Karen Gilligan, age 16, was the oldest of four children living with their parents in a small rural community. Her mother worked two jobs, her father was unemployed, and both parents drank heavily. Karen’s high school attendance was sporadic. She started to experiment with alcohol and vandalized local businesses. After being arrested in a stolen car on several occasions, Karen was referred to juvenile court and was put on community supervision and probation. An initial assessment was provided by her probation officer, and formal dispositional recommendations were made to the court. She would remain at home on house arrest for 60 days, attend school regularly and maintain at least a C average, follow an alcohol and drug assessment program, and participate in weekly family therapy with her parents. Karen was also ordered to cooperate with the juvenile restitution program, pay her restitution in full within six months, and participate in the Community Adolescent Intensive Supervision Program, as arranged by her probation officer.

Not used to being accountable to anyone, Karen struggled initially with all the new rules and expectations. She missed some of her initial appointments and skipped some classes at school. Karen’s probation officer began making unannounced visits to her at school, trying to help her understand the consequences of her behavior. It was clear to the probation officer that Karen possessed many strengths and positive attributes. She enjoyed dancing and singing, and even liked school at times. The team of professionals encouraged her to focus on these qualities.

In addition to Karen’s individual counseling, her family participated in weekly family therapy to talk about their issues and to address how to best support the children. Initially, the sessions were very challenging and stressful for the entire family. They blamed each other for their difficulties, and Karen seemed to be the target of much of the anger expressed by her parents.

During the many months of intensive supervision, treatment, and family therapy, Karen was able to stop her delinquent behavior, pay her restitution, attend school regularly, and improve her communication with her parents. Through therapy, Karen’s mother also acknowledged that she needed some assistance with her drinking and entered treatment. Karen’s probation officer provided the court with regular monthly progress reports showing significant improvement in Karen’s behavior and lifestyle choices. Karen has proven her success and remains living with her parents and siblings. She plans to attend a local college after graduation to prepare for a career in the medical field.

There are many choices of correctional treatments available for juveniles, all of which can be subdivided into two major categories: community treatment and institutional treatment. Community treatment refers to efforts to provide care, protection, and treatment for juveniles in need. These efforts include probation, treatment services (such as individual and group counseling), restitution, and other programs. The term community treatment also refers to the use of privately maintained residences, such as foster homes, small-group homes, and boarding schools, which are located in the community. Nonresidential programs, where youths remain in their own homes, but are required to receive counseling, vocational training, and other services, also fall under the rubric of community treatment.

community treatment

Using nonsecure and noninstitutional residences, counseling services, victim restitution programs, and other community services to treat juveniles in their own communities.

Institutional treatment facilities are correctional centers operated by federal, state, and county governments; these facilities restrict the movement of residents through staff monitoring, locked exits, and interior fence controls. There are several types of institutional facilities in juvenile corrections, including reception centers that screen juveniles and assign them to an appropriate facility; specialized facilities that provide specific types of care, such as drug treatment; training schools or reformatories for youths needing a long-term secure setting; ranch or forestry camps that provide long-term residential care; and boot camps, which seek to rehabilitate youths through the application of rigorous physical training.

Choosing the proper mode of juvenile corrections can be difficult. Some experts believe that any hope for rehabilitating juvenile offenders and resolving the problems of juvenile crime lies in community treatment programs. 1 Such programs are smaller than secure facilities for juveniles, operate in a community setting, and offer creative approaches to treating the offender. In contrast, institutionalizing young offenders may do more harm than good. It exposes them to prison-like conditions and to more experienced delinquents without giving them the benefit of constructive treatment programs. 2

Mark Ryan (left), the principal of Community Prep in Manhattan, New York City’s first public high school for students who have been recently released from juvenile prisons and jails, speaks with Joshua Brignoni about wearing his hat in class.

Those who favor secure treatment are concerned about the threat that violent young offenders present to the community and believe that a stay in a juvenile institution may have a long-term deterrent effect. They point to the findings of Charles Murray and Louis B. Cox, who uncovered what they call a suppression effect , a reduction in the number of arrests per year following release from a secure facility, which is not achieved when juveniles are placed in less punitive programs. 3 Murray and Cox concluded that the justice system must choose the outcome it wants to achieve: prevention of delinquency, or the care and protection of needy youths. If the former is a proper goal, institutionalization or the threat of institutionalization is desirable. Not surprisingly, secure treatment is still being used extensively, and the populations of these facilities continue to grow as state legislators pass more stringent and punitive sentencing packages aimed at repeat juvenile offenders.

suppression effect

A reduction of the number of arrests per year for youths who have been incarcerated or otherwise punished.

JUVENILE PROBATION

Probation and other forms of community treatment generally refer to nonpunitive legal dispositions for delinquent youths, emphasizing treatment without incarceration. Probation is the primary form of community treatment used by the juvenile justice system. A juvenile who is on probation is maintained in the community under the supervision of an officer of the court. Probation also encompasses a set of rules and conditions that must be met for the offender to remain in the community. Juveniles on probation may be placed in a wide variety of community-based treatment programs that provide services ranging from group counseling to drug treatment.

probation

Nonpunitive, legal disposition of juveniles emphasizing community treatment in which the juvenile is closely supervised by an officer of the court and must adhere to a strict set of rules to avoid incarceration.

Community treatment is based on the idea that the juvenile offender is not a danger to the community and has a better chance of being rehabilitated in the community. It provides offenders with the opportunity to be supervised by trained personnel who can help them reestablish forms of acceptable behavior in a community setting. When applied correctly, community treatment maximizes the liberty of the individual and at the same time vindicates the authority of the law and protects the public; promotes rehabilitation by maintaining normal community contacts; avoids the negative effects of confinement, which often severely complicate the reintegration of the offender into the community; and greatly reduces the financial cost to the public. 4

Historical Development

Although the major developments in community treatment have occurred in the twentieth century, its roots go back much further. In England, specialized procedures for dealing with youthful offenders were recorded as early as 1820, when the magistrates of the Warwickshire quarter sessions (periodic court hearings held in a county, or shire, of England) adopted the practice of sentencing youthful criminals to prison terms of one day, then releasing them conditionally under the supervision of their parents or masters. 5

In the United States, juvenile probation developed as part of the wave of social reform characterizing the latter half of the nineteenth century. Massachusetts took the first step. Under an act passed in 1869, an agent of the state board of charities was authorized to appear in criminal trials involving juveniles, to find them suitable homes, and to visit them periodically. These services were soon broadened, so that by 1890, probation had become a mandatory part of the court structure. 6

Probation was a cornerstone in the development of the juvenile court system. In fact, in some states, supporters of the juvenile court movement viewed probation as the first step toward achieving the benefits that the new court was intended to provide. The rapid spread of juvenile courts during the first decades of the twentieth century encouraged the further development of probation. The two were closely related, and to a large degree, both sprang from the conviction that the young could be rehabilitated and that the public was responsible for protecting them.

Expanding Community Treatment

By the mid-1960s, juvenile probation had become a complex institution that touched the lives of an enormous number of children. To many experts, institutionalization of even the most serious delinquent youths was a mistake. Reformers believed that confinement in a high-security institution could not solve the problems that brought a youth into a delinquent way of life, and that the experience could actually help amplify delinquency once the youth returned to the community. 7 Surveys indicating that 30 to 40 percent of adult prison inmates had prior experience with the juvenile court, and that many had been institutionalized as youths, gave little support to the argument that an institutional experience could be beneficial or reduce recidivism. 8

Contemporary Juvenile Probation

Traditional probation is still the backbone of community-based corrections. As Figure 14.1 shows, 322,900 juveniles were placed on formal probation in 2008 (latest data available), which amounts to more than half (57 percent) of all juvenile dispositions. The use of probation has increased significantly since 1993, when 224,500 adjudicated youths were placed on probation, but in recent years has remained relatively stable. 9 These figures show that, regardless of public sentiment, probation continues to be a popular dispositional alternative for judges. Here are the arguments in favor of probation:

· • For youths who can be supervised in the community, probation represents an appropriate disposition.

· • Probation allows the court to tailor a program to each juvenile offender, including those involved in interpersonal offenses. Research, however, raises questions about the adequacy of the present system to attend to the specific needs of female youths on probation. 10

· • The justice system continues to have confidence in rehabilitation while accommodating demands for legal controls and public protection, even when caseloads may include many more serious offenders than in the past.

· • Probation is often the disposition of choice, particularly for status offenders. 11

FIGURE 14.1: Probation and Correctional Population Trends

Note: Between 1999 and 2008, the number of cases adjudicated delinquent that resulted in probation decreased by approximately 10 percent, but the proportion of cases remained relatively unchanged.

Source: Charles Puzzanchera, Benjamin Adams, and Melissa Sickmund, Juvenile Court Statistics 2008 (Pittsburgh: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2011), pp. 50, 54, 55.

The Nature of Probation.

In most jurisdictions, probation is a direct judicial order that allows a youth who is found to be a delinquent or status offender to remain in the community under court-ordered supervision. A probation sentence implies a contract between the court and the juvenile. The court promises to hold a period of institutionalization in abeyance; the juvenile promises to adhere to a set of rules mandated by the court. The rules of probation vary, but they typically involve conditions such as attending school or work, keeping regular hours, remaining in the jurisdiction, and staying out of trouble.

In the juvenile court, probation is often ordered for an indefinite period. Depending on the statutes of the jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offense, and the juvenile’s adjustment on probation, youths can remain under supervision until the court no longer has jurisdiction over them (that is, when they reach the age of majority). State statutes determine if a judge can specify how long a juvenile may be placed under an order of probation. In most jurisdictions, the status of probation is reviewed regularly to ensure that a juvenile is not kept on probation needlessly. Generally, discretion lies with the probation officer to discharge youths who are adjusting to the treatment plan.

Conditions of Probation.

Conditions of probation are rules mandating that a juvenile on probation behave in a particular way. They can include restitution or reparation, intensive supervision, intensive counseling, participation in a therapeutic program, or participation in an educational or vocational training program. In addition to these specific conditions, state statutes generally allow courts to insist that probationers lead law-abiding lives, maintain a residence in a family setting, refrain from associating with certain types of people, and remain in a particular area unless they have permission to leave.

conditions of probation

Rules and regulations mandating that a juvenile on probation behave in a particular way.

Although probation conditions vary, they are never supposed to be capricious, cruel, or beyond the capacity of the juvenile to satisfy. Furthermore, conditions of probation should relate to the crime that was committed and to the conduct of the child.

Courts have invalidated probation conditions that were harmful or that violated the juvenile’s due process rights. Restricting a child’s movement, insisting on a mandatory program of treatment, ordering indefinite terms of probation, and demanding financial reparation where this is impossible are all grounds for appellate court review. For example, it would not be appropriate for a probation order to bar a youth from visiting his girlfriend (unless he had threatened or harmed her) merely because her parents objected to the relationship. 12 However, courts have ruled that it is permissible to bar juveniles from such sources of danger as a “known gang area” in order to protect them from harm. 13 If a youth violates the conditions of probation—and especially if the juvenile commits another offense—the court can revoke probation. In this case, the contract is terminated and the original commitment order may be enforced. The juvenile court ordinarily handles a decision to revoke probation upon recommendation of the probation officer. Today, as a result of Supreme Court decisions dealing with the rights of adult probationers, a juvenile is normally entitled to legal representation and a hearing when a violation of probation occurs. 14

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

Probation was an important component in Karen’s case.

CRITICAL THINKING Discuss the pros and cons of the probation officer’s recommendations to the court. Also identify some additional programs/services that would have been helpful in Karen’s situation.

Duties of Juvenile Probation Officers

The juvenile probation officer plays an important role in the justice process, beginning with intake and continuing throughout the period in which a juvenile is under court supervision. Their role is so important and influence so great that it has generated much research over the years on how juvenile probation officers perform their duties, including their approach to treatment and punishment. 15 Probation officers are involved at four stages of the court process. At intake, they screen complaints by deciding to adjust the matter, refer the child to an agency for service, or refer the case to the court for judicial action. During the predisposition stage, they participate in release or detention decisions. At the postadjudication stage, they assist the court in reaching its dispositional decision. During postdisposition, they supervise juveniles placed on probation.

juvenile probation officer

Officer of the court involved in all four stages of the court process — intake, predisposition, postadjudication, and postdisposition—who assists the court and supervises juveniles placed on probation.

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

Initially, Karen struggled with rules and expectations. Her probation officer worked with her to help her accomplish the goals.

CRITICAL THINKING Discuss ways that a probation officer can try to motivate a teen in trouble with the law.

At intake, the probation staff has preliminary discussions with the child and the family to determine whether court intervention is necessary or whether the matter can be better resolved by some form of social service. If the child is placed in a detention facility, the probation officer helps the court decide whether the child should continue to be held or be released pending the adjudication and disposition of the case.

The probation officer exercises tremendous influence over the child and the family by developing a social investigation or predisposition report and submitting it to the court. This report is a clinical diagnosis of the child’s problems and the need for court assistance based on an evaluation of social functioning, personality, and environmental issues. The report includes an analysis of the child’s feelings about the violations and the child’s capacity for change. It also examines the influence of family members, peers, and other environmental influences in producing and possibly resolving the problems. All of this information is brought together in a complex but meaningful picture of the offender’s personality, problems, and environment. 16

social investigation report (also known as predisposition report).

Developed by the juvenile probation officer, this report includes clinical diagnosis of the juvenile and the need for court assistance, relevant environmental and personality factors, and other information to assist the court in developing a treatment plan.

Juvenile probation officers also provide the child with supervision and treatment in the community. Treatment plans vary in approach and structure. Some juveniles simply report to the probation officer and follow the conditions of probation. In other cases, the probation officer may need to provide extensive counseling to the child and family, or more often, refer them to other social service agencies, such as a drug treatment center. Performance of such a broad range of functions requires good training. Today, juvenile probation officers have legal or social work backgrounds or special counseling skills. CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO1 Be familiar with juvenile probation.

· Probation is the primary form of community treatment used by the juvenile justice system.

· First developed in Massachusetts, probation had become a cornerstone of the court structure by 1890.

· Probation is a direct judicial order that allows a youth to remain in the community under court-ordered supervision.

· Probation conditions are rules mandating that a juvenile on probation behave in a particular way.

· The juvenile probation officer plays an important role in the justice process, beginning with intake and continuing throughout the period in which a juvenile is under court supervision.

PROBATION INNOVATIONS

Community corrections have traditionally emphasized offender rehabilitation. The probation officer has been viewed as a caseworker or counselor whose primary job is to help the offender adjust to society. Offender surveillance and control have seemed more appropriate for law enforcement, jails, and prisons than for community corrections. 17 Since 1980, a more conservative justice system has reoriented toward social control. Although the rehabilitative ideals of probation have not been abandoned, new programs have been developed that add a control dimension to community corrections. In some cases this has involved the use of police officers, working in collaboration with probation officers, to enhance the supervision of juvenile probationers. 18 These programs can be viewed as “probation plus,” because they add restrictive penalties and conditions to community-service orders. More punitive than probation, this kind of intermediate sanction can be politically attractive to conservatives while still appealing to liberals as alternatives to incarceration. What are some of these new alternative sanctions? (See Concept Summary 14.1 .)

CONCEPT SUMMARY 14.1: Community-Based Corrections

Although correctional treatment in the community generally refers to nonpunitive legal dispositions, in most cases there are still restrictions designed to protect the public and hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions.
Type	Main Restrictions
Probation	Regular supervision by a probation officer; youths must adhere to conditions such as attend school or work, stay out of trouble.
Intensive supervision	Almost daily supervision by a probation officer; adhere to similar conditions as regular probation.
House arrest	Remain at home during specified periods; often there is monitoring through random phone calls, visits, or electronic devices.
Restorative justice	Restrictions may be prescribed by community members to help repair harm done to victim.
Balanced probation	Restrictions tailored to the risk the juvenile offender presents to the community.
Restitution	None.
Residential programs	Placement in a residential, nonsecure facility, such as group home or foster home; adhere to conditions; close monitoring.

Intensive Supervision

Juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS) involves treating offenders who would normally have been sent to a secure treatment facility as part of a very small probation caseload that receives almost daily scrutiny. 19 The primary goal of JIPS is decarceration; without intensive supervision, youngsters would normally be sent to secure juvenile facilities that are already overcrowded. The second goal is control; high-risk juvenile offenders can be maintained in the community under much closer security than traditional probation efforts can provide. A third goal is maintaining community ties and reintegration; offenders can remain in the community and complete their education while avoiding the pains of imprisonment.

juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS)

A true alternative to incarceration that involves almost daily supervision of the juvenile by the probation officer assigned to the case.

Intensive probation programs get mixed reviews. Some jurisdictions find that they are more successful than traditional probation supervision and come at a much cheaper cost than incarceration. 20 However, some studies indicate that the failure rate is high and that younger offenders who commit petty crimes are the most likely to fail when placed in intensive supervision programs. 21 It is not surprising that intensive probation clients fail more often, because, after all, they are more serious offenders who might otherwise have been incarcerated and are now being watched and supervised more closely than probationers. In one experimental study of intensive probation supervision plus a coordinated team approach for high-risk juveniles, known as the Los Angeles County Repeat Offender Prevention Program (ROPP), mixed results were found for those who received the program compared to a similar group of youths who received regular probation only: recidivism was reduced in the short term, but not over the long term, school performance was increased, and there was no difference in probation technical violations. 22 In another recent California experiment of juvenile intensive probation supervision, no significant differences were observed in recidivism rates among those youths who received intensive probation compared to a similar group of youths who received regular probation. 23 Further analyses of this program revealed no effects on key family and peer relationship measures. 24

An innovative experiment in three Mississippi counties examined the differential effects on juvenile justice costs for intensive supervision and monitoring, regular probation, and cognitive behavioral treatment, which involved sessions on problem solving, social skills, negotiation skills, the management of emotion, and values enhancement, to improve the thinking and reasoning ability of juvenile offenders. After one year of the program, the intensive supervision treatment was found to be less cost-effective than the other two treatments, with the cognitive behavioral treatment imposing the fewest costs on the juvenile justice system. 25

Electronic Monitoring

Another program, which has been used with adult offenders and is finding its way into the juvenile justice system, is house arrest , which is often coupled with electronic monitoring . This program allows offenders sentenced to probation to remain in the community on condition that they stay at home during specific periods (for example, after school or work, on weekends, and in the evenings). Offenders may be monitored through random phone calls, visits, or in some jurisdictions, electronic devices.

house arrest

Offender is required to stay home during specific periods of time; monitoring is done by random phone calls and visits or by electronic devices.

electronic monitoring

Active monitoring systems consist of a radio transmitter worn by the offender that sends a continuous signal to the probation department computer; passive systems employ computer-generated random phone calls that must be answered in a certain period of time from a particular phone.

Most systems employ radio transmitters that receive a signal from a device worn by the offender and relay it back to the computer via telephone lines. Probationers are fitted with an irremovable monitoring device that alerts the probation department’s computers if they leave their place of confinement. 26

Currently, there is widespread belief that electronic monitoring can be effective, with some evaluations showing that recidivism rates are no higher than in traditional programs, costs are lower, and institutional overcrowding is reduced. Some studies also reveal that electronic monitoring seems to work better with some individuals than others: serious felony offenders, substance abusers, repeat offenders, and people serving the longest sentences are the most likely to fail. 27 However, in a review on the effects of electronic monitoring on recidivism, criminologists Marc Renzema and Evan Mayo-Wilson found that the results do not support the claim that it works at the present time. This conclusion was largely based on there being too few high-quality studies available and a difficulty in isolating the independent effects of programs that combine electronic monitoring with other interventions. Importantly, the researchers did not call for an end to the use of electronic monitoring, but rather for new and better experiments. 28

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

While electronic monitoring was not used in Karen’s case, she was placed on house arrest in her parent’s home.

CRITICAL THINKING Discuss the pros and cons of placing Karen on house arrest. As part of this, give some thought to what crimes would justify an automatic removal from the home as well as what would need to be accomplished for the youth to return.

Restorative Justice

Restorative justice is a nonpunitive strategy for delinquency control that attempts to address the issues that produce conflict between two parties (offender and victim) and, hence, reconcile the parties. Restoration rather than retribution or punishment is at the heart of the restorative justice approach. Seven core values characterize restorative justice:

· • Crime is an offense against human relationships.

· • Victims and the community are central to justice processes.

· • The first priority of justice processes is to assist victims.

· • The second priority of justice processes is to restore the community, to the degree possible.

· • The offender has a personal responsibility to victims and to the community for crimes committed.

· • The offender will develop improved competency and understanding as a result of the restorative justice experience.

· • Stakeholders share responsibilities for restorative justice through partnerships for action. 29

Criminologists Heather Strang and Lawrence Sherman carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of restorative justice on juvenile reoffending and victim satisfaction. The review involved two studies from Australia and one from the United States that evaluated the restorative justice practice of face-to-face conferences. (The main reason for the small number of studies is that the authors used only those studies that employed randomized controlled designs to assess program effects.) The conferences proceeded as follows:

· Any victims (or their representatives) present have the opportunity to describe the full extent of the harm a crime has caused, offenders are required to listen to the victims and to understand the consequences of their own actions, and all participants are invited to deliberate about what actions the offender could take to repair them. The precondition of such a conference is that the offender does not dispute the fact that he is responsible for the harm caused, and the conference cannot and will not become a trial to determine what happened. 30

The review found evidence that this form of restorative justice can be an effective strategy in reducing repeat offending by juveniles who have committed violent crimes. The type of violence includes minor offenses of battery to middle-level offenses of assault and aggravated assault. The review also found that face-to-face conferences can be effective in preventing victims from committing crimes of retaliation against their perpetrators. Perhaps not surprisingly, across all studies, victim satisfaction levels strongly favored restorative justice compared to traditional juvenile justice proceedings. 31 Successful results have also been demonstrated in other restorative justice programs for juvenile offenders. 32

Balanced Probation

Some jurisdictions have also turned to a balanced probation approach in an effort to enhance the success of probation. 33 Balanced probation systems integrate community protection, the accountability of the juvenile offender, and individualized attention to the offender. These programs are based on the view that juveniles are responsible for their actions and have an obligation to society whenever they commit an offense. The probation officer establishes a program tailored to the offender while helping the offender accept responsibility for his or her actions. The balanced approach is promising, because it specifies a distinctive role for the juvenile probation system. 34

balanced probation

A program that integrates community protection, accountability of the juvenile offender, competency, and individualized attention to the juvenile offender, based on the principle that juvenile offenders must accept responsibility for their behavior.

One innovative program that adheres to a balanced probation approach is the California 8% Solution, which is run by the Orange County Probation Department. The “8 percent” refers to the percentage of juvenile offenders who are responsible for the majority of crime: in the case of Orange County, 8 percent of first-time offenders were responsible for 55 percent of repeat cases over a three-year period. This 8 percent problem has become the 8 percent solution thanks to the probation department initiating a comprehensive, multiagency program targeting this group of offenders. 35

Once the probation officer identifies an offender for the program—the 8% Early Intervention Program—the youth is referred to the Youth and Family Resource Center. Here the youth’s needs are assessed and an appropriate treatment plan is developed. Some of the services provided to youths include these:

· • An outside school for students in junior and senior high school

· • Transportation to and from home

· • Counseling for drug and alcohol abuse

· • Employment preparation and job placement services

· • At-home, intensive family counseling for families 36

Restitution

Victim restitution is another widely used method of community treatment. In most jurisdictions, restitution is part of a probationary sentence and is administered by the county probation staff. In many jurisdictions, independent restitution programs have been set up by local governments; in others, restitution is administered by a private nonprofit organization. 37

Restitution can take several forms. A juvenile can reimburse the victim of the crime or donate money to a charity or public cause; this is referred to as monetary restitution . In other instances, a juvenile may be required to provide some service directly to the victim ( victim service restitution ) or to assist a community organization ( community service restitution ).

monetary restitution

Offenders compensate crime victims for out-of-pocket losses caused by the crime, including property damage, lost wages, and medical expenses.

victim service restitution

Offenders provide some service directly to the crime victim.

community service restitution

Offenders assist some worthwhile community organization for a period of time.

Requiring youths to reimburse the victims of their crimes is the most widely used method of restitution in the United States. Less widely used, but more common in Europe, is restitution to a charity. In the past few years, numerous programs have been set up to enable juvenile offenders to provide a service to the victim or participate in community programs—for example, working in schools for mentally challenged children. In some cases, juveniles are required to contribute both money and community service. Other programs emphasize employment. 38

Restitution programs can be employed at various stages of the juvenile justice process. They can be part of a diversion program prior to conviction, a method of informal adjustment at intake, or a condition of probation. Restitution has a number of advantages: it provides alternative sentencing options; it offers monetary compensation or service to crime victims; it allows the juvenile the opportunity to compensate the victim and take a step toward becoming a productive member of society; it helps relieve overcrowded juvenile courts, probation caseloads, and detention facilities. Finally, like other alternatives to incarceration, restitution has the potential for allowing vast savings in the operation of the juvenile justice system. Monetary restitution programs in particular may improve the public’s attitude toward juvenile justice by offering equity to the victims of crime and ensuring that offenders take responsibility for their actions.

The use of restitution is increasing. In 1977, there were fewer than 15 formal restitution programs around the United States. By 1985, formal programs existed in 400 jurisdictions, and 35 states had statutory provisions that gave courts the authority to order juvenile restitution. 39 Today, all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have statutory restitution programs.

Does Restitution Work?

How successful is restitution as a treatment alternative? Most evaluations have shown that it is reasonably effective and should be expanded. 40 In an analysis of restitution programs across the country, Peter Schneider and Matthew Finkelstein found that about 74 percent of youths who received restitution as a condition of probation successfully completed their orders. The researchers also found that juvenile restitution programs that reported a reduction in recidivism rates were the ones that had high successful completion rates. 41

Anne Schneider conducted a thorough analysis of restitution programs in four states and found that participants had lower recidivism rates than youths in control groups (regular probation caseloads). 42 Although Schneider’s data indicate that restitution may reduce recidivism, the number of youths who had subsequent involvement in the justice system still seemed high. In short, there is evidence that most restitution orders are successfully completed and that youths who make restitution are less likely to become recidivists; however, the number of repeat offenses committed by juveniles who made restitution suggests that, by itself, restitution is not the answer to the delinquency problem.

Another criticism of restitution programs is that they foster involuntary servitude. Indigent clients may be unfairly punished when they are unable to make restitution payments or face probation violations. To avoid such bias, probation officers should first determine why payment has stopped and then suggest appropriate action, rather than simply treating nonpayment as a matter of law enforcement.

Residential Community Treatment

Many experts believe that institutionalization of even the most serious delinquent youth is a mistake. Confinement in a high-security institution usually cannot solve the problems that brought a youth into a delinquent way of life, and the experience may actually amplify delinquency once the youth returns to the community. Many agree that warehousing juveniles without attention to their treatment needs does little to prevent their return to criminal behavior. Research has shown that the most effective secure-corrections programs provide individualized services for a small number of participants. Large training schools have not proved to be effective. 43 This realization has produced a wide variety of residential community-treatment programs to service youths who need a more secure environment than can be provided by probation services, but who do not require a placement in a state-run juvenile correctional facility.

How are community corrections implemented? In some cases, youths are placed under probation supervision, and the probation department maintains a residential treatment facility. Placement can also be made to the department of social services or juvenile corrections with the direction that the youth be placed in a residential facility. Residential programs are generally divided into four major categories: group homes, including boarding schools and apartment-type settings; foster homes; family group homes; and rural programs.

residential programs

Residential nonsecure facilities, such as a group home, foster home, family group home, or rural home, where the juvenile can be closely monitored and develop close relationships with staff members.

Group homes are nonsecure residences that provide counseling, education, job training, and family living. They are staffed by a small number of qualified persons, and generally house 12 to 15 youngsters. The institutional quality of the environment is minimized, and the kids are given the opportunity to build a close relationship with the staff. They reside in the home, attend public schools, and participate in community activities.

group homes

Nonsecured structured residences that provide counseling, education, job training, and family living.

Foster care programs involve one or two juveniles who live with a family—usually a husband and wife who serve as surrogate parents. The juveniles enter into a close relationship with the foster parents and receive the attention and care they did not receive in their own homes. The quality of the foster home experience depends on the foster parents. Foster care for adjudicated juvenile offenders has not been extensive in the United States. Welfare departments generally handle foster placements, and funding of this treatment option has been a problem for the juvenile justice system. However, foster home services have expanded as a community treatment approach.

foster care programs

Placement of juveniles with families who provide attention, guidance, and care.

One example of a successful foster care program is the multidimensional treatment foster care (MTFC) program, developed by social scientists at the Oregon Social Learning Center. Designed for the most serious and chronic young offenders, this program combines individual therapy, such as skill building in problem solving for the youths, and family therapy for the biological or adoptive parents. The foster care families receive training by program staff so they can provide the young people with close supervision, fair and consistent limits and consequences, and a supportive relationship with an adult. 44 Foster care families also receive close supervision and are consulted regularly on the progress of the youth by program staff. An experiment of MTFC found that one year after the completion of the program, participating male youths were significantly less likely to be arrested than a control group. 45 Another test of MTFC that involved only serious and chronic female juvenile offenders found that it was more effective than group care, as measured by days in locked settings, number of criminal referrals, and self-reported delinquency. 46

Family group homes combine elements of foster care and group home placements. Juveniles are placed in a group home that is run by a family rather than by a professional staff. Troubled youths have an opportunity to learn to get along in a family-like situation, and at the same time the state avoids the startup costs and neighborhood opposition often associated with establishing a public institution.

family group homes

A combination of foster care and group home; they are run by a single family rather than by professional staff.

Rural programs include forestry camps, ranches, and farms that provide recreational activities or work for juveniles. Programs usually handle from 30 to 50 youths. Such programs have the disadvantage of isolating juveniles from the community, but reintegration can be achieved if a youth’s stay is short and if family and friends are allowed to visit.

rural programs

Specific recreational and work opportunities provided for juveniles in a rural setting, such as a forestry camp, a farm, or a ranch.

Most residential programs use group counseling as the main treatment tool. Although group facilities have been used less often than institutional placements, there is a trend toward developing community-based residential facilities. As jurisdictions continue to face ever-increasing costs for juvenile justice services, community-based programs will play an important role in providing rehabilitation of juvenile offenders and ensuring public safety. CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO2 Know about new approaches for providing probation services to juvenile offenders.

· There are new programs being developed that are “probation plus” because they add restrictive penalties and conditions to community service orders.

· Juvenile intensive probation supervision involves treatment as part of a very small probation caseload that receives almost daily scrutiny.

· Electronic monitoring combined with house arrest is being implemented in juvenile correction policy.

· Balanced probation systems integrate community protection, accountability of the juvenile offender, and individualized attention to the offender.

· Monetary restitution allows a juvenile to reimburse the victim of the crime or donate money to a charity or public cause.

· Community service restitution allows juveniles to engage in public works as part of their disposition.

· Residential community programs are usually divided into four major categories: group homes, foster homes, family group homes, and rural programs.

SECURE CORRECTIONS

When the court determines that community treatment can’t meet the special needs of a delinquent youth, a judge may refer the juvenile to a secure treatment program. Today, correctional institutions operated by federal, state, and county governments are generally classified as secure or open facilities. Secure facilities restrict the movement of residents through staff monitoring, locked exits, and interior fence controls. Open institutions generally do not restrict the movement of the residents and allow much greater freedom of access to the facility. 47

History of Juvenile Institutions

Until the early 1800s, juvenile offenders, as well as neglected and dependent children, were confined in adult prisons. The inhumane conditions in these institutions were among the factors that led social reformers to create a separate children’s court system in 1899. 48 Early juvenile institutions were industrial schools modeled after adult prisons, but designed to protect children from the evil influences in adult facilities. The first was the New York House of Refuge, established in 1825. Not long after, states began to establish reform schools for juveniles. Massachusetts was the first, opening the Lyman School for Boys in Westborough in 1846. New York opened the State Agricultural and Industrial School in 1849, and Maine opened the Maine Boys’ Training School in 1853. By 1900, 36 states had reform schools. 49 Although it is difficult to determine the exact population of these institutions, by 1880 there were approximately 11,000 youths in correctional facilities, a number that more than quadrupled by 1980. 50 Early reform schools were generally punitive in nature and were based on the concept of rehabilitation (or reform) through hard work and discipline.

reform schools

Institutions in which educational and psychological services are used in an effort to improve the conduct of juveniles who are forcibly detained.

In the second half of the nineteenth century, emphasis shifted to the cottage system . Juvenile offenders were housed in compounds of cottages, each of which could accommodate 20 to 40 children. A set of “parents” ran each cottage, creating a homelike atmosphere. This setup was believed to be more conducive to rehabilitation.

cottage system

Housing in a compound of small cottages, each of which can accommodate 20 to 40 children.

The first cottage system was established in Massachusetts in 1855, the second in Ohio in 1858. 51 The system was held to be a great improvement over reform schools. The belief was that, by moving away from punishment and toward rehabilitation, not only could offenders be rehabilitated but also crime among unruly children could be prevented. 52

Twentieth-Century Developments.

The early twentieth century witnessed important changes in juvenile corrections. Because of the influence of World War I, reform schools began to adopt a militaristic style. Living units became barracks, cottage groups became companies, house fathers became captains, and superintendents became majors or colonels. Military-style uniforms were standard wear.

In addition, the establishment of the first juvenile court in 1899 reflected the expanded use of confinement for delinquent children. As the number of juvenile offenders increased, the forms of juvenile institutions varied to include forestry camps, ranches, and vocational schools. Beginning in the 1930s, camps modeled after the camps run by the Civilian Conservation Corps became a part of the juvenile correctional system. These camps centered on conservation activities and work as a means of rehabilitation.

Los Angeles County was the first to use camps during this period. 53 Southern California was experiencing problems with transient youths who came to California with no money and then got into trouble with the law. Rather than filling up the jails, the county placed these offenders in conservation camps, paid them low wages, and released them when they had earned enough money to return home. The camps proved more rehabilitative than training schools, and by 1935, California had established a network of forestry camps for delinquent boys. The idea soon spread to other states. 54

Also during the 1930s, the U.S. Children’s Bureau sought to reform juvenile corrections. The bureau conducted studies to determine the effectiveness of the training school concept. Little was learned from these programs because of limited funding and bureaucratic ineptitude, and the Children’s Bureau failed to achieve any significant change. But such efforts recognized the important role of positive institutional care. 55

Another innovation came in the 1940s with passage of the American Law Institute’s Model Youth Correction Authority Act. This act emphasized reception/ classification centers. California was the first to try out this idea, opening the Northern Reception Center and Clinic in Sacramento in 1947. Today, there are many such centers scattered around the United States.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN TO ME? Community Treatment for Juvenile Offenders: Not in My Backyard

How would you react to the announcement that a community treatment center for juvenile offenders is to open in your neighborhood? You are aware of studies that show that juvenile offenders can be treated in the community as effectively as in an institution. Yet the public sometimes has a negative impression of community treatment, especially when it is offered to juvenile offenders who pose a threat to society, and it is not uncommon for neighborhood groups to oppose the location of corrections programs in their community.

· 1. Is this concern warranted? Explain.

· 2. What arguments might you make to allay the public’s concerns and win support for community-based programs?

Since the 1970s, a major change in institutionalization has been the effort to remove status offenders from institutions housing juvenile delinquents. This includes removing status offenders from detention centers and removing all juveniles from contact with adults in jails. This decarceration policy mandates that courts use the least restrictive alternative in providing services for status offenders. A noncriminal youth should not be put in a secure facility if a community-based program is available. In addition, the federal government prohibits states from placing status offenders in separate facilities that are similar in form and function to those used for delinquent offenders. This is to prevent states from merely shifting their institutionalized population around so that one training school houses all delinquents, and another houses all status offenders, but actual conditions remain the same.

least restrictive alternative

A program with the least restrictive or secure setting that will benefit the child.

Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, admissions to juvenile correctional facilities grew substantially. 56 Capacities of juvenile facilities also increased, but not enough to avoid overcrowding. Training schools became seriously overcrowded in some states, causing private facilities to play an increased role in juvenile corrections. Reliance on incarceration became costly to states: inflation-controlled juvenile corrections expenditures for public facilities grew to more than $2 billion in 1995, an increase of 20 percent from 1982. 57 A 1994 report issued by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) said that crowding, inadequate health care, lack of security, and poor control of suicidal behavior was widespread in juvenile corrections facilities. Despite new construction, crowding persisted in more than half the states. 58

JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS TODAY: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

Most juveniles are housed in public institutions that are administered by state agencies: child and youth services, health and social services, corrections, or child welfare. 59 In some states these institutions fall under a centralized system that covers adults as well as juveniles. Recently, a number of states have removed juvenile corrections from an existing adult corrections department or mental health agency. However, the majority of states still place responsibility for the administration of juvenile corrections within social service departments.

Supplementing publicly funded institutions are private facilities that are maintained and operated by private agencies funded or chartered by state authorities. Most of today’s private institutions are relatively small facilities holding fewer than 30 youths. Many have a specific mission or focus (for example, treating females who display serious emotional problems). Although about 80 percent of public institutions can be characterized as secure, only 20 percent of private institutions are high-security facilities.

Population Trends

Whereas most delinquents are held in public facilities, most status offenders are held in private facilities. At last count (2010), there were 70,792 juvenile offenders being held in public (69 percent) and private (31 percent) facilities in the United States. Between 1991 and 1999, the number of juveniles held in custody increased 41 percent, followed by a 34 percent drop from 1999 to 2010. 60 The juvenile custody rate varies widely among states: South Dakota makes the greatest use of custodial treatment, incarcerating 575 delinquents in juvenile facilities per 100,000 juveniles in the population, whereas Vermont and Hawaii have the lowest juvenile custody rates (53 and 90, respectively). South Dakota’s juvenile custody rate is more than twice the national average. 61 Some states rely heavily on privately run facilities, whereas others place many youths in out-of-state facilities.

This wide variation in state-level juvenile custody rates has been the subject of much speculation but little empirical research. In an important study, criminologist Daniel Mears found that there are three main explanations for why some states incarcerate juveniles at a much higher rate than others: (1) they have high rates of juvenile property crime and adult violent crime; (2) they have higher adult custody rates; and (3) there is a “cultural acceptance of punitive policies” in some parts of the country. Interestingly, Mears found that western and midwestern states were more likely to have higher juvenile incarceration rates than southern states, thus calling into question the widely held view that the South is disproportionately punitive. 62

Although the number of institutionalized youths appears to have stabilized in the last few years, the data may reveal only the tip of the iceberg. The data do not include many minors who are incarcerated after they are waived to adult courts or who have been tried as adults because of exclusion statutes. Most states place underage juveniles convicted of adult charges in youth centers until they reach the age of majority, whereupon they are transferred to an adult facility. In addition, there may be a hidden, or subterranean, correctional system that places wayward youths in private mental hospitals and substance-abuse clinics for behaviors that might otherwise have brought them a stay in a correctional facility or community-based program. 63 These data suggest that the number of institutionalized children may be far greater than reported in the official statistics. 64 Studies also show that large numbers of youths are improperly incarcerated because of a lack of appropriate facilities. A nationwide survey carried out by congressional investigators as part of the House Committee on Government Reform found that 15,000 children with psychiatric disorders who were awaiting mental health services were improperly incarcerated in secure juvenile detention facilities. 65 In New Jersey, investigations into the state’s child welfare system found that large numbers of teenage foster children were being held in secure juvenile detention facilities. Other states resort to similar practices, citing a lack of appropriate noncorrectional facilities. 66

Physical Conditions

The physical plans of juvenile institutions vary in size and quality. Many of the older training schools still place all offenders in a single building, regardless of the offense. More acceptable structures include a reception unit with an infirmary, a security unit, and dormitory units or cottages. Planners have concluded that the most effective design for training schools is to have facilities located around a community square. The facilities generally include a dining hall and kitchen area, a storage warehouse, academic and vocational training rooms, a library, an auditorium, a gymnasium, an administration building, and other basic facilities.

The individual living areas also vary, depending on the type of facility and the progressiveness of its administration. Most traditional training school conditions were appalling. Today, however, most institutions provide toilet and bath facilities, beds, desks, lamps, and tables. New facilities usually try to provide a single room for each individual. However, the Juvenile Residential Facility Census, which collects information about the facilities in which juvenile offenders are held, found that one-quarter (25 percent) of the 2,860 facilities that reported information were either at capacity or overcrowded, with the latter defined as having more residents than available standard beds. 67

The physical conditions of secure facilities for juveniles have come a long way from the training schools of the turn of the twentieth century. However, many administrators realize that more modernization is necessary to comply with national standards for juvenile institutions. 68 Although some improvements have been made, there are still enormous problems to overcome. 69

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILE

The typical resident of a juvenile facility is a 17-year-old European American male incarcerated for an average stay of three and a half months in a public facility or four months in a private facility. Private facilities tend to house younger youths, whereas public institutions provide custodial care for older ones, including a small percentage between 18 and 21 years of age. Most incarcerated youths are person, property, or drug offenders. 70

If you want to learn more about improving the conditions of children in custody, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at CengageBrain.com , then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Minority youths are incarcerated at a rate two to four times that of European American youths. The difference is greatest for African American youths, with a custody rate of 605 per 100,000 juveniles; for European American youths the rate is 127. 71 In a number of states, such as California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, the difference in custody rates between African American and European American youths is considerably greater ( Table 14.1 ). Research has found that this overrepresentation is not a result of differentials in arrest rates, but often stems from disparity at early stages of case processing. 72 Of equal importance, minorities are more likely to be confined in secure public facilities rather than in open, private facilities that might provide more costly and effective treatment, 73 and among minority groups African American youths are more likely to receive more punitive treatment—throughout the juvenile justice system—compared with others. 74

TABLE 14.1: State Comparison of Custody Rates between European American and African American Juvenile Offenders, 2010

State of Offense	White	Black
United States	127	605
Alabama	131	392
Alaska	228	649
Arizona	114	334
Arkansas	142	534
California	115	984
Colorado	204	1,202
Connecticut	27	360
Delaware	89	703
District of Columbia	172	501
Florida	202	650
Georgia	76	461
Hawaii	48	84
Idaho	240	257
Illinois	106	476
Indiana	207	717
Iowa	165	864
Kansas	172	1,040
Kentucky	135	577
Louisiana	96	472
Maine	131	446
Maryland	47	321
Massachusetts	54	403
Michigan	105	625
Minnesota	85	673
Mississippi	38	189
Missouri	140	586
Montana	131	581
Nebraska	217	1,716
Nevada	155	723
New Hampshire	84	389
New Jersey	26	538
New Mexico	159	652
New York	77	538
North Carolina	60	249
North Dakota	178	452
Ohio	128	712
Oklahoma	90	576
Oregon	274	1,214
Pennsylvania	111	1,316
Rhode Island	123	961
South Carolina	128	450
South Dakota	317	2,109
Tennessee	64	293
Texas	123	529
Utah	154	666
Vermont	31	0
Virginia	112	583
Washington	137	625
West Virginia	254	1,173
Wisconsin	109	1,062
Wyoming	402	1,103
Note: The rate is the number of juvenile offenders in residential placement in 2010 per 100,000 juveniles in the population. Source: Melissa Sickmund, T J. Sladky, Wei Kang, and Charles Puzzanchera, “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement,” 2011, www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ (accessed August 30, 2012).

Minority youths accused of delinquent acts are less likely than European American youths to be diverted from the court system into informal sanctions and are more likely to receive sentences involving incarceration. 75 Today, more than 7 in 10 juveniles in custody belong to racial or ethnic minorities. 76 Racial disparity in juvenile disposition is an ongoing problem that demands immediate public scrutiny. 77 In response, many jurisdictions have initiated studies of racial disproportion in their juvenile justice systems, along with federal requirements to reduce disproportionate minority confinement (DMC), as contained in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002. 78 A report on state compliance to reduce DMC demonstrates that some progress has been made but that many challenges remain, including the basic need to identify factors that contribute to DMC (at least 18 states have yet to initiate this process), incomplete and inconsistent data systems, and the need for ongoing evaluation of focused interventions and system-wide efforts to reduce DMC. 79 Some promising practices in reducing DMC, such as cultural competency training and increasing community-based detention alternatives, are beginning to emerge. 80

Across all races and ethnicities, mental health needs are particularly acute among institutionalized juveniles. 81 Because of the importance of this topic, it is featured in the accompanying Focus on Delinquency box.

For more than two decades, shocking exposés, sometimes resulting from investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights division, have focused public attention on the problems of juvenile corrections. 82 Today, more so than in years past, some critics believe public scrutiny has improved conditions in training schools. There is greater professionalism among the staff, and staff brutality seems to have diminished. Status offenders and delinquents are, for the most part, held in separate facilities. Confinement length is shorter, and rehabilitative programming has increased. However, there are significant differences in the experiences of male and female delinquents in institutions.

To learn more about Columbia University’s Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at CengageBrain.com , then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Male Inmates

Males make up the great bulk of institutionalized youth, accounting for seven out of every eight juvenile offenders in residential placement, 83 and most programs are directed toward their needs. In many ways their experiences mirror those of adult offenders. In an important paper, Clemens Bartollas and his associates identified an inmate value system that they believed was common in juvenile institutions:

· “Exploit whomever you can.”

“Don’t play up to staff.”

“Don’t rat on your peers.”

“Don’t give in to others.” 84

Focus on Delinquency: MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF JUVENILE INMATES ON THE RISE

Research suggests that as many as two out of every three (65 percent) juvenile offenders in juvenile correctional facilities suffer from mental health problems, and a large proportion of these youths enter the system without previously having been diagnosed or receiving treatment. Incarcerated youths suffering from mental health problems may find it harder to adjust to their new environment, which may in turn lead to acting-out behaviors, disciplinary problems, and trouble participating in treatment programs. All of these problems increase the risk of recidivism upon release to the community.

These findings are cause for concern on their own, but have become more pressing as many states, in an effort to trim their budgets, are cutting back on funding for community- and school-based mental health programs. In a survey of state mental health offices, at least 32 states reported funding cuts — by an average of 5 percent — to these programs in fiscal year 2009. These same states are planning to double these reductions in funding in the years to come. According to Joseph Penn, a child psychologist at the Texas Youth Commission, “We’re seeing more and more mentally ill kids who couldn’t find community programs that were intensive enough to treat them. Jails and juvenile justice facilities are the new asylums.”

Even with a diagnosis, treatment services can be scarce in juvenile correctional facilities; culturally competent programs are even rarer. One study found that only one out of four (23 percent) juvenile offenders diagnosed with a mental disorder received any treatment. Contributing to the problem is that there is little information on what treatment works best for these juveniles. Columbia University’s Center for the Promotion of Mental Health in Juvenile Justice and the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice are leading a national effort to improve this state of affairs, as well as the need for improved mental health assessments beginning as early as intake.

CRITICAL THINKING

· 1. Is mental health treatment in the community a realistic option? Explain.

· 2. What should states be doing to plan for the long-term needs of this population?

Writing Assignment Many experts are calling for immediate attention to the mental health needs of incarcerated juveniles. Write an essay that outlines the short-term measures that can be taken to help this population. Also discuss the potential benefits associated with these measures.

Mental health needs are particularly acute among institutionalized juveniles. As much as 65 percent of youths in the juvenile justice system suffer from mental health problems. Shown here is an inmate at the Scioto Juvenile Correctional Facility in Delaware, Ohio. The facility recently added therapy programs to address inmates’ self-mutilation.

Sources: Lisa Rapp-Paglicci, Chris Stewart, William Rowe, and J. Mitchell Miller, “Addressing the Hispanic Delinquency and Mental Health Relationship Through Cultural Arts Programming: A Research Note from the Prodigy Evaluation,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27:110–121 (2011); Solomon Moore, “Mentally Ill Offenders Strain Juvenile System,” New York Times, August 10, 2009; Thomas Grisso, “Adolescent Offenders with Mental Disorders,” The Future of Children 18(2):143–164 (2008); Kathleen R. Skowyra and Joseph J. Cocozza, Blueprint for Change: A Comprehensive Model for the Identification and Treatment of Youth with Mental Health Needs in Contact with the Juvenile Justice System (Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2007); Deborah Shelton, “Patterns of Treatment Services and Costs for Young Offenders with Mental Disorders,” Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 18:103–112 (2005).

In addition to these general rules, the researchers found that there were separate norms for African American inmates (“exploit whites,” “no forcing sex on blacks,” “defend your brother”) and for European Americans (“don’t trust anyone,” “everybody for himself”).

Other research efforts confirm the notion that residents do in fact form cohesive groups and adhere to an informal inmate culture. 85 The more serious the youth’s record and the more secure the institution, the greater the adherence to the inmate social code. Male delinquents are more likely to form allegiances with members of their own racial group and attempt to exploit those outside the group. They also scheme to manipulate staff and take advantage of weaker peers. However, in institutions that are treatment-oriented, and where staff-inmate relationships are more intimate, residents are less likely to adhere to a negativistic inmate code.

Female Inmates

The growing involvement of female youths in criminal behavior and the influence of the feminist movement have drawn more attention to the female juvenile offender. This attention has revealed a double standard of justice. For example, girls are more likely than boys to be incarcerated for status offenses. Institutions for girls are generally more restrictive than those for boys, and they have fewer educational and vocational programs and fewer services. Institutions for girls also do a less-than-adequate job of rehabilitation. It has been suggested that this double standard operates because of a male-dominated justice system that seeks to “protect” young girls from their own sexuality. 86

Over the years, the number of females held in public institutions has declined, albeit less so in the past few years. This represents the continuation of a long-term trend to remove girls, many of whom are nonserious offenders, from closed institutions and place them in private or community-based facilities. It is estimated that 33 percent of all female youths in residential placement are held in private facilities; for male youths it is 30 percent. 87

The same double standard that brings a girl into an institution continues to exist once she is in custody. Institutional programs for girls tend to be oriented toward reinforcing traditional roles for women. Most of these programs also fail to take account of the different needs of African American and European American females, as in the case of coping with past abuse. 88 How well these programs rehabilitate girls is questionable. The one exception to this double standard is that female youths are incarcerated for similar terms as male youths. 89

The girls’ unit at a class in the San Jose, California, Juvenile Hall.

Many of the characteristics of juvenile female offenders are similar to those of their male counterparts, including poor social skills and low self-esteem. Other problems are more specific to the female juvenile offender (sexual abuse issues, victimization histories, lack of placement options). 90 Female juvenile offenders also have higher rates of mental health problems than their male counterparts. 91 In addition, there have been numerous allegations of emotional and sexual abuse by correctional workers, who either exploit vulnerable young women or callously disregard their emotional needs. An interview survey conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency uncovered numerous incidents of abuse, and bitter resentment by the young women over the brutality of their custodial treatment. 92

Although there are more coed institutions for juveniles than in the past, most girls remain incarcerated in single-sex institutions that are isolated in rural areas and rarely offer adequate rehabilitative services. Several factors account for the different treatment of girls. One is sexual stereotyping by administrators, who believe that teaching girls “appropriate” sex roles will help them function effectively in society. These beliefs are often held by the staff as well, many of whom have highly sexist ideas of what is appropriate behavior for adolescent girls. Another factor that accounts for the different treatment of girls is that staff members often are not adequately trained to understand and address the unique needs of this population. 93 Girls’ institutions tend to be smaller than boys’ institutions and lack the money to offer as many programs and services as the larger male institutions. 94

It appears that although society is more concerned about protecting girls who act out, it is less concerned about rehabilitating them because the crimes they commit are not serious. These attitudes translate into fewer staff, older facilities, and poorer educational and recreational programs than those found in boys’ institutions. 95 To help address these and other problems facing female juveniles in institutions, the American Bar Association and the National Bar Association recommend a number of important changes, including these:

· • Identify, promote, and support effective gender-specific, developmentally sound, culturally sensitive practices with girls

· • Promote an integrated system of care for at-risk and delinquent girls and their families based on their competencies and needs

· • Assess the adequacy of services to meet the needs of at-risk or delinquent girls and address gaps in service

· • Collect and review state and local practices to assess the gender impact of decision making and system structure 96

Some of these recommendations are starting to garner serious attention, notably with the emergence of a growing body of evidence of effective programs for female juveniles in institutions and at other stages in the juvenile justice system. 97 CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO3 Understand past and current trends in the use of juvenile institutions and key issues facing the institutionalized juvenile offender.

· Since the 1970s, a major change in institutionalization has been the effort to remove status offenders from institutions housing juvenile delinquents.

· Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, admissions to juvenile correctional facilities grew substantially.

· Today, there are slightly less than 71,000 juveniles being held in public and private facilities.

· There may be a hidden juvenile correctional system that places wayward youths in private mental hospitals and substance abuse clinics.

· Minority youths are incarcerated at a rate two to four times that of European Americans.

· Males make up the bulk of institutionalized youth, and most programs are directed toward their needs.

· Female inmates are believed to be the target of sexual abuse and are denied the same treatment options as males.

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES

Nearly all juvenile institutions implement some form of treatment program: counseling, vocational and educational training, recreational programs, and religious counseling. In addition, most institutions provide medical programs as well as occasional legal service programs. Generally, the larger the institution, the greater the number of programs and services offered.

The purpose of these programs is to rehabilitate youths to become well-adjusted individuals and send them back into the community to be productive citizens. Despite good intentions, however, the goal of rehabilitation is sometimes not attained, due in large part to poor implementation of the programs. 98 A significant number of juvenile offenders commit more crimes after release, 99 and some experts believe that correctional treatment has little effect on recidivism. 100 However, a large scale empirical review of institutional treatment programs found that serious juvenile offenders who receive treatment have recidivism rates about 10 percent lower than similar untreated juveniles, and that the best programs reduced recidivism by as much as 40 percent. 101 The most successful of these institutional treatment programs provide training to improve interpersonal skills and family-style teaching to improve behavioral skills. Also important is the need to foster healthy, supportive relationships between incarcerated youth and juvenile care workers. 102

What are the drawbacks to correctional rehabilitation? One of the most common problems is the lack of well-trained staff members. Budgetary limitations are a primary concern. It costs a substantial amount of money per year to keep a child in an institution, which explains why institutions generally do not employ large professional staffs.

However, some correctional programs are highly cost-efficient, producing monetary benefits that outweigh the costs of running the program. 103 In a recent study with the provocative title, “Are Violent Delinquents Worth Treating?” researchers Michael Caldwell, Michael Vitacco, and Gregory Van Rybroek found that an institutional treatment program for violent juvenile offenders that was effective in reducing recidivism rates produced cost savings to taxpayers that were seven times greater than what it cost to run the program. These findings can be particularly influential on policy makers and government funding agencies. 104

The most glaring problem with treatment programs is that they are not administered as intended. Although the official goals of many may be treatment and rehabilitation, the actual programs may center around security and punishment. The next sections describe some treatment approaches that aim to rehabilitate offenders.

Individual Treatment Techniques: Past and Present

In general, effective individual treatment programs are built around combinations of psychotherapy, reality therapy, and behavior modification. Individual counseling is one of the most common treatment approaches, and virtually all juvenile institutions use it to some extent. This is not surprising because psychological problems such as depression are prevalent in juvenile institutions. 105 Individual counseling does not attempt to change a youth’s personality. Rather, it attempts to help individuals understand and solve their current adjustment problems. Some institutions employ counselors who are not professionally qualified, which subjects offenders to a superficial form of counseling.

individual counseling

Counselors help juveniles understand and solve their current adjustment problems.

Professional counseling may be based on psychotherapy . Psychotherapy requires extensive analysis of the individual’s childhood experiences. A skilled therapist attempts to help the individual make a more positive adjustment to society by altering negative behavior patterns learned in childhood. Another frequently used treatment is reality therapy . 106 This approach, developed by William Glasser during the 1970s, emphasizes current, rather than past, behavior by stressing that offenders are completely responsible for their own actions. The object of reality therapy is to make individuals more responsible people. This is accomplished by giving them confidence through developing their ability to follow a set of expectations as closely as possible. The success of reality therapy depends greatly on the warmth and concern of the counselor.

psychotherapy

Highly structured counseling in which a therapist helps a juvenile solve conflicts and make a more positive adjustment to society.

reality therapy

A form of counseling that emphasizes current behavior and requires the individual to accept responsibility for all of his or her actions.

To learn more about reality therapy , visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at CengageBrain.com , then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Behavior modification is used in many institutions. 107 It is based on the theory that all behavior is learned and that current behavior can be shaped through rewards and punishments. This type of program is easily used in an institutional setting that offers privileges as rewards for behaviors, such as work, study, or the development of skills. It is reasonably effective, especially when a contract is formed with the youth to modify certain behaviors. When youths are aware of what is expected of them, they plan their actions to meet these expectations and then experience the anticipated consequences. In this way, youths can be motivated to change.

behavior modification

A technique for shaping desired behaviors through a system of rewards and punishments.

Group Treatment Techniques

Group therapy is more economical than individual therapy, because one therapist can counsel more than one individual at a time. Also, the support of the group is often valuable to individuals in the group, and individuals derive hope from other members of the group who have survived similar experiences. Another advantage of group therapy is that a group can often solve a problem more effectively than an individual.

group therapy

Counseling several individuals together in a group session.

One disadvantage of group therapy is that it provides little individual attention. Everyone is different, and some group members may need more individualized treatment. Also, there is the concern that by providing therapy in a group format, those who are more chronically involved in delinquency may negatively affect those who are marginally involved. 108

Guided group interaction (GGI) is a fairly common method of group treatment. It is based on the theory that, through group interactions, a delinquent can acknowledge and solve personal problems. A leader facilitates interaction, and a group culture develops. Individual members can be mutually supportive and reinforce acceptable behavior. In the 1980s, a version of GGI called positive peer culture (PPC) became popular. These programs use groups in which peer leaders encourage other youths to conform to conventional behaviors. The rationale is that if negative peer influence can encourage youths to engage in delinquent behavior, then positive peer influence can help them conform. 109 Though research results are inconclusive, there is evidence that PPC may facilitate communication ability for incarcerated youth. 110

guided group interaction (GGI)

Through group interactions, a delinquent can acknowledge and solve personal problems with support from other group members.

positive peer culture (PPC)

Counseling program in which peer leaders encourage other group members to modify their behavior and peers help reinforce acceptable behaviors.

Another common group treatment approach, milieu therapy , seeks to make all aspects of the inmates’ environment part of their treatment and to minimize differences between custodial staff and treatment personnel. Milieu therapy, based on psychoanalytic theory, was developed during the late 1940s and early 1950s by Bruno Bettelheim. 111 This therapy attempted to create a conscience, or superego, in delinquent youths by getting them to depend on their therapists to a great extent and then threatening them with loss of the caring relationship if they failed to control their behavior. Today, milieu therapy more often makes use of peer interactions and attempts to create an environment that encourages meaningful change, growth, and satisfactory adjustment. This is often accomplished through peer pressure to conform to group norms.

milieu therapy

All aspects of the environment are part of the treatment, and meaningful change, increased growth, and satisfactory adjustment are encouraged.

Youth specialist Robert Kofahl, second from left, leads a group session at the Rosa Parks Center, a detention home for female juvenile offenders in Fulton, Missouri. The center stresses group therapy and personal development over isolation and punishment.

Educational, Vocational, and Recreational Programs

Because educational programs are an important part of social development and have therapeutic as well as instructional value, they are an essential part of most treatment programs. What takes place through education is related to all other aspects of the institutional program—work activities, cottage life, recreation, and clinical services.

Educational programs are probably the best-staffed programs in training schools, but even at their best, most of them are inadequate. Educational programs contend with myriad problems. Many of the youths coming into these institutions are mentally challenged, have learning disabilities, and are far behind their grade levels in basic academics. Most have become frustrated with the educational experience, dislike school, and become bored with any type of educational program. Their sense of frustration often leads to disciplinary problems.

Ideally, institutions should allow the inmates to attend a school in the community or offer programs that lead to a high school diploma or GED certificate. In recent years, a growing number of residential facilities have begun offering these types of programs. Almost 9 out of every 10 (87 percent) juvenile residential facility provide high school–level education, 8 of every 10 (81 percent) residential facility provide middle school–level education, and 70 percent provide GED preparation. 112 Secure institutions, because of their large size, are more likely than group homes or day treatment centers to offer programs such as remedial reading, physical education, and tutoring. Some offer computer-based learning and programmed learning modules. The Professional Spotlight discusses the career of one teacher who works in a juvenile correctional facility.

Vocational training has long been used as a treatment technique for juveniles. Early institutions were even referred to as “industrial schools.” Today, vocational programs in institutions include auto repair, printing, woodworking, computer training, food service, cosmetology, secretarial training, and data processing. A common drawback of vocational training programs is sex-typing. The recent trend has been to allow equal access to all programs offered in institutions that house both girls and boys. Sex-typing is more difficult to avoid in single-sex institutions, because funds aren’t usually available for all types of training.

To see how positive peer culture can be used effectively, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at CengageBrain.com , then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Wilderness Programs

Wilderness probation programs involve troubled youths in outdoor activities as a mechanism to improve their social skills, self-concept, and self-control. Typically, wilderness programs maintain exposure to a wholesome environment; where the concepts of education and the work ethic are taught and embodied in adult role models, troubled youths can regain a measure of self-worth.

wilderness probation Programs involving outdoor expeditions that provide opportunities for juveniles to confront the difficulties of their lives while achieving positive personal satisfaction.

PROFESSIONAL SPOTLIGHT: Kristi Swanson

Teacher, Idaho Prison Juvenile Unit

Kristi Swanson is a teacher in the juvenile unit of an Idaho prison that is run by the Ada County Juvenile Court Services. The program she works for specializes in helping juvenile offenders obtain their high school education. The program serves juveniles who are neither good candidates for traditional school nor any longer allowed in traditional school because of suspension, expulsion, or safety issues.

Swanson started her career in an educational program for adolescents in the neuro-psych unit of a hospital. Although she enjoyed the position, she has always been drawn to working with young people in trouble with the law and in a nontraditional school environment. Her philosophy regarding kids who have broken the law has always been that kids are not bad. They make choices, and some of those choices are not always productive.

Swanson prepared for being a teacher by obtaining a bachelor’s degree in English and education. Working at a hospital for a year proved to be an extremely beneficial experience. Mental health issues play a large part when considering the proper course of action to take regarding students in a juvenile correctional facility.

What does Kristi Swanson feel is the most rewarding part of her job? It is found in the stories where a student was able to turn his or her life around and be successful. These kids often have any number of barriers to their education, including substance abuse, parental substance abuse, physical and/or mental abuse, incarcerated parents, coming from disadvantaged homes, and pregnancy. Many times they are referred to Swanson and her colleagues with very little expectation that they will be able to help them where others have failed. That challenge, combined with the capability of each of the young people, keeps the job very interesting.

As a teacher, Swanson’s greatest challenge involves dealing with students who continually make poor choices despite the best efforts of staff. Eventually, the time comes when one has to decide how much more energy should be directed toward those students, sometimes to the detriment of others.

The school day at the juvenile unit is divided into three blocks, one hour and 45 minutes apiece. Swanson spends time helping the teens with math, science, English, history, government, economics, and other subjects. Her daily routine also involves responding to inquiries from probation officers, writing letters that accompany students to court, and grading assignments. Notes are needed on each student every day. The notes are sent to the probation department at the end of each week. There are also numerous meetings with parents and probation officers regarding school progress. Swanson is also trained to intervene to deescalate problems and help keep the school a safe place for the students. Sometimes that means providing a listening ear, a shoulder to cry on, or a trip to the social worker’s office.

A number of wilderness programs for juvenile offenders have been evaluated for their effects on recidivism. In a detailed review of the effects of wilderness programs—those emphasizing physical activity over more therapeutic goals—on recidivism, Doris MacKenzie concludes that these programs do not work. 113 Although some of the programs show success, such as the Spectrum Wilderness Program in Illinois, 114 others had negative effects; that is, the group that received the program had higher arrest rates than the comparison group that did not. Taken together, the programs suffered from poor implementation, weak evaluation designs or problems with too few subjects or large dropout rates, and failure to adhere to principles of successful rehabilitation, such as targeting high-risk youths and lasting for a moderate period of time. 115 However, wilderness programs that include a therapeutic component have been shown to be effective in reducing juvenile offending. Sandra Wilson and Mark Lipsey found that, on average, these programs produced a 20 percent reduction in recidivism rates, with the most successful ones offering more intensive physical activity or therapeutic services. 116

Juvenile Boot Camps

Correctional boot camps were designed with the idea of combining the get-tough elements of adult programs with education, substance abuse treatment, and social skills training. In theory, a successful boot camp program should rehabilitate juvenile offenders, reduce the number of beds needed in secure institutional programs, and thus reduce the overall cost of care. The Alabama boot camp program for youthful offenders estimated savings of $1 million annually when compared with traditional institutional sentences. 117 However, no one seems convinced that participants in these programs have lower recidivism rates than those who serve normal sentences. Ronald Corbett and Joan Petersilia do note that boot camp participants seem to be less antisocial upon returning to society. 118

boot camps

Programs that combine get-tough elements with education, substance abuse treatment, and social skills training.

The bottom line for juvenile boot camps, like other correctional sanctions, is whether or not they reduce recidivism. A meta-analysis of the effects of juvenile boot camps on recidivism found this to be an ineffective correctional approach to reducing it; from the 17 different program samples, the control groups had, on average, lower recidivism rates than the treatment groups (boot camps). 119 Interestingly, when compared with the effects of 26 program samples of boot camps for adults, the juvenile boot camps had a higher average recidivism rate, although the difference was not significant. 120

To read more about boot camps , visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at CengageBrain.com , then access the Web Links for this chapter.

meta-analysis

An analysis technique that synthesizes results across many programs over time.

Why do boot camps for juveniles fail to reduce future offending? The main reason is that they provide little in the way of therapy or treatment to correct offending behavior. 121 Also, few are linked to services to help juvenile offenders transition back to the community. One juvenile boot camp program in Quehanna, Pennsylvania, which included a mandatory residential aftercare component, showed a reduction in recidivism rates two years post-release. 122 Experts have also suggested that part of the reason for not finding differences in recidivism between boot camps and other correctional alternatives (the control groups) may be due to juveniles in the control groups receiving enhanced treatment, whereas juveniles in the boot camps are spending more time on physical activities. 123

The general ineffectiveness of boot camps to reduce reoffending in the community by juvenile offenders (and adult offenders) appears to have resulted in this approach falling into disfavor with some correctional administrators. At the height of its popularity in the mid-1990s, more than 75 state-run boot camps were in operation in more than 30 states across the country. 124 Despite this, boot camps appear to still have a place among the array of sentencing options, if for no other reason than to appease the public with the promise of tougher sentences and lower costs. 125 If boot camps are to become a viable alternative for juvenile corrections, they must be seen not as a panacea that provides an easy solution to the problems of delinquency, but merely part of a comprehensive approach to juvenile care that is appropriate to a select group of adolescents. 126 CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO4 Be able to identify current juvenile correctional treatment approaches and comment on their effectiveness in reducing recidivism.

· Nearly all juvenile institutions implement some form of treatment program.

· Reality therapy, a commonly used individual approach, emphasizes current, rather than past, behavior by stressing that offenders are completely responsible for their own actions.

· Group therapy is more commonly used with kids than individual therapy.

· Guided group interaction and positive peer culture are popular group treatment techniques.

· Many but not all institutions either allow juveniles to attend a school in the community or offer programs that lead to a high school diploma or GED certificate.

· Wilderness programs involve troubled youths using outdoor activities as a mechanism to improve their social skills, self-concepts, and self-control.

· Correctional boot camps emphasize the get-tough elements of adult programs.

THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT

The primary goal of placing juveniles in institutions is to help them reenter the community successfully. Therefore, lawyers claim that children in state-run institutions have a legal right to treatment.

The concept of a right to treatment was introduced to the mental health field in 1960 by Morton Birnbaum, who argued that individuals who are deprived of their liberty because of a mental illness are entitled to treatment to correct that condition. 127 The right to treatment has expanded to include the juvenile justice system, an expansion bolstered by court rulings that mandate that rehabilitation and not punishment or retribution be the basis of juvenile court dispositions. 128 It stands to reason then that, if incarcerated, juveniles are entitled to the appropriate social services that will promote their rehabilitation.

right to treatment

Philosophy espoused by many courts that juvenile offenders have a statutory right to treatment while under the jurisdiction of the courts.

One of the first cases to highlight this issue was Inmates of the Boys’ Training School v. Affleck in 1972. 129 In its decision, a federal court argued that rehabilitation is the true purpose of the juvenile court and that, without this goal, due process guarantees are violated. It condemned such devices as solitary confinement, strip cells, and lack of educational opportunities, and held that juveniles have a statutory right to treatment. The court also established the following minimum standards for all juveniles confined in training schools:

· • A room equipped with lighting sufficient for an inmate to read until 10:00 P.M.

· • Sufficient clothing to meet seasonal needs

· • Bedding, including blankets, sheets, pillows, and pillowcases, to be changed once a week

· • Personal hygiene supplies, including soap, toothpaste, towels, toilet paper, and toothbrush

· • A change of undergarments and socks every day

· • Minimum writing materials: pen, pencil, paper, and envelopes

· • Prescription eyeglasses, if needed

· • Equal access to all books, periodicals, and other reading materials located in the training school

· • Daily showers

· • Daily access to medical facilities, including provision of a 24-hour nursing service

· • General correspondence privileges 130

To learn more about the right to treatment, read “Meeting the Needs of the Mentally Ill—A Case Study of the ‘Right to Treatment’ as Legal Rights Discourse in the USA,” by Michael McCubbin and David N. Weisstub. You can find it by visiting the Criminal Justice CourseMate at CengageBrain.com , then accessing the Web Links for this chapter.

In 1974, in the case of Nelson v. Heyne, the First Federal Appellate Court affirmed that juveniles have a right to treatment and condemned the use of corporal punishment in juvenile institutions. 131 In Morales v. Turman, the court held that all juveniles confined in training schools in Texas have a right to treatment, including development of education skills, delivery of vocational education, medical and psychiatric treatment, and adequate living conditions. 132 In another case, Pena v. New York State Division for Youth, the court held that the use of isolation, hand restraints, and tranquilizing drugs at Goshen Annex Center violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and the Eighth Amendment right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment. 133

The right to treatment has also been limited. For example, in Ralston v. Robinson, the Supreme Court rejected a youth’s claim that he should continue to be given treatment after he was sentenced to a consecutive term in an adult prison for crimes committed while in a juvenile institution. 134 In the Ralston case, the offender’s proven dangerousness outweighed the possible effects of rehabilitation. Similarly, in Santana v. Callazo, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a suit brought by residents at the Maricao Juvenile Camp in Puerto Rico on the grounds that the administration had failed to provide them with an individualized rehabilitation plan or adequate treatment. The circuit court concluded that it was a legitimate exercise of state authority to incarcerate juveniles solely to protect society if they are dangerous.

The Struggle for Basic Civil Rights

Several court cases have led federal, state, and private groups—for example, the American Bar Association, the American Correctional Association, and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency—to develop standards for the juvenile justice system. These standards provide guidelines for conditions and practices in juvenile institutions and call on administrators to maintain a safe and healthy environment for incarcerated youths.

For the most part, state-sponsored brutality has been outlawed, although the use of restraints, solitary confinement, and even medication for unruly residents has not been eliminated. The courts have ruled that corporal punishment in any form violates standards of decency and human dignity.

There are a number of mechanisms for enforcing these standards. For example, the federal government’s Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) gives the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to bring actions against state or local governments for violating the civil rights of persons institutionalized in publicly operated facilities. 135 CRIPA does not create any new substantive rights; it simply confers power on the U.S. attorney general to bring action to enforce previously established constitutional or statutory rights of institutionalized persons; about 25 percent of cases involve juvenile detention and correctional facilities.

What provisions does the juvenile justice system make to help institutionalized offenders return to society? The remainder of this chapter is devoted to this topic.

JUVENILE AFTERCARE AND REENTRY

Aftercare in the juvenile justice system is the equivalent of parole in the adult criminal justice system. When juveniles are released from an institution, they may be placed in an aftercare program of some kind, so that those who have been institutionalized are not simply returned to the community without some transitional assistance. Whether individuals who are in aftercare as part of an indeterminate sentence remain in the community or return to the institution for further rehabilitation depends on their actions during the aftercare period. Aftercare is an extremely important stage in the juvenile justice process, because few juveniles age out of custody. 136

aftercare

Transitional assistance to juveniles equivalent to adult parole to help youths adjust to community life.

Reentry involves aftercare services but includes preparation for release from confinement, also called prerelease planning. 137 Reentry is further distinguished from aftercare in that reentry is seen as the whole process and experience of the transition of juveniles from “juvenile and adult correctional settings back into schools, families, communities, and society at large.” 138 The concept of reentry, which is also the term given to it in the adult criminal justice system, is by no means new. 139 Recently, however, it has come to characterize the larger numbers of juvenile and adult offenders returning to communities each year and the increased needs these offenders exhibit with respect to employment, education, and mental health and substance abuse problems. 140 For juvenile offenders, reentry goes beyond the all-too-common practice of juveniles being placed in aftercare programs that are the same as adult parole programs, which “fail to take account of their unique needs and the challenges they face.” 141 Through the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), the federal government has invested $150 million on reentry programs for adult and juvenile offenders in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. 142 Promising results are beginning to emerge from this initiative as well as other juvenile reentry programs across the country. 143

reentry

The process and experience of returning to society upon release from a custody facility post-adjudication.

For more information on SVORI programs for juvenile offenders, visit the Criminal Justice CourseMate at CengageBrain.com , then access the Web Links for this chapter.

Supervision

One purpose of aftercare and reentry is to provide support during the readjustment period following release. First, individuals whose activities have been regimented for some time may not find it easy to make independent decisions. Second, offenders may perceive themselves as scapegoats, cast out by society. Finally, the community may view the returning minor with a good deal of prejudice; adjustment problems may reinforce a preexisting need to engage in deviant behavior.

Juveniles in aftercare programs are supervised by parole caseworkers or counselors whose job is to maintain contact with the juvenile, make sure that a corrections plan is followed, and show interest and caring. The counselor also keeps the youth informed of services that may assist in reintegration, and counsels the youth and his or her family. Unfortunately, aftercare caseworkers, like probation officers, often carry such large caseloads that their jobs are next to impossible to do adequately.

Aftercare—the equivalent of parole in the adult criminal justice system—includes a range of services designed to help juveniles adjust to community life upon release from an institution. Here, Tristan Cassidy, 17 (top) and Scott Epperley, 15, work on a project for their geography class at the Northwest Regional Learning Center (NRLC) in Everett, Washington. The NRLC is a detention school for juveniles on probation or in aftercare that serves as a last chance for some to earn their high school diploma if their former schools will not accept them back.

The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model.

Models of aftercare have been aimed at the chronic or violent offender. The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model developed by David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong offers a continuum of intervention for serious juvenile offenders returning to the community following placement. 144 The IAP model begins by drawing attention to five basic principles, which collectively establish a set of fundamental operational goals:

· • Preparing youths for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the community

· • Facilitating youth–community interaction and involvement

· • Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (families, peers, schools, employers) on qualities needed for constructive interaction and the youths’ successful community adjustment

· • Developing new resources and supports where needed

· • Monitoring and testing the youths and the community on their ability to deal with each other productively

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)

A balanced, highly structured, comprehensive continuum of intervention for serious and violent juvenile offenders returning to the community.

These basic goals are then translated into practice, which incorporates individual case planning with a family and community perspective. The program stresses a mix of intensive surveillance and services and a balance of incentives and graduated consequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions. There is also “service brokerage,” in which community resources are used and linkage with social networks established. 145

The IAP initiative was designed to help correctional agencies implement effective aftercare programs for chronic and serious juvenile offenders. After more than 12 years of testing, the program is now being aimed at determining how juveniles are prepared for reentry into their communities, how the transition is handled, and how the aftercare in the community is provided. 146 The Prevention/Intervention/Treatment feature “ Using the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model ” illustrates how it is being used in three state jurisdictions and reports on the latest evaluation results.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: Using the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model

How has the IAP model been used around the nation, and has it proven effective?

Colorado

Although adolescents are still institutionalized, community-based providers begin weekly services (including multi-family counseling and life-skills services) that continue during aftercare. Sixty days prior to release, IAP youths begin a series of step-down measures, including supervised trips to the community, and 30 days before release, there are overnight or weekend home passes. Upon release to parole, most program youths go through several months of day treatment that, in addition to services, provides a high level of structure during the day. As a youth’s progress warrants, the frequency of supervision decreases.

Nevada

Once the parole plan is finalized, all IAP youths begin a 30-day prerelease phase, during which IAP staff provide a series of services that continue through the early months of parole. These consist primarily of two structured curricula on life skills and substance abuse. The initial 30 days of release are considered an institutional furlough (that is, the kids are still on the institutional rolls) that involves intensive supervision and service. During furlough, they are involved in day programming and are subject to frequent drug testing and evening and weekend surveillance. Upon successful completion of the furlough, the IAP transition continues through the use of phased levels of supervision. During the first three months, three contacts per week with the case manager or field agent are required. This level of supervision is reduced to two contacts per week for the next two months, and then to once a week during the last month of parole.

Virginia

Virginia’s transition differs from the other two states in that its central feature is the use of group home placements as a bridge between the institution and the community. Immediately after release from the institution, youths enter one of two group homes for a 30- to 60-day period. The programs and services in which they will be involved in the community are initiated shortly after placement in the home. Virginia uses a formal step-down system to gradually ease the intensity of parole supervision. In the two months following the youth’s release from the group home, staff are required to contact him or her five to seven times per week. This is reduced to three to five times per week during the next two months, and again to three times per week during the final 30 days.

Does the IAP Model Work?

In each state, one site was chosen to assess the effectiveness of the IAP model: Denver, Colorado; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Norfolk, Virginia. An experimental evaluation that randomly assigned juveniles to the program or a control group was used to assess the model’s effectiveness on recidivism. As shown in Table 14A , the program produced some benefits in Norfolk, but in Denver, program youths were more likely than their control counterparts to recidivate and to be sentenced to a period of incarceration. The researchers call for caution in interpreting these results. In the case of Denver, control group youths received services similar to those in the IAP. They also note that this was the first test of a “very complex intervention.” Suggestions for improvement to the IAP include maximizing parental involvement, emphasizing education and employment skills, and strengthening community support networks.

Critical Thinking

· 1. What is the importance of reducing the number of supervision contacts with the juvenile offender toward the end of the aftercare program?

· 2. Should juvenile offenders who have committed less serious offenses also have to go through intensive aftercare programs? Discuss.

TABLE 14A: The IAP Model’s Effects on Recidivism

	Denver	Las Vegas	Norfolk
	IAP	Control	IAP	Control	IAP	Control
Arrested (%)	69	65	77	77	60	67
Convicted (%)	42	33	59	60	44	59
Incarcerated (%)	41	26	45	41	56	58

Sources: David M. Altschuler, “Juvenile Reentry and Aftercare,” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy 16:655–667 (2009); Richard G. Wiebush, Dennis Wagner, Betsie McNulty, Yanqing Wang, and Thao N. Le, Implementation and Outcome Evaluation of the Intensive Aftercare Program (Washington, DC: OJJDP, 2005); Steve V. Gies, Aftercare Services (Washington, DC: OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2003).

Aftercare Revocation Procedures

Juvenile parolees are required to meet set standards of behavior, which generally include but are not limited to the following:

· • Adhere to a reasonable curfew set by youth worker or parent

· • Refrain from associating with persons whose influence would be detrimental

· • Attend school in accordance with the law

· • Abstain from drugs and alcohol

· • Report to the youth worker when required

· • Refrain from acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult

· • Refrain from operating an automobile without permission of the youth worker or parent

· • Refrain from being habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of parent or other legal authority

· • Refrain from running away from the lawful custody of parent or other lawful authority

If these rules are violated, the juvenile may have his parole revoked and be returned to the institution. Most states have extended the same legal rights enjoyed by adults at parole revocation hearings to juveniles who are in danger of losing their aftercare privileges, as follows:

· • Juveniles must be informed of the conditions of parole and receive notice of any obligations.

· • Juveniles have the right to legal counsel at state expense if necessary.

· • They maintain the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them.

· • They have the right to introduce documentary evidence and witnesses.

· • They have the right to a hearing before an officer who shall be an attorney but not an employee of the revoking agency. 147 CHECKPOINTS

CHECKPOINTS

· LO5 Know about aftercare and reentry for juvenile offenders.

· Aftercare in the juvenile justice system is the equivalent of parole in the adult criminal justice system.

· Reentry involves aftercare services but includes preparation for release from confinement.

· Supervision is a major component of aftercare services for juvenile offenders.

· The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) model works with chronic and violent juvenile offenders, and has been evaluated in a number of sites across the country.

FUTURE OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS

There exists much debate about the effectiveness of community versus institutional treatment. Considerable research shows that warehousing juveniles without proper treatment does little to prevent future delinquent activities. 148 The most effective secure corrections programs are those that provide individual services for a small number of participants. 149 Evaluations of community treatment provide evidence of a number of successful ways to prevent delinquency without jeopardizing the safety of community residents, and members of the public continue to express their support for more treatment over punishment. 150

There is also a long-standing debate about the effectiveness of correctional treatments compared with other delinquency prevention measures. In their assessment of the full range of interventions to prevent serious and violent juvenile offending, Rolf Loeber and David Farrington found that it is never too early and never too late to make a difference. 151 Though some critics believe that juveniles are being coddled, in the future it is likely that innovative treatment methods will be applied continually within the juvenile justice system.

On another front, deinstitutionalization has become an important goal of the juvenile justice system. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention provided funds to encourage this process. In the early 1980s, the deinstitutionalization movement seemed to be partially successful. Admissions to public juvenile correctional facilities declined in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In addition, the number of status offenders being held within the juvenile justice system was reduced. Following a substantial increase in the number of institutionalized children in the 1990s and the early 2000s, numbers have decreased of late. During these years, the majority of states achieved compliance with the DSO mandate (Deinstitutionalizing Status Offenders). Because juvenile crime is a high priority, the challenge to the states will be to retain a focus on prevention despite political, not necessarily public, 152 assertions of the need for more punitive approaches. If that can be achieved, deinstitutionalization will remain a central theme in the juvenile justice system.

A more pressing problem is that a disproportionate number of minority youths continue to be incarcerated in youth facilities. The difference is greatest for African American youths, with the incarceration rate being four times greater than that for Caucasian youths. Of equal importance, minorities are more likely to be placed in secure public facilities rather than in open private facilities that might provide more costly and effective treatment. The OJJDP is committed to ensuring that the nation address situations where there is disproportionate confinement of minority offenders in the juvenile justice system. In the future, it is expected that this initiative will result in a more fair and balanced juvenile justice system.

Aftercare and reentry services represent crucial elements of a juvenile offender’s successful transition back to the community. Correctional authorities recognize that juvenile offenders who are released from confinement are at heightened risk for returning to a life of crime without assistance in overcoming barriers with employment, education, and housing, and dealing with mental health, substance abuse, and other problems. 153 Many jurisdictions are experiencing success with halfway houses and reintegration centers and other reentry programs, and the federal government’s substantial investment in reentry programs through the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative is promising.

SUMMARY

Community treatment encompasses efforts to keep offenders in the community and spare them the stigma of incarceration. The primary purpose is to provide a nonrestrictive or home setting, employing educational, vocational, counseling, and employment services. Institutional treatment encompasses provision of these services but in more restrictive and sometimes secure facilities.

Probation is the most widely used method of community treatment. Youths on probation must obey rules given to them by the court and participate in some form of treatment program. If rules are violated, youths may have their probation revoked. Behavior is monitored by probation officers. Formal probation accounts for more than half (57 percent) of all juvenile dispositions.

It is now common to enhance probation with more restrictive forms of treatment, such as intensive supervision and house arrest with electronic monitoring. Residential community treatment programs allow youths to live at home while receiving treatment in a nonpunitive, community-based center. Some of these probation innovations, like intensive supervision, get mixed reviews on their effectiveness in reducing recidivism, while others such as restitution and restorative justice show success.

The secure juvenile institution was developed in the mid-nineteenth century as an alternative to placing youths in adult prisons. Youth institutions evolved from large, closed institutions to cottage-based education- and rehabilitation-oriented institutions. The concept of least restrictive alternative is applicable in decisions on placing juvenile offenders in institutions to ensure that the setting benefits the juvenile’s treatment needs.

The juvenile institutional population has decreased in recent years. A large number of youths continue to be “hidden” in private medical centers and drug treatment clinics. There are wide variations in juvenile custody rates across states, and a disproportionate number of minorities are incarcerated in more secure, state-run youth facilities. Compared to males, female juvenile inmates are faced with many hardships.

Most juvenile institutions maintain intensive treatment programs featuring individual or group therapy. Little evidence has been found that any single method is effective in reducing recidivism. Rehabilitation remains an important goal of juvenile practitioners.

The right to treatment is an important issue in juvenile justice. Legal decisions have mandated that a juvenile cannot simply be warehoused in a correctional center but must receive proper care and treatment to aid rehabilitation. What constitutes proper care is still being debated, however.

Juveniles released from institutions are often placed on parole or in aftercare. Many jurisdictions are experiencing success with halfway houses and reintegration centers and other reentry programs.

KEY TERMS

community treatment, p. 382

suppression effect, p. 383

probation, p. 383

conditions of probation, p. 386

juvenile probation officer, p. 386

social investigation report, predisposition report, p. 386

juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS), p. 388

house arrest, p. 388

electronic monitoring, p. 388

balanced probation, p. 390

monetary restitution, p. 390

victim service restitution, p. 390

community service restitution, p. 390

residential programs, p. 391

group homes, p. 391

foster care programs, p. 392

family group homes, p. 392

rural programs, p. 392

reform schools, p. 393

cottage system, p. 393

least restrictive alternative, p. 394

individual counseling, p. 401

psychotherapy, p. 402

reality therapy, p. 402

behavior modification, p. 402

group therapy, p. 402

guided group interaction (GGI), p. 402

positive peer culture (PPC), p. 402

milieu therapy, p. 402

wilderness probation, p. 403

boot camps, p. 405

meta-analysis, p. 405

right to treatment, p. 405

aftercare, p. 407

reentry, p. 407

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP), p. 408

QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW

· 1. How does community treatment differ from institutional treatment?

· 2. What were some of the key events that led to probation becoming a mandatory part of the court structure in 1890?

· 3. How has the use of juvenile probation changed in recent years?

· 4. Aside from probation, what are the main community-based alternatives to incarceration?

· 5. What are the key explanations for the wide variation in state-level juvenile custody rates?

· 6. Why do African American juvenile offenders have such high custody rates?

· 7. What are some of the key barriers to providing correctional treatment services for female juvenile offenders?

· 8. What is the purpose of reentry services for juvenile offenders?

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

· 1. Would you want a community treatment program in your neighborhood? Why or why not?

· 2. Is widening the net a real danger, or are treatment-oriented programs simply a method of helping troubled youths?

· 3. If youths violate the rules of probation, should they be placed in a secure institution?

· 4. Is juvenile restitution fair? Should a poor child have to pay back a wealthy victim?

· 5. What are the most important advantages to community treatment for juvenile offenders?

· 6. What is the purpose of juvenile probation? Identify some conditions of probation and discuss the responsibilities of the juvenile probation officer.

· 7. Has community treatment generally proven successful?

· 8. Why have juvenile boot camps not been effective in reducing recidivism?

APRLYINS WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED

As a local juvenile court judge, you have been assigned the case of Jim Butler, a 13-year-old so short he can barely see over the bench. On trial for armed robbery, the boy has been accused of threatening a woman with a knife and stealing her purse. Barely a teenager, he has already had a long history of involvement with the law. At age 11, he was arrested for drug possession and placed on probation; soon after, he stole a car. At age 12, he was arrested for shoplifting. Jim is accompanied by his legal guardian, his maternal grandmother. His parents are unavailable because his father abandoned the family years ago and his mother is currently undergoing inpatient treatment at a local drug clinic. After talking with his attorney, Jim decides to admit to the armed robbery. At a dispositional hearing, his court-appointed attorney tells you of the tough life Jim has been forced to endure. His grandmother states that, although she loves the boy, her advanced age makes it impossible for her to provide the care he needs to stay out of trouble. She says that Jim is a good boy who has developed a set of bad companions; his current scrape was precipitated by his friends. A representative of the school system testifies that Jim has above-average intelligence and is actually respectful of teachers. He has potential, but his life circumstances have short-circuited his academic success. Jim himself shows remorse and appears to be a sensitive youngster who is easily led astray by older youths.

You must now make a decision. You can place Jim on probation and allow him to live with his grandmother while being monitored by county probation staff. You can place him in a secure incarceration facility for up to three years. You can also put him into an intermediate program such as a community-based facility, which would allow him to attend school during the day while residing in a halfway house and receiving group treatment in the evenings.

Writing Assignment: Jim’s crime was serious and involved the use of a weapon. If he remains in the community, he may offend again; if he is sent to a correctional facility, he will interact with older, tougher kids. Write an essay on the best course of action for this case, weighing the costs and benefits of correctional treatment in these different settings.

GROUPWORK

There are a wide range of community-based correctional treatment options for juvenile offenders, including probation, restorative justice, and residential programs. Divide the class into as many as seven groups. Assign each group a different community-based treatment and have the groups come up with a 10-point plan to expand their respective treatment option (i.e., to aid different groups of juvenile offenders) and improve its effectiveness in reducing juvenile recidivism.