America currently faces the challenging task of reintegrating approximately 200,000 juveniles and young adults ages 24 and younger who leave secure juvenile correctional facilities or State and Federal prisons to return to their home communities each year, a process this article calls "youth re-entry." After defining "youth re-entry" and the scope of the problem, the authors discuss the implications of a youth-development perspective for understanding and examining youth re-entry. This is followed by an analysis of the experience of youth re-entry, an identification of the challenges to successful reintegration of youth into communities, and descriptions of various strategies for improving youth re-entry so as to address the youths' diverse and distinctive developmental needs. In considering the implications of youth development for re-entry strategies, the article notes that developmental psychology suggests that when youth move toward adulthood, they require assistance in learning how to live independently, find employment and housing, and develop intimate relationships. The roundtable emphasized that the contexts that provide opportunities for constructive youth development vary considerably. These varying contexts include families, peers, schools, work environments, and prisons. The level and characteristics of a youth's development is critical to understanding and improving the re-entry process. One of the most promising re-entry initiatives is the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP). This re-entry model emphasizes prerelease planning and services; structured, short-term transitional programming; and structured, longer term reintegrative activities that balance supervision, treatment, and services. The IAP is based on the concept of "overarching case management" that spans the entire justice system and includes five components: assessment, classification, and selection of high-risk youth; individual case planning that incorporates a family and community perspective; a mix of surveillance and services; a balance of incentives and graduated sanctions coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions; and service brokerage with community resources and linkages with social networks. The article concludes with policy and research recommendations. 4 notes and 35 references