1. Director Sharon Harrigfeld | January 2015
Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections
Developing Productive Citizens
Idaho’s Strategic Plan for Juvenile Reentry
Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections
Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission

2. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Contents Page
Message from Director 1
Message from IJJC Chair 2
Message from IJJC Reintegration Committee Chair 3
Acknowledging Our Partners 4
IDJC Mission 5
Introduction 6
Second Chance Act Grant 7
Idaho Juvenile Justice System 7
Data and Trends 10
Positive Youth Outcomes 13
Problem Statement 14
Idaho Strategic Plan 14
Strategic Planning Process 15
Individual Factors 15
Goals/ Objectives/ Timeline 18
Recommendations 25
Evaluation 25
Conclusion 25
Appendix 24

3. An active partnership with communities
Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections
954 W Jefferson Street P.O. Box 83720 Boise, ID 83720-0285 Phone: (208) 334-5100 Fax: (208) 334-5120
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) 1 800 377-3529
C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER SHARON HARRIGFELD
Governor Director
As we prepare to celebrate 20 years of the Idaho Juvenile Corrections Act, I reflect on the partnerships
and collaborations that characterize the Idaho juvenile justice system. Over 95% of juvenile offenders
are served in communities through county services. The juveniles committed to state custody are the
highest risk, and often highest need, offenders in the system. Helping them return to the community
requires effective collaboration at the local and the state level. This report demonstrates the power of
our partnerships and reveals the critical nature of the priorities within: collaborative decision-making,
cross system learning, targeted outcomes, and youth and family social ecology.
Maintaining community safety, holding juvenile offenders accountable, and helping offenders develop
competencies to become productive citizens are foundational tenets of the Idaho juvenile justice
system. This report builds on those tenets with strategies to restore, victims, communities, and the
offenders, from the harm caused by juvenile crime. The Commission, representing statewide
geographic areas, has a diverse membership of stakeholders who work together on juvenile reentry.
The Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections is pleased to partner with and support the Idaho Juvenile
Justice Commission in addressing challenges for juvenile reentry throughout our great state. The
Department and the Commission have an extensive history of collaboration that has led to significant
system improvements including removal of juveniles from adult jails, creation of training academies, and
implementation of evidence based programs.
I thank all the individuals and organizations that came together to make this report possible and invite
you to join our efforts to develop productive citizens.
On behalf of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections, I am pleased to join our partners to share
the following report as a testament to the strength, dedication, and collaboration of the extraordinary
individuals and organizations who serve young people in this great state.
Through the generosity of the Council on State Governments, a Second Chance Planning Grant was
awarded to the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections. With the oversight of the Idaho Juvenile
Justice Commission as the task force lead, we have coordinated the efforts to increase the success of
juvenile offenders returning to their communities following an out-of-home placement.
This unified partnership enables the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections and the Juvenile Justice
Commission the ability to engage our community stakeholders in program and system enhancement for
improved positive youth outcomes.
I encourage you to consider the strategies presented in this report and identify how you or your
organization may impact or complement our shared goals of helping strengthen Idaho youth and
families and developing productive citizens. We invite you to contact the Juvenile Justice District
Council in your area to see how you can participate.
1

4. Carolyn Peterson,
Coeur d’ Alene, Chair
Denise Blevins, Moscow
Hon. Darrell Bolz, Caldwell
Stacy Brown, Bonner’s Ferry
Darin Burrell, Rexburg
Mo Canfield, Pocatello
Kyle Fisher, Jerome
Tina Freckleton, Caldwell
Hon. Mark Ingram, Shoshone
Dale Kleinert, Boise
Nancy Lopez, Idaho Falls
Lorin Nielsen, Pocatello
Matt Olsen, Pocatello
Chris Palmer, Boise
Dave Peters, Blackfoot
Andy Rodriguez, Nampa
Korey Solomon, Kimberly
Lisa Taylor, Lewiston
Bill Thompson, Moscow
Bev Wilder, St Anthony
Youth Members:
Susan Delyea, Boise
Ismael Fernandez, Wilder
Fernando Flores, Caldwell
Kailamai Hansen,
Coeur d’ Alene
Jazmin Hill, Idaho Falls
Brooke Jones, Boise
Ashley Kuber, Meridian
Chelsi Nygaard, Potlatch
Anna Rodriguez, Nampa
On behalf of the Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission, I am pleased to join our
partners to share the following report as a testament to the strength, dedication,
and collaboration of the extraordinary individuals and organizations who serve
young people in this great state.
Participation in a planning grant through the Second Chance Act provided the
Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission the opportunity to establish itself as a task
force to lead, coordinate, and oversee efforts to increase the success of juvenile
offenders returning to their communities following an out-of-home placement.
The Commission has a diverse membership representing the various geographic
areas of the state as well as the stakeholder groups working together on juvenile
reentry.
This unified partnership enables the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections and
the Juvenile Justice Commission the ability to engage our community stakeholders
in program and system enhancement for improved positive youth outcomes.
I encourage you to consider the strategies presented in this report and identify how
you or your organization may impact or complement our shared goals of helping
strengthen Idaho youth and families and developing productive citizens. We invite
you to contact the Juvenile Justice District Council in your area to see how you
can participate.
Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission Chair
IDAHO
JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMISSION
c/o Department of Juvenile Corrections
954 West Jefferson / PO Box 83720
Boise ID 83720-0285
2

5. Carolyn Peterson,
Coeur d’ Alene, Chair
Denise Blevins, Moscow
Hon. Darrell Bolz, Caldwell
Stacy Brown, Bonner’s Ferry
Darin Burrell, Rexburg
Mo Canfield, Pocatello
Kyle Fisher, Jerome
Tina Freckleton, Caldwell
Hon. Mark Ingram, Shoshone
Dale Kleinert, Boise
Nancy Lopez, Idaho Falls
Lorin Nielsen, Pocatello
Matt Olsen, Pocatello
Chris Palmer, Boise
Dave Peters, Blackfoot
Andy Rodriguez, Nampa
Korey Solomon, Kimberly
Lisa Taylor, Lewiston
Bill Thompson, Moscow
Bev Wilder, St Anthony
Youth Members:
Susan Delyea, Boise
Ismael Fernandez, Wilder
Fernando Flores, Caldwell
Kailamai Hansen,
Coeur d’ Alene
Jazmin Hill, Idaho Falls
Brooke Jones, Boise
Ashley Kuber, Meridian
Chelsi Nygaard, Potlatch
Anna Rodriguez, Nampa
This letter is in great appreciation of the continued efforts by the Juvenile Justice
Commission as the Re entry Task Force, and specifically the dedicated
professionals who came together to serve on a Reentry Strategic Planning Group.
Their work on the Second Chance Act Planning Grant was nothing short of
phenomenal.
As the Chair of the Reentry Committee I was given the honor to assist in gathering
partners through the state to develop the Reentry Strategic Plan group. This
process provided me opportunity to talk with professionals across the state and
discuss concerns and obstacles in the delivery of services to our youth, families,
and communities. These conversations served as the spring board for our Reentry
Strategic Planning Meeting.
The grant through the Second Chance Act combined with support from the
Council of State Governments provided a platform and process to address
reentry. The following plan is just the first step in our work to improve reintegration
services for youth. Implementation of this plan will require additional funding,
coordination of services, and committed partnerships across the state. Without
all three needs being met, Idaho will be reduced to fragmented and incomplete
services for the youth we serve.
I am truly grateful for the assistance that the Second Chance Act has provided
our State at the same time apprehensive that the pre-work and a large portion of
the planning having been completed to achieve the change we have sought may
not be accomplished if funding and collaboration is not at the forefront of the
process. I write this letter in support of the State of Idaho's efforts for continued
re entry planning and implementation, and also am hopeful for additional funding
so that we can complete planning and produce a well thought out and strategic
implementation process.
IJJC Reentry Committee Chair
Cc: file
IDAHO
JUVENILE JUSTICE COMMISSION
c/o Department of Juvenile Corrections
954 West Jefferson / PO Box 83720
Boise ID 83720-0285
3

6. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their
contributions of time, energy, and expertise to make this project possible. The
partnerships envisioned by the Idaho Juvenile Corrections Act are realized due to the
collaboration of dedicated professionals and agencies.
Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission
Idaho Juvenile Justice Councils
Idaho Supreme Court
Idaho Association of County Juvenile Justice
Administrators
County Probation Departments
County Detention Administrators
Local School Districts
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Idaho Department of Labor
Idaho Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Idaho Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health
Idaho CASA
Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections Staff
Special Thanks To:
Individuals participating in training workshops throughout the state (177)
Consultants:
Frank Riley
Tom Begich
Elizabeth Seigle, The Council of State Governments Justice Center
Ann Van Buren, Intern
4

7. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
IDJC Mission
eveloping productive citizens
in partnership with
communities, through
juvenile crime prevention,
education, rehabilitation and
reintegration
D
5

8. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Introduction
Partners in the juvenile justice system throughout the state recognize reintegration of
juvenile offenders as an area that can be improved. The bifurcation of the juvenile
justice system creates an environment that relies on effective coordination and
communication.
In the 2014 report on confinement of juvenile offenders, the Office of Performance
Evaluations acknowledged and discussed opportunities and challenges regarding
systemic improvements to the reintegration process.
Through a planning grant awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections launched a strategic planning
process to improve opportunities for successful reintegration of juvenile offenders into
the community following placement in juvenile corrections facilities. The Council of
State Governments provided technical assistance and training to support the state’s
efforts.
The Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission established itself as the Juvenile Reentry Task
Force to oversee reentry planning and system improvement. A committee was then
tasked to convene partners and draft a plan. Over 175 individuals representing dozens
of organizations participated in facilitated workshops to develop this plan. The
culmination of this planning strategy supports evidence-based approaches with local
management and statewide accountability.
A workgroup of the Juvenile Reentry Task Force that led the planning process identified
the following four priority areas.
• Collaborative Decision-Making
• Cross-System Learning
• Targeted Outcomes
• Family and Social Ecology
Local Juvenile Justice District and Tribal Councils developed specific strategies within
these priority areas based on their unique needs and resources. To avoid any
duplication of efforts, Councils were tasked to lead various aspects of the priorities as
specialty areas, the results of which will be shared statewide.
The Juvenile Reentry Task Force approved this plan in December 2014 at their
quarterly meeting. Formation of workgroups, development of projects, and securing
resources are the next phase of action for the state to implement the activities within
the plan.
6

9. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Second Chance Act Planning Grant
Since the creation of the department in 1995, significant work has been accomplished
to address many aspects of the reentry process. Funding from the Second Chance Act
Planning Grant, awarded to the department in 2013, provides an important opportunity
for the state’s juvenile justice partners to develop renewed focus on evidence-based
approaches to improving reentry practice. Specifically, work on the grant over the past
year has built upon the strong relationships among juvenile justice practitioners to
promote collaboration and a keen desire to create a more comprehensive range of
services.
1. Expand knowledge base and create an informed re-integration system of care.
Develop a foundation of evidence-based research to guide the re-integration
process in Idaho. Look to successful efforts in other states.
2. Leverage current services and enhance integration of programming.
Identify existing services and connect resources to create a comprehensive array
of services with engagement of partners which are involved in the reintegration
process, including juvenile judges, county probation administrators, Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) and community employment, housing
and education partners.
3. Create a plan for the future. Develop a juvenile re-entry strategic plan to
identify evidence-based community programming that will effectively engage
families and community supports to promote success of the juvenile upon
reentry. The plan will define specific goals to maximize successful re-integration
and reduce recidivism of this population and identify performance measures to
track outcomes.
Idaho Juvenile Justice System
Overview
The Idaho Juvenile Corrections Act is based on the Balanced and Restorative Justice
Model. To support the philosophy of this model, both the Idaho Department of Juvenile
Corrections (IDJC) and the Juvenile Justice Commission (IJJC) engage community
stakeholders to identify needs, establish priorities, implement effective practices, and
measure results.
Idaho is comprised of many communities in which a strong sense of both connection
and individuality prevails. Youth don’t grow up in isolation. Their behaviors and beliefs
are a reflection of their homes and the influences they experience from their peers,
schools and communities. The IDJC and the IJJC strengthen connections by funding
programs at the local level that prevent juveniles from entering the system. They
support various programs for offenders and families who have been committed to IDJC
custody, and aftercare services once released.
7

10. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
According to the US Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics, Idaho
has approximately 191,157 juveniles between the ages of 10 and 17. In 2013, over
12,000 were taken into custody with law enforcement. Of those in custody,
approximately 5,706 are on formal probation at the county level. Nearly 95% of the
youth in the juvenile justice system remain at the county level, with many diverted
from further criminal activity through programs provided by the county and funded
with Juvenile Corrections Act and Tobacco Tax funds, county general funds, state
general funds, and federal grant dollars. 1
The remaining five percent of juveniles in the system pose enough of a community risk
that the courts commit them to the custody of the Idaho Department of Juvenile
Corrections. After they complete their stay with IDJC, they return to the county’s
jurisdiction for any needed aftercare services.
A chart, titled General Flow Chart of Idaho’s Juvenile Justice Process can be seen in the
appendix. It illustrates the typical flow of the juvenile justice system in Idaho.
Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections (IDJC)
The Department officially went into effect July 1, 1995, while the Juvenile Corrections
Act of 1995 (JCA) became effective October 1995. The IDJC was based on the
philosophy of the Balanced Approach, addressing juvenile offending by focusing on
community protection, offender accountability and competency development in the
context of the offender, the victim, and the community. The mission is to prevent or
reduce juvenile crime in partnership with communities through prevention,
rehabilitation, and reintegration.
Under the JCA, a judge may commit a juvenile to the IDJC, but may not specify secure
confinement or make any recommendations for placement. If the judge commits the
juvenile to IDJC, the juvenile will go through an observation and assessment process to
determine his/ her risk level, needs and strengths, and the most appropriate treatment
facility.
IDJC’s current population mirrors national trends regarding juveniles with mental
health issues. A recent study showed that 56% of juveniles booked into county
detention facilities have mental health issues. This number is substantially higher than
the roughly 20% prevalence found in the non-delinquent adolescent population.2
Currently, over 56% of the juveniles in state custody are defined as seriously
emotionally disturbed (SED).3
Serious emotional disturbances refers to children (birth
through 21) with clinically-defined illnesses that negatively impact a child’s functioning
in significant ways and where the impact can be expected to last for a significant
period of time.
1
IDJC Legislative Update, 2015, http://www.idjc.idaho.gov/
2
McDonald, T. W., Begic, S. Howard, E., (2014). A statewide and multimodal assessment of the Idaho Department
of Juvenile Corrections’ Clinical Services Program. Boise, ID: Center for Health Policy, Boise State University.
3
Loc. Cit. Legislative Update
8

11. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
IDJC has three state juvenile institutions with a total bed capacity of 270. Currently, 32
of those beds are reserved for observation and assessment. The state is at record low
census with current number of juveniles in state custody around 280, with the
difference provided through contracts with county and private providers.
Idaho Code §20-501 lays the foundation for aftercare as an essential component of the
Idaho juvenile justice system. Idaho Code §20-504 further describes the authority and
responsibility of the department and assistance to counties.
When a juvenile is found to be delinquent, or within the purview of the JCA, the court
will then hold a hearing to determine a disposition/ sentence that will promote
accountability, competency development, and community protection. Prior to the entry
of an order disposing the case, other than an order of discharge or dismissal, the court
may request a report containing the results of an inquiry into the home environment,
past history, competency development, prevention or out of home placement services
provided, and the social, physical and mental condition of the juvenile.
After presentation and consideration of the report, the court may advance to
disposition/ sentence the juvenile with any combination of the following options.
• Formal probation
• Detention
• Driver’s license suspension
• Alcohol/ drug evaluation followed by treatment, if needed
• Conditions restricting associations with friends and/ or relatives
Juveniles can be committed to IDJC under Supreme Court, Idaho Juvenile Rule (IJR) 19
or Rule (IJR) 20.
Rule 19 addresses commitment to IDJC. Screening teams must be convened prior to
commitment. The factors for the team to consider and report their findings to the
court are: the risks to the community if the juvenile offender is not committed; the
needs of the juvenile and juvenile’s family using a strengths-based approach; any
community-based programs that might be available to address the risks and needs of
the juvenile and their family; and the juvenile and their family’s abilities, barriers and
commitment to participate in the community-based programs identified. In addition to
the screening team report, specific commitment criteria must be met.
Rule 20 addresses juveniles recommitted to IDJC. Under Rule 20, the court may hold a
hearing to review the conditions of probation and determine whether the existing
conditions should be amended or eliminated, or if additional conditions should be
imposed. Written notice of the hearing shall be provided to the juvenile, parent(s), legal
guardian or custodian, and any person who has been made party to the proceeding.
At this hearing, the court may also order conditions to be complied with by the
juvenile's parent(s), legal guardian or custodian, or any person having been made a
9

12. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
party of the proceeding that the court deems to serve the best interest of the juvenile
or the community. Alternately, at the hearing, the juvenile, parent(s), or legal guardian
are entitled to legal representation.
In the event a juvenile probation officer, as authorized by court order, establishes
additional conditions of probation with which the juvenile offender must comply upon
the juvenile's release from the custody of IDJC, the probation officer shall notify the
juvenile at the time the additional conditions are imposed of the juvenile's right to
request a hearing before the court to contest the additional conditions. Upon a
subsequent violation of probation, the court may recommit the juvenile to the custody
of IDJC. The court may only impose detention previously suspended at the time of
commitment to the Department's custody as a sanction.
If the judge commits the juvenile to IDJC, the juvenile will go through an observation
and assessment process to determine his/ her risk level, needs and strengths, and the
most appropriate treatment facility.
Data and Trends
Arrest
Idaho mirrors the rest of the country with steep declines in the rate of juvenile arrest,
as illustrated in the chart below.
9,000
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Juvenile Arrest Trends
Persons,
1,319
Sexual
Offenses,
113
Property,
3,939
Drug &
Alcohol,
2,601
Society,
405
Other,
5,248
Traffic,
152
Arrest by Type 2009 - 2013
10

13. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Detention
Detention bookings have been trending downward for several years. An individual
juvenile could be booked into detention more than one time per year, which would
result in multiple bookings. Clinicians work in each detention facility to identify
juveniles with substance abuse and/ or mental health issues to refer them to
community based services.
Commitment
Youth who represent the highest risk to community safety and who often have
significant needs for treatment may be committed to state custody. Juveniles spend an
average of 18 months in custody.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Detention Booking Trends
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
State Commitment Trends
11

14. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Recidivism
In the past five years, IDJC released an average of 217 juveniles annually. Overall,
recidivism by juveniles placed in Idaho state custody is trending down. However,
recidivism among youth with mental health and/ or substance abuse issues remains
higher than the rate for all juveniles. IDJC’s current population mirrors national trends
regarding juveniles with mental health issues. Recidivists also have a more detailed
criminal background and more family issues. Responsivity issues that affect recidivism
include juvenile attitude toward treatment, transportation services, resources, mental
health issues for juveniles and/ or family members. These issues influence the outcome.
Recidivism is defined as the act of “being adjudicated or convicted of a new felony or
misdemeanor that is not a status offense or probation violation within 12 months of
release.” These trends are illustrated in the following charts.
Recidivism by juveniles placed in Idaho state custody is trending down.
Source: Idaho Juvenile Offender System (IJOS)
Recidivism of youth with mental health and/ or substance abuse issues remains high.
Source: Interactive Recidivism Tool, IJOS
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2010 2011 2012 2013
Recidivism Rate Trends
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
All juveniles Juveniles with
MH
Juveniles with
SA
Juveniles with
both SA/MH
Rate of Recidivism
Date of release to 26 months
12

15. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Positive Youth Outcomes
IDJC monitors positive youth outcomes as measures of effectiveness. Two critical areas
monitored are employment and education. For youth released in 2013, nearly 58% of
juveniles age 17 or older were receiving a taxable wage six months after release.
Furthermore, 66% of those juveniles earned a high school diploma or graduation
equivalency diploma (GED) prior to release. On average, 71% of juveniles who did not
have a high school diploma or GED were enrolled in school (K-12) at the time of their
release. While in custody, over 90% of juveniles improved in both reading and math.
The following indicators are used by IDJC to monitor positive youth outcomes after
juveniles are released from state custody.
13

16. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Problem Statement
For the chronic, serious juvenile offender who is released from secure confinement and
may be at high risk for re-offending, the quality of intensive community-based
aftercare could determine whether the youth remains crime free or returns to
delinquency.
Recognition of youths’ multifaceted needs and problems while in correctional
programs is essential for aftercare field staff and community social institutions. It is
important they obtain this knowledge and become more directly involved with
correctional facility staff.
The key challenge is how to strengthen our partnerships with schools, community
organizations, the family, mental health agencies, drug and alcohol treatment centers,
employment and training programs, faith communities, business associations, and
employers.
Idaho juvenile offenders are under the county’s jurisdiction until the judge transfers
legal custody to IDJC for confinement in a secure or community based facility. Upon
completion of the program in the facility, a juvenile is transitioned back to the
community where the county is responsible to coordinate aftercare.
Idaho Strategic Plan
Role of Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission
The Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission (IJJC) is the State Advisory Group designated by
the Governor for purposes of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act. The
IJJC includes representatives of all of the elements of the juvenile justice system and
stakeholders from all parts of the state. The IJJC serves as the Juvenile Reentry Task
Force and has a standing committee dedicated to improving reentry practice. The
Reentry Committee is charged with coordinating and overseeing a statewide juvenile
reentry plan.
High risk juveniles transitioning from placement in secure
confinement to the community may not have access to
evidence-based programs and services, a stable home
environment, or motivation to participate in treatment after
release.
14

17. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Role of Juvenile Justice Councils
The Juvenile Reentry Task Force includes representation from seven (7) District Juvenile
Justice Councils and one (1) Tribal Juvenile Justice Council. The Councils engage
stakeholders to develop plans that focus on local needs. Councils leveraged the work
of the Reentry Committee’s plan to inform activities consistent with the four priority
areas therein. Councils manage and coordinate activities to meet goals and objectives
in the plan.
Strategic Planning Process
The Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission approved a facilitated process to develop a
comprehensive statewide plan for juvenile justice where local needs could be identified
and addressed. The Commission engaged District and Tribal Juvenile Justice Councils
to host two-day planning workshops with representation from key stakeholders in their
jurisdiction.
The Reintegration Committee of the Commission started the planning process by
hosting a workshop with individuals participating from all areas of the state
representing stakeholder groups including: families, youth, probation, education,
child welfare, children’s mental health, vocational rehabilitation, corrections, detention,
and others.
District and Tribal Councils used the priorities the Reintegration Committee identified
to guide and inform their localized plans. Each Council plan focused on the areas of
highest need within their jurisdiction.
The Commission reviewed the work of the Councils and noted similarities within the
local plans. In order to manage a comprehensive plan, the Commission established
specialties for each Council. Councils agreed to specialize in one priority area and then
provide information for replication to the other districts. This approach will prevent
any duplication of efforts and allows the state to work on several priorities
simultaneous.
Individual Factors and System Principles
Individual juvenile characteristics (factors) that represent a youth’s level of functioning
in key areas are significant considerations in working to improve reentry practice.
Research of the available national literature completed early in the grant process
established that the following factors are important considerations in working to
improve juvenile reentry.
• Family factors
• Negative peers/ lack of pro-social supports
• Antisocial attitudes and beliefs
• Substance abuse
• Lack of educational/ vocational attainment
15

18. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
These elements of a juvenile’s functioning have been well-established in national
research as key criminogenic risk targets. Improving a juvenile’s functioning in any of
these areas helps to reduce the risk of recidivism. These same factors are often included
in validated risk and need assessments used within the juvenile justice system.
In addition to the individual factors identified above, certain principles of practice
related to reentry have been identified as important.
An early step in the planning grant process was completing a comprehensive Planning
and Implementation Guide (the guide). This was developed by the Council of State
Governments as a part of their role in overseeing the Second Chance Act Grant
process. The Planning and Implementation Guide required a comprehensive review of
juvenile justice practice in the state. The department used the information along with a
review of work in other states to develop a target list of reentry principles most
relevant to Idaho’s system.
The following six principles provided a starting point and broad structure for the
statewide reentry meeting conducted in July 2014 and also for the subsequent district
and tribal reentry planning meetings that followed.
1. Collaborative Decision Making
2. Validated Assessments
3. Evidence-Based Programs
4. Targeted Outcomes
5. Youth/ Family Social Ecology Approach
6. Cross-System Learning
These principles are not unique to improving reentry practice but rather apply to
improving juvenile justice and behavioral health practice in general. Familiar to juvenile
justice practitioners, these principles have been at the foundation of much of the
system development work done in Idaho the past several years. A further discussion of
each of the six principles is presented below.
Collaborative Decision Making
Practicing collaborative decision making helps administrators of county and state
juvenile justice systems determine that they have the right people and organizations
involved to develop and implement a reentry initiative. A reentry initiative should
address key structures leading to the successful return of juvenile to the community.
Validated Assessments
Using validated assessment tools with integrity has proven the most effective way to
help jurisdictions maximize the Risk, Needs, Responsivity framework for providing
juvenile justice services. Using validated assessments provides a common framework
to identify needs and services. It also benefits case planning across behavioral health
systems.
16

19. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Evidence Based Programs
Promoting and assuring the quality of evidence-based programs fosters the adoption
of treatment approaches that emphasize a therapeutic orientation. Preferred programs
also focus on behavior change and a social ecology approach. Research has shown that
such programs have demonstrated the ability to produce significant, long-term
reductions in recidivism and improved youth outcomes.
The use of evidence-based programs helps to assure that the investment made by
individuals and by systems of care target those individual factors that can produce the
intended behavioral outcomes and improve community safety.
Targeted Outcomes
Many youth in the juvenile justice system are also involved with other systems of care.
It is necessary to consider and specify outcomes of primary concern with all other
systems involved. Intermediary case outcomes, such as case contacts, duration and
intensity of service, and successful completion rates are critical for assessing the
effectiveness of reentry programs and making adjustments.
Targeting outcomes encourages cross-system collaboration by providing diverse
systems of care the critical information needed to effectively support interventions.
Interventions improve the individual factors which reduce risk and recidivism.
Youth/ Family Social Ecology Approach
Families, peers, schools, and communities – these are the social ecology in which
youth develop. They heavily influence a youth’s cognition and actions. Thus, many of
the most successful programs focus not only on facilitating youth behavioral change,
but also seek to strengthen parenting skills and youth-family interactions. Additionally,
programs focus on connecting youth to other positive adults, peers, and positive
activities and supports.
Adopting reentry practices that consider the broad social context in which the juvenile
must function upon return to the community provides the best opportunity to support
individual changes that the juvenile may have made while in care.
Cross-System Learning
Effective collaboration must include strategies that identify common case and system
goals that define roles and communication structures while being clear about legal
requirements and limits of authority.
Cross-System Learning promotes an integrated approach to the assessment of youth
and family needs, development of treatment plans, and coordination of service
delivery. It also provides for ongoing training of staff and providers within all of the
collaborating organizations.
17

20. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Goals / Objectives / Timeline
Prioritizing
The Reentry Committee considered the principles and identified four (4) to target for a
strategic plan. The principles established as priorities are listed below.
• Collaborative Decision-Making
• Cross-System Learning
• Youth and Family Social Ecology
• Targeted Outcomes
Summary Tables
The following tables and timeline describe in broad terms the state’s goals and
objectives to improve reentry services for juvenile offenders. Specific action steps,
timelines, and performance measures are maintained in each Council plan. An overview
of the Council plans can be found on the Idaho Juvenile Justice Commission website at
www.ijjc.idaho.gov.
Due to the similarity of goals within Council plans, the areas of Collaborative Decision-
Making and Cross-System Learning are combined in the summary tables.
Strategic Area: Targeted Outcomes
Area Goals Objectives
Statewide
• The State of Idaho’s youth reintegration plan
participants are involved as soon as possible
to complete reintegration intakes and
provide immediate services for smooth
transition
• A youth’s reintegration plan includes
positive youth outcomes in education, work,
social connections, and health and well-
being
• Treatment teams include internal team, external
team and community team throughout a youth’s
placement
• Revise reintegration forms and processes
Districts
• Each District has a comprehensive
understanding of statewide reintegration
practices
• Each District will gather information regarding
successful and unsuccessful reintegration efforts,
including treatment successes and those that
incorporate positive youth outcomes, to send to
key stakeholders
18

21. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Strategic Area: Youth and Family Social Ecology
Area Goals Objectives
Statewide
• The State of Idaho establishes principles of
effective family engagement (PFE)
• Communities/ youth are invested in positive
youth development
• Establish workgroup to define and develop PFE
• Educate stakeholders on PFE
• Strengthen community involvement in
reintegration planning
Tribes
Youth have a voice in Tribal, state, national levels • Develop Unity Council at each Tribe
• Have representation on IJJC Youth Committee
District1
Youth use knowledge of challenges, behaviors, and
mental health needs as effective preventive
practices
Identify, propose, and provide training to
stakeholders regarding youth challenges,
behaviors, and mental health needs, including
trauma
District2
Stakeholders receive training to support needs of
at-risk youth
• District JJC provides training on Dual Diagnosis
• District JJC provides training on Traumatic Brain
Injury
District3
All parents/ guardians are engaged in child’s life • Develop effective evidence-based family peer-to-
peer program
• Research/ promote resiliency and interaction
between parent and child
District4
Have successful reintegration: services available
and timely (in place before juvenile leaves facility.
It will be effective (tailored to the needs of the
youth, family, and community)
• Develop/ improve family assessment to assist in
building family capacity
• Improve family engagement in reintegration
• Ensure reintegration resources are available and
effective
District5
Families are involved in reentry and reintegration
prior, during, and after commitment process and
will be connected to community services during
that time
• Support the development of local family support
groups
• Research a variety of mentoring practices and
recommend appropriate mentoring methods to
juvenile justice system stakeholders
District6
Families are provided the necessary services to
strengthen family engagement and skills so they
may to access evidence-based community
resources
• Educate stakeholders in family group decision-
making
• Educate stakeholders in evidence-based FEP
• Research/ develop evidence-based resources to
enhance family skills
District7
• All families receive strength-based assessments
• Propose a SBA be implemented by Probation.
• All families involved with the juvenile justice
system are provided support
• District 7 Probation implements strength-based
assessments
• Distribute to families an updated resource guide
with information on access to services
19

22. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Strategic Area: Collaborative Decision-Making/Cross-System Learning
Area Goals Objectives
Statewide
• The State of Idaho juvenile justice system has
strong partnerships with all involved
stakeholders
• Each District has a comprehensive understanding
of statewide agencies roles and limitations
• Each District has a comprehensive understanding
of statewide reintegration practices
• Demonstrate partnership through investment,
engagement and participation among
stakeholders
• Identify limitations to effective partnerships
and develop meaningful solutions to address
these limitations
• Identify roles and limitations of stakeholders
• Effectively disseminate reintegration
information statewide
Tribes
Idaho Tribal Juvenile Probation programs are aware
of, and using, all resources cooperatively
• Expand ITJJC meeting schedule and expand
stakeholders participating in ITJJC meetings
• Identify State and/Federal resources and how
to use them creatively
• Identify Tribal resources and how to use them
creatively
District1
• District One has a non-judicial response,
resource, and support for early intervention for
behavioral issues
• District One stakeholders will be meaningfully
communicating and collaborating through a
District-wide forum on a regular basis.
• Research effective Restorative Justice and
behavioral approaches that will divert juveniles
from the juvenile justice system
• Ensure effective and a coordinated
collaboration of community-based stakeholders
through the current District-wide meeting
process; this includes potentially expanding the
stakeholders invited
District2
District 2 provides evidence-based support services
to at-risk families
• Research and identify evidence-based
interventions for at-risk families
District3
District 3 has shared responsibility among
stakeholders for adolescents at risk or involved with
the juvenile justice system
• Research and identify current stakeholders and
their practices
• Research and identify effective, evidence-based
approaches for implementing a wrap- around
model
20

23. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Strategic Area: Collaborative Decision-Making/ Cross-System Learning
Area Goals Objectives
T
District4
• There is open sharing of information among
youth-serving system agencies regarding
program and policy efforts and activities for
youth and families in District 4
• There is open sharing of resources among
youth-serving system agencies when serving
youth and families in District 4
• Expand the District 4 Council meeting to
include open sharing of information and to
ensure appropriate agency representatives are
included
• District 4 establishes a viable cross-agency
juvenile collaboration model that is strength-
based, family-driven, and developmentally
appropriate
District5
• District 5 is improving collaboration between
Juvenile Justice, Child Protective Services,
schools, law enforcement, behavioral health
and other community partners to develop
evidence based system of care for youth and
families
• District 5 is improving collaboration between
Juvenile Justice, Child Protective Services,
schools, law enforcement, behavioral health,
and other community partners to develop
evidence based system of care for youth and
families
• Develop an ongoing forum in District 5 to
collaboratively problem solve cross system
challenges to include service gaps and
recommend development of services and
reductions in duplicative services. This forum
could also look at ways to cost share and
combine resources
• Identify the services each of the community
partners currently provide and the limitations
of each of the collaborating partners; including
a process to assess if best practices are being
used by partners
• Analyze, using case studies, the characteristics
of those children and families who have high
needs but do not currently fit neatly into the
juvenile justice, child welfare or behavioral
health systems and develop common
protocols for providing effective services for
those children and families
District6
District 6 stakeholders are better informed about
the behavioral health needs of high-risk juveniles
(Substance Use, Mental Health, and Trauma)
• District 6 shall educate stakeholders (such as
school system, medical providers, people in
the trenches who have direct contact with
youth in identifying high-risk youth
• District 6 shall provide stakeholders and
interested community members with training
in recognizing and addressing trauma
• District 6 shall provide stakeholders with
training on substance use and co-occurring
disorders
District7
District 7 will have consistent communication and
collaboration among all community stakeholders
and systems affiliated with youth
• Identify in local communities all stakeholders
affiliated with youth
• Assess resource networks and enhance these
networks, while clearly communicating across
systems to prevent the “silo effect”
21

24. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Timeline
The timeframe Idaho intends to follow for the sequential phases of this strategic plan is
highlighted in the following chart. Timelines for individual objectives and activities are
identified within individual Council plans.
Year 1 Establish workgroups
Research effective models
Develop training curriculum
Develop evaluation protocols
Support JJ Councils
Review statutes and rules
Year 2 Implement Training
Initiate pilot programs
Convene workgroups
Conduct Council meetings
Make recommendations on statutes and rules
Year 3 Evaluate and adapt training
Develop sustainability plan for training
Continue pilot programs
Evaluate data and convene IJJC for plan adjustments
Monitor statutory or rule changes
Year 4 Pilot sustainability plan for training
Evaluate pilot programs
Update reentry plan as needed
Year 5 Institutionalize training
Expand pilot programs to new communities
Evaluate Reentry plan
High risk juveniles transitioning from placement in secure
confinement to the community have access to evidence-based
programs and services, a stable home environment, or motivation
to participate in treatment after release.
22

25. Developing Productive Citizens | 2015
Recommendations
Planning groups developed recommendations instead of goals and objectives for
those areas or topics where the participants perceived they did not have the
ability to directly influence the outcome. The Juvenile Reentry Task Force will
review the following recommendations during the first year of the implementation
phase to guide appropriate action.
1. IDJC and county probation should develop stronger youth offender
investment/ connection to communities through pro-social activities.
2. There should be vocational education programs in IDJC facilities.
3. The Department of Juvenile Corrections and Probation Shall implement a
plan ensuring all families receive a family strength-based assessment.
4. The State of Idaho Juvenile Justice, Department of Health and Welfare,
Department of Education along with other involved State Department
entities will formulate a knowledgeable task force to identify IDAPA rules
that hamper a function-able transitional re-entry plan for an incarcerated
child from state custody back into his or her community.
5. All agencies involved at the time of commitment of a juvenile offender shall
stay involved.
6. IDJC should develop a reintegration website.
Evaluation
The Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections is dedicated to evaluating the quality
of services, fidelity to best practices, and treatment outcomes. The department has a
long-standing partnership with Boise State University to evaluate programs. If this
reentry plan can be resourced, the following elements would be monitored as
indicators of success.
• Outcomes of activities in Council plans
• Positive youth outcomes (enrollment in education, employment, treatment)
• Recidivism and Recommitment
• PBS Reintegration Performance Measures
• Cooperative Agreements and Collaborative Projects
Conclusion
The Idaho Juvenile Corrections Act set the stage for collaborative approaches to
the treatment of youth throughout the continuum of care. This plan leverages
partnerships and creates opportunity for increased collaboration. The Idaho
Juvenile Justice Commission has been at the forefront of system improvements for
decades and is able to implement and oversee this plan as the Juvenile Reentry
Task Force provided sufficient resources can be secured.
23