Re-entry: Reform Trends

Click on a topic below for more information:

1.) Comprehensive Re-entry/Aftercare Models
2.) Using Re-entry Thinking to Guide Placement Decisions
3.) Addressing the Challenges of Re-entering Youth
4.) Reducing the Collateral Consequences of a Delinquency Adjudication
5.) Supervision that Supports Youth
6.) Using Evidence-Based Treatment Programs in Re-entry
7.) Strengthening Federal Initiatives to Support Re-entry

REFORM TRENDS

Of the approximately 200,000 youth aged 24 and under released from secure juvenile facilities or adult prisons each year, 50 to 90 percent are estimated to recidivate.[1] For more successful outcomes, experts believe “aftercare supervision and services are key to promoting positive community adjustment” and recommend that re-entry planning begin well before youth are released with continued support as youth reintegrate into their communities.[2] The information below details many re-entry reform trends for intervening with youth in the justice system in a way that takes into account adolescent developmental needs.


1.) Comprehensive Re-entry/Aftercare Models

Below is information on the theoretical frameworks underlying many re-entry/aftercare models as well as examples of comprehensive re-entry/aftercare models. Experts recommend that all frameworks are supplemented by the “risk-need-responsivity” principles that should help to guide case planning, re-entry planning, and service/supervision decisions.

A.  Theoretical Frameworks for Developing Re-entry/Aftercare Models

It is important to have a theoretical framework for the re-entry or aftercare model that is based on the best available research, and knowledge of effective practices. The framework is used to guide re-entry interventions.[3] Below are several frameworks that have been used:

1. Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ)[4]
This theoretical framework balances the traditional juvenile justice needs for sanctioning, rehabilitation, and increased public safety with the overarching goal of restoration of victims and communities. The BARJ framework is three-dimensional – focusing on restoring victims, offenders, and communities:

        • Youth who have committed offenses are obliged to acknowledge the harm they have caused the victim and make amends to redress harm to victims and communities through actions such as community service, apologies, and restitution. Once youth are able to take responsibility for their actions, it is believed that they are more likely to make better decisions in the future.
        • Members of the youth’s community are responsible for creating the conditions necessary to facilitate his or her re-entry into the community. This includes assisting youth in areas such as competency and skill development. Helping youth to successfully re-enter will, in turn, help to build a safer community.[5]

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Indiana
    Indiana’s Division of Youth Services established a restorative justice project within each correctional facility to facilitate community involvement and hold youth accountable for their actions.
  • Each correctional facility partners with community organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and the Salvation Army so that youth in the facility can participate in community service projects.
  • Restorative Justice Conferencing is being implemented to bring together victims, family members, and youth who have committed offenses in order to acknowledge the harm that was done to the victims and the community while holding the youth accountable for their actions.[6]
  • Philadelphia, PA
    The City of Philadelphia Mural Arts Program partners with the City of Philadelphia Youth Violence Reduction Partnership and other city organizations to provide youth in trouble with the law with the opportunity to create art while incorporating the concepts of restorative justice. They work with youth coming out of juvenile facilities, youth on probation, and young adults who have been involved with the justice system as well.
  • The program emphasizes “re-entry, reclamation of civic spaces, and the use of art to give voice to people who have consistently felt disconnected from society.”[7]
  • The “Guild” section of the program is a paid apprenticeship program in which the participants are mentored by professionals and trained in activities such as wall and mural preparation and restoration and building repair.
  • The activities youth work on are located throughout Philadelphia to give participants the chance to re-connect with and commit to their city.
  • The recidivism rate for Guild participants is 13.5% compared to a national average of 67.5%.[8]

+ Strategies: Legislative

  • Pennsylvania
      • The Pennsylvania General Assembly established balanced and restorative justice as the philosophical and theoretical framework for Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system in 1995 through their amendment of the purpose clause of Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Act.[9]
      • While it does not mention “re-entry” specifically, the act, as amended, states that it is Pennsylvania’s intent to provide youth committing delinquent acts “programs of supervision, care and rehabilitation which provide balanced attention to the protection of the community, the imposition of accountability for offenses committed and the development of competencies to enable children to become responsible and productive members of the community.”[10]

2. Strain, Social Learning, and Control Theories
The Intensive Aftercare Program model is based on a theoretical framework that incorporates the social control, strain, and social learning theories. Below is a brief description of each of these theories:[11]

        • Social Control Theory: Social controls deter individuals from committing delinquent behavior. Therefore, individuals who lack socialization are more likely to commit crimes.
        • Strain Theory: Delinquency occurs because there is a real or anticipated blocked opportunity to achieve socially accepted goals (such as achieving economic success).
        • Social Learning Theory: Delinquency is a product of social interaction. Therefore, if individuals regularly engage with individuals who are deviant, they too will be likely to engage in deviant behavior.

3. Strength-Based Perspective
The strength-based perspective is based on the principles that: all youth, families, and communities have strengths; clients are best served when staff collaborate with them; and “every environment is full of resources.”[12] Pursuant to strength-based theory, youth are more likely to change when they are fully engaged as partners in identifying and developing their strengths rather than being a passive recipient of change efforts by others.[13] The strength-based approach “necessitates a move away from a deficit-based model focused on the “‘problems’ with youths.”[14] Two theories incorporating the strengths-based perspective, positive youth development and positive youth justice, are discussed below.

The table below provides a comparison of Traditional and Strength-Based Service Models:

Comparison of traditional and strengths-based service models

Positive Youth Development (PYD)

  • Positive Youth Development (PYD) is rooted in research on adolescent development which has found that adolescents’ brains continue to develop through their mid-20s, making them quite malleable and capable of positive development.[15]
  • PYD also builds on recent studies of adolescent development that have determined that most youth are resilient, meaning they are able to thrive and develop even in the face of multiple risk factors. PYD is strength-based, rather than deficit oriented.[16]
  • PYD promotes youth’s positive development through competency building and positive connections with peers, adults, and community institutions. It also stresses fostering a supportive, empowering environment that includes high expectations for positive behavior and promotes activities that allow the youth to build skills, have challenging experiences, and exposure to new social and cultural influences.[17]

Positive Youth Justice (PYJ)

  • Positive Youth Justice (PYJ) is a method of adapting Positive Youth Development for juvenile justice-involved youth. It requires policymakers, program developers, and practitioners to focus on developing two core assets in youth: [18]
      • learning/doing through methods such as developing new skills and competencies, actively using the skills, taking on new roles and responsibilities, and developing self-confidence; and
      • attaching/belonging through actions such as becoming an active member of pro-social groups, enjoying the sense of belonging, placing a high value on service to others, and being part of a larger community.

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • District of Columbia
    The D.C. Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services (DYRS), has “infused” the PYD and PYJ principles into “all aspects of DYRS culture – from staff training, to youth programs, to the agency’s accountability mechanisms.”[19] DYRS “has adopted the PYJ framework as its core evidence-based model for providing supports, services, and opportunities” to young people.[20]
  • Oregon
    The Oregon Youth Authority, uses PYD principles to guide its work in order to “creat[e] a culture in which all individuals – staff and youth – work collaboratively to discuss issues, resolve problems, and develop pro-social solutions and behaviors.”[21]

B.  Examples of Comprehensive Re-entry/Aftercare Models

Comprehensive models have been evolving over the past two to three decades and the data on their effectiveness has been equivocal. It has been difficult to discern their effectiveness in large part because of the difficulty in implementing the models. Below we have detailed several different models of comprehensive re-entry and aftercare for youth.

1. Effective Practices for Community Supervison Training (EPICS)[22]
This program was developed by criminal justice experts at the University of Cincinnati. It can be used with adults and youth and targets high and moderate risk probationers. Probation/parole officers are trained to develop a collaborative relationship with the adult or youth, address criminogenic factors with them, and teach them pro-social and problem-solving skills. Probation/parole officers are trained to work four components into meetings with their supervisee:

        • Check-in – building rapport with youth and discussing challenges and compliance.
        • Review –discussing prior session with youth and steps taken to apply new skills.
        • Intervention –  identifying continuing areas of need, thinking patterns that can lead to offending, and new skill development.
        • Homework and Rehearsal – assigning youth tasks in which to apply the new skill, role-playing with the new skill, and giving youth instructions to follow before the next visit.

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Ohio[23]
    The Ohio Department of Youth Services adopted the EPICS model as an evidence-based framework for interacting with youth on parole.

2. Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)
The IAP model focused on “the identification, preparation, transition, and re-entry of ‘high-risk’ juvenile offenders from secure confinement back into the community in a gradual, highly structured, and closely monitored fashion.”[24] This model was one of the first to acknowledge that effective aftercare planning must begin from the moment a young person enters a correctional facility.[25] Two of the central components of IAP are as follows:

        • The “overarching case management process” was a central element of IAP. This process uses risk and needs assessments to match youth with services that are appropriate to their needs and ensures a systematic “continuity of care” for the youth from the time they are incarcerated to their release into the community.[26] This process continues to be used in many re-entry programs today.
        • Continuity of care” refers to the sequenced process of care where treatment and services are linked together from a juvenile facility through aftercare. Maintenance of the five components below are necessary in order to increase the likelihood of a successful transition from a juvenile facility to the community. [27]
            • Continuity of control refers to the extent of structure and control experienced in a facility or a program. It is recommended that structure and control be gradually reduced prior to release in order for youth to prepare for life outside of the facility.
            • Continuity in the range of services is important because once youth are released from a facility, they often lose services that were available to them that are essential to their success, such as medication and mental health care.
            • Continuity of service and program content refers to programming such as education, vocational and social skills, treatment, behavioral management, etc. The reinforcement of what youth have accomplished in placement after they are released is thought to increase success in the community.
            • Continuity of social environment emphasizes the importance of pro-social support in both facilities and in the community once youth are released.
            • Continuity of attachment refers to youth developing positive relationships with people in the community. This component is commonly fulfilled with mentorship programs in the community.

Further details on the IAP program are available in the Aftercare Key Issues section.

3. Missouri Approach
Missouri’s unusual approach to juvenile justice is considered by many to be a national model. As a result of dangerous conditions that existed for years in their large juvenile correctional center, the Booneville Training Center, Missouri closed Booneville in 1981 and opened smaller, more therapeutic facilities across the state in which aftercare was a key component. Below are details regarding the Missouri approach:[28]

        • Youth go through a risk assessment process and are placed within facilities based on the results. Missouri’s Department of Youth Services (DYS) has built a continuum of care to address youth with varying risk and needs profiles.
        • The majority of adjudicated youth are not sent to the state youth corrections agency but are released, placed in diversion programs, or placed in local youth correction facilities.
        • Even in secure facilities, Missouri DYS tries to foster a humane, youth-friendly environment. There are no cells, few locked doors, and little security hardware.
        • The Missouri Approach emphasizes group treatment, case management, a youth-friendly environment, well trained staff, double coverage (having two staff present during any interaction), education and training, individual and family training, keeping youth in facilities close to their place of residency, and aftercare.
        • Aftercare is a key component in the Missouri Approach. Youth leaving facilities are placed on aftercare care status for 3-6 month after release, where they follow an aftercare plan developed prior to their release, and meet with their service coordinator.
        • Around 40% of those in aftercare are assigned a “tracker” who meets with them several times a week to monitor their progress, provide informal counseling, and help them with job searches.
        • In 2011, the recidivism rate (defined as youth who either return to DYS or become involved in the adult correctional system within 12 months after aftercare is complete) was 14.4%.[29]

4. Ohio’s Re-entry Continuum[30]
Ohio undertook a significant reform of its re-entry services in the late 2000s, following the Stickrath lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) for dangerous conditions of confinement. As a result, ODYS developed a new re-entry master plan for youth in 2009 that included the following provisions:

        • Adoption of the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model for parole staff interactions with youth.
        • Implementation of the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) to assess risk, identify need, and target treatment programming for all youth on parole.
            • Youth are assessed at many points in the juvenile justice process, including every six months or after any significant incident occurs, while in a juvenile facility and after release to parole.
            • Probation officers are required to administer the OYAS 90 days prior to the youth’s release date as a basis for the youth’s release plan.
        • Development and implementation of a number of family and youth engagement tools.
        • Reduction of the length of stay parole guidelines for low- and moderate-risk youth. Research has shown that recidivism rates increase for these youth the longer they remain on parole.
        • Development of the Pre-Qualified Vendors Initiative – an effort to reinstate contracts for non-residential services, which had been eliminated over the past several years due to budget cutbacks, and provide a mechanism to purchase services for youth on a case-by-case basis.
        • Judicial collaboration with parole leadership to put in place a process for recommending youth for special discharge if they have received the maximum benefit that they can from parole.
        • Support and encouragement of re-entry courts with counties interested in this option.
        • Participation in the Ohio Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition, which provides guidance to the state, local agencies, and communities on expanding and improving re-entry efforts, emphasizing preparation for re-entry and targeting the barriers offenders face to successful reintegration in the community.
        • Development and implementation of discharge agreements, which are agreements between the youth, their family, and the probation officer that will serve as a final checklist to make sure that youth being discharged have been connected to any needed services and resources for support.
        • Establishment of the Youth Offender Release Identification Card (YO-RIC). Youth are issued this card in the facility and upon release it can be exchanged at the local Bureau of Motor Vehicles for a state I.D.

+ Strategies: Legislative

House Bill 130,[31] passed by the Ohio legislature in 2008, established the Ohio Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition (OERC), whose mission is to reduce recidivism, maintain public safety, and reintegrate individuals into society.[32] This was another impetus for re-entry reforms undertaken by the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) discussed above.

+ Strategies: Litigation

In 2008, S.H. v. Stickrath, a class action lawsuit, was filed against the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS).

    • Plaintiffs alleged that youth were subjected to abusive, inhumane, and illegal conditions, policies, and practices. The report of the fact finding team authorized by the court established that the conditions of confinement within ODYS facilities fell below constitutional and statutory standards.[33]
    • Under the terms of the 2008 settlement agreement, ODYS agreed to “a comprehensive continuum of care in a regionalized services delivery system, a system of monitoring, youth-focused care, quality treatment interventions, engagement of families, education and vocational training of youths in the system, a grievance system, access to advocates/attorneys, strong re-entry programs, and a fair and effective release process.”[34]
    • Regarding re-entry, the settlement agreement further stated that “Re-entry efforts should begin at the time of admission and utilize a wrap-around case management function which includes residential options for youth who cannot return home to their families.”[35]

5. Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Aftercare Model: Probation Case Management Essentials for Youth in Placement[36]
This model is based on the work of Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Aftercare Reform Initiative, which was supported by funding from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Models for Change Initiative.

        • In January, 2005, Pennsylvania’s multi-agency Aftercare Working Group signed a “Joint Policy Statement on Aftercare” which laid out the principles of a comprehensive aftercare system.[37]
        • The joint policy statement committed the state to 17 concrete goals relating to aftercare – including early assessment and planning, multi-agency collaboration, documentation and records transfer, visitation and monitoring, judicial oversight hearings, and school reintegration.[38]
        • The PCCD, with some funding from Models for Change, funded five 3-year pilot demonstration projects in five different jurisdictions in Pennsylvania to focus on different elements of aftercare reform.[39]
        • A group of administrators and staff of these demonstration projects used what they learned to help develop Pennsylvania’s comprehensive aftercare model, known as the Case Management Essentials (CME), to operationalize the goals of the state’s joint policy statement.[40]
        • CME focuses on a single plan for re-entry developed by the probation department for each youth to guide and ensure the continuity of case management for youth in placement and after release.[41]
        • CME includes a set of practices for assessing, planning, and managing cases under juvenile court jurisdiction and reporting outcomes.[42]
        • The probation officer must develop the plan for each youth based on the post-release expectations for the youth and must help to effectuate it by collaborating with school district, the facility, the youth’s family, and other partners that can support the youth.[43]

6. Philadelphia Reintegration Initiative
The Philadelphia Reintegration Initiative was a multi-agency effort to better prepare youth in juvenile facilities for life after discharge.[44]

        • The program worked to align the academic standards in public schools in Philadelphia with those in correctional facilities in order to lower the dropout rate of youth involved in the juvenile justice system.
        • The initiative outlined recommendations regarding training programs within the facilities, including offering practical training (auto, culinary, etc.) in areas that are in high employer demand and structuring training based on standardized curricula employers would recognize.
        • Released youth were referred to “E3 Centers” within the community that provided support to youth along three pathways – education, employment, and empowerment.
        • These efforts were aimed at improving aftercare, reducing recidivism, and preparing youth for productive lives once they are released from the juvenile justice system.
        • In 2008, 31% of the youth released from placement received a high school diploma, GED or both; 84% of youth discharged from reintegration services enrolled in school or participated in career training; and 37% of returning youth were employed at some point during the reintegration process.[45]
        • The initiative had ended by 2010. The work that was done with placement providers, however, led to the establishment of the Pennsylvania Academic & Career/Technical Training Alliance (PACTT), a program aimed at making improvements to workforce development and education within youth facilities.[46]

7. Re-entry Courts
Re-entry courts manage a youth’s return to the community from an out-of-home juvenile placement. It involves using the court to monitor a youth’s re-entry progress.

        • Re-entry courts operate on a model similar to other problem-solving courts such as drug courts. They use the authority of the court to monitor the youth’s progress, ensure they are provided the necessary services and supports, and to apply graduated sanctions and positive reinforcement to keep the youth on track.[47]
        • Little research exists to demonstrate the effectiveness of youth re-entry courts in reducing recidivism or reintegrating youth back into the community. The U.S. Office of Justice Programs is currently researching nine sites from around the country but only one, West Virginia, targets youth re-entry.[48]
        • Juvenile re-entry courts initially received funding through the federal government’s Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) and continued funding is now available through the Second Chance Act.[49]

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Marion County, Indiana[50]
    This re-entry initiative was funded by the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Program’s Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) and began operating in 2003. It was focused on youth returning from locked facilities to one of three high-crime neighborhoods in Indianapolis. A non-profit managed care contractor was responsible for all the case management services. The juvenile re-entry court was committed to frequent oversight and enforcement hearings. Marion County currently only operates a re-entry court for adult offenders.[51]
  • San Francisco, California[52]
    San Francisco’s Re-entry Court was established in 2009 as a Second Chance Act National Demonstration Act Project Site. The program provides comprehensive re-entry case planning and aftercare services for youth returning from out-of-home placements. Youth, their families, and a team of individuals working for the re-entry court collaborate to develop a re-entry plan which they each sign and jointly present to the judge. Initial contact between the youth and the re-entry team starts at the youth’s disposition; three months prior to release, the plan is finalized. When this program started in 2009, the recidivism rate was 69% for re-entry youth. By 2014, that rate had decreased to 13%.
  • West Virginia[53]
    West Virginia started a three-county juvenile re-entry court pilot program in the state’s 21st Judicial District in 2000, which was likely the nation’s first juvenile re-entry court. Funded later by SVORI, it was expanded to cover ten mostly rural counties in the northeastern region of the state. This program was a state-local partnership in which the WV Division of Juvenile Services provided enhanced supervision and case management to high-risk youth and local courts provided oversight through monthly court hearings to review progress and enforce conditions. [West Virginia currently only operates a re-entry court for adult offenders.][54]

8. Strength-Based Wraparound Services
In this model, a support team works with the youth’s family to plan and implement services that are “community-based, tailored uniquely to each youth and family, culturally competent, coordinated among agencies, flexible, built upon the strengths discovered in each youth and family, and based on an unconditional commitment to provide services.”[55]

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Dawn Project[56]
    The Dawn Project serves children with behavioral disorders and their families to provide community-centered support in Marion Country, Indiana.

      • The project involves the families in each level of care; provides children with culturally competent, coordinated, and uninterrupted care; and emphasizes early intervention, strength-based, and value-based care.
      • The target population of this program is youth between the ages of 5-17 who reside in Marion Country, meet the criteria for a serious emotional disturbance, and who are involved in two or more child-serving agencies. This includes youth who are returning from a correctional facility.
      • Coordinators, case managers, probation officers, teachers, and other team members work together with the goals of decreasing the need for formal system support for youth and their families.[57]
      • Indiana Choices is now the formal title of the Dawn Project (although it is still widely recognized by the latter title).[58]
  • Wraparound Milwaukee
    This program is recognized as a model for collaboration. It is a multi-service approach to meeting youth’s needs through the collaboration of the mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare, and education systems and pooled funding. It focuses on the strengths of the family, neighborhood, and community.[59]
      • Services available to youth and their families include: mental health therapy, substance abuse treatment, crisis intervention, in-home therapy, life skills development, medication management, child care, day treatment, and others.[60]
      • Family involvement is seen as critical to the long term success of the youth enrolled in the program. The families of youth are included in developing a “plan of care,” a crisis plan to help effectively manage stressful events, and identifying the strength and needs of their family.[61]
      • Around 44% of the youth served through Wraparound Milwaukee are youth who have been involved in the juvenile justice system.[62]
      • Wraparound Milwaukee offers services to youth during their stay at juvenile correctional facilities, followed by services once they are released. A care coordinator from Wraparound Milwaukee works with the youth, family, and parole agent to facilitate a successful re-entry back into the community.[63]

9. Targeted Re-entry

        • Targeted Re-entry (TR) was a variant of the Intensive Aftercare Program developed by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA). It connected youth held in juvenile facilities with Boys & Girls Clubs that provided recreational and other programming while the youth were still inside the facilities. Youth were then connected with BGCA back in the community as part of the re-entry plan, with the local BGCA providing case management functions.[64]
        • In 2003 and early 2004, BGCA, with support from OJJDP, introduced TR into four pilot sites in which they coordinated with state juvenile correctional facilities:[65]
            • Mobile, Alabama with Mt. Meigs Juvenile Correctional Facility in Montgomery, Alabama.
            • Anchorage, Alaska with the McLaughlin Youth Center, also in Anchorage.
            • Benton, Little Rock, and North Little Rock, Arkansas with the Alexander Youth Center in Alexander, Arkansas.
            • Milwaukee, Wisconsin with the Ethan Allen School in Wales, Wisconsin.
        • A quasi-experimental evaluation of TR in four sites found low overall recidivism rates - between 23% and 40% were arrested for any new offense during the first 12 months following their release. However, the comparison groups’ outcomes were similar to or more favorable than those of the TR groups.[66]


2.) Using Re-entry Thinking to Guide Placement Decisions

Focusing on helping youth successfully re-enter the community starting from the time they become involved in the juvenile justice system can help to guide decisions every step of the way. Below are examples of reform trends to accomplish this.

A.  Confining Youth as a Last Resort

Due to the harmful impact of confinement on youth — including increased rates of recidivism, harm to healthy youth development, reinforcement of negative peer associations, and isolation of youth from their family and communities — a focus on re-entry encourages juvenile justice stakeholders to strive to confine youth only as a last resort and to limit confinement to higher-risk offenders.[67]

B.  Considering Impacts on Youth Education When Making Placement Decisions

A focus on re-entry can encourage probation officers to consider the educational needs of youth as a significant factor in making placement recommendations.[68]

        • Juvenile probation officers are urged to exercise caution in recommending placements because the placement decision will have an impact on the youth’s reintegration into school. For example, a short-term placement may not be appropriate for a youth who needs intensive academic instruction, particularly if they have a disability, because the staff at such facilities may not be qualified to teach important core academic subjects.[69]
        • The type and amount of education that a youth will receive in placement can vary significantly depending on where they are placed. Juvenile probation officers are urged to identify a youth’s educational needs and goals and make sure that if a placement is recommended, the facility can meet those needs and goals.[70]

C.  Using Objective Risk Assessment Tools

Risk assessment tools are considered to be a critical element of re-entry because they can both reduce the number of youth in out-of-home placement and help to more appropriately tailor interventions to youth in placement and back in the community.

        • The National Council on Crime and Delinquency recommends the use of “risk assessments, screening instruments, and other tools to help systems shift youth to the lowest form of supervision needed to meet their needs, and, in some cases, to divert youth from the system entirely.”[71]
        • Experts recommend that youth be periodically assessed throughout their contact with the system “from intake through placement and community supervision and services.” This will help to identify changes in risk as youth move through the system.[72]

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Jefferson County, AL[73]
    A risk assessment instrument and structured decision-making grid are used by probation officers in this county to help them make disposition recommendations that favor the least restrictive alternative.
  • New York City, NY[74]
    New York City uses an objective risk assessment instrument to determine the level of formal probation supervision for youth. Their supervision system is a three-tiered model which varies in intensity, duration, number of contacts, and caseload size.
  • Ohio[75]
    Ohio developed and implemented the Ohio Youth Assessment System (OYAS) to assess risk, identify need, and target treatment programming for all youth on parole.
      • Youth are assessed at many points in the juvenile justice process, including every six months or after any significant incident occurs, while in a juvenile facility and after release to parole.
      • Probation officers are required to administer the OYAS 90 days prior to the youth’s release date as a basis for the youth’s release plan.
  • Philadelphia, PA[76]
    The Philadelphia Reintegration Initiative, launched in February, 2005, assessed youth using the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths Assessment (CANS-JJ) at the time of a placement disposition. Youth assessed as “intensive” were given enhanced programming while in placement and more frequent monitoring after release. However, in 2009, the CANS-JJ assessments were discontinued. They were eventually replaced with the Youth Level of Service Inventory (YLS), but previously mandated services for intensive youth were no longer mandated.

For further strategies, see Evidence-Based Tools for Intervening with Youth:

Strategies: Administrative
Strategies: Legislative
Strategies: Judicial Initiatives

D.  Using Validated Behavioral Health Screenings and Assessments

Over half the youth in the justice system have been found to suffer from mental health or substance use disorders, with that number rising to 64 percent for youth committed to secure facilities.[77] By implementing standardized screening and assessment tools for mental health and substance use disorders at key points in the juvenile justice process, appropriate youth can be diverted to behavioral health programs for treatment. To obtain the most successful outcomes, those youth requiring confinement should receive mental health and substance use treatment while they are in facilities, and continue this treatment without a gap once they re-enter their communities.

For further information and strategies see: Implement Standardized Screening and Assessment Tools


3.) Addressing the Challenges of Re-entering Youth

Aftercare is intimately interconnected with the care youth receive while they are confined. For example, if youth have inadequate educational opportunities while in a juvenile placement, it will make it much more difficult for them to successfully re-enter school when they are released. Accordingly, within each subsection below, reform trends are broken down into two parts: (1) facility reforms – those reforms needed while youth are in facilities to pave the way for a more successful re-entry; and (2) re-entry reforms – reforms needed to improve the process by which youth re-enter the community, and their experience in the community once they are released.

A.  Improving Educational Opportunities for Youth

There is a strong link between poor academic achievement and delinquency.[78] Correspondingly, youth attachment to school leads to lower recidivism.[79] Unfortunately, many youth enter the juvenile justice system with significant educational deficits and often their educational needs are not addressed in placement or upon release. Below are suggested reforms to improve youth education in facilities and upon re-entry.

1. Facility Reforms
Over 60,000 youth receive correctional education in juvenile justice facilities each year.[80] Education in juvenile facilities is often substandard and youth in adult facilities may receive no education at all.[81] Youth in short-term facilities also may fail to receive educational services or receive much less instructional time than youth in public school.[82] Recommended facility reforms include the following:

        • In a December 2014 letter to the nation’s chief state school officers and state attorney generals, the U.S. Departments of Education (ED) and Justice (DOJ) laid out five guiding principles to provide high-quality education in juvenile justice secure care settings:[83]
            • A safe, healthy, facility-wide climate that prioritizes education;
            • Necessary funding to support educational opportunities for all youth in long-term secure care facilities;
            • Recruitment, employment, and retention of qualified education staff with the necessary skill set for teaching in juvenile justice settings;
            • Rigorous and relevant curricula aligned with state academic and career and technical education standards that promote college and career readiness; and
            • Formal processes and procedures to ensure successful navigation across child-serving systems and smooth re-entry into communities.
        • Additional needed facility reforms include:
            • Ensuring that youth with disabilities and special education needs are identified and receive appropriate educational services as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.[84] It is estimated that as many as 70 percent of youth in the justice system have learning disabilities.[85]
            • Enabling English learners to meaningfully participate in the educational program as required pursuant to civil rights laws.[86]
            • Safeguarding students from excessive use of seclusion and restraint which restricts their ability to access education.[87]
            • Making a full continuum of educational opportunities available to youth to meet their individual goals, including pathways to achieve high school diplomas, GEDs, college preparation, and career and technical training.[88]
            • Aligning correctional educational programs with state standards for public schools and local graduation requirements in order to improve educational quality. [89]
            • Ensuring that correctional education credits transfer fully to community schools.

2. Re-entry Reforms
Over two-thirds of youth leaving custody do not return to school.[90] The US Departments of Education and Justice recommended in their recent Guiding Principles that “reentry planning should begin immediately upon a student’s arrival [into secure custody], outline how the student will continue with his or her academic career, and, as needed, address the student’s transitions to career and postsecondary education.”[91] Below are some of the reforms experts recommend to improve school re-entry.

        • Inter-Agency and Community Cooperation [92]
          Clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of the various agency personnel.
        • Youth and Family Involvement
          Include the young person and appropriate family members in the reenrollment process.
        • Speedy Placement
          Ensure that young people can enroll the same day or very soon after their release. This often requires improving record transfer practices and school reenrollment practices, which are discussed below.
        • Improved Record Transfer
          Youth often have difficulty returning to school because of missing school records and lengthy delays in the transfer of their school records[93] as well as perceived or actual confidentiality barriers to record sharing.[94] Recommendations for improvement include requiring states to set timelines for the transfer of records between schools for all students, including those in correctional facilities (such as transfer within seven days of request).[95]
        • Improved School Reenrollment Practices
          Additional barriers to reenrollment that justice-involved youth face include lengthy and complicated processes for youth to reenroll in school, and laws that some states have enacted to create obstacles for youth attempting to reenroll.[96] Reforms that states have enacted to facilitate re-entry include:
            • reintegration teams (Maine);
            • reintegration plans required 45 days before youth are released (West Virginia);
            • the involvement of school district coordinators and the creation of educational “passports” (Kentucky);[97] and
            • transition coordinators to work across juvenile justice and education systems to facilitate a youth’s timely reenrollment.[98]
        • Appropriate Placement
          Ensure that the student is returning to an appropriate educational placement in the least restrictive environment based on an individual consideration of the youth rather than a policy, such as automatic placement in alternative programs for returning youth.
        • Dropout Reengagement Programs[99]
          Helping youth find alternative pathways to continue their education has been a successful way to reengage both justice-involved and other youth who dropped out of high school. There is now an expanding network of local reengagement centers across the country that offer a range of services including individual academic assessments, opportunities for exploring different educational options, referrals to appropriate programs, and helping youth attain postsecondary education.
            • The National League of Cities (NLC) has a Dropout Reengagement Network involving approximately 20 cities across the country that operate reengagement centers and programs.
            • They recommend partnerships with school districts and community organizations. School districts sometimes take on the role of establishing reengagement centers as they have done in Portland, Oregon and Reno, Nevada.
            • They also recommend a cross-systems approach to pursue shared goals with juvenile justice, child welfare, and workforce development agencies.

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Allegheny County, PA[100]
    The Allegheny County Juvenile Court Probation Department has three educational specialists who work with the probation staff, residential providers, and community school staff to improve educational re-entry for youth leaving out-of-home placements. Their work includes:
      • Ensuring all relevant school information is promptly transferred to a youth’s out-of-home placement upon commitment and to the community school upon the youth’s release.
      • Collaborating with the public school districts to establish standard protocols for reintegration, curriculum alignment between the out-of-home placements and the public schools, and appropriate credit transfer when youth return to the public schools.
      • Working with the probation officer to develop a case plan for each youth that includes educational goals, objectives, and activities that begin in placement and continue through re-entry and return to their community school.
      • Scheduling and facilitating school reintegration meetings.
      • Monitoring youth returning to school from out-of-home placements and reporting on their educational progress.
  • District of Columbia[101]
    The Maya Angelou Academy (MAA) provides the educational programming for youth at the New Beginnings juvenile justice facility in D.C. It is now considered one of the strongest correctional education programs in the country. MAA’s program includes the following:
      • helping youth overcome challenges to learning through practices such as developing a theme-based curriculum delivered through differentiated, individualized instruction and providing special education services that are woven into all parts of the school;
      • helping youth acquire credits towards graduation;
      • hiring a talented staff with high expectations for youth;
      • providing GED and SAT prep classes, computer skills courses, college tours, and Saturday enrichment programs in areas ranging from law to yoga;
      • providing youth with assistance in academic placement for re-entry before they leave New Beginnings;
      • providing follow-up services once youth return to their home schools.
  • New York City, NY[102]
    In 2004, New York City changed its practices to make reenrollment easier by not removing students who leave for juvenile facilities from the school rolls but, rather, putting the students on a parallel list. This policy is called “dual enrollment” or “shared instruction.”
  • Pennsylvania[103]
    The mission of the Pennsylvania Academic and Career/Technical Training Alliance (PACTT), which is now run by the PA Dept. of Human Services, Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services (previously it was a project of the Pennsylvania Council of Chief Probation Officers), is to improve the education and job training that youth receive in juvenile justice facilities in order to facilitate their success in the community. PACTT has helped to make the following reforms:
      • Affiliated juvenile justice facilities have aligned their academic programs with state educational standards.
      • PACTT has worked to improved credit retrieval for youth leaving facilities.
      • PACTT has helped correctional schools integrate their academic and career technical education tracks so that educational plans for youth meet industry standards, making it easier for youth to get jobs when released.
      • PACTT has collaborated with the PA Department of Education to include facility administrators and teachers in the state’s educational training conferences.
      • PACTT has worked with school districts and facilities to standardize the transfer of educational records, leading to a 100 percent increase in the number of school records received in the Philadelphia school district.
  • Washington
      • Juvenile justice stakeholders in King County came together in 2005 to create a comprehensive approach to addressing the problem of youth dropping out and becoming involved with the juvenile justice system. The approach they developed became known as “PathNet” because it developed a “path of networked organizations” to monitor and provide services to youth.[104]
      • Implemented in 2010, PathNet works with organizations including school districts, community colleges, and technical schools to reenagage dropout youth. Youth take part in basic skills remediation, GED preparation, work and college readiness classes, and high school credit recovery options, as well as vocational training and certification.[105]
      • When youth are participating in the program, they are guided by a connection coordinator, who helps navigate the multiple systems and pathways to educational and vocational success.[106]
      • A study of the first two years of the program (June, 2010 – May, 2012) found the following:
          • 43 percent of youth entering pathways to earn their GED were able to do so and another 15 percent of the youth passed more than half of the five GED tests.[107]
          • In terms of recidivism, the outcomes were unclear. Within six months of their enrollment in PathNet, 20 percent of the youth had a new referral to the prosecutor’s office. At 12 months, 43 percent had a new referral to the prosecutor’s office.[108]

+ Strategies: Legislative

  • California[109]
    California law requires each school district to “’develop a comprehensive, multiagency plan for pupils’ transition’ from juvenile facilities.” The multiagency youth re-entry plan must identify specific transition and re-entry services to be provided. During the youth’s confinement, academic and behavioral goals are set through a collaborative process involving the youth, family, teachers, and probation officers.
  • Kentucky[110]
    To facilitate reenrollment, Kentucky law provides for a “Bridge Coordinator” in each school district to help students re-enter school by creating an “educational passport” for youth by conducting transition interviews with them, collecting their data, and getting parental releases for records. The educational passport is then used to facilitate the sharing of educational information across agencies.
  • Maine[111]
    Maine state law requires advance planning for youth re-entering school. Each school district much have a policy on reintegration and the school superintendent must convene a “reintegration team” within ten days of being notified that a student will be re-entering the school from a juvenile facility. The team, which consists of the school principal, parent, classroom teacher, and guidance counselor, must create a plan for the student’s reenrollment and education.
  • Virginia
    Virginia law requires the Boards of Education and Juvenile Justice to promulgate regulations for the reenrollment of justice involved youth in public schools.[112]
      • The regulations must include the components that are required to be in a reenrollment plan and must “provide for consistency in the curricula, standards and policies” between the educational programs required for public schools and those provided in juvenile justice programs.
      • Effective in 2006, the reenrollment regulations provide a number of timelines for educational re-entry actions to be taken, such as notification to the transition team of a youth’s pending release, convening the reenrollment team and review of the reenrollment plan, and development of the final reenrollment plan.[113]
      • The regulations require that the reenrollment plan make it possible for the student to enroll in school within two school days of their release.
      • The student must receive weekly counseling “for a determined period of time.”
  • Washington
    Washington state passed legislation in 2010 establishing a statewide dropout reengagement system to provide educational opportunities and access to services for youth aged 16-21 that have either dropped out of school or will not be able to accumulate sufficient credits to graduate high school by age 21. While not solely for re-entering youth, it is a helpful service for many youth returning from facilities, and youth from the justice system can be referred to the program.[114] The legislation was modeled on the PathNet program , supported by the Models for Change initiative.
  • West Virginia[115]
    West Virginia law requires comprehensive advance planning for a youth’s re-entry that includes educational planning.
      • The plan must contain a detailed description of the youth’s education while in the juvenile facility and propose an educational plan for their discharge.
      • The law specifies timelines by which the facility director must submit the plan to the court, parents, community school principal, and other interested parties as well as a timeline for responses. The court then oversees implementation of the plan.
      • West Virginia law also requires each school district to cooperate “in providing an adequate and appropriate education for incarcerated juveniles and adults.” The law mandates a number of factors to support this requirement, including: the prompt transfer of students’ records; support services for students re-entering high school; and acceptance of credits upon documentation that completed coursework met State Board requirements.

+ Strategies: Litigation

The United Stated Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, has brought many lawsuits to correct deficiencies in correctional special education programs under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA).[116] Litigation on behalf of youth in correctional facilities has been initiated by the U.S. Dept. of Justice and other groups in 26 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; most lawsuits have been filed since 1990. The majority of these cases have been brought on the basis of claims alleging a failure of correctional facilities to provide services to students as required under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Below are two examples of this type of litigation:[117]

  • Arkansas[118]
      • The U. S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) conducted an investigation of the Alexander Youth Services Center in Bryant, AR, in June 2002, based on complaints regarding conditions of confinement and lack of education and treatment services.
      • DOJ identified numerous constitutional and statutory violations of the rights of the youth at this institution, including failure to provide appropriate educational services.
      • Problems included youth often receiving no educational services for weeks after their arrival, insufficient numbers of textbooks and other instructional materials, inadequate teacher supervision, no vocational programming, no opportunity to earn a high school diploma, and many inadequacies regarding special education students, such as a shortage of special education teachers.
      • Arkansas entered into a settlement agreement with DOJ in March of 2003 that required numerous actions to be taken to correct the deficiencies in their general education and special education programs.
  • South Dakota[119]
      • In Christina A. v. Bloomberg, the Youth Law Center brought suit against the South Dakota Department of Corrections for constitutional and statutory violations at the South Dakota Training School in Plankiton, which included allegations regarding the failure to provide appropriate education services.
      • The general education services at the Training School did not meet South Dakota standards for secondary schools and the special education services were inadequate. Problems included inability to retrieve records from students’ previous schools, difficulty retrieving IEPs, and when IEPs were retrieved, failure to  implement or update them.
      • A settlement agreement was approved by the U.S. District Court in December of 2000 in which South Dakota agreed to significant changes in its educational services.

B.  Improving Job Readiness

Many youth leaving juvenile facilities are older teens that will soon be looking for employment. As discussed in Key Issues, these youth can face barriers to employment as a result of their juvenile system involvement, so improving job readiness is particularly important for re-entering youth. Additionally, research has shown that “youths who complete programs that focus on structured learning, school achievement, and job skills are less likely to reoffend.”[120] Below are promising facility and re-entry reforms that can improve youth’s job readiness:

1. Facility Reforms
Reforms to help youth improve their job readiness start with improved educational programs in facilities, as discussed above, since it will be easier for youth to get jobs if they are educated. Additional suggested reforms include the following:

        • Make academic training relevant by linking it with career preparation.[121]
        • Provide young people with skills that are valued and recognized by employers, and provide them with the opportunity to practice these skills in the facilities.[122]
        • Provide youth with high quality career technical training aligned with industry standards, programs of study for high-demand career paths, and testing for industry recognized certifications, such as OSHA-10 for construction trades.[123]
        • Provide youth with “soft” skills development, also known as “21st century skills” – skills that teach youth to be presentable, reliable, and productive employees as well as skills in interviewing, problem-solving, and anger management.[124]
        • Provide youth with access to and training in technology while confined and during re-entry.[125]

2. Re-entry Reforms

        • The re-entry process should give youth specific opportunities to build on the career/technical training skills they learned in placement.[126]
        • Adjudicated youth should have access to internships, apprenticeships, and subsidized employment opportunities.[127]
        • Many youth need continued on-the-job training when they leave the facility as well as other supports to enable them to be successful in the workplace, such as housing, mental health and substance use treatment, and child care.[128]
        • Reforms such as sealing and expungement of juvenile records can improve the ability of justice-involved youth to obtain employment.

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Cambria County, PA[129]
    Cambria County, a small, rural county with limited resources, was one of the five Pennsylvania county aftercare reform demonstration projects launched in 2005 as part of a broader statewide effort to improve aftercare. Cambria focused in part on job readiness and employment for re-entering youth through their “Learn to Work” project described below:

      • Learn to Work is a collaboration between Cambria County and Goodwill Industries to create an assessment, job readiness, skill building, and employment opportunity program.
      • Classroom instruction is complemented with paid work experiences for youth to attain job skills.[130]
      • As of the end of June 2010, 75 youth had been served by Learn to Work, with the following results:[131]
          • 36 (60%) successfully completed program
          • 18 (30%) found employment
          • 66 (88%) increased their employability skills
          • 53 (88%) acquired a more positive attitude
          • 9 (5%) recidivated
      • Cambria County has absorbed the program into its budget and it is still operating.[132]
      • Learn to Work was replicated in neighboring Blair County.
  • Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA, and New Orleans, LA[133]
    Each of these cities is implementing “Youth Futures,” a multi-site project coordinated by the Vera Institute of Justice and funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, Education and Training Administration, to improve the education and employment prospects of justice-involved and at-risk youth living in high-poverty, high-crime communities.
      • Youth Futures plans to serve approximately 900 youth aged 14 and over who are currently in (or in the last twelve months have been involved in) the juvenile justice system, particularly youth returning to the community from out-of-home placement.
      • The following program components will be offered to youth: workforce development, education and training, case management, mentoring, restorative justice, and community-wide efforts to reduce crime and violence.
  • Hartford, CT
    Hartford helps returning youth to secure jobs by reserving spots in the city’s jobs program for justice-involved youth.[134]
  • Hudson County, NJ
      • Youth Advocate Programs (YAP) runs a “Re-entry Success Program” in Hudson County, New Jersey’s to which youth who have been incarcerated are referred.
      • The key re-entry services provided include case management, supported employment, educational and vocational support, and a program called Peaceful Alternatives to Tough Situations (PATTS).
      • PATTS is an evidence-based curriculum that teaches youth interpersonal skills to help them become successful in the community and within the workplace, such as self-control, responsibility, forgiveness, conflict resolution, and other interpersonal skills.
      • For more detailed information on this program click here.
  • King County, Washington[135]
    King County implemented the PathNet program in 2010, which coordinates a network of organizations including school districts, community colleges, and technical schools, to re-engage dropout youth. Youth take part in basic skills remediation, GED preparation, work and college readiness classes, and high school credit recovery options as well as vocational training and certification. Click here for further information.
  • Florida[136]
    Florida has five Job Corps Centers which provide vocational training and job placement services to youth who have completed their post commitment services and have no further court involvement.
  • Pennsylvania[137]
    The mission of the Pennsylvania Academic and Career/Technical Training Alliance (PACTT), which is now run by the PA Dept. of Human Services, Bureau of Juvenile Justice Services (previously it was a project of the Pennsylvania Council of Chief Probation Officers) is to improve the education and job training that youth receive in juvenile justice facilities in order to facilitate their success in the community. PACTT has helped to make the following reforms:
      • All facilities aligned with PACTT provide Career Technical Education (CTE) training and testing for one or more entry level certifications that are recognized in the respective industries. Examples include ServSafe in culinary arts, OSHA-10 for construction trades, and the International Computer Driving License or Microsoft Office Specialist for administrative assistants.
      • Due to PACTT’s work, CTE training in facilities has grown from approximately 25 programs in 8 facilities to 73 programs in 26 facilities by 2012.
      • PACTT has developed an employability and soft skills manual to standardize the expectations for 27 key competencies, such as resume writing and conflict resolution.
      • PACTT provides subsidized employment inside juvenile facilities so youth can practice their soft and technical skills and develop the confidence to apply for jobs upon re-entry.
      • PACTT is testing a model that will add a period of subsidized employment when youth re-enter the community.
      • PACTT is also establishing connections with community colleges and other training centers so youth can continue their technical training and earn needed industry certifications.
  • Philadelphia, PA[138]
    The non-profit Philadelphia Youth Network operates “E3 Power Centers,” which are neighborhood centers that provide support to out of school youth and youth returning from juvenile justice placements along three pathways – education, employment, and empowerment. The employment pathway provides intensive work-readiness programming, including job-readiness training, subsidized internships, community-service opportunities, and job search assistance.

+ Strategies: Legislative

  • Federal Initiatives
    The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Job Corps, and Face Forward are federal grant programs designed to provide job training and employment services for youth involved with the juvenile justice system and young adults who were previously incarcerated.
  • St. Louis, Missouri[139]
    The St. Louis Agency on Training and Employment (SLATE) received funding through the Second Chance Act Reentry Project in 2013 for their You Only Live Once (YOLO) STL Reentry Program. The program was designed to serve 32 juveniles through a comprehensive evidence-based program design and partnerships with public and private agencies and major universities.  Each participant will complete a minimum of 100 hours of service learning, 40 hours of job readiness, 125 hours of work experience, 125 hours of summer work experience and 80 hours of mentoring.
  • Washington[140]
    Washington state passed legislation in 2010 (HB1418) establishing a statewide dropout reengagement system to provide educational opportunities and access to services for youth aged 16-21 that have either dropped out of school or will not be able to accumulate sufficient credits to graduate high school by age 21. It includes teaching work readiness preparation to enable the student to gain the skills necessary for employment. Juvenile justice case managers can refer re-entering youth to the program. The legislation was modeled on the PathNet program , supported by the Models for Change initiative.

C.  Improving Mental Health and Substance Use Treatment for Youth

Over half the youth in the justice system have been found to suffer from mental health or substance use disorders, with that number rising to 63.7 percent for youth committed to secure facilities.[141] Unfortunately, mental health services typically available to youth in juvenile justice facilities are inadequate.[142] Substance use is especially significant because it increases the risk of future offending. Yet many justice involved youth are not screened for the problem and do not receive treatment.[143]

To improve aftercare for youth, appropriate mental health and substance use treatment must begin while youth are in facilities and then continue without a gap when they leave. Additionally, youth should be treated humanely in facilities in ways that do not re-traumatize them, which can happen when youth are subjected to sexual abuse, isolation, or unsafe conditions.

1. Facility Reforms
Reforms to improve mental health and substance use treatment for youth in the juvenile justice system include the following:[144]

        • diverting more youth from the system or from detention and secure confinement;
        • implementing standardized screening and assessment tools for mental health and substance use disorders at key points in the juvenile justice process;
        • using evidence-based and promising treatment programs with youth in facilities and in the community;
        • treating youth that must be confined in small, humane, treatment-oriented facilities;
        • improving the mental health education and training of juvenile justice agency and facility staff;
        • enhancing family involvement in treating youth; and
        • collaboration between the juvenile justice system, behavioral health system, and Medicaid agencies to coordinate treatment in confinement and in the community.

See the Mental Health Reform Trends section of the hub for more detailed information.

Strategies: Administrative
Strategies: Legislative
Strategies: Litigation

2. Re-entry Reforms
Youth reintegrating into the community need continuous supportive mental health/substance abuse treatment when leaving the facility, the continued involvement and support of their families, a plan for dealing with the possibility of relapse, and the potential for treatment beyond their period of supervision.

Re-entry Planning to Ensure Continuous Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment
It is critical for youth with mental health and substance use disorders not to have gaps in their treatment. Recidivism often occurs within a few days of release and gaps in services have been found to significantly increase the risk of reoffending.[145] Additionally, relapse is typical for youth with substance use disorders. Youth with mental health and substance use disorders need access to treatment and any prescribed medication from the time that they leave the facility as well as beyond the period of their juvenile court supervision for long-term success.[146]

        • Youth and families should be connected with long-term supports and opportunities in the community that are based on their particular strengths and interests.[147]
        • The aim is to develop a network of caring adults that youth in the community can be connected to and positive activities such as sports, the arts, employment, local churches, and volunteering.[148]
        • More community-based substance use services need to be provided. The Pathways to Desistance study found that “only 30 percent of juvenile offenders with a substance use disorder ever received treatment for it in the community.[149]
        • Juvenile justice systems should identify drug treatment programs shown to be effective in reducing adolescent drug problems and adapt them for use in aftercare programs.[150]
        • Drug treatment needs to be targeted in type and intensity to the needs of the youth so that those with diagnosable substance use disorders get intensive drug treatment and those with less severe issues get less intense preventive services.[151]

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Montgomery County, Ohio[152]
    Montgomery County, Ohio is one of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s first ten pilot communities selected to create their six-step “Reclaiming Futures” model, which focuses on more drug and alcohol treatment, better treatment, and community connections beyond treatment. Montgomery County’s approach includes the following aftercare components:
      • establishing a treatment liaison to help youth and families navigate systems of care and follow through on treatment recommendations;
      • providing volunteer mentors to youth and their families; and
      • implementing evidence-based treatment programs, such as Functional Family Therapy.

See Mental Health Reform Trends for further examples of Administrative Strategies.

+ Strategies: Legislative

  • Virginia[153]
    In 2005, Virginia passed legislation to ensure the continuity of necessary mental health treatment and services for youth leaving juvenile justice commitments. The legislation mandates the following:
      • The Board of Juvenile Justice, after consultation with the mental health agency, has to promulgate regulations for the planning and provision of post-release mental health, substance abuse, and other therapeutic treatment services for youth committed to the Department of Juvenile Justice or placed in a post-dispositional detention program.
      • The transition plan has to be in writing and completed prior to the youth’s release.
      • Prior to the youth’s release from incarceration, the agencies responsible for the case management of the mental health services transition plan must make the necessary treatment referrals specified in the plan and assist the youth in applying for insurance or other services identified in the plan.

Eliminating Gaps in Medicaid
Medicaid has emerged as a major source of mental health funding for youth in the juvenile justice system, many of who are low-income.[154]

        • Medicaid can provide eligible youth with access to health care, including mental health and substance abuse treatment, as well as needed medications.[155]
        • Yet many youth who are eligible either are not enrolled or lose their benefits when they are placed in a juvenile facility.
        • It is vital for these youth to have health benefits upon release because many are discharged from facilities without appropriate referrals for treatment, without health insurance, and with only a day or two of medication and no prescription for a refill.[156]

Below reforms are discussed to improve the situation for these youth:

        • Encourage Medicaid Enrollment
          Below are policies that can speed up the process of Medicaid enrollment for youth in the juvenile justice system.
            • “Presumptive eligibility” allows juvenile justice staff the authority to secure temporary eligibility for youth, pending a final Medicaid determination.[157]
            • With “expedited Medicaid enrollment,” juvenile justice staff prepare Medicaid applications for youth leaving custody and the applications are expedited once the youth are released.[158]
        • Encourage Continuous Medicaid Coverage
            • Youth are often abruptly terminated from the Medicaid rolls when they enter a juvenile justice facility because of the federal prohibition on Medicaid reimbursement of medical services for incarcerated individuals.[159]
            • Yet states are not required to terminate eligibility. Rather, they can “suspend” a youth’s Medicaid enrollment instead of terminating it, which allows the young person to have their eligibility for Medicaid services restored immediately upon release.[160]
                • If youth are terminated from Medicaid while confined, they must reapply upon release and it can take up to 90 days or longer to be reenrolled. This can result in long delays in getting needed medications and treatment, which jeopardize a youth’s successful reintegration into the community.[161]

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Ohio[162]
    The Department of Youth Services notifies the state’s Medicaid agency — the Office of Medical Assistance (OMA) — when youth in their custody are Medicaid-eligible and are going to be incarcerated for less than twelve months. OMA can then suspend Medicaid benefits for those youth and restore them upon their release.
  • Oregon[163]
      • The Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) entered into an Interagency Agreement with the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) to reduce gaps in medical coverage for youth. There is an OHA medical eligibility specialist in the central OYA office who can make eligibility determinations for youth transitioning in and out of custody, and coordinate other benefits as well.
      • OYA notifies OHA when youth are incarcerated and Medicaid benefits are suspended, with youth eligible for benefits if they are released within a year from their incarceration date. Parents are notified to come to the benefits office within ten days of their child’s release in order for the youth’s benefits to be reinstated.
  • Washington[164]
    Washington State has made it a part of its youth re-entry planning for Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration residential case managers and county detention facilities to screen youth for Medicaid eligibility 45 days prior to their release, and refer youth likely to be eligible to the Economic Services Administration (ESA). The ESA then expedites the applications.

+ Strategies: Legislative

  • Colorado[165]
      • Colorado enacted legislation in 2008 (HB 08-1046) requiring juvenile facility personnel to assist youth in applying for Medicaid or the Children’s Basic Health Plan (CBHP) no later than 120 days prior to release (or, if they are committed for fewer than 120 days, then they must assist them as soon as practicable).
      • The law also requires the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing to assist facility personnel and expedite the application process so that an eligibility determination can be made for youth prior to their release, and they can be enrolled immediately upon release if eligible.
  • Texas[166]
      • Texas passed legislation in 2009 requiring the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Texas Youth Commission to make sure that each youth who is committed or detained is assessed by HHSC for Medicaid and child health plan program eligibility before they are released.
      • Juvenile justice staff now provide information about the youth to HHSC 45 days before their release, and HHSC staff determine whether a new application must be completed for the youth.

D.  Improving Family Engagement

Families have often been viewed by juvenile justice stakeholders as part of the problem instead of the solution, creating obstacles to family involvement while youth are incarcerated and through their transition back into the community.[167] Yet research has confirmed the importance of family participation for juvenile delinquency outcomes.[168] Family involvement – defined as “empowering families, based on their strengths, to have an active role in child’s disposition and treatment” – is crucial at every stage of the juvenile justice process. Below are suggested reform strategies.

1. Facility Reforms
Reforms that can be made to improve family engagement while youth are confined include:

        • Keeping youth confined closer to their homes can give youth the opportunity to repair and renew family relationships while confined, and has been found to have a positive effect on recidivism.[169]
        • Treating families with respect needs to be a “core operational principle” in the juvenile justice system.[170]
        • Involving families “in a meaningful and respectful way in court proceedings and case planning processes,” as this can help to identify the youth’s needs and encourage more active support and assistance from the youth’s family.[171]
        • Training juvenile facility staff on how to effectively engage families and work with those of different cultures in order to be most effective.[172]
        • Eliminating barriers to and increasing capacity for family involvement by:[173]
            • promoting family-friendly visiting hours and policies;
            • discontinuing disciplinary policies that restrict a youth’s contact with families as punishment for infractions;
            • helping families who have transportation needs;
            • making family-centered practices such as access to supports, information, and building relationships with staff a part of visits;
            • using technology such as videoconferencing to connect youth who are housed far from families;
            • putting a process in place for families to provide input regarding their experiences; and
            • establishing system/community advisory groups to identify and promote family involvement and engagement practices that improve communication between families and system stakeholders, such as the systems of care model.[174]
        • Develop formal tools, structures, and protocols to ensure family and youth engagement. Methods include:[175]
            • Training and tools used to help juvenile justice staff identify and engage the youth’s caregiver network.
            • Using family genograms and eco-maps as visual tools to help staff engage youth and families in conversations to identify needed supports.
            • Youth and family team meetings to bring them together with system personnel in a structured way for key system decisions and case planning.
            • Family engagement specialists to help families understand and navigate the system and train system personnel on family engagement practices.
            • Including family and youth voices on policy committees and surveys to get feedback on facility conditions and services.

2. Re-entry Reforms
Families should be engaged “early and often” in order to smooth the re-entry process by helping to identify the services and supports the youth will need.[176] Below are reform strategies to improve family engagement in the re-entry process:

        • Juvenile justice system personnel should ensure that there are “flexible and authentic opportunities for families to partner in the design, implementation, and monitoring of their child’s plan.”[177]
        • As part of the process of engaging the youth’s family, juvenile justice systems should identify other supportive adults involved with the youth to include in the youth’s support team.[178]
        • Families that need support should have access to effective resources and programs, such as evidence-based, research-based, and promising programs and models.[179] Examples include Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), both of which involve the entire family.[180]
        • Work must be done to change the mindset and beliefs of many probation officers regarding working with families, and new models must often be adopted that value the inclusion of families and natural support systems.[181]
        • Along with changing mindsets, training staff on how to effectively engage families and work with those of different cultures is also important. Additionally, staff should be able to work with youth in their home when needed.[182]

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Alabama, New York, Washington, DC
    All of these jurisdictions are using the Youth Family Team Meeting (YFTM) model. This is a case planning system involving the youth, family members, mentors, teachers, case managers, service providers, and other supportive adults to develop treatment plans tailored to the strengths and needs of the youth.[183]
  • New York, Texas, and Washington, DC
    These states all provide orientations to the justice system for families of court-involved youth that are designed to help families understand and navigate the system.[184]
  • Lancaster County, Nebraska[185]
    Through receipt of Second Chance Act funding in 2011, Lancaster County developed and implemented a re-entry project that included providing a family advocate to reach out to families of youth re-entering the community and provide support and guidance.

      • Family advocates worked with 32 re-entering youth and their families (27% of all youth referred to the Reentry Project).[186]
      • Family advocates often made referrals for community resources to help meet the family’s basic needs, such as housing placement, parenting classes, and budget assistance. They also worked to improve the communication between the family and system partners.
  • Ohio
    The Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) developed and implemented a number of tools to improve family engagement:
      • Two models that encourage supervision staff to make frequent home visits include Effective Practices in Community Supervision and Functional Family Community Supervision.[187]
      • The Family Finding program was adopted to make sure youth are connected to supportive adults. Staff are trained in how to identify and engage the youth’s caregiver.[188]
      • The Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool, developed by the Vera Institute of Justice, is used by ODYS to help the staff gather important information and family and social network “resources” to assist re-entering youth.
      • Family Intervention Training was designed to strengthen how Juvenile Probation Officers (JPOs) work with families and assist them in identifying and improving problem areas.
      • Video communication is used to connect youth in ODYS facilities with families, particularly for re-entry planning.
      • The Ohio Benefit Bank is a web-based system to allow JPOs to assist families in applying for public benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid/Medicare.
      • The C.L.O.S.E. (Connecting Loved Ones Sooner than Expected) to Home Project is a free bus service for families to visit youth in ODYS facilities.
  • Pennsylvania[189]
      • Peer advocates are used in the Pennsylvania juvenile justice systems and in other states to help family members of justice-involved youth navigate the system.
      • Family advocates are used in Chester County, PA to support families: helping them to understand and navigate all the child serving systems; providing referrals and accompanying family members to meetings as appropriate; and helping them to build supportive relationships with system providers and county staff.
      • In Philadelphia, the Mental Health Association in Southeast Pennsylvania’s Parent Involved Network (PIN), provides several services to help families navigate the child-serving systems and to orient juvenile probation officers on working with families.
      • The neighborhood-based Family Intervention Center was started in 1993 in Mercer County. It provides numerous activities for on-going family involvement, including an overnight retreat for youth under family court supervision and their families.
      • Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) is a project initiated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for the Dependency Court Improvement Project that is now also being used by juvenile courts. It is a restorative justice practice that involves youth, families, and other supportive individuals in ultimately developing a comprehensive case plan that addresses family concerns and concerns of the court.
      • The PA Center for Juvenile Justice Training and Research is engaged in a statewide training effort to train interested juvenile probation officers in the Family Involvement in Juvenile Justice (FIJJ) curriculum, which offers practical instruction on family engagement and involvement in juvenile justice.[190]
  • Wisconsin[191]
    The State Division of Juvenile Corrections, Milwaukee Parenting Network, and the Social Development Commission partnered to develop “Creating Lasting Family Connections” (CLFC), a program of trained group facilitators to teach youth and families defenses against environmental risk factors such as substance abuse and violence. They learn interpersonal communications skills, refusal skills, and build stronger family bonds.

E.  Addressing Youth Homelessness

A disproportionate number of homeless youth enter the juvenile justice system and other youth often become homeless upon or soon after their release from juvenile justice facilities.[192] Youth that become homeless after release experience higher risks for reoffending.[193]

1. Facility Reforms
Facility staff or probation officers can assist youth in finding family members or other significant positive adult role models that may be able to serve as support and/or potential caregivers for the youth.

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Ohio
    Ohio has implemented programs that can help in identifying family members and other potential caregivers:

      • The Family Finding program was adopted to make sure youth are connected to supportive adults. Staff are trained in how to identify and engage the youth’s caregiver.[194]
      • The Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool, developed by the Vera Institute of Justice, is used by ODYS to help the staff gather important information and family and social network “resources” to assist re-entering youth.

2. Re-entry Reforms
In addition to continuing to help youth identify family and social network resources to assist them on re-entry, assisting homeless youth with school enrollment is critical. Research has found that youth who were working or in school after release from a juvenile facility were less likely to recidivate.[195]

+ Strategies: Legislative

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

  • The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act is a federal law that provides the right to immediate enrollment and full participation in school for homeless students.
  • Youth who are or have been involved in the juvenile justice system are eligible for McKinney-Vento rights and services if they are homeless once they are released.[196]
  • Youth have the right to enroll in the local attendance area school, or continue attending their school of origin, and attend classes while the school gathers the needed documentation.[197]


4.) Reducing the Collateral Consequences of a Delinquency Adjudication

Youth returning from juvenile facilities face many challenges reintegrating into the community. These hardships, or “collateral consequences,” include barriers to education, employment, military service, and public benefits. Reforms attempt to remove these barriers as well protect the confidentiality of juvenile records and enable youth to seal (close to the public) or expunge (destroy) their juvenile records to best ensure that their past does not harm their future.

A.  Confidentiality of Juvenile Records[198]

While a common perception is that juvenile delinquency records are private and protected, confidentiality of these records has eroded significantly in recent years. A study released in November 2014 found that “A growing number of states no longer limit access to records or prohibit the use of juvenile adjudications in subsequent proceedings.”[199]

        • Juvenile records refer to all the documents created from the time of a youth’s arrest, including police reports and charging documents, witness and victim statements, court-ordered evaluations, fingerprints, and DNA samples.
        • Many of these records contain sensitive information, including details about a child’s family, social history, mental health history, substance abuse history, education, and involvement with the law.
        • When this information is not confidential, “it can stigmatize the youth and erect barriers to community reintegration.”[200] For example, juvenile records that are public and accessible to employers and landlords are often used to deny youth jobs and housing.

In a report released in November 2014, the Juvenile Law Center developed core principles for protecting the confidentiality of and access to juvenile records during and after juvenile court proceedings. Below are some of their key recommended state statute reforms:[201]

        • Specifically state that confidentiality protections apply to all information in law enforcement and court records, and detail the type of information contained in these records.
        • Make clear that juvenile records shall be filed and kept separately from adult records.
        • Prohibit public inspection of juvenile court and law enforcement records.
        • Limit access to juvenile record information to individuals connected to the case, which may include juvenile court personnel, the youth and his or her attorney, the youth’s parents, supervising agencies, and the prosecutor. Limited access may be granted to individuals conducting research.
        • Put protections in place for juvenile record information released to government agencies and schools.
        • Confidentiality exceptions only permitted by court order.
        • Provide sanctions for the unauthorized sharing of confidential juvenile record information (except for youth who share their own information).

+ Strategies: Legislative

The Juvenile Law Center recently released a national scorecard on juvenile confidentiality. States that restricted the availability of court records to law enforcement or court personnel and did not make exceptions to their general rules of confidentiality received the highest score. The states receiving the top ranking of five stars for their laws on the confidentiality of juvenile records were (in order): Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Ohio.[202] Detailed information on the laws in each of these states can be found here.

B.  Sealing and Expunging Juvenile Records

Both sealing and expunging juvenile records are recommended methods to further protect the confidentiality of juvenile records and help to reduce the barriers to youth re-entering their communities.

        • “Sealing” a juvenile record generally means that the records are closed to the general public but remain accessible to certain agencies and individuals, although criteria for access differs by jurisdiction.[203]
        • “Expungement” generally refers to erasing a juvenile record as if it never existed so that it is no longer accessible to anyone. In some cases, though not in all, both physical and electronic records are destroyed.
        • However, these definitions are not ironclad. In some states, such as Delaware, “expunged” records are treated more like sealed records in that they are still available to certain parties.[204]
        • The types of records eligible for sealing/expungement — and when they become eligible — also vary by state, with some including court records, law enforcement records, DNA information, and juvenile fingerprint records.[205]

Recommended policies regarding sealing and expunging records in order to best protect youth’s confidentiality include the following from the Juvenile Law Center’s November 2014 report and their core principles:[206]

        • Immediately seal records upon the closure of the youth’s case and ensure sealed records are completely closed to the general public.
        • Expungement means records are electronically deleted and physically destroyed.
        • Records of any offense may be eligible for expungement at the time the youth’s case is closed.
        • Inform youth at their adjudication and disposition hearings of their right to sealing and/or expungement of records.
        • Provide educational materials to youth and their families regarding the collateral consequences of juvenile adjudications and any rights they have to sealing and/or expungement.
        • Provide opportunities for automatic expungement of records. Where this is not done automatically, inform youth of the procedures for sealing and/or expunging records, and ensure that the process is simple enough for youth to complete without attorney assistance.
        • Do not charge youth for sealing and/or expunging records.
        • Notify youth promptly when records have been sealed and/or expunged.
        • Impose sanctions on individuals or agencies that violate the laws on sealing and expungement.

+ Strategies: Administrative

More tools now exist to help youth with expungement. Organizations in Illinois, Maryland, and Louisiana have developed web-based expungement tools to help youth with the process. [207] Interactive websites, which can be downloaded as apps, help youth (and adults with juvenile records) to determine their eligibility for expungement through simple yes/no questions and then direct them to legal resources to help them proceed. The first was developed in Illinois – Expunge.io — and Maryland (ExpungeMaryland.org) and Louisiana (Expunge.LA) were quick to follow.

See the Resources section for additional tools.

+ Strategies: Legislative

The Juvenile Law Center (JLC) recently released a national scorecard on juvenile confidentiality. Regarding sealing and expungement policies, JLC looked at the following factors:[208]

    • Are the records no longer made physically accessible?
    • Can all court and law enforcement records be sealed or expunged without exception?
    • Is sealing or expungement automatic?
    • Do states provide notice to youth about the availability, eligibility, and sealing/expungement process throughout the juvenile proceeding and thereafter?
    • Do states provide for early expungement – at discharge or case closing?
    • Do states seal or expunge records free of charge to youth?
    • Do states impose sanctions for failing to comply with sealing or expungement laws?

No state received the top rating of five stars in this category. However, the following states (listed in order) were the highest-rated, each receiving four stars: New Mexico, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Oregon, Virginia, California, Arkansas, Maryland, and Mississippi.[209] Detailed information on the laws in each of these states can be found here.


5.) Supervision that Supports Youth

Once youth are released back into the community, whether and how they are supervised can have a huge impact on their reintegration and recidivism. Experts recommend that supervision policies and practices be tailored to the individual risk factors and needs of the youth and build upon their strengths, rather than modeling them on adult surveillance models, which have been found to be ineffective with youth. Discussed below are reforms in supervision practices to more effectively reduce recidivism.

A.  Reduce Supervision for Youth Who Don’t Need It[210]

Low and moderate risk youth are often best served by less supervision or diversion out of the system; recidivism rates have been found to increase the longer such youth remain on parole.[211] Exessive monitoring of such youth is not only a waste of limited resources but can result in pushing youth deeper into the system that don’t need to be there, as it is difficult for youth to comply with the long list of conditions that are usually a standard part of supervision. Strategies to limit the number of youth under supervision include the following below:

Risk Assessment Tools
Use risk assessment tools to objectively assess a youth’s need for supervision and services, provide limited or no supervision for low-risk and low-need youth, and divert suitable youth out of the justice system.

See Evidence-Based Practices for further information on risk assessment instruments.

Strategies: Administrative
Strategies: Legislative
Strategies: Judicial Initiatives

Reducing Length of Stay on Parole
In some states all youth generally remain on parole until the age of 21 unless they meet certain criteria and action is taken to discharge them from parole. Since for many youth, excessive time on parole increases the likelihood of reincarceration for technical violations, legislative or policy changes to reduce the length of parole can benefit youth and public safety.

The resources saved from diverting youth and limiting supervision of low-risk youth can be used to provide increased services and supervision for high-risk and high-need youth. It is important to note that supervision departments must be adequately resourced to serve these high-need youth, which is something to consider as some states shift supervision from the state to the county.

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Ohio[212]
      • In 2009, the Ohio Department of Youth Services (ODYS) began implementing a policy to limit length of stay on parole for youth demonstrating good behavior and progress. They reviewed all youth on parole in 2009 and 2010 and began discharging appropriate youth. ODYS established the following new length of stay timeframes for youth:
          • Low risk: 30 – 60 days
          • Moderate risk: 120 – 180 days
          • High risk: 240 – 270 days
      • ODYS has also put in place a process for Regional ODYS Administrators to collaborate with juvenile court judges in identifying and recommending for early release from parole appropriate youth who have received the maximum benefit of parole.

B.  Establish a Developmentally Appropriate Approach to System Supervision

Traditional probation and parole supervision systems for youth are often modeled on adult surveillance-only punishment strategies and set up an extensive list of boiler-plate conditions youth must follow that are difficult for them to adhere to and are not necessarily tied to public safety, treatment, or rehabilitation.[213] This leads to many youth violating their conditions of probation and, often, being reincarcerated.[214] Establishing a developmentally appropriate approach to supervision would be “less focused on catching youth doing something wrong and more focused on helping them do right.”[215] Suggested reforms include:[216]

        • Establish more reasonable supervision conditions that are understandable, realistically achievable, directly tied to probation goals, and minimize the need for constant oversight.[217]
        • Enable probation officers to spend less time monitoring supervision conditions and more time helping to address the root causes of youth’s behavioral problems.
        • Provide smaller supervision caseloads so probation officers can have more meaningful contact with youth and regular contact with youth and their families in their home.
        • Use youth’s risk level to determine the frequency of probation contact, with changes in risk levels in response to the youth’s behavior.
        • Train probation officers to change their mindset from one focused on power and control over youth to seeing themselves as agents of change that view incarceration as a last resort and can work effectively with young people and their families to keep youth out of trouble.[218]
        • Train probation officers in evidence-based techniques for engaging youth, such as cognitive behavioral approaches.
        • Teach probation officers how to engage service providers and community partners in supervision and problem-solving.[219]

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • California, Indiana, Ohio, and Oregon[220]
    These states are partnering with the University of Cincinnati to implement the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model, which is designed to use many of the above strategies to teach probation and parole officers how to promote positive youth behaviors and to use cognitive behavioral approaches in their interactions with youth.
  • Los Angeles, CA[221]
    The Los Angeles County Probation Department trained probation officers to work as Functional Family therapists through the Functional Family Probation (FFP) model. These probation officers work in a family’s home using the FFP techniques with the youth and their family to promote positive behavioral change. In the first year of implementation, the probation department was able to reduce the number of youth confined by 12 percent.

C.  Use Graduated Responses or Sanctions

Many re-entering youth are quickly reincarcerated due to minor “technical” probation/parole violations, such as missing an appointment with a probation or parole officer. One quarter of the youth detained in 2010 were confined due to probation/parole violations, rather than committing new offenses.[222] Yet research has not shown traditional probation/parole supervision systems — which often quickly revoke youth for technical parole violations — to be effective at reducing recidivism and improving youthful behavior.[223]

        • Using a graduated response or sanctions model, supervision officers implement sanctions progressively, in proportion to the noncompliant behavior and risk level of the youth, rather than unnecessarily revoking youth for minor infractions resulting in their reincarceration, which is otherwise common.
        • With this approach, officers also use interventions such as changes in treatment or services, rather than sanctions, and provide incentives and rewards as positive reinforcement for good behavior.[224]
        • Many probation offices have developed a graduated response grid or matrix of incentives, rewards, and punishments to assist them with this process and help them to standardize the response to violations. Click here for sample of this type of grid from the Reclaiming Futures

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • District of Columbia[225]
      • In February 2012, the DC Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services (DYRS) developed a graduated responses system for youth being supervised in the community.
      • The system provides case managers with the tools to apply “swift, certain, and immediate sanctions” to youth who violate the conditions of their release as well as to provide “incentives and rewards” to encourage positive youth behavior, such as going to school and not using drugs.
      • The system includes a “sanctions matrix” and a “positive behaviors table.”
  • Maryland[226]
      • In response to legislation passed in Maryland in 2013, the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) began developing and implementing a graduated response system.
      • DJS developed a number of tools, including a staff training curriculum, fact sheets for different stakeholders in the system regarding the benefits of a graduated response system, and sample sanctions and incentives grids.
      • Click here for Baltimore City’s graduated responses grid.
  • Rock County, Wisconsin[227]
      • In 2008, Rock County, Wisconsin, which was a Models for Change DMC (Disproportionate Minority Confinement) Action Network site, adopted a system of graduated sanctions and incentives for youth on probation.
      • This system included a graduated sanctions grid and a policy that restricted the use of detention for probation violations without the approval of a sanctions committee.
      • Rock County also developed a broad range of community-based alternative services and programs so that it would rely less on secure detention for youth violating probation.
      • From 2002-2010, the county implemented six new community-based supervision programs, saw a 35 percent reduction in the youth of color locked up for probation violations, and a 30 percent reduction in the average daily population of African-American youth in secure detention.
  • Union County, North Carolina[228]
      • Union County, North Carolina joined the Models for Change DMC Action Network in 2007.
      • After implementing strategies to reduce the use of secure detention for probation violators, including introduction of a graduated response grid, Union County was able to reduce the total number of youth securely detained for violations of probation by 67 percent from October, 2008 to June, 2009.
      • This led to four other counties throughout the state using a pilot version of the grid by June 1, 2009.

+ Strategies: Legislative

  • Maryland[229]
      • In 2013, Maryland passed legislation (HB 604) requiring the Department of Juvenile Services (DJS) to report by December 1, 2014, to committees in the House and Senate on the implementation of a system of graduated responses for youth under the jurisdiction of DJS.
      • The legislation defines “graduated responses” as “an accountability-based series of sanctions, including incentives, treatment, and services, applicable to children within the juvenile justice system, administered to hold children accountable for their actions and to protect communities from the effects of juvenile delinquency by providing appropriate sanctions for every act for which a child is adjudicated delinquent, by encouraging law-abiding behavior, and by preventing subsequent involvement in the juvenile justice system.”


6.) Using Evidence-Based Treatment Programs in Re-entry and Aftercare

While there has been limited research on the effectiveness of comprehensive juvenile reentry and aftercare programs, and much of the research has provided equivocal results, a growing number of evidence-based and promising practices and programs have been identified, particularly therapeutic treatment programs, that have been used effectively with re-entering youth. Many of the therapeutic programs have also been used effectively with youth that have been diverted and some with youth while incarcerated. Note that effective implementation of these programs is an important key to their success. Below is information on a number of these programs.

    • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/Treatment (CBT) [230]
      This approach has shown much promise with youth in the juvenile justice system. CBT is a treatment program that takes a problem-focused approach to help youth identify and change the dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and patterns of behavior that contribute to their behavior. Studies have found CBT to be effective in changing problem behavior and reducing recidivism.
        • An Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) literature review of cognitive behavioral therapy/treatment found that programs with the most effective CBT implementation and components were able to decrease recidivism for adults and youth by up to 50 percent compared to control groups.[231]
        • CBT is often used as one of the strategies in many of the juvenile delinquency evidence-based program models that involve the family, such as Functional Family Therapy, Multisystemic Therapy, and the Michigan State Diversion Project.[232]
    • Family Integrated Transitions (FIT)[233]
      FIT is designed for youth in the juvenile justice system with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders who are re-entering the community after being detained.

        • Youth receive intensive family and community-based treatment, with the goal of promoting behavior change in the youth’s home environment.
        • FIT incorporates many of the therapeutic principles used in Multisystemic Therapy.
        • A December 2014 cost-benefit analysis by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found a significant return on investment in terms of long-term savings to society by reducing crime and legal costs, and increasing youth earnings.
    • Functional Family Parole (FFP)
      FFP is a case management model for youth supervised in the community. It’s based on the Functional Family Therapy treatment model, a family-based intervention focused on enhancing protective factors and reducing risk factors in the family. A December 2014 cost-benefit analysis by Washington State Institute for Public Policy found a significant return on investment in terms of long-term savings to society by reducing crime and legal costs, and increasing youth earnings.
    • Mentoring
      Mentoring is a practice that “provides at-risk youth with a positive and consistent adult or older peer contact to promote healthy development and functioning by reducing risk factors (such as lack of commitment to school or drug use) and strengthening protective factors (such as healthy beliefs and prosocial involvement).”[234]
        • The National Institute of Justice’s crimesolutions.gov website has rated mentoring as an effective practice for dealing with youth at risk of delinquency or engaged in delinquent behavior, based on a meta-analysis by Tolan and colleagues (2008) of 20 mentoring studies that included delinquency outcomes.[235]
        • The practice profile of mentoring on crimesolutions.gov’s website provides more detailed information about the types of mentoring programs and the studies done.

+ Strategies: Administrative

  • Indiana[236]
    Aftercare for Indiana through Mentoring (AIM) was a comprehensive re-entry program for youth incorporating life skills training, service coordination, and mentoring.

      • A four-year research study found that recidivism for youth that received the full AIM program, which included mentoring, was lower (43 percent reincarcerated) than the rate for youth who only received life skills training (50 percent reincarcerated) and the rate for youth in the control group (62 percent reincarcerated).
      • AIM youth also had a lower likelihood of re-arrest and conviction, and fewer new arrests and felony arrests.
  • “Midwestern County”[237]
    A study of a juvenile re-entry program which included a strong mentoring program was done in a Midwestern county (unspecified in the published study) in which the program began operating in 2003. The program’s focus on mentoring was believed to have contributed to its effectiveness. Youth receiving mentoring services were found to have better outcomes than the youth receiving traditional probation services in the following areas:
      • significantly less likely to test positive for drugs
      • lower recidivism
      • longer time to first re-offense for those who did re-offend

See Evidence-Based Reform Trends/Using Evidence-Based Treatment Programs for information on these additional evidence-based treatment programs:

See Evidence-Based Reform Trends/Using Evidence-Based Treatment Programs for further information on the following strategies for reform in using evidence-based treatment programs:

Strategies: Administrative
Strategies: Legislative
Strategies: Litigation


7.) Strengthening Federal Initiatives to Support Re-entry

Below are some recommended reforms to strengthen current federal initiatives supporting youth re-entry.

    • Amend the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) to Include Re-entry in its Core Protections
      In 1974, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA)[238] to establish a federal-state collaboration to improve outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice systems across the country and enhance community safety.[239]

        • To be eligible for the funds provided under the JJDPA, each state must comply with four core requirements or protections:
            • deinstitutionalization of status offenders;
            • adult jail and lock-up removal;
            • sight and sound separation; and
            • disproportionate minority contact. [240]
        • While JJDPA funds may be used by states for re-entry services, few states use it for that purpose because they need to direct the limited federal dollars available to comply with the core requirements.[241]
        • By adding education and career preparation as a core protection, it would focus state attention and federal funding on this issue. [242]
        • Adding re-entry as a core protection, and including specific requirements for re-entry planning, would enhance planning and funding for re-entry in the states.[243]
    • Amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to Require More Accountability for Funds and Access to Education upon Re-entry
        • By requiring states and localities that receive ESEA Title I, Part D funding to be accountable to the Department of Education for allocating funds to support effective educational outcomes for re-entering youth, it would help to promote student achievement.
        • In Washington state, they used Title I, Part D education funds to hire transition coordinators to monitor and support youth re-entry, which includes school enrollment.[244]
        • States are currently required to allocate 15–30 percent of their Title 1, Part D funding to youth re-entry, but localities are not.
        • Requiring localities to also do so would strengthen the involvement and commitment of localities to the re-entry process and increase the resources available for re-entry services.[245]
    • Eliminating Barriers to Medical and Mental Health Care
      Requiring states to take actions such as those detailed below could help to eliminate the current delays in getting health care that many confined youth experience when re-entering the community:[246]
        • Requiring states to suspend, rather than terminate, Medicaid for youth entering juvenile facilities.
        • Requiring juvenile facilities to work with the appropriate Medicaid office to ensure resumption of benefits to youth immediately upon their release, and to enroll eligible youth who were not previously enrolled so that they are eligible for Medicaid upon release.


Notes

[1] For number of youth released, see Daniel P. Mears and Jeremy Travis, “The Dimensions, Pathways, and Consequences of Youth Reentry” (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2004): v, http://urbn.is/1ugXxRK; for estimated percentage recidivating, see Carol Schubert and Edward P. Mulvey, “Aftercare Services are Key to Positive Community Adjustment” (Chicago, IL: Catherine T. and John D. MacArthur Foundation, 2014): 2, http://bit.ly/1Eq7P4x.

[2] Schubert & Mulvey, “Aftercare Services are Key to Positive Community Adjustment,” 1-3.

[3] Carol Rapp Zimmerman, James Moeser, Scott MacDonald, Timothy B. Walsh, Gina M. Hendrix, “Chapter 1: The Roots of Reentry: What We Can Learn from History, Research and Theory,” Desktop Guide to Reentry for Juvenile Confinement Facilities, edited by Gina Hendrix, James Moeser, and David W. Roush, 41-49, 42. East Lansing, MI: Center for Research and Professional Development, July 2004, http://bit.ly/1MObKer.

[4] U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles” (August 1997): 21-22, http://1.usa.gov/14pxqym; Zimmerman, et al., “Chapter 1: The Roots of Reentry: What We Can Learn from History, Research and Theory,” Desktop Guide to Reentry for Juvenile Confinement Facilities, 7.

[5] OJJDP, “Balanced and Restorative Justice for Juveniles,” 18-19.

[6] Indiana’s Division of Youth Services, “Restorative Justice” http://bit.ly/1DmjRyA.

[7] City of Philadelphia Mural Arts Program, “Restorative Justice,” http://bit.ly/1xG80If.

[8] City of Philadelphia Mural Arts Program, “The Guild,” accessed January 14, 2015, http://www.muralarts.org/programs/guild.

[9] Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, “Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy” (April 2012): 7, http://bit.ly/1j8UNk6.

[10] Act of Nov. 17, 1995, Special Session 1, P.L. 1127, No. 33, http://bit.ly/1xb1Ulk.

[11] David M. Altschuler and Troy L. Armstrong, “Intensive Juvenile Aftercare Reference Guide” (Sacramento, CA: Juvenile Reintegration and Aftercare Center, March 2004): 4-3, http://bit.ly/1ycWCm7.

[12] William H. Barton, “Incorporating the Strengths Perspective into Intensive Juvenile Aftercare,” Western Criminology Review 7(2), 48-61: 52 (2006), http://bit.ly/1GY086O.

[13] Barton, “Incorporating the Strengths Perspective into Intensive Juvenile Aftercare,” 53.

[14] U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, “Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings” (Washington, DC, Dec. 2014): 8, http://1.usa.gov/1w1kyEW.

[15] William H. Barton, G. Roger Jarjoura, and Andre B. Rosay, “Applying a Developmental Lens to Juvenile Reentry and Reintegration,” Journal of Juvenile Justice (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)) vol. 1:2 (Spring 2012), http://bit.ly/1wVNSNf; Jeffrey A. Butts, Gordon Bazemore, and Aundra Saa Meroe, “Positive Youth Justice: Framing Justice Interventions Using the Concepts of Positive Youth Development” (Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2010): 9, http://bit.ly/QAJ1DA.

[16] Jeffrey A. Butts, Gordon Bazemore, and Aundra Saa Meroe, “Positive Youth Justice” (Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2010): 9, http://bit.ly/QAJ1DA.

[17] Barton, et al., “Applying a Developmental Lens to Juvenile Reentry and Reintegration.”

[18] Butts, et al., “Positive Youth Justice,” 16-17.

[19] “Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services,” DC.gov, accessed Nov. 25, 2014, http://dyrs.dc.gov/page/dyrs-approach.

[20] “Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services,” DC.gov.

[21] Oregon Youth Authority, “Youth Reformation System Implementation and Facilities Optimization Report” (Jan. 24, 2014): 17, http://1.usa.gov/1Erp6sy.

[22] University of Cincinnati, “News: UC-Developed Program is Changing Approaches to Supervising Criminal Offenders,” Aug. 10, 2010, accessed Feb. 6, 2015, http://bit.ly/17VXK5o; Hon. Michael J. Kramer, “EPICS: Effective Practices in Community Supervision,” Indiana Court Times, Feb. 7, 2014, http://bit.ly/1E7xn8J.

[23] Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, “Bureau of Parole Reentry Continuum – Action Plan,” January 2011: 2, http://1.usa.gov/1G51SLB.

[24] David M. Altschuler, Troy L. Armstrong, and Doris Layton Mackenzie, “Reintegration, Supervised Release, and Intensive Aftercare” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, July 1999), 9, http://1.usa.gov/1wMVjdQ.

[25] William H. Barton, “Incorporating the Strengths Perspective into Intensive Juvenile Aftercare,” Western Criminology Review 7(2), 48-61: 51 (2006).

[26] David Altschuler, and Shay Bilchik, “Critical Elements of Juvenile Reentry in Research and Practice,” The Council of State Governments Justice Center, April 21, 2014, http://bit.ly/143edlo.

[27] David M. Altschuler, “Rehabilitating and Reintegrating Youth Offenders: Are Residential and Community Aftercare Colliding Worlds and What Can be Done About It,” Justice Policy Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Spring 2008), http://bit.ly/1w1lcSQ.

[28] Robert E. DeComo & Rick Wiebush (ed.), Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders – A Program Model and Planning Guide: Dispositional Court Hearing to Case Closure – Volume II (Juvenile Sanctions Center, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 2005), 28-39, http://bit.ly/1AFRCpe.

[29] Division of Youth Services Annual Report, Fiscal Year 2012,” Missouri Department of Social Services, 18, http://on.mo.gov/1GY0Cty.

[30] Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, “ Bureau of Parole Reentry Continuum – Action Plan,” January 2011: 2, http://1.usa.gov/1G51SLB; Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, Bureau of Parole, “Reentry Continuum Implementation Plan: Progress Report – October 2013,” http://1.usa.gov/1bdrhZM.

[31] H.R. 130, 127th Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ohio 2008).

[32] Akron-Summit County Public Library, Business and Government Division, “Ohio Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition,” accessed February 10, 2015, http://bit.ly/1DFdIfJ.

[33] S.H. v. Stickrath, Case No. 2:04-CV-1206, at 1-3 ( S.D. Ohio, May 21, 2008 ), http://1.usa.gov/1O2t4Qs.

[34] University of Michigan Law School, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, “S.H. v. Stickrath,” http://bit.ly/1MH1FSr.

[35] S.H. v. Stickrath, Case No. 2:04-CV-1206, at 15 ( S.D. Ohio, May 21, 2008 ), http://1.usa.gov/1O2t4Qs.

[36] Patricia M. Torbet, “Building Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Aftercare Model: Probation Case Management Essentials for Youth in Placement” (Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, March 2008): 7-10, http://bit.ly/1xGZNDO.

[37] The signatory agencies were the Department of Education, Department of Public Welfare, PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Juvenile Court Judges’ Commission, and PA Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “Joint Policy Statement on Aftercare” (January 1, 2005), http://bit.ly/1tO751W; Patricia Torbet, “Aftercare Reform in Pennsylvania,” Juvenile and Family Justice Today (National Center for Juvenile Justice, Summer 2007), http://bit.ly/1s6HSWh.

[38]Patrick Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010” (Submitted to the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Jan. 2011): 4-5.

[39] Patrick Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010,” 5; Hunter Hurst and Andrew Wachter, “TAI Data Inventory Update, 2011” (Pittsburgh, PA, National Center for Juvenile Justice, August 2011): 3, http://bit.ly/1xGMMdg.

[40] Patrick Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010,” 5-6.

[41] Patricia M. Torbet, “Building Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Aftercare Model: Probation Case Management Essentials for Youth in Placement,” 7.

[42] Patrick Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010,” 6.

[43] Patricia M. Torbet, “Building Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Aftercare Model: Probation Case Management Essentials for Youth in Placement,” 16.

[44] Patrick Griffin and Mary Humninen, “Preparing Youth for Productive Futures,” (Pittsburgh, PA, National Center for Juvenile Justice, Jan. 18, 2008), http://bit.ly/1wtdBO9.

[45] Patrick Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010,” 62-3.

[46] Patrick Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010,” 52.

[47] Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders – A Program Model and Planning Guide: Dispositional Court Hearing to Case Closure – Volume II, 68-88.

[48] U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, “Reentry Court” (undated), http://1.usa.gov/1GXVYze.

[49] Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders – A Program Model and Planning Guide: Dispositional Court Hearing to Case Closure – Volume II, 68-88.

[50] Patrick Griffin, “Juvenile Court Controlled Reentry: Three Practice Models,” Technical Assistance to the Juvenile Court Special Project Bulletin (Pittsburgh, PA, National Center for Juvenile Justice, February 2005): 4-5, http://bit.ly/1tLr7LK.

[51] The Official Website of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County, “Reentry Court Program,” accessed Dec. 3, 2014, http://bit.ly/1wtiRkR.

[52] San Francisco Collaborative Courts,” Juvenile Reentry Court,” (Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, March 2014), http://bit.ly/1xH512z.

[53] Griffin, “Juvenile Court Controlled Reentry: Three Practice Models,” 4.

[54] West Virginia Judiciary, “Reentry,” accessed Dec. 3, 2014, http://bit.ly/1wW5s3w.

[55] Barton, “Incorporating the Strengths Perspective into Intensive Juvenile Aftercare,” 53.

[56] Children’s Mental Health Network, “Dawn Project,” accessed Dec. 1, 2014, http://bit.ly/1zrAEdx.

[57] “Indiana Choices- Cross System Care Coordination,” Choices, accessed March 16, 2015,  http://bit.ly/1HPpQvt.

[58] “Indiana Choices- Cross System Care Coordination,” Choices, accessed March 16, 2015,  http://bit.ly/1HPpQvt.

[59] Sarah Hammond, “Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Offenders” (Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, June 2007), 8, http://bit.ly/1kugRqd.

[60] “Wraparound Milwaukee, 2012 Year End Report,” Wraparound Milwaukee, 10, http://bit.ly/14qJ3VM.

[61] “Information for Families,” Wraparound Milwaukee, http://bit.ly/1xGYAwm.

[62] “Wraparound Milwaukee, 2012 Year End Report,” 7.

[63] “Wraparound Milwaukee, 2012 Year End Report,” 10-11.

[64] William H. Barton, G. Roger Jarjoura, and Andre B. Rosay, “Applying a Developmental Lens to Juvenile Reentry and Reintegration,”  Journal of Juvenile Justice (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)) vol. 1:2 (Spring 2012), http://bit.ly/1wVNSNf; ” Barton, “Incorporating the Strengths Perspective into Intensive Juvenile Aftercare,” 55.

[65] Barton, “Incorporating the Strengths Perspective into Intensive Juvenile Aftercare,” 55.

[66] Barton, et al., “Applying a Developmental Lens to Juvenile Reentry and Reintegration.”

[67] Scott MacDonald, Douglas E. Mitchell, and James Moeser, “Chapter 4: Defining Reentry for Short-Term Stays,” Desktop Guide to Reentry for Juvenile Confinement Facilities, edited by Gina Hendrix, James Moeser, and David W. Roush, 41-49, 44. East Lansing, MI: Center for Research and Professional Development, July 2004, http://bit.ly/1MObKer; “Most juvenile offenders should not be ‘sent away.’ Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system operates under the principle of least restrictive setting required to protect the community, which is tied to a long-standing policy of keeping juvenile offenders in their communities wherever possible.” Patricia M. Torbet, “Building Pennsylvania’s Comprehensive Aftercare Model: Probation Case Management Essentials for Youth in Placement,” 12.

[68] Jennifer Lowman and Shari A Mamas, “Educational Aftercare & Reintegration Toolkit for Juvenile Justice Professionals” (Education Law Center – PA and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Models for Change Initiative, June 2009): 11, http://bit.ly/1xT5Pjl.

[69] Lowman & Mamas, “Educational Aftercare & Reintegration Toolkit for Juvenile Justice Professionals,” 12.

[70] Lowman & Mamas, “Educational Aftercare & Reintegration Toolkit for Juvenile Justice Professionals,” 13.

[71] Antoinette Davis, Angela Irvine, and Jason Zeidenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth” (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, May 2014): 2, http://bit.ly/1AtJjRI.

[72] Edward P. Mulvey and Carol Schubert, “To Monitor Changing Risks and Needs, Repeat Assessments of Young Offenders Over Time,” (Chicago, IL: Catherine T. and John D. MacArthur Foundation, 2014): 1, http://bit.ly/1ApsdCc.

[73] Davis, Irvine, & Zeidenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 3.

[74] Davis, Irvine, & Zeidenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 3.

[75] Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, “ Bureau of Parole Reentry Continuum – Action Plan,” January 2011: 2, http://1.usa.gov/1G51SLB; Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, Bureau of Parole, “Reentry Continuum Implementation Plan: Progress Report – October 2013,” http://1.usa.gov/1bdrhZM.

[76] Patrick Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010,” 52-8.

[77] Gail A. Wasserman, Larkin S. McReynolds, Craig S. Schwalbe, Joseph M. Keating, and Shane A. Jones, “Psychiatric Disorder, Comorbidity, and Suicidal Behavior in Juvenile Justice Youth,” Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 37, No. 12 (December 2010): 1361-1376, 1366, http://bit.ly/1GQbGtH.

[78] Peter Leone and Lois Weinberg, “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems” (Washington, DC: The Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, May 2010), 10, http://bit.ly/1M0achu; Ashley Nellis and Richard Hooks Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community” (Washington, DC: Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, Fall 2009), 17, http://bit.ly/10T3E3l.

[79] JustChildren Legal Aid Justice Center, “A Summary of Best Practices in School Reentry for Incarcerated Youth Returning Home” (Charlottesville, VA, Legal Aid Justice Center, November 2004): 1, http://bit.ly/1yCCOvd, citing Keith, J. & McCray, A. (2002).

[80] Elizabeth Seigle, Nastassia Walsh, and Josh Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014), 31, http://bit.ly/1r78rrD; citing “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.”

[81] The Sentencing Project, “Youth Reentry” (May 2010), http://bit.ly/1KpAnzS.

[82] Leone & Weinberg, “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems,” 21.

[83] U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, “Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings,” (Washington, DC, Dec. 2014), http://1.usa.gov/1w1kyEW.

[84] Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People” (July 30, 2014), 8, http://bit.ly/1zg4LWu.

[85] Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track,” 15; citing P. Leone, “Understanding the Over Representation of Youths with Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System,” D.C. Law Review 3 (1995): 389. Youth in the delinquency system also have higher rates of special education needs and school drop-out than other youth. Leone and Weinberg, “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs,” 13.

[86] U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, “Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings,” 12.

[87] U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, “Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings,” 12.

[88] U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, “Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings,” 17.

[89] Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People,” 7; Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 31-2.

[90] Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People,” 8; citing Roy-Stevens, Cory. “Overcoming Barriers to school Reentry.” National Criminal Justice Reference Service, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Oct. 2004.

[91] U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, “Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings,” 3.

[92] JustChildren Legal Aid Justice Center, “A Summary of Best Practices in School Reentry for Incarcerated Youth Returning Home” (Charlottesville, VA, Legal Aid Justice Center, November 2004): 3, http://bit.ly/1yCCOvd.

[93]Leone & Weinberg, “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems,” 17; U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, “Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings” (Washington, DC, Dec. 2014): 22-3.

[94] Elizabeth Seigle, Nastassia Walsh, and Josh Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014), 32, http://bit.ly/1r78rrD.

[95] Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People” (July 30, 2014), 6, http://bit.ly/1zg4LWu.

[96] Federal Interagency Reentry Council, “Reentry Myth Buster: On Youth Access to Education Upon Reentry (New York: Federal Interagency Reentry Council, 2012), http://bit.ly/1sxm157.

[97] Leone & Weinberg, “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems,” 19.

[98] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 32.

[99] National League of Cities, “Reconnecting Youth through Dropout Reengagement Centers” (Washington, DC: National League of Cities Municipal Action Guide, 2013), http://bit.ly/1DCKpZR.

[100] Kimberly Booth, “The Role of Juvenile Court in Reentry” (Allegheny County Juvenile Justice, Chicago, IL, May 8-9, 2014), http://bit.ly/1vAatFi.

[101] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 32; D.C. Dept. of Youth Rehabilitation Services, “Maya Angelou Academy at New Beginnings,” accessed Dec. 6, 2014, http://1.usa.gov/1Ax0XEe.

[102] JustChildren Legal Aid Justice Center, “A Summary of Best Practices in School Reentry for Incarcerated Youth Returning Home,” 2.

[103] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills” (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Models for Change Initiative, Dec. 2012), http://bit.ly/11cUfo3.

[104] Vera Institute of Justice, “A Pilot Phase Analysis of King County Washington’s PathNet Program” (March 2013), http://bit.ly/1zXEJ97.

[105] “Dropout Reengagement Legislation Supports Statewide Replication of Washington Models for Change Project,” Models for Change, accessed Dec. 9, 2014, http://bit.ly/1BFpGoP; Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 67.

[106] “Dropout Reengagement Legislation Supports Statewide Replication of Washington Models for Change Project,” Models for Change.

[107] Vera Institute of Justice, “A Pilot Phase Analysis of King County Washington’s PathNet Program,” 24.

[108] Vera Institute of Justice, “A Pilot Phase Analysis of King County Washington’s PathNet Program,” 27-30.

[109] JustChildren Legal Aid Justice Center, “A Summary of Best Practices in School Reentry for Incarcerated Youth Returning Home,” 12-13, citing Cal. Education Code §§ 47755; 47756; 47765; 47766.

[110] JustChildren Legal Aid Justice Center, “A Summary of Best Practices in School Reentry for Incarcerated Youth Returning Home,” 2, 9; citing Ky. Rev. Stats. § 158.137.

[111] JustChildren Legal Aid Justice Center, “A Summary of Best Practices in School Reentry for Incarcerated Youth Returning Home,” 2, 7; citing Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 3009; tit. 20-A, §§ 254(12); 1055(12); 6001-B(2); Code Me. R. ch. 125 § 10.07 .

[112] Va. Code § 22.1-17.1 (2014).

[113] 8 VAC 20-660-30 (2014).

[114] H.B. 1418, 61st Leg, Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2009).

[115] JustChildren Legal Aid Justice Center, “A Summary of Best Practices in School Reentry for Incarcerated Youth Returning Home,” 8; citing W. Va. Code §§ 49-5-20; 126-7-4; 126-7-6.

[116] 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.

[117] Leone & Weinberg, “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems,” 28.

[118] Leone & Weinberg, “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems,” 29, citing United States v. Arkansas (Civ-4-03, CV000162, U.S. Dist. Ct., E. Dist. of AR).

[119] Leone & Weinberg, “Addressing the Unmet Educational Needs of Children and Youth in the Juvenile Justice and Child Welfare Systems,” 28-9.

[120] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills” (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Models for Change Initiative, Dec. 2012): 1, http://bit.ly/11cUfo3.

[121] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills,” 2.

[122] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills,” 2.

[123] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills,” 3; Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People” (July 30, 2014), 5, http://bit.ly/1zg4LWu.

[124] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills,” 3; Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People” (July 30, 2014), 5.

[125] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills,” 3.

[126] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills,” 2

[127] “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People” (July 30, 2014), 5.

[128] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills,” 4.

[129] Patrick Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010” (Submitted to the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Jan. 2011): 27-.39.

[130] Goodwill Industries of the Conemaugh Valley, Inc., “Youth,” accessed Dec. 10, 2014, http://bit.ly/17nzZ5E.

[131] Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010,” 37.

[132] Griffin, “Report of the Pennsylvania Aftercare All-Sites Group: Implementation and Results of Aftercare Demonstration Projects, 2005-2010,” 38; Goodwill Industries of the Conemaugh Valley, Inc., “Youth,” accessed Dec. 10, 2014, http://bit.ly/17nzZ5E.

[133] Vera Institute of Justice, “Youth Futures” (undated), http://bit.ly/1wVe3uj; Vera Institute of Justice, “Youth Futures: Workforce Development and Educational Support to System-Involved Youth,” accessed Feb. 24, 2015, http://www.vera.org/project/youth-futures.

[134] Laura E. Furr, “Increasing Public Safety and Improving Outcomes for Youth through Juvenile Justice Reform” (Washington, DC: National League of Cities, December 2014): 9-10, http://bit.ly/1wz5cIU.

[135] “Dropout Reengagement Legislation Supports Statewide Replication of Washington Models for Change Project,” Models for Change, accessed Dec. 9, 2014, http://www.modelsforchange.net/newsroom/399; Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 67; The Vera Institute of Justice, “A Pilot Phase Analysis of King County, Washington’s PathNet Progam” (March 2013), http://www.modelsforchange.net/publications/465.

[136] Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, “For Youth,” accessed Feb. 20, 2015, http://www.djj.state.fl.us/youth-families/for-youth.

[137] Candace Putter, “Learn to Earn: PACTT Helps Delinquent Youth Gain Academic and Job Skills” (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Models for Change Initiative, Dec. 2012), http://bit.ly/11cUfo3.

[138] Philadelphia Youth Network, accessed January 8, 2015, http://bit.ly/1ISazbV; Patrick Griffin and Mary Humninen, “Pennsylvania Progress: Preparing Youth for Productive Futures” (Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, Jan. 18, 2008): 7-8, http://bit.ly/1wtdBO9.

[139] The St. Louis American, “SLATE Granted $358K for Second Chance Act Reentry Project,” Oct. 23, 2013, http://bit.ly/1BMthAH.

[140] H.B. 1418, 61st Leg, Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2009); Models for Change Innovation Brief, “PathNet: An Innovative School Reengagement System” (The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Models for Change Initiative, December 2014), http://bit.ly/1BRzSIU.

[141] Gail A. Wasserman, Larkin S. McReynolds, Craig S. Schwalbe, Joseph M. Keating, and Shane A. Jones, “Psychiatric Disorder, Comorbidity, and Suicidal Behavior in Juvenile Justice Youth,” Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 37, No. 12 (December 2010): 1361-1376, 1366, http://bit.ly/1GQbGtH.

[142] Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Collaborative for Change, “Better Solutions for Youth with Mental Health Needs in the Juvenile Justice System” (Models for Change Resource Center Partnership, 2014): 2, http://bit.ly/1x0QmKm; citing United States Department of Justice, “Department of Justice Activities Under the Civil Rights Institutionalized Persons Act: Fiscal Year 2010” (Washington DC: United States Department of Justice, 2011), http://1.usa.gov/1oEn5aN.

[143] L. Chassin, A. Mansion, B. Nichter, and S. Losoya, “To Decrease Juvenile Offending, Make Effective Drug Treatment a Priority” (Chicago, IL: Catherine T. and John D. MacArthur Foundation, 2014); 1-2, http://bit.ly/1B0DNDQ.

[144] Juvenile Justice Resource Hub, “Mental Health: Reform Trends,” accessed December 14, 2014, http://bit.ly/14nNFX6; Mental Health and Juvenile Justice Collaborative for Change, “Better Solutions for Youth with Mental Health Needs in the Juvenile Justice System,” 2; Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 24-28.

[145] Ashley Nellis and Richard Hooks Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community” (Washington, DC: Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Coalition, Fall 2009), 19-21, http://bit.ly/10T3E3l.

[146] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 27; citing Elizabeth Drake, Chemical Dependency Treatment for Offenders: A Review of the Evidence and Benefit-Cost Findings (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2012), available at http://1.usa.gov/1AxUwR5; Laurie Chassin, “Justice and Substance Use,” Future Child 18, no. 2 (2008): 165–83, available at http://1.usa.gov/1BMIu3l; Chassin et al., “Substance Use Treatment Outcomes in a Sample of Serious Juvenile Offenders.”

[147] Reclaiming Futures, “The Reclaiming Futures Model,” accessed December 18, 2014, http://bit.ly/1zXONyJ.

[148] Reclaiming Futures, “The Solution: Beyond Treatment,” accessed December 18, 2014, http://bit.ly/1BFGQm8.

[149] Chassin, Mansion, Nichter, & Losoya, “To Decrease Juvenile Offending, Make Effective Drug Treatment a Priority,” 3.

[150] Chassin, Mansion, Nichter, & Losoya, “To Decrease Juvenile Offending, Make Effective Drug Treatment a Priority,” 4.

[151] Chassin, Mansion, Nichter, & Losoya, “To Decrease Juvenile Offending, Make Effective Drug Treatment a Priority,” 3.

[152] Reclaiming Futures, “Montgomery County Juvenile Court is Reclaiming Futures,” accessed Dec. 19, 2014, http://bit.ly/1BFGThV.

[153] VA CODE ANN. §16.1-293.1 (2012).

[154] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Time for a Check-Up: How Advocates Can Help Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Get the Mental Health Services They Need” (January 2014): 2, http://bit.ly/1x0RGwK.

[155] Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community” 19.

[156] Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community” 15, 20.

[157] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Time for a Check-Up: How Advocates Can Help Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Get the Mental Health Services They Need,” 2, citing Sarabeth Zemel, Kim Mooney, and Diane Justice, National Academy for State Health Policy, “Facilitating Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth”  (John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Models for Change initiative, December 12, 2013), 2, n.6, accessed December 18, 2013 at http://bit.ly/1hA09BY.

[158] National Juvenile Justice Network, “Time for a Check-Up: How Advocates Can Help Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Get the Mental Health Services They Need,” 2, citing Zemel, Mooney, and Justice, “Facilitating Health Care Coverage for Juvenile-Justice Involved Youth,” 2.

[159] The Federal Financial Participation (FFP) exclusion applies to Medicaid-eligible inmates of public institutions, including juveniles. Federal Interagency Reentry Council, “Reentry Myth Buster! On Medicaid Suspension vs. Termination for Juveniles” (May 2012), http://bit.ly/147BqD7.

[160] Federal Interagency Reentry Council, “Reentry Myth Buster! On Medicaid Suspension vs. Termination for Juveniles” (May, 2012), http://bit.ly/147BqD7; National Juvenile Justice Network, “Time for a Check-Up: How Advocates Can Help Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Get the Mental Health Services They Need,” 2-3, citing Zemel, Mooney, and Justice, 1; Alison Evans Cuellar, “New Directions for Behavioral Health Funding and Implications for Youth Involved in the Juvenile Justice System” (Washington, D.C.: Technical Assistance Partnership for Child and Family Mental Health, January 2012), 5, accessed July 17, 2013 at http://bit.ly/IIpJIX; Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community,” 21.

[161] Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community,” 20-21.

[162] Zemel, Mooney, & Justice, National Academy for State Health Policy, “Facilitating Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth,” 2.

[163] Zemel, Mooney, & Justice, National Academy for State Health Policy, “Facilitating Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth,” 1-2.

[164] Zemel, Mooney, & Justice, National Academy for State Health Policy, “Facilitating Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth,” 2.

[165] Zemel, Mooney, & Justice, National Academy for State Health Policy, “Facilitating Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth,” 2; Colorado House Bill 08-1046 (2008), http://bit.ly/1wCuo1i.

[166] Texas House Bill 1630, 81st Regular Session (2009), http://bit.ly/14a4Sbw; Zemel, Mooney, & Justice, National Academy for State Health Policy, “Facilitating Health Care Coverage for Juvenile Justice-Involved Youth,” 3.

[167] Antoinette Davis, Angela Irvine, and Jason Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth” (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, May 2014): 7, http://bit.ly/1AtJjRI; Elizabeth Seigle, Nastassia Walsh, and Josh Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2014), 35, http://bit.ly/1r78rrD.

[168] Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, “Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy” (April 2012): 39, http://bit.ly/1j8UNk6; Youth who had more family visits while confined had fewer behavioral incidents and higher grade point averages (GPAs). Sandra Villalobos Agudelo, “The Impact of Family Visitation on Incarcerated Youth’s Behavior and School Performance” (New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013): 3-4, http://bit.ly/1yPoRap.

[169] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 36, citing “Close to Home Initiative,” http://bit.ly/1x47Pl1; Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, “Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy,” 39, citing McCord, Spatz, Widom, & Crowell, 2001.

[170] Wendy Luckenbill and Clay Yeager, “Family Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System” (Pennsylvania Council of Chief Juvenile Probation Officers, 2009): 7, http://bit.ly/1yKvb5O.

[171] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 35.

[172] Desktop Guide to Reentry for Juvenile Confinement Facilities, 18; “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 7.

[173] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 36; Models for Change, “Family Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System” (Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 2009), 12, http://bit.ly/Yxg7W7.

[174] Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, “Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy,” 13; Kathleen R. Skowyra and Joseph J. Cocozza, Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification and Treatment of Youth with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System” (Delmar, NY: The National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, January 2006): 15, http://bit.ly/1sdETeM.

[175] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 71.

[176] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 36; Desktop Guide to Reentry for Juvenile Confinement Facilities, 17; Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, “Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy” 37.

[177] Luckenbill & Yeager, “Family Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System,” 19.

[178] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 35.

[179] Desktop Guide to Reentry for Juvenile Confinement Facilities, 18.

[180] Luckenbill & Yeager, “Family Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System,” 15.

[181] Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 7-8.

[182] Desktop Guide to Reentry for Juvenile Confinement Facilities, 18; Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 7.

[183] Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 8.

[184] Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 8.

[185] University of Nebraska Juvenile Justice Institute, “The Lancaster County Juvenile Reentry Project: Final Report” (Omaha, NE, March 2014): 6-7, http://bit.ly/17iozjs.

[186] University of Nebraska Juvenile Justice Institute, “The Lancaster County Juvenile Reentry Project: Final Report,” 27.

[187] Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 8.

[188] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 71.

[189] Luckenbill & Yeager, “Family Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System,” 11, 15.

[190] Models for Change, “Training to Enhance Family Involvement in Pennsylvania’s Juvenile Justice System Now Available,” accessed Feb. 25, 2015, http://bit.ly/1BWIdyZ.

[191] Desktop Guide to Reentry for Juvenile Confinement Facilities,18.

[192] National Center for Homeless Education, “Youth Homelessness and Juvenile Justice” (Oct. 26, 2011): 1-2, http://bit.ly/1EuM97E.

[193] Nellis and Wayman, “Back on Track,” 22.

[194] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 71.

[195] National Center for Homeless Education, “Youth Homelessness and Juvenile Justice” (Oct. 26, 2011): 2, http://bit.ly/1EuM97E.

[196] National Center for Homeless Education, “Youth Homelessness and Juvenile Justice,” 2-3.

[197] National Center for Homeless Education, “Youth Homelessness and Juvenile Justice,” 3.

[198] Riya Saha Shah and Lauren Fine, “Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement” (Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center, 2014), http://bit.ly/14wgc2w.

[199] Shah & Fine, “Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement,” 6.

[200] Shah & Fine, “Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement,” 12.

[201]Shah & Fine, “Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement,” 20-22.

[202] Riya Saha Shah and Lauren Fine, “Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures: A National Scorecard on Juvenile Records” (Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center, 2014): 7, http://bit.ly/1xvmhYY.

[203] Shah & Fine, “Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement,” 22-24.

[204] Shah & Fine, “Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement,” 24-26.

[205] Shah & Fine, “Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement,” 26-27.

[206] Shah & Fine, “Juvenile Records: A National Review of State Laws on Confidentiality, Sealing and Expungement,” 46-47; Juvenile Law Center, “Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures: A Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile Records,” accessed December 29, 2014, http://bit.ly/1w4mVNq.

[207] Zoe Schein, “New Web-Based Expungement Tools Launched by IL, MD, LA” (National Juvenile Justice Network, October 2, 2014), accessed December 29, 2014, http://bit.ly/1BWhkHq.

[208] Shah & Fine, “Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures: A National Scorecard on Juvenile Records,” 8.

[209] Shah & Fine, “Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures: A National Scorecard on Juvenile Records,” 9.

[210] Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 2-3.

[211] Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, “ Bureau of Parole Reentry Continuum – Action Plan,” January 2011: 11, http://1.usa.gov/1G51SLB.

[212] Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, “ Bureau of Parole Reentry Continuum – Action Plan,” 11.

[213] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 37; Antoinette Davis, Angela Irvine, and Jason Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth” (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, May 2014): 3-4, http://bit.ly/1AtJjRI.

[214] Approximately 15 percent of youth nationally are confined as a result of a technical violation of their probation or parole. Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 37; citing “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement,” http://1.usa.gov/1Btmvwd; Adult-based surveillance-only punishment strategies for youth on parole, such as that used in Illinois, have led to unacceptably high reincarceration rates for youth. Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission, “Illinois Juvenile Justice Commission Youth Reentry Improvement Report,” 10.

[215] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 36.

[216] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 37.

[217] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 37; Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 4.

[218] Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 4-5.

[219] Davis, Irvine, & Ziedenberg, “Supervision Strategies for Justice-Involved Youth,” 6.

[220] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 38; citing Edward Latessa, Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) (Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, 2012).

[221] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 38.

[222] Jason Szanyi, Lance Horozewski, and Lisa M. Garry, “Implementing an Effective Graduated Responses System” (undated): 1, http://bit.ly/1xZ9peV, citing Sickmund et al., Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement Databook (2010).

[223]Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 36.

[224] Seigle, Walsh, & Weber, Core Principles for Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Youth in the Juvenile Justice System, 38; Lisa M. Garry and Jason Szanyi, “Graduated Responses 2.0: New Resources for the Field to Promote Success for Youth Supervised in the Community” (Powerpoint presentation at the Models for Change Conference, Dec. 16, 2014).

[225] Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services, “DYRS Implements New Initiative to Hold Community Youth More Accountable for their Behavior” (February 17, 2012), http://1.usa.gov/1BWmIKE.

[226] Garry & Szanyi, “Graduated Responses 2.0: New Resources for the Field to Promote Success for Youth Supervised in the Community;” Szanyi, Horozewski, & Garry, “Implementing an Effective Graduated Responses System,” 17.

[227] DMC Action Network eNews, #23, May 2011, http://bit.ly/1mDscnv; Szanyi, Horozewski, & Garry, “Implementing an Effective Graduated Responses System,” 17-18.

[228] DMC Action Network eNews, #8, January 2010, http://bit.ly/1yLH6Av.

[229] Maryland House Bill 604, Chapter 497 (Regular Session 2013), http://1.usa.gov/1DH37zl.

[230] Development Services Group, Inc., “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/Treatment Literature Review,” (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, October 15, 2009); Skowyra and Cocozza, Blueprint for Change, 39; Steve Aos, Marna Miller, and Elizabeth Drake, “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates” (Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, October 2006); Models for Change, “Knowledge Brief: How Can We Know if Juvenile Justice Reforms are Worth the Cost?” (Chicago, IL: John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, December 2011), at http://bit.ly/1rOl3pE.

[231] US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), “Model Programs Guide - Literature Reviews: Cognitive Behavioral Treatment” (undated): 2-3, http://1.usa.gov/1tRK7Ix.

[232] OJJDP, “Model Programs Guide - Literature Reviews: Cognitive Behavioral Treatment” (undated): 3, http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/Resource/LitReviews.

[233] Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Family Integrated Transitions” (December 2014), http://1.usa.gov/1w6fQpn.

[234] National Institute of Justice, Crimesolutions.gov, “Juveniles: Delinquency Prevention,” accessed July 29, 2014, at http://1.usa.gov/1s51JS9.

[235] Patrick Tolan, et. al., “Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems: A Systematic Review,” Campbell Systematic Reviews 16 (February 9, 2013), doi:10.4073/csr.2008.16, at http://bit.ly/1k7UMzl; National Institute of Justice, Crimesolutions.gov, “Practice Profile: Mentoring,” accessed July 29, 2014, http://1.usa.gov/1zwwjrg.

[236] Jeffrey A. Bouffard and Kathleen J. Bergseth, “The Impact of Reentry Services on Juvenile Offenders’ Recidivism,” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sage Publications, July 2008): 295-318, 297, http://bit.ly/1BQfdX3.

[237] Bouffard & Bergseth, “The Impact of Reentry Services on Juvenile Offenders’ Recidivism,” 299-316; Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community,” 28-29.

[238] Pub. L. No. 93-415, 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq. (1974).

[239] For more information on the JJDPA, visit the website of Act 4 Juvenile Justice at http://bit.ly/1xNigOM, last accessed January 23, 2014.

[240] Act 4 Juvenile Justice, “What is the JJDPA?” http://bit.ly/1xNigOM.

[241] Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community,” 41.

[242] Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People” (July 30, 2014), 12, http://bit.ly/1zg4LWu.

[243] Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community,” 41-2.

[244] Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People,” 9, n.7.

[245] Juvenile Law Center, “Recommendations to Improve Correctional and Reentry Education for Young People,” 10, n.8.

[246] Nellis & Wayman, “Back on Track: Supporting Youth Reentry from Out-of-Home Placement to the Community,” 42-3.