Adolescents with the most severe alcohol and other drug (AOD) use disorders are typically admitted to residential treatment. Of the more than 21,000 U.S. adolescents admitted to residential treatment supported by public funds in 2009, 53% received an unfavorable discharge and 76% failed to complete 90 days of treatment (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2009), the length of stay threshold associated with better outcomes (Hser et al., 2001). Additional research has shown that 60–70% of adolescents relapse within 90 days after residential treatment (Brown, Vik, & Creamer, 1989; Godley, Godley, Dennis, Funk, & Passetti, 2002). Providing continuing care following addiction treatment can improve clinical outcomes (Dennis & Scott, 2007; Godley, Godley, Dennis, Funk, & Passetti, 2007; Kaminer, Burleson, & Burke, 2008; Kim et al., 2011; McKay, 2009; Saitz, Larson, LaBelle, Richardson, & Samet, 2008; Winters, Stinchfield, Latimer, & Lee, 2007), but relatively few adult and adolescent patients attend even one continuing care session following discharge from residential treatment (Donovan, 1998; Godley & Godley, 2011). Although some adolescent patients lack motivation to follow through with continuing care referrals, structural barriers exist as well. Residential treatment programs receiving state and/or Medicaid reimbursement typically serve large geographical areas, requiring referral to treatment organizations closer to the patient’s home after residential treatment. A recent study showed that continuing care was initiated about half the time for those with planned residential discharges and less than 10% of the time for those with unplanned discharges (Godley & Godley, 2012). Only one randomized trial of continuing care for youth discharged from residential treatment has been published, and that study examined the effects of Assertive Continuing Care (ACC; Godley et al., 2007). This intervention was developed to overcome barriers to continuing care participation by sending clinicians trained in the Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (A-CRA) and case management (Godley, Godley, & Dennis, 2001) to meet with youth in their school, home, or other community location within two weeks of discharge. In this experiment, adolescents assigned to ACC after residential treatment were significantly more likely than those receiving Usual Continuing Care (UCC) to receive continuing care (94% vs. 54%) and attend more sessions. Main effects of ACC were found for abstinence from their primary drug, marijuana, over a 9-month follow-up (d=.32). Decreases for alcohol and other drugs were all in the predicted direction but not significant (Godley et al., 2007). The effects of ACC may be due to the combination of (a) case management services designed to increase adherence to the requirements of school and/or juvenile justice – two common social systems in which youth are involved; (b) A-CRA for the adolescent, which uses both operant learning and cognitive behavior therapy procedures to identify and increase reinforcing pro-social activities and facilitates the development of improved communication, relapse prevention, and other skills; (c) A-CRA sessions for both the adolescent and caregiver; and (d) homework assigned after each session to practice a new skill and engage in a new or recurring pro-social activity. Despite the durable success of ACC in the initial trial relative to UCC, effect sizes for both marijuana and alcohol were small, suggesting that additional improvements to the model should be considered. Contingency Management (CM) interventions have been successfully added to the Community Reinforcement Approach and Cognitive Behavior Therapy in trials with adults to further improve substance use outcomes (Higgins, Silverman, & Heil, 2007). The effectiveness of CM in addiction treatment is rapid and reliable through the active phase by providing contingent reinforcement for drug abstinence and, in some studies, treatment attendance or verifiable activities. Only a few controlled studies combining CM with other treatments have been conducted for adolescents with AOD use disorders, and none were continuing care studies. Compared to a family court condition, a juvenile drug court intervention enhanced with Multi-Systemic Therapy plus CM evidenced large effects in decreasing substance use (ESs = 0.0.38 to 2.48) and criminal behavior (ESs = −0.04 to 1.88; Henggeler et al., 2006), and CM combined with parent training and Motivational Enhancement/Cognitive Behavior Therapy (MET/CBT) was more effective for adolescents than MET/CBT alone in increasing continuous abstinence from marijuana during the 3-month treatment phase (d=0.48) but less so over extended follow-up (Stanger, Budney, Kamon, & Thostensen, 2009). In studies by Azrin and colleagues (Azrin et al., 1994, 2001), a multi-component Family Behavior Therapy intervention including parent-mediated CM for abstinence and pro-social activities significantly reduced drug use compared to supportive counseling (Azrin et al., 1994) but in a second study, did not reduce drug use more than a cognitive behavioral problem-solving condition (Azrin et al., 2001). The available evidence suggests that adding CM to cognitive behavioral therapies is a promising strategy to improve adolescents’ drug use outcomes. Although several studies with adults found CM combined with CBT interventions to be more effective than either CM or CBT alone (Higgins et al., 2007; Kadden, Litt, Kabela-Cormier, & Petry, 2007), other studies found that CM alone was as effective (Rawson et al., 2002) or more effective than CM and CBT combined (Carroll et al., 2012). Because CM alone has demonstrated effectiveness with adults and is relatively straightforward to implement, it merits testing with adolescents as a post-treatment continuing care intervention. In summary, CM has demonstrated efficacy in producing abstinence for adults and, in combination with other interventions, for adolescents. In addition, ACC has shown promise in a single trial sustaining abstinence for significantly more youth than UCC, but the effects were relatively small. For the present study, it was expected that the immediate contingent reinforcement offered through CM would improve engagement in pro-social activities and lead to greater improvement in abstinence outcomes, but because the ACC intervention is designed to increase abstinence (through increasing pro-social activities, social skills, relationship with parents, and better adherence to education and juvenile justice requirements), it was unclear whether this would exceed ACC alone. The combination of CM and ACC might provide additional sustained benefit by rapid contingent reinforcement of abstinence and pro-social activities via CM with skills training and case management provided through ACC; however, this has never been tested. The present study reports the results of a randomized trial to assess the degree to which three experimental approaches were more successful at engaging youth in post-residential continuing care and maintaining AOD abstinence during the 12 months following residential discharge relative to a UCC alone condition: (a) CM, a well-established, replicable evidence-based intervention; (b) ACC, a multi-component intervention with behavioral, CBT, and case management elements; and (c) CM +ACC, a combination of both approaches.