Administrative responsibility for each of the IAP projects rests with the respective State's juvenile corrections agency. Each agency has responsibility for operating the institutions and providing aftercare services, and, in some sites, operating State programs that serve as alternative placements. Program coordination responsibility is assigned to a midlevel manager in the parole/aftercare/field services unit within the larger agency. In Colorado and Virginia, the program coordinator's role is supplemented by an IAP management team, which consists primarily of managers from the various operational units that are directly affected by the program. These teams helped develop program policies and procedures and monitor program implementation. They play
an important role in ensuring coordination and cooperation among different parts of the system that previously may have had conflicting interests. Nevada did not have a formally constituted IAP management team until October 1998. It relied instead on the relationships that had developed among the key project actors. It is likely that some of the operational difficulties encountered in Nevada could have been avoidedor resolved more expeditiouslyif a formal team had existed earlier.
Generally, administrative and managerial support for IAP has been strong. Although the programs have (1) involved a very small portion of the overall juvenile offender population and (2) had substantial challenges in terms of competing priorities (e.g., dealing with crowding, implementing new systemwide initiatives), the basic integrity of the model has been supported in the sites. For example, in spite of increasing workload pressures in both the institutional and community settings, administrators have held firm to their commitment to keep IAP caseloads small. They have also recognized the need for IAP-specific programming and continued to support it in the institutions and the community. This commitment was not necessarily unwavering. In each site, there are examples of significant actions taken (or not taken) by administrators that, although they negatively affected IAP, were believed to be necessary for the greater good of the agency.8 Perhaps more important, the relatively small size of IAP and the larger competing interests it encountered in each of the sites meant that administrators and managers often could not devote the time or attention to IAP that may have been desired. However, that the three projects have succeeded to the extent they have is due, at least in part, to an administrative commitment to support them.