Week 4 Discussion 1- Special Populations: A Challenge to Juvenile Justice

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 1 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

8Residential and Institutional Placement of

Juveniles

Comstock/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

Summarize the history behind the residential

placement of youth.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 2 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

During 2008, a juvenile correctional center in Ohio lost over half of its staff. The center, called Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility, saw a significant increase in violence among residents of the facility. In fact, according to the Columbus Dispatch,

Assaults on staff members have resulted in a broken nose, a slash across the face, choking, unconsciousness, bites, a blown-out knee and the indignity of being doused with milk cartons filled with urine. Guards, teachers and other prison workers regularly are assaulted. Last year, they missed the equivalent of seven years of workdays because of injuries and disabilities. Large youth fights have sent staff members to the hospital four, five, six at a time. Slightly more than half of the frustrated, frightened and fatigued guards quit last year, some walking away from $15.80-an-hour jobs after only a few days. (Ludlow, 2008)

As with any situation, the causes of violence are varied; however, reports indicated that gang violence and understaffing all contributed to the situation at the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility. The state was hit with a federal lawsuit after evidence of widespread abuse by staff surfaced. As a result, correctional staff members were trained to use less force when managing unruly youth. However, as noted by the unions representing correctional officers, the hands-off policy created concerns for correctional officers, who indicated they felt unsafe at the facility.

At the time the Columbus Dispatch article was written in early 2008, the department director expressed optimism about being able to turn around the correctional facility. The director noted that staff training would help to reduce use-of-force incidents against youth. In addition, the facility worked to identify gang-involved youth and

Define confinement and who is most likely to be

sentenced to institutions for juveniles.

Explain the different types of short-term residential

placements for youth.

Describe the advantages and disadvantages of group

homes.

Explain the degree of effectiveness of wilderness

camps.

Identify the different types of short-term residential

placements for youth.

Summarize the issues associated with long-term

secure correctional facilities.

Describe the risks involved with confining juveniles

in adult facilities.

Identify the components of successfully helping

juveniles reintegrate into society after release.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 3 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

transfer them to other facilities. Just one year later, on January 8, 2009, the Ohio Department of Youth Services issued a press release announcing the closure of the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility.

Fast forward to today. Ohio has made great strides to reform its juvenile justice system. Since 2008, the juvenile justice population residing in youth centers has declined from 1,700 youth to 429. The state also created the Reentry Continuum, an innovative plan that relies on best practices in rehabilitation. The plan calls for a number of principles that guide Ohio's approach toward managing youth in the juvenile justice system:

Adopt the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model for parole staff Implement risk and need assessment tools to assign treatment programming Reduce the length of time on parole for low and low-moderate risk youth by collaborating with judges Support reentry courts at the county level Develop discharge plans to assist youth with any needed services post-release

The Reentry Continuum is just one example of major reforms that states nationwide have adopted to reduce the number of youth in custody.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 4 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

8.1 Introduction

Confining juveniles as a form of punishment is not without controversy. Throughout this text, we have discussed how shifts in policy are often influenced by the social climate of the time. Not surprisingly, when it comes to confining juvenile offenders as a form of punishment, we have seen (and continue to see) shifts in policy. For example, there was an increase in the use of confinement for juveniles during the get-tough era of the 1980s and 1990s. Since that time, however, states have reduced by nearly half the population of youth confined. The recent shift is due to several factors. For one thing, the cost of confinement has forced states to rethink their policies. Moreover, there is a growing recognition that confinement can exacerbate rather than solve the problems that bring youth to the juvenile justice system. Even so, the confinement of juveniles has a long history and is unlikely to be abandoned in the near future.

The use of confinement has often been justified on the grounds of deterrence. For example, although probation is the most widely used sanction for juveniles, there has always been a concern that the general public views probation as merely a slap on the wrist. From a deterrence standpoint, justice should be swift, certain, and just severe enough to outweigh the benefits of crime. Using the biblical reference "to spare the rod is to spoil the child," some observers argued during the 1990s and early 2000s that only after delinquents experienced the harsh hand of justice in the form of boot camps, chain gangs, or confinement would they think twice about committing crime in the future. Policymakers argued that the firm hand of justice would steer youth onto the right path.

Over the past decade, there has been a groundswell of support for reducing the use of confinement for juveniles. For example, it has been argued that institutions for juveniles act as "crime schools," as youth from various criminal backgrounds come together and reinforce their criminal status. In these situations, juveniles can learn how to commit other crimes from fellow juveniles. Second, there are concerns about the physical and emotional effects of confinement on youth who are still developing and growing. In particular, youth could be traumatized by their confinement experiences. Third, there are concerns regarding inequality in terms of who is placed in these settings. In particular, girls appear to be more likely to be sent to facilities for minor charges, and African American youth are disproportionately represented. Finally, critics contend that juveniles sentenced to serve time in adult facilities do worse than those who remain in the juvenile system. The complexity of these issues cannot be underestimated. We will discuss these and other issues in this chapter as we examine the impact and effectiveness of institutional placement for juveniles.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 5 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Out-of-home placements for juveniles range from detention centers to group homes to residential treatment centers.

Comstock/Thinkstock

8.2 Defining Confinement for Juveniles

The words confinement or institutional placement often conjure an image of a large, concrete prison with bars and barbed wire. These images of prison have been popularized by movies such as Shawshank Redemption and Dog Pound, and television shows such as Orange Is the New Black and Empire. Although media- derived images of prison may be accurate for some maximum-security adult prisons, juvenile facilities are more varied and complex. The terminology used to define juvenile facilities varies so greatly that the terms residential or out-out- of- of- homehome placements placements are often used rather than the term prison. In fact, according to Melissa Sickmund (2010),

Juvenile facilities are known by many different names across the country: detention centers, juvenile halls, shelters, reception and diagnostic centers, group homes, wilderness camps, ranches, farms, youth development centers, residential treatment centers, training or reform schools, and juvenile correctional institutions. (p. 1)

The lack of a standard definition for these facilities can lead to a great deal of confusion. For example, to examine whether residential placement or community placement is more effective in reducing recidivism among youth, we would need to make sure we are not comparing apples to oranges. We would also need to decide how to measure or quantify residential placement. We would expect, for example, that a juvenile placed in a wilderness camp would be exposed to a different set of experiences than a juvenile placed in a secure correctional facility. In an effort to identify these differences and the impact they have on the behavior of juveniles, we will examine each of these settings in detail in subsequent sections. First, though, let's look at the broad data on which and how many juveniles are in these facilities, with the understanding that the common thread among all of these facilities is that juveniles reside at the facility rather than in their homes.

Population Characteristics of Residential Facilities

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) conducts a census of residential facilities for juveniles every other year. The results of the 2016 survey indicated that 45,567 juvenile offenders were held in juvenile residential facilities, representing a decline of more than 58% since 2000 (Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, Sladky, & Kang, 2018). Table 8.1 illustrates that the majority of juvenile facilities are labeled "residential treatment centers." Those facilities most similar to what we consider a "prison" in adult terms are labeled "long- term secure correctional facilities." Table 8.1 indicates that there are 189 of these facilities across the country.

Table 8.1: The number of residential juvenile facilities by type, 2016

Detention center Shelter

Reception/diagnostic center

Group home

Ranch/wilderness camp

Long- term

secure

Residential treatment

center

Number of

662 131 58 344 30 189 678

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 6 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

facilities Source: From "Table: Year by facility self-classification, United States," in Juvenile residential facility census databook: 2000–2016, by C. Puzzanchera, S. Hockenberry, T. J. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / j r f c d b / a s p / s e l e c t i o n _ p ro fil e . a s ph t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / j r f c d b / a s p / s e l e c t i o n _ p ro fil e . a s p ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / j r f c d b / a s p / s e l e c t i o n _ p ro fil e . a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / j r f c d b / a s p / s e l e c t i o n _ p ro fil e . a s p )

By examining the latest trends, we see in Figure 8.1 that the number of juveniles in residential placement has declined significantly. This decline is not surprising, since as we discussed in Chapter 1 the overall arrest rates among youth have also declined significantly.

Figure 8.1: Juveniles in residential placement, 2000 and 2014

From "Table: Number of facilities and juvenile offenders by facility size, United States (for years 2004 and 2014)," in Juvenile residential facility census databook: 2000–2016, by C. Puzzanchera, S. Hockenberry, T. J. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / j r f c d b / a s p / d i s p l a y _ p ro fil e . a s ph t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / j r f c d b / a s p / d i s p l a y _ p ro fil e . a s p ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / j r f c d b / a s p / d i s p l a y _ p ro fil e . a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / j r f c d b / a s p / d i s p l a y _ p ro fil e . a s p )

As seen in Table 8.2, the number of juveniles in residential placement varies quite a bit by state. For example, Table 8.2 lists both the number of juveniles in placement (for 2015) and the rate of placement. The rate of placement is the number of juveniles in custody per 100,000 youth. A rate helps to account for differences in state population. In other words, we would expect that California would have more juveniles in custody, given that it is the most populous state in the country. However, in the case of California, we see the placement rate of 165 is below that for many other states. Six of the most populous states—California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio—have reduced their placement rates by nearly half since 1997 (Hockenberry, 2018).

Table 8.2: The number of juveniles in residential placement by state, 2015

State where offense occurred (upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in 2015)

Number of juvenile offenders in public or private residential placement, 2015

Residential placement rate, 2015 (per 100,000 youth)

U.S. total 48,043 152

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 7 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Alabama (17) 849 168

Alaska (17) 207 262

Arizona (17) 717 98

Arkansas (17) 555 175

California (17) 6,726 165

Colorado (17) 999 177

Connecticut (17) 141 38

Delaware (17) 162 176

District of Columbia (17) 105 251

Florida (17) 2,853 153

Georgia (16) 1,110 111

Hawaii (17) 51 39

Idaho (17) 393 200

Illinois (17) 1,542 112

Indiana (17) 1,563 217

Iowa (17) 675 207

Kansas (17) 564 177

Kentucky (17) 510 112

Louisiana (16) 831 193

Maine (17) 81 67

Maryland (17) 612 101

Massachusetts (17) 426 66

Michigan (16) 1,554 172

Minnesota (17) 852 149

Mississippi (17) 243 74

Missouri (16) 948 173

Montana (17) 171 170

Nebraska (17) 465 225

Nevada (17) 627 209

New Hampshire (17) 69 54

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 8 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

New Jersey (17) 636 69

New Mexico (17) 363 164

New York (15) 1,386 99

North Carolina (15) 468 60

North Dakota (17) 144 203

Ohio (17) 2,163 178

Oklahoma (17) 552 131

Oregon (17) 1,113 286

Pennsylvania (17) 2,826 228

Rhode Island (17) 198 200

South Carolina (16) 693 161

South Dakota (17) 228 254

Tennessee (17) 660 97

Texas (16) 4,299 153

Utah (17) 453 114

Vermont (17) 27 47

Virginia (17) 1,227 147

Washington (17) 921 130

West Virginia (17) 567 329

Wisconsin (16) 762 147

Wyoming (17) 177 296 Source: From "Table: In 2015, the national commitment rate was twice the detention rate, but rates varied by state," in Juveniles in residential placement, 2015, by S. Hockenberry, 2018, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / p u b s / 2 5 0 9 5 1 . p d fh t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / p u b s / 2 5 0 9 5 1 . p d f ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / p u b s / 2 5 0 9 5 1 . p d f ) ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / p u b s / 2 5 0 9 5 1 . p d f )

The types of offenses that lead to residential placement are shown in Figure 8.2. Person offenses, which include violent offenses such as murder and robbery, represent the largest category, with the second largest category being property offenses. In fact, 60% of the juveniles in residential placement were there as a result of a person or property offense.

Figure 8.2: Percentage of juveniles in any residential setting by offense type, 2015

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 9 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…content&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

From "Table: Year of census by most serious offense general," in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s ph t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p )

If we examine gender, we can see in Figure 8.3 that 85% of youth in residential placement are boys. What this doesn't illustrate, however, is that girls of color are more likely than white girls to be placed in a residential setting. Girls are also more likely to be placed in residential settings for lower level offense. According to the latest statistics available from the OJJDP (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2017), more than half of youth placed in residential settings for running away are girls.

Figure 8.3: Percentage of juveniles in residential placement by gender, 2015

Eighty-five percent of the youth in residential placement were boys.

From "Table: Year of census by sex," in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera,

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 10 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l ah t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p ?y. a s p ? ro w _ v a r = v 0 1 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 2 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = ro w p &ro w _ v a r = v 0 1 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 2 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = ro w p & e x p o r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0e x p o r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p ?( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p ? ro w _ v a r = v 0 1 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 2 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = ro w p & e x p o r t _ fro w _ v a r = v 0 1 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 2 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = ro w p & e x p o r t _ f i l e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 )i l e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 )

If we examine race, we see that there are differences overall and by state. Table 8.3 illustrates that the total percentage of minority youth in custody in the United States is higher (42% black, 22% Hispanic) than for white youth (31%). The table also illustrates differences by state. Table 8.3 shows 17 states where 50% or more of the population under state custody is black. The jurisdictions with the highest rates include District of Columbia (97%), Delaware (80%), Louisiana (80%), Maryland (79%), Mississippi (77%), Georgia (74%), and New Jersey (72%). What is difficult to assess from the table is the extent to which these percentages represent disproportionality.

Table 8.3: Percentage under state custody by race/ethnicity, 2015

State of offense White Black Hispanic1 American Indian2 Asian Other

U.S. total 31% 42% 22% 2% 1% 2%

Alabama 35 60 3 0 0 1

Alaska 38 14 1 36 1 10

Arizona 33 16 36 8 1 7

Arkansas 36 57 6 0 1 1

California 13 28 55 1 2 1

Colorado 36 21 39 1 1 1

Connecticut 23 47 26 0 0 4

Delaware 13 80 7 0 0 2

Dist. of Columbia 0 97 0 0 0 0

Florida 29 62 9 0 0 0

Georgia 18 74 5 0 1 2

Hawaii 18 0 6 0 53 29

Idaho 70 2 23 2 2 1

Illinois 21 63 14 0 0 1

Indiana 53 36 7 0 0 4

Iowa 56 29 9 2 1 2

Kansas 46 33 19 1 1 1

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 11 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Kentucky 56 34 2 0 0 8

Louisiana 17 80 1 1 0 1

Maine 78 15 0 4 0 4

Maryland 14 79 6 0 0 0

Massachusetts 23 30 41 0 1 6

Michigan 40 47 6 1 0 6

Minnesota 38 40 7 10 2 4

Mississippi 22 77 0 0 0 1

Missouri 49 44 3 0 0 3

Montana 54 12 12 16 0 5

Nebraska 40 25 23 5 1 5

Nevada 25 37 31 2 2 3

New Hampshire 78 9 9 4 0 4

New Jersey 8 72 18 0 0 0

New Mexico 14 7 74 4 0 2

New York 28 52 16 1 1 2

North Carolina 21 67 7 2 0 3

North Dakota 54 13 4 25 0 4

Ohio 42 50 3 0 0 4

Oklahoma 39 40 8 11 0 2

Oregon 56 13 24 4 1 1

Pennsylvania 29 53 14 0 0 3

Rhode Island 32 30 32 0 3 3

South Carolina 32 48 16 1 0 3

South Dakota 49 4 3 39 1 3

Tennessee 46 41 9 0 0 3

Texas 21 34 44 0 0 1

Utah 50 9 34 5 2 1

Vermont 89 11 0 0 0 0

Virginia 24 62 11 0 0 3

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 12 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Washington 43 22 20 6 2 7

West Virginia 84 8 2 1 0 5

Wisconsin 28 56 9 3 1 2

Wyoming 66 7 14 12 0 2 1The Hispanic category includes person of Latin American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race. 2American Indian includes Alaskan Natives; Asian includes Pacific Islanders. Source: From "Table: Race/ethnicity by state, 2015," in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / S t a t e _ R a c e . a s p ?h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / S t a t e _ R a c e . a s p ? s t a t e = & t o p i c = S t a t e _ R a c e & y e a r = 2 0 1 5 & p e rc e n t = ro ws t a t e = & t o p i c = S t a t e _ R a c e & y e a r = 2 0 1 5 & p e rc e n t = ro w ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / S t a t e _ R a c e . a s p ? ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / S t a t e _ R a c e . a s p ? s t a t e = & t o p i c = S t a t e _ R a c e & y e a r = 2 0 1 5 & p e rc e n t = ro w )s t a t e = & t o p i c = S t a t e _ R a c e & y e a r = 2 0 1 5 & p e rc e n t = ro w )

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

The rate of confinement for minority populations has led to a number of initiatives, most notably the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) initiative designed to reduce the number of minorities who come in contact with the system. According to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, states receiving formula grants are required to address the issue of overrepresentation of minorities at each stage of the juvenile justice system, which includes institutions. The OJJDP has become a leader in collecting data to examine the national rates of contact. As an example of this leadership, they developed the National Disproportionate Minority Contact Databook (see https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/ (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/) ).

Data from this source are referred to as the Relative Rate Index (RRI). The RRI assesses the levels of disproportionate minority contact at various stages of juvenile justice system processing at the national level. This rate helps us understand the extent of disproportionality by taking into account the population size of different minority groups (e.g., black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) in the United States. The rate calculated is compared to the rate for white youth. The OJJDP created the RRI matrix to help states and jurisdictions measure levels of disparity within different parts of the juvenile justice system. By capturing the extent of disproportionate minority contact within communities, stakeholders can identify decision points that may need policy reforms. These data now allow us to examine trends over time.

Figure 8.4 illustrates that, with the exception of Asian American youth, all other minority youth have a rate of placement in residential settings that is higher than for white youth. Black and Hispanic youth have the highest rates of placement compared to other groups.

Figure 8.4: Relative rate index for youth receiving residential placement, 2005–2015

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 13 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

*AHPI: Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander

**AIAN: American Indian or Alaskan Native

From "Relative rate indices of adjudication and placement of delinquency referrals," in National disproportionate minority contact databook, by C. Puzzanchera and S. Hockenberry, 2018, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / d m c d b / a s p / d i s p l a y _ t re n d . a s p ?h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / d m c d b / a s p / d i s p l a y _ t re n d . a s p ? d i s p l a y _ i n = 1 & p o i n t = 9 & o f f e n s e = 1 & d i s p l a y t y p e = r r i & s h o w _ c h a r t = y e sd i s p l a y _ i n = 1 & p o i n t = 9 & o f f e n s e = 1 & d i s p l a y t y p e = r r i & s h o w _ c h a r t = y e s ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / d m c d b / a s p / d i s p l a y _ t re n d . a s p ?( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / d m c d b / a s p / d i s p l a y _ t re n d . a s p ? d i s p l a y _ i n = 1 & p o i n t = 9 & o f f e n s e = 1 & d i s p l a y t y p e = r r i & s h o w _ c h a r t = y e s )d i s p l a y _ i n = 1 & p o i n t = 9 & o f f e n s e = 1 & d i s p l a y t y p e = r r i & s h o w _ c h a r t = y e s )

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 14 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

8.3 Short-Term Residential Facilities

Several different types of facilities are referred to as short-term residential facilities, including detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, and youth shelters. Detention centers provide a temporary form of confinement typically used before the intake or adjudication phase. The police may decide to detain youth who pose a risk to themselves or others. In addition, if the police are unable to locate a youth's parents or guardians, they may place the juvenile in detention until the responsible party can be located.

Reception/diagnostic centers typically house youth for short periods while correctional officials assess the juveniles' needs in order to determine the best placement. The process is similar to the intake process; however, two characteristics distinguish it from the traditional intake process. First, unlike the intake process in which a youth may meet with a probation officer in the community, youth remain confined during this assessment process. Second, the assessment of youth at this stage often occurs once the youth has been adjudicated as delinquent and has been remanded to serve time in a residential facility (Sickmund, 2010). For example, in Ohio, all youth committed to the Department of Youth Services are sent to one reception center to be assessed for placement in one of the state's secure juvenile correctional facilities.

Youth shelters are another example of a short-term residential facility. Shelters are designed to provide short- term placement for youth who cannot be immediately returned to their families. Although designed primarily to serve status offenders and abuse and neglect cases, youth shelter care facilities can also serve delinquent youth if a detention center bed is unavailable. Most youth spend only days at youth shelters; however, the stay can be extended to weeks if the court finds placement to be difficult. Some youth shelters provide extensive services (e.g., psychological counseling, educational services), whereas others simply provide temporary supervised housing (Hicks-Coolick, Burnside-Eaton, & Peters, 2003).

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 15 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

8.4 Group Homes

Group homes may be either short or long term, and they can serve a variety of youth in the juvenile justice system. The typical group home concept provides supervision and services in a home-like setting. Group homes tend to be smaller than other residential facilities, typically serving 15 or fewer youth at any given time. The facility is considered nonsecure (e.g., no barbed wire or other security precautions) but does have locked doors, and youth who leave without permission may be punished.

Group homes vary in terms of both the population they serve and the services they offer. In terms of the population served, juvenile group homes accept those adjudicated as delinquent and abuse and neglect cases. They can serve both boys and girls, although coed facilities are rare. In some states, group homes can be used as halfway houses for youth released from long-term secure facilities. In terms of services, group homes can provide myriad services and programs. For example, youth residing in these group homes may be able to leave the home to attend school or outpatient therapy at a treatment center. Other times, therapy groups can be run at the facility itself with all of the residents of the home (Farmer, Siefert, Wagner, Burns, & Murray, 2017).

Because the services at the facilities vary greatly, assessing their effectiveness is difficult. The most well-known group home, called Boys Town, was established in 1917 by Father Flanagan, a Catholic priest in Omaha, Nebraska. The program, which was featured in a motion picture by the same name in 1938, is described in the accompanying Spotlight.

Spotlight: Boys Town

The Boys Town concept evolved out of Father Flanagan's concern for abused and neglected children. The original Boys Town program was an orphanage for young boys (Friman et al., 1996). Today, the nonprofit organization runs treatment programs in nine states and, according to its website (boystown.org (https://www.boystown.org/Pages/default.aspx) ), provides services for 1.6 million children per year. The programs serve both boys and girls.

The Boys Town program maintains its original focus on abused and neglected juveniles, targeting at-risk youth in an effort to make them productive members of society. Father Flanagan's original goal was to help abused and neglected boys to be productive citizens by providing them with opportunities to work in a loving home. Today's program has expanded to serve at-risk youth who are not necessarily in the foster care system but need services. According to the organization's website, the program has five objectives:

Teaching children and families life-changing skills Helping children and families build healthy relationships Empowering children and families to make good decisions on their own Caring for children in a family-style environment Supporting children and families in religious practices and values

Boys Town operates a number of different types of programs in different settings. Typical services include the following:

Residential treatment programs Group homes

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 16 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

In-home family care programs Foster care Community support and mentoring programs

Studies suggest that the services offered, particularly the residential treatment centers, are effective in increasing independent living skills, family functioning, and healthy relationship development (Friman et al., 1996).

Boys Town has been studied more extensively than other group homes across the country. Results of those evaluations find positive results (Kingsley, Ringle, Thompson, Chmelka, & Ingram, 2008); however, other studies suggest that group homes without treatment do not produce long-term change in youth (Barth, 2005). Why are the results mixed? It is likely the results are different because measuring the efficacy of Boys Town group homes suffers from the same problem that we have in assessing all juvenile facilities: the group homes even within Boys Town are quite varied. For example, some homes simply provide supervised housing, whereas others may provide more extensive services. A home that is simply a residential setting for the youth, without treatment services designed to address their issues, is less likely to have an impact.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 17 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Wilderness camps are more effective when treatments such as therapy are used in addition to challenging outdoor activities.

Paul M. Walsh/The Leader Telegram/Associated Press

8.5 Wilderness Camps/Ranches

Wilderness camps, also known as wilderness ranches, became popular in the 1960s and 1970s. These camps attempt to shape the self-efficacy of youth by exposing them to challenging situations. For example, youth may be asked to complete a ropes course or a hiking expedition. They may also be asked to camp outdoors for a period of time and use survival skills to build a fire, find shelter, and cook their own food. Challenging troubled youth to overcome certain physical challenges is thought to increase their belief in themselves and their ability to reach their goals. The idea of building self-efficacy through direct experiences is the foundation of the experiential learning approach, which is the act of learning through doing. Engaging in physical activities to learn a concept rather than more passive strategies such as reading a book will provide youth with a different set of experiences (Kolb, 1984).

VisionQuest, a national nonprofit organization that began offering a variety of services to juvenile delinquents in the 1970s, is most well known for its outdoor programs. One of the more interesting programs is referred to as the Wagon Train. According to the organization's website (www.vq.com (http://www.vq.com//) ), the Wagon Train program "gives troubled youth the extraordinary experience of traveling cross-country for an extended period of time via horseback and covered wagon." Youth in the program are required to take care of the horses pulling the wagons and to set up camp each night. The website touts the program as one that provides outdoor experiences that mold the character of wayward youth.

Wilderness camps typically last from several weeks to months. For example, a highly structured wilderness camp in Florida called the Florida Environmental Institute targets youth adjudicated of felony charges by the Department of Juvenile Justice in Florida. Nicknamed the "Last Chance Ranch," the program is in a remote area of the Florida Everglades, which makes escape nearly impossible. Participants typically stay at the ranch for 12 months and during that time assist with raising pigs, cattle, horses, and various crops in addition to engaging in more traditional activities such as educational programs and mental health and substance abuse treatment. Youth are required to progress through four phases to eventually obtain release. Although evaluations of the program are not available, its founders argue the work ethic builds character among youth.

Are wilderness camps effective at reducing recidivism among delinquent youth? Unfortunately, studies suggest that the core foundation of a wilderness camp (e.g., challenging outdoor activities) is not sufficient to influence recidivism rates in delinquent youth. A review of the literature by Sandra Jo Wilson and Mark Lipsey (2001) concluded that wilderness-based camps simply focused on physically challenging situations are not effective in reducing recidivism. However, they did find that some programs were more effective if they added treatment services such as family, individual, and group therapy (Wilson & Lipsey, 2001). Other studies have also concluded that the treatment services were the reason for the reductions in recidivism, not the structure of the camp (MacKenzie, Gover, Styve, & Mitchell, 2000). The question becomes, then, if the only way to make wilderness programs more effective is to add treatment groups, do the physical challenges have any

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 18 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

beneficial effect? There is no definitive answer yet, but it appears increasingly unlikely that the physical challenges are beneficial.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 19 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Youths housed in residential treatment centers attend group-based treatment programs for their specific issues.

Spencer Grant/age fotostock/SuperStock

8.6 Residential Treatment Centers

Residential treatment centers have increased in popularity during the past few decades. Based on the data in Table 8.1, 32% of all residential facilities for juveniles are residential treatment centers. At their basic level, these centers provide treatment services to juveniles in a residential environment. For example, youth may attend school at the facility during the day and group-based treatment (e.g., for substance abuse or anger management) in the evenings or on weekends. The focus of the facility is treatment rather than punishment. The centers are intended to serve youth who present with significant issues (e.g., behavioral or emotional) that are not deemed severe enough to warrant placement in a long-term secure correctional facility. In theory, the facilities are designed to be short term to stabilize and provide the youth with treatment.

As with all of the facilities and programs we have discussed, the juveniles served at these facilities vary

greatly as well. According to Zelechoski et al. (2013), the majority of youth housed in these facilities tend to have severe emotional and behavioral problems, complex histories of trauma and abuse, and significant issues with regard to family, schools, and peers. Moreover, Preyde et al. (2011) found that half of the youth attending residential treatment centers in their study did not live with their parents prior to their admission to the facility. At the same time, painting these centers and the youth they serve with such a broad brush is difficult. Some residential treatment centers may primarily admit high-need youth, whereas others may serve youth from less severe backgrounds.

As a result, two critical issues or concerns emerge with regard to these centers. First, there are concerns that these facilities could be mixing together high-risk youth with those who are lower risk. As a result, the centers could act as "crime schools," increasing the problems of the low-risk youth (Holman & Zeidenburg, 2013). The second concern is whether these centers are sufficiently intensive. As we just discussed, these centers often serve youth with significant behavioral problems and histories involving complex trauma and abuse. As such, the treatment should be sufficiently intensive to address the youth's needs. For example, studies suggest that treatment should last 3–12 months depending on the youth's needs (Lipsey, 2009). However, the length of stay at these facilities is often relatively short and doesn't appear to vary based on needs. Baglivio et al. (2018) found that when residential centers addressed the youth's needs and provided appropriate treatment dosage, outcomes improved greatly.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 20 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

8.7 Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

Long-term secure correctional facilities are the closest parallel to adult prisons. The labels given to these facilities vary by state. For example, North Carolina refers to its four secure institutions as youth development centers, Ohio refers to its three secure institutions as juvenile correctional facilities, and California refers to its three secure facilities as youth correctional facilities. By contrast, Rhode Island refers to its one secure residential facility as a training school.

The Characteristics

According to Sickmund et al. (2017), just over 12,000 youth were committed to long-term secure facilities in 2015. The size of the facilities varies quite a bit, as illustrated in Figure 8.5. For example, 20% house between 21 and 50 youth, 50% hold between 51 and 150 youth, and 16% hold more than 200 youth.

Figure 8.5: Long-term secure facilities by size in 2015

Long-term secure facilities vary widely in size.

From "Table: Facility size by year of census," in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p ?h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p ? ro w _ v a r = v 1 0 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 1 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = c o l p & e x p o r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 1ro w _ v a r = v 1 0 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 1 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = c o l p & e x p o r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 1 1 0 & v 1 2 8 = v 1 2 81 0 & v 1 2 8 = v 1 2 8 ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p ? ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p ? ro w _ v a r = v 1 0 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 1 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = c o l p & e x p o r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 & v 1 2 8 = v 1 2 8 )ro w _ v a r = v 1 0 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 1 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = c o l p & e x p o r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 & v 1 2 8 = v 1 2 8 )

What are the demographic profiles of youth held at these facilities? Eighty-seven percent of those in custody are boys, and, as shown in Figure 8.6, 43% are African American (Sickmund et al., 2017). Although the charges for which youth were incarcerated vary (see Figure 8.7), the most frequently occurring offense type is person offenses, which include robbery, aggravated assault, and sexual assault.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 21 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Figure 8.6: Percentage of youth sent to long-term secure facilities by race, 2015

From "Table: Year of census by race," in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / s e l e c t ih t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / s e l e c t i o n . a s p ?o n . a s p ? ro w _ v a r = v 0 1 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 3 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = & e x p oro w _ v a r = v 0 1 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 3 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = & e x p o r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 & v 1 2 8 =r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 & v 1 2 8 = v 1 2 8v 1 2 8 ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / s e l e c t i o n . a s p( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / s e l e c t i o n . a s p ?? ro w _ v a r = v 0 1 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 3 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = & e x p o r t _ fil e =ro w _ v a r = v 0 1 & c o l _ v a r = v 0 3 & d i s p l a y _ t y p e = & e x p o r t _ fil e = & p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 & v 1 2 8 = v 1 2 8 )& p r i n t e r _ f r i e n d l y = & v 0 11 0 = v 0 11 0 & v 1 2 8 = v 1 2 8 )

Figure 8.7: Percentage of youth sent to secure facilities by offense type, 2015

Forty-eight percent of offenses were associated with persons and 24% with property, while only 4% of offenses were associated with drugs.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 22 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Detention center services such as education Alan Spearman/The Commercial Appeal/Associated Press

From "Year of census by most serious offense general," in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997– 2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l ah t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s py. a s p ( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p )( h t t p s : / / w w w. o j j d p . g o v / o j s t a t b b / e z a c j r p / a s p / d i s p l a y. a s p )

Does Confinement Work?

The use of punitive strategies for juveniles became popular in the 1980s and 1990s. This phenomenon was seen in the rate of out-of-home placements for youth. For example, placements in residential facilities increased by more than 40% during the 1990s (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Now, however, we are seeing a significant reduction in the number of juveniles placed in long-term secure facilities. The decline in the number of juveniles in custody is partly reflective of the reduction in arrests for juvenile delinquency. However, as mentioned in the beginning of the chapter, it also is likely emanating from two additional sources: costs and effectiveness.

Costs Institutionalizing juveniles is not a cost-efficient sanction. In fact, the American Correctional Association estimates that it costs as much as $88,000 per year to house a juvenile in a high-security institution (although the figures vary by state). This figure is particularly high compared to other community-based sanctions. For example, one study found that the average costs of community-based programs were estimated to be close to $9,000 per year, compared to just over $57,000 for a secure facility in Ohio (Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005).

The high cost of incarcerating juveniles comprises staffing

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 23 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

make long-term confinement an expensive option compared to other community-based sanctions.

Influences and Treatment

Running treatment in prison can be rewarding and difficult.

1. Discuss the benefits of running treatment programs in prison.

2. Identify the potential pitfalls and how they may be overcome.

costs, the amount of money needed to run the institution (e.g., heat, water, food), and costs to maintain services (e.g., medical, mental health). Added services can increase the cost dramatically. A study in California revealed that incarcerating a juvenile with mental illness can increase the cost by as much as $18,800 per year (Cohen & Pfeifer, 2008, p. 31).

Some of the costs of confinement can be justified on the grounds of public safety. In other words, if incarcerating juveniles leads to a reduction in crime and makes neighborhoods safer, the costs might be worth it. However, the issue of the effectiveness of long-term incarceration of juveniles is not as straightforward as it might seem.

Effectiveness The effectiveness of confining youth is complex and difficult to assess. If we take a step back and examine this issue from a philosophical perspective, we should ask ourselves, What is the purpose of confinement? For example, there are typically said to be four primary goals of confinement: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Let's examine each in detail.

Retribution rests with the notion of revenge for the harm a criminal has inflicted on society. Retributive policies have one intention: to punish. The justification for punishment is not about why youth commit crime or what social circumstances should be changed in their lives. Rather, the focus and the intent rest with punishment for the youth's transgressions. Retribution as a goal of incarceration isn't necessarily related to effectiveness. In other words, the punishment is for punishment's sake, not to change behavior for the future. However, if asked, most people would say they hope the punishment produces a long-term change in the incarcerated youth. The idea that punishment should produce future changes in youth is the foundation for deterrence theory.

Deterrence theory asserts that punishment should reduce the future likelihood of crime. This can be accomplished in two ways. First, punishment sends a message to juveniles that certain behavior is not acceptable,

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 24 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

that a sanction will occur if they conduct themselves in a particular way. The sanction should teach youth that there are consequences for behavior, and this consequence should reduce future criminal behavior. This phenomenon is referred to as specific deterrence. Second, the punishment may have a wider effect on the behavior of others who see that the youth was punished. You may hear judges or prosecutors say they want to "send a message" to would-be criminals that the behavior in question will not be tolerated in the community. A judge in that circumstance may sentence the youth to an institution in the hopes that doing so will make others who may be thinking about committing a crime reconsider their actions. This is referred to as general deterrence. During the get-tough period of the 1980s and 1990s, the philosophy of deterrence became increasingly popular. This was seen in both the transfer of juveniles to the adult system (and thereby adult prisons) and the increase in the use of confinement in juvenile institutions.

Incapacitation is a third goal that fits with the confinement of juveniles. The logic of incapacitation is that a person who is confined cannot commit crime. Although this is not exactly accurate, given that juveniles can commit crimes of violence or theft while confined, it does minimize crime in the community. It can be argued that incarcerating juveniles during the years in which they are at higher risk for committing crime (e.g., 16–18 years of age) would reduce the crime rate.

Finally, a fourth goal, rehabilitation, maintains that providing treatment services for youth should be the guiding philosophy for changing troubled behavior and reducing crime. Treatment or rehabilitation focus on the issues or problems that propelled the youth into delinquency. Supporters would argue that if we can fix those issues or problems, then we could expect the youth to refrain from committing crime again in the future. In other words, if you fix the "cause," you can fix the problem.

If we examine the impact or effectiveness of confinement for juveniles, we need to ask ourselves, Is the goal of confinement to punish, to deter, to incapacitate, or to rehabilitate? If it is simply to punish for the sake of revenge for the wrongdoing, then confinement could be argued to serve that purpose. If the purpose is to incapacitate to reduce crime in the community while the youth is confined, one could argue that such a goal, at least on the individual level, is likely realized. However, if the goal is either to deter or to rehabilitate, then effectiveness becomes questionable.

Holman and Zeidenburg (2006) suggested that confinement of youth, particularly in long-term secure placement, increases the risk of recidivism. They argued that the increase in recidivism can be attributed to a number of things. Confinement has been found to diminish the mental health of those youth struggling with mental illness; to label youth as "criminal," thereby increasing their chances of identifying as criminals; to decrease their chances to associate with positive peers who might help them get on the right path; and to reduce school achievement, which further limits opportunity and further entrenches youth in the criminal justice system.

With regard to rehabilitation, studies suggest that if a prison culture is one that supports treatment services, it can be more effective. For example, most institutions provide educational services for youth where they attend school for a significant portion of the day. Moreover, many offer group-based treatment services targeted at substance addiction, life-skills development, or victim awareness. Others provide vocational opportunities for youth. These may include computer programming, woodworking, agricultural activities, or auto repair. Although youth do not leave the facility fully equipped for these careers, the exposure may increase their interest in pursuing a

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 25 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Studies suggest that vocational programs offered in long-term secure institutions may increase a youth's interest in studying the area once released.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock certificate or degree in some area. Studies find that youth who serve time in treatment-oriented facilities have better attitudes toward the institution (Mancheck & Cullen, 2014).

The reality, however, is that long-term secure institutions often prioritize confinement and security over rehabilitation. Studies find that institutions focusing on

custody can inadvertently create the violence they are trying to prevent. For example, studies find that highly punitive institutions that were coercive toward youth actually encouraged violence. A highly coercive environment encourages youth to create a hierarchy within the institution in order to gain some sense of power and control over their environment. Stronger youth then prey on weaker youth and treat those youth the same way the guards are treating them (de Valk, Kuiper, van der Helm, Maas, & Stams, 2016; Feld, 1978).

Further illustrating this point is a recent study on prison rape in juvenile institutions. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted the study in response to legislation passed in 2003 called the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The PREA legislation is designed to address the problem of sexual victimization in prison (for juveniles and adults). The act has several provisions including the tracking of sexual victimization incidents in prison. BJS now publishes annual statistics on the topic of sexual victimization among juveniles in correctional institutions. According to the latest statistics, nearly 1,500 youth reported being sexually victimized while housed in a facility. The rate of victimization increased between 2005 and 2012. The reason for this upward trend is unclear.

The 2012 victimization study (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016) also included other insights into violence that occurs within these facilities, including the following:

55% of the incidents involved youth-on-youth violence; 45% staff on youth. Violence or threat of violence was used in nearly a quarter of youth on youth incidents. 64% of staff involved incidents were perpetrated by a female staff member. State juvenile systems have higher rates of victimization than local or private juvenile facilities.

With such high rates of violence, the question shifts from is rehabilitation a goal of these facilities to can it be a goal? Exacerbating the problem is the transfer of juveniles to the adult system.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 26 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

8.8 Juveniles in Adult Facilities

Once transferred to the adult criminal court system, juveniles can be sent to adult prisons to serve their period of confinement. The trend peaked in the late 1990s when more than 5,000 persons under the age of 18 were housed in adult prisons. According to the latest statistics, just under 1,000 juveniles are housed in adult prisons (Carson & Mulako-Wangota, 2018).

Unfortunately, we see a racial disparity in terms of who is more likely to be sentenced to prison once transferred to the adult court system. For example, an analysis of juveniles in adult custody published in 2000 found that "in comparison with the adult prison population, a higher proportion of youth were black (55% of youthful inmates versus 48% of adult inmates) and were convicted of a crime against persons (57% of youth versus 44% of adult inmates)" (Austin, Johnson, & Gregoriou, 2000, p. 12).

How well do these juveniles fare in adult prisons? The research finds that they typically do not fare well compared to juveniles kept in the juvenile justice system. For example, juveniles transferred to adult court fail more often, more quickly, and in a variety of ways compared to those retained in the juvenile justice system (Lambie & Randall, 2013). A study by Kuanliang, Sorensen, and Cunningham (2008) found that juveniles in adult prisons had significantly higher rates of disciplinary infractions than adults in the same prison. And another study found that these juveniles were more likely to be sexually assaulted when in adult prisons (Fagan & Kupchik, 2011).

Given these findings, many states have revised their transfer laws for juveniles. A report issued by the Council of State Governments notes that several states in particular are giving judges more discretion in allowing juveniles a second chance:

In 2007, Virginia changed the "once an adult, always an adult" law. Previously, a one-time transfer of a juvenile to adult court was enough to keep a juvenile in the adult system for all future proceedings, no matter how minor the charge. In 2008, a Colorado act allowed a juvenile charged with felony murder to serve in the juvenile justice system. Virginia allowed a juvenile sentenced as an adult to gain earned sentence credits while serving the juvenile portion of the sentence in a juvenile center rather than in an adult facility. In 2008, a Maine law provided that juveniles under age 16 who receive adult prison sentences can begin serving the sentence in a juvenile facility. In 2009 and 2010, Nevada, Mississippi, and Utah left it to the juvenile court to determine whether transfer to the adult court was necessary. In 2012, a Colorado law barred "district attorneys from charging juveniles as adults for many low- and mid-level felonies." The act also raised from 14 to 16 the age at which young offenders may be charged as adults for more serious crimes (Brown, 2012, p. 5).

The juveniles' experiences while confined can influence how well they assimilate back into society. It would be reasonable to expect that youth who experience coercive prison environments are more likely to do worse when they return to the community. One study found this to be true among adult prisoners (Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, & Colvin, 2013). Those individuals who experienced victimization in prison were more likely to return to prison, a finding that runs counter to what deterrence theory would suggest.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 27 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Despite reentry and aftercare programs, some juvenile offenders return to detention centers shortly after release.

Ken Tannenbaum/SuperStock

8.9 Preparing for Release

Approximately 100,000 youth reenter the community each year. Reentry is the label typically used to describe the process youth go through when they return to the community from a period of confinement. The process varies for each individual. Some youth may be returning to an alternative environment such as foster care; others will return to the same environment they previously left.

Post-Release Challenges

Although the process of reentry is not new, there is renewed attention surrounding reentry services for youth. The attention is understandable if we consider that a study of adults found that the vast majority of those reentering the community failed within three years (Alper, Durose, & Markman, 2018). According to one study of juveniles detained in Wisconsin, 70% were arrested or returned to secure detention within one year of release (Bezruki, Varana, & Hill, 1999).

The question is, Why do so many juveniles struggle after release? There are a number of possibilities. Some youth may not be receiving adequate treatment services while institutionalized. As we have discussed, treatment services are often lacking in both short- and long-term facilities. There are also concerns that confinement in a residential facility disrupts the key protective factors of school, peers, and family relationships. For example, youth who are removed from traditional school settings when placed in prison must be integrated back into the school system or, if they obtained a GED while institutionalized, they must determine how to find their way into the workplace. Meaningful employment for youth is difficult even in a healthy job market. As noted by Nellis and Wayman (2009), even when programs exist in the institutions where youth are placed, "vocational programming designed to prepare young people for a job upon release was not accompanied by any industry certification or associated with high-growth jobs in the communities where the youth would be returning" (p. 18).

Over the past decade, however, there have been a number of reentry reforms in juvenile justice. For example, as we've discussed, many states have chosen to reduce the number of commitments to long-term secure facilities. This reluctance to incarcerate is a response to both the costs and the effectiveness of such a sanction. States have had to be mindful of what services are needed in the community to ensure that youth are well served. One example is Wraparound Milwaukee, a program that is a collaboration among mental health, juvenile justice, child welfare systems, and educational systems. This program provides services to youth in the areas of education, mental health, substance abuse treatment, and in-home therapy. Family is a key component of the program as well. Similarly, as we discussed at the beginning of the chapter, Ohio's Reentry Continuum has been developed to guide that state's practices.

The importance of treatment services as we prepare youth for release is not new. Research supports the idea that aftercare services are needed to help youth transition into the community.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 28 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Aftercare

Preparing youth for their release back into the community is one of the central tenets of aftercare. Aftercare provides the client with services that focus on ongoing community support and treatment. Steve Geis (2003) noted:

Two key components of the aftercare concept distinguish it from the traditional juvenile justice model. First, offenders must receive both services and supervision. (Offenders in the traditional juvenile justice system are generally sentenced to some type of supervision and are sometimes provided with services.) Second, they must receive intensive intervention while they are incarcerated, during their transition to the community, and when they are under community supervision. This second component refines the concept of reintegrative services to include services that occur before release as well as after release. (p. 1)

Aftercare should not simply be an occasional meeting with a probation officer. Instead, aftercare should focus on the issues the juvenile faces. For some, that may mean an intensive intervention that includes multiple levels of services given to both the youth and the family. For example, a youth who is returning to a nonsupportive, chaotic family environment with exposure to drug and alcohol abuse will need a different level of service than a youth who is returning to a stable family environment.

According to Nellis and Wayman (2009), reentry programs for youth should, at a minimum

Be located in the community where returning youth live Be individualized to assist with developmental deficits Concentrate heavily on ensuring school reenrollment, attendance, and success Focus on permanent family/guardianship connections Include access to mental health and substance abuse treatment Recognize the diverse needs of returning youth Include a structured workforce preparation and employment component Include housing support and assistance for youth who cannot live with relatives and are transitioning to adulthood

Although these components are important, the reality is that many state juvenile justice systems are fragmented and not organized around meeting the needs of these youth in a systematic way. For example, most states have both rural and urban areas. In urban areas, there are often more services available to youth simply due to the needs of the population. Chicago will have more services available to youth than, say, a smaller town in Illinois. Rural areas simply do not have the resources of larger towns or cities. So the aftercare experiences of youth returning to a smaller town will differ from those of youth returning to a rural area. In effect, the quality of aftercare is dependent on geography.

Pennsylvania has developed a comprehensive aftercare model based on the state's Comprehensive Aftercare Reform Initiative. The initiative led to the creation of 17 goals related to aftercare, including early assessment and planning, multiagency collaboration, monitoring, school reintegration, and case management. Each probation officer must develop a comprehensive plan that includes the school, family, and others who could act as protective supports for the youth.

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 29 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Teens Transition to the Outside World

Teens re-entering the community from a period of confinement are at great risk for recidivism.

Teens Transition to Outside World From Title:

On the Outside: Social Challenges for Teens Re... (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx? wID=100753&xtid=37256)

© Infobase. All Rights Reserved. Length: 03:27

1. What other ways would you suggest kids cope with stress at home and school?

2. Why is it important to match the type of activity to the youth's interests?

In another example, the OJJDP sponsored the evaluation of a project referred to as the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP). The IAP is designed to provide youth with aftercare services that begin while they are incarcerated and continue during reentry into the community. Program staff develop collaborations with agencies in the community, and, while institutionalized, youth receive services designed to prepare them for the transition. For example, vocational programs offered while youth are institutionalized could then be linked to similar programs or even job opportunities in the community.

The IAP model is a comprehensive service-based approach that enables youth to make a structured transition back into the community rather than a transition that is haphazard or based on things like geography. To ensure the approach is systematic and structured for each youth, case management is key (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1996). For example, staff should not wait until the youth is about to go back home to start thinking about reentry. Instead, staff in these programs should begin thinking about the youth's transition back to the community from the beginning of the youth's confinement. This gives program staff time to develop a plan for how youth will transition back, where youth will go, and how to best support youth and their families (Geis, 2003).

The approach is not simply about treatment services, although that is a significant component of the program. For example, program staff also advocate for the importance of supervision services for youth. The probation or parole officer is still seen as key to the youth. This may include home visits, drug testing, school monitoring, and many of the surveillance activities discussed in Chapter 7. Initial reviews indicated that this approach was successful; however, other studies suggest that it did not achieve reductions in recidivism (Wiebush, Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005). Studies suggest that this approach often failed to engage families in meaningful ways that could have led to long-term benefits (Abrams, Mizel, Nguyen, & Shlonsky, 2014).

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 30 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Another example of a structured approach to reintegration and aftercare is the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). In 2003, the federal government launched the SVORI to address the needs of violent adult and juvenile offenders reentering the community. According to Lattimore, MacDonald, Piquero, Linster, and Visher (2004),

the goals of the initiative are to improve quality of life and self-sufficiency through employment, housing, family and community involvement; improve health by addressing substance use (sobriety and relapse prevention) and physical and mental health; reduce criminality through supervision and by monitoring noncompliance, reoffending, rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration; achieve system change through multi-agency collaboration and case management strategies. (p. 2)

Ultimately, 69 agencies nationwide received over $100 million in funds to develop reentry programs. The 69 states agencies included 88 different programs. According to Lattimore and colleagues (2004), of those programs, 35 targeted adults only, 34 targeted juveniles only, 2 targeted youthful offenders only, and 17 targeted some combination of adults, juveniles, and youthful offenders. The SVORI programs for youth are similar to the programs just noted. The delivery of services begins during the youth's period of incarceration and continues with the youth while in the community. The process was designed to be structured and to work with youth at all levels (e.g., families, schools, peers, community).

So the question is, Did the SVORI programs fare better than the IAP programs? Unfortunately, the answer is no if we look at the national data. Overall, the SVORI programs did not significantly reduce the recidivism rates of youth participating in the program compared to youth who did not participate in the program. Among juvenile clients, there was no difference in reported substance abuse or in criminal behavior. However, a few differences between the two approaches were noted. For example, SVORI participants did slightly better with regard to housing or employment; however, the programs were not considered a success due their lack of outcomes (Lattimore & Visher, 2009).

Why did these programs fail to achieve the expected results? Implementing treatment for youth is difficult. In Chapter 10 we will summarize these issues and identify promising or effective interventions for youth.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 31 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Summary of Learning Objectives

Summarize the history behind the residential placement of youth.

The use of confinement for juvenile delinquency remains controversial. The majority of states have substantially reduced the number of confined youth.

Define confinement and who is most likely to be sentenced to institutions for juveniles.

Juvenile facilities used for confinement are varied and complex. The terminology used to define juvenile facilities varies so greatly that the terms residential or out-of- home placements are often used rather than the term prison. In 2016, over 45,000 juveniles under the age of 21 were held in juvenile residential facilities. This represents a 53% decline since 2000. Overall, 15% of these youth are girls.

Explain the different types of short-term residential placements for youth.

Short-term residential facilities include detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, and youth shelters. In the majority of cases, these placements provide temporary housing for youth prior to adjudication.

Describe the advantages and disadvantages of group homes.

Group homes are smaller than other residential facilities and can provide a variety of treatment services to youth. Group homes that rely simply on supervision without treatment services tend to be ineffective.

Explain the degree of effectiveness of wilderness camps.

Wilderness programs are designed to increase self-efficacy of the youth by exposing them to challenging situations. Overall, the camps are found to be ineffective as they do not focus on changing the problems youth face in their communities.

Identify the different types of short-term residential placements for youth.

Residential treatment centers are the newest type of residential facilities that typically serve youth with complex needs who otherwise would have been sent to long-term secure correctional facilities. Though more effective than group homes and wilderness camps, residential treatment centers show mixed results. It is more effective to treat youth in the community than in a residential environment.

Summarize the issues associated with long-term secure correctional facilities.

Long-term secure correctional facilities serve youth deemed a risk to the community. The rate of youth placed in custody has declined since the early 2000s. Long-term secure facilities are criticized for their high cost and lack of effectiveness (i.e., their failure to reduce recidivism). Studies suggest these facilities fail to rehabilitate or deter youth from future criminal acts.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 32 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Describe the risks involved with confining juveniles in adult facilities.

Transferring youth to adult court became popular in the late 1980s and 1990s. By the late 1990s, more than 5,000 persons under the age of 18 were housed in adult prisons. Today fewer than 1,000 are housed in adult prisons. Studies suggest that youth transferred to adult facilities have worse outcomes than those who remain in the juvenile justice system.

Identify the components of successfully helping juveniles reintegrate into society after release.

Release or reentry back to the community is an important issue for juvenile delinquents. Aftercare services are crucial for youth returning home from a period of confinement. There are several notable programs; however, studies suggest aftercare programs struggle to provide the services required to address juveniles' needs.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. Do you like the idea of wilderness camps or ranches? Why or why not? Are you dissuaded by mixed

findings regarding their effectiveness? 2. What do you see as the biggest problems with long-term secure facilities for juveniles? Do you support

reducing their use or increasing it? Explain your answer. 3. Do you agree with the states that have begun revising their transfer laws for juveniles to make them less

stringent? Or do you believe we should continue to transfer juveniles to the adult system? Explain your answer.

4. Why do you think that juveniles struggle as they return back to the community from a period of incarceration? What should we do about it, particularly given the mixed findings regarding the IAP and SVORI programs?

Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition.

detention centers (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Short-term facilities used to confine youth before the intake or adjudication phase.

deterrence theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 33 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The theory asserting that punishment should reduce the future likelihood of crime through specific deterrence, which sends a message to juveniles that certain behavior is not acceptable and so not to repeat criminal behavior, and general deterrence, which is intended to send a message to other would-be criminals.

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

An initiative designed to reduce the number of minorities who come in contact with the juvenile court system.

experiential learning (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A learning approach built on the idea that self-efficacy is attained through direct experiences.

group homes (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Either short- or long-term facilities that serve a variety of youth in the juvenile justice system. Group homes typically provide supervision and services in a home-like setting.

incapacitation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The confinement of individuals who commit criminal acts.

Intensive Aftercare Program

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 34 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A program designed to provide aftercare services to youth beginning while they are incarcerated and continuing into the community.

out-of-home placements (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A term frequently used for juvenile facilities in place of terms such as prison.

rate of placement (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The number of juveniles in custody per 100,000 youth.

reception/diagnostic centers (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Facilities that typically house youth for short periods while correctional officials assess the juveniles' needs in order to determine the best placement.

rehabilitation (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 35 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

A goal of confinement according to which providing treatment services, not punishment, for youth should be the guiding philosophy for changing troubled behavior and reducing crime.

retribution (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A goal of confinement according to which revenge is enacted for the harm a criminal has inflicted on society; the primary intention of retributive policies is to punish.

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A structured approach to reintegration and aftercare launched to address the needs of violent adult and juvenile offenders reentering the community.

youth shelters (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Facilities that provide short-term placement for youth who cannot be immediately returned to their families.

VisionQuest (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A popular program most well known for its wilderness camps.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 36 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

9Special Populations

Cultura Limited/SuperStock

Learning Objectives

After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

Describe the issues early starters face in their

everyday lives, the characteristics of persistently

disruptive children, and the methods used to prevent

and treat early delinquent behavior.

Explain the complexity of defining gangs and gang

behavior and the relationship between gangs and

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 37 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

In the summer of 1981, 6-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted from a Hollywood, Florida, shopping mall. His mother allowed Adam to play video games near the front entrance while she shopped for lamps. She indicated she was gone for only 10 minutes. According to the store security guard, he found Adam and several other boys fighting over the video games and escorted all of them out of the store. It is believed that Adam was left alone outside the store, at which point he was abducted.

Adam's decapitated head was found approximately two weeks later; however, the police never recovered his body. The national manhunt remained a cold case for years until, in 2008, officials declared that a previous suspect of the murder was the killer. That man had died in prison 12 years earlier and was never officially tried for Adam's abduction and murder.

Adam's father, John Walsh, is well known around the world as the man behind the television show America's Most Wanted. He is actively involved in missing children cases and advocating for harsher laws surrounding child molesters. Some 25 years later, in 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The law, passed with bipartisan support, requires more stringent sex-offender registration requirements. Although there was no evidence that Adam Walsh was sexually assaulted, given that his body was never found, the man accused of his murder had a history of juvenile delinquency and sex offending. The legislation was seen as a positive step toward holding sex offenders accountable. That accountability is represented in a three-tier notification system that requires serious sex offenders to be listed on a national registry for life.

Sex-offender registration laws are very popular with the public. The popularity of these laws is understandable— people feel they have the right to know if a sex offender is living next door or in their neighborhood. One issue we will examine in this chapter is whether the situ ation changes when a juvenile is involved. As discussed in previous chapters, many serious adult offenders begin their criminal careers as juveniles. Yet we know that not all juvenile sex offenders become adult offenders. In fact, juvenile sex offenders are more complex than the label suggests.

crime.

Analyze the complexity surrounding the labeling of

juvenile sex offenders.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 38 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

9.1 Introduction

We often talk in terms of the "typical" juvenile delinquent, but certain juvenile delinquents are deserving of special attention. These special populations present particular challenges for the juvenile justice system and, to an extent, the communities in which they reside. For example, some juvenile delinquents are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior at a young age, and they are more likely to continue their criminal involvement as adults. Intervening in the lives of these juveniles is particularly important. Moreover, there are certain types of juvenile delinquents whose behavior is more violent and detrimental to their families, schools, and communities. These populations present special issues and concerns for the juvenile justice system, both from a policy standpoint and from a rehabilitation standpoint.

The word special may seem a misnomer in this circumstance as it is typically used in a positive context. In this chapter, however, we use special to refer to those who depart from typical patterns of criminal behavior among adolescents. The three types of juvenile delinquents that most significantly depart from the norm are the very young delinquents often called early starters, gang-involved youth, and juvenile sex offenders.

What is interesting about each of these types of delinquents is that although they share similarities they also are very different. In particular, juvenile sex offenders are a heterogeneous group, meaning that all juvenile sex offenders do not look alike, act alike, or in most circumstances have the same backgrounds. Understanding the complex legal and social issues at stake with these three special populations is also important.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 39 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

According to current trends, young offenders are more likely to engage in substance abuse at an earlier age than in previous years.

BananaStock/Thinkstock

9.2 Early Starters

What does the label early starter mean? Although the age at which we label a juvenile an "early starter" is somewhat debatable, the label is typically reserved for those who begin committing crimes before the age of 14. The number of juveniles who commit crimes before that age is relatively small. In fact, most studies find that early starters represent merely 5% to 7% of the juvenile delinquents arrested in any given year (Loeber & Farrington, 2000). Terrie Moffitt (1993) categorized delinquents into two groups: adolescent limited offenders and antisocial persistent offenders. Both groups can include early starters. Adolescent limited offenders typically stop their delinquent behavior by the end of adolescence. By contrast, antisocial persistent offenders continue their criminal careers into adulthood. They are also more likely to be early starters. In fact, studies find that early starters are two to three times more likely than juveniles who start offending at a later age to become chronic adult offenders (Loeber & Farrington, 2000).

Issues Faced by Early Starters

As youth, antisocial persistent offenders often encountered cumulative disadvantages that exacerbated their problems. Once these youth are off on the wrong foot, the cycle becomes difficult to break. They are more likely to have neurological difficulties that include impulsivity, hyperactivity, and poor verbal and problem-solving skills (Moffitt, 1993). Understanding how and why these juveniles begin their delinquent careers is important for managing and intervening with this population.

These early starters can be a drain on the juvenile justice system. They are more likely than other juvenile offenders to commit crime more frequently. They are also more likely to escalate their criminal behavior and become increasingly violent. As a result, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) formed a study group. The group, referred to as the Study Group on Very Young Offenders, was comprised of 39 experts on the topic of child delinquency. The study group published a number of reports that can be found at OJJDP.gov (https://www.ojjdp.gov) under the title Child Delinquency Series. They classified young offenders as those aged 7 to 12. There are several interesting points to highlight:

Juveniles whose first referral to court for a delinquency offense had occurred before age 13 were far more likely to become chronic offenders—that is, to have had at least four referrals to juvenile court— than juveniles whose first referral had occurred when they were older. Early starters, particularly boys, are at risk for becoming teenage parents. Early starters are more likely to experience complex trauma, emanating from both their families and communities. Early starters are at higher risk for mental health issues such as depression and suicide. Early starters are more likely to experience trouble in school and have higher truancy and dropout rates. Early starters are more likely to begin using substances at an earlier age (Loeber & Farrington, 2001).

If early starters' offending persists into adulthood, they are less likely to desist or stop committing crime. DeLisi

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 40 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

and Piquero (2011) argue that as delinquents persist into their 20s and beyond, they become increasingly invested in their criminal behavior, reducing their opportunities for legitimate work, relationships, and connections to the community. Given the potential for these youth to become adult offenders, many argue that we should intervene in their lives in order to prevent this destructive set of events from happening.

Prevention and Treatment

The OJJDP study group concluded that interventions focused on preventing child delinquency would exhibit the greatest impact on crime (Loeber, Farrington, & Petechuk, 2003). These efforts should be focused in particular on identifying and intervening with persistently disruptive children. Persistently disruptive children are those who exhibit a pattern of negative behaviors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a period of at least six months. These disruptive youth often experience a number of problems in their lives. For example, they are more likely to have trouble at home, be diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), be victims of child abuse, and do poorly in school (Manuzza, Klein, Bessler, & Maloy, 1993; Moffitt, 1990).

The logic here is that children involved in the juvenile justice system often exhibit disruptive behavior long before their first official contact with the formal system (e.g., an arrest). Although not all of these youth will become delinquent youth, they are more likely (some studies find about 25%–50% of these youth) to become formally involved in the juvenile justice system (Loeber & Farrington, 2000). Identifying the youth who are exhibiting disruptive behavior before they come into contact with the system is the best way to prevent the cycle before it happens.

The family is an important factor for these youth. Family abuse, criminal behavior among family members (e.g., parents and siblings), lack of supervision, lack of closeness, and low socioeconomic status can all contribute to the youth's delinquency. Similarly, a study by Romeo Vitelli (1997) found early starters are more likely to have a history of exposure to violence in childhood. A study by Alltucker, Bullis, Close, and Yovanoff (2006) found that children who were in foster care were four times more likely to be early starters, and children with a criminal family member were twice as likely to be early starters. Loeber and Farrington (2000) argue that serious delinquents often begin committing delinquent acts in the home and then branch out into their schools and community.

More recently researchers are exploring the importance of trauma on early starters. Those who experience traumatic events are significantly more likely to experience psychological problems and involvement in the juvenile justice system. Studies suggest that youth involved with the juvenile justice system are highly likely to have a history of trauma exposure. In fact, a study of juvenile detainees in Cook County, Illinois, found that 92.5% of the youth sampled in the facility had experienced at least one traumatic event or experience (Abrams et al., 2004). Another study, conducted by Kerig and colleagues (2009), found that 92.3% of their juvenile detention sample had exposure to at least one traumatic event. Trauma-exposed youth are at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, and substance abuse (Kilpatrick et al., 2000). Researchers have begun exploring the impact of traumatic events in a more systematic way, using the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale, which we detail in the accompanying Spotlight.

Spotlight: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale

The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale measures various forms of abuse and neglect (Centers

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 41 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016), which are outlined below. The specific items refer to the respondent's first 18 years of life.

Abuse

Emotional abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home swore at you, insulted you, put you down, or acted in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt. Physical abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home pushed, grabbed, slapped, threw something at you, or hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured. Sexual abuse: An adult, relative, family friend, or stranger who was at least 5 years older than you ever touched or fondled your body in a sexual way, made you touch his/ her body in a sexual way, attempted to have any type of sexual intercourse with you.

Household Challenges

Mother treated violently: Your mother or stepmother was pushed, grabbed, slapped, had something thrown at her, kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, hit with something hard, repeatedly hit for over at least a few minutes, or ever threatened or hurt by a knife or gun by your father (or stepfather) or mother's boyfriend. Household substance abuse: A household member was a problem drinker or alcoholic or a household member used street drugs. Mental illness in household: A household member was depressed or mentally ill or a household member attempted suicide. Parental separation or divorce: Your parents were ever separated or divorced. Criminal household member: A household member went to prison.

Neglect1

Emotional neglect: Someone in your family helped you feel important or special, you felt loved, people in your family looked out for each other and felt close to each other, and your family was a source of strength and support.2 Physical neglect: There was someone to take care of you, protect you, and take you to the doctor if you needed it2, you didn't have enough to eat, your parents were too drunk or too high to take care of you, and you had to wear dirty clothes.

Each experience of a traumatic event is considered "1" point. Items such as emotional neglect (i.e., those without someone to help them feel important) are reverse scored. The original study conducted by the CDC found that more than half of people experienced at least one traumatic childhood event. An ACE score of 4 or more indicates an increased risk for depression, suicide, alcohol disorders, and other health- related problems (Felitti et al., 1998). Researchers found that early starters were significantly more likely than other juvenile offenders to have higher ACE scores and were more likely to persist offending into adulthood (Baglivio, Wolff, Piquero, & Epps, 2015).

More information about the ACE scale can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/index.html (https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/acestudy/index.html) 1Collected during Wave 2 only.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 42 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Early disruptive behaviors, such as defiance, disobedience, and hostility, are considered indicators of future delinquency.

Hemera/Thinkstock

2Items were reverse-scored to reflect the framing of the question.

Although there is little question that intervening with these youth is important, the remaining problem is how and when to intervene. Intervention is more complicated than it might at first seem. A young bully on the playground might be tomorrow's serious and persistent juvenile delinquent, but some aggressive behavior among preschoolers and early elementary schoolers is normal as kids test out their boundaries and relationships with others. When does aggressiveness among young children go beyond the norm?

Experts suggest there are some early warning signs. For example, kids who are more aggressive than is considered normal for their similarly aged peers may be a concern. Others find that juveniles who show conduct problems in preschool are more likely to eventually engage in property and violent crime (Loeber, 1988). They also note that kids who are fire setters or show cruelty to animals are a particularly high-risk group (Putnam & Kirkpatrick, 2005). And based on our preceding discussion, youth who experience difficulties within the family and school or have experienced trauma, foster care exposure, and abuse are at greater risk for becoming chronic delinquents.

However, the question remains, How and when do we intervene? Who will assess these early warning signs? Do we place the responsibility on the teacher to identify and intervene? Should all children be required to answer a survey in school to help identify troubled youth? Should schools be given the legal authority to do so? Or should these youth only be identified once they become particularly

burdensome to the schools? One such intervention, First Steps to Success, argues that the schools should intervene with youth as early as kindergarten (see the accompanying Spotlight).

Spotlight: First Steps to Success

Concerned with the prevention of juvenile delinquency, the OJJDP formed the Study Group on Very Young Offenders. The study group was charged with identifying the needs and issues confronting these youth with the ultimate goal of developing prevention and intervention techniques. Intervention techniques are important for the youth, their communities, and ultimately for the juvenile justice system (Walker et al., 1998).

Emerging from this study group was the First Steps to Success program, which is designed for youth 5 to 6 years old to prevent problems in school. The intervention targets youth whose teachers rate them as troublesome. The ratings include some of the following behaviors:

Aggression Oppositional defiant behavior Severe fits of temper Victimization of others

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 43 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

The intervention calls for a three-pronged approach for identifying and managing early juvenile delinquents:

Universal screening of all kindergartners School-based intervention involving the teachers, child, and parents Parent training and involvement

The program offers a variety of services:

Skill building with teachers to train them how to manage disruptive behavior Awarding points to children for good behavior Visual cues (green versus red cards) used by teachers to help youth identify good versus poor behaviors Rewards for youth who maintain good behavior Written daily reports for parents who are instructed to encourage and reward behavior at home

A study conducted by Hill Walker and colleagues (1998) found that kids who participated in the program were rated by teachers as more adaptive and less aggressive in school.

Interventions for these youth need to accommodate the fact that youth experience different types of problems at different times in their lives. For example, for very young children the family environment is the most important. As youth age, peers begin to replace parents as the most important socializing agent. Treatment and prevention efforts must account for developmental issues or milestones in order to be responsive to the youth's needs. Some of the interventions geared toward prevention should be directed to very young children, which can mean as early as the preschool or even infant years. A promising intervention is a nurse's program that works with at-risk mothers during the prenatal and postnatal stages. Others programs focus on peers, schools, parents, and communities in an effort to intervene in the lives of at-risk youth.

Many of the youth in the other two at-risk populations addressed in this chapter—gang members and juvenile sex offenders—could also be early starters.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 44 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Gang Realities in Our World

The GROW unit at Pendleton Maximum Security Juvenile Prison houses 24 gang members. The program attempts to remove individuals from their gangs. A gang member reflects on his environment outside prison and becoming smarter after incarceration. GROW director Eric Courtney discusses identifying gang members in the system.

Gang Realities in Our World From Title:

Counseling and Psychology: Gang Counseling in ... (https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx? wID=100753&xtid=52377)

© Infobase. All Rights Reserved. Length: 03:15

1. Why do you think housing gang members together positively affects their behavoir?

2. Should we focus on the gang members' past behavior, or on life after gang involvement?

9.3 Juvenile Gangs

During the early 1900s, cities began to experience increased crime rates as populations migrated to urban centers for better job opportunities. The increase in crime rates resulted in part from the emergence of gangs. This makes sense in the context of migration. Early gangs were often comprised of ethnic or racial minority group members (e.g., Italian, Irish, Russian) who came to the United States as outsiders in search of a better life (Curry & Decker, 2003).

The next cycle in the growth of criminal gangs occurred in the 1960s (Klein, 1995b). During this time, African American and Latino gangs increased in prevalence. David Curry and Scott Decker (2003) noted that these newer youth gangs were different from those that developed in the early 1900s. For example, they argued the following:

These new gangs were more extensively involved in criminal activity, especially violence. The availability of guns and automobiles gave these gangs more firepower and the mobility to interact with and fight gangs in neighborhoods across a city. The more extensive involvement in crime, in turn, led to increased convictions and prison time. As a consequence, the prison became an important site for the growth and perpetuation of gangs. In Illinois and California in particular, the prison became an important site for recruiting gang members and strengthening gangs. (p. 15)

The complex relationship between prison and community gangs is a significant issue for the police as they try to reduce gang membership.

What Is a Gang?

The question "What is a gang?" seems like a reasonable question that should have a reasonably simple answer.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 45 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Gangs often claim territory by vandalizing public areas with graffiti.

Kevork Djansezian/Associated Press

However, this is not the case. The U.S. Department of Justice officially defines a gang as an association of three or more individuals who adopt a collective identity and engage in criminal activity with the intention of preserving the power or economic resources of the group (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015). But the complexity has more to do with how to define small or disorganized gangs than with identifying large organized gangs.

For example, several large, well-known gangs operate in the United States. Those gangs include the Aryan Brotherhood, Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, Black Gangster Disciples, MS-13, and the Mexican Mafia. These gangs are organized and by many estimates include thousands of members. For example, the Crips are thought to have over 30,000 members while the Latin Kings boast between 20,000 and 30,000 members spread throughout the country (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011). But what about other gangs that are less organized or have fewer members? Some police departments even consider a group of two or more individuals a gang. But we know that two or even three teenagers picked up for vandalizing school property is not an example of a gang in the traditional sense.

Curry and Decker (2003) argue instead that the criteria for defining gang members must include several elements:

Symbols: often include colors, tattoos, clothing Communication: handshakes/signs, graffiti Permanence: gang exists over a period of time Turf: territory, can be as small as a street to as large as an entire neighborhood Crime: involvement in illegal behavior

Curry and Decker make the point that an element of family, of a form of kinship and support, is also a key feature in gangs. The idea of gangs representing family is common to many gang members they interviewed:

"Well, in my words, a gang ain't nothing but people come together to do crime and make money and be a family to each other… It's a second family. They are like your brothers. They will help you out when you need help. Whenever you mess up they will take care of you too." (Curry & Decker, 2003, p. 11).

This touches on the lack of support and/or trauma that many juvenile delinquents experience at early ages, which further complicates the formation of gangs and the related criminal behavior that ensues.

Gang Prevalence in the United States

Several attempts have been made to measure gang involvement, from interviewing gang members to asking police departments to quantify how many gang members they have arrested. The most comprehensive source of information on the extent of youth gangs in the United States comes from the OJJDP's National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS). The NYGS began in 1995 and surveys police departments about gang activity in their areas. Survey results were collected annually for over a decade, covering on average nearly 2,300 police departments.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 46 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

The most recent survey was conducted in 2012.

Survey results indicate that there were around 30,000 gangs in the United States in 2012, with just over 850,000 members. Not surprisingly, gangs are more prevalent in larger urban areas than in suburban areas (more on that later), and according to the 2011 NYGS, 46.2% of all documented gang members are Hispanic/Latino, 35.3% are black or African American/black, and 11.5% are white (National Gang Center, n.d.).

Girl Gangs

Girl gangs and girl gang members represent an interesting and generally misunderstood subset of gang activity (Sutton, 2017). According to the NYGS, gangs are comprised primarily of male members. In fact, in 2012, law enforcement agencies reported that less than 10% of known gang members were girls. However, they note that gangs with girl members (i.e., coed gangs) are much more common than girl-only gangs. Other studies find that the percentages of female and male gang members may not be so different. In fact, Esbensen, Brick, Melde, Tusinski, and Taylor (2008) found that nearly identical percentages of boys and girls self-reported gang involvement.

The complexity surrounding the prevalence of girl gangs versus coed gangs led Walter Miller (1975) to create three categories to describe girl gangs: (a) girl-only gang affiliated with a male gang, (b) girl-only gang with no affiliation, and (c) coed gang. Miller argued that the girl-only gangs with no affiliation were nearly nonexistent. More recent research finds that girl-only gangs are more prevalent than when Miller conducted his studies; however, the prevalence of all-girl gangs is still lower than those considered coed or mixed gender (Peterson, Miller, & Esbensen, 2001).

The most controversial aspect of girl gang members is the exact role they play in the gang. The OJJDP sponsored a series of publications on youth gangs. A publication by Joan Moore and John Hagedorn (2001), titled Female Gangs: A Focus on Research, noted that "most early reports focused on whether female gangs were ‘real' gangs or merely satellites of male groups" (p. 1). Instead of seeing girl gang members as equal to their male counterparts, many saw girl gang members as simply sex toys or tomboys who acted as drug mules or weapon carriers for their male members.

Recent research suggests that female gang members are more likely to have family members in a gang (Miller, 2002). However, the exact role they play is difficult to disentangle. Some studies suggest that girl gang members are subordinate to male members, and others suggest that this finding may vary by race or ethnicity. For example, some research suggests that Latina gang members may take a more subordinate role than is the case for girls in African American gangs (Miller & Brunson, 2000). Other studies suggest girl gang members are fully integrated and play an equal role. For example, male members may commit more delinquency, but researchers found that both genders engaged in a range of delinquent acts (Melde & Esbensen, 2013).

Research examining the pathways that lead boys and girls into gangs has found both similarities and differences between the two populations. In their bulletin, Moore and Hagedorn (2001) suggest a number of reasons girl members choose the gang life. For example, economic poverty is a risk factor for both girls and boys, meaning that those who come from impoverished backgrounds are more likely to seek out gangs, either for economic survival or as a second family while parents are unavailable. In terms of differences, some research suggests that the incidence of past sex abuse and trauma is significantly higher among female gang members than among male gang members. Moreover, they may experience continued sexual abuse from other gang members after joining. Regardless of these differences, however, additional studies are needed to examine these issues.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 47 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

As mentioned previously, one of the key features of gangs is their involvement in criminal activity (otherwise, we could consider the Boy Scouts a gang). The criminal element is important for a variety of reasons, most notably to help organize prevention and detection techniques to reduce gang membership.

Gang-Related Crime

If we examine the latest statistics, we see that gang members are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the violent crime committed each year. In other words, if we look just at the raw numbers, juveniles affiliated with a gang commit more violent crime than juveniles not affiliated with a gang. In fact, research suggests that gang members commit between 68% and 85% of the serious violent crime committed by juveniles (Thornberry, 1998; Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 2004). The NYGS (National Gang Center, 2012) makes the following estimation:

In a typical year in the so-called "gang capitals" of Chicago and Los Angeles, around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted for one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2006 to 2010.

Moreover, the National Gang Threat Assessment survey results from 2011 indicate that up to 48% of the violent crime committed in the United States each year is attributable to gangs, and that percentage is even higher in some cities (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011).

Even though we know that gang members contribute disproportionately to the crime rate, the other issue to examine is the extent to which the criminal behavior is gang related or simply committed by an individual who is affiliated with a gang but whose criminal behavior is unrelated to the gang. For example, if a youth steals from a convenience store on his or her own accord, is arrested by the police for the crime, and is a known gang member, the police may record this as a gang-related crime. Disentangling this question is nearly impossible given the lack of data on the issue. For example, the NYGS reveals that other than for homicide and graffiti, most police departments do not record whether a crime was gang involved.

One of the more interesting issues involves determining the features of gangs that seem to drive or increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. For example, if we are to believe the previously discussed trends—gang members are more likely to commit crime, particularly violent crime—then what are the driving forces behind these statistics? It turns out that several prominent features may be influencing these rates.

First, some observers argue for a "birds of a feather flock together" perspective on gang membership. That is, like-minded, violence-prone youth typically seek out one another and reinforce one another's violent or aggressive behavior (Gravel, Allison, West-Fagan, McBride, & Tita, 2018; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991). Second, a popular theory about gang involvement and crime, social contagion theory, argues that how people act in groups may differ from how they would act independently. In particular, this theory argues that the members of the group can influence collective behavior. Group members may feel anonymous within the group, leading them to diffuse their own degree of responsibility for the behavior. Within this context, people become more susceptible to influences by other members of the group (Nye, 1975; Papachristos, Braga, Piza, & Grossman, 2015). Third, given the prevalence of gangs in particular areas, we could surmise that environment plays a role. Social disorganization theory provides an understanding of how cities can create crime through the lack of opportunities for successful advancement into the labor market and a lack of cohesion among community members. A final explanation might be that all of these factors work together to create an environment more hospitable to gang violence. In fact, Decker and Van Winkle (1996) proposed that we examine how individual,

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 48 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Gang membership puts youth at risk of becoming chronic offenders.

Stock Connection/SuperStock

group, and community factors interact to predict involvement in gang delinquency.

Gang members are often involved with drug-related crime. Some research finds that gangs can be very organized in their approach to trafficking drugs, whereas other research finds that most gang members use or distribute drugs on their own accord without involvement from the gang as a formal organization. For example, some researchers argue that gangs can be highly organized and have formal leadership structures that facilitate highly successful drug-trafficking rings (Padilla, 1992; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Skolnick, 1990). In fact, the organization acts much like a corporation with profits from the drug sales recycled back into the organization. Within these gangs are leaders who must orchestrate a fairly complex system of trafficking in drugs, which includes drug mules or carriers. Each of these members must be kept in check in order for the organization to run smoothly.

Others argue that most gangs are disorganized and do not have the leadership structure in place that is noted in these studies (Howell & Griffiths, 2018). They argue that most gangs are loosely organized and have many transient members who often do not have the same goals. In fact, John Hagedorn (1988) interviewed gang members in Milwaukee and argued that the gangs he observed were not well organized, did not have a system in place to control their members, and were not profitable.

Consequences of Gang Membership

Let's consider the possibility that many of these gang members could be early starters as well. These individuals may have been involved in early disruptive behavior that has become more serious. They have often accumulated a number of risk factors that put them at greater risk for continuing their criminal careers. Researchers using meta- analysis techniques to study risk factors for crime are able to identify which risk factors are most important. For example, Gendreau, Andrews, Goggin, and Chanteloupe (1992) found that the most common risk factors they surveyed included lower social-class origin (poverty), personal distress/psychopathology, educational/vocational achievement, parental/family factors,

temperament/personality, antisocial attitudes, and antisocial associates. The top five risk factors in this list are school, family, personality, attitudes, and peers. Gang members often have trouble with each of these areas.

The gang can place youth on a negative trajectory that can hamper future opportunities for college, employment, marriage, and so on. As such, these individuals are at risk for becoming chronic offenders who will continue their criminal behavior well into adulthood. The concerns regarding youth gang involvement in crime and the potential for these offenders to become chronic and persistent criminals has led to a number of anti-gang programs and initiatives. In the following section, we will highlight a number of promising programs.

Gang Prevention: Programs and Initiatives

In Chapter 5, on policing, we discussed two gang prevention programs: the Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) program and Boston's Operation Ceasefire. Several other types of programs are designed

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 49 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

to either reduce gangs or prevent gang violence.

First, the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families established the Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program in the late 1980s. The program is designed to provide funding for communities to develop coordinated efforts to reduce gang problems in their areas. The funding provided to agencies led to the development of a range of programs including peer support, education, mentoring, crisis intervention, and recreation programs. Unfortunately, evaluations of the programs found that they were ineffective at reducing gang involvement (Cohen, Williams, Bekelman, & Crosse, 1995).

In the mid-1990s, the OJJDP developed another program, called the Comprehensive Gang Model. (Visit http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Comprehensive-Gang-Model/About (https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Comprehensive-Gang-Model/About) to learn more.) The model, originally implemented in Chicago, is now operating in other states as well. It includes targeting five specific areas to reduce and prevent gang involvement and gang-related crime:

Community mobilization: involvement of community Opportunity provision: development of education and employment training Social intervention: service linkages utilizing schools, social service agencies, families, etc. Suppression: formal supervision and monitoring of gang activity Organizational change and development: creation of policies and procedures

Results of the pilot in Chicago indicated that the model could be effective in reducing criminal activity and gang involvement by the youth in the study (Spergel, 2007). The model was expanded to several other states; however, studies revealed that for the model to be effective, it must be implemented appropriately. As we will discuss in Chapter 10, implementation can be the most influential issue impacting treatment programs.

In 2010, the OJJDP issued a report titled Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problems. The report advocates for the five areas identified in the Comprehensive Gang Model; however, it also notes that communities must be organized and mobilized around the needs of youth. In that vein, the OJJDP argues for early interventions such as prenatal and infant care and identifying at-risk elementary school children to intervene before they may choose to join a gang. In addition, the report advocates for truancy reduction programs and after-school activities to keep youth active and away from gang members. Finally, it advocates for identifying gang leaders and removing them from the community while simultaneously targeting youth who were previously gang involved and are returning home from a period of confinement (National Gang Center, 2010). This chapter's Featured Program box highlights PanZou, one of the programs noted in the OJJDP report.

Featured Program: PanZou: North Miami Beach Gang Reduction Program

The PanZou program targets youth, primarily of Haitian descent, in an area of the city of North Miami Beach. Many of the residents speak only the native Haitian language of Creole. This language barrier and a lack of services in the area represent obstacles to intervening with the youth and their families (National Gang Center, 2010).

The program is organized around three primary efforts: prevention, intervention, and suppression. Prevention efforts typically focus on the following:

Pairing youth with a mentor

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 50 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Teaching youth early literacy and life skills Strengthening families by helping them to develop parenting skills Working with schools to develop alternatives to school suspension and reduce truancy rates Offering gender-responsive programs for girls Increasing recreational programs in communities Providing social skills training to youth

Intervention efforts vary but typically focus on the following:

Substance abuse counseling Vocational training Community service Referral to community agencies for further treatment (e.g., substance abuse treatment)

Suppression efforts typically focus on the following:

Involving the police in foot and bike patrol of "hot spots" Early identification of gang leaders Gang intelligence gathering by police to proactively engage with the community Dedicated gang unit within the police department

Another popular intervention that addressed gang involvement, the Chicago Area Project (CAP), is based on social disorganization theory and is designed to increase community cohesion and address the issues that lead communities to experience high levels of crime (e.g., unemployment, truancy). The CAP program includes after- school programs, mentoring, tutoring, employment training programs, life skills, and counseling (learn more at www.chicagoareaproject.org (http://www.chicagoareaproject.org/) ).

Gang prevention programs remain a popular option for police departments and communities across the nation. These programs can be effective in creating community cohesion and reducing violence. To reach their maximum potential, the programs should be multipronged and engage schools, families, community resources, and the police.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 51 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

9.4 Juvenile Sex Offenders

The label "sex offender" is typically applied to an individual convicted of a sex offense. Sex offenses can include sexual assault, rape, sodomy, fondling, or any forced sex act. Sex offenders are often placed on the lowest rung of the criminal hierarchy—meaning that most people feel that sex offenders are the worst of the worst. Those who violate children are particularly vilified. This feeling toward sex offenders also extends into prison life. Sex offenders, particularly pedophiles, are often placed in protective custody as other inmates may choose to victimize them in retribution for their crimes (Man & Cronan, 2001).

Note, however, that sex offenders are a heterogeneous group. There are many differences among sex offenders, in terms of not only their victims—children, adults, men, women—but also whether they are "generalists" or "specialists." Generalists tend to engage in a variety of criminal behaviors (e.g., drugs, theft, sexual violence). By contrast, specialists typically repeat the same offense type (e.g., sexual violence). It is difficult to understand exactly who these youth are, but Finkelhor, Ormond, and Chaffin (2009) make the following observation:

The sexual behaviors that bring youth into clinical settings can include events such as sharing pornography with younger children, fondling a child over the clothes, grabbing peers in a sexual way at school, date rape, gang rape, or performing oral, vaginal, or anal sex on a much younger child. (p. 3)

Some researchers have argued for narrowing the definition of who should qualify as a sex offender. For example, sexual behavior among consenting adults can include a range of deviant acts that may seem unpleasant to some but are normal to others if shared in private. Prentky, Harris, Frizzell, and Righthand (2000) developed a risk- assessment tool and argued that there are several different types of sex offenders: child molesters, rapists, sexually reactive children, fondlers, paraphilics, and a combination/unknown group. Some experts argue that sex offenders suffer from a mental disorder known as paraphilia, which is characterized by sexual arousal involving nonhuman objects or nonconsenting persons such as children, which causes harm or distress to others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

The issue of consent is complex when it comes to juvenile offenders and victims. For sex offenders, an act of force or coercion that causes distress for others is a key condition. However, that definition is not used by states that identify juvenile sex offenders for the purposes of classification, treatment, or supervision. In the following sections, we will discuss laws surrounding sex offenses, typologies proposed to identify sex offenders, characteristics of juvenile sex offenders, policies designed to prevent or address sex offending in the community, and treatments.

Laws/Statutory Rape

A complex issue surrounding juvenile sex offending involves the ages of the offender and the victim and whether the behavior should be labeled as a sex offense. When an adult or even an older adolescent sexually abuses a child, it is obviously a case of sexual assault. But what if the child is 12 and the perpetrator is 14, and the 12- year-old consented to the behavior?

The age of consent is considered the legal age at which a juvenile can consent to sexual activity. Prior to that age, the juvenile is said not to have the mental capacity to consent to sexual activity. In most states, 16 years is the age of consent. Statutory rape refers to sexual activity involving those who are younger than the age of consent (Waites, 2005).

However, there are peer group exceptions (also known as close-in-age exceptions) to the age of consent rule.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 52 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

For example, what if two young people who are 14 engage in nonforced sexual activity? The law recognizes that juveniles may experiment in sexual activity prior to the age of 16. As long as the youths are not too far apart in age, the law provides for this peer group exception. The age difference between the victim and perpetrator is important. In some states the difference in age is five years between the victim and the perpetrator, in others it could be greater. An example can be found in North Carolina statutory rape law (14-27.7A):

(a) A defendant is guilty of a Class B1 felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is at least six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

(b) A defendant is guilty of a Class C felony if the defendant engages in vaginal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old and the defendant is more than four but less than six years older than the person, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

Class B felonies are considered more serious and carry more severe sanctions. What you might notice from the preceding statute, however, is that it only refers to youth who are 13 and older. What about those who engage in sexual activity prior to the age of 13? Juveniles who are 12 and younger are considered unable to consent to any sexual activity. Again, however, the courts will examine the age of both parties in deciding whether to apply the peer group exception.

The Juvenile Sex Offender

According to David Finkelhor and colleagues (2009), juvenile offenders commit 26% of the sex offenses that occur annually in the United States. Even so, juvenile sex offenders represent a fairly small group, at just 3.1% of the general juvenile criminal population. Over 40% of the very young victims in both the under 6 and 7–11-year- old categories are victimized by an offender who is under the age of 18. The vast majority of these offenders knew their victims, as shown in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1: Relationship between victim and offender

In over 80% of cases, victims of sex offenses know the offenders.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 53 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

From Juveniles who commit sex offenses against minors, by D. Finkelhor, R. Ormond, & M. Chaffin, 2009. Office of Justice Programs: Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention and Prevention Child Delinquency Bulletin Series. Washington, D.C.

Other interesting findings emerged from this survey. What types of sexual assault are juveniles committing? Of the sexual assaults, half were acts of fondling, followed by 24% for rape, 12.5% for sodomy, 9.5% for nonforced sex, and 4.7% for sexual assault involving an object. Finally, in terms of time of day, Figure 9.2 illustrates that the majority of assaults occurred during the afternoon, likely when juveniles are out of school and less likely to be supervised.

Figure 9.2: Percentage of incidents by time of day

Only 5% of incidents involving juveniles occur at night. In contrast, 43% occur during afternoon hours.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 54 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

From Juveniles who commit sex offenses against minors, by D. Finkelhor, R. Ormond, & M. Chaffin, 2009. Office of Justice Programs: Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention and Prevention Child Delinquency Bulletin Series. Washington, D.C.

Why do juveniles commit sex crimes? There is no easy answer to this question. The cycle of abuse is often cited as an issue that has the potential to propel a juvenile into sexual misconduct. Studies suggest that more than 40% of juvenile sex offenders have a history of abuse (Awad & Saunders, 1991; Phan & Kingree, 2001; Seto & Lalumière, 2010). Some research suggests that those who suffer sexual abuse are also more likely to begin offending at an earlier age and abuse more victims (Cooper, Murphy, & Haynes, 1996; Fox, 2017). Miner (2002) suggests that juvenile sex offenders who start young are at greater risk for recidivism. Similarly, Langstrom and Grann (2000) suggest that those with a prior record involving a sex offense and those with multiple victims have an increased likelihood of recidivism.

Some studies suggest that these juveniles are more likely to have mental health disorders such as ADHD, depression, and conduct disorder, whereas others even suggest they are more likely to be diagnosed with psychopathy (Veneziano & Veneziano, 2002). Some studies also suggest that exposure to pornography can increase the likelihood of deviant sexual behavior; however, recent research argues that the only increase is among those people predisposed to be sexually aggressive (Malamuth, 2018).

Sexual Offenders: Punishment or Treatment?

Close to 80% of all rapes committed are by someone the victim knows. Before age 18, one of three females and one of five males will experience some degree of sexual abuse. The judicial system must weigh whether an offender needs custody or treatment.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 55 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

This embedded title is no longer available.

Click here (/p_Search.aspx?titleID=10319&sugg=1&rd=title) for a list of similar titles.

1. How do you teach children to protect themselves from abuse?

2. What would you look for if you were a counselor trying to decide whether a sex offender is rehabilitated?

Policy Initiatives

Community notification laws are a popular way for states to hold sex offenders accountable. These laws, often designed based on cases with adults, can impact juveniles. For example, Megan's Law came into effect in 1996 and not only required sex offenders to register with the police but also required the police to notify the community. Over 25 states require juveniles to register along with adults. In addition, the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was signed into law in 2006. This act led to SORNA, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (Office of Justice Programs, 2008).

SORNA is designed to protect the public from sex offenders because it requires a more uniform approach to reporting requirements in each state. Prior to SORNA, most states required sex offenders to be identified on a public register. Several provisions of SORNA are relevant for juveniles. For example, Caldwell, Ziemke, and Vitacco (2008) note:

Juvenile offenders who offend after their 14th birthday and who were adjudicated delinquent for a crime comparable to or more severe than aggravated sexual assault as defined by federal law (Sexual Abuse Act of 1986) will be included in the registry. (p. 90)

In most cases, those on the registry have to reregister every three months.

The legislation also sets forth the registration length. For example, tier-three offenders—those convicted of forcible felony sex crimes—must register for their entire lifetime (this applies to the juveniles noted previously who are adjudicated for offenses comparable to aggravated sexual assault). In addition, as noted by Michael Caldwell and colleagues (2008), individuals subject to SORNA registration will be required to submit to a search of person or property at any time, with or without a warrant, on the

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 56 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

SORNA sets certain public registration requirements for sex offenders. Under this act, offenders as young as 14 may be required to register.

C.H. Pete Copeland/Associated Press

basis of a reasonable suspicion of a violation of probation or unlawful conduct (p. 90). This is particularly important when you consider that juveniles are often not given jury trials and are held to different evidentiary standards than those found in adult court. These procedural differences could make juveniles more vulnerable to illegal search and seizure.

The logic for this registration rests on the notion that these youth will remain a long-term risk to the public. Yet studies suggest that the relationship is not always clear. In fact, juvenile sex offenders have low recidivism rates, and their sex offending history does not put them at higher risk for future sex offenses as compared to other delinquents (Caldwell, 2007; Zimring, Piquero, & Jennings, 2007). Another justification for registration is the notion that juvenile sex offenders must be significantly different from juveniles convicted of nonsex offenses. Although some studies suggest there can be differences (Blaske, Bordiun, Henggeler, & Mann, 1989; Fox 2017), others do not find this to be the case (Caldwell, 2007; van Wijk et al., 2006). Think of this in the context of the 2010 Supreme Court case Graham v. Florida, which concluded that juveniles are less culpable due to their brain development in the area of reasoning. If it is true that juveniles should be held to a different standard than adults, some observers question why the same logic should not apply to national lifetime registries.

Perhaps most compelling is a study finding that the criteria used by SORNA to place juveniles on sex offender registries for life failed to predict sex offending. In other words, the youth who would be placed on these lists were not more likely to reoffend than any other juvenile. This research calls into question the utility of placing youth on these lists, particularly given the emotional and social toll it takes on them and their families. Another concern is that the laws could unintentionally lead to fewer prosecutions. For example, research suggests that prosecutors may be less likely to bring charges against a juvenile because they are worried about the long-term ramifications for a youth who will be placed on a registry (Letourneau, Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2009).

In sum, these studies suggest that although juvenile sex offenders are a concern for the community, there is also a risk that treating them punitively could have long-lasting impacts that could influence their life course.

Juvenile Sex Offenders and Rehabilitation

Cognitive behavioral therapy is considered one of the most effective treatment approaches for sex offenders. Cognitive behavioral therapy is designed to shape behavior through a process of changing how people think (their cognitions) and shaping their behavior through the use of rewards and punishments.

How offenders think is the focus of one particular strategy in which therapists work with clients to get them to understand their offense cycle, which refers to the thoughts and behaviors leading to the sex offense. The thoughts and behaviors that can lead to a sexual offense can occur over hours or maybe days, weeks, or even

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 57 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

years. This process is often called grooming. Grooming, or the act of manipulating victims into complying with a sex act, is a process that can be short or quite lengthy. Grooming behaviors often involve children, and the offender can be an adult or another juvenile.

Often with young children, the grooming can include intimidation, games, or other incentives (Pryor, 1996). For example, to include inappropriate touching of the victim, the perpetrator can use a game of wrestling or play. The perpetrator can use candy, toys, or other enticements to engage with the victim. Keeping in mind that the majority of juvenile sex offenders commit acts against someone they know (e.g., a relative or an acquaintance), they may already have built trust with the victim prior to engaging in the sex act. But even when a juvenile is involved in stranger rape, the decision to rape is preceded by particular thoughts and behaviors.

As we discussed earlier, sex offenders and offenses cannot be easily put into one box. In other words, not all sex offenders go through a lengthy process in choosing their victims, particularly juveniles. However, the process or cycle is an important one to understand because it illustrates the cognitive or psychological aspects of sex offending.

In therapy, a counselor will often work to have the juvenile understand that criminal sexual behavior does not just happen. In other words, the juvenile may make a statement such as, "I don't know how it happened, before I knew it I was doing it." The counselor, however, will often challenge the youth's perspective that an offense "just happened." Similar to any other criminal behavior, such as using drugs or alcohol, the decision is often preceded by a series of decisions. For example, the decision to use a drug is often preceded by a decision to go to a party where alcohol is being served or by a decision to hang out with friends who often use drugs. We refer to these decisions and situations as high-risk thoughts or high-risk places.

Sometimes high-risk thoughts are called cognitive distortion or thinking errors. High risk in this context means that they contribute to the probability of crime. A high-risk thought about marijuana use might be, "It is OK to smoke marijuana because it should be legal anyway." A high-risk situation might be attending a party where the youth knows alcohol and drugs will be present and peer pressure to use substances will be high. These situations and thoughts contribute to the likelihood that the youth will decide to use alcohol or drugs.

If we apply this concept to sex offending, the therapist will attempt to get juveniles to understand that their actions and behaviors before the offense matter. For example, consider a client who meticulously planned to be alone with the victim—either through volunteering to babysit or by taking the child to a location where they could be alone. Did the client feel the behavior was justified as experimentation even though the victim was very young? In other circumstances, the therapist might explore the youth's perspective on consent and whether the client believes that a person has the right to say no at any time, even when the victim consented at an earlier time.

Studies on the effectiveness of therapy for juvenile sex offenders are promising. In fact, studies suggest that juvenile sex offenders are very amendable to treatment and therapy. They also underscore the idea that juveniles are different from adults, and that we need to be mindful of tailoring services to them from a therapeutic standpoint (Caldwell et al., 2008).

Although the results of therapy are promising, there are those who do recidivate. One of the key factors as it relates to success in treatment is motivation. Without motivation to engage in treatment, a youth is not likely to be successful (McGrath, 1991). Motivation may be a key issue for programs that experience high attrition rates. In fact, a study by Hunter (2000) found that more than 50% of youth dropped out of a community-based sex- offender treatment program in its first year of operation.

The high attrition rate noted in the Hunter study is concerning, but the vast majority of juvenile sex offenders do not persist into adulthood. In fact, most studies find that less than 10% of juvenile sex offenders are rearrested for

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 58 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

a sex-related offense.

Overall, the general public's impression of juvenile sex offenders probably has more to do with a particularly heinous case of sex offending highlighted on the evening news than the types of behavior that occur in reality. There is no easy way to identify youth who are likely to recidivate, but punitive approaches are less likely to have an impact. As can be seen throughout our discussions of all three groups of "special" offenders, treatment and prevention hold the most promise.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 59 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Summary of Learning Objectives

Describe the issues early starters face in their everyday lives, the characteristics of persistently disruptive children, and the methods used to prevent and treat early delinquent behavior.

Early starters are those juveniles who begin committing crimes before the age of 14. Early starters are more likely to have problems within their families, at school, and within their communities. Persistently disruptive children are those who exhibit a pattern of negative behaviors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a period of at least six months. Identifying youth who are exhibiting disruptive behavior before they come into contact with the system is the best way to prevent the cycle before it happens.

Explain the complexity of defining gangs and gang behavior and the relationship between gangs and crime.

Gangs are difficult to study because they are difficult to define. Researchers suggest police consider the following criteria when deciding whether a group of youth should be classified as a gang: symbols, communication, permanence, turf, and criminal behavior. Girl-only gangs are uncommon; however, coed gangs are quite prevalent. Statistics suggest that up to 48% of violent crimes in the United States may be gang related. A number of gang-prevention and treatment programs exist, although their effectiveness is limited.

Analyze the complexity surrounding the labeling of juvenile sex offenders.

Juvenile sex offenders are a complex group of youth who can be involved in a range of sexual behaviors. The age of consent is a key issue with regard to juvenile sex offenders. Sex offender notification laws are popular but tend not to be an effective way to reduce recidivism among sex offenders. Cognitive behavioral therapy is considered one of the most effective treatment approaches for sex offenders. The recidivism rates of juvenile sex offenders are low; however, early starters may have a higher probability of recidivism.

Critical Thinking Questions 1. What is the best way to prevent the cycle of disruptive behavior in juveniles? 2. What criteria do you think should be used to decide if a group is a gang? 3. In what areas do early starters typically have problems?

Key Terms Click on each key term to see the definition.

age of consent (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 60 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The legal age at which a juvenile can consent to sexual activity.

Comprehensive Gang Model (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

An approach developed by the OJJDP to "reduce and prevent youth gang violence."

First Steps to Success (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

An intervention program that argues schools should intervene with youth as early as kindergarten.

girl gangs (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Gangs with all female members

grooming (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The act of manipulating victims into complying with a sex act.

National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS)

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 61 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The most reliable source of information on the extent of youth gangs in the United States.

offense cycle (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

The process leading up to a sex offense.

PanZou (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A program that targets youth, primarily of Haitian descent, in an area of the city of North Miami Beach.

paraphilia (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A disorder characterized by sexual arousal involving nonhuman objects or nonconsenting persons such as children, which causes harm or distress to others.

peer group exceptions (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Exceptions to the age of consent rule, also known as close-inage exceptions.

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 62 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

persistently disruptive children (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Children who exhibit a pattern of negative behaviors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a period of at least six months.

social contagion theory (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A theory that argues that how people act in groups may be different from how they would act independently.

SORNA (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act; an act designed to protect the public from sex offenders by requiring a more uniform approach to reporting requirements in each state.

Study Group on Very Young Offenders (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A study group formed by the OJJDP and comprised of 39 experts on the topic of child delinquency.

Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program (http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/ Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John

2/19/21, 10(36 AMPrint

Page 63 of 63https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch08…ontent&clientToken=fa1041f9-bb6e-e5e6-d166-2e1636b19295&np=cover

son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)

A program designed to provide funding for communities to develop coordinated efforts to reduce gang problems in their areas.