Resources
Graduated Sanctions: An Effective Approach in Helping Juvenile Offenders Receive Appropriate Programs and Services
by David G. Gamble

Introduction
In an era of trying to make youth more accountable for their behavior, juvenile graduated sanctions can be an effective systemic approach.  Additionally, the use of valid decision making instruments in a graduated sanctions program helps to ensure that intervention services for youth are appropriately identified.  This article will define graduated sanctions and its key levels of intervention, effective program alternatives at each level, the use of decision making instruments, and finally discuss helpful resources on graduated sanctions developed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).

Graduated Sanctions
Graduated sanctions is an accountability based sanctions system that may be defined in different ways, however, the basic concept remains the same. For the purposes of this article graduated sanctions is a conceptual framework for a continuum of disposition options that juvenile court personnel, particularly judges, probation officers and other similar court officials can use for delinquency reduction. 

Graduated sanctions systems make use of a “multi-tiered continuum” of intervention of services and programs that allows the juvenile justice system to match these to specific characteristic of the juvenile offender.  The match usually requires the use of an objective assessment or structured decision making instrument.  A graduated sanctions system that is fully functional should consist of three components; the program component, the assessment and decision making component, and the management information component (DeComo & Wiebush, 2005). 

While the term graduated sanctions is the term of choice in this article, other familiar names for accountability based sanctions systems are; graduated options, graduated alternatives, graduated responses, graduated incentives and graduated consequences.  Some juvenile justice practitioners believe that choosing the word “sanctions” sound too punitive for a system that began with rehabilitation of youth as its main goal.  However, when juvenile offense rates along with the seriousness of delinquent acts increased legislatures across the country responded with new laws that held youth more accountable.  Hence, accountability based sanctions systems evolved as a way to more effectively address juvenile delinquency.

The implementation of accountability based sanctions systems gained momentum nationwide in 1997 when the US Congress allocated 16.5 million to support these kinds of programs.  The funds were to specifically support Innovative Local Law Enforcement and Community Policing (ILLECP)) programs in states that provided assurance that they had in effect, or were working on these kinds of programs. The policies and programs in place had to also ensure that juveniles were subject to accountability based sanctions for every act for which they were adjudicated delinquent (Matese, 1997).

Five Graduated Sanctions and Intervention Levels for Juvenile Justice
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges web-site presents a wide range of information on juvenile graduated sanctions ranging from the five levels of intervention, resources, targeted behavior, program structure, priority program services and examples and links to programs and intervention models.  The following information discusses sanctions and intervention levels in juvenile justice (http://www.ncjfcj.org/):  
 
Level 1. Immediate Sanctions
Immediate sanctions are targeted toward less serious non-chronic offenders.  They are designed as early intervention that can hold youth accountable for their actions by sanctioning illegal behavior and, securing needed services.  Typical immediate sanctions include community service, restitution, curfew restrictions, informal supervisions, and mandated involvement in short-term programs (shoplifter program or substance abuse education).  Immediate sanctions are frequently delivered in the context of diversion from formal court processing.

Level 2. Immediate Sanctions
Intermediate sanctions are appropriate for juveniles who continue to offend following immediate interventions, youth who have committed more serious felony offenses, and some violent offenders who can benefit from supervision, structure, and monitoring but not necessarily institutionalization.  This type of sanction entails formal court processing and may include such court-ordered community-based corrections as intensive supervision, day treatment, probation, electronic monitoring, house arrest, and alternative schools.

Level 3. Community Confinement
Aside from small secure facilities, there are other program alternatives to incarceration.  These programs can be effective in well developed community-based settings.  This type of programming is appropriate for juveniles who have been involved in serious property crimes and crimes against persons.  These offenders have a low or moderate risk of recidivism and out-of-home treatment needs.

Level 4. Secure Confinement
Secure confinement is appropriate for serious violent and/or chronic offenders.  The behaviors manifested in these offenders include serious property crimes and violent delinquency.  These offenders have a high risk of recidivism and extensive treatment needs.  This type of sanction involves commitment to state training schools, or other secure correctional facilities.  It has been demonstrated that small correctional units and residential programs with a treatment orientation are more effective and more humane than large institutions for this population.

Level 5. After Care
After care sanctions are appropriate for offenders transitioning back into the community following secure care.  After care should be provided for all youth returning to the community from any type of secure program or facility.  After care should be built on a well structured graduated sanctions system with “step-down” services and sanctions.  It is much less difficult to develop after care services than append these services to an existing poorly structured correctional system.  A model after care program referred to as intensive supervision program should consist of the following elements:1) short term transitional placement in secure confinement, 2) day treatment, 3) outreach and tracking, 4) intensive supervision, 5) routine supervision, and 6) case closure.  

The Use of Decision Making Instruments in Graduated Sanctions
While graduated sanctions is a systemic approach that strives to hold juvenile offenders accountable for their behavior, it is crucial to combine sanctions with the correct range of programs, services and treatment interventions.  To assist in this process first a systemic approach to developing guidelines from outcome research on delinquency programs and services should be developed for jurisdictions where graduated sanctions are implemented.  Once the guidelines and list of services are identified, decision making tools should be used.

Decision making instruments i.e., risk assessment instruments, needs/strengths assessment instruments, a matrix system and a structured decision making model, should be used in helping to place juvenile offenders in programs that address their underlying needs and to help prevent them from re-offending.  These decision making instruments overarching principles are similarly based upon the structured decision making strategy designed to reduce delinquency:

Decisions can be substantively improved-in terms of consistency, equity and validity-when they are structured appropriately. The use of structured assessments and decision protocols increase the consistency and enhances equity by ensuring that all staff assess all youth using the same set of criteria. Structured decision making assessment results should drive how agency resources are used. That is, the level of resources devoted to any given case should be directly related to the public’s need for protection (as measured by offense severity and risk of re-offending) and the youths need for service intervention (as measured by strengths and needs assessment).  (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ], 2004 p. 2)

The use of informal methods in case decision making can be unfairly subjective resulting in inconsistent and even inappropriate services and programming for juvenile offenders.  Consequently, in some instances for example, informal methods of decision making may also contribute to the over representation of minority youth in the juvenile justice system.

Helpful Resources in Graduated Sanctions
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in cooperation with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency (OJJDP) in 2001 entered into a multi-year agreement to improve sanctioning options for youthful offenders by creating the Juvenile Sanctions Center headquartered at the NCJFCJ.  Among the projects many deliverables was to develop a series of publications that addressed issues in juvenile sanctioning, and moreover other important and crucial issues in juvenile justice.  The following is a list of the publications published by the Juvenile Sanctions Center (now referred to as the Juvenile Sanction Division):

• Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Training Curriculum Guide-Volume I Immediate to Intermediate Intervention Court Contact
• Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Program Model and Planning Guide-Volume I From Immediate to Intermediate Court Contact
• Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Training Curriculum Guide-Volume II Dispositional Court Hearing to Case Closure
• Graduated Sanctions for Juvenile Offenders: A Program Planning Guide-Dispositional Court Hearing to Case Closure-Volume II
• Monograph I: Sanctions Program Development and Future Initiatives
• Juvenile Sanction Division Training and Technical Assistance Program Bulletins:

                Vol..I   # 1 - Introducing the New Juvenile Sanctions Center
                VoI. I   # 2 - Structured Decision Making for Graduated Sanctions
                Vol. I   # 3 - School–Based Probation: An Approach Worth Considering
                Vol. I   # 4 - Promising Sanctioning Programs in a Graduated System
                Vol. II  #1 - A Practical Approach to Linking Graduated Sanctions with a  Continuum of Effective Programs
                Vol. II  # 2 - Using Federal Title IV – E Money to Expand Sanctions and  Services for Juvenile Offenders
                Vol. II  # 3 - Three Innovative Court-Involved Reentry Programs
                Vol. II  # 4 - Resource Reallocation: The Clark County Experience
                Vol .II  # 5 - Employment Opportunities for Youth

These publications can be obtained in hard copies from the NCJFCJ or online and many are downloadable from www.ncjfcj.org.  There also is an e-tool on graduated sanctions on the same site that is interactive and provides detailed information on graduated sanctions; targeted behavior, program structure, priority program services, and examples of programs and intervention models.

Summary
Juvenile graduated sanctions systems when fully operational have demonstrated to be an effective way of addressing juvenile delinquency.  This approach is particularly effective in assuring that juvenile offenders receive appropriate programs and services.  Jurisdictions that are experiencing increasing delinquency and diminishing resources may want to consider examining this approach as a corrective form of action.

References
DeComo, R., & Wiebush, R., (Eds,) (Spring 2005). Graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders: a program model and planning guide: disposition court hearings to case closure. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Juvenile Sanctions Center, Vol. No. II.

Matese, M., (March, 1997). Accountability based sanctions. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Fact Sheet No. 58). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs.  

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (2002). Structured decision making for graduated sanctions. Juvenile Sanctions Center, Vol. 1 No. 2.

Until early May, 2007 when he retired from this position, David J. Gamble was a Sr. Informational Specialist for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. In this position Mr. Gamble researched and provided juvenile justice related information to judges and other juvenile court-related personnel on a national basis. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges stands as the Nation’s largest and oldest non-profit membership organization solely devoted to improving the Courts of Juvenile and Family Jurisdiction. The Council is located on the campus of the University of Nevada in Reno. Prior to this position, Mr. Gamble was the Director of the Council’s Juvenile Sanctions Center. The Juvenile Sanctions Center was an over 2.5 million dollar multi-year initiative between the Council and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to create and/or improve juvenile accountability-based sanctioning programs for communities and their youth who come into contact with the juvenile justice system.

Copyright 1999-2012, National Association of State Judicial Educators
Contact Web Developer