Q: How is the juvenile justice system organized, and what does the organization of the system mean for juvenile reentry?

A: The juvenile justice system varies tremendously across jurisdictions; each state's juvenile justice system "has its own history and set of laws and policies and delivers services to juvenile delinquents in its own way."¹ In each state, authority over the juvenile justice system is distributed differently between the executive and judicial branches and between states and counties. Furthermore, counties may vary tremendously in the mix of supervision and services they provide to justice-involved youth. Tribal governments also vary greatly: while some tribal governments retain jurisdiction of delinquent tribal youth and/or administer juvenile detention or correctional facilities, others refer youth to state or county systems. Accordingly, understanding how the system is structured in a particular state or jurisdiction is key to developing an effective reentry program.

Every state has an executive-level agency that oversees its juvenile corrections system, but how those agencies function differs. In 10 states the juvenile corrections agency is located within the state-level adult corrections agency; in 16 states and the District of Columbia, authority over the juvenile justice agency lies with a social or human services agency; and 16 states have separate juvenile corrections agencies.² States differ further in terms of the degree to which they provide centralized juvenile delinquency services. In 12 states, a state-level executive agency exercises "across-the-board" control of delinquency services; in 18 states, counties operate probation services, and, in some cases, detention centers and aftercare services; and in the remaining 20 states and the District of Columbia, services are provided through a combination of state- and county-run juvenile delinquency services.³

Juvenile probation is also administered differently across the states. Nearly every youth in the juvenile justice system will have a juvenile probation officer at some point, and so juvenile probation agencies are commonly integrated into the juvenile delinquency system. In 20 states and the District of Columbia, juvenile probation is administered by judicial agencies at either the state or local levels. In 14 states, juvenile probation is administered exclusively by executive branch agencies. In the remaining 16 states, juvenile probation is administered by some combination of executive and judicial branch agencies.⁴ Because judges, juvenile corrections agencies, and probation and parole authorities each play an important role in developing and carrying out reentry plans for juveniles, it is important to understand the distribution of authority in your jurisdiction in developing a reentry initiative that will meet the needs of youth in your juvenile justice system.

Q: From what types of facilities do juvenile justice-involved youth return?

A: There is tremendous variation in the types of facilities into which youth in the juvenile justice system are placed.* However, youth reentering from out-of-home placement typically return from four categories of facilities: long-term secure facilities, which provide the strictest security; detention centers, which are secure facilities designed to provide short-term care to youth pre- and post-adjudication; residential treatment centers, which typically focus on providing behavioral health services and interventions to youth with specialized needs, and may be secure or non-secure; and group homes, which are generally smaller and less secure.† Small facilities holding twenty or fewer residents account for more than half of the 2,860 juvenile facilities surveyed in the most recent census (conducted in 2008), though nearly half of the 81,015 youth covered by that census resided in facilities holding more than 100 residents.⁵ While state or local governments operate many facilities (and most large facilities), more than half of juvenile facilities are private.⁶ Private facilities housed 31 percent of youth in residential placement in 2008⁷, though states vary widely in the degree to which they use privately operated facilities. Several states used private facilities for less than 10 percent of individuals in residential placement in 2007, but many states relied quite heavily on private facilities, placing as many as 70 percent of young people in them.⁸

Facilities vary widely in their degree of security, with larger facilities typically providing more security features. Detention and security practices vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.⁹ A youth who is committed to a group home in one jurisdiction might be committed to a locked juvenile correctional center in another jurisdiction.

Facilities also vary widely in the way they provide services to youth. Since the degree to which youth receive services prior to release depends largely on the practices and procedures at individual facilities, facility administrators are essential partners in the development of a juvenile reentry strategy.

Q: What are the characteristics of youth held in out-of-home placement facilities?

A: Approximately 100,000 youth under the age of 18 leave secure residential facilities annually, according to a 2004 report (based on data collected in 1999).¹⁰ In 2006, 86 percent of youth in custody were male, and 14 percent were female.¹¹ 35 percent were white, 32 percent were black, and 24 percent were Hispanic.¹² Half of the youth in custody in 2006 were ages 16 and 17.¹³

For 43 percent of youth surveyed in 2006, "person offenses," including robbery and assault, were the most serious offense leading to their current placement.¹⁴ 26 percent were held for property offenses; 10 percent were held for drug offenses, and 10 percent were held for status offenses. A majority of youth are adjudicated for multiple offenses. Of the youth in placement surveyed in 2006, 31 percent reported that they were being held for just one offense; 33 percent reported that they were currently being held for two or three offenses, and 34 percent were held for four or more offenses. For three percent of youth surveyed in 2006, a technical violation was the most serious charge leading to their current placement. Among youth surveyed in 2006, 57 percent indicated that person offenses were their most serious career offense.¹⁵ Of those youth who committed person offenses, 69 percent indicated they knew their victims.¹⁶

Q: How long do youth remain in out-of-home placement facilities?

A: While lengths of stay vary significantly from state to state and facility to facility, the majority of youth nationally are in out-of-home placement facilities for more than 90 days. In a study that looked at data from 2007, 80 percent of committed youth had been in the facility for at least 30 days, 68 percent for at least 60 days, and 57 percent for at least 90 days. 12 percent had been in the facility for over a year.¹⁷ This likely underestimates the actual time a youth spends in placement, as this study looked at the length of time a youth stayed at a particular placement, and didn't account for the fact that youth are frequently transferred between placement facilities. (According to the 2003 Survey of Youth in Residential Placement, 62 percent of committed youth indicated they had at least one prior commitment.¹⁸)

While some youth are committed to out-of-home placement for a set length of time, it is much more common for juveniles to be committed to placement for an indeterminate length of time, with release dependent on achieving specified goals. In that case, the decision to release a youth is typically made by the juvenile court judge or the executive branch agency that oversees the juvenile correctional system, usually with input from facility staff and the youth's probation officer. Because the majority of youth return from out-of-home placement after relatively short stays, and because youth may be released with little or no advance notice, it is crucial that reentry planning for youth begin as early as possible - at the time of commitment, if possible - and that the youth's reentry or transition plan is aligned with the services and interventions the youth receives while in placement.

Q: What behavioral health conditions do youth in the juvenile justice system face?

A: Like adults in the criminal justice system, youth in the juvenile justice system experience high rates of mental illness and substance use disorders as well as co-occurrences of the two. While studies have found varying rates depending on the juvenile justice population studied, studies have consistently found that 60 to 70 percent of youth in secure juvenile justice facilities met criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder, and approximately half of youth in secure facilities meet the criteria for a substance use disorder.¹⁹

2011 SCA Conference Session: Best Practices in Behavioral Health Interventions for Justice-Involved Juveniles.

According to a 2002 study of youth held at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center, the largest juvenile detention facility in the country, 66 percent of boys and 74 percent of girls met the criteria for at least one psychiatric disorder.²⁰ Half of male juvenile detainees and nearly half of female detainees met criteria for a substance use disorder.²¹ Of youth who met the criteria for a psychiatric disorder, about two-thirds met criteria for more than one disorder.²² A 2003 study of the same population found that co-occurring disorders are particularly prevalent among youth with a major mental disorder, such as psychosis, manic episode, and major depressive episode: nearly three-fifths of females and almost three-quarters of males with a major mental disorder also had a substance use disorder.²³

Similarly, a study conducted by the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice of youth in Louisiana, Texas, and Washington, published in 2006, found that 70% of youth in the juvenile justice system met criteria for at least one mental health disorder.²⁴ 79 percent of youth who met criteria for at least one mental health disorder met the criteria for at least two disorders, and 60 percent met criteria for a substance use disorder.²⁵

Generally, research indicates that the prevalence of mental illness and substance use disorders increases as youth move deeper into the juvenile justice system, with the highest prevalence rates found among youth in long-term secure placement. A national study published in 2010 found that 35 percent of youth at intake were diagnosed with any type of mental health or substance use disorder, whereas 59 percent of youth in detention and 64 percent of youth in secure post-adjudication placements suffered from a mental health and/or substance use disorder.²⁶

Youth in the juvenile justice system are also at great risk of HIV-AIDS, irrespective of gender, age, or psychiatric disorder. Youth with substance use disorders are at particular risk.²⁷

Q: What are the educational characteristics of committed youth?

A: Many committed youth are disconnected from school. More than half of youth in secure placements have not completed the eighth grade and two-thirds of those leaving formal custody do not return to school.²⁸ 21 percent of youth in custody in 2003 were not enrolled in school prior to entering placement, and 48 percent functioned below the grade level appropriate for their age.²⁹ Furthermore, many delinquent youth are developmentally behind their peers, and are more likely to have learning disabilities.³⁰ 30 percent of youth in custody in 2003 reported that they had been diagnosed with a learning disability.³¹ One study estimates that as many as 70 percent of youth involved in the juvenile justice system have learning disabilities.³²

Q: What obstacles may arise to reconnecting youth to school after an out-of-home placement?

A: Educational continuity is essential to keeping youth engaged in school; it is difficult to hold a youth's attention and develop his or her skills and knowledge when he or she repeats or misses lessons, segments, or entire years of instruction. Youth reentry programs, particularly those working with younger juveniles, should work to address the barriers that may disrupt a youth's educational continuity to ensure that he or she remains in or reconnects to school.

Each time a youth moves in and out of placement, or between placements, he or she faces the risk that school records, including any record of prior achievements or special education needs, will be lost or not recognized. Record transfer issues that result in delaying a youth's admission to school or failing to recognize prior coursework are likely to be particularly detrimental to those youth who are already uninterested in or discouraged from continuing their education.

Frequently, problems with record transfer reflect a lack of cross-system coordination between juvenile justice agencies and public school systems. Probation officers, caseworkers, and school administrators are often unfamiliar with each other's systems.

Confusion and uncertainty about the federal and state laws pertaining to the privacy of educational records can restrict collaboration. In particular, there seems to be much confusion regarding the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Designed to limit the unauthorized disclosure of school records, agencies often cite this legislation as a reason not to transfer school records.³³ While FERPA generally requires schools to obtain written permission from parents before releasing student records, schools are authorized to release records to state and local juvenile justice authorities without parental permission when state law permits them to do so.³⁴

Schools may be wary of enrolling formerly committed youth after their return to the community for a number of different reasons. When education programs in correctional facilities do not meet the standards states require of public schools, schoolwork completed by youth in out-of-home placement may not be counted by the school toward credit completion. School administrators may be reluctant to admit youth who have been adjudged delinquent due to concerns about academic performance or disruptive behavior. Juvenile facilities release youth throughout the year, but schools may be reluctant or ill-prepared to integrate new or returning students in the middle of the school year.

Finally, it is important to recognize that youth may struggle with the transition from the far more structured environment found in many juvenile facilities to the less structured and supervised environment of a public school.

Q: How have jurisdictions successfully connected young people back to school after their out-of-home placement?

A: Partnerships between juvenile probation officials, reentry coordinators, school administrators, service providers, defense attorneys, prosecutors, judges, and other stakeholders can help identify and develop strategies to maintain youths' connections to school and reconnect youth whose ties to the education system have been severed. For example, as part of the Models for Change initiative in Pennsylvania‡, advocates developed a toolkit to help juvenile probation officers and other juvenile justice professionals plan for educational aftercare and advocate for youth's educational needs.³⁵ Juvenile justice officials in Pennsylvania also worked to improve classroom instruction in out-of-home placement facilities and to align institutional classroom curricula with state standards.³⁶

Reentry teams should include school officials in order to ease the maintenance and transfer of records. In West Virginia, state law requires that the local school principal receive a copy of the reentry plan 45 days prior to a youth's release (the youth's parent, defense attorney, prosecutor, probation officer, and case manager also receive copies).³⁷ In Florida, state law requires that the committed youth's home school district maintains his or her school records even while in an out-of-home placement. In 2004, New York City adopted a "dual enrollment" or "shared instruction" system to ensure adjudicated youth remain enrolled during placement.³⁸

Juvenile justice authorities can also work with school districts to develop standardized or electronic record systems to help maintain and easily transfer records§. Several states have passed laws requiring that records are transferred within a set time period. Massachusetts requires correctional education programs to use a Universal Student Transcript to ensure schools receive the information they need to assess a youth's educational record.³⁹

Q: How can the reentry process ensure that youth who are not enrolling in school after release, or are close to the completion of their education, are well-equipped to enter the job market?

A: While juvenile justice systems must focus on the educational issues noted above, for older youth the time spent in out-of-home placement provides an opportunity to also develop marketable skills that will improve his or her employability, reduce the likelihood of recidivism, and help the youth transition to adulthood. However, to be effective, it is essential that the employment programs in which youth participate while in out-of-home placement are connected to employment and training opportunities that will be available to them after release.

In developing facility-based employment programs, juvenile justice agencies should develop relationships with local workforce development agencies and community-based vocational education programs, such as local community colleges, which are often knowledgeable about the needs of local employers and the demand for particular credentials and skills**. Employment programs for committed youth should help prepare them for the job market in the community to which they will return, and, when appropriate, lead to the development of certifiable skills or credentials that are valued by local employers. It is incumbent on the juvenile justice authorities to ensure that employment programs in the facility are relevant and beneficial to youth when they return home. Facilities should look for opportunities for youth to meet employers and develop interview skills prior to release, utilizing communications technology when necessary to connect youth with employers in the community to which the youth will return. Employment programs for committed youth should also support the development of job retention skills, such as communication, anger management, patience, and similar skills necessary in a work environment.

Juvenile reentry programs should build on the skills learned in these classes by helping youth develop connections to employers. Workforce development agencies and community colleges can often provide youth with access to employment resources available in the community after release, and may be willing to create programs or set aside slots in existing programs specifically for justice-involved youth. Reentry programs may wish to designate a staff member who will serve as an employment coordinator and cultivate relationships with local employers on behalf of program youth.

Q: Why is it important to involve a youth's family in reentry planning, and how can reentry programs do it?

A: The support and protection of parents, family members, and caring adults is essential for any child, especially children in trouble with the law. The experience of being committed to an out-of-home placement facility can be especially traumatic, as it may sever existing relationships and requires that the youth adjust to a new and often foreign system of rules and requirements. Regardless of whether a youth returns to the care of a family member, foster parent, or group home, the presence or absence of family support will play a significant role in his or her development.

Some families are well equipped to support a youth in an out-of-home placement, while others are less well equipped to do so. Juvenile justice agencies and their partners should use the time a child spends in out-of-home placement to strengthen relationships between committed youth and their families and build a network of pro-social support for the youth. Officials should identify and cultivate family support from the time a youth is committed. Along those lines, facility officials should encourage family members to visit youth during their placement, and work with facilities to facilitate visitation (particularly when youth are placed in facilities far from home). Facilities and supervision staff should also utilize new communications technology, such as videoconferencing, to keep youth connected to family members.

Family-focused interventions should be included among the menu of cognitive-behavioral interventions that are available to caseworkers and supervision officers (see the question below on cognitive behavioral interventions). Family members should be involved in the creation of the transition or reentry plan for their youth, and consulted regularly throughout the reentry process.

Similarly, officials must address negative influences by teaching the young person how best to handle conflict, temptation, negative pressures, and impulsiveness, some of which may be associated with family and community influences. Since the pressure to handle difficult circumstances is likely to increase when youth return to their families and communities, it is essential that officials working with the youth help develop his or her pro-social support and skills.

While a youth's immediate family members are often the primary and most important group to engage in reentry, caseworkers and supervision officers should also work with youth to identify and engage extended family members and other caring adults (such as a volunteer mentor). These extended or non-familial supports are particularly crucial to cultivate for those youth who will be returning from out-of-home placement without the support of immediate family members.

Q: What are the elements of effective youth mentoring programs?

A: Mentoring provides an opportunity for youth to develop a supportive relationship with a caring adult. This can be particularly beneficial to youth returning from out-of-home placement, who have spent time removed from parents, family members, and other traditionally supportive adults. Mentoring can make a significant difference to those youth in the juvenile justice system who lack supportive adults in their lives.

The limited research on mentoring for justice-involved youth suggests that effective mentoring programs share the following features:

• A thorough volunteer screening process should focus first and foremost on ensuring the safety of youth, and secondarily on ensuring that selected mentors are committed to putting the time and effort into developing a mentoring relationship that will last at least one year.
• Mentors should receive at least eight hours of training when they are first recruited, and training should continue on a monthly basis throughout the duration of their involvement.
• Regular contact between the mentor and mentee is important. Mentors should spend at least an hour a week with a mentee.
• Mentors should be matched with youth on the basis of the needs and interests of the youth.
• Program staff should supervise, and have regular contact with, mentors throughout the duration of the mentoring relationship. Mentors should have a designated point of contact whom they can reach in case of emergency.
• Participation in mentoring programs should be optional.
• Mentoring should be informed by a youth's risk factors and build upon a youth's strengths (see the question below on tapping into a youth's strengths).
• Mentoring should not be considered a substitute for case management, but should be integrated as an additional component of a youth's transition plan.
• Mentors and mentees should be matched on the basis of common interests.
• Programs should be sensitive to cultural and gender differences.⁴⁰

Mentor training should attend to the special challenges that arise when working with incarcerated and at-risk youth. Mentoring programs that work with youth while they are in out-of-home placement need to be particularly sensitive to the rules and challenges that attend working within a correctional facility, where the safety of staff, visitors, and residents is paramount. While incarcerated, youth will only be available at certain times and for certain activities. Youth may be moved between facilities, and their ability to contact people outside their facility may vary over time.

Given the high prevalence of learning disabilities and behavioral and emotional disorders within the juvenile justice population, mentors also require training and ongoing support to help them identify and respond to those challenges as well.

Finally, it is essential that mentoring programs establish and track outcomes. Recidivism rates are one of several important outcomes to track when working with justice-involved youth. Mentoring programs also benefit from tracking mentor and participant satisfaction, retention rates, and academic and behavioral improvement.

Q: How should the child welfare and foster care systems be involved in reentry?

2011 SCA Conference Session: Reentry in the Context of Transitioning to Adulthood.

A: "Crossover youth"-juvenile justice-involved youth who have experienced abuse or neglect (and "cross over" between the juvenile justice and child welfare systems)-face particularly daunting reentry challenges*. They are typically younger at the time of their first arrest, commit more offenses, and are arrested more often.⁴¹ Crossover youth typically remain in the child welfare system longer than other youth; most have been removed from their own homes and many experience multiple placements.⁴² They are more likely to have poor school attendance and performance records.⁴³ When they come before juvenile justice authorities, they are more likely to be viewed as high risk and receive harsher dispositions.⁴⁴ Girls and youth of color are overrepresented in the crossover youth population.⁴⁵

There is limited research on best practices for working with crossover youth. However, there is extensive research on working with youth in the child welfare system and juvenile justice system from which practitioners can draw. In many ways, research on the two populations has identified similar practices that contribute to positive outcomes for both, such as case management, the use of assessments to identify needs and assign services, and the importance of helping youth transition not just out of the system but into a healthy, productive adulthood.⁴⁶

Prior to the release of a crossover youth from a juvenile justice commitment, juvenile justice authorities must collaborate with child welfare authorities to ensure that appropriate services and resources are provided in a coordinated manner. The two systems should come to an agreement on how cases are assigned, assessments are conducted, case plans are put together, and youth are supervised†.

Because crossover youth are less likely to receive support from family upon release from their juvenile justice commitment, both child welfare social workers and juvenile justice case workers must focus not just on transitioning crossover youth out of the system, but helping them build the foundation of a healthy adulthood.⁴⁷ This should include extended searches for family members and other caring adults who can be supportive during the reentry process and into emerging adulthood. Because of the overrepresentation of crossover girls and youth of color, gender-responsive and culturally competent strategies are particularly important with this population.

Q: Why should interventions be individualized and culturally competent?

A: Research shows that interventions are most effective when tailored for each individual.⁴⁸ Professionals and volunteers who work with youth should receive cultural competency training to increase their ability to relate to youth and their families. Attending to a young person's race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, and sexual orientation reduces his or her resistance to learning the skills associated with making pro-social, crime-free choices and improves long-term outcomes.

When working with youth, it is also important to consider their cognitive development and emotional maturity. Research indicates that the adolescent brain changes considerably between ages 10 and 18 in ways that have enormous implications for behavior. Before or during early adolescence (12-14 years old), most youth experience major improvements in basic information processing and logical reasoning.⁴⁹ At the same time, changes in the brain make youth particularly sensitive to rewards. However, the cognitive development that enables youth to weigh risks and rewards, plan ahead, and evaluate options typically doesn't occur until late adolescence (e.g., around age 18) or later.

Research indicates that youth involved in the juvenile justice system are more likely to have experienced trauma prior to their involvement. Juvenile justice-involved girls are particularly likely to have experienced trauma. Research also suggests that experiencing trauma may interrupt cognitive development, at least for some children, and increase the likelihood of psychological impairment. For this reason, it is important to utilize screening and assessment tools that identify trauma, and integrate trauma-informed care into juvenile justice practices and programs.⁵⁰

Q: How do you ensure that your assessment and classification processes contribute to successful juvenile reentry?

A: By the time a young person is committed to an out-of-home placement, he or she should have received one or more formal assessment(s) that gauge(s) his or her risks and needs. The assessment should identify the youth's criminogenic risks, which are elements of his or her history or personality that indicate the youth is likely to reoffend in the future. Criminogenic risks include aspects of the youth's history that are "static," or unchangeable-such as age, gender, and history of offending; as well as those aspects of the youth's personality that are "dynamic," or open to change-such as antisocial attitudes, poor critical thinking skills, negative family and peer groups, disciplinary problems in school, and substance abuse.⁵¹ Officials should use a youth's risk assessment to determine whether out-of-home placement is necessary and if so to place him or her in a specific facility, develop his or her treatment plan, and design his or her reentry plan.

The information generated by an assessment tool must be regularly compared to the population on which it is being used to ensure that it is accurately predicting risk. In a process known as "validation," researchers compare the risk assessment scores of youth with their actual recidivism rates to determine whether youth are reoffending at the rate predicted by their risk level. Since every jurisdiction and population is different, risk assessment tools should be validated by comparison to the specific population.

Since assessments are conducted by juvenile justice staff, the interaction between staff and youth can potentially impact the results of the assessment. It is essential that staff receive training and support on the use of the assessment tool, and that assessment results are compared across staff to ensure staff are rating similar youth similarly. The results of a screening or assessment instrument can be inaccurate if it is too subjective, not validated, or insufficiently guided by reliable and clear guidelines and definitions. Assessments that are inaccurate or not conducted properly by qualified individuals can result in confusion, inefficiency, and even harm.

Since youth continue to grow and change throughout placement and reentry, it is essential that they are reassessed at regular intervals, to ensure treatment, programming, and supervision strategies match the youth's current risk and need levels. Many juvenile justice systems and programs administer several different screening or assessment tools at the same time to ensure they fully capture each youth's need for services. Both practices can help contribute to well-developed treatment and reentry plans and effective supervision strategies. However, it is counterproductive to subject youth to duplicative assessments or assessments that are not tied to their supervision, reentry plans, and services. Multiple assessments should only be conducted when necessary to provide more information or to establish whether a change has occurred that will impact the reentry planning and services and supports that will be needed. Since some of these assessments may be prompted by other systems (e.g., schools or child welfare agencies), close coordination is required.

Q: What responses are appropriate for youth who are at low risk of reoffending but have a high need for services and supports?

A: Some young people reentering the community are at low risk for reoffending, but fall into a high need diagnostic category. Research indicates that low- and moderate-risk youth are poorly served by out-of-home placement; accordingly, placement in secure facilities should be reserved for youth at the highest risk of reoffending.⁵² However, low-risk, high-need youth may end up in out-of-home placement either because their needs exceed the treatment capacity in their community, or because of the severity of their offense (which does not necessarily indicate they are at high risk of committing a new offense).

Consequently, there are youth released into the community who require little-to-no community supervision but may still be subject to stringent release conditions, the violation of which can result in a revocation and re-incarceration based on a technical violation of the terms of their supervision. Youth with high needs who are at lower risk for re-offending should have the lowest level of supervision, fewer release conditions, and a level of services commensurate with the extent and nature of their diagnosed needs.

Q: How do you design programming that taps into a youth's strengths?

2011 SCA Conference Session: Juvenile Reentry in the Context of Adolescent Brain Development.

A: Young people involved with the juvenile justice system are at higher risk of criminal activity than the young population overall, and they are more likely to have specialized needs (such as mental health and substance abuse treatment needs). However, while ameliorating their risks and needs is a top priority, those working with justice-involved youth should not further stigmatize or ostracize them by focusing solely on their deficits or disadvantages.

A growing body of research is identifying those strengths, or "protective factors," that can mediate or moderate a youth's risk factors and reduce the likelihood of criminal behavior, such as supportive relationships with caring adults or recognition for involvement in pro-social activities.⁵³ The reentry process provides an excellent opportunity to nurture a youth's strengths. Different populations will have different protective factors, and every youth will have different strengths. Staff in corrections and community-based programs should identify, recognize, and encourage youth's strengths while they work to reduce the risk of reoffending. Staff should look for opportunities to integrate the principles of what researchers call "positive youth development" into their programs and supervision of youth. Positive youth development emphasizes the development of youths' competencies, connections to their community, and active citizenship.⁵⁴

Q: Why are cognitive-behavioral interventions important?

A: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a type of psychotherapeutic approach that emphasizes the impact of how we think and feel on what we do. CBT programs are increasingly offered in correctional settings and by community-based providers who work with juvenile justice-involved populations. The programs target criminal thinking and criminogenic risk factors in a way that promotes improved behavior and decision making. CBT recognizes the important nexus between an individual's thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and behaviors; it is predicated on the idea that our thoughts-rather than external factors such as other people, situations, and events-are the root cause of our feelings and behaviors.

There is a substantial body of evidence pointing to the value of using CBT with young offenders. CBT can help individuals develop new skills and ways of approaching their problems that will lead to different and improved outcomes. It can help the youth manage anger, assume personal responsibility for his or her behavior, solve problems, set goals, and acquire coping and life skills.

When integrated into a coordinated case plan, CBT can help facilities focus on what will happen to the youth after release. There is no question that safety, security, and behavior management are crucial to the operation of a correctional facility. However, what is takes for a young individual to succeed in confinement-namely, compliance with rules and requirements-may not be what it takes to succeed in the community‡. For this reason, interventions should be geared towards preparing the youth to manage his or her behavior through self-control and improved decision-making rather than a simple fear of consequences. Instructors in cognitive-based interventions should seek to promote and build upon youth's strengths (see question below on tapping into a youth's strengths).

Q: Why are incentives and graduated sanctions important?

A: Research on adolescent brain development indicates that youth enter the juvenile justice system at a crucial time for their cognitive development. While youth typically become very responsive to rewards early in adolescence, they often lack the ability to think critically about risks, weigh consequences, and prioritize future goals over immediate satisfaction until later in adolescence.

Incentives and graduated sanctions offer out-of-home placement facilities and community supervision agencies a critical tool to manage behavior and hold juvenile delinquents accountable for their actions, both positive and negative. Particularly when used in combination with cognitive-behavioral interventions, graduated responses also help youth learn to better weigh the risks and rewards that attend their actions and moderate their behavior to achieve their goals. Teaching youth to follow a set of rules is not a suitable substitute for encouraging a youth to take responsibility for his or her actions. Incentivizing positive behavior and punishing negative behavior with a range of responses can help support the juvenile justice system's efforts to promote greater responsibility.

Once a young person has returned to the community and is under the supervision of a juvenile community corrections agency, graduated responses offer probation or parole officers a means to encourage compliance and deter technical violations. Greater use of incentives to encourage compliance and graduated sanctions short of revocation can help manage behavior and avoid the unnecessary use of expensive and potentially harmful incarceration.

Q: What role do judges play in juvenile reentry?

A: The role judges play in juvenile reentry varies depending on whether the juvenile supervision agency in their jurisdiction is part of the judicial branch or the executive branch. In some parts of the country, judges review the reentry or transition plans of each reentering youth and make the decision whether youth will be released from out-of-home placement. In other parts of the country, judges are unlikely to see a youth after initial disposition unless the youth violates probation. In some places, state law specifically requires judges to coordinate some aspect of juvenile reentry (such as school reenrollment).

When making the decision to commit a youth to out-of-home placement, judges should balance the competing priorities of responding to the individual youth's risks and needs with maintaining his or her connections to home. This responsibility is even greater for those judges who monitor youth after disposition.

Judges can encourage effective reentry practices at the time of disposition by encouraging collaboration and information sharing, to the extent feasible, between the court, the juvenile corrections agency, law enforcement, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and family members. Judges can also recommend specific conditions or treatment plans for youth that reflect the youth's assessed risks and needs. Judges may also play a role in attempting to ensure that the reentry plan is acted upon as intended. By serving as "watchdog," judges can help ensure that the components of the plan are all put into place.

Beyond their engagement in the disposition of individual cases, judges also have a unique convening authority that enables them to bring stakeholders together to analyze the reentry challenges local youth face and develop appropriate responses. At the same time, judges and other court-based professionals can help garner support for reentry initiatives among media and executive and legislative branch officials and build momentum for reform. Judges' reputations for impartiality and prosecutors' for fairly enforcing the law lend them a degree of credibility when calling for resources for additional capacity, including new evidence-based programs.