MENU TITLE: Restoring the Balance: Juvenile and Community Justice. Series: OJJDP Published: December 1996 57 pages 230,363 bytes Juvenile Justice Restoring the Balance: Juvenile and Community Justice Also Aftercare Not Afterthought: Testing the IAP Model Using Satellite Teleconferencing A Journal of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ------------------------------ From the Administrator As we approach the dawn of the next millennium, juvenile justice is at a crossroads. The direction we choose to take as a Nation may well determine the destiny of our youth. To make informed decisions, we need timely information. With this issue, Juvenile Justice continues to make its contribution to that end. In Restoring the Balance: Juvenile and Community Justice, Gordon Bazemore and Susan Day provide valuable insights into balanced and restorative justice. Decrying the failure of traditional treatment and criminalized retributive models to restore public confidence in the juvenile justice system, the authors advocate an alternative, community-oriented system that involves citizens in setting clear limits on antisocial behavior and establishing appropriate consequences for juvenile offenders. OJJDP's Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs (IAP) initiative, launched in 1988, helps correctional agencies enhance aftercare, commonly regarded as one of the weak links in the juvenile justice system. In Aftercare Not Afterthought: Testing the IAP Model, coprincipal investigators David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong describe the implementation of the initiative. If information is essential to making sound decisions, getting information into the hands of those who can use it is crucial. Satellite teleconferencing is changing the way people receive information, where they receive it, and from whom. OJJDP is committed to using state-of-the-art techniques to disseminate information to the juvenile justice field, as Michael Jones, Bruce Wolford, and F.M. Porpotage evidence in Using Satellite Teleconferencing. Juvenile justice is at a crossroads, but with the support of committed professionals and concerned citizens like the readers of Juvenile Justice, I am confident that the road ahead will be one of promise for America's youth. Shay Bilchik Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ------------------------------ Volume III Number 1 December 1996 Features Restoring the Balance: Juvenile and Community Justice by Gordon Bazemore and Susan E. Day The balanced and restorative model is a promising new approach to juvenile justice that focuses on meaningful community involvement as an alternative to the treatment versus punishment paradigm. Aftercare Not Afterthought: Testing the IAP Model by David M. Altschuler and Troy L. Armstrong Has OJJDP's intensive, community-based aftercare initiative helped public and private correctional agencies transition high-risk juvenile offenders from secure confinement to the community? Using Satellite Teleconferencing by Michael A. Jones, Bruce I. Wolford, and F.M. Porpotage II OJJDP employs state-of-the-art strategies to train and inform all levels of the juvenile justice, child welfare, and law enforcement communities about critical issues affecting America's youth. In Brief Justice Matters Reducing Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in Confinement Resolving Conflict OJJDP Resources State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime OJJDP Fact Sheets Put OJJDP Information To Work for You OJJDP Teleconference Videotapes ORDER FORM ------------------------------ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20531(202) 307-5911 Administrator Shay Bilchik Executive Editor Earl E. Appleby, Jr. Assistant Editor Catherine Doyle Managing Editor Bob Jefferson Juvenile Justice Staff Chadwick Bash John Calderone Nancy Hegle Stephanie Melis Juvenile Justice is published by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to advance its mandate to disseminate information regarding juvenile delinquency and prevention programs (42 U.S.C. 5652). Points of view or opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positions 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. ------------------------------ Restoring the Balance: Juvenile and Community Justice by Gordon Bazemore and Susan E. Day The problem of crime can no longer be simplified to the problem of the criminal. Leslie Wilkins Offender-based control strategies are incomplete, since they take a `closed system' view of correctional interventions: change the offender and not the community. James Byrne In a democratic society, citizens' expectations of government agencies are critically important. Unfortunately, within our juvenile justice system, community needs have been lost in the decade-long debate over the future of the juvenile court and the relative efficacy of punishment versus treatment. A number of politicians and policymakers argue for criminalizing our juvenile justice system through "get tough," adult sentences for juvenile offenders. Some even advocate abolishing the juvenile justice system and its foundation, the independent juvenile court. On the other hand, many proponents of the juvenile court call for reaffirming the traditional treatment mission. Increasingly, the public and even many juvenile justice professionals perceive that treatment and punishment options are, as one judge aptly put it, "bad choices between sending kids to jail or sending them to the beach." It is doubtful that either traditional treatment or criminalized retributive models can restore public confidence in the juvenile justice system. Only through extensive, meaningful citizen participation will public expectations and community needs be met. For most juvenile justice systems, achieving this level of involvement will require substantial restructuring. This article describes an alternative approach to addressing juvenile crime that focuses on the interests of multiple justice clients. Alternatively referred to as restorative justice, the balanced approach, and balanced and restorative justice (BRJ), this model is viewed by a growing number of juvenile justice professionals as a way to reengage the community in the juvenile justice process. The Limits of Current Paradigms Crime should never be the sole or even primary business of the State if real differences are sought in the well-being of individuals, families, and communities. The structure, procedures, and evidentiary rules of the formal criminal justice process coupled with most justice officials' lack of knowledge and connection to (the parties) affected by crime preclude the State from acting alone to achieve transformative changes. Judge Barry Stuart Worse still, we fear that even when something does work, it is seen to do so only in the eyes of certain professionals, while `outside' the system, ordinary citizens are left without a role or voice in the criminal justice process. John Braithewaite and Stephen Mugford Advocates of reaffirming treatment argue that the system is failing because it lacks adequate resources. Critics and defenders of juvenile justice, however, argue that juvenile justice systems have failed to articulate a vision of success. If juvenile justice is underfunded, it is also underconceptualized. As closed-system paradigms, the treatment and retributive models are insular and one-dimensional. They are insular because they are offender-focused and one-dimensional because they fail to address the community's diverse interests. Although the punitive approach may appease public demand for retribution, it does little to rehabilitate or reintegrate juvenile offenders. Punishment is often used inappropriately, resulting in amply documented negative effects. Ironically, retributive punishment may encourage offenders to focus on themselves rather than on their victims. Even increasing its severity may have little impact if we have miscalculated the extent to which sanctions such as incarceration are experienced as punishment.(1) In the public mind, punishment is at least somewhat related to offense. In contrast, treatment appears to address only the needs of the offender. Treatment programs often ask little of the offender beyond participating in counseling, remedial services, or recreational programs. Even when such programs "work," they make little difference in the lives of victims of juvenile crime, citizens concerned with the safety of their neighborhoods, or individuals who want young offenders held accountable for their actions.(2) In fact, both punitive and treatment models focus little attention on the needs of victims and victimized communities. Neither model engages them as clients or as coparticipants in the justice process. Whether treatment or punishment is emphasized, the offender is the passive and solitary recipient of intervention and service. Increasingly reliant on facilities, treatment programs, and professional experts, juvenile justice systems exclude victims and other community members from what could be meaningful roles in sanctioning, rehabilitation, and public safety. Fortunately, treatment and retributive models are not the only options for juvenile justice. The alternative, a community-oriented system, would involve citizens in setting clear limits on antisocial behavior and determining consequences for offenders. Victims' needs for reparation, validation, and healing would be at the core of a community justice system, which would work toward building crime-resistant communities whose residents feel safe. It would emphasize the need for building relationships and involving youth in work, service, and other roles that facilitate bonding with law-abiding adults. Finally, a community justice system would articulate more meaningful roles in rehabilitating offenders and improving community safety for employers, civic groups, religious communities, families, and other citizens. Toward Community Juvenile Justice: A Balanced and Restorative Approach Government is responsible for preserving order but the community is responsible for establishing peace. Daniel Van Ness o In inner-city Pittsburgh, young offenders in an intensive day treatment program solicit input from community organizations about service projects they would like to see completed in the neighborhood. They work with community residents on projects that include home repair and gardening for the elderly, voter registration drives, painting homes and public buildings, and planting and cultivating community gardens. o In Florida, young offenders sponsored by the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice and supervised by The 100 Black Men of Palm Beach County, Inc., plan and execute projects that serve as shelters for abused, abandoned, and HIV-positive and AIDS-infected infants and children. In Palm Beach County, victim advocates train juvenile justice staff on sensitivity in their interaction with victims and help prepare victim awareness curriculums for youth in residential programs. o In cities and towns in Pennsylvania, Montana, Minnesota, Australia, and New Zealand, family members and other citizens acquainted with a juvenile offender or victim of a juvenile crime gather to determine the best response to the offense. Held in schools, churches, or other community facilities, these family group conferences are facilitated by a community justice coordinator or police officer and ensure that offenders hear community disapproval of their behavior. Participants develop an agreement for repairing the damage to victim and community and a plan for reintegrating the offender. o In Minnesota, Department of Corrections staff collaborate with local police and citizen groups to establish family group conferencing programs and inform the community about offender monitoring and victim support. In Dakota County, a suburb of Minneapolis, retailers and senior citizens whose businesses and homes have been damaged by burglary or vandalism call a crime repair hotline to request a work crew of probationers to repair the damage. o In Deschutes County, Oregon, offender work crews cut and deliver firewood to senior citizens and worked with a local contractor to build a homeless shelter. o In more than 150 cities and towns throughout North America, victims and offenders meet with volunteer mediators to develop an agreement for restitution. At these meetings, victims express their feelings about the crime and gain information about the offense. o In several cities in Montana, college students and other young adults in the Montana Conservation Corps supervise juvenile offenders working on environmental restoration, trail building, and other community service projects. They also serve as mentors. While many professionals have become demoralized as juvenile justice systems are threatened with extinction, others are seeking to create a new partnership between youth and victim advocates, concerned citizens, and community groups. The balanced and restorative justice model is centered around community-oriented responses to crime.(3) Jurisdictions implementing it represent a diverse range of urban, suburban, and rural communities. These communities share a common commitment to restructuring juvenile justice on the basis of a new mission (balanced approach) and a new value framework (restorative justice). Restorative and Community Justice From the perspective of restorative justice, the most significant aspect of crime is that it victimizes citizens and communities. The justice system should focus on repairing this harm by ensuring that offenders are held accountable for making amends for the damage and suffering they have caused. The most important issue in a restorative response to crime is not deciding whether to punish or treat offenders. Rather, as Howard Zehr suggests, the three primary questions to be answered are "What is the harm?" "What needs to be done to make it right?" and "Who is responsible?"(4) A restorative system would help to ensure that offenders make amends to their victims. Juvenile justice cannot do this alone, however. Restorative justice requires that not only government but victims, offenders, and communities be actively involved in the justice process. In fact, some have argued that the health of a community is determined by the extent to which citizens participate in community decisions. An effective justice system strengthens the capacity of communities to respond to crime and empowers them to do so. As Judge Barry Stuart notes: When members fail to assume responsibility for decisions affecting the community, community life will be characterized by the absence of a collective sense of caring, a lack of respect for diverse values, and ultimately a lack of any sense of belonging. . . . Conflict, if resolved through a process that constructively engages the parties involved, can be a fundamental building ingredient of any relationship. As members increase their ability to resolve disputes creatively, the ability of the community to effectively sanction crime, rehabilitate offenders, and promote public safety increases.(5) The most unique feature of restorative justice is its elevation of the role of victims in the justice system. Victim rights has become a popular slogan, but victim needs are addressed by the system only after the needs of judges, prosecutors, probation officers, treatment providers, and even offenders are considered. Restorative justice does not define victim rights as the absence of offender rights; it focuses on the needs of victim, community, and offender. To bring balance to the present offender-driven system, however, it is necessary to give priority to victims' needs for physical, material, and emotional healing. The Balanced Approach Mission The balanced approach is a back-to-basics mission for juvenile justice that supports a community's need to sanction crime, rehabilitate offenders, and ensure public safety. Toward these ends, it articulates three goals for juvenile justice: accountability, public safety, and competency development.(6) Balance is attainable when administrators ensure that equitable resources are allocated to each goal. o Accountability. Crime is sanctioned most effectively when offenders take responsibility for their crimes and the harm caused to victims, when offenders make amends by restoring losses, and when communities and victims take active roles in the sanctioning process. Because the offender's obligation is defined primarily as an obligation to his victims rather than to the State, accountability cannot be equated with responsiveness to juvenile justice professionals by obeying a curfew, complying with drug screening, or writing an essay. Nor can it be equated with punishment. It is easier to make offenders take their punishment than it is to get them to take responsibility for their actions. o Competency. The most successful rehabilitation ensures that young offenders make measurable gains in educational, vocational, social, civic, and other competencies that enhance their capacity to function as productive adults. When competency is defined as the capacity to do something well that others value, the standard for achieving success is measured in the community. Competency is not the mere absence of bad behavior. It should increase the capacity of adults and communities to involve young people in work, service, dispute resolution, community problem solving, and cognitive skills building. o Public safety. Assuring public safety requires more than mere incapacitation. Communities cannot be kept safe simply by locking up offenders. Locked facilities must be part of any public safety strategy, but they are the least cost-effective component. A balanced strategy invests heavily in strengthening a community's capacity to prevent and control crime. A problem-oriented focus ensures that the time of offenders under supervision in the community is structured around such activities as work, education, and service. Adults, including parents, are assigned clear roles in monitoring offenders. A balanced strategy cultivates new relationships with schools, employers, and other community groups to enhance the role of juvenile justice professionals as resources in prevention and positive youth development. The principle behind BRJ is that justice is best served when victims, offenders, and communities receive equitable attention in the justice process. The needs of one client cannot be met unless the needs of other clients are addressed. Crime severs bonds between victims, offenders, and families. Although offenders must take full responsibility for their acts, the responsibility for restoring mutual respect, understanding, and support among those involved must be shared by the community. Small Changes Yield Large Results The change at the heart of BRJ is embodied in the community-building interventions described above. BRJ collaborators, including juvenile justice and other service professionals, have discovered that even small changes in how they conduct business can have immediate and lasting effects on the dynamics of community relationships. Communities in the United States and across the globe are making dramatic policy changes on the basis of restorative priorities. In 1989, New Zealand began requiring that all juvenile offenders over age 14 (except in the most serious cases) be referred to a family group conference in which restorative goals are addressed in meetings that include victims, offenders, support groups, families, policymakers, social workers, and others. The New Zealand law appears to have drastically reduced court workloads and the use of incarceration.(7) Fourteen States have enacted legislation adopting the balanced approach as the mission of their juvenile justice systems. A number of States have administrative rules or statewide policies that require case managers and other decisionmakers to consider the goals of the balanced approach in dispositional recommendations. In Pennsylvania and Montana, decisionmakers are using balanced approach criteria as funding guidelines and have formed statewide groups to oversee the development of restorative justice efforts. Balanced and restorative justice cannot be achieved by mandates or legislation alone. As the three jurisdictions that constitute the OJJDP-funded demonstration effort are learning, the new model cannot be implemented overnight. Working with different juvenile justice systems in diverse communities, administrators in Palm Beach County, Florida, Dakota County, Minnesota, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, are pursuing varied approaches to systemic change to build a restorative model from the ground up. These administrators have made significant progress but acknowledge that the kind of change envisioned by BRJ is quite different from past practices. This change is especially striking in the model's focus on citizen involvement, including restructuring juvenile justice agencies to more effectively engage the community. Balanced and Restorative Justice: New Roles for Citizens and Professionals - I'm glad to see somebody is finally trying to instill some responsibility in these kids. I'm happy to help when it's obvious that we're trying to make taxpayers out of these kids, rather than tax liabilities. Community Member - In the mediation session I learned that the offender was just a little kid and not the threat I thought he was. I also learned he had some needs that weren't being met. . . . For the first time (I've been a victim before), it seemed like someone was responding to my needs and listening to me. Youth Crime Victim - When I first walked into the conferencing meeting and saw the victim and her friends and then saw my grandfather there I wished I could have gone to jail instead. But once everybody had talked about the crime I began to realize that Mrs. B was really hurt and scared by what I had done. I had to work hard to earn the money to pay her back and to do the community service hours (but the work on the crew was pretty fun) and I thought it was fair after all. Juvenile Offender - Now I know what my job is really about! As a manager, I have a better sense of how to allocate, or reallocate, our resources. And my staff are getting a better sense of what their role is and how this fits with my vision of what the community's role should be. We know we're really `out of balance,' but for the first time we have a plan to move forward without chasing every fad and new program that comes along. We can also talk to the community about what we're doing in a way that they understand and want to help. Manager of a Local Juvenile Justice System ------------------------------ Table 1 The Participants in a Balanced and Restorative Juvenile Justice System Crime Victims o Receive support, assistance, compensation, information, and services. o Receive restitution or other reparation from the offender. o Are involved and are encouraged to give input at all points in the system as to how the offender will repair the harm done. o Have the opportunity to face the offenders and tell their story. o Feel satisfied with the justice process. o Provide guidance and consultation to juvenile justice professionals on planning and advisory groups. Offenders o Complete restitution to their victims. o Provide meaningful service to repay the debt to their communities. o Face the personal harm caused by their crimes by participating in victim offender mediation or other victim awareness programs. o Complete work experience and active and productive tasks that increase skills and improve the community. o Are monitored by community adults as well as juvenile justice providers and supervised to the greatest extent possible in the community. o Improve decisionmaking skills and have opportunities to help others. o Citizens, Families, and Community Groups o Are involved to the greatest extent possible in rehabilitation, community safety initiatives, and holding offenders accountable. o Work with offenders on local community service projects. o Provide support to victims. o Provide support to offenders as mentors, employers, and advocates. o Provide work for offenders to pay restitution to victims and service opportunities that allow offenders to make meaningful contributions to the quality of community life. o Assist families to support the offender in obligation to repair the harm and increase competencies. o Advise courts and corrections and play an active role in disposition. ------------------------------ As a community justice model, balanced and restorative justice offers a new vision of how victims, offenders, and others can be involved in the juvenile justice process. As table 1 illustrates, this vision is best understood by examining how the model is viewed by its participants. Balanced and restorative justice is a work in progress. No juvenile justice system is completely balanced or fully restorative. But if juvenile justice systems, including those most committed to the model, fail to meet the standards they have set for community and client involvement, it is not because the model is utopian. It is because administrators are constrained by management protocols designed to deliver services based on the treatment and retributive paradigms. The innovation of balanced and restorative justice lies in its agenda for restructuring the juvenile justice system to make it community-focused rather than bureaucracy-driven. This agenda demands new values, clients, performance objectives, decisionmaking processes, program priorities, staff roles, and patterns of resource allocation. While most juvenile justice agencies determine intervention priorities on the basis of current staff roles and resource allocations, juvenile justice managers who adopt the balanced approach mission are committed to making their agencies and systems value- and client-driven and outcome-oriented. Decisions are based on the premise that programs are means to accomplish restorative outcomes that address community needs (see table 2 below). From a community justice perspective, the value of a program and the quality of its implementation is gauged in large measure by the extent to which it involves community members at all levels of implementation. ------------------------------ Table 2 Outcome Measures and Priorities for Practice in the Balanced Approach Competency Development Intermediate Outcome Measures o Proportion of youth on supervision completing successful work experience or employment (quality of experience?). o Proportion of youth on supervision completing meaningful work/service project. o Extent of bonding between youth under supervision and community adults. o Increase in empathy and improvement in skills. o Demonstrated improvement in conflict resolution and anger management. o Measured increase in educational, interpersonal, citizenship, and other competencies. Priorities for Practice o Structured work experience and employment programs. o Service/active learning. o Cognitive and decisionmaking programs. o Dispute resolution training. o Intergenerational projects. o Cross-age tutoring. o Conservation and environmental awareness. Accountability Intermediate Outcome Measures o Proportion of offenders completing fair and appropriate restitution orders or agreements. o Proportion of victims given input into the process. o Proportion of victims satisfied with the process. o Proportion of offenders showing measured increase in victim awareness and empathy. o Proportion of offenders and victims completing mediation or other resolution and community service. o Proportion of offenders completing meaningful community service projects (number of such projects completed). Priorities for Practice o Restitution to victims. o Restorative community service. o Victim offender mediation. o Direct service to victims or surrogate victims. o Victim awareness panels or victim offender groups in treatment programs. Public Safety Intermediate Outcome Measures o Proportion of offenders reoffending while under juvenile justice supervision. o Number of citizens involved in preventive and monitoring activities. o Decrease in community fear and increase in understanding of juvenile justice. o Decrease in school violence and increase in school and community-based conflict resolution. o Increase in competency, empathy, and internal controls for offenders under supervision. Priorities for Practice o Structuring time of offenders being supervised in the community: work experience, community service, and alternative education. o Effective use of natural surveillance and community guardians such as employers, relatives, churches, and mentors. o Continuum of graduated community-based sanctions and surveillance. o Prevention and capacity building in schools and other community groups. ------------------------------ Citizen Involvement and Client Focus In the total quality management (TQM) movement,(8) the concept of a client involves three components: a recipient of service, a target of intervention and change, and a coparticipant who must have input into the process and be involved to the greatest extent possible in decisionmaking. The input of each client group is needed to stimulate and maintain community involvement. Currently few citizens are involved at significant levels in juvenile justice because they are seldom asked. Although many professionals would welcome community involvement and may work hard at collaboration and service brokerage, such efforts often fail to include employers, clergy, civic leaders, and neighborhood residents. Too often, juvenile justice agencies are unable to find appropriate roles for community members who are not social service professionals or time to support their efforts. Short-term involvement is often uninteresting because it is not linked to interventions that achieve significant outcomes for offenders or victims. When citizens are asked to participate, it is often on the basis of civic duty rather than personal commitment. As Braithwaite and Mugford observe, citizens are more willing to become involved if they have a personal interest in the offender, victim, or the family.(9) Crimes typically evoke a community of concern for the victim, the offender, families and friends, and interested citizens and community groups. As the New Zealand experiment with family group conferencing illustrates, these personal communities can be a primary resource in resolving youth crimes. It is around such microcommunities that citizen participation in justice decisionmaking is being built.(10) BRJ practices and programs invite a high level of citizen participation. Community involvement is never easy, but it is satisfying for citizens to help young offenders make restitution to their victims. The more active roles for offenders, victims, and community in the juvenile justice process, noted in table 1, have implications for the roles of juvenile justice professionals. The most important and difficult challenge in moving toward balanced and restorative justice will be to alter the job descriptions and professional orientations of juvenile justice staff. For those accustomed to working with offenders individually or in programs and facilities, the role change implied by the need to engage victims and communities may be dramatic. Essentially, this change may be best understood as moving from direct service provider or service broker to community justice facilitator.(11) As table 3 below suggests, the new roles involve juvenile justice professionals in activities with each of the three justice clients. These activities include a variety of efforts to enhance preventive capacity and to help adults provide offenders with opportunities for competency development. ------------------------------ Table 3 New Roles in the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model The Coparticipants Victim Active participant in defining the harm of the crime and shaping the obligations placed on the offender. Community Responsible for supporting and assisting victims, holding offenders accountable, and ensuring opportunities for offenders to make amends. Offender Active participant in reparation and competency development. Juvenile Justice Professional Sanctioning Facilitate mediation, ensure restoration, develop creative or restorative community service options, engage community members, and educate the community on its role. Rehabilitation Develop new roles for young offenders that allow them to practice and demonstrate competency, assess and build on youth and community strengths, and develop community partnerships. Public Safety Develop incentives and consequences to ensure offender compliance with supervision objectives, help school and family control and maintain offenders in the community, and develop prevention capacity of local organizations. ------------------------------ Getting There - Some may say this [movement toward restorative justice] is Utopian. While this may be true, in a climate of failure and irrational extremism in the response to juvenile crime, there may be nothing so practical as a good Utopia. Lode Walgrave Robert Fulcrum tells the story of a reporter visiting the cathedral in Chartres, France, during the cathedral's construction. Hoping to get a sense of how those working on this magnificent structure understood and experienced their contribution to its completion, the reporter began asking several workmen about their jobs. The first, a stonecutter, said that his job was simply to cut the stone into square blocks for someone else to use in the foundation; the job was monotonous, and he had been doing the same thing day in and day out. Next, the reporter asked a workman who was painting stone blocks on the front of the building about his job. "I just paint these blocks and nothing more," he said. "There is not much to it." Frustrated that these workmen had little to say about the significance of working on this historical effort, the reporter moved to another part of the building and approached a man carefully cutting stained glass windows. Surely, this man felt that his work was the artistic opportunity of a lifetime. Once again the reporter was disappointed; the man said that he was very tired and somewhat bored with his task. Finally, as he walked out of the cathedral in despair, the reporter passed an elderly woman stooped and working rapidly to clean up the debris left from the stone and glass cutters, painters, and other artisans. He asked what it was that she was doing. Her answer was that she was building the most magnificent cathedral in the history of the world to the glory of God. As this story illustrates, the key to progress toward restorative justice is viewing small steps as the building blocks of a more effective juvenile justice system. Will balanced and restorative justice work? BRJ is not a treatment program but a model for system reform. It cannot be assessed by using traditional program evaluation technologies. The success of a restorative justice system should be measured not only by recidivism but also by victim satisfaction, offender accountability, competency development, and public safety.(12) The success of BRJ will depend on the consistency and integrity of implementation, how well its core philosophy is understood, how effectively it is adapted to local conditions, and whether restorative justice is given a chance. Although restorative justice may not lead to immediate reductions in recidivism, the standard of comparison should be the current system. As a First Nations Community Justice Coordinator in Yukon, Canada, reminds us: So we make mistakes. Can you--the current system-- say you don't make mistakes? . . . If you don't think you do, walk through our community. Every family will have something to teach you. . . . By getting involved, by all of us taking responsibility, it is not that we won't make mistakes, we would be doing it together, as a community instead of having it done to us. . . . We need to make real differences in the way people act and the way we treat others. . . . Only if we empower them and support them can they break out of this trap.(13) It is the failure of current paradigms that has moved some policymakers toward radical measures to abolish the juvenile justice system. Those who wish to preserve it see balanced and restorative justice as a means to do so by crafting a new system in which juvenile justice reflects community justice. ------------------------------ Notes 1. For commentary on closed-system approaches to community corrections, see J. Byrne, "Reintegrating the Concept of Community in Community Corrections," Crime and Delinquency 35 (1989): 471-499; see also A.J. Reiss and M. Tonry, "Why Are Communities Important in Understanding Crime?" Communities and Crime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). Like treatment, punishment will remain an essential component of any juvenile justice system. However, punitive measures focused primarily on incarceration represent only one limited approach to meeting community needs to sanction crime. For commentary on more educative and expressive approaches to setting tolerance limits for crime, see J. Braithewaite, Crime, Shame and Reintegration (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1989); L. Wilkins, Punishment, Crime and Market Forces (Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1991); G. Bazemore and M. Umbreit, "Rethinking the Sanctioning Function in Juvenile Court: Retributive or Restorative Responses to Youth Crime," Crime and Delinquency 41 (1995): 296-316. The counterdeterrent effects of retributive punishment, including stigmatization, weakening bonds, and conventional peer and adult relations, are also well documented. Finally, empirical evidence that criminal justice decisionmakers typically overestimate the perceived punitive effects of incarceration is provided in M. Crouch, "Is Incarceration Really Worse? Analysis of Offenders' Preferences for Prison Over Probation," Justice Quarterly (10) (1993): 67-88. 2. The critique of the individual treatment model presented here is not premised on the largely discredited "nothing works" perspective, nor do we question the need for an effective rehabilitative model for juvenile justice. Rather, our criticisms of traditional counseling-based treatment are based primarily upon the very limited context of intervention in most treatment programs and on the deficit assumptions about offenders on which most of these programs are based. A more comprehensive agenda for rehabilitation and reintegration would focus more on relationship building and the development of roles for delinquent youth that allow them to demonstrate competency while forming bonds with conventional peers and adults. A competency development component of such a reintegrative and restorative agenda is outlined in G. Bazemore and P. Cruise, "Reinventing Rehabilitation: Exploring a Competency Development Model for Juvenile Justice Intervention," Perspectives 19 (1995): 4; and G. Bazemore and C. Terry, "Developing Delinquent Youth: A Reintegrative Model for Rehabilitation and a New Role for the Juvenile Justice System," Child Welfare (forthcoming). 3. Balanced and Restorative Justice (BRJ) is also the title of a national action research project funded through the Technical Assistance and Training Prevention division of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This project provides national training and information dissemination as well as support and assistance to demonstration projects currently implementing BRJ. 4. H. Zehr, Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice (Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press, 1990). 5. Judge B. Stuart, notes from presentation at the annual conference of the Society for Professionals in Dispute Resolution (Toronto, Canada, 1993): 7. 6. In a balanced system, programs and practices aimed at repairing harm to victims should, as Troy Armstrong has phrased it, "resonate with" practices aimed at rehabilitative and public safety objectives. Specifically, holding offenders accountable is a first step in the rehabilitative process. Developing capacities for competent behavior in offenders increases community safety by increasing connectedness and concern for others as well as life skills. Enhanced community safety is often necessary to carry out meaningful community sanctioning, offender reintegration, and victim support and restoration. For a detailed discussion of the balanced approach mission, see D. Maloney and G. Bazemore, "Rehabilitating Community Service: Toward Restorative Service in a Balanced Justice System," Federal Probation (1994); G. Bazemore, "On Mission Statements and Reform in Juvenile Justice: The Case of the Balanced Approach," Federal Probation (1992); G. Bazemore and C. Washington, "Charting the Future of the Juvenile Justice System: Reinventing Mission and Management," Spectrum: The Journal of State Government (1995). Table 2 of this paper provides a general summary of how performance objectives on each goal can be measured. 7. F.W.M. McElrae, "Restorative Justice--The New Zealand Youth Court: A Model for Development in Other Courts?" Journal of Judicial Administration 4 (1994), Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, Melbourne, Australia. 8. W.E. Deming, Out of Crisis (Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engineering, 1986); L. Martin, Total Quality Management in Organizations (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993). 9. J. Braithewaite and S. Mugford, "Conditions of Successful Reintegration Ceremonies: Dealing with Juvenile Offenders," British Journal of Criminology (1995): 34. The authors give examples of how relatives, friends, and acquaintances of young offenders, victims, and their families become vital resources in restoring and meeting the needs of crime victims while also helping offenders when asked to participate in family group conferences. 10. For a more detailed description of the New Zealand and Australian models of family group conferencing, including research findings and critical concerns about implementation, see G. Maxwell and A. Morris, Family, Victims, and Culture: Youth Justice in New Zealand (Wellington, New Zealand: Social Policy Agency and Victoria University, Institute of Criminology, 1993); C. Alder and J. Wundersitz, Family Group Conferencing: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism? (Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1994); M. Umbreit and S. Stacy, "Family Group Conferencing Comes to the U.S.: A Comparison With Victim Offender Mediation," Juvenile and Family Court Journal (forthcoming). 11. The transformation from service provider to the facilitator role is used to describe changes in probation services in the Vermont Department of Corrections' restructuring of the State's probation system through Community Reparative Boards. 12. Answering the question "Does it work?" in a restorative community justice framework must give consideration to improvements in the capacity of community groups and citizens to prevent, sanction, and control crime. For example, the development of community support groups of nonprofessional citizens is generally not viewed as a success outcome, but such measures may be a more critical gauge of long-term community safety than reductions in recidivism of offenders in treatment programs. 13. Rose Couch, Community Justice Coordinator, Quanlin Dun First Nations, Yukon, Canada. As quoted in B. Stuart, "Sentencing Circles: Making `Real Differences'," monograph, Territorial Court of Yukon, Whitehorse, Yukon, Canada. ------------------------------ Supplemental Reading Bazemore, G., and M.S. Umbreit. (1995). "Rethinking the Sanctioning Function in Juvenile Court: Retributive or Restorative Responses to Youth Crime." Crime and Delinquency 41(3): 296- 316. This article proposes restorative justice as an alternative model for the juvenile courts to address limitations of sanctioning choices inherent in individual treatment and retributive justice paradigms. NCJ 156328 Bazemore, G., and M.S. Umbreit. (1994). Balanced and Restorative Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Community supervision of juvenile offenders based on the balanced and restorative justice approach is discussed in this examination of the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project being developed as an outgrowth of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's juvenile restitution training and technical assistance program. NCJ 149727* Cragg, W. (1992). Practice of Punishment: Towards a Theory of Restorative Justice. New York: Routledge. This book develops a theory of punishment in which the central function of law is to reduce the need to use force in the resolution of disputes. The author examines traditional approaches to punishment to determine why they have failed to provide a coherent and humane approach to sentencing and corrections. NCJ 143921 Umbreit, M.S. (1995). "Holding Juvenile Offenders Accountable: A Restorative Justice Perspective." Juvenile and Family Court Journal 46(2): 31-42. This article defines accountability for juvenile offenders as an intervention strategy within the context of the restorative justice paradigm, in which the meaning of accountability shifts from incurring a debt to society to incurring a responsibility for making amends to the victimized person. NCJ 156121 Umbreit, M.S., R.B. Coates, and B. Kalanj. (1994). Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice and Mediation. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press. This book reports findings from a study of victim-offender reconciliation and mediation programs for juvenile offenders in California, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Texas. NCJ 147713 The above publications are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse; those with an asterisk can be ordered using the order form on page 35. ------------------------------ Gordon Bazemore is associate professor in the School of Public Administration at Florida Atlantic University. He is currently editing a book on international juvenile justice reform. Dr. Bazemore is principal investigator of a national action research project funded by OJJDP to pilot systemic reform based on restorative justice principles. He has directed several evaluations of juvenile justice, policing, and minority overrepresentation programs. Susan E. Day is director of the Florida Youth Restoration Project, a community service program for delinquent youth in Palm Beach County, Florida. She serves as program manager for the Balanced and Restorative Justice Project. ------------------------------ Aftercare Not Afterthought: Testing the IAP Model by David M. Altschuler and Troy L. Armstrong Responding to commonly held perceptions that aftercare was one of the weakest links in the juvenile justice system and contributed to high rates of recidivism, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) announced its Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs (IAP) initiative in July 1987. The IAP initiative was designed to help public and private correctional agencies implement effective aftercare programs for chronic and serious juvenile offenders. Launched in spring 1988 under the direction of coprincipal investigators Dr. David Altschuler of Johns Hopkins University and Dr. Troy Armstrong of California State University, Sacramento, the IAP project used a four-stage approach to long-term program research and development. After 7 years of research, development, and training, demonstration sites in Colorado, Nevada, New Jersey, and Virginia began implementing the IAP model. IAP Model The model of intensive aftercare being tested at the pilot sites is best described as theory driven, risk assessment based, and empirically grounded. The approach prepares, transitions, and reintegrates high-risk juvenile offenders from secure confinement into the community in a gradual and highly structured manner. Organizationally, the system domain for applying the proposed IAP model is most clearly conceptualized as a correctional continuum consisting of three distinct, yet overlapping, segments: o Prerelease and preparatory planning during incarceration. o Structured transition that requires the participation of institutional and aftercare staff prior to and following community reentry. o Long-term, reintegrative activities that ensure adequate service delivery and the necessary level of social control. Programmatic Principles A multifaceted and integrated approach to community reentry, the IAP model requires an overarching case management process that ensures significant control over released juvenile offenders and enhanced service delivery focusing on recognized risk and protective factors. To reduce recidivism and relapse, the IAP sites forge working collaborations across diverse professional and agency boundaries. The following programmatic principles are the foundation of the IAP model: o Preparing juveniles for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community. o Facilitating interaction and involvement between juveniles and the community. o Working with offenders and targeted community support systems (families, peers, schools, employers) on the qualities needed for constructive interactions that advance the juveniles' reintegration into the community. o Developing new resources and support as needed. o Monitoring and testing juveniles and the community on their capacity to deal with each other productively. Critical Elements As formulated, the IAP model is descriptive, not prescriptive, because it can be structured and applied in diverse ways if the framework is compatible with the foundational programmatic principles cited above. Although policymakers, planners, administrators, and staff must have adequate leeway to select the components, features, and processes that best address the specific needs of their communities and confined youth, some contextual and programmatic elements must be taken into account. The following elements are critical to successfully translate IAP principles into practice: o Organizational factors and the external environment. o Overarching case management, which includes the following: - Risk assessment and classification for establishing eligibility. - Individual case planning that incorporates a family and community perspective. - A mix of intensive surveillance and services. - A balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions. - Service brokerage with community resources linkage with social networks. - Management information and program evaluation. Summary The IAP model builds on several innovations that have taken place within the juvenile justice system during the past decade. First, findings from the intensive supervision movement have provided invaluable insights. Technological advancements have improved the ability to assess risks and needs. Other advancements, such as electronic monitoring and enhanced drug testing, have strengthened supervision efforts by facilitating more effective social control. Second, there is a growing consensus among juvenile justice professionals that serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders are among the most troubled juveniles in society in terms of personal problems, skill deficits, and emotional instability. Such multiproblem youth demand a broad spectrum of treatment strategies. Accordingly, no single agency or organization can realistically or successfully design, fund, direct, and implement aftercare programs that comprehensively address the problems and needs of such high-risk offenders. Collaboration among several agencies is a sine qua non for success. Pilot Site: Colorado The IAP project in Colorado is operated by the State Division of Youth Services (DYS), Department of Institutions. The catchment area comprises parts of Jefferson, Arapahoe, and Denver Counties, including greater metropolitan Denver. The site benefits from its proximity to the juvenile offenders' home communities. Only 18 miles from downtown Denver, Lookout Mountain Youth Services Center (LMYSC) is a secure facility whose residents include the most delinquent youth in the DYS system. LMYSC houses IAP participants in a single cottage. Enhanced Assessment Participants in Colorado's IAP project benefit from enhanced assessment techniques such as the Young Offender Level of Service Inventory, the Adolescent Living Independently Via Education and Employment (ALIVE-E) assessment, and privately provided vocational assessment. These techniques supplement the standard battery of educational and psychological assessment instruments, complementing data gathered to profile a youth's social, legal, medical, and substance abuse dimensions. The above assessment tools identify areas critical to reducing risk, promoting prosocial support systems, and providing treatment. Within 60 days of confinement, a discrete case plan that establishes goals for successful community reintegration outlines an IAP strategy specifically developed for that youth. Input from family members, LMYSC staff, service providers, and other concerned parties is used to implement tasks set forth in the plan. Client Manager To ensure adequate levels of supervision and service, an IAP client manager oversees each case from institutional referral through community reentry to followup and discharge. Specific standards for client management include monthly face-to-face contacts with the youth during institutional treatment and weekly contacts that begin 60 days prior to release and continue through community placement. Caseload size is capped at 18 cases, with a maximum of 6 institutional and 12 community clients. Although client managers assume primary responsibility for all community contacts, various service providers aid community supervision. Trackers employed by private providers are used extensively for daily face-to-face contacts with youth in the community. Trackers are trained to make random contacts, monitor daily schedules, and employ electronic technology using both active (e.g., voice verification) and passive (e.g., ankle monitors) equipment. They make the majority of their contacts outside normal working hours. Key Services In addition to family therapy and support, other critical areas of service provision include education, vocational training, job placement, and substance abuse treatment. Each service provider develops an individual treatment plan that establishes goals and time frames consistent with objectives stated in the discrete case plan. Client managers coordinate the delivery of services through a brokerage model. Although positive incentives are used, a system of graduated consequences ensures accountability. Consequences for misconduct include work program assignments, community service orders, timeout in detention, and short-term placement in the secure Reflections Unit, a program operated by a private service provider in the Denver area. Reflections serves as an alternative to revocation by offering a residential setting where IAP youth can be held accountable for their poor community adjustment and prepared for return to the community. Pilot Site: Nevada The Division of Nevada Youth Corrections Services' Youth Parole Bureau operates that State's IAP project. Clark County, which has the greatest concentration of serious juvenile offenders committed to State confinement, was selected as the pilot site. The 150 miles between the offenders' home community of Las Vegas and the Caliente Youth Center, the participating youth correctional facility, presented a significant challenge to implementing the IAP model. Youth are screened for IAP eligibility and randomly assigned to the experimental group. Selected youth are sent to the Nevada Youth Training Center in Elko for an initial 3-week assessment. Subsequently, they are transferred to the Caliente Youth Center, which houses IAP participants in a single cottage. Transition Particular emphasis is placed on the prerelease curriculum taught during the month prior to reentry into the community. The course focuses on social skills training and issues related to street readiness. An aftercare worker from Las Vegas resides at Caliente and serves as an ongoing liaison between the institution and the community, ensuring regular, sustained contact. The Clark County School District employs an educational liaison worker who spends considerable time at the institution and has primary responsibility for reintegrating IAP youth into the public school system. Team Approach The community supervision component relies on a team approach. The 3 juvenile parole officers assigned to the IAP project are collectively responsible for supervising 45 IAP parolees in the community. These officers also work with IAP staff and youth at Caliente. The team approach affords 24-hour coverage in the community when required. At the same time, it ensures the provision of service delivery while facilitating the brokerage of additional resources. Team staffing allows each member to develop individual expertise in areas such as substance abuse treatment, family therapy techniques, vocational education and training procedures, and job development and placement. The team has devised a system of positive incentives and graduated sanctions, with consequences including community service for lesser infractions and more stringent curfews, house arrest, and brief periods of confinement for serious misconduct. Additional Activities Additional personnel augment the IAP supervision team. Two community outreach trackers provide expanded hours of supervision during evenings and weekends. Outreach workers blend surveillance with service that includes life skills training and monitored recreation. Probation staff from the juvenile court share electronic monitoring equipment, when needed, to restrict the mobility of IAP participants. Efforts have been made to expand the spectrum of community-based services while enhancing existing services. IAP aspirations include increasing the number of group homes, developing a transitional living center to prepare older adolescents for independent living, and improving the availability of inpatient and outpatient drug and alcohol treatment programs. Providing services depends on the brokerage of services to private vendors. In addition to these purchase-of-service arrangements, service provision is coordinated with other public sector organizations and agencies such as schools, vocational training institutions, and mental healthcare centers. Pilot Site: New Jersey New Jersey's IAP project focuses on high-risk youth from Camden and Essex (Newark) Counties. These youth are incarcerated at the New Jersey Training School for Boys (NJTSB) in Jamesburg. Eligibility for participation is based on a risk assessment instrument developed specifically for the IAP demonstration. The instrument, an adaptation of standard risk assessment instruments that incorporate static and dynamic risk factors, also has an override capability. The override option is designed to take into account either aggravating factors that could justify placing a low- or moderate-risk juvenile into IAP or mitigating factors that could result in the diversion of a high-risk juvenile from IAP. Examples include placing a low-risk juvenile with no priors who committed a single violent offense into IAP and diverting a chronic, multiproblem youngster from IAP to a special needs program. At NJTSB, IAP participants are housed in a designated cottage. Affiliated residential centers in Camden and Essex Counties provide a step-down transition for reintegration into the community. Project participants typically spend 4 to 6 months at NJTSB before being paroled into the community. Programming established specifically for the project begins within the first 4 to 6 weeks of incarceration and includes group counseling sessions with institution staff, case managers, parole officers, and residential center staff. Case managers and parole officers also conduct family sessions at NJTSB. Transportation is provided to facilitate participation in these family sessions. Transition Team Staff and residents from the transitional residential centers and other community service providers visit NJTSB to help IAP participants become oriented to life in the community. One-on-one counseling sessions conducted during these visits focus on transitional issues such as education, work, peer influences, conflict resolution, and substance abuse. The IAP design allows a parole officer to carry a caseload of approximately 25 juveniles. The parole officer supervises youth in the community. The case manager works with participants in NJTSB, establishing and monitoring case plans for transition. Working as a team, the case manager and parole officer share office space at the step-down residential center, which promotes partnership and facilitates access to community service providers, schools, and employers. Final Phase IAP participants spend up to 4 months in a community residential center or day treatment program, with structured, onsite programs offered throughout the first 2 months. Upon successful completion of this transitional phase, juveniles are released to family members or guardians or to independent living. (An independent living rental subsidy may be provided for up to 2 months.) Supervision during the final phase of the IAP program is initially intensive, with in-person contacts with the parole officer occurring at least three times per week. Such supervision and contacts decrease as progress dictates. Pilot Site: Virginia The Intensive Parole Program (IPP), Virginia's IAP project, is designed for chronic offenders who have been committed to the Beaumont Juvenile Correctional Center by the Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. To be eligible for IPP, participants must be at least 16 years old. Participation in IPP is determined by an intensive aftercare risk assessment instrument that identifies candidates at risk of recidivism. The Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) assigns two counselors to assess youth recommended for the program. An IPP counselor provides ongoing case management and counseling to committed IPP youth. IPP counselors are trained in a life skills curriculum used with participating youth and their families throughout all phases of the program. In addition, a Norfolk Youth Network Community Assessment Team (CAT) handles all IPP cases. CAT works with parole officers, offenders, and offenders' families to identify treatment, service needs, and agencies to address problems. Beaumont As case manager, the Beaumont IPP counselor is responsible for implementing treatment plan objectives during incarceration. The Beaumont IPP counselor and youth have daily contact, compared with the customary bimonthly contact that regular Beaumont counselors have with non-IPP youth. The Beaumont IPP counselor continues the life skills curriculum initiated at RDC and conducts other group activities, which include recreation, cultural awareness, and counseling. At a minimum, the counselor calls the Norfolk IPP counselor weekly and visits the families monthly. Norfolk The Norfolk Court Service Unit has appointed two senior parole counselors who supervise IPP participants and coordinate family services. Norfolk IPP counselors visit participating youth at Beaumont at least once per month. Upon release from Beaumont, participants are contacted at least three times per week. Norfolk IPP counselors have an average caseload of 15 juveniles. Counselors hold weekly family meetings; conduct unannounced spot checks at school, home, and place of employment; continue the life skills curriculum through weekly meetings; and coordinate other group activities involving participants and their families. In consultation with CAT staff and agencies, Norfolk counselors refer youth for services and work closely with the Norfolk School's Transition Specialist to address educational needs. A paraprofessional, serving as a parole aide, assists with monitoring, transportation, and other functions. Every 30 days, the youth appears in court for a judicial review, at which time the parole officer updates the participant's progress. Conclusion The primary goal of the IAP initiative is to test the effectiveness of a carefully designed, highly intensified, and multidimensional model for reducing recidivism among chronic and serious juvenile offenders who are being reintegrated into their communities from secure confinement. The model is grounded in theoretical and practical assumptions about identifying factors correlated with serious, chronic delinquency and developing intervention strategies to effectively address those factors. If this model is effective, additional States will implement IAP projects and incorporate them into the continuum of response established for their juvenile justice systems. ------------------------------ References Altschuler, D.M. (1994). "Tough and Smart Juvenile Incarceration: Reintegrating Punishment, Deterrence and Rehabilitation." Saint Louis University Public Law Review 14(1): 217-237. This analysis of juvenile justice policies concludes that increasing emphasis on punishment neglects risk factors that tend to predict juvenile offending. These factors include dysfunctional family relations, school behavior problems, negative peer group influences, and drug involvement. NCJ 158827 Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. (1995). "Managing Aftercare Services for Delinquents." in B. Glick and A.P. Goldstein, eds., Managing Delinquency Programs That Work. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association, pp. 137-170. Reflecting the experience of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Program, this paper discusses management and administrative issues critical to constructing the institutional and aftercare experiences of high-risk juvenile offenders. NCJ 156513 Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. (1994). "Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model." Program Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This 20-page program summary reports the interim findings of OJJDP's initiative to assess intensive aftercare program models for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. It describes the framework for a prototype proposed for field testing. NCJ 147575* Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. (1994). "Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: An Assessment." Program Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This 195-page report presents a review of programs and literature concerning juvenile prerelease, transition reintegration, and aftercare. It includes information on assessment and classification for risk and need, descriptions of community- and institution-based programs, and an overview of theory-driven interventions. NCJ 144018* Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. (1994). "Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and Procedures." Program Summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This 28-page program summary explains the underlying principles and program elements of the intensive aftercare program model, which can be applied in a variety of settings. It addresses organizational factors, case management, and program evaluation. NCJ 147712* Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. (1991). "Intensive Aftercare for the High-Risk Juvenile Parolee: Issues and Approaches in Reintegration and Community Supervision." in T.L. Armstrong, ed., Intensive Interventions With High-Risk Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and Parole. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, pp. 45- 84. This summary describes an OJJDP-sponsored research program on intensive, community-based parole for high-risk juvenile offenders released from secure confinement. It identifies and reviews key issues and provides an intervention model for juvenile intensive aftercare. NCJ 129821 Armstrong, T.L., and D.M. Altschuler. (1994). "Recent Developments in Programming for High-Risk Juvenile Parolees: Assessment Findings and Program Prototype Development." in A.R. Roberts, ed., Critical Issues in Crime and Justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 189-213. This paper describes a research and development project initiated by OJJDP to assess, test, and disseminate information on intensive juvenile aftercare program prototypes for chronic serious juvenile offenders who initially required secure confinement. NCJ 149863 The above publications are available from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse; those with an asterisk can be ordered using the order form on page 35. ------------------------------ David M. Altschuler and Troy L. Armstrong are coprincipal investigators of OJJDP's Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Demonstration and Technical Assistance Program. Dr. Altschuler is principal research scientist at the Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies in Baltimore, and Dr. Armstrong is professor in the Department of Anthropology, California State University at Sacramento. ------------------------------ Using Satellite Teleconferencing by Michael A. Jones, Bruce I. Wolford, and F.M. Porpotage II The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) uses satellite telecommunications to effectively and efficiently disseminate training and information to diverse juvenile justice constituencies. This article presents an overview of distance technology, reviews OJJDP's successes, and outlines the steps interested parties should take to participate in future broadcasts or to sponsor their own. Satellite teleconferencing is a cost-effective means of delivering training and information to people who live in geographically diverse areas that may limit their access to such information. During the past 5 years, a series of studies, numerous books, and other reports have examined the rapidly expanding field of telecommunication technology and its application to training and information dissemination. A fundamental issue at the core of technology-based training is the changing nature of today's professional world. Evidence suggests that the United States' work force is entering a time when the training that workers receive will become obsolete within 3 to 5 years. Limited funds and time, great distances, and other constraints will create a strong demand for more efficient, expedient ways to disseminate information (Chute, Hancock, and Balthazar, 1991). Distance Training The concept of distance training is expanding the definitions of how individuals learn, where they learn, and who teaches them (U.S. Congress, 1989). Distance training has become increasingly sophisticated since the time of the first educational radio programs. Barker (1989) used distance training as a catchall phrase to describe any form of instruction in which the learner and instructor were separated geographically and linked via telecommunication systems that permitted live, interactive audio and/or video exchanges. Applications of distance training have increased dramatically during the past decade. In 1988, fewer than 10 States were promoting distance training (U.S. Congress, 1989). Today, all States do. The quality of distance learning has been recognized with increasing respect and credibility (Turnbull, 1988). Many trainers in the United States subscribe to the philosophy that the only difference between distance training and conventional training is the delivery mechanism, not the structure (Zigerell, 1984). The motivation for distance training is a practical one. Training people where they are is more efficient than transporting them to the trainer. In addition to enhancing productivity, distance training enables OJJDP to reach line staff who otherwise might be excluded from national training opportunities. Distance training effectively uses qualified trainers who do not need to travel across the country to deliver a simultaneous, consistent message to thousands of professionals. The traditional training paradigm, which requires the instructor and student to occupy the same classroom, has been challenged by technological advances. These advances can duplicate the benefit of traditional training with the flexibility and individualization of self-directed learning. No longer are the instructor and learner confined to the same classroom. With existing technology, the instructor can communicate information to a limitless number of classrooms. Delivery Systems The array of distance delivery systems changes with each new technological advance. Currently, the most popular delivery systems are computer-based (for example, two-way video and the Internet) or satellite-based (satellite teleconferencing). As fiber-optic cables expand across America, computer-based technologies are becoming easier to access and more readily available. However, until a fiber-optic system is widely implemented, this medium will not be the preferred delivery mechanism for disseminating training or information to large, geographically diverse audiences. Satellite teleconferencing is widely used by business, industry, and government agencies to deliver training and information to staff and constituencies around the world. This popular training tool requires only a steerable satellite dish and a television to access broadcast signals and a telephone for participants to use while interacting with panelists during call-in segments. Regardless of the medium or approach used, training and education programs must engage the learner, identify clear instructional objectives, and use alternate instructional strategies to be successful. Distance training will not replace face-to-face instruction any more than use of the VCR as an educational aid has eliminated the role of the classroom teacher. It is simply another instructional tool. Satellite Teleconferencing Since 1992, OJJDP has funded the Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project (JJTAP) at Eastern Kentucky University to train and inform a geographically diverse juvenile justice constituency using satellite teleconferencing. (See table 1 below.) This technology has become an integral part of OJJDP's continuing efforts to disseminate information across the Nation in a timely fashion. Juvenile justice, education, and child welfare professionals, policymakers, and the public have watched national telecasts on issues such as confinement in juvenile corrections and detention facilities; community collaboration; effective programs for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders; youth-oriented community policing; juvenile boot camps; and conflict resolution for youth. As these telecasts have demonstrated, satellite-delivered teleconferences are most effective when they introduce general topics that interest large numbers of participants in many locations. Supported by OJJDP research reports and publications, these satellite broadcasts are similar in quality to a news program or documentary. ------------------------------ Table 1 OJJDP Teleconferences The items below are listed in this order: Topics Number of Viewing Sites* Approximate Number of Viewers Conditions of Confinement in Juvenile Corrections and Detention Facilities (9/93) 165 4,950 Community Collaboration (6/95) 175 5,250 Effective Programs for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (10/95) 162 4,860 Youth-Oriented Community Policing (12/95) 183 5,490 Juvenile Boot Camps (2/96) 288 8,640 Conflict Resolution for Youth (5/96) 485 14,550 Reducing Youth Gun Violence (8/96) 271 8,130 Youth Out of the Education Mainstream (10/96) 380 11,400 Total Number of Viewing Sites 2,109 Total Approximate Number of Viewers 63,270 Videos of each OJJDP satellite teleconference can be obtained for a nominal fee from the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736. *The Law Enforcement Television Network and local cable television providers sometimes provided their members with a simultaneous broadcast of OJJDP teleconferences. Those sites may not be reflected in the totals. ------------------------------ Engaging the Community The purpose of education and training is to change behavior. Long-term changes that affect communities and youth occur at the local level. Recognizing the local focus of juvenile justice and prevention, OJJDP uses satellite teleconferencing to strengthen and support community efforts to address current pressing issues. Satellite teleconferencing can be a national catalyst for local, regional, and State examination of OJJDP initiatives and research. The low cost per participant of broadcasting a national teleconference to a large audience makes the medium an extremely cost-effective delivery mechanism. Furthermore, large numbers of participants who rarely attend national conferences now have a means of receiving timely information on juvenile justice and delinquency prevention issues. Evaluation Independent evaluations of teleconferences consistently yield positive feedback from juvenile justice professionals. On average, more than 90 percent of viewers responding to a survey instrument indicate that the content of OJJDP teleconferences successfully addresses critical issues affecting their professional responsibilities; that panelists provide useful, understandable information; and that new ideas presented during the teleconferences are used to modify or implement programs. In addition, 90 to 95 percent of viewers compliment the effectiveness of the medium, and more than 95 percent support its future use for training and disseminating information. Generating Community Participation One of the most tangible benefits of participating in a teleconference is the local discussion and action that follow a telecast. You can attract a local audience to a national teleconference by: o Identifying key stakeholders in the community or jurisdiction who have an interest in juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. o Establishing contacts with members of each stakeholder group. o Disseminating information about the teleconference through your stakeholder contacts. The personal touch works. If you know colleagues who should participate, call them. As you assemble the audience, collect local information on the topic. Because the teleconference will examine national data with selected regional applications, you should have information about the issues facing your community available for local participants. If time and resources permit, consider making the teleconference the centerpiece of a local forum or training initiative. Facilitation The most successful telecasts are supported by active facilitation at the downlink sites. Hosting a teleconference requires little more than tuning the satellite dish to the proper coordinates, turning on the television, and opening the door. However, participants who report the greatest benefits from teleconferences participate in pre- and post-broadcast activities that give them an opportunity to discuss local issues, concerns, and applications of the information they have received. The benefits of teleconferences can readily be summed up by the old saying: "The more you put into something, the more you get out of it." Facilitation improves the overall operation of a teleconference and enhances the participants' discussion and learning. Quality facilitation, like quality training, results from planning and preparation. Select an effective local facilitator who has the time to review the preconference materials and handouts prior to the telecast. Work with the facilitator to plan local activities before and after the telecast that will encourage further discussion of the issues presented. Consider developing local questions, organizing a discussion panel of experts, or dividing the participants into smaller discussion groups that report their observations to the reassembled audience. Remember that the telecast has been designed as a catalyst for local action. Effective facilitation will ensure your teleconference's success. Access With the growth of downlink sites, satellite teleconferences are becoming more accessible. Many government agencies and organizations are installing downlinks. If you do not own a satellite dish, you can probably arrange to use one. Although registration for OJJDP satellite teleconferences is free, each site may incur some expense in securing the services of a downlink site. Fees vary widely, and you are encouraged to be a conscientious consumer. To find a local viewing site, first check government agencies. Within the Federal Government, the largest number of satellite downlinks are operated by the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Veterans Affairs (especially its medical facilities), the U.S. Postal Service, and the Social Security Administration. (The Internal Revenue Service has a large network of dishes, but they are difficult to operate because they are locked onto a single satellite. Department of Defense satellite facilities are also extensive but less accessible.) Other Federal agencies that have their own networks include the Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Most Federal agencies offer their facilities to other Government agencies free of charge if the downlink is not being used on the day of the broadcast. In addition, State and local governments are installing dishes at an accelerated rate. Check with these agencies for the availability and times of their viewing sites. If government facilities are not available, contact local community colleges, universities, and schools. Educational institutions often charge a fee that ranges from a few dollars to several hundred dollars per hour. Other alternatives include police and fire stations, local hotels, and satellite-dish rental firms. (Rental opportunities are listed in the phone directory.) Even in rural areas, you may find videoconference facilities within a reasonable distance if you search diligently. Once your agency has been added to the Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project database, you will be notified of all future OJJDP teleconferences. To participate in an OJJDP teleconference, you must register a site. After your registration has been processed, the site coordinator will receive a master participant resource packet. The site coordinator also will receive a facilitator's guide that outlines the tasks necessary for a successful event and a technical guide that lists the program's broadcast coordinates. Sponsoring a Teleconference OJJDP encourages juvenile justice agencies and organizations to consider using satellite teleconferences to disseminate research from their projects. JJTAP has developed the Teleconferencing Resource Manual as a guide to downlinking, developing, and broadcasting programs. JJTAP staff and other experts in designing satellite teleconferences are available to help your agency take advantage of this promising medium. Summary As testimony to its commitment to provide a comprehensive strategy for juvenile justice, OJJDP uses state-of-the-art strategies to train and inform all levels of the juvenile justice, education, child welfare, and law enforcement communities about critical issues and research affecting America's youth. Although satellite teleconferencing is not the only method for accomplishing this task, its importance has been widely accepted by juvenile justice practitioners throughout the Nation. You and your agency are strongly encouraged to use satellite broadcast technology and participate in future OJJDP-sponsored teleconferences. The savings realized by conserving resources and delivering a consistent message can be substantial. ------------------------------ References Barker, B.O. (1989). Distance Education Technologies: All That Glitters Is Not Gold. Paper presented at the Second Annual Meeting of the Decisions about Technology Conference, Bismarck, ND, 1989. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 894) Chute, A.G., B.W. Hancock, and L.B. Balthazar. (May 1991). "Distance Education Futures: Information Needs and Technology Options." Performance and Instruction. Jones, M., B. Wolford, and J. McDowell. (1996). Teleconferencing Resource Manual. Richmond, KY: Eastern Kentucky University. Ostendorf, V.A. (1992). Downlink Directory for Commercial, Health Care and Transportable Downlinks. Vol. 2, 6th Ed. Littleton, CO: Mido. Ostendorf, V.A. (1992). Downlink Directory for Educational, Government and Association Downlinks. Vol. 1, 6th Ed. Littleton, CO: Mido. Ostendorf, V.A. (1989). Teaching Through Interactive Television. Littleton, CO: Virginia A. Ostendorf, Inc. Turnbull, A.J. "Distance Education--The Trend Setter." In D. Stewart and J.S. Daniel, eds., Developing Distance Education (pp. 429-431). Paper submitted to the World Conference of the International Council for Distance Education, Oslo, Norway, 1988. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 544) U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education. (OTA-SET-430). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 310 765) Zigerell, J. (1984). Distance Education: An Information Age Approach to Adult Education. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, The Ohio State University, 1984. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 246 311) ------------------------------ Michael A. Jones, Project Director of the Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project at the Eastern Kentucky University Training Resource Center (TRC), is responsible for the day-to-day programmatic and fiscal activities of the project. Bruce I. Wolford, Ph.D., Director of the Eastern Kentucky University Training Resource Center, has provided oversight and direction for the telecommunications project since it was awarded to TRC in 1992. F.M. Porpotage II, Assistant Director of the Training and Technical Assistance Division for OJJDP, served as the monitor for the telecommunications contract since its inception in 1992 and as Executive Producer of the OJJDP broadcasts. ------------------------------ Previous OJJDP satellite teleconferences have attracted large audiences and received excellent evaluations. The potential for these events is virtually unlimited. Interested agencies or individuals who would like to participate in future OJJDP teleconferences or who require assistance in locating a satellite dish should contact the grantee office at Eastern Kentucky University, Training Resource Center, Telecommunications Assistance Project, 301 Perkins Building, Richmond, Kentucky 40475-3127; by phone at (606) 622-6270; by fax at (606) 622-2333; or by e-mail at njdadeh@aol.com. For information on downlinks in your community, consult the Downlink Directory. ------------------------------ In Brief Justice Matters Reducing Overrepresentation of Minority Youth in Confinement One of the core requirements of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act is that States develop and implement strategies to appropriately address the over-representation of minority youth in secure facilities where it is found to exist. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) supports this objective through a variety of initiatives under The Deborah Ann Wysinger Memorial Program. This program honors an OJJDP professional who devoted her life to helping young people, particularly by reducing disproportionate incarceration of minority youth and improving the juvenile justice system on Indian reservations. The program's activities include data collection and analysis on disproportionate minority confinement (DMC), demonstration and evaluation of model approaches in five pilot States, and technical assistance and training. OJJDP is also in the process of soliciting for and awarding a grant for a 3-year DMC national training, technical assistance, and information dissemination project. Under the model approaches demonstration program, five pilot States--Arizona, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, and Oregon--were selected on a competitive basis. During Phase I of the initiative, the States assessed the extent of DMC in their juvenile justice systems. In Phase II, they designed and implemented strategies to address the DMC issues identified in Phase I. The initiative included a national evaluation to document lessons learned, identify key factors in the success of State and local efforts, and determine the efficacy of different interventions. Highlights from the evaluations include: o In Arizona, a pilot project demonstrated the value of involving agency and community representatives in DMC projects, particularly minority community representatives, and the importance of ensuring informed political support at the State level. o In Florida, educating stakeholders in the State's juvenile justice system about alternatives to confinement available in the community led to the development of a diversion program for minority youth. o In Iowa, the DMC initiative multiplied the impact of its efforts by advocating for minority youth and their families; collaborating with juvenile justice agencies, other public agencies, and community nonprofit organizations; and developing alternative resources such as culturally sensitive delinquency treatment. o In North Carolina, DMC projects reinforced the recognition that community buy-in and strong county-level leadership are critical factors in the success of identifying and resolving DMC problems. o In Oregon, the DMC initiative increased the cultural awareness and sensitivity of service providers; addressed the needs of minority juvenile offenders in a more culturally appropriate manner; increased school and employment participation; and heightened self-esteem and self-control of minority juvenile offenders. These findings have been incorporated into training and technical assistance that OJJDP provides to all States as resources for planning and implementing steps to reduce DMC in the juvenile justice system. For More Information Evaluation findings of the DMC sites are available from OJJDP's Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse in five volumes (NCJ 161560 through NCJ 161564). Electronic versions are available online through the publications section of OJJDP's World Wide Web page (http://www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm). Printed copies can be purchased from the Clearinghouse for $15 per volume or $39 for the set. Consult the order form on page 35 or contact the Clearinghouse by phone (800-638-8736); e-mail (askncjrs@ncjrs.org); or mail (Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, Box 6000, Rockville, MD, 20849- 6000). Resolving Conflict A safe and orderly environment in our Nation's schools and other public institutions is crucial to promoting high standards for learning and ensuring that children develop to their full potential. Resolving conflict is essential to creating such an environment. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is committed to working with schools, community organizations, and other youth service providers to develop the skills and techniques they need to prevent violence. Services and support available from OJJDP include publications, a videotape, and training and technical assistance. Conflict Resolution Curriculum In partnership with the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Office of the U.S. Department of Education, OJJDP has prepared a curriculum guide, Conflict Resolution Education: A Guide to Implementing Programs in Schools, Youth-Serving Organizations, and Community and Juvenile Justice Settings, to encourage the development of programs that teach youth how to handle conflicts without resorting to violence. The guide explains how to select and implement an appropriate conflict resolution program for a specific youth population. The guide offers: o An overview of the principles of conflict resolution. o Descriptions of four effective approaches to conflict resolution. o Guidance on extending conflict resolution skills beyond the classroom and into the community. o A summary of research on conflict resolution programs. Conflict Resolution Teleconference On May 29, 1996, OJJDP, with support from its Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Technical Assistance Project, presented a teleconference on conflict resolution. The 2-hour broadcast discussed conflict resolution training and consultation resources and highlighted conflict resolution approaches described in the Conflict Resolution Education Guide. Regional Training and Technical Assistance OJJDP has awarded a grant to the Illinois Institute for Dispute Resolution to provide, in concert with other conflict resolution organizations, training and technical assistance to communities implementing conflict resolution programs for youth. The training and technical assistance is being offered through regional conferences. Each conference featured more than 40 sessions based on the Conflict Resolution Education Guide. Workshop topics included mediation and violence prevention in justice settings; creating peaceable schools; effectiveness of conflict resolution programs; peer mediation in elementary, middle, and high schools; and negotiation skills. The conferences were designed for teams of participants, with participation by youth encouraged. For More Information Contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (JJC) for more information and to order copies of the Conflict Resolution Education Guide (NCJ 160935; free) and the teleconference video and participant's guide (NCJ 161416; $17). You can reach the Clearinghouse by phone (800-638-8736); e-mail (askncjrs@ncjrs.org); or mail (Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, Box 6000, Rockville, MD, 20849-6000). The guide and video are also featured on the order form on page 35. ------------------------------ OJJDP Resources State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime An OJJDP Research Report Recent increases in violent juvenile delinquency have prompted extraordinary measures by State legislators and Governors to get tough on juvenile crime. Since 1992, 47 States and the District of Columbia have made substantive changes to their laws governing the handling of serious and violent juvenile offenders. To document the scope of these dramatic changes, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the U.S. Department of Justice sponsored this comprehensive study by Patricia McFall Torbet and colleagues at the National Center for Juvenile Justice. An invaluable resource for any lawmaker, policymaker, or practitioner concerned about juvenile justice in the United States, State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime analyzes State laws enacted between 1992 and 1995 addressing violent juvenile crime. The report discusses the historical significance of this dramatic redefining of the juvenile justice system's mission and includes anecdotal information about substantive and procedural changes collected through telephone surveys of juvenile justice practitioners in every State. ---------- Five Trends in Laws Focusing on Serious and Violent Crime by Juveniles o Jurisdictional Authority. More serious and violent juvenile offenders are being removed from the juvenile system and prosecuted in criminal courts. o Disposition and Sentencing Options. More State legislatures are experimenting with new disposition and sentencing strategies. o Correctional Programming. New transfer and sentencing options are putting pressure on correctional administrators to develop programs. o Confidentiality in Juvenile Court. Traditional confidentiality provisions are being revised in favor of more open proceedings and records. o Victims of Juvenile Crime. Victims of juvenile crime have become active participants in the juvenile justice process. ---------- How To Get Your Free Copy For a free copy of State Responses to Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime, write to the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849-6000, call toll-free 800-638-8736, access the OJJDP home page at http://www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm, or e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org. Ask for NCJ 161565. ------------------------------ OJJDP Fact Sheets OJJDP continues to expand its collection of Fact Sheets. OJJDP Fact Sheets are 2-page summaries that highlight key points and sources for further information on the programs and initiatives of OJJDP. They are available from OJJDP's Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse in a variety of media to support your information needs. Printed copies can be obtained through the mail (fax this checklist to 410-792-4358), via fax-on-demand (call 800-638- 8736; select option 1 for automated ordering services and option 2 for fax-on-demand instructions), or online through the publications section of OJJDP's World Wide Web page (http://www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm). o FS009301 Conditions of Confinement in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities o FS009302 Children in Custody 1991: Private Facilities o FS009304 Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders: A Comprehensive Strategy o FS009305 Children in Custody 1991: Public Facilities o FS009406 Delinquency Prevention o FS009407 Meeting the Mandates o FS009408 Family Strengthening for High-Risk Youth o FS009409 Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Courts, 1991 o FS009410 Person Offense Cases in Juvenile Court o FS009411 Disproportionate Minority Confinement o FS009412 Gangs o FS009413 1992 Juvenile Arrests o FS009414 Juvenile Violent Crime Arrest Rates 1972-1992 o FS009415 Violent Crimes Cleared by Juvenile Arrest o FS009416 Are Juveniles Driving the Violent Crime Trends? o FS009417 Juvenile Victimization: 1987-1992 o FS009418 Delinquency Cases in Juvenile Court, 1992 o FS009419 Juveniles and Violence: Juvenile Offending and Victimization o FS009420 What Works: Promising Interventions in Juvenile Justice o FS009421 Violent Families and Youth Violence o FS009522 The JJDP Act Mandates: Rationale and Summary o FS009523 Juvenile Admissions to State Custody, 1992 o FS009524 Juvenile Delinquency Development Statements o FS009525 Juveniles in Public Facilities, 1993 o FS009526 VOCA: Helping Victims of Child Abuse o FS009527 Juvenile Admissions to State Custody, 1993 o FS009528 National Youth Gang Center o FS009529 Hate Crime o FS009530 YES: Youth Environmental Service Initiative o FS009531 Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention o FS009532 National Center for Missing and Exploited Children o FS009533 Gould-Wysinger Awards o FS009534 Parental Kidnapping o FS009635 Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program o FS009636 Juvenile Boot Camps: Lessons Learned o FS009637 Training of Staff in Juvenile Detention and Correctional Facilities o FS009638 SafeFutures: Partnerships To Reduce Youth Violence and Delinquency o FS009639 Information Sharing and the Educational Rights and Privacy Act o FS009640 A Comprehensive Response to America's Youth Gang Problem o FS009641 Department of Justice Programs for Missing and Exploited Children o FS009642 Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ) o FS009643 An Introduction to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention o FS009644 The Gould-Wysinger Awards: A Tradition of Excellence o FS009645 A Guide for Implementing Teen Court Programs ------------------------------ Put OJJDP Information To Work for You A world of juvenile justice information is as close as your phone, fax, computer, or mailbox. The Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse links you to OJJDP's publications, research findings, program information, literature reviews, referrals, and other resource materials. If you are searching for what's new and effective in juvenile justice, you will find the latest information at the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Communicate With the Clearinghouse via: Phone: 800-638-8736 Monday to Friday 8:30 a.m.-7:00 p.m. ET Fax: 410-792-4358 Fax-on-Demand 800-638-8736 Select option 1 for automated ordering services. Select option 2 for fax-on-demand instructions and a list of available titles. Mail: Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849-6000 Online: NCJRS World Wide Web http://www.ncjrs.org OJJDP Home Page http://www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm E-mail: askncjrs.ncjrs.org JUVJUST Newsletter: E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org. Leave the subject line blank. Type subscribe juvjust your name in the body of the message (for example: subscribe juvjust jane doe). ------------------------------ OJJDP Teleconference Videotapes As described in Using Satellite Teleconferencing on page 23, OJJDP is committed to sharing information with juvenile justice professionals across the Nation in a timely and cost-efficient manner. The Juvenile Justice Telecommunications Assistance Project offers the ability to increase access to training and technical assistance without incurring travel costs or time away from work. To further expand access to training, OJJDP is making videotapes of these broadcasts available through the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse. Topics include: Reducing Youth Gun Violence (August 1996), NCJ 162421 Conflict Resolution for Youth (May 1996), NCJ 161416 Juvenile Boot Camps (February 1996), NCJ 160949 Youth-Oriented Community Policing (December 1995), NCJ 160947 Effective Programs for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (October 1995), NCJ 160947 Communities Working Together (June 1995), NCJ 160946 Conditions of Confinement (September 1993), NCJ 147531 Copies of these videotapes (along with the information package distributed to participants) can be purchased for a nominal fee of $17. (Note that Conditions of Confinement is available for $14.) The videotapes range in length from 90 to 220 minutes. Please use the order form on page 35 or contact the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800-638-8736 for more information. ------------------------------ OJJDP Home Page Redesign Juvenile justice online has a new look. To advance its mission to provide national leadership, coordination, and juvenile delinquency prevention resources, OJJDP has redesigned its World Wide Web site (www.ncjrs.org/ojjhome.htm). Our site now offers a more efficient approach to finding useful juvenile justice information and resources on: o OJJDP's mission and priorities. o News and resources. o OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy. o Conferences, training, and technical assistance. o Grants and funding. o Publications. We invite you to visit our new site, and would welcome your comments and suggestions. Send them to: roy@ojp.usdoj.gov. ------------------------------ Juvenile Justice At The Crossroads-- OJJDP's National Conference The Nation's leaders in juvenile justice joined Attorney General Janet Reno at OJJDP's national conference, Juvenile Justice At The Crossroads, on December 12-14, 1996, in Baltimore, Maryland. Strategic and programmatic solutions were the focus of the 2-1/2 day conference. Colleagues learned from each other and shared insights on: o The changing nature of juvenile offenders. o The impact of "get tough" measures to combat juvenile crime. o Community responses to juvenile crime and violence. o Innovative intervention and juvenile justice system strategies. o Tools to support juvenile justice professionals. o Promising approaches in delinquency prevention planning. Look for a special issue of Juvenile Justice featuring highlights of the conference presentations and other helpful resources.