. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT CENTERS: A Discussion of the concept's efficacy November 1995 Shay Bilchik, Administrator Community Assessment Centers: A discussion of the concept's efficacy Introduction The violent crime rate among juveniles has increased sharply over the past few years. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP) newly released report, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report, by the year 2010, the juvenile population 10 to 17 years old is projected to increase more than 20 percent. This most basic statistic has significant implications for future levels of juvenile crime because the children of baby boomers are entering their high crime years. While no exact measure exists of the true volume of juvenile crime, statistics on juvenile arrests reported annually by the FBI have been used to monitor juvenile involvement in crime. OJJDP's report estimates that if juvenile arrest rates for violent crime index offenses (murder, robbery, rape and aggravated assault) were to remain fixed at their 1992 levels, juvenile population growth would produce a 22 percent increase in juvenile arrests for violent crimes. However, should violent crime arrest rates for juveniles increase in the future as they did between 1983 and 1992, the number of juveniles arrested would double by the year 2010 to more than 260,000 arrests. Unfortunately, the Nation's already strained juvenile justice system does not have adequate resources to effectively identify and treat youth at high risk of becoming serious, violent, and chronic offenders nor the resources to intervene effectively when they reach this point. To improve the juvenile justice system's response to this trend and to minimize the impact of limited resources, some jurisdictions are employing the use of community assessment centers to intervene with at-risk and delinquent youth. This paper discusses the potential benefits of community assessment centers, examines how OJJDP currently addresses issues of importance in intervening with at-risk and delinquent youth, and discusses how OJJDP may address the concept of community assessment centers in fiscal year 1996, to ensure positive outcomes for youth. Problem Statement A variety of problem behaviors contribute to antisocial and delinquent behavior among youth. In addition to serious delinquency, there are many other barriers to prosocial youth development at both the individual and community levels. Factors such as mental illnesses, substance abuse, truancy, school dropout, poverty, learning disorders, institutional racism or bias, child abuse and neglect, unemployment, and youth victimization all negatively impact the development of our Nation's youth. Mental illness is frequently suggested as a contributing factor in juvenile crime. "While exact prevalence rates are not known, experts in mental health and juvenile justice estimate that the rate of mental disorder among youth in the juvenile justice system is substantially higher than among youth in the general population. Additionally, although information on the specific types of conduct disorder are typically lacking, it seems safe to assume that at least one-fifth, and perhaps as much as 60 percent, of the youth in the juvenile justice system can be diagnosed as having a conduct disorder (The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System, 1992). A recent assessment conducted in the State of Virginia revealed that more than 75 percent of all youth in the State's 17 secure detention facilities exhibited at least one diagnosable mental disorder. Of that number, 8 to 10 percent had mental health needs described in the study as "serious" and 39 percent were assessed as having needs in the moderate range (Virginia Policy Design Team, 1994). Teen suicide is another indication that more awareness of and proactive community involvement is needed in the lives of at-risk youth. In 1991, 1,899 youth ages 15 to 19 committed suicide, a rate of 11 per 100,000 youth in this age group. Between 1979 and 1991, the rate of suicide among youth ages 15 to 19 increased 31 percent (Allen-Hagen, et al., 1994). Child maltreatment and family violence are significant risk factors for serious delinquency. Sixty-nine percent of youth maltreated as children report involvement in violence as compared to 56 percent of those not maltreated. A history of maltreatment increases the chances of youth violence by 24 percent. Additionally, 70 percent of adolescents who grow up in families where parents fight with one another self-report violent delinquency as compared to 49 percent of adolescents who grow up in families without conflict. Lastly, research has demonstrated that exposure to multiple forms of family violence doubles the risk of self-reported youth violence (Thornberry, 1994). Truancy is another indicator of future problems for youth. Research has concluded that truant students are significantly more likely to drop out of school than regular attenders. A 1989 study by Bempechat and Ginsburg found that dropouts had exhibited notably higher rates of absenteeism and truancy than nondropouts. In addition, 75 percent of students who were truant in both elementary and high schools did not graduate from high school; for nontruants, the dropout rate was a mere 1 percent. The majority of habitual truants make the transition to dropping out. According to the National School Safety Center (NSSC) Resource Paper Increasing Student Attendance (1994), a significant 1992 study by the National Center on Educational Statistics found that: - in 1992, approximately 383,000 students (4.4 percent of all high school students) 15 to 24 years old dropped out of grades 10 through 12 in 1992; - in 1992, 3.4 million people (11 percent) 16 to 24 years old were high school dropouts; and - in 1992, the dropout rate was 11.6 percent for students who were eighth graders in 1988 and who had left high school by the spring of 1992 without finishing. Compounding the issue of truancy, a strong correlation has been found among youth between high unexcused absences and delinquent activity. Societal or systemic (institutional) factors may also create negative influences in youth development. As noted in the 1994 Interdepartmental Working Group on Violence report, Violence: Report to the President and Domestic Policy Council, "persons of color, particularly African-American and Latino-American males, are proportionately overrepresented both in the juvenile and criminal justice systems at all levels. Research shows that disproportionate minority confinement results from a number of discrete decisions made throughout the system, from the point of arrest through intake and sentencing." In addition, female offenders may also be treated disparately. Community assessment centers show promise in helping to curb these types of individual and systemic barriers or problems. For example, accurate and comprehensive automated recordkeeping will enable jurisdictions to more closely track the progress of youth through the juvenile justice system and quickly intervene when statistics related to gender/race/ethnicity indicate disparities in processing and in service provision. Given this opportunity, and because OJJDP's mission includes the improvement of the juvenile justice system, OJJDP is exploring ways to assist jurisdictions who are considering developing or implementing the community assessment center concept. Background In working toward solutions to these problems, OJJDP strives to understand delinquency and its causes and to then identify appropriate responses. Previous OJJDP-supported research, for example, indicates that many variables correlate with delinquency and that many risk factors tend to increase the risk of delinquent behavior. Among these factors are birth trauma, child abuse and neglect, ineffective parental discipline, family disruptions, conduct disorder and hyperactivity, school failure, learning disabilities, negative peer influences, limited employment opportunities, inadequate housing, and residence in high-crime neighborhoods. Research results reported in OJJDP publications such as Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse: Initial Findings (1994) and others suggest that efforts to reduce delinquent behavior should start early, be comprehensive and long term, and attempt to interrupt development pathways before serious, chronic delinquency emerges. In OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (1993), several principles are established to guide communities' efforts in the battle to prevent delinquent conduct and reduce juvenile involvement in serious, violent, and chronic delinquency:  Strengthen the family in its primary responsibility to instill moral values and provide guidance and support to children.  Support core social institutions such as schools, religious institutions and community organizations in their efforts to develop capable, mature, and responsible youth. A nurturing community environment requires that core social institutions be actively involved in the lives of youth. Community organizations include public and private youth-serving agencies, neighborhood groups, and business and commercial organizations providing youth with employment, training, and other meaningful economic opportunities.  Promote delinquency prevention as the most cost-effective approach to dealing with juvenile delinquency. When children engage in "acting out" behavior such as status offenses, the family and community in concert with child welfare agencies must respond with appropriate treatment and support services. Communities must take the lead in designing and building comprehensive prevention approaches that address known risk factors and target youth at risk of delinquency.  Intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs to successfully prevent delinquent offenders from becoming chronic offenders or progressively committing more serious and violent crimes. Initial intervention efforts, under an umbrella of system components (police, intake, and probation), should be centered in the family and other core institutions. Practitioners should ensure that an appropriate response occurs and act quickly and firmly if the need for formal system adjudication and sanctions is demonstrated.  Identify and control the small group of serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders who have committed felony offenses or who have failed to respond to intervention and nonsecure community-based treatment and rehabilitation services offered. Under OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy, it is the family and community, supported by core public and private institutions, that have primary responsibility for meeting the needs of our Nation's children. Socially harmful conduct, acting-out behavior, and delinquency may be signs of a family unable to meet this responsibility. It is at these times that the community must support and assist the family in the socialization process, particularly for youth at the greatest risk of delinquency. The Comprehensive Strategy incorporates two principle components: (1) preventing youth from becoming delinquent by focusing prevention programs on at-risk youth; and (2) improving the juvenile justice system response to delinquent offenders through a system of graduated sanctions and a continuum of treatment alternatives that include immediate intervention, intermediate sanctions, and community-based secure and nonsecure corrections sanctions. Restitution and community service should be included when appropriate. The Comprehensive Strategy focuses on two target populations. The initial target population for prevention programs is juveniles at risk of involvement in delinquent activity. This group includes youth who exhibit known risk factors for future delinquency and youth who have had contact with the juvenile justice system as nonoffenders (neglected, abused, and dependent youth), status offenders (runaways, truants, alcohol offenders, and incorrigibles), or minor delinquent offenders. The next population is youth who have committed delinquent acts, including offenders who evidence a high likelihood of becoming or who already are serious, violent, or chronic offenders. For any prevention effort to be successful, it must be understood that juvenile justice agencies and programs are part of a larger network of care that involves many local agencies and programs that work with at-risk youth and their families. It is important that juvenile delinquency prevention and intervention programs be integrated with local police, social service, child welfare, school, and family preservation programs and that these programs reflect communities' assessments of their most pressing problems and program priorities. Comprehensive approaches to delinquency prevention and intervention requires collaboration between the juvenile justice system and other service provision systems, including mental health, health, child welfare, and education. Mechanisms that effectively link these service providers at the program level need to be an important component of every community's comprehensive plan. Although OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy is an effective approach to preventing and controlling serious, violent, and chronic juvenile delinquency, the juvenile justice system itself must be prepared systemically to implement its broad principles to successfully achieve an effective continuum of care. Some might argue that the fundamental dilemma of juvenile justice is balancing the requirements of distributive justice to produce fair' outcomes with the need to treat children in the most individual and flexible ways, despite chronically inadequate resources (Krisberg and Austin, 1993). Other related systemic dilemmas create further barriers to a coordinated and effective continuum of service delivery. Krisberg and Austin argue that the current organization of adolescent social and health services is characterized by rigidly drawn agency turfs and budgetary categories, a situation that contributes to fragmented and often wasteful deployment of scarce public resources. It is not uncommon for multiple caseworkers to be assigned to the same youth and family. From the vantage point of each professional, the youth is delinquent, abused, in need of special educational services, or a welfare recipient. Other service providers may be working with other family members or siblings. In the typical scenario, no one service provider possesses an overall view of the adolescent's needs. As a result, a comprehensive and integrated treatment plan is rarely developed. Krisberg and Austin further state that the categorical nature of government funding and the lack of interagency collaboration lead to difficult turf battles to include or exclude certain clients. Older adolescents, particularly those with histories of mental illness or aggressive behavior, are the most likely to be omitted by agency service criteria. These youth generally end up in juvenile correctional institutions because public corrections agencies cannot refuse to take custody of adolescents who are lawfully committed to their care. Thus, juvenile corrections agencies must manage a wide variety of youngsters that other agencies refuse to serve. As fiscal pressures mount, the juvenile corrections system becomes, by default, an inappropriate social service net. According to these authors, this fragmented structure inhibits the accountability of government agencies to protect young people and to promote public safety. Further, the availability of treatment resources is highly dependent on political and media whims. A more cost-effective approach would entail coordinated and integrated planning of juvenile justice and related human services (Krisberg & Austin, 1993). Traditionally, local juvenile justice and related services including family preservation, mental health, and substance abuse prevention and treatment are delivered on a "slot driven" basis -- when a treatment space is available. Rather than providing a system of coordinated care, service providers often operate independently of one another and rarely become aware of their clients' and their clients' families involvement in other services. However, many youth and their families are besieged by multiple problems and needs such as drug treatment, family counseling, vocational training and housing assistance. For these families, accessing appropriate services requires navigating a maze of case workers, intake workers, and counselors and completing many pages of applications and forms. Exacerbating this difficult process is the fact that the care received by these families is likely to be redundant and incomplete because no single provider can determine and meet all of those families' needs. It is due, in large part to this lack of coordination that multiple-problem youth are not served properly and find themselves engaging in high-risk delinquency behavior and facing juvenile court processing. Additionally, because the system itself lacks coordination, the imposition of accountability for youths committing serious acts does not always occur and is therefore not certain. OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy addresses these systemic issues by asserting that the traditional role of the juvenile and family court is to treat and rehabilitate the dependent or wayward minor, using an individualized approach tailored to the needs of the child and family. The goals of the approach should be: (1) responding to the needs of troubled youth and their families; (2) providing due process while recognizing the rights of the victim; (3) rehabilitating the juvenile offender; and (4) protecting both the juvenile and the public. While juvenile and family courts have been earnest in responding to the bulk of problems faced by at-risk youth, new ways of organizing and focusing the resources of the juvenile justice system are required to effectively address serious, violent, and chronic juvenile crime. Finally, the Comprehensive Strategy suggests that juvenile corrections provide youth with treatment services in the least restrictive setting possible, when appropriate, to maximize rehabilitation and to minimize the chances of reoffending. Juvenile courts and corrections will benefit from a system that makes available to youth a continuum of services responsive to each juvenile's needs. To create this continuum, however, both risk and needs assessments must be effectively and efficiently performed. Unfortunately, traditional approaches to decisionmaking in juvenile justice have been highly discretionary, subjective, and intuitive. The information selected to assess a particular case and how that information is evaluated varies among individual decisionmakers not only according to their philosophy and experience, but also according to their assumptions about what factors are most relevant. For example, one probation officer may determine how closely an offender should be supervised on the basis of the seriousness of the offense, a second officer might make the decision on the basis of a particular risk factor such as substance abuse, and a third officer might determine the level of supervision on the basis of the client's need for services. Such variations in assessment and classification criteria result in inconsistency among decisionmakers and unequal treatment for similarly situated offenders (Howell, 1995). Additionally, many underlying psycho-social problems faced by youth, such as learning disabilities and family dysfunction, are never detected nor adequately identified and therefore not adequately addressed. A juvenile justice system equipped with the resources and knowledge to match juveniles with appropriate treatment programs while holding them accountable can have a positive and lasting impact on the reduction of delinquency. Identifying and providing community-based alternatives to confinement is often preferable and cost-effective. Developing effective case management and management information systems (MIS) will be integral to this effort. Inherent in these changes and in meeting the goals stated above are the concepts of "coordination" and "service integration." Soler (1992) has noted that most services for children and families in the United States are categorical, fragmented, and uncoordinated. Children labeled as "delinquent" are tracked toward correctional placements aimed at keeping them within a designated setting and modifying their behavior. Little effort is devoted to resolving underlying family problems. Children labeled "abused," "neglected," or "dependent" are removed from their homes and quickly placed in foster care, but they rarely receive the appropriate level of preventive family support or mental health services. Children with mental health needs are placed in secure psychiatric settings and are often heavily medicated, with little opportunity for treatment in community-based, family-oriented programs. Soler also notes that this fragmented human services system does not serve anyone very effectively: not youth, not families, and not communities. The system is expensive, it often fails to solve problems, and youth are referred from one agency to another with little follow up. In some cases, this fragmented system results in negative outcomes, making the patient sicker rather than promoting a cure. One solution to this dilemma is to create a coordinated, community-based system that offers a continuum of care, including prevention, early intervention, and treatment services. Its goal would be to serve youth's needs, not the requirements of funding streams or various bureaucracies. Collaborative efforts are needed among agencies responsible for assessing the needs of at-risk youth and providing them with a wide range of services to maximize efforts. Without a continuum of care, the piecemeal, fragmented systems now in place will continue to offer fragmented services for a variety of problems, never solving any of them. Children in trouble who need out-of-home services are currently serviced in four separate systems: the juvenile justice system, the alcohol and other drug treatment system, the mental health system, and the social welfare system. Without coordination among these systems, the same youth will loop in and out of all of them (Soler, 1992). Concept During fiscal year 1996, OJJDP will further explore options to help service providers achieve the beneficial and necessary principles discussed above, all of which are consistent with OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy. Through a series of staff retreats and contacts with juvenile justice practitioners in the field, the use of assessment centers in the juvenile justice system was identified as a promising approach. In July 1995, OJJDP convened an initial focus group comprised of various individuals from the juvenile justice field. The purpose of this discussion was to explore the benefits and possible disadvantages of community assessment centers. Although the framework for the focus group was the experience of assessment centers developed recently throughout Florida, no single model was used as a basis for discussion. A fruitful discussion offered consensus around several key issues. Essentially, the focus group considered assessment centers to be a viable option, although its participants stressed caution on such issues as labeling, breach of confidentiality, unnecessarily "widening the net," lack of interagency coordination, and sensitivity toward due process. On the basis of the meeting's discussions and on years of research reflected in OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy, we can state with certainty that any option to be considered must, at a minimum, possess the following characteristics: Single Point of Entry. Currently, most systems of treatment have multiple and decentralized points of entry. This approach leads to fragmentation of services and intensifies the dilemmas inherent in implementing a comprehensive case management system. Too often, youth enter the same system repeatedly, but through different "doors". In this situation, it may take months, if at all, for service providers to realize that one youth is receiving similar or the same services from two or more providers. In some cases, however, it may not be feasible for a system's single point of entry to be an actual "physical" point of entry. Rather, a "virtual" option could be employed in which information gathered at one location, could be shared (presumably on a need to know and right to know basis) with othr service providers, via a systemwide multiagency management information system. Immediate and Comprehensive Assessments. To effectively address the risks and needs of at-risk youth and youth entering the juvenile justice system as either dependent or delinquent, comprehensive community-based assessments (i.e., performed in a nonsecure setting), where appropriate, are essential. Paramount to this stage are assurances that no assessment process violates the JJDP Act core requirements. These requirements, as identified in Sections 223(a), (12)(A), (13), (14) and (23) of the JJDP Act of 1974 (P.L. 93 415) 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq., as amended, pertain to: the deinstitutionalization of status offenders; separation of juveniles from adults while securely confined; removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups; and to reducing the disproportionate confinement of minority youth. As outlined in OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy and its soon to be released National Juvenile Justice Action Plan (Draft 1995), the concept of risk assessment is central to an effective juvenile justice system. A study of 14 States found that, on average, 31 percent of incarcerated juveniles could be safely placed in less secure settings. This finding could have a major impact on how States approach the problems of facility overcrowding and service delivery. Considering that the annual cost of incarcerating a youth falls between $35,000 and $60,000, reducing unnecessary placements could produce considerable savings. Such savings could be applied to developing immediate or intermediate sanctions, improving prevention and intervention programming, and intervening earlier in a juvenile's involvement in the juvenile justice system. Communities developing a graduated sanctions system need tools to determine which and how many youth should be placed at each security level in the continuum of care. In an effective juvenile justice system, risk-focused classifications are used to make placements for juvenile offenders on the basis of clearly designed, objective criteria. These criteria focus on (1) the seriousness of the delinquent act; (2) the potential for reoffending based on the presence of risk factors; and (3) the risk to public safety. In addition to these goals, objective risk classification can prove useful for reducing bias in placement decisionmaking, particularly in light of the disproportionate incarceration rates among minority populations. In addition, the Action Plan states that needs assessments are also critical to a properly functioning juvenile justice system. An effective needs assessment ensures the selection of the most appropriate program for youth within the determined security level. A system of multilevel, community-based assessments (from basic screening to indepth inventories) administered at appropriate levels by a multidisciplinary team or a specially trained individual with access to the youth's treatment and system involvement history would assist greatly in decisionmaking about appropriate treatment. The needs assessment would identify chronic or multiple needs that warrant placement in specialized programs (for example, sex offender or violent offender program, or a rigorous wilderness program). Needs assessments can also be used after program acceptance in case planning to identify appropriate services. An accurate needs assessment in combination with effective, integrated services is the best way to ensure positive outcomes for at-risk youth. Whereas a specially trained individual may be acceptable in some cases, the assessment team approach is an innovative method for integrating the risk and needs classification requirements of the juvenile justice system, the goals of treatment, and the best use of scarce system resources. As the Action Plan further states, all members of an assessment team should be knowledgeable about differences that can stem from diversity of race, culture, and class. These same activities or processes inherent in a single-point-of-entry system, which utilizes immediate and comprehensive assessments of delinquent youth, are applicable to dependent youth and status offenders. By coordinating front-end services, the juvenile justice system can more effectively intervene to prevent youth from becoming delinquent. Management Information System (MIS). To effectively monitor a youth's progress through multiple treatment programs, possibly in different systems, an infrastructure that has the potential to support integrated case management should be in place. Additionally, treatment history and prior contact information should be integrated into one system so that professionals performing assessments and designing a treatment plan can be quickly made aware of previous intervention attempts, thereby helping them identify problem areas and needs. Ideally, the information system should have the capability of: (1) receiving and cataloging case manager-collected progress updates from community service providers; and (2) compiling data for reporting on the problems of youth in the community (needs), the levels of success in placing youth in needed services (service gaps), and the success of those treatment programs (preliminary outcomes). This type of reporting has the potential to help communities identify gaps and redundancies in services and promotes accountability within the system. In addition to case-specific, individual-level data, the MIS can be a useful tool for documenting existing services within a community, assuming that services do, in fact, exist. By acting as a "clearinghouse" of service providers within the community, the assessment center provides a means of further coordinating service delivery and makes the most use of limited resources. Integrated Case Management. Effective case management is crucial to success in implementing and maintaining any treatment continuum model. Additionally, effective integrated case management is crucial to coordinating, and monitoring multiple services that a youth may be receiving, and it is an effective way of providing feedback to the assessment process. In essence, the case manager, armed with comprehensive information from an appropriate MIS, is the critical link between comprehensive assessments and effective and integrated service delivery. In an effective case management system, case managers are responsible for case assessment and planning, referral and monitoring of service delivery, and reassessment. The case manager is also responsible for developing individualized treatment plans based on the results of the assessment(s). The process may be aided by input from an MIS as well as clinical professionals, if necessary. The treatment plan should identify intervention priorities and include both short-term and long-term goals. Treatment plans must be flexible and responsive and should be reassessed at regularly determined intervals (for example, every 2 to 3 months). Reassessment should be based on recent behavior, progress in meeting objectives, and newly identified needs. It should take into account changes in the youth's environment and in available resources. The case manager plays a central and critical role in this process. Providing Input to the Policymaking Process. By designing and creating information systems that collect and store multidisciplinary data regarding each youth, and by continuously updating the youth's file with treatment progress data (referral followup), it is possible to measure the effectiveness of particular prevention and intervention strategies as well as the effectiveness of individual service providers and potential treatment modalities. By measuring these results, ineffective strategies can be abandoned and poor service providers can be monitored and appropriate followup action taken. Additional input into the policymaking process can be gleaned from both process and outcome evaluations of community assessment centers. In addition to analyzing individual outcomes, we must also be concerned with providing youth with immediate and comprehensive community-based assessments and addressing needs through a system of integrated services provided in the least restrictive setting available. Although these issues are essentials for an effective and equitable juvenile justice system, many other issues were discussed during the focus group meeting held by OJJDP. Current Jurisdictional Activity The focus group discussion was primarily centered around recent developments in Florida regarding the concept of Assessment Centers, also referred to as Juvenile Assessment Centers (JAC), and Juvenile Intervention Facilities (JIF). Various versions of the assessment center concept are in operation or in development throughout Florida. Other States may be considering or adopting similar concepts. The Kansas Supreme Court has issued an administrative order (#97) regarding to the establishment of a juvenile intake and assessment system, which has led policymakers in Kansas to consider a single assessment center with a statewide "service area" as opposed to a regional approach such as the one followed in Florida. Officials in Colorado and Nebraska are also exploring this approach. In general, the Florida assessment center concept employs a centralized intake system for youth who have had negative contact with law enforcement, and in some instances for truant youth, as is the case in Broward County's (Ft. Lauderdale) Juvenile Intervention Facility and Hillsborough County's (Tampa) Juvenile Assessment Center. In Florida, each district and, in some cases, each county has its own assessment center. In some counties, more than one assessment center is being considered, and in other situations, such as rural counties, one assessment center may serve multiple counties. It appears at this stage, however, that JACs in operation in Florida currently accept primarily or in some cases only youth referred by law enforcement or by court order. Youth are brought into JAC or JIF through a secure "sally port" and are fingerprinted and photographed. Once identification has taken place, they are given an initial assessment of needs and problems, and any history of contact with law enforcement, juvenile justice, and social services is collected. Some assessment centers in Florida, such as Hillsborough County's (Tampa) JAC, have begun using the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT), which is designed to identify problems in any functional area requiring further assessments and/or treatment. Additionally, academic information and school discipline information is gathered when available. From this information, a determination is made regarding the necessity of an indepth assessment. Once all on-site assessments are completed, a detention eligibility decision is made. From this point, youth are assigned case managers to monitor their progress through the system, including followup assessment and disposition. This aspect of the assessment center operation requires close scrutiny. OJJDP emphasizes the need for community-based assessments where applicable and appropriate. At least one pilot study to date (Dembo and Turner, 1994) has indicated that the assessment center concept as implemented in Hillsborough County (Tampa), Florida, has the ability to identify multiple-problem, high-risk youth at an early time. Specifically, the study involved 110 truant youth brought to the Tampa JAC in January 1993. The majority of these youth were males who ranged in age from 9 to 18 years old, with an average age of 14. According to the study, 45 percent had a history of one or more arrests on a delinquency charge. An analysis of POSIT results revealed that 96 percent of these youth indicated a potential problem in peer relations; 82 percent indicated a potential problem in "mental health status"; and 33 percent to 47 percent had a potential problem involving substance abuse, physical health, family relations, and vocational status. In another study, POSIT results indicated that 82 percent of the youth included in the sample had a potential mental health problem, and 51 percent had a potential substance use/abuse problem, yet relatively few claimed to have ever received treatment for any of these problems. Further analysis of results involving mental health and substance abuse problems in sociodemographic subgroups, found that black youth were much less likely to have received treatment for each of these problems than were white youth (Dembo et al, 1994b). This type of information may prove useful in local monitoring of racial disparity at various points within the juvenile justice system. Assessments of this kind can also help identify treatment or service "gaps" and underscore the need for a complex yet informative and capable information system that can be accessed by multiple agencies with varying levels of information access. In Hillsborough's JAC, for example, the information system consists of three parts: (1) preliminary screening data; (2) indepth assessment data; and (3) referral and referral outcome data. Each processed youth is given a unique identification number and, for each entry, a unique event/episode number. The information system is event- or episode-based, permitting analyses by individual case or by event/episode. The preliminary screening collects the following information: Demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status); Current charges; Delinquency history; Dependency history (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect), Special case designation (M-CAP, SHOCAP, gang associate case); Florida DHRS service/program history; Educational history (current grade, standardized test results, and special program placement; Alcohol and other drug use (self-reported prevalence, recency, lifetime frequency and days of alcohol use in past year, and various other substances); EMIT R urine test results for various illicit drugs; Breathalyser test results for alcohol (completed as arrested youths enter JAC); HIV risk behavior; Substance abuse and mental health treatment history; Recommendations for assessment and disposition; and Recommendations for immediate placement. The preliminary screening package is programmed in a specialized computer language so that JAC intake staff can enter the data via on-line PC computer screens as part of a local area network (LAN), supported by a large memory file server. The developed software program also produces computer ready research data files of the preliminary screening data, client dossiers, and various summary reports. Hillsborough County's indepth assessment information as well as referral and referral outcome data is also included in the MIS. For youth in need of intervention or treatment services, JAC staff plan to track and record their interaction with the services (agencies) to which they and their families are referred and the types of services in which youth were placed, as well as identify limitations in services or the lack of services to address specific problems experienced by youth. JAC staff plan to use this data to drive new services (Dembo and Brown, 1994). Summary Although it would appear that the community assessment center concept is wholly advantageous, the OJJDP focus group outlined several areas of caution with respect to the development of any model or prototype. Specifically:  Assessment centers, through a net widening effect, may lead to an overwhelming burden on the juvenile justice system, especially if the assessment center is considered by law enforcement to be a "quick drop-off point" or a less stigmatizing way of bringing a youth into the juvenile justice system or treatment realm.  Assessment instruments administered by nonclinicians or paraprofessionals may be subject to misinterpretation or contamination.  Assessment center personnel must be sensitive to cultural diversity.  Individual rights and due process must be preserved.  The safety and security of juveniles and assessment center staff must be ensured, perhaps by providing separate entrances for different categories of youth. This precaution may also go a long way towards ensuring protection from inappropriate labeling of youth.  The issue of record confidentiality cannot be ignored. An appropriate method of defining "need to know/right to know" should be developed. As a result of OJJDP's cursory review of the Florida assessment center models (as described above) and of the focus group and its discussions, several other areas are recommended for further exploration and discussion. Specifically:  The involvement of families in assessment process and treatment plan development.  Transportation issues. In Florida, each assessment center typically is responsible for handling youth from at least one county, and in some cases it is speculated that the service area could include several rural counties. Transportation to and from the assessment centers via law enforcement or the family is an issue worthy of further analysis.  The advantages and disadvantages as well as the feasibility of providing not only assessments but also services within the assessment center. This issue underscores complications in areas such as the maximum time a juvenile can be held in an assessment center.  Assessment centers, use of existing community resources.  Further exploration of assessment instruments and an analysis of their effectiveness.  Exploration of confidentiality/record sharing issues in a preadjudicatory stage.  Exploration of determining which youth are appropriate and eligible for assessment center intake. Limiting assessment center intake to accused delinquent or status offenders may be more feasible; however, opening multiple doors to an assessment center that accepts these youth as well as at-risk youth at-risk may be more desirable.  Exploration of various MIS technologies to determine which hardware, software, and MIS configurations would be most effective and informative for practitioners and policymakers. What is known for certain is that many components of this approach have been implemented in various combinations and to varying degrees of success over the years. We must learn from our past successes and failures to develop interventions that prevent at-risk youth from becoming serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. If OJJDP is to explore the development of community assessment centers, it must also explore the experience of other jurisdictions and examine carefully the legal and practical issues related to implementation of single-point-of-entry community assessment centers. In addition, exploration of this approach must be carried out in conjunction with the implementation of comprehensive, collaborative approaches to the delivery of services to at-risk and delinquent youth. Fiscal Year 1996 Based on it's initial focus group meeting and subsequent internal discussions, OJJDP will attempt to immediately identify existing community assessment centers and related projects. Once a number of existing projects have been identified, OJJDP will survey and possibly visit these projects to determine the extent to which they are implementing the activities and processes of the community assessment center concept as discussed in this paper. While intending to provide positive outcomes for youth, OJJDP will look closely at areas such as temporary holding, levels of diversion versus detention (particularly in situations involving minority youth), proper handling of status offenders, and the proper utilization of any MIS. OJJDP's intent is to ensure system and outcome improvements and to foster these improvements without unnecessary confinement, limited due process, or inequitable treatment. OJJDP hopes to identify jurisdictions exceeding or attempting to exceed what is currently known of successful comprehensive assessments and of monitored access to integrated treatment services. From this initial research, which will be completed in the first quarter of calendar year 1996, a review of "community assessment centers" will be completed and any potential models identified. This finding will play a large role in determining how OJJDP will proceed with this concept, especially regarding the type of program (i.e., demonstration, evaluation, or research) to pursue. Any model identified for replication or developed through an OJJDP-supported research and development process would have, at a minimum, the following goals: To ensure positive outcomes for youth through the provision of comprehensive, community-based assessments that drive the development of an integrated treatment plan. Such an assessment should not require unnecessary detention. To promote and increase the effective and safe use of alternatives to detention within a system of graduated sanctions for delinquent offenders. To provide accurate and timely monitoring capabilities of issues such as gender-specific programming and the overall processing of at-risk, dependent, or delinquent minorities of all races, genders, and ethnicities to ensure equal and fair treatment at all phases of the juvenile justice system. To promote improved access to multidisciplinary data or records and integration of assessment, case management, and community-based services through use of an automated information system, while avoiding breaches of confidentiality. In the last half of fiscal year 1996, OJJDP will develop either a demonstration program or a training and technical assistance and dissemination program to complement the initial research findings. Sources Allen-Hagen, B., Sickmund, M., and Snyder, H. Juveniles and Violence: Juvenile Offending and Victimization. 1994. Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, Fact Sheet #19. p. 3. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Juvenile Justice Action Plan. (Draft). Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 1995. Dembo, R., and Turner, G., A Study of Truants Processed at the Hillsborough County Juvenile Assessment Center. The Journal of At-Risk Issues Vol. 1, Fall 1994. p. 38 42. Dembo, R., Turner, G., et al. Screening High Risk Youths for Potential Problems: Field Application in the Use of the Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers (POSIT). Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse. Vol. 3 (4): p. 69 93, 1994. Dembo, R., and Brown, R., The Hillsborough County Juvenile Assessment Center. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse. Vol. 3 (2): p.25 43, 1994. Howell, J.C., Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. May 1995. p. 191. Krisberg, B., and Austin, J.F., Reinventing Juvenile Justice. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 1993. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, p.181. National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System. Responding to the Mental Health Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System. 1992. Seattle, Washington. p. 21. Snyder, H. N., and Sickmund, M., Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report. 1995. Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention. Washington, D.C. Soler, M. "Interagency Services in Juvenile Justice Systems." In Justice and Public Policy: Toward A National Agenda. 1992. New York, NY: Lexington Books. pp.134-50. Thornberry, T.P.. Violent Families and Youth Violence. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Fact Sheet #21. 1994. Virginia Policy Design Team. Mental Health Needs of Youth in Virginia's Juvenile Detention Centers. 1994. (Note: Virginia was selected by the National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System as one of five States to participate in a State Policy Design Academy. The Mission of the Academy was to design and implement a strategy of response to the mental health needs of youth in the juvenile justice system.)