Juvenile Justice Bulletin --July 2000 --Conclusion

Conclusion

The IAP demonstrations in Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia have implemented programs that (1) largely reflect their program designs and the intent of the IAP model and (2) have resulted in supervision and services for IAP youth that are quite different from those received by regular parolees. The sites have generated internal and external support for the program; identified and selected the high-risk, high-need youth intended by the model; and, using a team approach, have served them through small, IAP-only caseloads. The projects also have responded successfully to the central feature of the IAP model by developing a host of mechanisms to facilitate the transition between institution and aftercare. These mechanisms include early parole planning, routine institutional visits by the aftercare case manager, and step-down structures and procedures to modulate community reentry. Results of the focus on transition-related activities include a dramatically improved level of coordination and communication between institutional and aftercare staff and the ability to involve youth in community services almost immediately after institutional release.

Finally, the IAP programs in all sites provide youth with enhanced—and balanced—supervision and services, especially during the aftercare phase:

  • Supervision teams (composed of parole officers, parole aides/trackers, treatment providers) help ensure the delivery of intensive supervision.

  • The frequency of contact between the youth and the parole officer during aftercare is higher for the IAP group.

  • IAP youth are at least twice as likely as controls to undergo evening and weekend surveillance.

  • IAP youth are more likely than controls to be involved in a range of services during aftercare.

This is not to suggest that implementation can be characterized as "complete," that it has been problem free, or that what the sites have achieved has been relatively easy to accomplish. Each site has labored continuously to bring together the various pieces of the IAP puzzle and make them work in the local jurisdiction. Moreover, as detailed above, there have been and continue to be areas of weakness in each site's implementation.

Now, in the fifth year of implementing IAP, site staff continue to fine-tune their programs and aggressively address their implementation issues. In general, however, it is clear that the strengths of each program considerably outweigh the shortcomings and that IAP has been well implemented in Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia. What remains to be determined—through NCCD's outcome evaluation—is whether a well-conceived and strongly implemented IAP model will have the desired effect of reducing recidivism and recommitments among high-risk parolees.



Previous Contents Next

Line
Implementation of the Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Program Juvenile Justice Bulletin July 2000