes, 1971; Hughes, 1987; Hughes, Reuterman, and McGibany, 1982; Hughes and Reuterman, 1989). National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Over the years, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has been very supportive of the National Juvenile Detention Association. A previous NCJFCJ training director, Gerald Wittman, was most active in the actual establishment of the NJDA. This occurred when Wittman worked for the U.S. Department of H.E.W., the Federal predecessor to the Department of Health and Human Services (H.H.S.). His contribution was always a point of pride to Wittman, who displayed a photograph of himself in his office receiving an award from John Holmes, a former executive director of NJDA. In the last decade, NCJFCJ sponsored three national institutes on juvenile detention issues in collaboration with the National Juvenile Detention Association. The first of these convened in 1985 in Las Vegas, Nevada; the second convened in June 1988 in San Antonio, Texas; and the third assembled in June 1990 in Las Vegas. All three concerned major issues in juvenile detention of interest to judges, detention personnel, and other court staff. On a statewide basis, NCJFCJ has actively collaborated with the Juvenile Detention Association of New York State for the past several years in aiding with its annual April conference, usually by providing select faculty for the program. Similarly, NCJFCJ has assisted the New Jersey Juvenile Detention Association with its annual conference. In March of each year, NCJFCJ sponsors the "National Conference on Juvenile Justice" in conjunction with the National District Attorneys Association. Detention staff often are among the participants at this meeting. In addition to specific topics on detention issues, there are numerous other general interest topics of benefit to detention staff. Where finances permit, NCJFCJ also provides assistance to States for their juvenile justice conferences. While detention is not the sole specialization represented, numerous detention workers are represented. Detention is a critical part of the juvenile justice continuum. Often detention services fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. It is the philosophy of NCJFCJ, while providing specialized continuing education of judges, to work collaboratively and to ensure that no issue in juvenile justice is foreign to the training enterprise of the National Council. American Correctional Association The American Correctional Association developed professional standards for juvenile detention that included training requirements for each component of staff development (ACA, 1991). Standards development may be the most significant event in the history of detention training. While the standards present a comprehensive list of topic areas (see p. 12), the number of training hours required has redefined the importance of training. ACA standards call for 160 hours of training during the first year of employment (40 hours of preemployment orientation and 120 hours of specialized training) and 40 hours annually thereafter (1991). In detention facilities, where staff normally receive 8 to 10 hours of training per year, the standards do not appear to be achievable. In most juvenile detention facilities, it is difficult to provide sufficient training opportunities. As mentioned previously, the myriad obstacles facing training make the ACA expectation of 160-200 hours of training annually appear unrealistic. For some facilities, ACA calls for a training program that is 10 to 20 times larger than the training program presently in existence. Even though many detention professionals see the ACA standards as the ultimate in training expectations but too difficult to attain, the standards identify basic training needs. In the Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities (3rd Ed., 1991), ACA defines "training" as: An organized, planned, and evaluated activity designed to achieve specific learning objectives and enhance the job performance of personnel. Training may occur onsite, at an academy or training center, an institution of higher learning, professional meetings, or through supervised on-the-job training. It includes an agenda and is conducted by an instructor, manager, or official. Meetings of professional associations are considered training. Whether it occurs onsite, at an academy or training center, through contract services, or at professional meetings, the activity must be part of an overall training program. (p. 131) ACA devotes an entire chapter of standards to the issue of training and staff development. Applicable standards concerned with training are 3-JDF-1D-01- 10 (Ref. 2-8086 through 2-8100). Training standards. Topics range from who is to be trained to how much training is needed and in what areas. The second significant contribution to the general field of training is the designation by ACA of the topics or content that should be included in training programs. The standards do not rigidly prescribe the number of hours or learning objectives for each topic area, but they do provide a list of minimum expectations. In addition to giving juvenile detention professionals guidelines for the development of training programs, the ACA approach to training content is important for two additional reasons. First, the ACA standards assume that training needs vary according to the job assignment. While some training topics are required of all staff, the ACA breaks the training topics into categories according to job. Second, the ACA standards reflect the belief that staff training needs vary according to the amount of experience the staff member already possesses. ACA establishes three critical periods for staff training: preservice or orientation training that covers a list of topics prior to job assignment; first year training, the period when the majority of topics should be covered; and annual training, where a variety of training is addressed based on the needs of staff. The first year training is the focal point of the ACA standards. The 1979 edition of the ACA standards delineated topic areas to be covered in the first year of employment, including: o Human relations and communication skills. o Crisis intervention. o Special needs of youth. o Problem-solving and guidance. o Facility's philosophy for handling troubled youth. o Resident rules and regulations. o Rights and responsibilities of residents. o Grievance and disciplinary procedures. o Security procedures. o Physical restraint procedures. o Supervision of residents. o Report writing. o Significant legal issues. o Interaction of elements of the juvenile justice system. o Relationships with other agencies. o Fire emergency procedures. o First aid and life-sustaining functions (essential). In the second edition, January 1983, the ACA narrowed the list to the following areas: o Security procedures. o Supervision of juveniles. o Use-of-force regulations. o Report writing. o Juvenile rules and regulations. o Rights and responsibilities of juveniles. o Fire and emergency procedures. o Key control. o Interpersonal relations. o Social/cultural lifestyles of the juvenile population. o Child growth and development. o Communication skills. o First aid. In the Staff Training Survey dated July 1987, the ACA found that in 97 percent of all care worker training curricula the following topics were included: o Facility philosophy. o Policy and procedures. o Rights of juveniles and staff. o Security issues. o Emergency procedures and first aid. "Child and adolescent growth and development" was the topic area listed in the ACA standards that was included least. In the third edition, May 1991, the ACA included the following training topics: o Security procedures. o Supervision of juveniles. o Signs of suicide risks. o Suicide precautions. o Use-of-force regulations and tactics. o Report writing. o Juvenile rules and regulations. o Rights and responsibilities of juveniles. o Fire and emergency procedures. o Safety procedures. o Key control. o Interpersonal relations. o Social/cultural lifestyles of the juvenile population. o Communication skills. o First aid. o Counseling techniques. These lists have provided a continuity through three editions of the standards, and the modifications are intended to capture shifts in detention staff training needs. Training staff trainers. During the 1980's, ACA made another substantial contribution to juvenile detention training. ACA training staff were very supportive of training efforts for juvenile detention personnel and provided regional training, correspondence courses, onsite training, and staff certification in training for trainers (Taylor, 1985). ACA, in conjunction with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), developed a training program for correctional staff trainers (American Correctional Association, 1981). The strategy was to create competent trainers within the ranks of correctional staff. Investing in the Training Staff Trainers (TST) certification program should produce an increase in the amount and quality of inservice training. TST offers detention staff several distinct advantages. First, inservice training is strengthened when an administration designates a staff member to complete TST training, thus affirming the importance of training. Second, TST upgrades basic training skills. All too often, inservice programs are assigned to staff who may be knowledgeable about a particular topic, but do not understand the training process. Third, the TST program results in usable products. The lesson plans, training materials, pretests and posttests, evaluation forms, and group exercises are packaged in a uniform format for future use. These training tools and materials reduce the amount of preparation time needed to sustain a broad range of inservice training topics. Supervisors as trainers. Can shift supervisors and other nontraining staff be used as trainers to expand the training program without compromising the relevance and quality of training? Curry (1977) identifies two organizational benefits associated with using supervisors as staff trainers. First, using supervisors ensures that training has administrative endorsement. Thus, ideas and innovations generated through the application of training principles have a greater probability of implementation. This increases the relevance of training for staff. Second, the training process may produce better supervisors. By preparing for the training, the supervisor is forced to learn and relearn the material, often leading to a reevaluation and improvement of his or her present supervisory techniques (Curry, 1977). To address the question of supervisors as trainers, an experiment was conducted comparing training by a TST-certified staff trainer to training by a shift supervisor (Roush, 1986). Trainees included 36 direct care staff at a medium-size juvenile detention facility in Michigan. No mention of the experiment was made to the trainees prior to the sessions. Participants were randomly assigned to two training sessions on communication skills. One session was conducted by the TST-certified trainer and the other session by a shift supervisor who received 8 hours of training in the TST concept. Evaluations showed no significant differences between the average scores of each group on the pretest, the posttest, and all the evaluation questions. The results demonstrate that properly selected and trained supervisors can provide inservice training with no significant reductions in training relevance and quality. Continuity and quality of training can be maintained by various trainers when the TST concept is employed. National resource centers. During the 1980's, ACA, in conjunction with OJJDP, developed a project to designate national resource centers for juvenile detention. The resource centers would serve as a model to other detention facilities and staff with the special intent of providing a regionalized resource for program, staff, and training development (Roush, 1987). Detention practitioners from around the country visited the resource centers to experience a "well run" institution. While the resource centers disseminated volumes of information about programs, policies, and procedures, a major obstacle was the inability of visitors to relate to detention systems that were comprehensive and progressive. Criswell (1987) describes the activities conducted by the Southwest Florida Juvenile Detention Center, one of the original national resource centers. For the 2-year period reported in the article, Criswell notes that the detention center held seven 3-day workshops for more than 50 participants. Most participants came to get more information on the ACA accreditation process and to observe the operation of an accredited detention facility. In addition to the workshops, the resource centers also provided telephone consultation and written material upon request. As was the experience with the other three resource centers (Berrien County Juvenile Center, Berrien Center, Michigan; Jefferson County Youth Center, Louisville, Kentucky; and Montgomery County Juvenile Detention Center, Conroe, Texas), participants indicated that the programs of formal training, discussions, and observations of center operations were very valuable to their work. Earl Dunlap, former director of the Jefferson County Youth Center, commented that the experience was reciprocal: resource center staff acquired as much information and as many innovative ideas as they provided. Inservice training. Misguided perceptions of the limited role of juvenile detention and its low status in the juvenile justice system mean that detention training is frequently underfunded. Compare, for example, the introductory training requirements of a sheriff's deputy assigned to a jail to the requirements for juvenile detention and corrections staff. Adult detention and corrections officers, along with law enforcement officers, receive significantly more training than their juvenile detention counterparts--three and a half times more training according to a national survey (Rowan, 1993). Given difficult economic times that require budget reductions, training line items are most susceptible to cost-saving efforts. Therefore, the future of training may need to include a major emphasis on strengthening inservice training concepts and programs. Definition of Job Functions One of the central tenets of the Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project is that the recruitment, selection, training, and development of good detention staff is influenced by the detention philosophy held by the administration, juvenile court, and policymakers that govern it. This philosophy is most directly expressed by the title used to describe jobs. Mixdorf and Rosetti (1992) discuss the roles of the direct care worker for both juvenile detention and juvenile corrections (training school) settings. They are careful to avoid the two extremes in defining the job of direct care staff. At one end of the job-definition continuum is the title "child care worker." This title is confusing because of its use in daycare, preschools, and babysitting. At the other extreme is the title "correctional officer," commonly associated with adult detention and prisons. Both titles create debate and discussion about the proper role of staff because they are associated with several extraneous and irrelevant components of detention. Juvenile Care Worker The ACA has taken the lead in referring to direct care staff in juvenile institutions as juvenile care workers. However, in a national survey of juvenile detention facilities, Rowan (1993) found that the most frequently used job title is juvenile detention officer, although it accounts for only 18 percent of the responses. Concluding that there is no predominant job title for all juvenile detention workers, Rowan strongly recommended that the field follow ACA's recommendation and adopt the title "juvenile care worker." According to Mixdorf and Rosetti, juvenile care workers perform four overlapping roles: guardian, counselor, supervisor, and role model. The ACA description of care worker roles is consistent with the mission of the juvenile justice system. The care worker's job is to engage and involve youth in productive and constructive activities while in detention. ACA recommends a positive approach to the job of juvenile care worker. This is expressed best by the description of the role model job function: Being a positive role model is probably the most important responsibility a care worker can undertake. Modeling good behavior, or setting an example, can affect juveniles in a positive manner more than any other care worker skill. Included in this activity is setting a positive tone or climate, respecting the juveniles, praising them when appropriate, being consistent and fair, and presenting a generally positive attitude. Admittedly, this positive, encouraging attitude may be difficult to maintain when working with angry, rebellious juveniles, but it is absolutely necessary (pp. 16-17). The absence of role definition is a major liability for staff training programs. Brown (1982) identifies five similar roles that detention staff must routinely perform in a detention facility. These roles include: o Security officer. o Counselor. o Disciplinarian. o Recorder of behavior. o Activity coordinator. Illinois is an exception when looking at criteria-based job functions for juvenile detention staff. As a part of a comprehensive approach to determining detention staff training needs, the Probation Division of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Court (AOIC) developed a set of basic job functions for detention care givers. Using an expert panel strategy, consultants from the Arthur Young Human Resources Group organized and conducted a series of workshops using AOIC staff and field staff to analyze job functions of both juvenile probation and detention workers. The process resulted in specifying eight job functions or responsibilities, each of which is accompanied by standards for application to a criteria-based performance appraisal system. The eight AOIC job functions include behavior management, crisis intervention, security, safety, custodial care, recordkeeping, program support and maintenance/special assignments, and counseling/problem solving. The availability of basic job-related information about Illinois juvenile detention staff job functions creates a potential for conducting training needs assessment in juvenile detention services areas. While very little has been written about training needs assessment strategies for juvenile detention staff, most inventories of training needs have made no specific comparison between training needs, job requirements, and present proficiencies to do the job. Training needs assessments in juvenile detention have not been grounded in an analysis of job functions and do not include a comprehensive, statewide sampling strategy. Most important, when both the bureaucratic settings of the job and the technologies adopted by these bureaucracies increase in complexity, the design of advanced or specialty training programs that are congruent with participant needs becomes more dependent on systematic and empirically derived understandings of the job. Job functions are a composite of what juvenile detention officers do in their daily routines. Having started with the 8 job functions identified in the AOIC research, the training needs assessment project consultants expanded the number to 10 by adding organizational awareness and external awareness. Christy's (1989) argument that systems knowledge and professional knowledge are essential components of the job served as the reason for adding the "awareness" components. The categories related to job functions provide job-oriented information. The categories related to effectiveness characteristics provide employee-oriented information. Job Functions (The "What" of Juvenile Detention) 1. Behavioral Management. Using behavioral and developmental theories to establish clear expectations for residents' behavior and employing immediate positive or negative consequences as a result of direct involvement with residents. 2. Crisis Intervention. Using skill and composure to prevent or minimize physical and emotional harm to residents and other staff when handling a wide variety of crisis situations, e.g., physical violence, escapes, riots, and suicidal behaviors. 3. Security. Implementing both policy and procedures related to resident supervision and to institutional security measures to ensure the physical presence of each resident. 4. Safety. Using emergency procedures, i.e., first aid, CPR, and fire safety, and controlling the spread of communicable disease, to ensure the well-being of youth. 5. Custodial Care. Assisting in properly identifying and treating health-related problems related to the well-being of detained youth, e.g., medical and hygiene, adolescent sexuality, substance abuse, physical or emotional abuse, and symptoms of suicidal behavior and emotional distress. 6. Recordkeeping. Using observation and recording skills to provide accurate and timely written documentation of both routine and special situations regarding residents, staff, and program activities. 7. Program Maintenance. Implementing, teaching, creating, and supplementing the facility's daily program and activities, e.g., physical education, recreation, arts and crafts, etc. 8. Problem Solving. Creating an environment or institutional climate where a youth's personal, social, and emotional problems can be openly discussed, explored, and possibly resolved by effectively using interpersonal skills, communication with clinical staff, and leadership in group discussions and activities. 9. Organizational Awareness. Understanding, supporting, and using the philosophy, goals, values, policies, and procedures that represent the daily operations of the facility. 10. External Awareness. Identifying and keeping up-to-date with key external issues and trends likely to affect the agency, e.g., legal, political, demographic, and philosophical trends. Effectiveness Characteristics (The "How" of Juvenile Detention) 1. Balanced Perspective. A broad view balancing present needs and longer term considerations. 2. Strategic View. Ability to collect and analyze information to form an overall long-range view of priorities and to forecast likely needs, problems, and opportunities. 3. Environmental Sensitivity. Awareness of broad environmental trends and their effects on the work unit. 4. Leadership. An ability and willingness to lead and manage others. 5. Flexibility. Openness to new information, and tolerance for stress and ambiguity in the work situation. 6. Action Orientation. Decisiveness, calculated risk taking, and a drive to get things done. 7. Results Focus. High concern for goal achievement and a tenacity in following through to the end. 8. Communication. Ability to express oneself clearly and authoritatively, and to listen clearly to others. 9. Interpersonal Sensitivity. Self-knowledge and awareness of the impact of self on others, sensitivity to the needs and weaknesses of others, ability to empathize with the viewpoint of others. 10. Technical Competence. Expert and up-to-date knowledge of the work methods and procedures of the work unit. It is important to note that although these definitions of job functions and effectiveness characteristics provide a conceptual understanding of their meaning, their practical meaning (or operational definition) is defined in terms of the specific task items or statements associated with each. For example, "External Awareness" is comprised of 10 task statements. Table 2 presents findings from the Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska statewide training needs assessments (which is described in greater detail later), and contains the job description categories and their corresponding task statements. Time spent on various job tasks. To provide information relevant to personnel resource allocations, the South Carolina Department of Youth Services conducted a time analysis of the activities and services of juvenile correction officers at three South Carolina correctional facilities. Onsite observations of one to two juvenile correctional officers per shift were conducted over 10 days, including weekdays and weekends for day and evening hour shifts. Analysis of all observations indicates that supervision of youth and groups accounted for 39 percent of the juvenile correctional officers' time, transport and escort 20 percent, documentation 11 percent, specific security function 6 percent, counseling 5 percent, and other activities for 19 percent. Heavy concentrations of students in the dorms occurred in the early morning and over an extended period around midday for lunch and teacher planning periods. During these times juvenile correctional officers engaged in considerable escorting and transporting. During the balance of the day several students invariably remained in the dorms. As a result, juvenile correctional officers on the day shift were required for supervisory responsibilities at all times, although the number of students supervised may fluctuate from 1 or 2 to more than 40. Results suggest that efforts to reduce day shift allocations will require organizational changes within the training school settings. Problems of this nature are linked to job stress and burnout. Supplementary questionnaire data indicate that juvenile correctional officers view managing staff burnout as the major training priority. ------------------------------ Table 2 A Comparison of Priority Index Scores for Categories and Priority Index Percentages for Task Statements for Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska Juvenile Detention Workers Note: After each statement, all numbers are listed in the following order: IN (n=175) IL (n=142) NE (n=57) JUVENILE DETENTION FUNCTIONS Behavior Management 343 315 158 Verbally direct and control resident behavior 30.29 38.03 42.11 Explain behavioral expectations or rules clearly 26.29 26.76 38.60 Know and understand key facts and theories about adolescent development 32.00 32.39 26.32 Know and understand key facts and theories about juvenile delinquency and its treatment 34.29 37.32 33.33 Effectively prevent acting-out behaviors by direct involvement with residents and encouraging positive behaviors 35.43 34.51 49.12 Know and use disciplinary policies and procedures consistently 32.00 30.28 45.61 Demonstrate sensitivity in relating to culturally and racially different youth 24.57 27.46 35.09 Objectively investigate and immediately intervene when rule infractions occur 24.57 28.17 45.61 Recognize the essential elements of a problem in a timely manner 29.14 38.03 52.63 Make daily work assignments to residents 11.43 9.15 28.07 Actively promote cooperation and teamwork among residents under supervision 25.14 28.87 40.35 Crisis Intervention 429 412 163 Consistently use the least amount of physical force necessary during crisis intervention 21.71 30.99 31.58 Function as a team member during multiple staff interventions 30.86 30.28 38.60 Use verbal skills for managing crisis and controlling violent residents through steps to deescalate or defuse anger and aggression 36.57 42.25 38.60 Demonstrate proficiently the techniques used in safe physical and/or mechanical restraints 37.71 37.32 40.35 Describe situations in which physical restraint and/or mechanical restraint are permissible 25.14 32.39 31.58 Know and use approved techniques for suicide intervention and prevention 41.71 46.48 38.60 Objectively assess patterns of behavior and situations associated with emotional upset, acting-out behavior, and potential crisis 27.43 34.51 35.09 Discuss, explore, and review regularly with coworkers important factors involved in prevention, management, and followup in relation to institutional crisis 34.29 35.92 45.61 Security 323 281 163 Know and successfully implement the policy and procedure regarding control, building and door lock checks, control room security, room and body searches, handcuffs, transportation, head counts, etc. 27.43 27.46 28.07 Consistently make and record required room checks 16.57 14.79 21.05 Recognize and detect contraband 34.29 25.35 36.84 Notice and report promptly any damages to security equipment 20.00 22.54 36.84 Know the whereabouts of all youth under supervision at all times 19.43 24.65 33.33 Know and implement basic precautions during periods of overcrowding and understaffing 25.71 30.99 35.09 Acquaint youth at admission with detention program, daily operations, living unit, and rules and regulations 18.86 25.35 40.35 Consistently complete and properly file all information and paperwork associated with the intake/admissions process 24.00 30.28 40.35 Safety 355 368 151 Recognize hazards or situations that might result in injury or property damage prior to implementing an activity 25.14 28.87 31.58 Instruct youth on the proper use of equipment prior to or during the activity 16.00 21.83 22.81 Know and follow emergency procedures in simulated drills (fire, severe weather, etc.) without having to refer to written policy and procedure 34.86 37.32 42.11 Know techniques for managing body fluid spills (blood, urine, feces, saliva, vomitus, semen, etc.), maintaining a sanitary environment and reducing risks of infection 33.71 38.73 35.09 Know how to summon emergency assistance from local emergency service groups 17.71 33.10 33.33 Understand how communicable diseases (including AIDS, hepatitis B, TB, etc.) are transmitted and what precautions can prevent transmission 25.14 33.80 31.58 Accept the responsibility to care for residents with communicable diseases 24.57 30.28 35.09 Correctly apply emergency and life safety procedures, such as first aid, CPR, operation of fire extinguishers, and other emergency equipment 34.29 44.37 45.61 Custodial Care 326 258 114 Recognize and correctly implement procedures to address physical, medical, and hygiene problems 22.86 21.83 31.58 Understand and apply the legal and constitutional rights of detained youth 36.57 34.51 36.84 Transport youth to appointments in a timely fashion 18.86 16.90 8.77 Know the policy and procedure on resident mail, phone calls, and visitations 16.00 16.20 26.32 Know facts and issues about adolescent sexuality 22.86 22.54 29.82 Discuss skillfully and sensitively the sexual concerns of residents 29.14 25.35 33.33 Describe and recognize signs connected with suicidal behavior, depression, and emotional distress 36.57 50.00 50.88 Know and understand current facts and theories about chemical dependency 26.29 26.06 36.84 Recognize signs of substance abuse 35.43 39.44 40.35 Routinely educate residents about chemical dependency 27.43 32.39 19.30 Demonstrate skill and empathy when working with youth who have been abused 25.14 29.58 40.35 Know the laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and signs associated with identifying and reporting mental and physical abuse of children 38.86 38.03 43.86 Recordkeeping 365 234 161 Write anecdotal and special entries that are specific, descriptive, complete, and effectively written 23.43 33.10 52.63 Record events as soon after they occur as possible 20.00 19.01 33.33 Share the recording duties with coworkers as equally as possible 20.00 19.72 38.60 Describe and demonstrate effective skill for observing behaviors 27.43 26.76 38.60 Offer interpretations or provide explanations for various patterns of resident behavior 21.71 23.94 28.07 Keep accurate and timely records and prepare useful reports 23.43 25.35 49.12 Use behavioral observations as a means of feedback to youth to help them learn more acceptable behaviors 23.43 27.46 42.11 Program Maintenance 239 187 111 Participate in the development, evaluation, and modification of programs and activities 32.00 31.69 28.07 Demonstrate flexibility when programs or activities change 22.86 18.31 19.30 Encourage others to generate new ideas about programs and activities 25.14 23.94 42.11 Actively and positively participate in programs and activities 18.86 16.90 21.05 Assure that all equipment and supplies are located and delivered ready to use 17.71 19.01 28.07 Continuously model appropriate social behaviors 26.86 23.94 26.32 Perform special assignments outside the boundaries of routine responsibilities 19.43 23.24 35.09 Help youth structure free time to keep occupied 28.57 22.54 45.61 Generate and/or recognize creative or imaginative solutions to work-related problems 29.71 26.76 28.07 Solicit ideas from coworkers for program development or for dealing with problems 21.71 24.65 42.11 Problem Solving 286 233 130 Quickly develop friendly working relationships with detained youth 16.57 23.94 26.32 Know and use attending skills, questioning skills, listening skills, and influencing skills 28.57 25.35 33.33 Motivate youth toward positive behavior change 29.71 26.76 33.33 Spend time in one-to-one communication with almost every resident assigned to supervision 27.43 26.06 42.11 Assist youth in identifying problems, alternatives, goals, and solutions 26.29 28.87 33.33 Construct and implement tasks designed to reduce interpersonal conflict, emotional stress,family difficulties, authority problems, etc. 20.00 33.80 35.09 Know and understand the key elements of group dynamics 26.29 31.69 33.33 Demonstrate skills in leading purposeful group discussions and activities 26.86 26.06 38.60 Use recreation and activities to build appropriate resident problem-solving skills 20.57 30.28 33.33 Believe that youth are capable of positive behavior change 24.57 24.65 45.61 Maintain a nonjudgmental and noncondemning approach to all interactions with detained youth 30.29 28.17 45.61 Use informal networks and procedures to help achieve objectives or resolve conflicts 29.14 26.76 35.09 Listen to others and show understanding of what they are saying 24.57 19.01 28.07 Organizational Awareness 264 221 134 Express the philosophy, purpose, goals, and values of the organization 23.43 26.76 47.37 Translate organization's philosophy, purpose, and goals into examples from daily operations 23.43 24.65 29.82 Know the organizational chart and the chain of command 14.86 12.68 26.32 Know who to turn to for information, guidance, and supervision 20.00 24.65 36.84 Know employee rights and the proper channels for complaints, suggestions, or appeals 26.29 30.99 47.37 Know job responsibilities 20.57 25.35 50.88 Demonstrate competence in executing job responsibilities 17.14 28.17 38.60 Use effectively a system of communication for relating information to colleagues 25.71 26.76 28.07 Know how information is communicated to the juvenile court, probation officers, parents, cooperating agencies, etc. 22.86 29.58 45.61 Explain and demonstrate the skill of teamwork, effective communication, and constructive criticism 27.43 29.58 35.09 Know and conform to work rules relating to attendance, punctuality, appearance, etc. 17.14 16.90 26.32 Describe techniques useful in time management, stress management, and improved work habits 24.57 23.94 36.84 Understand the issues affecting personal and institutional liability 29.14 33.80 40.35 Maintain a balance between specialized interests and detention's mission 28.00 26.76 40.35 External Awareness 299 230 121 Know the historical factors leading to the establishment of the juvenile justice system 25.14 18.31 29.82 Understand gang issues 41.14 42.25 52.63 Show awareness of issues related to minorities, races, and cultures, and how they relate to adolescent development 27.43 30.99 31.58 Describe specific and effective approaches to working with minority youth 32.00 35.92 42.11 Understand and explain the juvenile court process and key issues in juvenile law 32.57 34.51 28.07 Understand the working relationships between juvenile detention and other cooperating agencies, e.g., law enforcement, juvenile court, probation, public schools, corrections, etc. 21.14 27.46 38.60 Know various community youth groups that supply support services 24.00 30.99 36.84 Understand the need for alternatives to incarceration 21.71 26.76 40.35 Know the professional and ethical standards of conduct for detention workers 21.71 28.87 36.84 Know the national and State issues affecting juvenile detention 40.00 36.62 36.84 Understand the mission of juvenile detention 24.57 23.24 40.35 Know the State standards, statutes, rules, and regulations affecting the operation of a detention facility 42.86 43.66 45.61 Consider the ethical implications of a given course of action 22.29 26.76 43.86 Keep up-to-date with developments in technical areas of expertise, e.g., juvenile delinquency, social work, psychology, criminal justice, etc. 34.86 37.32 36.84 EFFECTIVENESS CHARACTERISTICS Balanced Perspective 254 257 103 Consider long-term goals while devising short-term plans 31.43 34.51 43.86 Take a "big picture" view of issues and situations 19.43 28.87 42.11 Strategic View 282 228 117 Use informal networks and procedures to help achieve objectives or resolve conflicts 29.14 25.35 35.09 Identify recurrent patterns in events or data 21.71 26.76 36.84 Recognize discrepancies, deficiencies, and inconsistencies in various types of information 21.71 22.54 42.11 Recognize the essential elements of a problem in a timely manner 29.14 38.03 52.63 Apply systematic diagnosis and problem-solving techniques in determining appropriate courses of action 32.00 31.69 29.82 Use output from quantitative data analysis in decisionmaking 22.86 19.72 19.30 Gather information for decisionmaking through informal inquiry and discussion 26.86 25.35 31.58 Know when to take action and when to "bide time" 26.86 26.76 43.86 Recognize and take advantage of opportunities to further goals and objectives 27.43 27.46 26.32 Environmental Sensitivity 242 199 114 Assess the political feasibility of alternative courses of action 26.86 26.06 28.07 Maintain a balance between specialized interests and detention's mission 28.00 24.65 40.35 Take a "big picture" view of issues and situations 19.43 28.87 22.81 Consider the ethical implications of a given course of action 22.29 24.65 43.86 Know when to take action and when to "bide time" 26.86 26.76 43.86 Leadership 340 251 143 Make daily work assignments to residents 11.43 12.68 28.07 Explain tasks and expectations so that each resident clearly understands his/her role 28.57 20.42 42.11 Actively promote cooperation and teamwork within work unit 28.00 27.46 40.35 Participate in briefings and other meetings in a way that achieves desired objectives 30.86 19.72 31.58 Attain objects without overt use of power or authority 28.57 30.99 54.39 Make "tough" or unpopular decisions 27.43 28.87 43.86 Understand when and to whom to delegate authority and/or responsibility 20.00 26.76 33.33 Actively promote cooperation and teamwork among residents under my supervision 25.14 24.65 40.35 Flexibility 336 275 139 Handle job pressure and stress, manage multiple priorities and conflicting demands 30.29 35.92 35.09 Give attention to a variety of problems throughout the shift 22.86 23.24 24.57 Manage shift assignments and job duties within a context of ambiguous directives and objectives from higher management 20.57 21.83 29.82 A Comparison of Priority Index Scores for Categories and Priority Index Percentages for Task Statements for Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska Juvenile Detention Workers Understand when to adjust interpersonal style to fit different situations and people 26.29 28.87 35.09 Generate and/or recognize creative and imaginative solutions to work-related problems 29.71 28.17 28.07 Understand when and to whom to delegate authority and/or responsibility 20.00 26.76 33.33 Action Orientation 314 267 125 Initiate action rather than wait to react to situations as they develop 36.57 33.10 45.61 Act decisively on own authority when timely action is needed 22.86 33.10 38.60 Take calculated risks and accept personal responsibility for one's success or failure 20.57 21.13 28.07 Manage own time effectively 25.14 26.06 28.07 Take the initiative in gathering information about key issues 22.86 26.76 24.56 Recognize and take advantage of opportunities to further goals and objectives 27.43 27.46 26.32 Results Focus 386 246 124 Assess progress toward achieving long-term living unit goals 26.29 26.06 33.33 Work persistently toward a goal despite opposition, distractions, and setbacks 25.14 34.51 26.32 Maintain a high level of mental activity for prolonged periods of time 17.14 19.72 35.09 Conduct investigations of residents' grievances and misbehaviors and write responses on the results of the investigation 25.71 28.17 35.09 Communications 341 283 159 Present ideas clearly and persuasively, orally or in writing 26.86 32.39 49.12 Write reports regarding living units and/or residents' accomplishments or concerns either for higher management or for public information releases 23.43 24.65 33.33 Listen to others and show understanding of what they are saying 24.57 19.01 28.07 Solicit ideas from coworkers for program development or for dealing with problems 21.71 24.65 42.11 Interpersonal Sensitivity 372 269 141 Persuade individuals on the outside to "buy into" a desired course of action 29.14 24.65 28.07 Provide positive feedback in a manner that reinforces desirable behavior 30.29 30.99 31.58 Provide negative feedback in a constructive manner 32.00 28.87 40.35 Accurately assess the capabilities, limitations, and needs of others 25.14 28.17 38.60 Resolve staff conflict situations through informal discussion or counseling 29.14 31.69 31.58 Realistically assess own strengths and weaknesses and their impact on others 28.57 24.65 38.60 Encourage coworkers to candidly share views about their strengths and weaknesses and about own strengths and weaknesses 32.57 26.06 40.35 Accept and make productive use of criticism 24.57 26.06 33.33 Resolve conflicts or differences of opinion about how the living unit should function 30.29 28.17 35.09 Solicit ideas from coworkers for program development or for dealing with problems 21.71 23.24 42.11 Technical Competence 337 305 157 Assess the technical feasibility of alternative courses of action 24.57 26.06 38.60 Assist coworkers in resolving technical problems 20.00 30.28 40.35 Keep up-to-date with developments in technical areas of expertise, e.g., juvenile delinquency, social work, psychology, criminal justice, etc. 34.86 37.32 36.84 ------------------------------ Chapter 2 Training Needs Assessments From a "good-detention" provider perspective and to meet legal requirements, accurate information about jobs is required for valid recruitment, selection, assignment, appraisal, development, compensation, and training of employees. Where traditional jobs are undergoing substantial changes or are acquiring increased complexity, a systematic job analysis is essential to (1) update job requirements and (2) assess current or emergent gaps between the new job requirements and the present capabilities of job incumbents. The absence of valid job information promotes three training-related problems (Hudzik, 1990, 1991): o Training the wrong people (recruiting and training people who are not capable juvenile detention workers, or not knowing which people are capable of effective work in juvenile detention). o Providing training in the wrong skill areas (although accurately identifying those persons who have the capability for effective detention work, failing to acquire an adequate understanding of the position requirements). o Correctly identifying and selecting the juvenile detention workers and the tasks associated with their jobs, but setting the wrong priorities (although training program content matches participants' job tasks, some or all of the program time is spent dealing with tasks that either occur infrequently or are not crucial to the job and are already done well by participants). High priority tasks--those that occur frequently, are crucial, and are not done well--are not given priority. When the purpose of collecting job-analytic information is to identify job-incumbent developmental needs and to design training programs, two kinds of job analysis information are necessary. The first kind is job-oriented, meaning that it focuses on uncovering the specific tasks associated with a job (focusing on what is done on the job). A common technique to collect this kind of information is a task inventory or a task checklist. The second kind of requisite job analysis information is called employee-oriented, meaning that it focuses on uncovering how a job is done (focusing on identifying the skills and abilities necessary to perform job tasks well). There is general agreement among job-analysis experts for the need to understand both the "what" and the "how" of jobs to design adequate training programs. Training is enhanced in direct proportion to the degree in which it focuses on developing skills and abilities needed on the job, in addition to the degree in which it is related to actual tasks associated with the job. Assessment Strategies An inherent difficulty in any review of the training literature is the problem of recommending what should be done (given a clear and precise definition of the assessment question and the technologies available) versus what can be done (given the resources and staff available to implement a training needs assessment project). Any compromise, no matter how well it is crafted or negotiated, has the potential of leaving someone unhappy. The literature identifies three general categories of training needs assessment strategies: (1) survey worker perceptions of training wants (preferences), needs (skill deficits), and obstacles (job hindrances), (2) key informant (expert) interviews and surveys, and (3) needs assessment surveys where the need is based on an identifiable disparity between job skills required versus job skills possessed. While the level of sophistication of training needs assessments in juvenile detention is very basic, the needs assessment strategies in juvenile detention and corrections closely approximate those methods used in business and psychology. The costs in time and money are considerably higher as one moves from preference surveys to a complete training needs assessment. Surveys of Workers' Perceptions Constraints on time and money dictate the selection of survey methods to determine the training needs of direct care staff in juvenile detention and corrections. These methods start with some underlying assumptions: practitioners know and understand the nature and scope of their job; practitioners know and understand the mission of detention; practitioners know and understand the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the job successfully; practitioners know and understand the varying proficiencies required for the knowledge, skills, and abilities; and practitioners will accurately assess or rate their own proficiencies in these areas. Given these somewhat limited assumptions, two types of training assessments occur. First, staff are asked about what topics (knowledge, skills, and abilities) they need to do their job better. In other words, staff are asked to identify those areas of skill deficits that could improve job performance through training programs. The survey techniques range from highly structured, requiring a forced-choice response to a predetermined set of training topics, to open-ended, with staff generating the topics of interest along with their own rating scale of importance or priority. Some surveys are formal and anonymous while others are informal and group administered. Second, surveys often ask for training preferences, both in preferred topics and in training methods. Preference surveys implicitly identify training needs, but the operations defining the need, such as an individual skill deficit or a systems problem unique to the particular facility, are frequently unknown. In many instances, both types of survey assessments ask for a ranking of these topics so that a priority listing can be constructed. Whenever needs are prioritized, funding decisions are usually linked to the priority ranking. For example, the Michigan Juvenile Detention Association frequently uses the preference survey results to identify workshop topics for the upcoming year(s) (Liddell, 1992). This priority approach is quick and effective, but it does not address the distinction between what is needed to do the job and the current level of proficiency in that area. Worker Job Hindrance Model. Pecora (1989) recommends using the Worker Job Hindrance Model as an important component of a training needs assessment. This model identifies training needs by specifying areas of worker job hindrance based on either insufficient knowledge or skill as they relate to the worker's particular abilities or interpersonal characteristics. Developed by the Office of Continuing Social Work Education at the University of Tennessee (Dickinson and Bremseth, 1979), the method assumes that training needs are defined in terms of worker inability versus worker or supervisor "wants," or in perceptions of areas where "training could improve the worker's job." The hindrance model helps differentiate between training needs based on worker needs (inabilities or deficits) as opposed to wants. The Worker Job Hindrance Model, or Worker Ability/Characteristic Approach, uses a competency-based survey for assessing worker training needs. The survey consists largely of task- and ability-based statements that are completed by workers and supervisors. It constitutes the core of the assessment, with additional information obtained directly from supervisors and allied professionals. Finally, direct care workers identify specific job-related areas where they lack knowledge or skill and need subsequent training. Identifying these areas contributes to developing staff development programs, training, and academic curriculums. The worker responses to the task- and ability-based statements focus on three categories of skills and abilities: (1) functional skills or those process aspects involved in different work operations; (2) specific content skills or the application of knowledge particular to a given job or setting; and (3) personal skills or those used to manage interactions with coworkers, the work situation, and the context of work (Pecora, 1989). These three categories for assessing training needs are similar to the assessment triad established by McGehee and Thayer (1961) involving organization analysis, task analysis, and person analysis. Pecora and Fraser (1988) used this method to assess the functional and specific content skills embodied in the 95 task and ability statements for a sample of juvenile probation officers. The survey revealed several areas of job hindrance broadly encompassing legal issues in juvenile justice, child abuse and neglect, working with families, and health care. Juvenile probation trainers and administrators found the needs assessment data useful in planning staff development programs. Crouse (1992) used a modified job hindrance model as a component of a training needs assessment strategy for the Jefferson County Youth Center. Using a predetermined list of training topics, staff members were asked to identify those topics containing information needed to do the job effectively. Job hindrance data provide another source of information by which to make determinations about training needs. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 3. The Jefferson County data also point to a phenomenon worthy of additional investigation. The results indicate that among veteran staff in an institution with an excellent training component, job hindrance seems to be a function of interpersonal relationships or effectiveness characteristics. ------------------------------ Table 3 Skill Deficit Assessment Results for Jefferson County (KY) Line Staff Knowledge 1. Emergency Medical Procedures Skills Listening Skills Job Management Time Management Knowledge 2. Modeling Responsible Behavior Skills Communications Job Management Working As a Team Knowledge 3. Liability Issues Skills Stress Management Job Management Employee of the Month Knowledge 4. Emergency Procedures Skills Professional Ethics Job Management Streamlining Paperwork Knowledge 5. Carrying Own Weight -- Shift Responsibilities Skills How to Get Supervisors More Aware of Staff and Program Concerns Job Management Stress Reduction Techniques When Handling Too Many Priorities ------------------------------ Key Informant Interview Method This method of identifying staff training needs gathers information from human services professionals or community leaders who work closely with the agency staff but who are not a part of the agency. Because of their detachment from the agency, key informants provide an external perspective on staff training needs and tend to be more objective than salaried employees. Key informant ratings are used as a second measure of importance or priority. The key informant strategy strengthens the accuracy of the skill deficit approach described in the job hindrance model because training priorities identified by staff are given additional importance if they are also identified as training priorities by key informants. Most key informant strategies in juvenile detention include local experts who do not work with the agency. Key informants are usually experts in the field of detention who are located some distance from the detention center. The lack of training resources explains the changes in the technique. It is more cost-effective to survey local experts than a national sample of experts. Brown (1985) conducted a key informant survey to determine development needs of childcare staff in Texas juvenile detention facilities. Training needs were identified by detention administrators and the priority listing was refined by several rounds of feedback on the ranking of the topics. The final ranking was validated by using a panel of national experts on juvenile detention who evaluated the accuracy of the priority rankings. Brown's findings reflect an administrative bias toward juvenile detention training needs. Administrators identified those areas of the juvenile detention care worker job that have the greatest potential for problems or liability. Training needs reflect this problem-oriented approach. For example, the top 10 training needs identified in Brown's research are: o Recognizing signs of physical abuse. o Recognizing signs of sexual abuse. o Dealing with depression. o Assertiveness training skills. o Housekeeping skills. o Discipline techniques/procedures. o Searching techniques. o Intake procedures. o Rights of juveniles. o Legal liabilities of detention personnel. Brown's research highlights the differences between administrative and direct care staff perspectives on priority training needs for detention personnel. Administrators appear to be more problem-oriented and they have a greater sensitivity to liability. It is interesting to note that ACA training standards were developed and refined on the basis of a key informant strategy using predominantly administrative perspectives. One of the best examples of the key informant model is the development of a statewide plan for juvenile detention by the Juvenile Detention Committee of the Illinois Probation and Court Services Association (Harvey and Bowker, 1990). Each detention facility in Illinois participated in a planning session about detention, including training needs. Participants represented the key informant from their facility. The discussion of preservice training produced the following list of recommended topics: o Mission of detention. o Role of detention within the juvenile justice system. o Juvenile law. o Facility policies and procedures. o State standards. o Rights of detained youth. o Explicit procedures and policies for strip search, isolation, discipline, restraints, and use of force. o Security, control, and supervision strategy. o Behavioral management. o Crisis intervention, CPR, and first aid. o Recordkeeping. o Intake screening. o Suicide intervention and prevention. The report also includes a series of recommendations that are relevant, insightful, and bold. Implicit in the report is the consensus of a wide sample of key informants and professionals. As a part of the training needs assessment conducted by the Heartland Juvenile Detention Association and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NJDA was asked to validate the training topics outlined in the Nebraska statutes on juvenile detention and training. NJDA contacted 19 detention experts and asked them to rate each training topic as appropriate for orientation, first year, and annual training programs (Liddell, 1993). The key informant approach was used to validate the training topics list established by the legislature. Rank-ordered results for each category of staff training, along with a composite category, are presented in Table 4. The final report on the statewide assessment of Nebraska detention staff is forthcoming. Needs Assessments The final strategy focuses on the definition of a training need as the distinction between the skill required to do the job and the individual's current proficiency in that skill area. Assessments are conducted in two parts. First, staff are asked what skills are needed to perform the job effectively. Second, they are asked to respond again to the same list by assessing their current skill level in each area. A list of training needs emerges from the comparison of these two results. In this fashion, a training need is the difference between what is needed to do the job and the individual's current abilities in that area. The greater the difference, the more importance is placed on that particular topic as a priority training need. Assessment strategies vary in their level of sophistication. It is important that a systematic strategy be developed for assessing training needs. Each training needs assessment offers a way to increase the amount of information regarding training while increasing the effectiveness of training resource expenditures. As additional resources become available, it is advisable to invest a portion of those resources in improved training needs assessment strategies. Several examples are available through the training needs assessment strategies in Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska. One criticism of a self-report training needs assessment strategy is the accuracy of staff in determining what is needed to do the job effectively. For example, in the absence of preservice education and training, new employees come to detention without a good understanding of the job. In the absence of adequate ongoing training programs, staff develop a myopic view of detention based on the practices in their own facility. This criticism parallels the concerns about the limited assumptions underlying the survey method described earlier. Questions about validity make additional assessment strategies more important. By using more than one assessment method, accuracy can be improved by focusing on the similarities that emerge. A multiple measures approach is an accepted assessment strategy in the social sciences. Conducting the Training Needs Assessment Psychology has devoted considerable attention to the question of training needs assessment (Latham, 1988; Tannenbaum and Yukl, 1992; Wexley, 1984). The issues outlined in these reviews go beyond the current level of resources and capabilities in juvenile detention, however; they address critical issues for the future development of needs assessment strategies in juvenile detention and corrections. They also underscore the importance of conducting a thorough needs analysis before developing instructional objectives and training criteria. These strategies and concepts remain tied to the framework for training needs assessment developed by McGehee and Thayer (1961). Wexley (1984) poses three questions that should be answered by competent training needs assessments: Where within the organization can and should training be placed? What should be the content of training in terms of what an employee must learn to perform the job effectively? Who within the organization needs training, and in terms of skills and knowledge, what kind? For over 30 years, psychologists have used the threefold approach developed by McGehee and Thayer (1961) to answer these questions about training requirements. McGehee and Thayer's conceptualization of organization analysis, task analysis, and personal analysis are discussed as potential guidelines for future training needs assessment projects in juvenile detention and corrections. ------------------------------ Table 4 Nebraska Needs Assessment Validation: The Use of Key Informant Rankings of Suggested Training Topics for Three Categories of Staff Training (Orientation Training, First Year Training, and Annual Ongoing Training) Note: the numbers under each Training Topic represent the following: Or. 1st An. Sum Use-of-Force Tactics 11 6 1 18 Supervision of Juveniles 4 4 15 23 First Aid and CPR 11 12 2 25 Behavior Management 13 6 6 25 Fire Safety and Emergency Procedures 1 20 9 30 Counseling Techniques 20 2 9 31 Suicide Signs 4 18 9 31 Infectious Disease Control 6 20 6 32 Stress Management 20 6 6 32 Legal Issues 13 18 2 33 Team Building 13 18 2 33 Mental Ill./Retardation/Substance Abuse 20 12 2 34 Juveniles with Special Needs 20 6 9 35 Managing Incidents 13 3 20 36 Security and Safety 2 20 15 37 Report Writing 13 6 20 39 Juvenile Rules and Regulations 8 20 13 41 Adolescent Growth and Development 20 1 20 41 Social and Cultural Lifestyles 20 6 15 41 History and Philosophy 2 20 20 42 Juvenile Rights and Responsibilities 8 20 15 43 Interpersonal Relationships 20 4 20 44 Public Relations 20 6 20 46 Job Descriptions 8 20 20 48 Basic Services and Programs 20 20 15 55 ------------------------------ Organizational Analysis McGehee and Thayer saw organizational analysis as pinpointing those areas of the organization that are inefficient or those units in which there is a discrepancy between desired performance and actual performance. Current organization analysis links the training and organizational strategies. Training courses are seen as a means to support the strategic direction of the organization, and training objectives are aligned with organization goals. Reviews of the detention training literature reveal very few references to an organizational analysis as part of the assessment process. The assessment strategy developed by Hudzik (1990; Hudzik and Curry, 1986; Roush and Hudzik, 1994) includes an emphasis on organizational analysis. Task Analysis Task analysis identifies the nature of the task to be performed on the job and the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) needed to perform these tasks. Task analysis has two components: identifying the task and then identifying the KSAs. Ford and Wroten (1982) include "other personal characteristics" as critical variables in skill performance, and they use the term KSAOs to include the "other" personal characteristics. The primary concerns reflected in task analysis are the failure to train in the areas deemed important to the job and the provision of training in areas deemed unimportant to the job. By using sophisticated content validity techniques, the ability to resolve these training concerns can be improved. Deficiencies are content areas whose high training needs suggest that more emphasis is required than is currently received in training. Excesses are areas receiving an undeserved amount of emphasis relative to their need for training. Changes in job requirements increase the importance of cross-job training. Current emphasis in the human services on cooperation and collaboration will force juvenile justice to become more attuned to the KSAOs of other disciplines. The future of juvenile justice services may be tied to collaborative efforts with other child serving agencies, particularly education, mental health, child welfare, and public health (Roush, 1993a). Furthermore, the expansion of training disciplines and the increasingly more difficult client population will mean that training programs will become more demanding. Information is currently unavailable on the use of job task analyses in juvenile detention training needs assessments. This is indicative of either the low priority placed on job task analysis or the absence of a good information sharing network to communicate training information, or both. Training on the adult correctional level is more sophisticated. Job task analyses have been conducted for correctional line officers in 82 percent of the States, but only 49 percent report that the criteria for job classifications have been validated (Benton, 1988). The most comprehensive detention training needs assessment is the model developed by Dr. John Hudzik (1990, 1991). While on the faculty of the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University, Hudzik conducted research and training in personnel administration for the juvenile court in conjunction with the Michigan Judicial Institute, the training division of the Michigan Supreme Court. When he looked at the status of job task analyses and training needs assessments, he found the need for a usable strategy to assess training needs. As a proponent of those methods that define training needs as the difference between the KSAOs required to do the job and the individual's competency levels in those areas, he sought to improve existing needs assessment tools and to adapt them to juvenile court settings (Hudzik and Curry, 1986). Hudzik's research led him to the Management Excellence Inventory (MEI), developed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and described as a "research-based" instrument--the items on the instrument reflect the tasks and skills identified by expert panels (key informants) as being important to the job. These items have been compiled into a framework of 10 Management Functions (what managers do) and 10 Effectiveness Characteristics (how managers manage effectively), and subsequently checked against other research findings about managerial positions in a variety of job settings. Person Analysis As a part of its 1981 statewide training needs assessment, the Michigan Juvenile Detention Association (MJDA) asked two questions. First, what are the training needs of staff? A statewide training needs assessment provided the priority content areas for staff training. Second, how can training be made more effective? The acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities could be enhanced if the training programs and materials were presented in a style compatible with identifiable learning styles of childcare staff. Thus, a second part of the assessment was the administration of a learning style inventory for line staff in detention facilities. The Learning Style Inventory (LSI) developed by Kolb (1976, 1981) was selected as the assessment tool. Knowing a trainee's current learning style is useful in modifying the training content to fit the individual. In addition, the same principles apply to the development of an aggregate learning style for a particular group. The LSI claims to measure a person's self-description of how she or he learns compared with similar self-descriptions of a comparable sample group. The inventory identifies the individual's relative emphasis on four learning modes and abilities. Wexley (1984) cautions that the LSI has come under criticism regarding its reliability and construct validity. For this reason, the LSI is probably more useful when used in conjunction with other assessment strategies. The LSI uses the relative importance of four learning modes to compute two combination scores which reflect the contrast between abstractness over concreteness, and the emphasis of action over reflection. Kolb (1976) defines the four learning modes as follows: Concrete Experience (CE) represents a receptive, experience-based approach to learning that relies heavily on feeling-based judgments. High CE individuals tend to be empathetic and "people oriented." They generally find theoretical approaches to be unhelpful and prefer to treat each situation as a unique case. They learn best from specific examples in which they can become involved. Individuals who emphasize CE tend to be oriented more toward peers and less toward authority in their approach to learning, and benefit most from feedback and discussion with fellow CE learners. Abstract Conceptualization (AC) indicates an analytical, conceptual approach to learning that relies heavily on logical thinking and rational evaluation. High AC individuals tend to be oriented more toward things and symbols and less toward other people. They learn best in authority-directed, impersonal learning situations that emphasize theory and systematic analysis. They are frustrated by and benefit little from unstructured "discovery" learning approaches like exercises and simulations. Active Experimentation (AE) indicates an active, "doing" orientation to learning that relies heavily on experimentation. High AE individuals learn best when they can engage in such things as projects, homework, or small group discussions. They dislike passive learning situations such as lectures. These individuals tend to be extroverts. Reflective Observation (RO) indicates a tentative, impartial, and reflective approach to learning. High RO individuals rely heavily on careful observation in making judgments, and prefer learning situations such as lectures that allow them to take the role of impartial objective observers. These individuals tend to be introverts. Learning styles are based on a determination of what Kolb calls combination scores. Scores from each of the learning modes are computed to derive the combination scores (AC-CE and AE-RO). These scores are plotted on a grid to determine one of four learning styles. The average scores for Michigan childcare workers identified two dominant learning modes: Concrete Experience (CE) and Active Experimentation (AE). The combined score identified Accommodator as the primary learning style and Diverger as the secondary style. Kolb (1976) describes these styles as follows: The Accommodator is the best at Concrete Experience (CE) and Active Experimentation (AE). This person's greatest strength lies in doing things, in carrying out plans and experiments, and involving oneself in new experiences. This person tends to be more of a risk-taker than people with other learning styles. This person tends to excel in those situations where one must adapt oneself to specific immediate circumstances. In situations where a theory or plan does not fit the facts, this person will most likely discard the plan or theory. The person tends to solve problems in an intuitive trial-and-error manner relying heavily on other people for information rather than on one's own analytical ability. The accommodator is at ease with people that are sometimes seen as impatient or "pushy." This person's educational background is often in technical or practical fields, and found in "action-oriented" jobs. The Diverger is best at Concrete Experience (CE) and Reflective Observation (RO). This person's greatest strength lies in imaginative ability. This person excels in the ability to view concrete situations from many perspectives. Because a person of this style performs better in situations that call for the generation of ideas, such as brainstorming, divergers are interested in people and tend to be imaginative and emotional. They have broad cultural interest and tend to specialize in the arts. This style is characteristic of individuals from humanities and liberal arts backgrounds. Counselors tend to be described by this learning style. The MJDA findings are important because they represent the first assessment of a large group (n=146) of direct care workers in juvenile detention. MJDA used these findings to construct a table identifying specific learning characteristics and corresponding training methods and techniques. This information is presented in Table 5. The report notes that traditional methods, such as lectures, symposia, panel presentations, and audiovisual programs, did not appear to be compatible with the learning style of detention workers. While more research on staff characteristics is needed, a rethinking of training strategies should be considered in light of these findings. ------------------------------ Table 5 Juvenile Detention Care Giver Learning Characteristics and Some Related Training Methods and Techniques Learning Characteristics 1. Imaginative; Likes to Generate Ideas Related Training Methods and Techniques Brainstorming; Buzz Sessions; Assignments (Homework) Learning Characteristics 2. Relies on Consensus of Peers Related Training Methods and Techniques Nominal Group Techniques; Round-Robin Sharing; Brainstorming; Reaction Panels Learning Characteristics 3. Benefits Most from Feedback and Discussion Related Training Methods and Techniques Group Discussions; Assignments; Issue Analysis; Questions Sessions; Reaction Panels Learning Characteristics 4. Gregarious Related Training Methods and Techniques Getting-Acquainted Exercises; Free-Time Sharing; Team Listening and Discussion; New Games Learning Characteristics 5. Intuitive Related Training Methods and Techniques Critical Incident; Values Clarification; Problem-Solving Simulations Learning Characteristics 6. Emotional Related Training Methods and Techniques Encounters (Dyadic/Triadic); Sensitivity Training; Self-Awareness; Values Clarification Learning Characteristics 7. Action-Oriented; Involved Related Training Methods and Techniques Simulations; Work Sample Exercises, Role Playing Learning Characteristics 8. Prefers Trial and Error Related Training Methods and Techniques Demonstrations; Simulations; Sociodrama; Role Playing Learning Characteristics 9. Adapts Best to Specific, Immediate Circumstances and Example Related Training Methods and Techniques Demonstrations; Critical Incident; Role Playing; Field Trips Source: Michigan Juvenile Detention Association (1981) ------------------------------ Training Priorities The second MJDA statewide training needs assessment, conducted in early 1980, identified the following subjects as the top priorities for juvenile detention staff training: o Behavior management skills. o Interpersonal relationships. o Program management. o Crisis intervention skills. o Psychology of adolescent development. These factors demonstrated very little change from the priorities identified by juvenile detention staff in 1975. Skaggs (1989) conducted a statewide training needs assessment of juvenile detention staff in Texas. The top Texas priorities for training were: o Crisis intervention/counseling. o Suicide prevention. o Individual counseling. o Self-defense. o Behavior observation and management. The overlap of these two independent assessments of juvenile detention staff training needs in different parts of the United States indicates that aggregate surveys of detention training needs will produce relatively similar results. ------------------------------ Chapter 3 Training Services Complete information has not been available on how much training takes place in juvenile detention facilities. This report aims to help fill that void. Detention professionals across the nation readily admit that training is a critical part of every detention operation; however, the quantity and quality of training appear to be a function of leadership and resources. If a comprehensive survey of juvenile detention training experiences was conducted, it would probably be surprising to discover the many ways in which training services are delivered. There are numerous training services available. They range from informal on-the-job training to formal education programs at colleges and universities. This project has identified an extensive range of training resources distributed among three general categories: local or facility-based training services, national or professionally-sponsored training services, and formal education. The purpose of the list of services is not to present a comprehensive menu of training options, rather the list provides ideas and resources that can be helpful in the development of training programs. Hopefully, the categories are comprehensive; and if a specific program has been omitted, it was unintentional. Local Training Services All facilities generate a training strategy and use a variety of resources to implement strategy. Several of these strategies include: Facility-Based Training Programs Facilities usually develop and implement training programs in a variety of content areas based on the perceived needs of the staff. These training programs normally do not follow a specific format regarding presentation, training materials, or evaluation. Local training frequently uses free or low-cost training services within the community. Training includes: first aid, CPR, fire safety, health services, hostage negotiations, and responds to severe weather, to name a few. Many community service agencies will volunteer their training staff to provide these training services to the detention facility. An additional way to secure training services at a reduced cost is to engage in a trainer exchange program with surrounding facilities. One facility that makes maximum use of free training and trainer exchange programs is the Camden County (New Jersey) Youth Center. Local training is frequently supplemented by training exercises that are completed by employees on their own. No clear pattern has emerged to explain how the independent training is handled. In many instances, staff must complete training materials on their own time with no compensation. Correspondence courses. ACA has produced two correspondence courses relevant to juvenile detention: (1) Juvenile Care Giver Correspondence Course and (2) Behavior Management Correspondence Course. Programmed instruction. Training materials are available which move trainees through the subject matter at their own pace. Programmed instruction is available from a variety of training publishers on the topics of communication skills, behavior management, and crisis intervention. The Interstate Consortium on Residential Child Care developed a programmed instruction course on ethical problems in detention and corrections facilities. Using a format similar to the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure series from adolescent reading programs, Trigger Stories presents an ethical dilemma with a variety of choices, each leading to a new set of circumstances. These materials are also available on computer disk. Training Videos Due to limited training and conference resources, the popularity of video-based staff training has increased. Numerous professional and private organizations have produced training videos covering critical issues and related topics for juvenile detention and corrections personnel. Specifically, ACA and NJDA both offer a list of educational videos. Some institutions have created their own training videos. For example, a new resident of the Bexar County (Texas) Juvenile Detention Center is oriented to the facility through a video presentation where a resident explains the detention facility. Many institutions build their own training libraries by copying relevant training and educational programs. Through access to cable television programming schedules, a television and VCR can be used to expand a video-based training program. Educational programming relevant to juvenile justice, delinquency, adolescent development, and other related topics is available on public television channels, HBO, The Learning Channel, and Discovery, to name a few. Videos and workbooks. Video-based training often includes an accompanying text or workbook that expands upon the materials in the video. The video and workbook concept integrate three components: instruction on concepts or principles, demonstrations or examples of the concepts in an institutional setting, and discussion or evaluation questions. One example of this approach is Staff Decisions, a video and workbook program on staff supervision strategies produced by the training division of the New York State Division for Youth. National Training Services Professional associations and private organizations offer training programs and experiences for juvenile detention personnel. These services have been grouped into two categories, general and specific services. General Training General training includes workshops, seminars, conferences, and meetings that provide a wide range of training experiences and services. In addition to the workshops and conferences by ACA, NJDA, NCJFCJ, and the National Juvenile Services Training Institute (NJSTI), numerous other professional associations provide workshops or seminars relevant to juvenile detention and corrections (e.g., Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, American Counseling Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America, Juvenile Justice Trainers Association, National Association of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, and the National Organization of Child Careworker Associations). Basic training courses. Several organizations have developed basic training courses for juvenile detention personnel. The best example is Detention Basic Training, a 40-hour course for new juvenile detention care givers in Illinois. In addition, several State training academies provide a series of prescribed training courses or experiences as a part of an introductory or first-year training curriculum. Recently, juvenile detention personnel have had access to the training courses offered through the National Academy of Corrections--the training division of the National Institute of Corrections. Focus groups. With the assistance of OJJDP funding, several 2- and 3-day focus groups or forums have been presented on a regular basis to address important issues facing juvenile justice, juvenile detention, and juvenile corrections. These events have provided information and material useful for staff training purposes. The forum and focus group concept has been used by ACA and NCJFCJ. Specific Training Specific training services are those programs that have a very narrow focus on knowledge, skill, and ability development. Examples of specific training programs are: o Staff certification training--Certified Correctional Health Professional program sponsored by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. o Training of trainers--ACA and the National Institute of Corrections. o Crisis intervention--Crisis Prevention Institute. o Conflict resolution--New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolution. Regional and State Association Trainings Limited training resources and even smaller travel budgets prevent the majority of juvenile detention care givers from participating in national and professional training services. State detention associations have addressed this problem by providing training on a regional basis, mostly within their State. This training is usually very general, paying particular attention to emergent issues and high priority training topics. In particular, the State detention associations in Louisiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia have an excellent reputation for providing training services to juvenile detention care givers on at least an annual basis. In addition, the training divisions of State supreme courts (e.g., Arizona, Illinois, and Michigan), the State departments of corrections (e.g., Indiana) and the State advisory groups (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa), have devoted resources to training programs for juvenile detention personnel. The regional training concept was implemented in its purest form through the development of the Heartland Juvenile Detention Association in 1992. Representatives from detention facilities in Nebraska and South Dakota formed the first multi-state juvenile detention association and have conducted two regional training workshops. Affiliation with the Heartland Juvenile Detention Association and its training programs may soon include Missouri, Iowa, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Colorado. Formal Education Juvenile detention care givers have very few options regarding formal education programs in juvenile detention at the college and university level. Based on the information available to the National Juvenile Detention Association, only three educational institutions offer courses or degree programs specific to juvenile detention. As part of the bachelors degree in social justice at the University of Illinois-Springfield, Dr. Thomas R. Hughes teaches a course on juvenile detention. Sam Houston State the University in Huntsville, Texas, offers a masters degree program for detention personnel that incorporates their current job experience and includes supervision and instruction from local and national detention experts, such as Dr. Mel Brown, Jr. Since greater professional status is linked to the general upgrading of formal educational levels of detention staff, this aspect of training takes on more importance. National and State professional associations should request more attention to juvenile detention as a part of the formal educational coursework and degree programs from the schools of criminal justice across the United States. New Training Technology New technology is expanding training services at an accelerating rate. As the quality of electronic technology increases and the price decreases, the capability of producing high-quality training materials becomes more affordable. Nowhere is this more evident than in video technology. The ability to produce high-quality videos has become so affordable that many larger institutions and agencies create their own training videos. A detention administrator need only look in any trade publication, such as Youth Today, to find abundant advertising about affordable education. Training Videos Video technology is only the tip of the training technology iceberg. Listed below are four technologies which have great potential for juvenile detention training services. This is not an exhaustive list, but it represents the potential for expanded training services. Computer Technology There is a lack of uniformity in the use of computers in juvenile detention facilities across the United States. Because of the expense involved in computerization, many facilities have not moved beyond a simple office computer for word processing. However, as law enforcement and corrections become more computerized, computer technology will become more readily available to juvenile justice, especially juvenile detention. Computers with CD-ROM capability could enable a facility's entire training program to be on computer disk. CD-ROM disks could combine all of the concepts of video-based training with accompanying text (workbooks) and training evaluation (tests). Teleconferencing Through access to a satellite dish, juvenile detention professionals can receive satellite downlinks. Educational programs broadcast via satellite can be videotaped and reused for a variety of training purposes. One recent example of satellite technology is the national teleconference on "Conditions of Confinement in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities" sponsored by OJJDP and Eastern Kentucky University. The program originated from two sources--Richmond, Kentucky, and Washington, D--and was downlinked to numerous locations across the United States. Most juvenile justice professionals arranged to participate in the teleconference at local colleges, universities, or public school resource centers. Through the use of telephone hook-ups, participants can ask questions of presenters, thereby giving the process an interactive component. Teleconferencing technology is an inexpensive way for juvenile detention professionals to attend training sessions. The major obstacle of teleconferencing is the cost of the up-link with the satellite (sending or transmitting the signal to the satellite). Educational Television Network The Law Enforcement Television Network (LETN) broadcasts informational, educational, and training programming via satellite to subscribing jurisdictions. The broadcast schedule repeats many programs at different times throughout the day and the week so that staff from various shifts can view the training. LETN is sensitive to the 24-hour day, 7-day week nature of law enforcement (including juvenile detention and corrections) and provides programming throughout the day. The potential exists for a similar satellite training channel within juvenile justice. Distance Interactive Learning The possibilities associated with the "information superhighway" may make distance interactive learning the future mainstay of juvenile detention training. With the advancements in fiber-optic technology, the not-too-distant future may look something like this: From a centrally located institution or agency a certified correctional healthcare professional conducts a training session on the latest precautions surrounding blood-borne pathogens. Healthcare professionals from the various detention facilities throughout the State or region, many of which are hundreds of miles away from the training center, attend the training through a fiber-optic hook-up at their facility. The distance interactive learning technology includes video cameras so that participants can engage in "face-to-face" dialogue and question-and-answer sessions with the presenter. This occurs at each site on the distance interactive learning network, so that presenters and participants can see each other on their video monitors. Because of the anticipated affordability associated with the "information superhighway," distance interactive learning technology has the greatest potential. It combines the advantages of teleconferencing (being able to provide training over great distances without requiring staff to travel to the training site) while maximizing the personal contact through its interactive components. Training Design In addition to the recommendations set forth by the MJDA (1981) regarding the need for a more experientially-based approach to training delivery, research and evaluation studies in the area of psychology support the concept that trainers should use strategies that are both active and participative. Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) compiled the following useful guidelines for training: o The instructional components of the training should be consistent with the cognitive, physical, or psychomotor processes that lead to mastery. Training should guide the learner to the most appropriate method of storing information in memory. Implicit in this guideline is the need to assess trainee learning styles. o The trainee should learn the specific skill or capability actively. The more active the training experience, the greater retention and transfer of training. o All available sources of relevant feedback should be used, and feedback should be accurate, credible, timely, and constructive. o The instructional process should enhance trainee self-efficacy and should set expectations that the training experience will be successful and will lead to valued outcomes. o Training methods should be adapted to differences in trainee aptitudes and prior knowledge. o When trainers communicate an expectation of better performance from trainees, trainees score significantly higher on objective achievement tests, exhibit more positive attitudes, and perceive more positive leadership behavior. Buzzell (1988) evaluated the effectiveness of a plan to use law-related education in a juvenile training school setting. The evaluation focused on the usefulness of the training to staff, the appropriateness of using law-related education in a training school, and the perceived impact of the education on juvenile offenders. While the findings were generally positive, the results indicated that training in institutional settings should: o Receive administrative support. o Include as many staff members as possible. o Use a variety of teaching techniques. o Use understandable materials. o Provide adequate resources for staff. In addition, a successful training program in an institution requires adequate preparation, use of outside resource people, careful selection and presentation of materials, active trainee participation, and the involvement of detention administrators. These principles apply to all detention training efforts. ------------------------------ Chapter 4 The Training Needs Assessment Inventories Origins and Purpose The first comprehensive and systematic statewide training needs assessment was the Illinois Detention Officer Inventory (IDOI) conducted by the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC). The IDOI served as the model for the development of the Training Needs Assessment Inventories (TNAI) by Hudzik (Hudzik, 1990, 1991; Hudzik and Curry, 1986; Roush and Hudzik, 1992, 1994). The TNAI are based on the Management Excellence Inventory (MEI), which was developed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to assess the developmental needs of managerial personnel in a wide variety of agencies. The MEI was adapted and used previously by the Michigan Judicial Institute to assess training needs of Michigan trial court managers (Hudzik and Curry, 1986). New management training programs were designed for juvenile court managers using the MEI results. In the summer of 1990, AOIC staff began a preliminary review of the MEI to assess its applicability to juvenile detention services. This review included a detailed analysis of the questionnaire items identifying the issues relevant to the juvenile detention services in Illinois. As a part of the redesign process, the inventory was also reviewed by a panel of experienced juvenile detention services consultants who assessed each item for clarity and applicability to the job setting of Illinois juvenile detention officers. Their suggestions for changes were incorporated into the revision of the basic instrument, turning that instrument into the first draft version of the IDOI. In the spring of 1991, the preliminary IDOI was field tested in three detention facilities in Michigan. Modifications were made and the final IDOI was mailed to Illinois detention practitioners in the summer of 1991. Minor revisions in the survey format were completed prior to its use in Nebraska and Indiana. Because of the broad research base of the MEI, the basic MEI survey instrument was kept intact in the development of the TNAI. Most of the changes to the TNAI do not alter the content of the MEI managerial tasks, but rather changes are generally limited to clarifying terms or making them more relevant to juvenile detention settings and care givers. This means that the analysis of the TNAI could validly be based on procedures already developed and tested for the MEI. Also, as the MEI had been previously tested many times for its underlying validity and reliability in many occupational settings (in public agencies in particular), minimizing changes also lessens threats to the instrument's basic accuracy in uncovering job-related information. The development of the juvenile detention TNAI moves one step farther from the validity and reliability claims of the MEI. The TNAI substitute the MEI managerial tasks with a set of job functions developed and validated by AOIC with the assistance of Arthur Young Consultants, and modified by AOIC project consultants. The other half of the TNAI, which includes the effectiveness characteristics from the MEI, can make the initial claims to the validity and reliability assumptions of the MEI. It is important to note that from an experimental perspective, the validity and reliability of the job function component of the TNAI (designed by Hudzik) is not as robust as that of the MEI; however, they are heuristic devices, intended to generate information about training. Basic Design of the TNAI The TNAI are primarily job analysis instruments; they focus on measuring the perception of job incumbents about which job functions are necessary for doing their jobs well. Additionally, the TNAI seek to uncover job-incumbent perceptions about general skills and abilities needed when performing their tasks. Content and Organization The TNAI are self-report instruments, meaning that information about the job of juvenile care workers comes from self-report data from those who hold the jobs. The TNAI have five parts: Part I contains 13 questions asking respondents for basic demographic information about their jobs and themselves (e.g., type, location, and size of their work unit, number of employees, and number directly supervised). Part II asks respondents to rate the relative importance of each of the 10 general Job Functions and the 10 Effectiveness Characteristics. Part III asks respondents to assess the relative importance of their jobs by the 20 Job Function and Effectiveness Characteristics by a rank ordering of training importance (ranging from 1 to 20, from highest importance to lowest importance). Part IV contains questions (items) asking respondents to rate specific tasks in terms of the level of proficiency needed to perform their current jobs effectively (in a range of 0 to 9, from no proficiency to advanced proficiency). Part V repeats the questions from Part IV. However, Part V asks respondents to consider their current level of proficiency in each task. Again, a single response is requested for each task in a range from no proficiency to advanced proficiency. As Wexley (1984) notes, the self-evaluation of ability is prone to errors of over-estimation of ability and may yield inconsistent results. One key element to reducing over-estimation is respondent anonymity. In both Parts IV and V, staff members are asked to weigh several factors simultaneously when rating each of the items. In Part IV, respondents are asked to develop a single rating for each of the tasks based on a composite consideration of several factors (required knowledge, complexity, frequency, and relevance of the task to the job). In Part V, respondents are asked to develop their responses based on a composite consideration of their present knowledge about the task and the degree of complexity they can handle when doing the task, the degree to which they have difficulty performing the task, and the degree to which they get positive results when they do perform it. Purpose and Use of TNAI Information The underlying purpose of the TNAI is to generate job-specific profiles of juvenile detention staff requirements, and strengths and weaknesses vis-a-vis these requirements. This information is valuable in three ways. First, it provides an overall view of the content of juvenile detention staff positions, showing the relative importance of each of the 20 Job Functions and Effectiveness Characteristics (and the specific job tasks that comprise them). This is helpful as detention and corrections staff review training priorities or seek to concentrate resources in areas of greatest overall importance to direct care services personnel. Second, the demographic information collected in Part I of the TNAI examines the backgrounds and job circumstances of staff. This identifies both the variables relevant to training delivery and likely participants for various types of training programs. Third, by combining information from Parts IV and V, the TNAI can identify the areas of greatest need for individual detention officers (needs being defined as those task statements where aggregated perceived proficiency levels fall short of that thought to be required for effective job performance). With this kind of information, each institution's training programs can be individually tailored to meet the needs of that particular staff. Results Interpreting the TNAI findings incorporates the interplay of a number of key concepts. These include "importance," "preference," "training need," and "training priority." Below are brief definitions for each of these and short descriptions of their importance and use in the analysis. Importance and Preference Importance is a measure of whether the 20 Job Functions and Effectiveness Characteristics are considered important or central to effective job performance. None should be equally important in all jobs; but to the extent that jobs are similar, staff estimations of the relative importance of general functions and characteristics may reflect that similarity. The underlying assumption is that functions or characteristics which are not important (not critical to job performance) are not matters of priority for training; those which are considered important should be given attention. This is probably a reasonable assumption as long as survey respondents are in a position to assess task importance accurately. A rank-ordered comparison of Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska importance findings are presented in Table 6. The TNAI measure importance in two ways. First, Part II of the survey identifies importance by directly asking respondents to assess what would happen if they carried out the Job Functions or Effectiveness Characteristics ineffectively. By inference, if ineffective performance has truly negative consequences, then adequate performance of the task is a measure of importance. The importance rating provides a global assessment of comparative importance of the Job Functions or Effectiveness Characteristics for the job of juvenile detention worker. It is the general rating of importance that is the most common needs assessment strategy and is the most direct measure of basic and entry-level skills. Second, Part III of the survey asks respondents to rank order all 20 Job Functions and Effectiveness Characteristics based on perceived training needs. In other words, staff identify those general topics where additional training is preferred. This preference survey technique incorporates a job hindrance component by asking respondents to prioritize those topics in which they perceive their skill deficits as greatest. Preference data are a second measure of importance. ------------------------------ Table 6 Rank-Ordered Comparison of Training Importance Note: the numbers under each Training Category represent the following: IL IN NE þ Security 1 2 1 4 Communication 3 1 3 7 Safety 4 5 2 11 Crisis Intervention 2 6 4 12 Leadership 6 3 5 14 Flexibility 7 4 8 19 Interpersonal Sensitivity 8 7 7 22 Technical Competence 9 8 6 23 Behavior Management 5 9 10 24 Results Focus 13 10 12 25 Recordkeeping 12 11 9 32 Action Orientation 10 13 11 34 Custodial Care 14 11 15 40 Problem-Solving 15 15 13 43 Organizational Awareness 16 14 14 44 Program Maintenance 11 19 17 47 Strategic View 17 16 16 49 External Awareness 20 17 19 56 Balanced Perspective 18 18 20 56 Environmental Sensitivity 19 20 18 57 Mean = 30.95 ------------------------------ Priority and Need Training Need. Training need is measured by comparing ratings of proficiency required and proficiency possessed on each of the task items. In Part IV of the survey, respondents are asked to rate (using a 9-point scale) all of the task statements on the level of proficiency required by the job. Part V of the survey asks respondents to rate their individual proficiency on all of the task items (using the same 9-point scale as in Part IV). These ratings of current proficiency are compared to the ratings of required proficiency for the same task items. Where current proficiency equals or exceeds that required, no training need is identified. Rather, a training need is defined as the condition where the level of proficiency required exceeds proficiency possessed. The larger the gap between required and possessed, the greater the training need. Data on training needs are complex and extensive; therefore, they are not used in this report. Identifying a training need does not guarantee useful information regarding training programs. For example, if a training topic has a gap between skills required and skills possessed, it should be a training concern. However, if the training gap occurs in a topic area that is viewed by staff as an unimportant component of the job, should training resources be devoted to the topic? Probably not, given the very small training budgets. Instead, training resources should target high-priority needs (i.e., situations where the gap between skills required and skills possessed occur in highly rated or significant topic areas). To distinguish which training needs require attention, a system of establishing a priority is needed. Training Priority. A training priority is calculated taking both importance and need into consideration. All other things being equal, a training priority should be given to those areas which are both important for job performance and for which an ability gap (training need) exists. The highest priorities will be those which are considered very important and for which a large number of the job incumbents have large gaps. It is the training priority that most closely reveals the ongoing training needs of juvenile detention staff. A rank-ordered comparison of Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska priority findings are presented in Table 7. The TNAI results create a new vocabulary for juvenile detention training. As the level of sophistication increases for training needs assessments in juvenile detention, the training language must also expand to capture the additional subtleties in the findings and recommendations. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between the four terms associated with the TNAI and the future of training needs assessments in juvenile detention, juvenile corrections, and juvenile justice. ------------------------------ Table 7 Rank-Ordered Comparison of Training Priorities Note: the numbers under each Training Category represent the following: IL IO NE þ Crisis Intervention 1 1 1 3 Behavior Management 3 3 4 10 Technical Competence 4 7 2 13 Safety 2 3 12 17 Communication 6 5 7 18 Interpersonal Sensitivity 9 2 11 22 Leadership 13 6 5 24 Security 7 10 18 25 Results Focus 5 14 10 29 Flexibility 8 8 14 30 External Awareness 16 12 3 31 Custodial Care 11 9 16 36 Problem-Solving 15 15 8 38 Recordkeeping 14 13 13 40 Action Orientation 10 11 19 40 Organizational Awareness 18 17 6 41 Environmental Sensitivity 19 19 9 47 Balanced Perspective 12 18 20 50 Strategic View 17 16 17 50 Program Maintenance 20 20 15 55 ------------------------------ Training Terminology Training Importance: The relative importance of specific training topics to the skill levels required to do the job effectively. Training Preference: A global assessment of those training topics where staff express a desire or preference for more training. Training Need: The condition where the skill level or proficiency required to do the job exceeds the current skill level or proficiency of staff. Training Priority: An ordering of training needs based on relative importance of the topic or statement to effective job performance. Priority Index (PI) Hudzik (1990) developed a mathematical formula to compute or quantify this priority distinction for each task statement. The priority index (PI) is calculated by the following formula: Pii = Mi x (Ni / n) Where, PIi = Priority index of the variable I in Part II of the survey. Mi = Mean of the variable I in Part II of the survey. Ni = The sum of all the cases in Part IV and V of the survey which satisfy: (1) All the variables in Part IV and Part V which have been pre-grouped into the Job Functions in Part II. (2) (Proficiency Requirement in Part IV)K > = 4. (3) (Proficiency Requirement in Part IV)K - (Present Proficiency in Part V)K > = 1. n = The number of variables in Part IV and V of the survey which have been pre-grouped under the 20 Job Functions and Effectiveness Characteristics. PI is the number of respondents that fit the definition. For purposes of comparisons, the PI results are given in percentages in Table 2. In brief, the higher PI scores reflect both a higher importance rating and a greater number of juvenile detention care givers with a larger gap in their skill or training need. As illustrated in Table 8, the use of the priority index results in subtle changes in the ordering of training needs for the composite results from the Indiana, Illinois, and Nebraska assessments. The value of these distinctions comes from an increased ability to make accurate training recommendations when resources require greater evidence of cost-effectiveness. ------------------------------ Table 8 Comparison of the Composite Top 10 Training Topics in the Importance, Preference, and Priority Categories From the Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska Data Note: the following is listed in this order: # Importance Preference Priority 1 Security (JF) Crisis Intervention (JF) Crisis Intervention (JF) 2 Communications (EC) Security (JF) Behavior Management (JF) 3 Safety (JF) Behavior Management (JF) Technical Competence (EC) 4 Crisis Intervention (JF) Safety (JF) Safety (JF) 5 Leadership (EC) Communications (EC) Communications (EC) 6 Flexibility (EC) Problem-Solving (JF) Interpersonal Sensitivity (EC) 7 Interpersonal Sensitivity (EC) Leadership (EC) Leadership (EC) 8 Technical Competence (EC) Interpersonal Sensitivity (EC) Security (JF) 9 Behavior Management (JF) Flexibility (EC) Results Focus (EC) 10 Recordkeeping (JF) Custodial Care (JF) Flexibility (EC) Note: Job Function categories are indicated by (JF) and Effectiveness Characteristics categories are indicated by (EC). ------------------------------ Effectiveness Characteristics The distinction between job functions and effectiveness characteristics attempts to differentiate the "what" of juvenile detention versus the "how" of juvenile detention. The majority of juvenile detention worker training needs, as identified by the priority index, fall under the effectiveness characteristic section or the "how" of juvenile detention. The "how" topics are rarely given a priority status in care giver training programs, with the exception of communications skills. This strategy appears to miss a major source of training needs for juvenile detention line staff who express a concern about "how" to increase their job performance effectiveness. Explaining Similarities A pattern emerges in the TNAI data which underscores the importance of crisis intervention, safety, behavior management, and communications. Even though these topics are covered through inservice or on-the-job training efforts in all detention facilities, two important themes form the data. First, the job description detailed in the job functions and effectiveness characteristics combines with the complexities expressed in the task statements to describe a job which is far more comprehensive than previously imagined. Given this complexity, the consistency in findings from previous needs assessment efforts may be a result of a fundamental over-simplification of the training needs categories. Training Hours Needed Second, while a four-year degree is excellent educational preparation for work as a juvenile detention care giver, the nature of the job (including the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the job) is sufficiently complex that it exceeds existing training resources. To meet the training needs of juvenile detention staff in these basic topic areas, a training program must exceed 160 hours. These findings support the ACA training standards, which call for 40 hours of preemployment orientation, 120 hours of training during a detention officer's first year of employment, and 40 hours every year thereafter. ------------------------------ Chapter 5 Implications From a research perspective, a word of caution is necessary about the ability to generalize the findings from the Indiana, Illinois, and Nebraska training needs assessments to other jurisdictions. These data do not represent a random sampling of juvenile detention across the United States. Furthermore, the Illinois assessment did not include the Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center in Chicago; meanwhile, the only urban center included in the Indiana survey was the Marion County (Indianapolis) Juvenile Detention Center. Care should be taken in generalizing the results because the data are drawn from a nonrandom sampling with only one large facility (more than 100 beds). The usefulness of the data stems from the diversity captured in the three Statewide samples. Variation exists in the average amount of education, experience, and number of youth supervised. Furthermore, recent studies indicate that the majority of juvenile detention facilities are small (50 or fewer beds). In addition, these facilities are most likely to have no staff members with full-time training responsibilities (Parent et al., 1993). General Versus Specific Training Information The TNAI identify two classes of training information: general and specific. General training information is derived from the 20 categories or topics in the inventory which ask juvenile detention care workers to rate or rank-order their training preference for these global topics. Specific training information is generated by responses to the 148 task statements where juvenile detention careworkers rate each statement twice, once to determine the skills needed to perform the task effectively, and once to assess their current skill proficiency. Specific training information emerges from the differences between the two ratings. General Information Historically, juvenile detention training needs assessments have solicited information about general training topics. As evidenced by the review of the training literature, the field of detention training has been guided by information that distinguishes only broad-based or general training topics. As demonstrated by the TNAI, the responses to general training topics show remarkable stability or similarity over time and across jurisdictions. Stability of training needs appears to be a function of general- or macro-level assessments of training needs. Specific Information The TNAI reveal a second and more fluid level of training information. The specific or micro-level information is based on the aggregate responses of staff to the individual task statements within each category. Training needs and training priorities are derived from this specific information in which each task statement is rated twice, first to determine the skill level needed to perform the task effectively, and second to indicate the staff member's current proficiency at the task. Training priorities are computed by a formula which weighs the difference between what is needed and what is possessed for those task statements evaluated as important to the job. This information reveals the significant components within each topic area that require training intervention. Multiple Measures When training needs assessments include multiple measures, two benefits occur. First, multiple sources of information allow staff to look for patterns. If the same training issues are identified through several different approaches, administrators and training staff have greater confidence that the pattern reveals a valid training need for staff. Second, the reliance on general needs assessment strategies produces only general or broad-based information. Many times, general assessments result in a number of ties (the designation of several training topics with the same score or preference rating). When using multiple measures, the more comprehensive strategy should be the primary measure. In these instances, a multiple measures approach provides secondary measure(s) of significance that serve as tie-breakers for the primary needs assessment strategy. Implications for Training Curricula Some general implications of the TNAI findings are that juvenile detention training should emphasize both the task and the effectiveness components of the job. On the "how" side, the training priorities apply to most areas of the facility. That is, certain Effectiveness Characteristics are important for all juvenile detention care givers regardless of job site. Under these circumstances, it is possible to conceive a training program where most of the training needs in the area of Effectiveness Characteristics could be met at the introductory or preservice level through a single program combining elements of self-discovery, leadership, vision and strategic thinking, communications, and team building. Indeed, the need for more effective interaction among staff at all levels is a theme that unites many of the aforementioned items. This type of training could be implemented as an extra component of the preservice/orientation training program; however, the funding and resources for these training efforts are frequently inadequate and such an effort probably fits better within the first year of basic training requirements. When combining the training priorities identified in the findings, the rationale for an expanded training plan for juvenile detention workers becomes very compelling. In addition to the TNAI, there are additional factors which have influenced the need for more training. For example, recent overcrowding in juvenile detention facilities has created an increased awareness on the part of staff about training needs in crisis intervention, particularly suicide prevention. Issues relating to the effects of increased social density associated with overcrowding also heighten the importance of behavior management skills. Finally, growing national concern for healthcare-related issues raises the importance of resident safety within a locked institution. Again, these topics are sufficiently powerful and substantially complex that they each require more time and resources than are currently devoted to juvenile detention care giver training. Regarding specific implications for curriculum development, the three classes of training information (importance, preference, and priority) introduced by the TNAI are particularly instructive because they outline topics for separate curricula. In addition, the priority information supplies learning objectives for the training sessions by relating the significance of each task statement within the training topic to the question of improved job effectiveness. Each category guides the development of curricula for the three levels of training: preservice/orientation training, first-year basic training, and annual ongoing training. Importance Because Importance represents staff perceptions of the relative importance of each topic to the job, Importance information can be very helpful in determining those training topics for entry-level or preservice/orientation training programs. Importance data are relatively precise, because they ask for a rating of each topic's importance on a fixed scale (0 to 9), and they ask the staff member's opinion about how important the topic is to the juvenile detention care worker's ability to do the job successfully. Preference Preference data are more subjective. They provide a perspective on what topics the juvenile detention care workers view as in need of improvement (or training) in order to improve their job. Preference information detects ongoing training needs by providing simple assessments of skill deficits and job hindrance. The topics identified in preference data can be called "hot spots" based on skill deficits and job hindrance rationales. New or emergent issues also appear in preference information. Examples are multiple-drug resistant (MDR) tuberculosis, control of blood-borne pathogens, and handling body fluid spills. Emergent issues and "hot spots" are the focus of on-going training efforts. Priority Training Priority information is an ordering of training needs based on the relative importance of the topic or statement to effective job performance. Training Priority information expands the understanding of a training need and is the most important information to use in the building of training programs. It is a more precise measure of a training need because Training Priority data are weighted so that the gap between what is needed and what is possessed is given greater significance when the task statement is viewed as important to the job. Training Priority information provides an indirect assessment of the institution's orientation of new staff members to the expectations of the job. Because most training programs in juvenile detention do not address a comprehensive range of skill development, most of the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to do the job are learned through informal mechanisms such as observational learning, advice and guidance from senior staff members, impromptu performance evaluations, and on-the-job training. Training Priority data tell institutional staff where these orientation mechanisms have failed to provide staff with sufficient skills to meet the initial demands of the job. In times of limited financial resources, training efforts should target those areas with the greatest need for skill improvement. Training Priority information constitutes a more comprehensive approach to the assessment of knowledge and skill deficits by staff members. All other things being equal, priority status should be given to those areas that are both important for job performance and for which an ability gap (training need) exists. Training Priority information identifies the topics and learning objectives that should be a part of the initial or first-year training curriculum. These gaps or training needs locate those training areas where current juvenile detention training efforts have failed to achieve their goals. Therefore, Training Priority information should be the basis for a core training curriculum. Components of a Proposed Statewide Training Strategy Using the TNAI information, NJDA identified for the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute five components of a proposed, comprehensive statewide juvenile detention training strategy as a follow-up to the Indiana Youth Careworker Inventory (Dunlap and Roush, 1994). These five components are consistent with the training needs and strategies identified in the TNAI information and the ACA training standards (see Table 9). ------------------------------ Table 9 Components of a Statewide Training Strategy Component 1. Preservice/orientation Source Importance Data: NJDA/OJJDP Desktop Guide, correspondence courses, local training, and orientation to system and facility. Component 2. First year basic Source Priority Data: NJDA/OJJDP Juvenile Detention Care Giver training curriculum, Detention Basic Training, State-operated training academy, and local facility training program. Could serve as the basis for certification training. Component 3. Emerging issues Source Preference Data: Special training programs, NJDA National Juvenile Services Training Institute (NJSTI), ACA conferences and regional training, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges conferences, and NJDA conferences. Component 4. Annual ongoing training Source Preference and Priority Data: Individual facility inservice training. Component 5. Formal education in the theory and practice of juvenile detention Source Associate's, Bachelor's, and Master's Degree programs in juvenile detention, e.g., Ball State University, University of Illinois-Springfield, and Sam Houston State University. ------------------------------ Recommendations Recommendation: Training needs assessments in juvenile detention should be upgraded and future training needs assessments should use multiple methods, whenever possible. The status of training needs assessments can be represented by a 3 x 3 matrix. The matrix incorporates those strategies and levels of assessment discussed in this report. Contemporary training needs assessment strategies are represented by the rows, and the columns contain McGehee and Thayer's (1961) levels of analysis for training needs assessments. This particular configuration depicts an ideal approach to training needs assessments. If time and resources were not a problem, future needs assessments in juvenile detention should incorporate the three strategies (preference survey, key informant survey, needs assessment inventory) and address the organizational, tasks, and person training needs for each strategy. The majority of training needs assessment efforts in juvenile detention can also be represented by a 3 x 3 matrix. With the exception of the TNAI, assessments have focused exclusively on task analysis through preference surveys or key informant surveys. While these strategies have produced valuable information, their narrow scope has virtually eliminated information relating to organizational needs, a greater understanding of the trainee, and a definition of a training need as the difference between skills needed versus skills possessed. The amount of information collected through these strategies is limited to general training information. As a result, there has been very little specificity in the development of learning objectives that correspond with broad topical training recommendations. These strategies are used when resources are limited because they are inexpensive to conduct, and they provide information that identifies general areas of importance. For example, ACA standards development used general strategies focusing on task analysis and generated broad categories for orientation, first-year, and ongoing training requirements. These categories are endorsed by the field of detention, but they do not specify what should be taught or learned within the general categories. This example runs parallel to the content versus process debate, where content issues specify "what" is to be done and process issues specify "how" (who, when, and where) it is to be done. A general assessment strategy does not contribute to the "how" side of the question. The inadequacy of this strategy was underscored when the Study of Conditions of Confinement called for national performance-based standards specifying how the standard should be implemented and measured. The realities of juvenile detention indicate that the problems surrounding inadequate resources for training needs assessments and training programs will continue for some time to come. Therefore, an alternative strategy for training needs assessments that is based on the TNAI incorporates all three training strategies and touches upon all three levels of assessment. While this approach remains a very task-oriented procedure, it expands training information into the organizational and personal characteristic levels. Even though this technique does not approach the ideal conceptualization, it provides a much broader, richer, and more specific amount of information for decisions regarding juvenile detention training efforts. Evaluating current assessment strategies should begin with classifying the project into as many of the matrix cells as apply. The concept of a comprehensive assessment process is related to the number of cells that are represented in the collection of information. A review of current assessment projects reveals that most efforts do not include all levels of assessment, but use only one strategy at each level of assessment. Limited resources frequently dictate a general assessment strategy. Through the use of preference surveys, detention staff supply a global picture of training needs. When costs prohibit a more comprehensive assessment strategy, only broad categories of training needs can be included. This single method approach tends to miss individual issues which may be of significant importance to operating the detention facility. In situations such as these, using a job hindrance strategy may be extremely valuable. Relying on a single method assessment strategy explains much of the stability noted in the MJDA assessments and in the Texas assessment. Two methods permit greater precision in identifying training needs. First, consider the following information based on the rank-order of training category importance results from Parts I and II of the Nebraska assessment (see Table 10). By adding the key informant responses for orientation training, two perspectives can be used to identify priority needs. A second measure of importance is key informant information. Therefore, those topics endorsed as very important by key informants are placed in italics. These results indicate that there are critical issues identified by outside experts that warrant further consideration when developing a list of training needs. In the second example (see Table 11), Indiana priority training needs are rank-ordered along with job hindrance information (from Jefferson County, Kentucky) and key informant preferences (from Nebraska). Findings are contrived for demonstration purposes only. Again, by using additional measures of importance, patterns emerge which alert the administrator or trainer to additional issues of significance based on different perspectives of training needs. For example, even though a staff member may have a deficit between what is needed to do the job and current proficiencies in that area, it is of greater priority if the identified training need also corresponds with problems of the job. When these items are also endorsed by key informants, it strengthens the priority of that particular training category. ------------------------------ Table 10 Nebraska Rankings of Importance With Key Informant (K.I.) Preferences Note: the numbers after each Training Category represent NE and the X represent K.I. Security 1 X Safety 2 X Communication 3 Crisis Intervention 4 X Leadership 5 Technical Competence 6 Interpersonal Sensitivity 7 Flexibility 8 Recordkeeping 9 Behavior Management 10 Action Orientation 11 Results Focus 12 Problem-Solving 13 Organizational Awareness 14 Custodial Care 15 X Strategic View 16 Program Maintenance 17 Environmental Sensitivity 18 External Awareness 19 X Balanced Perspective 20 ------------------------------ Table 11 Indiana Training Priorities With Jefferson County Job Hindrances (J.H.) and Nebraska Key Informant (K.I.) Preferences (Sample Table) Note: the information following each Training Category represents IN, J.H., and K.I. Crisis Intervention 1 X X Interpersonal Sensitivity 2 X Behavior Management 3 X Safety 4 X Communication 5 X Leadership 6 X Technical Competence 7 Flexibility 8 X X Custodial Care 9 X X Security 10 Action Orientation 11 External Awareness 12 X X Recordkeeping 13 Results Focus 14 Problem-Solving 15 Strategic View 16 Organizational Awareness 17 Balanced Perspective 18 Environmental Sensitivity 19 Program Maintenance 20 ------------------------------ It is recommended that institutions conduct periodic needs assessments in order to refine or adjust training plans. Using the model developed by ACA, three general areas of training are recommended: preservice/orientation, first-year training, and annual training. ACA provides specific guidelines regarding the number of hours of training to be included in each area. Very little information is provided about the content of training with the exception of the 120 hours required during the first year of employment. On the basis of an analysis of the TNAI data, prescriptive recommendations can be made about the structuring of training programs and curricula for each of the three areas identified by ACA (Roush and Hudzik, 1994). Recommendation: Limited resources are a major obstacle to effective training programs. Detention centers should develop, strengthen, and expand inservice training programs. Wexley (1984) and Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992) also note that the distinction between on-the-job training and off-site training is becoming blurred. Approaches that integrate the on-the-job practice with formal training are becoming more popular. Several approaches are recommended by ACA to expand and strengthen the inservice training concept (Mixdorf and Rosetti, 1992). These approaches include: o Onsite, formal classroom training. o On-the-job training. o Administrative staff meetings. o Correspondence courses. o Outside speakers. A comprehensive training program will employ many of these approaches to achieve its training goals, thereby reducing the reliance on more expensive and disruptive off-site training. One approach that is often overlooked is the administrative staff meeting as a training tool. Through the use of well-planned, regularly scheduled staff meetings, specific problems can be discussed in a way that provides new and veteran staff with a clear perspective of how to handle problems in concert with the philosophy of detention. Training materials, publications, new policies and procedures, case studies, and critical incidents can be used for discussion and training in staff meetings scheduled for 30 minutes or less. To maximize the effectiveness of this strategy, ACA (1985) assembled a series of short training programs and lesson plans for use at staff meetings or shift change meetings. Although regular staff meetings are not a substitute for formal training, they should be used for educational and training purposes (Brown, 1982). During the transition from one administration to another at a medium-sized detention center, a weekly staff meeting was instituted to help in the team building process. The 2-hour meetings were scheduled each Friday, attendance was mandatory, plans were set for each resident on the unit, and problems were discussed by staff. Staff also completed a staff development inventory at 6-month intervals. No formal training was conducted during the first 18 months; instead, all instruction was informal and took place at the weekly staff meetings. At the end of the team building phase, staff development inventory results showed significant increases in staff perceptions of skill development, improved relations with supervisors, and overall job satisfaction. The largest increase was in the response to the statement about on-the-job training ("Staff have been provided comprehensive on-the-job training in order to acquire the appropriate job skills."), an interesting finding because the only educational or training experiences were the staff or team meetings (Roush and Steelman, 1981). Recommendation: Detention centers should provide a minimum of 40 hours of preservice/orientation training, a minimum of 120 hours of basic detention skills training during the first year of employment, and a minimum of 40 hours of planned training annually thereafter. The combined results from the statewide needs assessments in Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska provide an aggregate picture of the importance of specific topics. Importance should be the primary factor in determining orientation or preservice training. The following topics are taken from the Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska training needs assessments: o Security. o Communication. o Safety. o Crisis intervention. o Leadership. o Flexibility. o Interpersonal sensitivity. o Technical competence. o Behavior management. o Recordkeeping. The priority data reflect areas where the discrepancies between the skills needed to perform the job versus current proficiencies are greatest. Aggregate priority results are presented below: o Crisis intervention. o Behavior management. o Technical competence. o Safety. o Communication. o Interpersonal sensitivity. o Leadership. o Security. o Results focus. o Flexibility. Priority data are the best indicators of how well the system prepares new staff to address the basic knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform the job effectively. Therefore, priority data are most helpful in guiding the construction of the basic first-year training curriculum. Curriculum development is a function of the priority index (PI) scores. Those task statements with the highest PI scores should constitute the learning objectives under each topic. The number of learning objectives included in the training is a function of the time and resources available. Using the PI scores provides a priority ranking of those learning objectives viewed by staff as having the greatest significance to improved job performance. This strategy has been successfully implemented by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute (Roush and Hudzik, 1994). Recommendation: Detention staff training should be presented by training strategies that emphasize learning-by-doing and other experientially based methods. To maximize the cost-effectiveness of training efforts, it makes sense to design training programs that are compatible with the learning styles of juvenile detention care givers. Because there are no studies that link improved learning to training that is geared to a particular learning style for juvenile detention staff, the notion that training styles should match the learning styles of juvenile detention care givers receives support because of its logical appeal. Subjective feedback from trainers and comments and scores on training evaluation forms consistently indicate that juvenile detention care givers find experientially based, hands-on training more enjoyable and more meaningful. Again, no studies have been conducted to determine whether or not this increased enjoyment and meaningfulness translates into greater knowledge, skills, and abilities. However, the realities of juvenile detention may mean that an empirical answer to the question of increased learning may be years away. For this reason, qualitative data may be the best source of information for decisionmaking. From this perspective, juvenile detention trainers should spend less time on lectures and other didactic presentations and more time on experientially based activities. The Michigan Juvenile Detention Association (1981) conducted a statewide training needs assessment that included the administration of a learning styles inventory. A total of 149 juvenile detention care givers completed the learning styles inventory and a dominant learning style was established for the Michigan group. The findings support an experiential training strategy as discussed earlier. ------------------------------ Summary Very little has been written about training needs assessments for juvenile detention staff. Most inventories of juvenile detention training needs do not make a specific comparison between training needs, job requirements, and present proficiencies to do the job. The use of the Training Needs Assessment Inventories (TNAI) developed by Hudzik (1990, 1991; Hudzik and Curry, 1986) marks the first time that juvenile detention has conducted comprehensive needs assessments. Training needs assessments in juvenile detention rarely analyze job functions and seldom include a comprehensive, statewide sampling strategy. For these reasons, the data provided by Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska make a unique contribution to the understanding of training needs assessments in juvenile detention. Uniqueness can be described in four ways. First, the TNAI model uses a comprehensive analysis of the job of juvenile detention care giver by defining 10 Job Functions and 10 Effectiveness Criteria. Task statements distributed within these 20 categories constitute the needs assessment inventory. They supply two classes of information for general analysis: (1) staff rate the importance of each category, which supplies a picture of the components of the job and their relative importance (information that is crucial for determining preservice and orientation training needs) and (2) the inventory rank-orders training preferences for each category; however, the preference data do not distinguish between skill deficits and job hindrance rationales. Implicit in the selection process is the notion that staff choose training categories because of a perceived need (either a skill deficit or a specific job hindrance). Second, the TNAI model defines a training need as the difference between the requirements of the job and a staff member's present proficiency within those required areas. For each of the specific task statements, juvenile detention care givers assess the level of proficiency needed for effective performance. These assessments reflect the composite of the following factors: the skill or knowledge required; the complexity or difficulty of the task; the frequency of the task; and its relevance to the position of detention officer. The TNAI model then looks at the same task statements and asks juvenile detention care givers to rate them in terms of their own level of proficiency. Levels of proficiency in each area are judged in terms of the following four factors: present skill or knowledge level; degree of complexity that can be performed; the degree of difficulty in performing the task; and the extent to which performance in this area produces positive results. A priority index (PI) is provided to weigh the importance or value of each of the 20 categories to the question of training needs. This specific information is particularly helpful when resources are limited and training funds must be used for only the most important training needs. Third, TNAIs provide guidance in the construction of juvenile detention training curricula that move detention training one step beyond its current capabilities. Through the use of the PI scores for each task statement, the skills expressed by the highest PI scores are translated into learning objectives for the training. Whereas ACA and other training resources only specify the broad or general categories for training without any recommendations about the content of that training, TNAI data supply the most current perspectives from staff regarding those specific job tasks in which a gap exists between the skills required and the skills possessed. These data target the top priorities for training efforts. In addition, the use of the TNAI to conduct a statewide training needs assessment in Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska constitutes a growing base of information from which to make predictions about national training needs. Fourth, TNAIs incorporate multiple measures of training needs. This approach integrates different perspectives on the same training issues and provides a method to increase the validity of staff-generated training needs. Multiple measures also supply a mechanism for breaking ties between one or more competing training topics, a common problem of general training needs assessments. Finally, the TNAI represent a new assessment strategy for juvenile detention that moves training information and efforts forward because more accurate data is supplied by the inventory. This improved precision results in a better understanding of staff needs, a critically important feature given the shrinking resources available for training. In its attempt to identify and match the areas of greatest need with the appropriate resources, the TNAI strategy is compatible with the current best thinking about juvenile delinquency prevention (Wilson and Howell, 1993). The Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project conducted a thorough review of available detention training materials. While very little has been written about detention training, there is a substantial amount of training information that does exist; and more information about training has been added to the literature in recent years. The variety of topics in the following reference section clearly indicate that the study of training in juvenile detention can be a full-time endeavor. Furthermore, the exact nature and extent of training programs, materials, and services available in the field is unknown. To a larger extent, much of what is accomplished in training services and assessments is informal and difficult to access. The field of detention training is rapidly being transformed and training professionals are on the verge of making significant improvements. The creative efforts of State and national associations to improve training knowledge and programs are coming together with a new and comprehensive needs assessment strategy to guarantee dissemination of more and better information about training. As the quality of training information improves, the likelihood also increases that the field will develop a comprehensive plan for implementing basic training programs and curricula. The accumulation of current training knowledge enhances this process. Finally, new technology may expand the boundaries of affordable training to the extent that achievement of the training hour requirements of ACA becomes routine, as opposed to a monumental accomplishment. It is a time of great promise for staff training in juvenile detention. ------------------------------ References American Correctional Association. (1991, May). Standards for juvenile detention facilities (3rd ed.). Laurel, MD. American Correctional Association. (1992a, January). Guidelines for the development of policies and procedures: Juvenile detention facilities. Laurel, MD. American Correctional Association. (1992b). Juvenile careworker resource guide. Laurel, MD. Ashcroft, R., Price, T. , and McNair, J. (1992, Spring). Teacher-perceived training needs in institutional and alternative instructional settings. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 7, 41-47. Barlow, E.D. (1990, November 27). Corrections for the 1990s. Program presented to the Tri-County Regional Training Center, Kellogg Community College, Coldwater, MI. Barrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., and Weikert, D. P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry preschool program on youth through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Bell, J. R. (1992). "Rights and responsibilities of juveniles." In Juvenile careworker resource guide. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association. Benton, N. (1988, August). "Personnel management: Strategies for staff development." Corrections Today, pp. 102, 106-108. Berk, L. E. (1985). "Relationship of care giver education to child-oriented attitudes, job satisfaction, and behaviors toward children." Child Care Quarterly, 14, 102-129. Biolsi, R., and Gerard, R. (1980). "Training and evaluating child careworkers: The identification of professional tasks and skills." Residential and Community Child Care Administration, 1, 421-431. Bloom, M. (1984). Configuration of human behavior: Lifespan development in social environments. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co. Bowen, M. (1981). "Preparing correctional educators to teach delinquents with learning and reading disabilities." Journal of Correctional Education, 33, 15-16. Branham, L. S. (1993, June). "Accreditation: Making a good process better." Federal Probation, 57, 11- 16. Brendtro, L. K., and Ness, A. E. (1983). Re-educating troubled youth: Environments for teaching and treatment. New York: Aldine Publishing. Brown, M., Jr. (1982, June). "Training officers in juvenile detention." Corrections Today, pp. 14-16, 18. Brown, M., Jr. (1983). Juvenile detention (Professional Development Program Series Monograph). Austin: Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. Brown, M., Jr. (1985, May). A delphi investigation of staff development needs of the child-care personnel in the juvenile detention facilities in the State of Texas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Texas State University, Denton. Brown, M., Jr. (1985, Summer). "How to play CYA." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 2, 7-9. Brown, M., Jr. (1987, Summer). "Present it--write." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 3, 31-32. Buzzell, T. L. (1988). "Law-related education in a juvenile justice setting: Applications in the Iowa State Training School." New Designs for Youth Development, 8, 43-47. Christensen, D. N., Bowling, L. B., and Schauer, J. (1991, Spring). "Parents as partners in juvenile detention and corrections: Re-thinking our relationships with families." Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 6, 37-40. Christy, J. T. (1987, Summer). "Managing juvenile detention: An organizational perspective." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 3, 3-6. Christy, J. T. (1989, Winter). "A curriculum for training juvenile detention staff." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 4, 23-27. Commission on Work, Family and Citizenship. (1988, November). The forgotten half: Pathways to success for America's youth and young families. Washington, DC: The William T. Grant Foundation. Community Research Center. (1984, December). Detention staff development series: Discussion issues and guides. Champaign: University of Illinois. Conrad, D., and Hedin, D. (1982). "The impact of experiential education on adolescent development." Child and Youth Services, 4, 57-56. Criswell, J. E. (1987, October). "Juvenile detention resource centers: Florida's experience provides a model for the nation in juvenile detention." Corrections Today, pp. 22-26. Crouse, L. S. (1992, July). Training needs assessment. Unpublished report, Jefferson County Youth Center, Louisville, KY. Curry, T. H. (1977, November). "Why not use your line managers as management trainers?" Training and Development Journal, pp. 43-47. Dunlap, E. L. (1986, Winter). "Perspectives on institutional change: An interview with Earl Dunlap." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 3, 5-14. Dunlap, E. L., and Roush, D. W. (1994, March 8). A pre-service/orientation training proposal for Indiana juvenile detention youth careworkers. Richmond, KY: National Juvenile Detention Association. Farkas, M. A. (1990). "Professionalization: Is it the cure-all for what "ails" the correctional officer?" Journal of Crime and Justice, 8, 29-54. Flintrop, R. (1991, Winter). "Voiceless children: Juvenile detention in the U.S." Focus: A Quarterly Report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, pp. 2-6. Ford, J. K., and Wroten, S. P. (1982). A content validity ratio approach to determine training needs. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Fox, R. G. (1990). "Social skills training: Teaching troubled youth to be socially competent." In M. Krueger and N. Powell (Eds.), Choices in caring. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Fox, R. W., Kanitz, H. M., and Folger, W. A. (1991, April). "Basic counseling skills training program for juvenile court workers." Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, 11, 34-41. Francis, N., et al. (Eds.) (1982, September). Program suggestions for the provision of programs and services to handicapped youth in juvenile detention facilities. Lansing: Michigan Department of Education, Special Education Services Area. Gagne, R. M., and Briggs, L. I. (1974). Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gilbert, M. J. (1985). "Policy into action." Corrections Today, pp. 16, 18. Grass roots and NJDA; An interview with Dr. Tom Hughes. (1990, Spring). Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 5, 1-7. Hammergren, D. R. (1984). "Juvenile detention: Becoming all things to all segments of the juvenile justice system." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 1, 1-3. Harvey, J., and Bowker, S. (1990, April). Juvenile detention in Illinois: The need for comprehensive change. Edwardsville: Illinois Probation and Court Services Association. Hayes, J. H. (1989, Winter). "Secure detention: Myth vs. reality." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 4, 11-12. Holmes, J. A. (Ed.). (1968, March). A national institute for juvenile detention home administrators: Final report. Edwardsville, IL: Delinquency Study and Youth Development Project, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville. Hudzik, J. K. (1990, October 29). The Illinois court services management inventory: A report of results and implications for management and training. Springfield: Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts. Hudzik, J. K. (1991). Judicial education needs assessment and program evaluation (JERITT Monograph One). East Lansing, MI: Judicial Education Reference, Information and Technical Transfer Project, Michigan State University. Hudzik, J. K., and Curry, T. H., II (1986, May). The MCMI general findings. Lansing: Michigan Judicial Institute. Hughes, T. R. (1971). "Humanizing the detention setting." Federal Probation, 35, 21-26. Hughes, T. R. (1987, Summer). "The constructive use of solitude." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 3, 7-8. Hughes, T. R., and Reuterman, N. A. (1982, November). "Juvenile detention facilities: Summary report of a second national survey." Juvenile and Family Court Journal, pp. 3-14. Hughes, T. R., and Reuterman, N. A. (1989). Understanding the offender in the justice system. Springfield, IL: Center for Legal Studies, Sangamon State University. Interstate Consortium on Residential Child Care, Inc. (n.d.). Trigger stories: Preventing institutional child abuse through the development of positive norms for staff. Trenton, NJ. Jehl, J., and Kirst, M. W. (1993, February). "Getting ready to provide school-linked services: What schools must do." Education and Urban Society, 25, 153-165. Johnson, W. A., Jr., and Rettig, R. P. (1990, Fall). "An analysis of negative behavior incidents and their impact on program implementation at the Oklahoma County Juvenile Detention Center." Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 5, 13- 20. Kindall, H. L. (1970, October). "Developing a training program for juvenile halls: A dilemma." NJDA Counterpoint, 1, 6-8. Kirst, M. W. (Ed.). (1989). Conditions of children in California. Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education. Kossman, S. P. (1990, Fall). "Staffing pattern dynamics: A new approach to old problems." Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 5, 9- 12. Latham, G. P. (1988). "Human resource training and development." Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 545- 582. Lenz, M. W. (1942). "A yardstick for measuring detention homes." Federal Probation, 6, 20-23. Liddell, W. (1992, November). MJDA annual conference: Evaluation summary. Unpublished evaluation report, Lansing, MI. Liddell, W. (1993, August 10). Nebraska training needs assessment summary: Validation study. Unpublished evaluation report, National Juvenile Detention Association, Berrien Center, MI. Lucas, C. (1991, May). Juvenile detention staff development initiative: Survey of training resources. Unpublished report, New Jersey Department of Corrections, Trenton. Maghan, J., and Collins, W. C. (1988, August). "What staff doesn't know can hurt them: Correctional law training." Corrections Today, pp. 164, 166, 168, 194. Maloney, D., Romig, D., and Armstrong, T. (1988). "Juvenile probation: The balanced approach." Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 39, pp. 1-63. Mauze, G., Jr. (1989, Winter). "Alternatives to secure detention." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 4, 7-10. McGehee, W., and Thayer, P. W. (1961). Training in business and industry. New York: Wiley. McPherson, P. K. (1993, Spring). "Providing mental health services in juvenile detention." Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 8, 14-17. McShane, M., Williams, F. P., Shichor, D., and McClain, K. L. (1991, August). "Examining employee turnover: Early exits." Corrections Today, pp. 220, 222, 224. Mead, N. (1980, January). Counseling economy: A program model for secure detention. Unpublished manuscript, Berrien County Juvenile Center, Berrien Center, MI. Michigan Juvenile Detention Association. (1975). Summary of training questionnaire: 12th youth detention seminar. Unpublished research report, Jackson, MI. Michigan Juvenile Detention Association. (1981, July). Child care staff training: Two unresolved issues. Unpublished research report, Marshall, MI. Mixdorf, L., and Rosetti, R. (1992). "Responsibilities and training." In Juvenile careworker resource guide. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association. Moone, J. (1991, February). "Public and private facilities' characteristics differ." OJJDP Fact Sheet on Children in Custody 1989, pp. 1-5. Moreland, D. W. (1941). "History and prophecy: John Augustus and his successors." National Probation Association Yearbook , p. 5. National Center for Juvenile Justice. (1991, March). Desktop guide to good juvenile probation practice. Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice. National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory Groups. (1993). Myths and realities: Meeting the challenge of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC. National Commission on Correctional Health Care. (1992). Standards for health services in juvenile detention and confinement facilities. Chicago. National Conference on Prevention and Control of Juvenile Delinquency. (1947). Report on juvenile detention. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (1967). Corrections in the United States. President's commission on law enforcement and administration of justice: Task force report: Corrections. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Crisis Prevention Institute. (1992). Documentation: Your best defense (Video). Brookfield, WI: National Crisis Prevention Institute, Inc. Norman, S. (1946). "Detention facilities for children." National Probation Association Yearbook, pp. 86-100. Norman, S. (1949). "The detention home." The Annals, 261, 158-165. Norman, S. (1951). "New goals for juvenile detention." In P. Tappan (Ed.), Contemporary corrections. New York: McGraw-Hill. Norman, S. (1957). "Juvenile detention." NPPA Journal, 3, 392-403. Norman, S., and Norman, H. (1946) Detention for the juvenile court: A discussion of principles and practices. New York: National Probation and Parole Association. Norman, S., (Ed.). (1961). Standards and guides for the detention of children and youth (2nd edition). New York: National Council on Crime and Delinquency. O'Donnell, C. R., Song, V. L., Kronabel, B., McCullough, D., and Kawazoe, D. (1991). Youth corrections project: Final training evaluation and summary report. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Center for Youth Research. Parent, D., Leiter, V., Kennedy, S., Livens, L., Wentworth, D., and Wilcox, S. (1993, April). Conditions of confinement: A study to evaluate the conditions in juvenile detention and correctional facilities (Final Report). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Pecora, P. J. and Fraser, M. W. (1988). "Assessing worker training needs in juvenile probation: A case study." Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 13, 83-100. Pecora, P. J. (1989). "Improving the quality of child welfare services: Needs assessment for staff training." Child Welfare, 68, 419-430. Pecora, P. J., Dodson, A. R., Teather, E. C., and Whittaker, J. K. (1983). "Assessing worker training needs: Use of staff surveys and key informant interviews." Child Welfare, 62, 395-407. Perkins, R. F. (1968, March). "Your detention program--is it focused on the needs and observations of the children detained?" In J. A. Holmes, (Ed.), A National Institute for Juvenile Detention Home Administrators: Final Report. Edwardsville, IL: Delinquency Study and Youth Development Project, Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville. Peters, D. L., and Getz, S. K. (1986). "Getting beyond the robot model of child careworker." In K. Vander Ven and E. Tittnich, (Eds.), Competent care givers--competent children: Training and education for child care practice. New York: Haworth Press. Richards, A. (1968). "Clinician's views on correctional education." In Federal Bureau of Prisons, Supplement to re-educating confined delinquents. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Roush, D. D., and Roush, D. W. (1993, March 17). "Holistic Environmental Life-skills Project (HELP): A public-private partnership to provide helpful services to youth in a juvenile detention facility." Juvenile Justice Digest, pp. 4-6. Roush, D. W. (1983). "Content and process of detention education." In S. Chaneles, (Ed.), Current trends in correctional education: Theory and practice. New York: Haworth. Roush, D. W. (1986). "Supervisors as trainers: Expanding the concept of training staff trainers." Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation, 10, 61-70. Roush, D. W. (1987, October). "Setting the standard: National juvenile detention resource centers." Corrections Today, pp. 32-34. Roush, D. W. (1990b, December). "Sorry, I can't make a living at this wage: The crisis for juvenile careworkers." Corrections Today, pp. 20-26. Roush, D. W. (1991, Fall). "Juvenile detention in the 1990's." Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 6, 1-5. Roush, D. W. (1992, Spring). "Behavior observation and recording: Basic skill development for youth workers." Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 7, 23-33. Roush, D. W. (1993a, September). Developing comprehensive service systems for troubled youth: A juvenile justice perspective. Presented at the Shakertown Symposium II of the National Coalition of Juvenile Justice Services, Richmond, KY. Roush, D. W. (1993b, September). "Juvenile detention programming." Federal Probation, 57, 20- 33. Roush, D. W., and Hudzik, J. K. (1992, March). The Illinois detention officer inventory: Executive summary. Springfield: Administrative Office of the Illinois Court. Roush, D. W., and Hudzik, J. K. (1994, January). The Indiana youth careworker inventory: A training needs assessment report and implications for juvenile detention training. Indianapolis: Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. Roush, D. W., and Steelman, B. T. (1981, November). A team approach to detention staff development. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 32, 33-43. Roush, D. W., and Wyss, T. (Eds.). (1994, January). Effective and innovative programs resource manual. Richmond, KY: National Juvenile Detention Association. Rowan, J. R. (1993, January - March). "Juvenile detention workers rank third--not first in the justice field: A national survey." NJDA News, pp. 14-15, 17. Rubenstein, F. D. (1991, June). "A facility-wide approach to social skills training." Journal of Correctional Education, 42, 88-93. Sheridan, J. J. (1988, August). "Juvenile sector: Challenging careers in a unique environment." Corrections Today, pp. 84-87. Shinke, S. P., and Schilling, R. F., II (1980, Summer). "Needs assessment and child care staff training." Child Care Quarterly, 9, 73-81. Skaggs, C. M. (1989, Winter). "Training needs of direct child careworkers employed in juvenile detention centers in the State of Texas." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 4, 17-22. Smith, J. S. (1992). "Corrections' untapped resources: The community's volunteers." In Juvenile careworker resource guide. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association. Smith, J. S., and Roush, D. W., (1989, April). "Defining juvenile detention goals: ACA committee takes the lead." Corrections Today, pp. 220-222. Smith, J. S., Roush, D. W., and Kelley, R. (1990, January 14). Public correctional policy on juvenile services: Juvenile detention. Unpublished manuscript, Juvenile Detention Committee, American Correctional Association, Laurel, MD. South Carolina Department of Youth Services. (1985). Juvenile correctional officer time study. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Youth Services, Columbia, S Stepanik, R. L. (1986, August 25). "A perspective for change in the field of juvenile detention." Juvenile Justice Digest, 14, 1-3. Stokes, T., and Smith, J. S. (1990, Fall). "Juvenile detention: A nationally recognized definition." Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 5, 24-26. Tannenbaum, S., and Yukl, G. (1992). "Training and development in work organizations." Annual Review of Psychology, 43, 399-441. Taylor, W. J. (1985, October). "Training: ACA priority." Corrections Today, pp. 24-29. Taylor, W. J. (1992). "Overview of the juvenile justice system." In Juvenile careworker resource guide. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association. Warner, F. M. (1933). Juvenile detention in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wexley, K. N. (1984). Personnel training. Annual Review of Psychology, 35, 519-551. Wilson, A. (1989, Winter). "Staff development: A philosophical and organizational perspective for detention." The Rader Papers: A Journal of Juvenile Detention Services, 4 13-16. Wilson, J. J., and Howell, J. C. (1994, second printing). Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Womack, B. W., and Jenkins, S. W. (1992, Spring). "When they fall: The counselor's role in effective teen suicide prevention." Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services, 7, 15-21. ------------------------------ Researchers, Planners, Policymakers More detailed information about juvenile detention personnel training is available through the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. A Resource Manual for Juvenile Detention and Corrections: Effective and Innovative Programs is the culmination of a survey conducted by the National Juvenile Detention Association through the Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The 164-page manual provides information about successful programs at juvenile detention and corrections facilities, and is divided into sections relating to aftercare programs, alternatives to secure detention, prevention, and secure programs. For your copies of A Resource Manual for Juvenile Detention and Corrections: Effective and Innovative Programs, complete and return the order form below with your payment. For further information on this or other juvenile justice topics, call the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. To order copies of A Resource Manual for Juvenile Detention and Corrections: Effective and Innovative Programs (NCJ 155285), please complete the following: Payment: $15.00 (U.S.), $19.50 (Canada), $19.50 (Other International) Total number of copies x Cost (each) = Total $ Enclosed is my personal check or money order (payable to Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse in U.S. funds, drawn on a U.S. bank). Please charge my credit card as follows MasterCard Visa Number Expiration Date / Signature Bill to government purchase order number (Include an additional $1.95 processing fee on your purchase order.) Please Send My Copies to: Name: Title: Organization: Street Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: ( ) Enclose payment and mail this order form to Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, Department F, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000. Orders may also be placed by calling the Clearinghouse at 800-638- 8736. ------------------------------ Publications From OJJDP Delinquency Prevention Delinquency Prevention Works (Program Summary). 1995, NCJ 155006 (74 pp.). Family Life, Delinquency, and Crime: A Policymaker's Guide. 1994, NCJ 140517 (65 pp.). Family Strengthening in Preventing Delinquency--A Literature Review. 1994, NCJ 150222 (76 pp.), $13.00. Matrix of Community-Based Initiatives (Program Summary). 1995, NCJ 154816 (51 pp.). OJJDP and Boys and Girls Clubs of America: Public Housing and High-Risk Youth. 1991, NCJ 128412 (5 pp.). Strengthening America's Families: Promising Parenting Strategies for Delinquency Prevention. 1993, NCJ 140781 (105 pp.), $9.15. Missing and Exploited Children The Compendium of the North American Symposium on International Child Abduction: How To Handle International Child Abduction Cases. 1993, NCJ 148137 (928 pp.), $17.50. Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in America, First Report: Numbers and Characteristics, National Incidence Studies (Full Report). 1990, NCJ 123668 (251 pp.), $14.40. Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of Parentally Abducted Children. 1994, NCJ 143458 (21 pp.). Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of Parentally Abducted Children (Full Report). 1993, NCJ 144535 (877 pp.), $22.80. Parental Abductors: Four Interviews (Video). 1993, NCJ 147866 (43 min.), $12.50. Law Enforcement Drug Recognition Techniques: A Training Program for Juvenile Justice Professionals. 1990, NCJ 128795 (4 pp.). Innovative Law Enforcement Training Programs: Meeting State and Local Needs. 1991, NCJ 131735 (4 pp.). Law Enforcement Custody of Juveniles (Video). 1992, NCJ 137387 (31 min.), $13.50. Law Enforcement Policies and Practices Regarding Missing Children and Homeless Youth. 1993, NCJ 145644 (25 pp.). Law Enforcement Policies and Practices Regarding Missing Children and Homeless Youth (Full Report). 1993, NCJ 143397 (217 pp.), $13.00. Courts The Child Victim as a Witness, Research Report. 1994, NCJ 149172 (143 pp.). Helping Victims and Witnesses in the Juvenile Justice System: A Program Handbook. 1991, NCJ 139731 (282 pp.), $15.00. How Juveniles Get to Criminal Court. 1994, NCJ 150309 (5 pp.). Juvenile Court Statistics, 1992. 1994, NCJ 147487 (240 pp.). Offenders in Juvenile Court, 1992. 1994, NCJ 150039 (11 pp.). Gangs Gang Suppression and Intervention: An Assessment (Full Report). 1994, NCJ 146494 (197 pp.), $15.00. Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models. 1994, NCJ 148202 (26 pp.). Gang Suppression and Intervention: Problem and Response. 1994, NCJ 149629 (21 pp.). Rising Above Gangs and Drugs: How To Start a Community Reclamation Project (Training Manual). 1995, NCJ 133522 (264 pp.). Restitution Guide to Juvenile Restitution. 1985, NCJ 098466 (162 pp.), $12.50. Liability and Legal Issues in Juvenile Restitution. 1990, NCJ 115405 (24 pp.). Victim-Offender Mediation in the Juvenile Justice System. 1990, NCJ 120976 (16 pp.). Corrections American Probation and Parole Association's Drug Testing Guidelines and Practices for Juvenile Probation and Parole Agencies. 1992, NCJ 136450 (163 pp.). Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. 1994, NCJ 141873 (16 pp.). Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice. 1991, NCJ 128218 (141 pp.). A Resource Manual for Juvenile Detention and Corrections: Effective and Innovative Programs. 1995, NCJ 155285 (164 pp.), $15.00. Effective Practices in Juvenile Correctional Education: A Study of the Literature and Research 1980-1992. 1994, NCJ 150066 (194 pp.), $15.00. Improving Literacy Skills of Juvenile Detainees. 1994, NCJ 150707 (5 pp.). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: An Assessment (Full Report). 1994, NCJ 144018 (195 pp.), $15.00. Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model. 1994, NCJ 147575 (20 pp.). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and Procedures. 1994, NCJ 147712 (28 pp.). Juvenile Correctional Education: A Time for Change. 1994, NCJ 150309 (3 pp.). Juvenile Court Statistics 1992 (Statistics Report). 1995, NCJ 154168 (93 pp.). Juvenile Intensive Supervision: An Assessment (Full Report). 1994, NCJ 150064 (89 pp.), $13.00. Juvenile Intensive Supervision: Planning Guide. 1994, NCJ 150065 (80 pp.). Juveniles Taken Into Custody: Fiscal Year 1993 Report. 1995, NCJ 154022 (195 pp.). National Survey of Reading Programs for Incarcerated Juvenile Offenders. 1993, NCJ 144017 (51 pp.). $6.75. OJJDP: Conditions of Confinement Teleconference (Video). 1993, NCJ 147531 (90 min.), $14.00. Public Juvenile Facilities: Children in Custody 1989. 1991, NCJ 127189 (10 pp.). General Juvenile Justice Balanced and Restorative Justice. 1994, NCJ 149727 (16 pp.). Breaking the Code (Video). 1993, NCJ 146604 (83 min.), $20.65. Bridging the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems (JJ Bulletin). 1995, NCJ 152155 (4 pp.). Gould-Wysinger Awards (1993): A Tradition of Excellence. 1994, NCJ 146840 (6 pp.). Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Update on Programs). 1995, NCJ 153681 (255 pp.). Gun Acquisition and Possession in Selected Juvenile Samples. 1993, NCJ 145326 (11 pp.). Innovative Community Partnerships: Working Together for Change. 1994, NCJ 146483 (32 pp.). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report (Full Report). 1995, NCJ 153569 (188 pp.). Law-Related Education for Juvenile Justice Settings. 1993, NCJ 147063 (173 pp.), $13.20. Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System. 1993, NCJ 145849 (18 pp.). Minorities and the Juvenile Justice System (Full Report). 1993, NCJ 139556 (176 pp.), $11.50. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Brochure. 1993, NCJ 144527 (24 pp.). Study of Tribal and Alaska Native Juvenile Justice Systems. 1992, NCJ 148217 (208 pp.), $17.20. Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings. 1994, NCJ 143454 (27 pp.). Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Technical Report and Appendices. 1993, NCJ 146416 (400 pp.), $25.60. OJJDP publications are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Call or write: Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, 800-638-8736. Documents can be obtained electronically. Select documents are available free via the Clearinghouse Fax-on-Demand system. Call 800-638-8736 and follow the menu item directions. If you know the title or NCJ number, send an e-mail request to askncjrs@aspensys.com. For full text OJJDP publications, information on OJJDP, and other criminal justice information, go to the NCJRS World Wide Web page (http://www.ncjrs.org) Most OJJDP publications are free; requests for more than five documents or those from individuals outside the United States require payment for postage and handling. To obtain information on payment procedures or to speak to a juvenile justice information specialist about additional services offered, contact the Clearinghouse Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET.