But there is more to accountability than that. In juvenile justice circles, the term in recent years has become increasingly associated with the "balanced approach" to juvenile court/probation practice, under which, in addition to protecting public safety and rehabilitating offenders, the juvenile justice system must "respond to illegal behavior in such a way that the offender is made aware of and responsible for the loss, damage, or injury perpetrated upon the victim" (Maloney, Romig, and Armstrong, 1988). It is necessary but not sufficient, in other words, that wrongdoers be "called to account" for their wrongs. Additionally, they should be made to recognize what they have done and feel the obligation that arises from their behavior.

A community-based sanctioning program promotes accountability more effectively than one that is conceived, designed, and operated elsewhere because it tends to strengthen rather than sever the damaged bonds between the offender and the victimized community. Indeed, this potential benefit is recognized in the implementing legislation for the JAIBG program, in which Congress included a special authorization for the use of grant funds to contract with private, nonprofit entities and community-based organizations to provide accountability-based sanction programs and services.

A system of sanctions cannot effectively hold juvenile offenders accountable unless it is swift, sure, coherent, and consistent. As a practical matter, that calls for a continuum of sanctions that are appropriate for different kinds of offenders and offenses. Along that continuum, sanctions must be graduated -- that is, they must escalate as offenses recur and become more serious. Accordingly, in issuing guidelines regarding "policies and programs that ensure that juveniles are subject to accountability-based sanctions for every act for which they are adjudicated delinquent" (for purposes of determining State eligibility for receiving an accountability-based sanctions formula grants award under the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended), OJJDP has indicated the following:

The notion of accountability-based sanctions is captured within a system of graduated sanctions . . . . A model graduated sanctions system includes the following:

• Immediate sanctions within the community for first-time, nonviolent offenders.

• Intermediate sanctions within the community for more serious offenders.

• Secure care programs for the most serious or violent offenders.

• Aftercare programs that provide high levels of social control and treatment services.

Juvenile offenders should move along the continuum through a well-structured system of phases that addresses both their needs and the safety of the community. At each level of the continuum, offenders should be subject to more restrictive sanctions if they continue in their delinquent activities (Wilson and Howell, 1993).

The above graduated sanctions approach, in combination with an array of prevention and risk/needs assessment strategies, makes up OJJDP's Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Comprehensive Strategy). First set forth in a 1993 publication of the same name and further elaborated on 2 years later in OJJDP's Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders (Howell, 1995), the Comprehensive Strategy provides basic guidelines for establishing a continuum of prevention, early intervention, and graduated sanctions programs that are research based, data driven, and outcome focused. OJJDP provides strategic planning assistance to its Comprehensive Strategy sites through a partnership with the National Council on Crime and Delinquency and Developmental Research and Programs, Inc., reviewing current trends, strategies, and outcomes and delivering up-to-date information on prevention and graduated sanctions to training and technical assistance recipients.

An accountability-based juvenile justice system, then, would be one in which sanctions are (1) surely, swiftly, and consistently attached to wrongdoing; (2) imposed with the goal of repairing harm to individual victims and the community to the greatest extent possible and, more generally, with an eye to teaching, reforming, and reconciling as part of an individualized treatment plan; (3) perceived to proceed when possible from the community in which the juvenile offender lives; (4) flexible and diverse enough to fit a variety of situations and types of offenders; (5) sufficiently graduated to respond appropriately to each succeeding offense; and (6) effective in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders.

In this broader view, "accountability" embraces community, system, and individual accountability. A real commitment to meaningful, appropriate, flexible, and consistent sanctioning, after all, imposes a whole new set of expectations and demands not only on the offender but also on the juvenile justice system.

It imposes, above all, the obligation for the system to hold itself responsible for outcomes; to develop the means to track juveniles through the system effectively; to give system practitioners appropriate access to up-to-date information about offenders' backgrounds, court involvement, treatment received, and current obligations; to monitor program performance, costs, and recidivism rates; and to devise a carefully calibrated continuum of responses to juvenile crime. For the community, accountability means an end to "exporting" delinquent children to outside institutions -- and the beginning of accepting a share of the responsibility for supervising, teaching, and supporting development of needed social competence.