MENU TITLE: Challenge Activities Program Areas: Challenge Activity D.
Series: OJJDP
Published: Fall 1995
19 pages
33,283 bytes

Challenge Activities Program Areas

Challenge to the States

The 1992 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 added
Part E, State Challenge Activities, to the programs
funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The purpose of Part
E is to provide initiatives for States
participating in the Formula Grants Program to
develop, adopt, and improve policies and programs
in 1 or more of 10 specified Challenge areas.

------------------------------

Challenge Activity D

Developing and adopting policies and programs to
provide secure settings for the placement of
violent juvenile offenders by closing down
traditional training schools and replacing them
with secure settings with capacities of no more
than 50 violent juvenile offenders with ratios of
staff to youth great enough to secure adequate
supervision and treatment.

Introduction 

Through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974, Congress sought to
reduce the juvenile justice system's reliance on
large congregate institutions for most juvenile
offenders. This goal is stated by the legislation
in sections related to the deinstitutionalization
of status and nonstatus offenders, the removal of
juveniles from adult jails and lockups, and in the
amendment to address the disproportionate
confinement of minority youth in secure facilities.
States and local communities are encouraged to
develop a continuum of community-based programs and
facilities that is flexible enough to meet the
needs of young offenders and their families, while
at the same time ensuring community safety and the
integrity of the court process.

Juvenile justice professionals concur that a
comprehensive system of community-based programs
and facilities offers the best approach for
treating most youthful offenders. They also agree
that the risk presented by serious and violent
juvenile offenders may often require more
restrictive sanctions. Section 101 of the JJDP Act
states that "recent trends show an upsurge in
arrests of adolescents for murder, assault, and
weapons use . . . and the small number of youth who
commit the most serious and violent offenses are
becoming more violent." Crime data support this
trend. The Violent Crime Index (homicide, forcible
rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) for juvenile
offenders increased by 54 percent between 1987 and
1991.[1] 

To address this upsurge in arrests, Congress has
urged Federal action to help States and local
communities stem serious and violent juvenile
crime. To carry out this congressional
authorization more effectively, the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
has adopted a Comprehensive Strategy for Serious,
Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Under this
plan the five principles for preventing and
reducing juvenile delinquency are to: (1)
strengthen families; (2) support core social
institutions; (3) promote prevention strategies and
programs; (4) intervene immediately and effectively
when delinquent behavior occurs; and (5) identify
and control the small percentage of serious,
violent, and chronic juvenile offenders.[2]

The components of the Comprehensive Strategy are:
(1) to prevent youth from becoming delinquent by
providing prevention programs for at-risk youth,
and (2) to improve the juvenile justice system's
response to delinquent offenders through a system
of graduated sanctions and a continuum of treatment
alternatives. These alternatives include immediate
intervention, intermediate sanctions, and
community-based corrections sanctions. When
appropriate these sanctions emphasize restitution
and community service.[3]

The graduated sanctions component recognizes that
traditional probation services and sanctions have
not had the resources to target effectively
delinquent offenders, particularly serious,
violent, and chronic offenders. States and local
communities are urged to pursue a "balanced
approach" that holds offenders accountable,
protects public safety, and enhances the competency
of juvenile offenders.[4]

Although the strategy stresses the importance of
immediate intervention and intermediate sanctions,
it also recognizes the need for secure corrections
for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile
offenders. Central to this concept of secure
corrections is "community confinement" or "small
community-based facilities that offer intensive
treatment and rehabilitation services." These
facilities would offer a range of services,
including individual and group counseling,
educational programs, medical services, and
intensive staff supervision. The programs support
the juvenile offenders' ties to community and
family and provide for "a phased reentry into the
community that draws upon community resources and
services."[5]

This State Challenge Activity provides States with
guidelines in developing community confinement
facilities, assessing needs, and using specific and
objective criteria for placement. Promising
approaches to community confinement facilities at
the State and local levels are examined, but their
economic costs and conditions of confinement must
be considered first.

A Word of Caution About the Costs and Conditions of
Confinement 

The costs of the construction and operation of a
community confinement facility, the rigorous State
licensing standards, and the requirements of the
courts and Federal and State legislation are three
critical considerations in building a secure
confinement facility for juveniles. Although
necessary in certain situations, building community
confinement facilities is an expensive and
long-term commitment to a single approach to youth
crime. Even a small facility can have annual
operational costs of $500,000.[6] Moreover, once
the decision to build a facility is made, it cannot
easily be reconsidered after construction has
begun.

Communities should therefore consider this decision
carefully and proceed only after making a thorough
needs assessment. The facility should be part of a
continuum of responses to youth crime, not the sole
response. Local jurisdictions should form
partnerships with their State government to create
statewide regional networks to reduce
jurisdictional overlap and allocate expensive
confinement space on an appropriate, cost-effective
basis.

The high-cost item in every continuum is secure
confinement. The following example provides an
estimate of the minimum costs of a 16-bed community
confinement facility:[7] 

Construction, including an architect, furnishings,
and related items:

$125,000 per bed x 16 beds = $2,000,000

Bond issue authorized 10 years = $2,000,000

Operation, including custody, program,
administration, clerical staff, and related items:
$26,000 x 10 staff = $260,000 (salary and benefits)
$32,000 x 5 staff = $160,000 

Other operations (10 percent of staffing costs) =
$42,000

A 16-bed, medium-security juvenile detention
facility will cost an estimated $12,924,000 in
construction, interest, and operations over a
20-year period, or $646,000 per year ($110 per day
per bed).[8] Recent estimates in a western State
concluded that its plans to develop 6 small
community confinement facilities with 16 beds in
each would cost an estimated $77,344,000 over 20
years, or $3,876,000 per year. Given the intense
competition for limited public tax dollars
available to youth services, these costs are not
easily accommodated at the State and local
levels.[9]

Another area of caution involves the stringent
requirements imposed by State legislatures and the
court system on juvenile confinement facilities.
State and local jurisdictions considering a
community confinement facility should clearly
understand recent Federal and State court decisions
concerning the issues of classification, health,
access, programs, staff training, physical plant
and environment, restraints, and safety.

The Youth Law Center's Federal Law Relevant to
Protecting Children from Harm in Out-of-Home
Settings (1992) provides a useful checklist for
meeting these requirements. The items are drawn
from Federal law and scores of civil rights cases
dealing with conditions of confinement in adult
jails and lockups, juvenile detention and
corrections facilities, mental institutions, and
similar types of residential facilities.[10] 

Classification and Separation Issues

o Prohibition on confinement of juveniles in adult
jails and lockups.

o Prohibition on confinement of status offenders
and nonoffenders in secure juvenile facilities.

o Segregation of juveniles from adult inmates.

o Separation of violent individuals and nonviolent
individuals.

Health Care

o Medical screening at admission.

o Medical services.

o Psychological screening at admission.

o Psychological services.

o Administration of medications.

o Treatment refusal rights.

Access Issues

o Mail.

o Telephone.

o Visitation.

o Access to counsel/courts.

Programming

o Education.

o Exercise and recreation.

o Forced labor.

o Religion.

Training and Supervision of Employees

Environmental Issues

o Sanitation.

o Food.

o Ventilation, heating, and cooling.

o Fire safety.

o Lighting.

o Clothing and personal items.

o Overcrowding, adequate living space, and privacy.

Restraints, Punishment, and Due Process

o Restraints.

o Isolation practices.

o Corporal punishment.

o Due process in disciplinary hearings.

o Grievance procedures.

Safety

Community confinement facilities are expensive and
prone to litigation. States and local jurisdictions
interested in pursuing this State Challenge
Activity must also consider how the facilities will
fit into the larger context of community-based
youth services whose purpose is to provide a
flexible menu of options for the juvenile justice
system. See a companion State Challenge factsheet
Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration,
which contains further discussion of these issues. 

Promising Approaches for Community Confinement
Facilities

While programs will be as different as the youth
they serve, a number of research studies and
programs offer useful insights into increasing the
number and success of community-based alternatives
to incarceration. The RAND Corporation, in One More
Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention
Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders,
identified seven elements that should be present in
successful programs. The program must:[11]

o Provide opportunities for each youth to overcome
adversity and experience success, thus encouraging
a positive self-image.

o Facilitate bonds of affection and mutual respect
between juveniles and their guardians and promote
involvement in conventional family and community
activities.

o Provide frequent, timely, and accurate feedback
for both positive and negative behavior.

o Reduce or eliminate negative role models and peer
support for negative attitudes or behavior.

o Require juveniles to recognize and understand
thought processes that rationalize negative
behavior.

o Create opportunities for juveniles to discuss
family matters and early experiences in a relaxed,
nonjudgmental atmosphere.

o Vary the sequence and amount of exposure to
program components to adapt to the needs and
capabilities of each participating youth.

The RAND study emphasizes the fact that programs
must be effective in the following areas,
especially when planning for and providing
aftercare:[12]

o Prerelease assessment and planning.

o Continuity in programming.

o High frequency of contact.

o Highly motivated and energetic staff.

o Mobilization of educational, vocational, family
services.

o Drug and alcohol prevention.

o Recreational programming.

Of equal importance is a system of overarching case
management for residential and aftercare
programming. OJJDP's program summary Intensive
Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care
Model defines overarching case management as "the
process required for high-risk delinquents to make
the transition from secure confinement to intensive
aftercare." Key staff are involved with designated
high-risk cases from the point of secure care
disposition until discharge from parole status.
They must consider the five components of case
management, including:[13]

o Assessment, classification, and selection
criteria.

o Individual case planning incorporating a family
and community perspective.

o A mix of intensive surveillance and services.

o A balance of incentives and graduated
consequences coupled with the imposition of
realistic, enforceable conditions.

o Service brokerage with community resources and
linkage with social networks.

The aftercare counselor must be actively involved
from the moment secure confinement begins and
provide for some form of service before the youth's
discharge from secure confinement. One of the most
serious problems in the aftercare process is
aftercare workers who are not meaningfully involved
in the juvenile's case until the final phase of
confinement.[14]

In the past 20 years, numerous States have
attempted to abandon large congregate juvenile
institutions in favor of community-based programs
and facilities. Massachusetts, Missouri, and
Oklahoma made successful transitions in the 1970's
and 1980's.[15] More recently, however, the
transition achieved in Utah has served as a model
approach for other States.[16]

In the 1980's Utah successfully moved violent
juvenile offenders from a single, century-old,
450-bed training school to a variety of
decentralized community-based programs and
facilities. The change was prompted by a
class-action lawsuit in the mid-1970's charging
that conditions in Utah's corrections system had
become intolerable. A panel appointed by the
Governor recommended that Utah adopt an approach
similar to that used in Massachusetts, which placed
delinquent youth in the least restrictive setting
consistent with public safety. In 1980 a detailed
master plan to develop a network of community-based
programs and residential facilities became the
basis for legislative action and a grant from
OJJDP.[17]

Conclusion

While community-based programs are usually the best
approach for treating juvenile offenders, serious
and violent juvenile offenders, whose needs are
greater and who present more risk to themselves and
the public, often require more restrictive
sanctions. One of the components of the graduated
sanctions approach is community confinement
facilities. Case management and aftercare
programming are critical to accurately placing
juveniles and providing them with the services that
meet their needs. States wishing to modify or
transform their secure corrections facilities with
a State Challenge grant can look to other States
such as Massachusetts, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah
for successful models.

------------------------------

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention acknowledges the outstanding
contribution made by Mr. James Brown, Director,
Community Resources Associates, Inc., and Mr. James
Shine, independent consultant, in the development
of this paper.

------------------------------

This document was prepared under contract number
94-C-004 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Department of
Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position 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.

------------------------------

Appendix

The programs listed in this section contain one or
more of the elements associated with effective
graduated sanctions programs and have been judged
to be effective by officials in the jurisdictions
where they have been implemented. However, these
programs do not yet have evaluation results. Some
of them are currently undergoing evaluations and
more information on their effectiveness will soon
be available. The following section contains brief
descriptions of these promising programs and
identifies the specific target population that each
one serves.

Secure Corrections

Cheltenham Young Women's Facility

Target Population: Adolescent females adjudicated
for serious and violent offenses

This secure treatment program provides education,
vocational training, counseling, individualized
case management, and recreation for up to 28
females. The treatment modality is a four-level
behavior modification program. Average length of
stay is from 4 to 6 months.

Contact:
Herman Ingram
Superintendent
Cheltenham Young Women's Facility
P.O. Box 160
Cheltenham, MD 20623 
301-782-4223

Robert F. Kennedy School

Target Population: Serious offenders

This small, secure program for serious offenders
provides individual and group therapy,
individualized educational services, and
recreational activities. The psycho-educational
curriculum includes sex offender therapy, drug and
alcohol counseling, health education, and violence
prevention.

Contact:
Edward Kelley
Executive Director
RFK Action Corps
11 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-227-4138

Weaversville Intensive Treatment Unit

Target Population: Chronic violent male offenders

This intensive group psychotherapy program uses a
delinquency-specific model that is directive and
psycho-educational, emphasizing personal prosocial
development and accountability. Services include
academic and vocational programs; recreational,
social, religious, and work programs; and a family
therapy program.

Contact:
Arthur Eisenbuch
Project Director
Weaversville Intensive Treatment Unit
Career Systems Development Corporation
6710 Weaversville
Northampton, PA 18067
215-262-1591

Dunbar and Kincaid Cottages

Target Population: Adjudicated sex offenders

This program assists juveniles in processing their
denial and assuming responsibility for sexually
offending behaviors. The program offers three
weekly groups for sex offenders, a weekly community
meeting, and weekly meetings with assigned primary
staff. Students also attend a specially designed
program at a local school.

Contact:
Robert Jester
Acting Superintendent
MacLaren School
2630 North Pacific Highway
Woodburn, OR 97071
503-982-4476

Free Venture Program

Target Population: Incarcerated youth

In this program private industries operate their
businesses within the correctional institution,
using offenders as employees. Offenders receive
meaningful job training, and victims receive
restitution payments. The program teaches
occupational skills and positive work habits and
attitudes.

Contact:
Frederick Mills
Administrator
Free Venture Program
Department of the Youth Authority
4241 Williamsbourgh Drive
Sacramento, CA 95823
916-262-1467

Independent Living Program

Target Population: Incarcerated males and females
ages 16-18 about to return to the community

This program provides youth with an 8-week
prerelease program and with financial assistance
after release. Prior to their release, youth must
meet a specific set of performance measures that
includes adult skills training, community service,
employment, special offender treatment, and a
transition plan.

Contact:
Tom Tye
Chief of Independent Living
Texas Youth Commission
4900 North Lamar, P.O. Box 4260
Austin, TX 78765
512-483-5122

Intensive Sexual Intervention System (ISIS)

Target Population: Sex offenders committed to the
Gibault School for Boys

This two-tiered program provides 80 to 100 hours of
group counseling for less severe sexual offenders
and more intensive treatment for multiple sex
offenders. Both tiers provide individualized
counseling, treatment plans, and therapeutic
assignments in an effort to build up a morality
base, empathy, responsibility, and social skills in
offenders.

Contact: 
Norbert Gottschling
Director of Programs
Gibault School for Boys
6301 South U.S. Hwy. 41, P.O. Box 2316
Terre Haute, IN 47802
812-299-1156

Minority Youth Concerns Program

Target Population: Incarcerated, gang-involved
minority youth

This program promotes self- and social awareness by
challenging minority students to evaluate and
redefine their values. Intervention techniques
include reality therapy, problem solving, guest
speakers, and role playing.

Contact:Robert Jester
Acting Superintendent
MacLaren School
2630 North Pacific Highway
Woodburn, OR 97071
503-982-4476

Secure Intensive Treatment Program

Target Population: Violent offenders

This program provides offense-specific treatment
and educational along with vocational services. The
program is housed in a self-contained, 20-bed,
maximum-security unit with an inhouse school, shop,
and gym. Treatment focuses on holding students
responsible for their behavior and on helping them
develop new behavior patterns.

Contact:Robert Jester
Acting Superintendent
MacLaren School
2630 North Pacific Highway
Woodburn, OR 97071
503-982-4476

Sex Offender Treatment Program

Target Population: Incarcerated male sex offenders

This program focuses on youth adjudicated for
sexual and aggravated assault and seeks to modify
behavior and reduce risk of reoffending. Release
requirements are performance related. Treatment
addresses denial, sexual assault cycle, relapse
prevention, behavior and skills training,
victimization, and empathy.

Contact:Linda Reyes
Chief of Mental Health
Texas Youth Commission
4900 North Lamar, P.O. Box 4260
Austin, TX 78765
512-483-5152

Vermont Intensive Treatment Program for Aggressive
Adolescents

Target Population: Serious violent offenders
requiring secure care

This program is designed to eliminate criminal
relapse, develop positive relationships with
adults, and promote long-term personal change.
Program components include education, treatment,
skill development, monitoring, recreation, and
community service work.

Contact:
Stephen Coulman
Director
Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center
26 Woodside Drive East
Colchester, VT 05446
802-655-4990

Young Men as Fathers Program

Target Population: Incarcerated fathers

This program works with wards, parenting experts,
State agencies, and community-based organizations
to improve the parenting skills of incarcerated
males. The program contracts with community-based
organizations and local service providers to
implement culturally sensitive parenting classes
that total 60 hours.

Contact:
William Kolender
Director
Department of the Youth Authority
4241 Williamsbourgh Drive
Sacramento, CA 95823
916-262-1467

------------------------------

Bibliography

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994
(September). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk
Juveniles: A Community Care Model. Program Summary.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Greenwood, P., and F. Zimring. 1985. One More
Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention
Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Lerner, S. 1990. The Good News About Juvenile
Justice: The Movement Away From Large Institutions
and Toward Community-Based Services. Bolinas,
California: Common Knowledge Press, p. 106.

Matheson, S. M. N.d. "Political Leadership in
Juvenile Justice Reform." Youth Corrections and the
Quiet Revolution. Minneapolis: Center for the Study
of Youth Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of
Public Affairs, University of Minneapolis, pp. 7-
16.

McGary, P., and M.M. Carter. 1993. The Intermediate
Sanctions Handbook: Experiences and Tools for
Policymakers. Washington, D.C.: National Institute
of Corrections and the State Justice Institute,
U.S. Department of Justice. 

Soler, M. 1992. Federal Law Relevant to Protecting
Children From Harm in Out-of-Home Settings. San
Francisco: Youth Law Center.

Wilson, J.D., and J.C. Howell. 1994 (June).
Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and
Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

------------------------------

Additional Resources

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994.
Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A
Community Care Model. Program Summary. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Austin, J., et al. 1991. Unlocking Juvenile
Corrections: Evaluating the Massachusetts
Department of Youth Services. San Francisco:
National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

Blackmore, J., M. Brown, and B. Krisberg. 1988.
Juvenile Justice Reforms: The Bellwether States.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Center for Study of Youth
Policy, University of Michigan.

Brown, J.W., and M.J. McMillen. 1979. Residential
Environments: A Deinstitutionalization Perspective.
Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. 

Brown, J.W., and M.J. McMillen. 1979. Residential
Environments for the Juvenile Justice System: A
Deinstitutionalization Perspective. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Center for Study of Youth Policy. 1987. Violent
Juvenile Crime: What Do We Know About It and What
Can We Do About It? Ann Arbor, Michigan: Center for
Study of Youth Policy, University of Michigan. 

Coates, R., A. Miller, and L. Ohlin. 1978.
Diversity in a Youth Correctional System: Handling
Delinquents in Massachusetts. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company. 

Community Research Associates. 1987. Assessment of
Model Programs for the Chronic Status Offenders and
Their Families. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice. 

Community Research Associates. 1987. Total Systems
Planning: A Process for Solving Detention System
Problems. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department
of Justice. 

Community Research Associates. 1985. The Jail
Removal Initiative: A Summary Report. Profile. 
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Freed, D.J., and T.P. Terrell. 1980. Standards
Relating to Interim Status: The Release, Control,
and Detention of Accused Juvenile Offenders Between
Arrest and Disposition. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Ballinger Publishing Company. 

Greenberg, A.M. 1980. Standards Relating to
Architecture of Facilities. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company. 

Greenwood, P., and F. Zimring. 1985. One More
Chance: The Pursuit of Promising Intervention
Strategies for Chronic Juvenile Offenders.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Lerner, S. 1990. The Good News About Juvenile
Justice: The Movement Away From Large Institutions
and Toward Community-Based Services. Bolinas,
California: Common Knowledge Press. 

Loughran, E. "Juvenile Corrections: The
Massachusetts Experience." In Reinvesting Youth
Correction's Resources: A Tale of Three States.
Minneapolis: Center for the Study of Youth Policy,
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs,
University of Minnesota.

Matheson, S.M. "Political Leadership in Juvenile
Justice Reform." In Youth Corrections and the Quiet
Revolution. Minneapolis: Center for the Study of
Youth Policy, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of
Public Affairs, University of Minnesota.

McGary, P., and M.M. Carter. 1993. The Intermediate
Sanctions Handbook: Experiences and Tools for
Policymakers. Washington, D.C.: National Institute
of Corrections and the State Justice Institute,
U.S. Department of Justice. 

Morris, N., and M. Tonry. 1960. Between Prison and
Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational
Sentencing System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention. 1980. Standards for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice. Washington,
D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 

National Conference of State Legislatures. 1989.
"Juvenile Justice Reform: State Experiences."
Criminal Justice Paper #4. Denver, Colorado:
National Conference of State Legislatures. 

National Conference of State Legislatures. 1987.
"Youth Corrections in Utah: Remaking a System."
State Legislative Report, vol. 12, No. 11. Denver,
Colorado: National Conference of State
Legislatures. 

Ohlin, L., R. Coates, and A. Miller. 1978.
Reforming Juvenile Corrections: The Massachusetts
Experience. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger
Publishing Company. 

Rutherford, A., and F. Cohen. 1980. Standards
Relating to Corrections Administration. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company. 

Schneider, A.L., and J.S. Warner. 1989. National
Trends in Juvenile Restitution Programming.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Schwartz, I.M. 1989. (In)Justice for Juveniles:
Rethinking the Best Interests of the Child. New
York: Lexington Books. 

Schwartz, I.M. (ed.). 1992. Juvenile Justice and
Public Policy: Toward a National Agenda. New York:
Lexington Books.

Shine, J., and D. Price. 1992. "Prosecutors and
Juvenile Justice: New Roles and Perspectives." In
Ira M. Schwartz (ed.), Juvenile Justice and Public
Policy: Toward a National Agenda. New York:
Lexington Books. 

Soler, M. 1992. Federal Law Relevant to Protecting
Children From Harm in Out-of-Home Settings. San
Francisco: Youth Law Center. 

Wilson, J.D., and J.C. Howell. 1994. Comprehensive
Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile
Offenders. Program Summary. Washington, D.C.:
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 

Organizations

Florida Department of Health and Human Services,
1344 Cross Creek Circle, Tallahassee, FL 32301;
Kimberly Budnick, 904-488-3302; Fax: 904-922-6189.

Massachusetts Committee on Criminal Justice, 100
Cambridge Street, Room 2100, Boston, MA 02202; Lynn
Wright, 617-727-4300; Fax: 617-727-5077.

Missouri Department of Social Services, Division of
Youth Services, P.O. Box 447, Jefferson City, MO
65102-0447; Randy Thomas, 314-751-3324; Fax: 314-
426-4494.

Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth, 4545
North Lincoln, Suite 114, Oklahoma City, OK 73105;
Grace Kelley, 405-521-4016; Fax: 405-524-0417.

Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice,
101 State Capitol, Salt Lake City, UT 84114;
Willard Melmstrom, 801-538-1031; Fax: 801-538-1024.

------------------------------

Endnotes

1. Snyder, H.N. 1994 (April). Delinquency Cases in
Juvenile Courts, 1991. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.
Department of Justice, p. 1.

2. Wilson, J.D., and J.C. Howell. 1994 (June).
Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and
Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Program Summary.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice,
pp. 9-10.

3. Ibid, p. 10.

4. Ibid, p. 23.

5. Ibid, p. 22.

6. Community Research Associates. 1994. Technical
Assistance Report to Wyoming State Juvenile Justice
Advisory Group. Champaign, Illinois, p. 7.

7. Ibid, p. 8.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Soler, M. 1992. Federal Law Relevant to
Protecting Children From Harm in Out-of-Home
Settings. San Francisco: Youth Law Center, pp. 1-
19. 

11. Greenwood, P.W., and F.E. Zimring. 1985 (May).
One More Chance: The Pursuit of Promising
Intervention Strategies for Chronic Juvenile
Offenders. Santa Monica, California: The RAND
Corporation, pp. ix-x.

12. Ibid.

13. Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. 1994
(September). Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk
Juveniles: A Community Care Model. Program Summary.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

14. Ibid.

15. Lerner, S. 1990. The Good News About Juvenile
Justice: The Movement Away From Large Institutions
and Toward Community-Based Services. Bolinore,
California: Common Knowledge Press.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.