Approaches Used by States To Effect Systems Change

Each year, States choose to develop, adopt, or improve policies and programs in 1 or more of the 10 State Challenge Activity areas. From FY 1995 to 1998, most States chose two areas each year (with the range being from one to five). During that 4-year period, States chose a total of 465 activities in the 10 areas. Table 1 shows how often each of the Challenge Activity areas was chosen by participating States during this 4-year period. As reflected in table 1, the 3 most commonly selected Challenge Activity areas were E (representing 19 percent or 88 of the 465 total selections by States from 1995–98), C (18 percent), and I (17 percent). Twelve States and one territory chose the same areas during each of the 4 years; the rest dropped or added one or more areas from one year to the next.

Under the different Challenge areas, a multitude of programs have been implemented. Some affect a relatively small number of youth and families. On the other hand, many States have used the unique opportunities presented by State Challenge funds to effect far-reaching systemic changes in State juvenile justice systems. In spring 1998, OJJDP invited States to submit descriptions and products (e.g., publications, agreements, training materials) of their Challenge efforts. The submissions were used to develop a compendium of resources on State Challenge Activities that appears at the end of this Bulletin.

Themes of Systems Change Efforts

Twenty-four States and one territory responded to OJJDP's request, and 11 different themes of systems change efforts emerged from an analysis of the descriptions and materials submitted. The themes are presented below—not as an exhaustive list of every attempted or conceivable Challenge effort but as an illustration of the wide variety of systems change approaches adopted to date. States are encouraged to consider these themes and the examples described under each as they undertake continuing efforts to improve their juvenile justice systems.

1. Use data to produce policy changes and legislative reforms.

As discussed above, systems change needs to be data driven. Examples of State Challenge Activities reflecting this theme follow.

In December 1994, the Virginia Mental Health Policy Design Team issued a report titled Mental Health Needs of Youth in Virginia's Juvenile Detention Center. This report included a 1-day census of the mental health status of all youth in Virginia's secure juvenile detention facilities and a series of recommendations for improving mental health services for youth in the juvenile justice system. Through the use of Challenge Activity A (Basic System Services) funds granted to the University of Virginia, Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy, Virginia has been able to implement the report's recommendations. For example, since July 1, 1996, detention facilities in Virginia have been required by State law to ascertain the mental health status of detained youth and obtain assessments of certain youth within 24 hours of admission. In 1997, the General Assembly mandated a study to develop a plan for the delivery of services to juvenile justice populations in the community. In 1998, Virginia's General Assembly clarified the funding mechanism for State payments for mental health evaluations of juveniles in detention. The Institute will continue to use Challenge funds to study and evaluate policy issues pertinent to the provision of adequate mental health care to youth in the juvenile justice system.

Using Activity C (Community-Based Alternatives) funds, North Carolina convened a research team from Duke University and North Carolina State University to identify and describe alternatives to detention, evaluate each program's effectiveness, determine the components contributing to each program's success, evaluate the programs, design a model home-based "behavior control" program, pilot the model in selected urban and rural sites, and develop objective criteria for secure confinement of juveniles. As of June 1998, the research team had completed an analysis of 1995 and 1996 data on nearly 2,000 juvenile admissions in the State's 19 juvenile court districts. The analysis addressed admitted youth's demographics, juvenile court histories, alternatives-to-detention program experiences, and offense recidivism. Outstanding alternative-to-detention program features were compiled from qualitative studies of the programs. The team's report, Alternatives to Detention Study, supports North Carolina's need for specially trained detention staff and community resources dedicated to providing intensive community-based supervision of juvenile offenders. The findings of the report led to 18 recommendations that were first presented to the North Carolina General Assembly in the 1998 legislative session as part of the Governor's Juvenile Justice Reform Act. Among the recommendations were creation of the Office of Juvenile Justice, development of Juvenile Crime Prevention Councils in all 100 counties in the State, and mandatory minority sensitivity training for professionals and law enforcement. The bill was ratified and then implemented in stages between January and July 1999. Another legislative reform package will be presented to the North Carolina General Assembly during the 2000 legislative session to clarify statutes that need amending based on the State's experience implementing the 1999 Juvenile Justice Reform Act. Through these activities, North Carolina has engaged in a remarkable and ongoing systems change effort.

2. Use research to guide reforms in service delivery.

Thoughtful service delivery reforms are guided by research rather than ideology alone.

Through the use of Activity H (Alternatives to School Suspension and Expulsion) funds, Florida examined specific components of 11 programs that provide alternatives to school suspension and expulsion to determine which were consistently associated with program success. To carry out this effort, a graduate student recruited through the Florida Inter-University Consortium for Child, Family, and Community Studies collected data and conducted interviews on topics such as program implementation and services, staffing, target population, community involvement, data collection, and staff and participant satisfaction. The Florida Department of Juvenile Justice plans to use findings from this project to provide funding opportunities for model alternatives to suspension and expulsion. Other States may want to copy Florida's use of graduate students to conduct program evaluation and other research, which is a cost-effective way to conduct research to guide system change.

New Jersey has also used research to guide reforms in service delivery. Using Activity C (Community-Based Alternatives) funds, New Jersey is undertaking a Detention Reform Project to improve juvenile detention statewide with a particular focus on reducing overcrowding in detention facilities. Under the guidance of a Detention Reform Task Force and through indepth structured interviews and surveys, this project has collected data on detention admissions (including risk assessment), length of stay in detention (including system processing inefficiencies and barriers to timely release), and detention alternatives. The report, Detention Reform Project Final Report (April 1999), will be used to provide technical assistance to counties as they reform detention policies and practices. The impact is documented in the Report on Implementation Activities and System Change. The project also produced the National Detention Alternative Handbook in April 1999, which identifies 140 existing detention alternative programs nationwide.

3. Increase public awareness and professional competence through training conferences, publications, and technical assistance.

Another recurrent theme among State Challenge Activities is the support of projects designed to increase public awareness and professional competence through training, conferences, publications, and technical assistance. This approach is particularly effective when participants are able to agree on a shared philosophy for juvenile justice. One example of the approach is cross-training, which involves different groups (such as police, probation, and mental health staff) training one another. Although examples of this kind were not highlighted in the States' submissions, most training and public information efforts have targeted multidisciplinary audiences.

Under Activity E (Gender-Specific Policies and Programs), Colorado created and continues to fund the Girls Equitable Treatment Coalition (E.T.C.), a State Advisory Group subcommittee that oversees policy and program development for female juvenile offenders. To draw attention to the needs of this population, Girls E.T.C. sponsored six regional workshops in 1997 and a statewide conference in 1998 for juvenile justice professionals and community-based organizations. The group also developed Making the System Work for Young Women (a stepdown file pocket folder that includes information on resource organizations and successful juvenile programs, a bibliography of publications on female juvenile offenders, and other guidance for legislators, educators, and parents) and Girls E.T.C. Guidelines for Juvenile Female-Specific Programs (a publication based on research and literature and distributed to agency directors throughout Colorado). Gender-specific training is also offered through Girls E.T.C. at professional conferences and at agencies. A 2-hour interactive video on gender training, Girls E.T.C. Gender Training, is available in a set of two videocassettes. This video training prevents skills loss resulting from program staff turnover by enabling new employees to become knowledgeable about gender-specific issues through the recorded training materials.

Missouri's and Hawaii's State Challenge activities have also included the use of training, conferences, and publications to draw attention to gender-specific issues. Missouri sponsored regional focus groups to assess early identification and other services for females prior to juvenile court involvement. As a result of these focus groups, the State published and disseminated the document Gender and Juvenile Justice in Missouri. A 2-day conference ("Girls are Unique") sponsored by the State attracted 200 people. A Statewide Gender Task Force has been formed to concentrate on issues related to female juvenile offenders.

The University of Hawaii Center for Youth Research has conducted research and published two reports on the needs of at-risk girls in Hawaii: Girls at Risk: An Overview of Female Delinquency in the Fiftieth State (which details Hawaii's arrest and offense trends for juveniles, presents self-reported delinquency data, and describes the status of girls in the State's juvenile justice system) and Girls at Risk: An Overview of Gender-Specific Programming Issues and Initiatives (which highlights female-specific programming issues and presents profiles and a survey of model programs of Hawaii's youth-serving agencies). These reports have been distributed and discussed at statewide conferences to heighten awareness of issues specific to female juvenile offenders, with the goal of refining programs for this population.

Under Activity E (Gender-Specific Policies and Programs), Florida initiated the Female Offender Research Project in early 1997 to provide comprehensive information on female juvenile offenders to juvenile justice planners and professionals. This project's report, Profile of Female Delinquency Cases and Youth Referred, documents the extent and nature of female juvenile offenders' involvement in Florida's juvenile justice system—from referral to disposition—for FY's 1992–96. Other documents produced by this project have been used to raise awareness of the needs of female offenders. These include Gender Differences in Empathy for Delinquent and Non-Delinquent Youths, Listen to Girls (a pamphlet describing Florida's statewide Girls Initiative and providing contact information by district offices and counties served), and Commitment Programs for Female Juvenile Offenders in Florida. Project members have also made presentations on gender issues at State and national conferences.

Ongoing staff training and technical assistance are also likely to produce sustained improvements in professional competence across agencies in the juvenile justice system. With Activity H (Alternatives to School Expulsion and Suspension) funds, Oregon's Commission on Children and Families cosponsored the Safe Communities Create Safe Schools' Third Annual School/Community Violence Prevention Summer Institute. The Commission's five cosponsors were the Oregon State Police, the Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs, the Oregon Health Division, the Oregon Department of Education, and the Oregon State University Department of Public Health. Challenge funds covered expenses for 14 county teams sent to participate in the 4-day institute. The institute has been held each year since 1996. In addition to its remarkable multiagency collaboration at the State level (as reflected by the slate of cosponsors), the institute has involved extensive collaboration at the county level (shown by followup efforts planned at the summer institute by the 14 participating county teams). County violence prevention task forces were formed, and additional Challenge Grant awards were made to allow counties to continue violence prevention training and expand available alternatives to expulsion and suspension. For example, one county created three new alternative education programs for youth who had been suspended or expelled. Three other counties provided violence prevention training for youth and adults in their communities and, most important, further developed local followup activities.

Virginia's Challenge Activities have also involved the use of technical assistance, publications, and conferences to raise public awareness. Under Activity A (Basic System Services), the University of Virginia Institute of Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy worked with the detention center superintendents in the State from June 1996 to September 1997. The institute conducted a comprehensive search of available mental health screening instruments that could be adopted or adapted for the centers' use. Based on the review of instruments, the institute selected the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI)¹ for further testing. Because MAYSI had not yet been validated, Virginia tested the instrument not only to pilot its use in Virginia but to contribute to its national validation study being conducted by Dr. Tom Grisso of the University of Massachusetts Medical School. During the same period, the institute sponsored a conference for detention center personnel on dealing with the violent juvenile in a secure facility and recommended a set of possible service delivery models to provide necessary assessments. Two reports were produced: Detention Center Consultation Project: Phase I: Mental Health Screening in Juvenile Detention Centers—Preliminary Assessment and Detention Center Consultation Project: Phase II—Mental Health Services in Detention.

The institute further examined liability issues that may arise as a result of implementing mental health screening mechanisms and procedures for evaluating and managing detained youth who have severe and urgent mental health needs. Based on conference proceedings, it developed Legal Liability of Virginia Juvenile Detention Facilities for the Mental Health Screening of Juveniles, a monograph that received statewide dissemination. A plan to provide technical assistance to local attorneys (using Challenge funds) was also developed. In 1998, Virginia entered a 2-year agreement with the University of Virginia Institute for Law, Psychiatry, and Public Policy to expand on the work begun with Challenge funds. Also funded with Challenge funds, this new project has allowed the university to hire a full-time coordinator with academic standing to coordinate all training activities related to mental health, substance abuse, and other disability issues among the juvenile offender population. The project's ultimate goal is to improve the quality of rehabilitative care for youth involved in the juvenile justice system.

4. Develop curriculums on gender-specific issues for juvenile justice personnel and service providers.

Many States have used Challenge funds to develop curriculums on gender-specific issues for juvenile justice personnel and service providers. Under Activity E (Gender-Specific Policies and Programs), Utah funded the development of a curriculum on gender-specific issues for the staff of a new 10-bed wing for female juvenile offenders. Issues addressed in the curriculum included victimization, relationship building, accessing community resources, and personal responsibility. A library with female-oriented reading materials for both staff and residents was also established at that facility. As a result of this effort, Utah's Division of Youth Corrections under the Commission for Children and Youth formed a committee to review gender-related issues and developed a plan to provide statewide training on gender-specific services. Curriculum development does not need to begin from scratch. Increased curriculum sharing among jurisdictions and building on existing high-quality curriculums are effective strategies for increasing the professional communities' sensitivity to and competence in meeting gender-specific and other needs.²

5. Develop curriculums on gender-specific issues for female offenders.

In addition to developing curriculums on gender-specific issues for juvenile justice and other service provider staff, many States are developing such curriculums for female offenders. With Activity E (Gender-Specific Policies and Programs) funds, Utah developed an 8-week curriculum to train female offenders in job readiness, job search, and gender-specific workplace issues through the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Salt Lake. The program hopes to place at least half of the participants in career-oriented positions through job bank opportunities cultivated by project staff. Utah also funded a 12-week curriculum for female offenders housed in the State's Observation and Assessment Unit on the issue of relationship violence. Such gender-specific psychoeducational curriculums, if proved effective, could be used (with few modifications) by other programs for female offenders. Curriculum sharing within and across States is a cost-effective way to enhance the juvenile justice system's ability to reach a large number of female juvenile offenders on issues unique to them.

6. Draft program regulations, policies, and/or procedures for statewide use by drawing on recent and specific program experience.

States can draw on experiences gained with new programs when drafting program regulations, policies, and procedures for statewide use.

Using this approach with Activity G (Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders), Washington State has funded two projects—Breakthrough for Runaway Girls and Oakbridge Youth Shelter. The majority of Oakbridge's participants (60 percent) are girls. Through these projects, Washington intends to develop and implement a comprehensive model program specifically geared to runaway girls. As a result of these programs, Children's Alliance, a statewide advocacy group, identified the needs of runaway youth as a high-priority public policy issue. In 1995, the legislature passed the At-Risk/Runaway Act, which provides for multidisciplinary teams to address the needs of runaways. Initially, there were no State appropriations to meet the needs described in the bill. However, in 1997, State funds were appropriated to develop and implement multidisciplinary teams to address the needs of runaway youth. As new resources became available, family group counseling, immediate in-home reconciliation and anger management counseling, and family preservation services were provided across the State.

Under Activity E (Gender-Specific Policies and Programs), the Iowa Gender-Specific Task Force used information collected in Female Juvenile Justice (a report produced by a contract research firm for the Iowa Commission on the Status of Women) when deciding to develop a desk protocol, Providing Gender-Specific Services for Adolescent Female Offenders: Guidelines and Resources. The protocol's intended audience includes Department of Human Services personnel, juvenile court officers, educators, and administrators and service providers in programs that serve girls. The protocol provides a thorough description of the gender-specific programmatic framework for creating quality gender-specific services and programs for adolescent female offenders and girls at risk. It also includes reproducible lists of supportive actions to be taken by adults who serve in various roles in girls' lives and comprehensive lists of resources, including organizations that focus on girls and gender-specific curriculums. Through statewide dissemination and conferences, the protocol has created systemic change in the way services are provided to adolescent female offenders and girls at risk.

Using Activity I (Aftercare Services) funds, Louisiana has implemented a comprehensive aftercare program for a State correctional institution. The program includes placement in a nonsecure off-campus residential facility as a transitional stage before youth's reintegration into their homes and communities. Pre-release planning and aftercare services are required. A database was established in July 1997 to track and monitor the progress of youth in aftercare (e.g., services provided, recidivism). Since that time, 27 juvenile offenders have been paroled from the correctional institution into aftercare at the residential facility. As of December 1998, three offenders had been returned to the correctional institution for running away from the residential facility, but none had committed new offenses.

This successful program experience formed the basis of modifications to the then-existing Louisiana State Department of Public Safety and Correction Regulation (No. B–02–002) regarding juvenile corrections services in the area of aftercare. Regulations and policies on intensive aftercare were added to the existing regulation. The amended regulation took effect on July 1, 1999, and Louisiana plans to implement the new regulations and policies statewide. As an outgrowth of this effort, a committee has been formed to review and possibly modify the classification system used in determining offenders' eligibility for release or parole.

Under Activity H (Alternatives to School Suspension and Expulsion), Utah funded Safe Step in the Davis County School District to diagnose behavioral and learning problems and develop effective interventions for youth excluded from school because of violations of the district's Safe School policy. Examples of violations include fighting, use of drugs, and possession of weapons. As a result of Safe Step, Davis County School District established a policy to test all court-involved youth and other students with problematic behaviors for learning disabilities and to develop individualized educational plans for these students. A core group of district teachers were trained to conduct the screening tests, and all district personnel received training on learning disabilities. During the program's first year, 44 students were tested, and 74 percent were found to have a disability. Most of these could be served in schools; only 12 percent were enrolled in home study. Davis County School District has been asked to present its model to other districts in the State.

7. Develop screening instruments to guide service planning.

Comprehensive screening procedures are essential both to determine the nature, level, and intensity of services needed by juvenile offenders and to identify critical entry points for intervention. Assessments of juveniles are most useful when done early and comprehensively. Instead of screening only for dangerousness, assessments should identify a young person's underlying emotional, educational, and other needs. Assessments may then be used to plan individualized services likely to reduce recidivism. A significant systems improvement occurs when such a comprehensive approach to screening and needs assessment is also used to guide intake, diversion, detention, probation, corrections, and aftercare decisions.

Oregon has used screening instruments to guide juvenile justice planning. In 1995, for example, the Oregon State legislature required the State's Mental Health and Developmental Disability Services Division and the Oregon Youth Authority to produce a joint report. A central recommendation of the report, Mental Health Treatment Services for Adjudicated Delinquent Youth, was to form a collaborative workgroup of mental health and juvenile justice professionals for the purpose of developing a screening tool to identify youth in the juvenile justice system in need of mental health assessment referrals. Challenge Activity A (Basic System Services) funds then supported development and validation of a mental health screening tool for juvenile offenders. The 30-item Oregon Mental Health Referral Checklist, developed by the Regional Research Institute of Portland State University, has three versions: one for juvenile justice professionals, one for youth, and one for parents. Training of juvenile department workers on use of the checklist is being planned. In addition, the Oregon Juvenile Department Directors' Association sponsored a symposium in May 1998 ("Building the Bridge Between Juvenile Justice and Mental Health") at which mental health and juvenile justice workers from counties with integrated service models shared how they had improved coordination between the two systems in their communities.

In 1994, Missouri appropriated funds to construct 200 secure beds for violent juvenile offenders. These beds could be added to either existing or newly constructed facilities, but no facility could have more than 50 beds. Challenge Activity D (Violent Juvenile Offender Facilities) was instrumental in the State's planning and drafting of policies and procedures for operating these facilities. This activity resulted in the following publications: Missouri Division of Youth Services Risk Assessment, Missouri Division of Youth Services Seriousness Scale, Missouri Division of Youth Services Placement Exception (to document why an actual placement level may be different from the placement level prescribed by the youth score and seriousness score on the first two instruments), and State of Missouri Juvenile Needs Assessment, and Staff and Site Safety (reports containing recommendations for immediate improvement in providing personal safety for staff in facilities with violent juvenile offenders). Each of these documents has the potential not only for statewide use, but also for use by other States.

Using Activity J (State Agency Coordination/Case Review System) funds, Missouri funded a case review coordinator, enabling its Office of the State Court Administrator to develop a standardized risk assessment tool, length of stay guidelines for committed youth, and a statewide case review system. The coordinator also established orientation and ongoing training programs on the risk assessment tool and a case review system for Division of Youth Services staff and all affected court personnel (including judges and juvenile officers).

8. Implement demonstration programs at additional sites.

Another theme that emerged from States' responses was implementing demonstration programs at a greater number of sites.

Under Activity G (Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders), South Carolina funded a community-based diversion program for status offenders in three communities. The program targets youth ages 8 to 16 who are truant or who have exhibited minor behavioral problems or run away from home. In each pilot community, the program takes place in a neutral, nonstigmatizing, and easily accessible location. Staff are available every day and during nontraditional work hours. Through partnerships with organizations and individuals in the community, the pilot programs offer a comprehensive array of formal and informal services to participating youth and their families. The State hopes to have diversion programs specifically designed to meet the needs of status offenders in each of its 16 judicial circuits.

In 1996, Texas enacted a law mandating that school districts with student populations above a certain size provide alternatives-to-expulsion programs. Later, the law was amended to require alternative-to-suspension programs as well. However, no State funds were appropriated to implement these mandates. Therefore, under Activity H (Alternatives to School Suspension and Expulsion), Texas chose to assist local school districts in complying with the State mandate. Alternatives to suspension have been funded in the Houston Independent School District, the Arlington Independent School District, and the Roma Independent School District. The McLennan County Juvenile Board has received Challenge funds to operate its alternative-to-expulsion program. Preliminary results of this 4-year effort have been encouraging. A number of other school districts have visited these programs and have, in part, modeled their programs after the projects started with seed money from the Challenge funds. Together with all other juvenile justice projects funded by Texas' Criminal Justice Division (CJD) in the Office of the Governor, this Challenge activity will be evaluated by CJD's contract evaluator, the Public Policy Research Institute of Texas A&M University. Evaluation results are expected in spring 2000.

9. Fill a significant service gap in a substantial way.

Some States are using Challenge funds to address or fill significant gaps in available services. Under Activity F (State Ombudsman), for instance, the Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth established a State ombudsman office for children, youth, and their families. Staff of this program for youth in State custody and their families review and resolve complaints regarding the action, inaction, or decisions of out-of-home care providers that may adversely affect the health, safety, welfare, or rights of system involved youth. Most youth referred to the program since it began in August 1996 have been in State custody as a result of a delinquency or a dependency/neglect adjudication (each representing 28 percent of the total number of referrals).

Tennessee's ombudsman program has developed policy and procedures to ensure appropriate referrals and adopted a neutral (rather than a fault-finding) stance when relating to various social services agencies and facilities on behalf of children. Efforts to refine the existing draft policy and procedures are ongoing and, depending on program needs, will continue. The program also has published two user-friendly informational pamphlets for involved youth and their families, Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Minor and Your Rights and Responsibilities as a Dependent Child in State Custody, and a program brochure, The Ombudsman for Tennessee's Children and Families. By providing a forum for service recipients to voice concerns and have them resolved, the program enhances accountability within the web of service systems.

With Activity A (Basic System Services) funds, Vermont has produced marked changes in policies, procedures, and programs designed to meet the mental health needs of youth in its only juvenile facility, the Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center, both during their stay and upon their return to the community. For the first time, all youth entering the facility are being regularly screened for mental health service needs. The facility nurse's workweek was increased by 20 hours, and the nurse was trained to use a structured interview form, administer T.M. Achenbach's Youth Self Report to all youth upon admission, and analyze C. Keith Conners' Rating Scales (Parent and Teacher Rating). The Conners' Rating Scales are completed by counselors and teachers and used to identify children's mental health needs and refer them for appropriate mental health services. A full-time case manager ensures an individualized transition and aftercare treatment plan for each of the severely emotionally disturbed youth discharged from the Center's Treatment Program to the community. Other activities include a community-based sex offenders treatment program developed by the Baird Center for Children and Families for offenders leaving the Woodside Center. Further, a collaboration between the Woodside Center and the University of Vermont Medical School's (UVM's) Fletcher Allen Hospital proves mutually beneficial. By providing psychiatric residents from UVM a learning ground about how best to treat juvenile offenders with mental health issues, the Woodside Center also gains valuable psychiatric services for the youth residing at the center.

10. Form ongoing and sustained partnerships to provide coordinated services.

No single agency can meet all of a juvenile offender's needs. Offenders often receive fragmented, uncoordinated, insufficient, or duplicative services from multiple agencies. To address this problem, many States have used Challenge Activities Program grants to coordinate services through sustained partnerships of youth-serving agencies.

Vermont's Activity A (see theme 9) has shown that detained juvenile offenders' significant need for mental health services can be filled through partnerships with community agencies and groups. An interdepartmental agreement between Vermont's State Departments of Developmental and Mental Health Services and Social and Rehabilitation Services has been developed as a mechanism to ensure continued interdepartmental collaboration. The agreement also demonstrates the importance of a formal mechanism (an interdepartmental memorandum of agreement) in sustaining the partnership.

Under Challenge Activity H (Alternatives to School Suspension and Expulsion), Missouri has provided Challenge funds to Accelerated Schools to establish Caring Communities cadres as part of the decisionmaking structure of schools and communities. Each cadre consists of a school's principal, teachers, counselors, social worker, nurse, and parents and juvenile justice system and other human services personnel. Members of the cadre work together to deal with school and community problems that often cause children to drop out of school or be suspended or expelled. They also work collaboratively to ensure effective coordination of services to meet the needs of students at risk of suspension or expulsion and their families. As of spring 1998, cadres had been established at six schools.

11. Develop capacity in the private sector to increase the overall capacity of the service system.

Just as no single agency can meet all the needs of a juvenile offender, the public sector cannot provide all services for youth in need. On the other hand, public-private partnerships can expand the overall capacity of the youth service system.

Juvenile sex offenders present unique demands on treatment resources because they require intensive and highly specialized treatment. At the same time, sex offender treatment is still a relatively new field and few communities have enough specially trained providers to treat juvenile sex offenders. Faced with the danger that juvenile sex offenders, if left untreated or poorly treated, are likely to commit more sex offenses, South Carolina has dedicated Challenge funds to this issue. Using Activity I (Aftercare Services) funds, the State provided an intensive 3-day training session (2 days in March and 1 day in November 1998) to treatment professionals in private practice and in the State regional mental health centers. To be eligible for the training, professionals had to agree to provide direct assessment and treatment services to sex offenders, supervise other therapists providing similar services, and be included in a list of treatment professionals serving this population. Followup consultations by the trainers will be available on request on an as-needed basis.

South Carolina also provided a 1-day training in June 1998 to Department of Juvenile Justice staff who anticipated having sex offenders in their caseloads. This training enabled staff to understand the service needs of sex offenders, make appropriate referrals to community-based treatment and aftercare services, and monitor appropriate safety plans for juveniles on probation and parole. Similar training for judges, treatment supervisors, and attorneys focused on helping them reach appropriate decisions on community-based treatment. South Carolina hopes to develop referral and community-based treatment capacity for juvenile sex offenders in each of its 16 judicial districts. In 1998, 69 therapists received 3 days of juvenile sex offender treatment training and an additional 25 therapists received 1 day of training. In addition, nine juvenile sex offenders from the State Department of Juvenile Justice Correctional Institution were referred to specialized offender treatment in the community as a part of their aftercare programs.

² OJJDP provides specialized training and technical assistance on gender-specific issues through a coop-erative agreement with Greene, Peters and Associates (GPA) (615–327–0329). GPA in 1998 published Guiding Principles for Promising Female Programming: An Inventory of Best Practices, which highlights the key ele-ments of effective female-specific program practices that States and local jurisdictions can use. In response to widespread alarm over escalating female involvement in the juvenile justice system, OJJDP and GPA are also developing new curriculums and training for entry level juvenile corrections and detention workers, service providers, and community youth workers.

System Change Through State Challenge Activities: Approaches and Products	Juvenile Justice Bulletin • March 2000