NCJ Number
189680
Journal
Corrections Management Quarterly Volume: 5 Issue: 3 Dated: Summer 2001 Pages: 72-88
Editor(s)
Stephanie Neuben
Date Published
2001
Length
17 pages
Annotation
This article described the Intensive Aftercare Program model, explored the reasoning and research underlying the specification of required components in its design, illustrated some implementation options, and pointed to some of the next steps for the IAP initiative.
Abstract
This article described the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model, its components and implementation options, and what some of the next steps might be. The IAP was explicitly designed to address two acknowledged deficiencies of institutional corrections systems: (1) institutional confinement does not adequately prepare youth for return to the community where at least part of the problem has its origins and continues to reside, and (2) lessons and skills learned in confinement are not systematically monitored or reinforced on the “outside.” Five principles underline the IAP model and establish the fundamental reintegrative mission from which the elements, components, and services emerge: (1) preparing juveniles for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community; (2) facilitating juvenile-community interactions and involvement; (3) working with juvenile offenders and community support systems on qualities needed for constructive interaction and successful community adjustment; (4) developing new resources and supports where needed; and (5) monitoring and testing the juveniles and community on their ability to handle each other productively. The targeted population is those juveniles who pose the highest risk of becoming repeat offenders. An overarching case management element was the core of the IAP model which included five program components that established the process used to identify the appropriate offenders. Implementing the IAP model requires alliances and partnership among departments, agencies, and organizational interests not ordinarily accustomed to working with one another. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) demonstration phase of the IAP initiative was concluded in Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia in June 2000. A key direction that emerged for follow up activities promoting the IAP approach was to develop a clearinghouse responding to requests nationwide, as well as provisions for technical assistance. In providing information and technical assistance, IAP staff members were conducting a national survey of intensive juvenile aftercare practice. As of this report, only the first phase of the three-tier survey was completed. Gaps within the aftercare continuum were seen as prominent in several areas: (1) there was minimal contact between aftercare workers and other community-based agencies and the youth; (2) little was being done in developing formal multi-agency collaborations to work jointly with youth in aftercare; and (3) despite major advancements in technology assessment, many systems had not deployed state of the art screening and assessment tools. Tables and references