The process evaluation found that the size and composition of aftercare staff for both programs was adequate to manage the number of juvenile clients normally served, and staff qualifications and prior experience were adequate. Both programs were at or below the ideal of 10-12 cases per case manager. Regarding the timing and number of contacts, referrals to the programs were not made in a timely manner, leaving the agencies with less time to make contact with the juvenile, his/her family, and establish an aftercare plan. The number of contacts per month throughout the aftercare period was less than the ideal of three to four contacts per week at the beginning and then tapering off as the juvenile's transition into the community progressed. Regarding the outcome evaluation, there were no significant differences in the recidivism for juveniles receiving intensive aftercare services compared with the juveniles who received the usual aftercare through the probation departments. Just over 20 percent of the juveniles in intensive aftercare in both counties were reincarcerated within the first 12 months after their release. Overall, there was little evidence of the effectiveness of the two intensive aftercare programs in improving the reintegration into the community of released juveniles. The poor outcomes were related to an inadequate level of program activity and program implementation. The programs can be improved by addressing these issues. The evaluation design involved a comparison of participants in the intensive aftercare programs with youth under usual probation supervision after release. A number of methods of data collection were used. Numerous tables and figures