Intensive Juvenile Aftercare Reference Guide
David M. Altschuler, Ph.D.
Co-Director, JRAC
Institute for Policy Studies The Johns Hopkins
University
Troy L. Armstrong, Ph.D.
Co-Director, JRAC
Center for Delinquency and Crime Policy Studies
California State University, Sacramento
Contributors (JRAC Staff and Senior Consulting Associates)
David Altschuler Jack Lawson
Troy Armstrong Barbara Mendenhall
William Barton Julieann Myers
David Bennett Mark Randelson
Valerie Boykin Judith Ryder
Lonnie Jackson Robert Salsbury
William Lane Randy Thomas
Prepared by the Juvenile Reintegration and Aftercare Center (JRAC) 7750 College Town Dr., Suite 104, Sacramento, CA 95826
(916) 278-6259 www.csus.edu/ssis/cdcps/
This project was supported by Grant Number 2002-M U-MU-K001 by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, 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.
March 2004
i Table of Contents
Preface iii
Acknowledgments v
Section 1: Overview of Aftercare/Reentry in the Juvenile Justice System
Topic 1 Historical Perspectives on Intensive Juvenile Aftercare ...1-1 Topic 2 Overview of the IAP Research and Development Initiative ...2-1 Topic 3 The Reintegrative Continuum ...3-1 Topic 4 The IAP Model: Theoretical Underpinnings and Underlying Principles of
Programmatic Action ...4-1 Topic 5 Organizational Factors and Structural Characteristics in IAP Planning and Program
Development ...5-1 Section 2: Overarching Case Management in the IAP Model: The Five Essential
Components
Topic 6 Overarching Case Management: The Five Components ...6-1 Topic 7 Component #1: Assessment, Classification, and Selection Criteria ...7-1 Topic 8 Component #2: Individualized Case Planning with a Family and
Community Perspective...8-1 Topic 9 Component #3, Part I: Social Control and Surveillance Techniques ...9-1 Topic 10 Component #3, Part II: Service Provision and Treatment ...10-1 Topic 11 Component #4: Graduated Responses...11-1 Topic 12 Component #5: Service Brokerage with Community Resources and
Linkage with Social Networks ...12-1 Section 3: Special Subpopulations and Issues of Special Problems and Needs
Overview
Topic 13 Juvenile Offenders with Serious Mental Health Disorders...13-1 Topic 14 Juvenile Female Offenders...14-1 Topic 15 Juvenile Minority Offenders ...15-1 Topic 16 Juvenile Sex Offenders ...16-1 Topic 17 Juvenile Offenders with Severe Substance Abuse Problems...17-1 Topic 18 Juvenile American Indian/Alaska Native Offenders...18-1 Section 4: Process and Outcome Evaluation, Lessons Learned, and Promising
Practices
Topic 19 Management Information and Program Evaluation...19-1 Topic 20 Testing the IAP Model: Program Development and Implementation in
Selected Pilot Sites...20-1 References
ii
Table 2: The Four Conceptual Levels That Configure the IAP Model ... 2–10 Table 3: Required Program Design Features in the Three Phases of the
Reintegrative Continuum ... 3–6 Table 4: Transition Components of IAP Programming... 3–7 Table 5: Sample Incentive Program Outline ... 11–8 Table 6: Colorado Division of Youth Corrections, Parole Violations and
Sanctions Matrix... 11–9 Table 7: Colorado Division of Youth Corrections Drug and Alcohol Services,
Urinalysis Results: Graduated Sanctions and Treatment Interventions... 11–10 Table 8: Evaluation Planning Worksheet #1 ... 19–18 Table 9: Performance-Based Reintegration Standard ... 19–19
List of Figures
Figure 1: Intervention Model for Juvenile Intensive Aftercare... 2–11 Figure 2: The Structural Configuration of Juvenile Aftercare Across the Institutional-
Community Programming Continuum... 3–8 Figure 3: Decompression During Community-Based Phase of Reintegration:
Multistage Design for Stepdown and Penetration to the Grassroots Level... 3–9 Figure 4: IAP Reintegration Continuum ... 20–18 Figure 5: Assessing and Targeting Factors Predictive of Reoffending Behavior ... 20–19 Figure 6: Programming in Transitional Phase... 20–20 Figure 7: The Balanced Approach in Aftercare Programming (A Comprehensive
Framework for Planning Effective Reintegration)... 20–22
IAP-Preface
iii PREFACE Background
During the past decade juvenile justice in the United States has experienced a major paradigm shift focused on the transition and reentry of youth in confinement back into their home communities. A vastly revised sense of how to generate better outcomes through a significantly reconceptualized reintegrative process has emerged. Although youth correctional personnel from senior administrators to line staff have long recognized the problem of
unacceptable levels of failure among juvenile populations transitioning from secure facilities, little had been done to address and resolve this in a systematic way. That has now changed and as a result aftercare is no longer an afterthought in American juvenile justice.
Juvenile aftercare/reentry program initiatives, often designated as research and development projects, were launched sporadically during the 1970s and 1980s and were generally characterized by mixed results in terms of more effective supervision strategies, improved quality of service delivery and lowered levels of reoffending behavior in the
community. Most notable was the Violent Juvenile Offender (VJO) initiative that was funded by The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) in the early 1980s.
Unfortunately, outcomes regarding reduction in rates of reoffending at the VJO pilot sites did not uniformly achieve the anticipated level of success.
Despite ongoing attempts to improve programming practices at the “deep end” of the juvenile justice system, escalating costs of confinement, overcrowding of facilities and
unacceptable high rates of recidivism continued to plague youth correctional agencies across the entirety of the United States throughout the 1980s. These problems led OJJDP in 1987 to initiate another major research and development project in the area of transition and aftercare: the Intensive Aftercare Programs (IAP). While this initiative was framed to build upon the existing knowledge base on reintegration, it was also charged with identifying and delineating current promising practices from the field and then developing an innovative model of aftercare/reentry for multi-site testing.
Development of the IAP Project
The IAP Project extended over a twelve-year period (the demonstration phase ending in June 2000) and played a major role in drawing attention to a variety of commendable and promising approaches to the challenge of reintegrating high-risk juvenile offenders back into their communities. The IAP model and its application within youth correctional systems has served as an impetus for better understanding how to design and operationalize more effective aftercare/reentry programs. Much of the information contained in this Reference Guide derives directly from the experiences and findings of this long-term research and development initiative, especially with regard to program design, implementation and ongoing management.
Intended Audience for this Guide
Policymakers, public officials, program planners, administrators, managers, researchers, practitioners, private providers, justice system personnel, victims, and interested students of juvenile justice are the intended audience. Some readers will only be interested in obtaining information regarding particular topics or issues, while others may want to read the entire Guide.
The format is that of a reference guide, meaning that each topic begins with an enumeration of
iv
key points, topic goals, and an introduction, followed by detailed substantive information. This format is ideal for use in trainings, classes and self-study.
Purpose of this Guide
This Guide is the most up-to-date body of information and insight available on the development and implementation of a comprehensive reintegrative intervention for juvenile offenders placed in correctional, out-of-home settings operating at the local, county and state levels. Based on a set of underlying principles, program elements, and structural requirements, the IAP model serves as a point of reference for describing the nature and sequencing of decisions tied to pre-release planning, transitional activities, and community follow-up.
Structure of the Guide
The guide has four sections. Section one provides an overview of the evolution of reintegrative programming over the recent past and describes the context in which the IAP initiative emerged. Discussion is included of the theories and research-based principles upon which the model is based. Secton one also emphasizes the generic nature of the model, which is vital because of the need to apply it in numerous jurisdictions characterized by different
resources, demographic profiles, statutes and organizational structures. Section two contains seven closely related topics that collectively describe the set of requisite program components comprising overarching case management. To a large extent, this section constitutes the operational and decision making heart of the IAP model. Section three examines six specially designated youth populations who are frequently identified and managed in terms of specific needs and problems, often requiring carefully tailored interventions for responding to the treatment and supervision challenges they pose. Section four covers management information and evaluation considerations, as well as an exploration of lessons learned and promising practices identified during the design, implementation and management phases of the IAP experiment.
IAP-Preface
v
Acknowledgements
The Co-principal Directors, Drs. David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong, want to express sincere gratitude toward the OJJDP Grant Managers who have shepherded the project over the years, especially Jim Burch and Thomas M. Murphy. Special acknowledgement must also be extended to Douglas Dodge, who was Director of the Special Emphasis Division at OJJDP over much of the time when the IAP Model was being developed and tested at pilot sites. His insight, diligence and commitment were critical for the success of this project. Many juvenile justice practitioners throughout the U.S. have contributed toward the development, implementation and improvement of the IAP model through their steadfast efforts to improve processes for
successfully reintegrating high-risk youth back into their home communities. Without the work of these people the IAP model would not exist. Drs. Armstrong and Altschuler also thank the contributors who wrote, critiqued, and edited this Reference Guide. Contributions made by these individuals (listed on the title page) were invaluable in developing this document.
Aftercare/Reentry in the Juvenile Justice System
Topic 1: Historical Perspectives on Intensive Juvenile Aftercare Topic 2: Overview of the IAP Research and Development Initiative Topic 3: The Reintegrative Continuum
Topic 4: The IAP Model: Theoretical Underpinnings and Underlying Principles of Programmatic Action Topic 5: Organizational Factors and Structural Characteristics in IAP Planning and Program Development
IAP-Topic01
1-1
Topic 1: Historical Perspectives on Intensive Juvenile Aftercare
Key Points
• The historical development of intensive aftercare philosophy and practice is important to understanding the design, policies, and procedures that define the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP).
• Although intensive aftercare services for juveniles evolved from roots in adult probation and corrections, the juvenile court’s mission of treatment and rehabilitation played a major role in shaping early programming efforts for severely delinquent youth.
• Early attempts to implement intensive supervision programs suffered from a lack of conceptual, operational, and philosophical clarity.
• Numerous factors continue to plague the development and support of aftercare services for juvenile offenders.
Topic Goals
• To provide a historical context for the development of intensive aftercare philosophy and practice for juveniles.
• To review findings from research and evaluations of earlier intensive supervision and aftercare initiatives.
• To describe the lessons learned from previous attempts to implement intensive aftercare services and their implications for the development of IAP.
1-2
I. Introduction
Intensive community-based aftercare services through which more serious offenders can be supervised in a much more structured fashion grew out of attempts, especially in the adult system, to reduce pressure on overcrowded correctional institutions while simultaneously responding to calls to get tough with offenders. Most of these early attempts were aimed at probation and utilized strategies to reduce caseload size and increase levels of surveillance and social control. The use of new technologies and practices, including home detention, electronic monitoring, and drug and alcohol testing, became very popular during this period (and remain so today). Interest in developing community-based supervision services waxed and waned for several decades dependent on politics, institutional crowding, and perceptions of the
effectiveness of such programs. Prior attempts to establish intensive supervision services shared common goals such as reduced client-to-officer ratios and higher levels of surveillance. Juvenile programs generally included treatment services for offenders. Most of the early programs suffered, however, from lack of conceptual and philosophical clarity, which resulted in a wide diversity of efforts. Programs for deep-end youth on aftercare status were even less popular and suffered their own unique challenges.
II. Historical Development
A. Origins of Intensive Supervision in the Community
Intensive interventions with high-risk offenders from a community corrections perspective can be traced to the 1960s, when most attention was focused on highly structured, quite intensive programming for adult offenders and, more particularly, on probationers. Intensive community supervision of paroled offenders was fairly rare. According to Clear and Hardyman (1990), this early wave of adult intensive probation supervision centered almost exclusively on identifying strategies to enhance the level of social control and on determining the optimal number of clients amenable to supervision on individual caseloads. In large part these experiments have been characterized as the “search for the magic number” (Carter and Wilkins, 1984). The widely shared assumption at the time was that once the caseload size was reduced, the supervising officer would be freed to conduct case management activities and to provide required services in a more intensive, responsive, and traditional manner (Latessa, 1987).
The next wave of experimentation came in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Interestingly, the introduction of intensive supervision sprang not from a careful assessment of service needs, but largely in response to prison overcrowding and calls for increased public protection. Thus, many of these programs were based on an urgency for achieving an even higher level of supervision and social control. Surveillance and control techniques included electronic monitoring, frequent caseworker-offender contact, strict curfews, drug/alcohol testing, and extending supervision to
“non-ordinary hours” (i.e., the “24/7” concept).
Interest in creating intensive community-based services for juvenile offenders was kick-started in the 1980s for the same two basic reasons: (1) the desire to demonstrate a get-tough approach to crime, and (2) the need to alleviate overcrowded juvenile facilities (Clear, 1991). The early
IAP-Topic01
1-3
juvenile justice models of intensive supervision shared many of the components of their adult counterparts, including higher levels of offender accountability and social control techniques (using new technologies such as electronic monitoring and random drug and alcohol testing).
They diverged, however, in their added attention to treatment and rehabilitation, a longstanding philosophical underpinning of the juvenile system.
Some of the earliest juvenile programs focused on reducing caseload sizes as a means of
increasing the intensity of interventions. Inherent in this focus was the belief that smaller officer- to-offender caseload ratios would result in better supervision and more effective delivery of services.
The juvenile intensive supervision movement of the 1980s also began to focus on high-risk offenders and the use of objective assessment and classification systems to determine levels of risk and need. Increased rules, structure, and surveillance, however, greatly increase the chances that an individual will acquire more technical violations, which may in turn lead to increased incarceration and exacerbate the very problem that intensive supervision was intended to solve.
Clear (1991) notes several potentially negative consequences of this earlier use of intensive supervision:
• The inability to select true diversion cases resulted in programs that merely added on to regular probation sentences.
• The inclusion of many of the least serious offenders generated much higher levels of supervision for this population, while more dangerous offenders were placed on standard aftercare.
• The increased supervision and more restrictive probation guidelines contributed to higher failure rates.
Client selection is especially important in the historical development of intensive supervision programs. Topic Seven of this Guide highlights the importance of targeting high-risk offenders so as not to widen the net and notes research that has shown that low-risk offenders often do worse under intensive supervision.
In addition to the traditional focus on caseload size, many of the emerging programs began to insert specific control and treatment features depending on the particular characteristics of the targeted client population. Examples of these program features include employment training and work experiences, drug and alcohol treatment, restitution and community service, and electronic monitoring.
B. Evolution of Intensive Aftercare Programming
The development and testing of intensive aftercare or parole approaches can be traced back more than 30 years. During the 1960s and early 1970s, the best documented set of experiments were the parole/aftercare programs designed, operated, and evaluated by the California Youth Authority (CYA) (Armstrong, 1991b). These projects were exclusively concerned with the
1-4
maintenance of aftercare populations in the community. Little attention was focused on the potential role of institutions and other types of secure facilities in creating or contributing to positive reintegrative outcomes. Overwhelmingly, the central research question was whether decreased caseload size had a positive effect on performance levels.
The CYA’s Parole Research Project (Johnson, 1962) began in Alameda County in the summer of 1959, creating 10 experimental caseloads of 36 parolees each. These were compared with 5 control caseloads of twice that size, using a random assignment research design. No significant differences were found between standard and reduced caseloads. Subsequently, a number of other experiments with reduced caseload sizes were conducted by CYA. Probably best known was the Community Treatment Project, which began operations in 1961 and continued through 1974 (Palmer, 1971, 1973, 1974a, 1974b). The project matched experimental subjects with controls on the basis of an interpersonal maturity scale and placed these juvenile parolees in the community under intensive supervision (12 youth per caseload). In addition to close monitoring, a wide array of special services and treatment strategies were made available to the experimental cases. Although the degree of success achieved in the project has been widely disputed, some findings were clearly promising. Another CYA-sponsored experimental project, the Narcotic Control Program, was conducted from 1962 through 1967. The majority of participants were older adolescent male parolees who were targeted for a variety of special program services including drug testing, assignment to parole officers with smaller caseload sizes, intensive supervision, short-term confinement, and individual and group counseling. It was concluded, however, that the Narcotic Control Program had not been more effective in reducing general or drug-involved recidivism among wards in the program (Roberts, 1970). In 1966, CYA launched a 3-year experimental project, the Los Angeles Community Delinquency Control Project, in which juvenile parolees participated in an intensive rehabilitation program in lieu of regular CYA parole procedures. The average caseload per agent was 25 wards in comparison to the average caseload of 72 wards for a regular parole agent. The principal intervention techniques were increased individual counseling, increased use of foster and contract group home
placement, short-term custody to set limits and provide protection, social and recreational activities, remedial academic instruction, and educational backup for the public school system.
No statistically significant differences were found between the experimental and regular parole subjects on any of the identified parole performance measures—parole revocation, reason for revocation, time to revocation, and severity of revocation offense (Pond, 1970).
During the early 1980s, the most ambitious and conceptually complex initiative for intervention with serious juvenile offenders was the Violent Juvenile Offender project. Funded in 1981 by OJJDP at four test sites (Boston, MA, Memphis, TN, Newark, NJ, and Detroit, MI), this research and development initiative focused on adolescent males who had a violent presenting offense plus one or more prior adjudications for a serious felony. Experimentals in this project were placed in small, secure facilities for 6 months; following this, they were reintegrated into the community through transitional housing (i.e., community-based residences). This phase was then followed by a period of intensive supervision in which youth were contacted frequently by parole officers working with small caseloads. Control group youth were placed in traditional juvenile facilities (i.e., larger congregate institutions) for an average of 8 months and then were
transitioned into standard parole characterized by less frequent contact and larger caseloads.
IAP-Topic01
1-5
The conceptual framework of the Violent Juvenile Offender project was referred to as “A Community Reintegration Model” (Fagan, Rudman, and Hartstone, 1984). The overriding operational assumption was that the key to effective intervention with serious, confined juvenile offenders resided in strategies to reintegrate them back into their communities successfully. To achieve this goal, a set of principles to drive reintegrative programming was identified by those guiding project design:
• Social networking.
• Provision of youth opportunities.
• Social learning.
• Goal-oriented interventions.
The group of structural elements necessary for guiding daily program operations comprised:
• Case management.
• Multiphase programming.
• Community reintegration.
• Program monitoring.
The results of this multisite experiment were mixed. As Palmer (1991) has reported, the outcomes on a site-by-site basis with regard to rates of recidivism 2 years after institutional release showed the following results:
• Experimentals outperformed controls with regard to rearrest at one site.
• Controls outperformed experimentals with regard to rearrest at one site.
• No significant differences detected across groups at the other two sites with regard to rearrest.
• No significant differences were detected across groups with regard to rearrest when all four sites were aggregated.
Palmer (1991, 1992) has further noted that certain methodological problems with the matching process were detected. Experimentals and controls in most sites were not well-matched on crucial variables such as number of prior petitions and prior adjudications. Fagan and Forst (1996), who were members of the national evaluation team for the project, have also observed that several sites were plagued by problems in the implementation process and that they did not adhere to the basic model. Yet, from the perspective of linking theory and practice, the Violent Juvenile Offender project helped enable the field of youth corrections to rethink how best to prepare and then transition high-risk youth from confinement to successful community living.
In addition to the OJJDP-funded Intensive Aftercare Programs (IAP) project being described in detail throughout this Guide, the late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed the proliferation of a number of other aftercare initiatives. Among the design features given special emphasis in this newer wave of programs were:
• Objective assessment of risk, need, and resilience to drive decision-making.
1-6
• Matching of youth on an individual basis with appropriate level and type of supervision and services.
• Prerelease planning and activities to ensure more consistent and systematic followup in the community.
• Reduced caseload sizes.
• Utilization of treatment modalities proven to be effective (“what works” approaches).
• Deployment of multimodel interventions.
• Team approaches to case management.
• Multiagency collaboration.
Four of these projects have been widely cited in the published literature on promising juvenile aftercare/reentry programs: (1) the Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare Program, (2) the State of Maryland’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Program, (3) the Skillman Foundation’s Intensive Aftercare Project, and (4) the State of Michigan’s Nokomis Challenge Program. All four projects were subject to formal or quasiexperimental design outcome evaluations (Greenwood,
Deschenes, and Adams, 1993; Sontheimer and Goodstein, 1992; Deschenes, Greenwood, and Marshall, 1996; Goodstein and Sontheimer, 1997; Sealock, Gottfredson, and Gallagher, 1997).
Such findings are critical for guiding future program development because rigorous evaluations of intensive aftercare projects have been scant in number.
1. Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare Program
The Philadelphia project was developed to test the efficacy of an innovative reintegration approach for confined youth being transitioned from state juvenile correctional facilities to county-level probation supervision. A number of program design features intended to increase the intensity of both service delivery and supervision were incorporated into the model. These included reduced caseload size, supervision during nonordinary hours (evenings and weekends), required contacts with parents and collaterals, and targeted access to a number of specialized resources and services in the community.
2. State of Maryland’s Juvenile Drug Treatment Program
The Maryland project had a somewhat narrower focus in that it was only targeting chemically addicted or drug-abusing juvenile offenders who had participated in short-term residential
treatment. Yet the same basic challenge had to be met; namely, how best to transition and then to normalize this population once released into their communities. One particularly important feature in program design was the provision of many nontraditional activities for these youth during confinement including vocational training, job planning, drug and alcohol counseling, avocational and recreational opportunities, and family intervention. These were closely tied to followup activities initiated during an intensive phase (the first 2 months in the community) when aftercare staff contacted participants daily and held youth support group meetings and family support sessions. Additionally, an addiction counselor provided individual counseling and in-home family therapy. The final aftercare phase included at least two meetings per week with the case manager, two meetings per month with the addiction counselor, and the continuation of family support groups. Again, one sees the development of an aftercare model depending largely on the intensification and further elaboration of services and treatment, some rather
IAP-Topic01
1-7
nontraditional for youth correctional systems, targeting the needs and problems of a specially designated population of incarcerated youth.
3. The Skillman Foundation’s Intensive Aftercare Project
Two experimental intensive aftercare programs for chronic delinquents funded by the Skillman Foundation targeted carefully defined subpopulations of youth returning from secure
confinement to the Detroit and Pittsburgh areas. Separate private providers developed and operated these programs in the two urban communities. The Skillman model emphasized five key components:
• Prerelease contracts and planning involving the assigned aftercare caseworker, the youth, and the family, beginning at least 3 months prior to release.
• Intensive supervision in the community, starting at several contacts per day and gradually diminishing.
• Assistance in family stabilization.
• Mobilization of community resources, particularly in relation to education and jobs.
• Enlistment of motivated caseworkers who served as role models.
The two programs differed markedly in the timing of youth release from confinement, the intensity and thoroughness of implementation with regard to requirements of the basic model, and the ability to deploy community-based sanctions due to legal constraints. Much of the history and eventual lack of success can be attributed for the most part to problems with and unevenness in the implementation. Often, programming features defined as essential were never put into operation.
4. State of Michigan’s Nokomis Challenge Program
The Nokomis Challenge Program was launched in 1989 by the Michigan Department of Social Services. The project offered an alternative placement to traditional custodial settings for medium- and low-risk adjudicated juvenile offenders, offering 3 months in a remote 40-bed wilderness challenge facility followed by 9 months of aftercare supervision and treatment. The model called for a three-stage wilderness challenge experience that included orientation and assessment, challenge, and community survival. Emphasis was placed on cognitive/behavioral training, social and survival skills, and family work. During the residential stage, the youth and their families were to be seen every 2 weeks at the facility by a community treatment worker (CTW), who was also expected to meet with the family once a week in the community prior to the youth’s release.
The community-based phase of aftercare included a number of distinct phases, each with separate tasks and goals for the youth and family. Reentry into the community was marked by virtual house arrest for 30 days. During the initial 3 months, the CTW visited the youth three
1-8
times per week at a minimum, including one session with the family. The program placed major importance on family participation in the treatment process, with the CTW acting as the primary family worker. Privately contracted agencies provided community workers to conduct
surveillance activities, initially at least three times per day with the youth and once per day with the family.
5. The IAP Initiative
In responding to the lack of conceptual clarity and definitional precision about how one specifies the essential programming characteristics of intensive juvenile aftercare, the co-principal
investigators for the IAP initiative, Drs. David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong, in collaboration with Professor Doris MacKenzie (Altschuler, Armstrong, and MacKenzie, 1999), examined the current state of knowledge about intensive aftercare program design, implementation, and
outcome evaluation. This comparative review of program design and operation focused primarily on the four intensive juvenile aftercare projects described above.
To explore the first of these key concerns, i.e., program design, the authors developed a matrix for the purposes of comparison based on the essential program components and procedures of the IAP model (see Table 1, page 11). These were organized within the three phases of the
reintegrative continuum (i.e., institution, transition, community, see Topic 3 for more detail). The role of structural characteristics and processes in the design and operation of intensive aftercare programs should become readily apparent upon examination of program characteristics
delineated in the matrix. This aspect of program development and implementation only began to be fully appreciated and incorporated as a critical dimension of planning and design with this newer wave of intensive aftercare initiatives beginning in the late 1980s and continuing into the 1990s. In addition, issues of implementation and outcome were organized in a similar fashion.
The reader is referred to Table 1 (see page 11), which displays the characteristics of the four projects across these dimensions.
III. Assessment of Earlier Initiatives and Lessons Learned
Evaluations of the earlier waves of intensive supervision efforts (both probation and parole in the 1960s and 1970s) reveal that the programs seemed to have minimal positive effect in reducing recidivism rates. Assessment revealed that reduced caseload responsibilities did not always translate into increased attention paid by the supervising officer to client problems and needs (Latessa, 1979; Latessa, et al., 1979). In fact, Clear and Hardyman (1990) suggest three major lessons of these earlier experimental projects:
• Intensive supervision is difficult to achieve, in that level of intensity of supervision does not necessarily increase with a reduction in caseloads.
• Close contact, when achieved, does not necessarily guarantee greater success in crime control.
IAP-Topic01
1-9
• Inappropriate targeting produces an “interaction effect,” wherein close monitoring may make community transition more difficult for some offenders and lessen their chances of success.
Several factors plagued early experimentation with intensive supervision programs. These can be tied to poor program assessments and evaluations. Other issues serve as ongoing challenges to the implementation of intensive community-based programs for youth leaving institutional programs. The following sections highlight some of these factors.
A. Clarity of Purpose
In his review of prior efforts, Armstrong (1991b: 22) noted that the “current wave of juvenile intensive supervision programs that began in the 1980s suffers in large measure from a lack of conceptual, operational and philosophical clarity.” While most projects shared a common theme of heightened surveillance and included some type of treatment services, Armstrong (1991b:15) explained that “the actual mix of rehabilitative and control strategies was guided by prevailing community values. Further, in some programs treatment was not identified as an immediate goal and was consequently described as a byproduct of intensive supervision.” There was no
consensus on even the basic ingredients of these programs (e.g., type, length and intensity of surveillance, types of social control techniques, types of treatment strategies).
B. Selection of Participants
Consensus on the need to target high-risk youth began to appear in the 1980s. Most of the programs that were reviewed by Altschuler and Armstrong in developing the IAP model
indicated that their target population was high-risk youth as defined by their offense history, their current referring offense, and their personal problems and needs. These same programs also frequently attempted to classify youth using some form of an objective risk and needs
assessment. Definitions of high-risk or high-need offenders, however, varied considerably from one program to another, as did the classification tools themselves.
Potential problems with less formal and quantitative assessments and definitions of high-risk populations were (and still are):
• Scarce resources may be wasted on low-risk offenders, and low-risk offenders may be incarcerated as a result of their inclusion in these programs.
• Increased surveillance without matching needed services may result in increased violations and the exacerbation of institutional crowding (which the program was, in part, designed to alleviate).
• Services may not be appropriately matched to a youth’s needs.
C. Targeted Services
Services are often provided to a group of offenders regardless of their individual needs. For example, youth on intensive supervision may be required (because of their status) to attend anger
1-10
management or drug and alcohol education even if that service has not been indicated in the aftercare plan developed prior to release. Previously, rather than:
[S]tarting with a careful assessment of juvenile offenders’ needs, too many
contemporary JIPS [juvenile intensive probation supervision] programs . . . resulted instead from an inverted process. The juvenile justice agency first decides to have a JIPS program, then it defines a sub-population of juveniles “appropriate” for the program (Clear, 1991:33).
Fitting the JIPS component into available services came after the fact. Although outcome evaluations of previous intensive supervision programs were not very promising (Clear, 1991, Gendreau and Ross, 1980; Romig, 1986), as Clear (1991:33) indicated in his review, the “few programs that produced positive results seemed to take advantage of specialized services targeted for a specially designated group.”
D. Hierarchy of Services
One problem facing the implementation of intensive juvenile aftercare services is its placement within the hierarchy of the juvenile justice system. Aftercare might be referred to as the
“unwanted stepchild” of the system. Specific reasons for this attitude include:
• Youth in aftercare are at the back end of the system and are often viewed as having already received all the resources available to juvenile offenders.
• Many youth leave an institutional placement as a result of “aging out” (i.e., they have reached the age of majority). Even if extended juvenile jurisdiction is an option, the juvenile justice system is often tired of dealing with the individual and happy to let the adult system deal with any future problems.
• Directly related to the issues noted above, relatively few resources are allocated to this end of the juvenile justice system.
• Overcrowding pressure on institutions often decreases interest in supervising, and potentially regressing, youth who have been released from these facilities.
E. Ownership/Responsibility
Most youth who are committed to institutional care are placed in the custody of the state agency responsible for the treatment of juvenile offenders. In many instances, the committing juvenile court loses jurisdiction of the juvenile at the time of commitment. When these youth return to the community after incarceration, a state agency aftercare/parole officer with few resources for continued services supervises them. The local court is often unable, or unwilling, to allocate resources to this population of youth. The reluctance to supervise these youth may be related to the perceived problem of released youth committing new offenses and therefore returning to secure facilities.
IAP-Topic01
1-11 Table 1: Juvenile Aftercare Matrix
Program/Study Characteristics (IAP Model)
Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare
Maryland Aftercare Program
Skillman Intensive Aftercare Project
Michigan Nokomis Challenge Program
PROGRAM DESIGN
Institutional Phase
Prerelease planning Community sources offer input via probation officers.
Preparation of postrelease plan.
Family therapist assesses, diagnoses, develops family contract, and begins weekly family group sessions. (Highly uneven
implementation.)
Aftercare caseworker commences contacts with youth and family 3 months prior to release.
Planning for
community reentry is initiated 30 days after placement in residential phase.
Involvement of outside agencies and individuals in institution
Probation officers meet with institutional staff and juveniles.
Family visits facility at lease once; therapist involves youth in family assessment session. (Less than half of youth involved in family assessment session.)
Not indicated. Parents meet with confined children, institutional staff, and a community worker once every 2 weeks.
Targeted community activities during confinement period
Probation officers meet with parents on regular basis in the community.
Family attends weekly group sessions with therapist and support groups. (Low family involvement.)
Not indicated. Community workers see parents once per week at their home.
Transitional Phase Testing and probing of reentry prior to
placement in community
Not indicated. Not indicated. Not indicated. Not indicated.
Structured stepdown process using residential placement or intensive day treatment
First 6 weeks with very high level of probation officer/
client contact. No use of intensive day treatment or short-term residential treatment.
Initial period of intense contact, followed by lesser contact with case manager, addiction counselor, and family therapist. No use of intensive day treatment.
First few weeks after release from facility with carefully prescribed program.
Average number of monthly contacts was 10 over 67 months in Detroit; 60 over 6 months in Pittsburgh.
Contacts tapered off after the first 2 months. Pittsburgh uses a transition group home.
Initial month of virtual house arrest. Level of community
worker/client contact also high during first 3 months. No use of intensive day treatment or short-term residential treatment.
1-12 Table 1 (continued)
Program/Study Characteristics (IAP Model)
Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare
Maryland Aftercare Program
Skillman Intensive Aftercare Project
Michigan Nokomis Challenge Program
Community Followup Provision of
multimodal treatment services
Few prescribed activities, but some emphasis on education and vocational activities.
Wide spectrum of services offered with links to community resources.
Efforts to improve family functioning through counseling and to link clients with education program. Jobs fell far short of expectations.
A variety of required programming activities.
Some major questions about quality of delivery.
Discrete case
management services Required
procedures neither highly developed nor clearly articulated.
Three articulated levels of intervention:
prerelease, initial intensive aftercare, and transitional aftercare.
Not highly
developed. Not emphasized.
Use of graduated sanctions and positive incentives
Not indicated. Not indicated. Incentives not indicated. Pittsburgh sanctions permitted return to group or wilderness program.
Not indicated.
Provision of supervision and surveillance beyond ordinary working hours
Thirty percent of contacts by probation officers required to occur outside normal office hours.
Not indicated. Not indicated. Supplemental surveillance activities provided by specialized community workers.
Reduced caseload size/increased frequency of client contact
Aftercare caseload of 12 youth under community supervision versus standard 70–120.
Far higher level of contact than usual.
Caseload size unknown.
Clients had 3.2 average monthly contacts during aftercare or 32.4 contacts over
approximately 10 months.
Caseload size of 6.
Experimental group received far more contacts than control group.
Aftercare caseload of 10 youth. Higher level of contact for
supervision, treatment, and surveillance.
Multistage decompression process
Procedures for gradual, phased reduction in level of imposed control during 6 months of aftercare
supervision.
Intensive state of aftercare was 33 weeks long, not 8 weeks as planned; youth had less than 1 contact per week on average. During transitional phase of aftercare, clients met with case managers less than once every 3 weeks on average.
Contacts tapered off over time in aftercare.
Framework and procedures for a diminishing level of supervision and control during aftercare.
IAP-Topic01
1-13 Table 1 (continued)
Program/Study Characteristics (IAP Model)
Philadelphia Intensive Probation Aftercare
Maryland Aftercare Program
Skillman Intensive Aftercare Project
Michigan Nokomis Challenge Program
IMPLEMENTATION Designated
procedures to facilitate full implementation
No special procedures or activities.
None indicated. None indicated. No special procedures or activities.
Documentation and tracking of
implementation process
Research team assessed quality and extent of implementation through selective interviews of staff, clients, and parents.
Researchers studied implementation through client interviews, official records, staff interviews, and tracking forms.
Implementation studied through youth and staff interviews, program records, and official record data.
Evaluators observed program activities, administered questionnaires, and interviewed clients and parents.
Extent of intended implementation achieved
Evaluators determined that program ran smoothly only in later months.
All three phases of aftercare suffered from serious implementation deficiencies, and most objectives of the short- term residential program were not met.
Mixed results. Mixed results in all program sectors. See program summary for more details.
OUTCOME EVALUATION
Research design Experimental. Nonexperimental with use of comparison group.
Experimental. Quasi-experimental with effective matching procedure.
Target population Male delinquents committed to state youth corrections and exhibiting chronic histories of severe criminality.
Drug-involved juveniles committed to residential facilities with aftercare compared with drug-involved youth committed to facilities without aftercare.
Chronic offenders. Chronic serious male delinquents committed to state youth
corrections.
Sample size 90 cases: 44 in experimental group and 46 in control group.
162 youth entered prerelease aftercare; of these, 54 entered transitional aftercare; of these, 36 completed aftercare. Recidivism:
120 in aftercare and 132 in comparison group.
99 cases in Detroit:
50 in experimental group and 49 in control group;
87 cases in Pittsburgh: 46 in experimental group and 41 in control group.
192 cases: 97 in experimental group and 95 in control group.
Significant findings favoring intensive aftercare
Yes. Generally no, though
slightly mixed. No. No.
Source: Altschuler, Armstrong, and MacKenzie, 1999.
2-1
Topic 2: Overview of the IAP Research and Development Initiative
Key Points
• The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) research and development initiative was based on a
multistage process that culminated in a 5-year field-testing of the model in four selected jurisdictions nationwide.
• The IAP model is a theory-driven and empirically based framework that combines relevant research findings and current best practices.
• The IAP model is generic in nature and can be readily adapted to the circumstances and needs of any particular jurisdiction.
• Development of an aftercare model for effectively enhancing service delivery and intensifying supervision must be grounded in a systems approach to intervention (transition and aftercare activities that are not confined to a single program).
• The design of aftercare programming from an IAP perspective must incorporate a framework consisting of a segmented, reintegrative continuum that achieves coherence through multiagency communication, coordination, and collaboration.
Topic Goals
• To describe the assessment and development process that guided the sequential steps toward specification of a promising IAP model and its testing.
• To discuss the research and practical assumptions that led to the formulation of the IAP prototype or model. To delineate the IAP model’s four conceptual levels and five principles of programmatic action.
IAP-Topic02
2-2
I. Introduction
The IAP research and development initiative began operation in spring 1988 with funding from OJJDP, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The IAP model that was developed derived from integrated theory and validated risk/need assessments, as well as from promising program components and procedures identified in a national review of current practice. It establishes a set of guiding principles, concrete program elements, and service components that can be used by jurisdictions in their efforts to design, implement, and manage local IAPs.
II. IAP Purpose and Project Design
Growing concerns about crowding in secure juvenile correctional facilities, higher rates of recidivism, and escalating costs of confinement have fueled renewed interest in changing juvenile aftercare/parole philosophy and practice. The juvenile justice system has compiled a dismal record in its effort to reduce the reoffending rate of juveniles released from secure confinement. Research indicates that these failures tend to occur disproportionately with a subgroup of released juvenile offenders who have established a long record of misconduct, beginning at an early age. Not only do such high-risk youth tend to exhibit a persistent pattern of justice system contact (e.g., arrests, adjudication, placements), they are also plagued by other needs-related risk factors that frequently involve problems associated with family, negative peer influences, school difficulties, and substance abuse. In addition to these common
needs-related risk factors, high-risk youth may have a variety of ancillary needs and problems such as learning disabilities and emotional disturbances. While not generally predictive of reoffending, these problems need to be addressed.
Responding to these concerns, OJJDP issued a request for proposals in 1987 titled “Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Programs.” This research and development initiative was designed to assess, test, and disseminate information on intensive juvenile aftercare program prototypes/models for chronic serious juvenile offenders who initially require secure confinement. The project was viewed by OJJDP as a means to assist public and private correctional agencies in developing and implementing promising aftercare approaches. OJJDP was explicit in stating the program goals:
Effective aftercare programs focused on serious offenders which provide intensive supervision to ensure public safety, and services designed to facilitate the reintegration process may allow some offenders to be released earlier, as well as reduce recidivism among offenders released from residential facilities. This should relieve institutional
overcrowding, reduce the cost of supervising juvenile offenders, and ultimately decrease the number of juveniles who develop lengthy delinquent careers and often become the core of the adult criminal population.1
1 Federal Register (1987), pp. 26238–26239.
2-3 A. Project Design
As formulated by OJJDP, the IAP initiative consisted of four stages:
• Stage 1: Assessing (a) programs currently in operation or under development and (b) the relevant research and theoretical literature related to the implementation and operation of community-based aftercare programs for serious and chronic juvenile offenders who are released from residential correctional facilities.
• Stage 2: Developing program prototypes (models) and related policies and procedures to guide state and local juvenile correctional agencies and policymakers.
• Stage 3: Transferring the prototype design(s), including the policies and procedures, to a training and technical assistance package for use both in formal training sessions and in circumstances independent of organized training sessions.
• Stage 4: Implementing and testing the prototype(s) in selected jurisdictions.
The Johns Hopkins University’s Institute for Policy Studies, in collaboration with California State University, Sacramento’s Division of Criminal Justice, was funded to conduct this multistage project.
Work was completed on all four stages of the project, marked by the conclusion of model testing at pilot sites in June 2001 (see Topic 20 for further information about the pilot sites).
III. Initial Assessment and Development of the IAP Model
The assessment work conducted in stage 1 involved four major tasks:
• A comprehensive literature review focused on research, theory, and programs.
• A national mail survey of juvenile corrections officials intended to identify innovative or promising programs and approaches.
• Telephone interviews with the directors of 36 recommended programs.
• Onsite fact finding at 23 different program sites spread across 6 states, including 3 statewide systems.
In addition, a prototype, commonly referred to as the IAP model (see Figure 1, page 11) was
formulated, which was empirically based and theory driven and intended to guide the development and implementation of intensive community-based aftercare programs.
IAP-Topic02
2-4
The results of these tasks are contained in three project documents. The first document, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Assessment Report (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994a), focuses on three key aspects of project activities: (1) an update of issues critical to the design and operation of intensive aftercare programs, (2) a description of innovative and promising programs identified through a national mail survey and followup telephone interviews, and (3) a discussion of intensive aftercare approaches and practices examined during a series of site visits. The second and third publications, Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: Policies and Procedures (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994b) and Intensive Aftercare for High-Risk Juveniles: A Community Care Model (Altschuler and Armstrong, 1994c), describe the project’s background and the theory-driven, risk assessment-based IAP model, which s specifically designed as a generic framework for application in a wide variety of settings and jurisdictions.
The project’s literature review revealed that risk factors regularly associated with juvenile reoffending behavior include both justice system factors (e.g., age of youth at first justice system contact, number of prior contacts) and needs-related factors (e.g., family, peers, school, substance abuse). In addition, this review found that a variety of other special need and ancillary factors (e.g., learning problems, low self-esteem), while not necessarily predictive of recidivism, remain relatively common among juvenile recidivists. Finally, a small minority of juvenile offenders appears to have still other very serious problems (e.g., emotional disturbance).
Given the range of both offense- and needs-related risk factors, as well as other special need and ancillary factors, the challenge is how to link this array of factors to a sufficiently broad-based strategy.
Furthermore, any strategy developed to lower recidivism rates must identify specific techniques for providing highly structured supervision and control; carefully monitor performance in the community; and ensure the delivery of a wide variety of essential services. In part, this entails incorporating procedures to guarantee a substantial intensification of services and resources focusing on identified problems and needs. The theory-driven, empirically based IAP model accomplishes all of this by establishing a clear set of comprehensive guiding principles, specifying tangible program elements, and addressing needed services.
Central to the IAP model are the guiding principles, program elements, and array of services that establish parameters and boundaries that are specifically tailored to the needs, problems, and circumstances of each jurisdiction. Organizational characteristics, the structure of juvenile justice and adolescent service delivery systems, the size and nature of offender populations, and resource availability differ widely among and within states and communities. In addition, managing high-risk juvenile parolees and trying to reduce recidivism requires the pursuit of multiple goals such as maintaining public protection both in the short and long run, ensuring individual accountability, and providing treatment/support services. Exactly how these goals can be achieved varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction across the country. Moreover, due to current economic constraints on governments in general and correctional budgets in particular, these goals must be achieved with limited resources.
The IAP model is purposefully generic in nature and thus can be readily adapted to the circumstances and needs of a particular jurisdiction while remaining consistent with IAP specifications. However, IAP
2-5
offers a challenge to the professional community. Successful implementation requires an unequivocal commitment from the major juvenile justice, child-serving, and community agencies/groups, These organizations must , with the assistance of facilitators, jointly develop a detailed plan laying out who will assume responsibility for what, how it will be done, and when.
A. Theory, Principles, and Elements
Though practitioners are apt to wince when they consider the inadequacy or absence of a conceptual or theoretical underpinning in their programs, many have more than a passing acquaintance with the
consequences of this deficiency. First, if the overall mission or philosophy underlying a program is either ambiguous or absent, it can be difficult if not impossible for staff, program participants, or anyone else to be clear on what practices, services, and approaches should be pursued and why; how they should be accomplished and when; who needs to be involved and with which kind of youth; and so forth.
Second, it is through a conceptual framework that one can move from identifying risks, problems, and needs that are part of the dynamics of recidivism to developing a coherent, defensible, and assessable program model. In other words, knowing that something is broken is not the same as knowing how to fix it. Tackling recidivism requires knowledge of what can be done to address the multifaceted and complex circumstances that produce, contribute to, and are part of the dynamics of the problem.
Numerous previous efforts to develop such a framework for intervention with serious, chronic juvenile offenders have recognized the multifaceted nature of the problem and accordingly have recommended integrating formerly freestanding theories, notably social control, strain, and social learning theories (see Topic 4 for definitions of these theories). The IAP model is consistent with these efforts. Specific to the model, however, is its focus on the numerous issues arising out of the mostly disconnected and
fragmented movement of offenders from court disposition to youth authority and/or institution, to parole/aftercare supervision, to discharge.
It is eminently clear that if properly designed and implemented, the IAP model directly addresses two of the widely acknowledged deficiencies of the current system of secure correctional commitment: (1) that institutional confinement does not adequately prepare youth for return to the community; and (2) that those lessons and skills learned while in secure confinement are not monitored, much less reinforced, outside the institution.
B. Four Conceptual Levels of the Model
The IAP model is designed to achieve operational integrity by incorporating four conceptual levels that begin with integrated theoretical assertions about the causes and correlates of chronic, serious
delinquency and move on to guiding principles for reintegration, key programming components, and an array of required services (see Table 2, page 10).
IAP-Topic02
2-6 1. Integrated theory
At the most abstract level of conceptualization (i.e., “grand” theory), the IAP model is driven by an integration of social control, strain, and social learning theories. Concerted efforts to develop more refined theory-driven program approaches involving the integration of existing theoretical formulations, often referred to as “grand” theories, have risen to the forefront of applying research to the design of interventions over the past several decades. Integrated theories combine formerly freestanding theories into various new explanatory constellations of principles and axioms. The integrated configurations are important because they reflect the growing recognition that a contributing source of past failure for correctional programs has been the reliance on narrow, unicausal theories of delinquency (Fagan and Jones, 1984; Greenwood and Zimring, 1985; Meier, 1985; Ferdinand, 1987; Altschuler and
Armstrong, 1994a).
2. Five principles of programmatic action
An integrated theory, coupled with research on risk and needs factors, provides a sound basis for identifying general goals around which program elements and specific services must be tailored in an IAP model. It is inadequate and irresponsible to approach the high-risk juvenile recidivist problem in less than a comprehensive, carefully coordinated, multifaceted fashion that cuts across institutional and professional boundaries. At this second conceptual level in the model, one sees a distinctive domain of activity addressing the reintegrative demands for responding to circumstances of a youth’s removal and isolation from his or her community and subsequent reentry. Here, the IAP framework offers a very logical and structural set of guidelines to overcome community disconnect. The principles are:
• Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community.
• Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement.
• Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (e.g., families, peers, schools, employers) on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the youth’s successful community adjustment.
• Developing new resources and supports where needed.
• Monitoring and testing the youth and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively.
These five principles collectively establish a set of fundamental operational goals and the mission upon which the IAP model rests. The intended outcome is to transition and reintegrate identified high-risk juvenile offenders from secure confinement gradually back into the community and thereby to lower the high rate of failure and relapse. While the principles are general in nature, allowing for a reasonable degree of flexibility in how goals will be achieved, planners and practitioners must consider the following program elements as they seek to translate IAP theory and principles into practice.
