MENU TITLE: Challenge Activities Program Areas- Challenge Activity I.
Series: OJJDP
Published: Fall 1995
15 pages
34,968 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 I

Increasing aftercare services for juveniles
involved in the justice system by establishing
programs and developing and adopting policies to
provide comprehensive health, mental health,
education, and vocational services, and services
that preserve and strengthen the families of such
juveniles.

Aftercare

Growing concerns about institutional crowding,
escalating costs of confinement, and high rates of
recidivism have fueled interest in bringing new
ideas and innovative programming to juvenile
aftercare philosophy and practice. Recidivism rates
are very high, especially among juvenile offenders
who have been transitioned from secure correctional
confinement to the community. Repeated delinquency
is especially pronounced among a subgroup of
juvenile offenders who began to establish at an
early age a long and often quite serious record of
criminal misconduct.

Efforts to supervise the transition of offenders
from the closely monitored, highly regimented life
in a secure correctional facility to the relatively
unstructured, temptation-filled life in the
community have been difficult. Much of the
difficulty can be attributed to a lack of
collaboration among correctional
facilities, parole authorities, and community
social institutions. Today's aftercare programs are
designed to address two major deficiencies in
juvenile corrections:

o Institutional confinement has not adequately
prepared youth for return to the community.

o Positive lessons learned in confinement have not
been reinforced in the community.

This paper describes six promising aftercare
programs, including a major project funded by OJJDP
to develop a program model and training package
that was delivered to eight jurisdictions. Despite
differences in program age, origin, and funding,
these aftercare programs share similarities in
concept and approach. 

Intensive Aftercare Program Model

With funding from OJJDP, researchers from the Johns
Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies and California
State University, Sacramento, developed the
Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), an integrated,
multifaceted aftercare program that cuts across
institutional and professional boundaries. The goal
of IAP is to gradually reintegrate into the
community high-risk juvenile offenders who have
been in secure confinement, thereby lowering
historically high rates of failure and recidivism.
The IAP model is based on five principles:

o Prepare youth for progressively increased
responsibility and freedom in the community.

o Facilitate the involvement of and interaction
between youth and the community.

o Work with both the offender and community support
systems, including families, peers, schools, and
employers, on the qualities needed for constructive
interaction and a youth's successful community
adjustment.

o Develop new resources and supports.

o Monitor and test youth and the community on their
ability to deal with each other productively.

The IAP model requires that a full continuum of
services be made available--either through direct
service provision or referral and brokerage--to
address the entire range of needs and problems
manifested by the high-risk juvenile aftercare and
parolee population. Possible services and
interventions include:

o Intensified treatment for special-need offenders,
including those who are substance abusers, have
developmental disabilities, are emotionally
disturbed, or have sexual disorders.

o Education and schooling.

o Vocational training, job readiness, job
development, and placement.

o Changes in living arrangements.

o Social skills development.

o Leisure and recreation activities.

o Individual and group counseling.

o Family work and therapy.

o Physical health care.

o Special technology (e.g., drug testing and
electronic
monitoring).

Ingredients of Reintegration-Oriented Placement and
Aftercare. The essence of IAP is the concept of
overarching case management, a guide for how a
multistage program should be designed, managed, and
operated. The model requires that five discrete
case management components be in place:

o Assessment, classification, and selection
criteria.

o Individual case planning that incorporates a
family and community perspective.

o Mix of intensive surveillance, support, and
services.

o Balance of incentives and graduated consequences
coupled with imposition of realistic, enforceable
conditions.

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

These five components require that aftercare
workers and planners become actively involved as
soon as residential placement begins. A brief
review of each of these components follows.1

Assessment, Classification, and Selection Criteria.
"One-size-fits-all" is not a practical method for
determining who should be targeted for intensive
versus conventional aftercare. Because young people
in juvenile correctional facilities are
incarcerated for different reasons, their
underlying needs and problems can be equally
different.2 Given these differences, the likelihood
of their reoffending upon release varies
enormously.

The relationship between seriousness of the
presenting offense and the likelihood of committing
future offenses is extremely weak, if not inverse.3
Research suggests that it is largely property
offenders, not violent offenders, who are most
prone to reoffending.4 The risk factors most
closely associated with juvenile reoffending
include a combination of justice system contact
factors (e.g., age at first justice system contact
and the number of prior offenses and referrals) and
need-related factors (e.g., family dysfunctions,
school disciplinary problems, negative peer group
influences, and drug involvement).5

Despite the differences in risk, oftentimes both
nonviolent and violent juveniles found to be at
relatively low risk to reoffend are handled the
same as higher risk juveniles, in terms of the
frequency, duration, and nature of aftercare
supervision and service delivery. The evidence
increasingly suggests that providing intensive
aftercare to lower risk juveniles results in poorer
performance, not better.6 One reason frequently
cited is that intensive supervision is almost
always accompanied by an increase in technical
infractions due to the increased ability to detect
rule violations. But technical infractions,
although relatively minor, may not be treated as
such by parole officers and judges. Rather, they
can and do order revocations and recon-finement,
especially if graduated, community-based sanctions
and other alternatives are not in place. Such
practices may make the
situation worse.

Second, intensive aftercare is ineffective among
low-risk offenders because they may react
negatively to constant supervision and evaluation.
Applying this kind of microscopic scrutiny creates
pressure, and as a result, some youngsters rebel
and act out. Administrators may want to consider
limiting intensive aftercare to those juveniles
who, based on a validated risk assessment process,
are found to be at high risk of reoffending.

Individual Case Planning Incorporating a Family and
Community Perspective. Individualized case planning
for the purpose of intensive aftercare needs to
begin as soon as a youth is committed to a
residential placement facility. Such planning
should involve both institutional and aftercare
staff to determine:

o How need-related risk factors will be addressed
in the facility and in aftercare programming and
supervision.

o How the special needs of youth will be addressed.
Particular attention should be given to the
offender's social network (e.g., family members,
close friends, and larger peer group) and community
(e.g., schools, workplace, church, training
program, and specialized treatment program).

o How the total set of risks, needs, and associated
circumstances will be addressed during a phased
transition from the placement facility to
aftercare.

To preserve gains made while in placement,
aftercare must build on them. Whether aftercare
service providers begin working with IAP youth
while they are in a placement facility or while
they are on prerelease furloughs, contact must be
initiated well before discharge. This process can
happen if the placement facility and aftercare
providers are accessible to one another and if
individualized planning for aftercare has occurred
during the early stages of placement.

Mix of Intensive Surveillance and Services.
Although close, frequent monitoring and supervision
of juveniles is an important aspect of the IAP
model, services and support are integral as well.
As discussed previously, common risk factors
include both offense and need-related items. A
strictly surveillance-oriented approach does not
address any of the need-related risk factors. If
need-related risk factors are linked principally to
the family and home situation, school and learning
difficulties, negative peer influences, and
substance abuse, the challenge for IAP is clear:
ensure that core services are used and that
families and friends are involved on a regular
basis in activities, events, and programs. Evening
activities and day pro-gramming that extend into
weekends are important. Such programming can be
tied to work, assignments, chores, recreation,
volunteer activities, community service
initiatives, and arts and crafts projects.

The IAP model does not view surveillance and
supervision merely as a means to deter misconduct.
Rather, monitoring the movement and behavior of
high-risk juveniles provides IAP staff with the
means to:

o Recognize immediately when infractions as well as
achievements have taken place.

o Ascertain beforehand when circumstances may be
prompting
misconduct or leading to problems.

o Respond with the use of both rewards and
graduated sanctions.

Balance of Incentives and Graduated Consequences
With Imposition of Realistic, Enforceable
Conditions. Juvenile aftercare has often been
burdened with unrealistic and unenforceable
conditions, devoid of any positive reinforcement.
Although it is widely recognized that both tangible
and symbolic rewards and praise play an
important role in demonstrating the benefits and
satisfactions that can be derived from socially
acceptable accomplishments, recognition of
achievement is all too rare in aftercare. A number
of different approaches have been employed by
various programs to routinely monitor progress,
reinforce prosocial conduct, and guide advancement.
These approaches range from frequent case reviews
to elaborately structured token economies in which
particular privileges are tied to the attainment of
specific goals.

Because IAP is designed to intensify the number,
duration, and nature of contacts that aftercare
workers have with youth and their families, peers,
teachers, employers, and service providers, it is
inevitable that more technical violations will
surface. In the absence of guidelines or a
hierarchy of consequences at their disposal,
aftercare workers may tend to do nothing--which
undermines their authority--or to impose sanctions
disproportionate to the violation. Besides having a
graduated system of sanctions, jurisdictions
considering IAP should review their current
juvenile revocation policies. Possible changes
include restricting reincarceration only to IAP
youth with new offense convictions and creating a
special short-term residential backup facility as
an intermediate sanctioning alternative for IAP
technical violators.

Service Brokerage With Community Resources and
Linkage With Social Networks. It is unrealistic to
expect that comprehensive and intensive service
provision coupled with close supervision and
monitoring can be achieved without the active
involvement of a variety of community support
systems. It is impractical to expect that the
primary aftercare worker could spend all the time
required with each youth and provide the full range
of needed services. Thus, referral and brokerage
are crucial functions, which in turn means that
program monitoring and quality control are
paramount.

Young people who have family problems, who
associate with negative peer groups, and who are
disruptive in school are at the highest risk of
becoming repeat offenders. Therefore, programming
must focus on:

o Improving or altering the family situation.

o Intervening with the peer group.

o Reversing the cycle of school disciplinary
problems.

Meeting these goals requires linkage with the major
social networks.

A number of different brokerage and linkage
approaches are being pursued by jurisdictions
across the country.7 Regardless of the approach
used, the keys to IAP are to involve a variety of
community support systems in service delivery and
to see that each youth has a staff person who is
actively reinforcing or developing a supportive
network. In addition, it is essential to devise a
process that ensures coordination and continuity in
work being done on a case and monitors the quality
of service provision.

Contacts:
David Altschuler
Johns Hopkins University
Institute for Policy Studies
Wyman Building
Baltimore, MD 21218
410-516-7179

Troy Armstrong
California State University, Sacramento
Department of Anthropology
6000 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95819-2694
916-278-6259

The contacts at the four demonstration sites for
the Intensive Aftercare Program Initiative are the
following:

Contacts:
David Bash
Chief, Youth Parole
Nevada Youth Parole Bureau
620 Belrose, Suite C
Las Vegas, NV 89158
702-486-5080

David Bennett
Manager, Central Regioo Division of Youth Services
4111 S. Julian Way
Denver, CO 80236
303-762-4701

Valerie Boykio Parole Manager
Department of Youth and Family Services
P.O. Box 110
Richmond, VA 23208-1110
804-371-7457

Therese Matthews
Program Development Specialist
Department of Corrections
Whittlesey Road
CN-863
Trenton, NJ 08625-0863
609-292-4640

Associated Marine Institutes Model

Associated Marine Institutes (AMI) helps delinquent
boys ages 14 to 18 further their education, develop
job skills, increase self-confidence, and meet
personal responsibilities.8 Drawing on the
geographic strengths of the surrounding community,
programs throughout the United States and in the
Cayman Islands use the ocean, wilderness, rivers,
and lakes to teach oceanography, earth sciences,
diving, seamanship, aquatics, and physical
education. Academic and vocational counseling are
also stressed.

AMI provides a continuum of aftercare services. The
Student and Family Enhancement (SAFE) Program
provides services for youth who are returning to
their home communities following residential
programs. The 4- to 8-month program is flexible to
accommodate the needs of individual youth.

The purpose of the aftercare program is to:

o Provide structure and supervision during the
transition from residential placement to reentry in
the community.

o Improve youth educational, employment, and social
skills.

o Furnish ongoing educational or employment
placement.

o Monitor youth to ensure public safety.

Changes in attitude are not forced, but rather are
facilitated by a warm, caring adult who provides
massive amounts of discipline and affection. The
attachment that forms between the staff and youth
is the glue that bonds the youth to the program and
the values it espouses.

Phase 1 begins while the youth is still in the
residential facility. SAFE staff meet with the case
manager to review the youth's needs assessment and
treatment history; with the youth to begin
orientation and development of a transitional plan;
and with members of the family to identify what
issues are likely to emerge upon the youth's
release to the community.

In Phase 2, youth are transferred from the
residential program to the nonresidential
Institute. Day treatment is provided Monday through
Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with extended service
activities until 9 p.m. An additional 8 hours of
programming are provided on Saturdays and Sundays.
Activities include community service projects,
counseling, tutoring, job skill development, goal-
setting workshops, first aid classes, recreational
activities, and overnight trips. Behavior
management, education, and reintegration into the
home environment are emphasized. Contact outside of
the home or the Institute is severely limited.

Youth participating in Phase 3 have three options:

o Continue the day program, with release from SAFE
extended service to work or participate in other
activities.

o Work or attend an academic program during the day
and participate in SAFE extended service activities
during the evening.

o Work or attend school during the day and
participate in other activities during the evening.

Curfew is strictly enforced during Phase 3, and
violators may be returned to extended service,
placed on electronic monitoring, or returned to
residential placement.

During Phase 4, youth have full-time placement in
school, work, or a combination of the two. Each
youth is supervised by a community coordinator, who
meets regularly with the youth, family members, the
youth's school or work supervisor, and other
persons involved in the transitional plan. A
monthly meeting provides ongoing support to the
youth, who must comply with random curfew checks.

The goal of Phase 5 is to stabilize the youth in
the home environment and to reduce the amount of
supervision required. Unstructured time and later
curfews are earned, based on adherence to program
requirements.

Contact:
Rusty Russell
Associated Marine Institute
Student and Family Enhancement Program (SAFE)
5915 Benjamin Center Drive
Tampa, FL 33634
813-887-3300

Thomas O'Farrell Youth Center Model

The Thomas O'Farrell Youth Center (TOYC) in
Marriottsville, Maryland, is a 6- to 9-month
nonsecure residential program with a strong
emphasis on aftercare.9 Designed for boys under age
18, the program requires each resident to progress
through three levels of treatment before reentering
the community. Residents are taught new norms of
behavior: accepting responsibility for one's
actions; behaving in a way that is positive for
oneself and the community; learning new methods of
conflict resolution that show care and concern for
others; and respecting the property of others.
These norms are discussed in daily group counseling
sessions and meetings, some of which are led by
more senior residents. Residents are expected to
help others in the program live up to community
norms and instill the program's values.

Through the process of "inoculation," residents
slowly begin the process of reentry into the
community. First, they participate in carefully
selected off-campus activities such as community
service projects, sporting events, and overnight
camping trips. Role-playing exercises help prepare
residents for the many challenges that lie ahead.
Later, residents may be allowed short home visits,
which require them to behave in such a way that the
visit is free of incident, arrive back at TOYC at
the agreed-upon time, and pass a urine analysis
drug test. These limited exposures to highly
controlled situations build youth confidence that
they can handle life outside the TOYC community and
reinforce TOYC's values.

When a youth is ready to leave TOYC, he is given a
comprehensive aftercare plan, which is designed to
extend TOYC's caring environment into the community
and ease the youth's transition to a new living
situation. Two aftercare workers help the youth by
providing school and vocational counseling, crisis
intervention, family counseling, transportation,
and mentoring. The staff contact the youth at least
12 days per month for 6 months, and often accompany
the youth to counseling or Narcotics Anonymous or
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Aftercare staff seek
to involve parents, school guidance counselors, and
community-based agency personnel in this component
of the program. TOYC aftercare staff also work in
conjunction with Maryland Department of Juvenile
Services probation officers, who are responsible
for surveillance and compliance with court
mandates.

A study of the first 56 graduates of the TOYC
program is very promising. In the 12-month period
before placement, these youth were charged with 219
offenses, or an average of 4 court referrals per
youth. In the year following release, however, 55
percent had no further court referrals. Those who
were referred to the court were charged with a
total of 51 offenses, a decline of 77 percent.
Those who committed new offenses were likely to
commit less serious crimes following participation
in the TOYC program.

Contact:
Dr. Yitzhak Bakal
North American Family Institute, Inc.
10 Harbor Street
Danvers, MA 01923
508-774-0774

Other Programs

The Choice Program is a public and private
partnership involving the University of Maryland
and Baltimore County's Center for Learning Through
Work and Service. The goal is to promote
individual and family responsibility while
fostering academic, employment, and life skills
that empower the juvenile and his family. The
program combines strict supervision with intensive,
community-based family advocacy services.
Structured recreational activities, group
counseling, and tutoring programs are offered.
Youth are closely monitored by trackers, who
contact them three to five times daily.10

Contact:
Monica Bucheit
Choice Program
971 Seagull Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21225
410-353-5511

First developed in Massachusetts, the Key Program
now operates in Iowa, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
and Texas. Community trackers work in teams of
three under one caseworker. Each tracker is
responsible for six to eight youth. The trackers
monitor the youth's whereabouts, ensure compliance
with the conditions of facility release, assist in
school and employment issues, provide informal
counseling and family intervention, and connect the
youth to community resources. Trackers see their
assigned youth several times a day.11

Contact:
Juan Sanchez
Key Program
3000 South IH35
Suite 410
Austin, TX 78704
512-462-2181

The Stayfree Program, based out of the Kingswood
Community Center in Delaware, is a group of well-
coordinated community agencies that work with
juveniles and their families at both the front and
back ends of the juvenile justice system. Services
include removing juveniles from detention,
providing alternatives to lockup facilities, and
offering assistance to juveniles who are leaving
secure facilities. A special program for young
black males helps them develop stronger personal
identities by teaching them about their heritage
and connecting them with positive male role models
and mentors.12

Contact:
Tyrone Jones
Stayfree Program
2300 Bower Street
Wilmington, DE 19802
302-762-8229

Conclusion

Strong aftercare programs strengthen juveniles'
resistance to recidivism and increase their chances
of successful reintegration into society. Intensive
supervision flags problems so aftercare workers can
intervene before the youth has relapsed into
criminal behavior. Such supervision supports
prosocial behavior by allowing workers to reinforce
the positive values residential programs seek to
instill.

Additional Resources

Additional Bibliographic Resources

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. Intensive
Community-Based Aftercare Programs: Assessment
Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1994.

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

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. Intensive
Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and
Procedures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1994.

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. "Intensive
Aftercare Services for Institutionalized
Delinquents." In B. Glick and A. Goldstein (eds.),
Managing Delinquency Programs That Work. Laurel,
MD: American Correctional Association Press, 1994.

Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong. "Intensive
Aftercare for the High-Risk Juvenile Parolee:
Issues and Approaches in Reintegration and
Community Supervision." In T.L. Armstrong (ed.),
Intensive Interventions With High-Risk Youths:
Promising Approaches in Juvenile Probation and
Parole. Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press,
1991.

Andrews, D. Implications of Classification for
Treatment of Juveniles. Paper presented to the
American Probation and Parole Association, Salt
Lake City, 1987.

Armstrong, T.L., and D.M. Altschuler. "Recent
Developments in Programming for High-Risk Juvenile
Parolees: Assessment Findings and Program Prototype
Development." In A.R. Roberts (ed.), Critical
Issues in Crime and Justice. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 1994.

Baird, S The Usefulness of Risk Scales to the
Treatment of
Offenders. Paper presented to the Conference on
Statistical Prediction in Corrections, Rutgers
University, 1986.

Baird, S Report on Intensive Supervision Programs
in Probation and Parole. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Corrections, 1983.

Baird, S, G.M. Storrs, and H. Connelly.
Classification of Juveniles in Corrections: A Model
Systems Approach. Washington, DC: Arthur D. Little,
Inc., 1984.

Bleich, J. "Toward an Effective Policy for Handling
Dangerous Juvenile Offenders." In F.S. Hartman
(ed.), From Children to Citizens: The Role of the
Juvenile Court, vol. II. New York: Springer-Verlag,
1987. 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Children in Custody,
1975-85. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989.

Champion, D.J. The Juvenile Justice System:
Delinquency,
Processing, and the Law. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1992.

Clear, T.R. "Statistical Prediction in
Corrections." Research in Corrections, vol. 1.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Corrections, 1988.

Erwin, B.S., and L. Bennett. New Dimensions in
Probation: Georgia's Experience With Intensive
Probation Supervision. Research in Brief.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, January 1987.

Krisberg, B., D. Onek, M. Jones, and I. Schwartz.
"Juveniles in State Custody: Prospects for
Community-Based Care of Troubled Adolescents." NCCD
Focus. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, 1993.

Markley, G., and M. Eisenberg. The Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles Case Management System. Austin:
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 1986.

Petersilia, J., P.W. Greenwood, and M. Lavin.
Criminal Careers of Habitual Felons. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation, 1977.

Schwartz, I.M., R. Van Vleet, F.A. Orlando, and S.
McMurphy. A Study of New Mexico's Youthful
Offenders. Philadelphia: Center for the Study of
Youth Policy, School of Social Work, University of
Pennsylvania, 1995.

Strasburg, P.A. "Recent National Trends in Serious
Juvenile Crime." In R. Mathias, P. DeMuro, and R.
Allinson (eds.), Violent Juvenile Offenders: An
Anthology. San Francisco: National Council on Crime
and Delinquency, 1984.

Zimring, F.E. Background paper. Confronting Youth
Crime: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund on
Sentencing Policy Toward Young Offenders. New York:
Holmes and Meier Publishers, 1978.

Zimring, F.E., and G. Hawkins. Deterrence: The
Legal Threat in Crime Control. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1973.

Organizations

National Council on Crime and Delinquency, 685
Market Street, Suite 620, San Francisco, CA 94105;
David Onek, 415-896-6224.

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 6000,
Rockville, MD 20849-6000; 800-638-8736; Fax
301-251-5212.

Programs

Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies
Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), Wyman Building,
3100 Wyman Park Drive, Fifth Floor, Baltimore, MD
21218; Dr. David Altschuler, 410-516-7179.

Endnotes

1 Further detail can be found in Altschuler, D.M.,
and T.L. Armstrong, Intensive Aftercare for High-
Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model (Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1994);
Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong, Intensive
Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and
Procedures (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1994); Altschuler, D.M., and T.L.
Armstrong, "Intensive Aftercare Services for
Institutionalized Delinquents," in B. Glick, and A.
Goldstein (eds.), Managing Delinquency Programs
That Work (Laurel, Maryland: American Correctional
Association Press, 1994); and Armstrong, T.L., and
D.M. Altschuler, "Recent Developments in
Programming for High-Risk Juvenile Parolees:
Assessment Findings and Program Prototype
Development," in A.R. Roberts (ed.), Critical
Issues in Crime and Justice (Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, 1994).

2 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Children in
Custody, 1975-85 (Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989);
Champion, D.J., The Juvenile Justice System:
Delinquency, Processing, and the Law (New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992); and Krisberg,
B., D. Onek, M. Jones, and I. Schwartz, "Juveniles
in State Custody: Prospects for Community-Based
Care of Troubled Adolescents," NCCD Focus (San
Francisco: National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, 1993).

3 See, for example, Baird, S, The Usefulness of
Risk Scales to the Treatment of Offenders (paper
presented to the Conference on Statistical
Prediction in Corrections, Rutgers University,
1986); Baird, S, G.M. Storrs, and H. Connelly,
Classification of Juveniles in Corrections: A Model
Systems Approach (Washington, DC: Arthur D. Little,
Inc., 1984); Clear, T.R., "Statistical Prediction
in Corrections," Research in Corrections, vol. 1
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Corrections, 1988);
Petersilia, J., P.W. Greenwood, and M. Lavin,
Criminal Careers of Habitual Felons (Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation, 1977); and Zimring, F.E., and
G. Hawkins, Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime
Control (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1973).

4 Bleich, J., "Toward an Effective Policy for
Handling Dangerous Juvenile Offenders," in F.S.
Hartman (ed.), From Children to Citizens: The Role
of the Juvenile Court, vol. II (New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1987); Strasburg, PA, "Recent National
Trends in Serious Juvenile Crime," in R. Mathias,
P. DeMuro, and R. Allinson (eds.), Violent Juvenile
Offenders: An Anthology (San Francisco: National
Council on Crime and Delinquency, 1984); and
Zimring, F.E., Confronting Youth Crime: Report of
the Twentieth Century Fund on Sentencing Policy
Toward Young Offenders (New York: Holmes and Meier
Publishers, 1978).

5 Altschuler, D.M., and T.L. Armstrong, Intensive
Community-Based Aftercare Programs: Assessment
Report (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1994); and Altschuler, D.M., and T.L.
Armstrong, "Intensive Aftercare for the High-Risk
Juvenile Parolee: Issues and Approaches in
Reintegration and Community Supervision," in T.L.
Armstrong (ed.), Intensive Interventions With High-
Risk Youths: Promising Approaches in Juvenile
Probation and Parole (Monsey, New York: Criminal
Justice Press, 1991).

6 See, for example, Andrews, D., Implications of
Classification for Treatment of Juveniles (paper
presented to the American Probation and Parole
Association, Salt Lake City, 1987); Baird, SC,
Report on Intensive Supervision Programs in
Probation and Parole (Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of
Corrections, 1983); Erwin, B.S., and L. Bennett,
New Dimensions in Probation: Georgia's Experience
With Intensive Probation Supervision, Research in
Brief (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, January 1987); and
Markley, G., and M. Eisenberg, The Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles Case Management System (Austin:
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 1986).

7 Altschuler and Armstrong, Intensive Community-
Based Aftercare Programs: Assessment Report.

8 Information on AMI was drawn from the SAFE
Program Operations Manual, October 20, 1993.

9 Information on the Thomas O'Farrell Youth Center
was drawn from Excellence in Adolescent Care (San
Francisco: National Council on Crime and
Delinquency, 1992).

10 Schwartz, I.M., R. Van Vleet, F.A. Orlando, and
S. McMurphy, A Study of New Mexico's Youthful
Offenders (Philadelphia: Center for the Study of
Youth Policy, University of Pennsylvania, 1995),
pp. 110-111.

11 Ibid., pp. 109-110.

12 Ibid., p. 111.

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

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention acknowledges the outstanding
contribution made by David Altschuler, principal
research scientist at the Johns Hopkins University
Institute for Policy Studies Baltimore, Maryland,
and Troy Armstrong, professor, Department of
Anthropology, California State University,
Sacramento, California, in the development of this
paper.

This document was prepared under contract number
OJP-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.