1200 words and three scholarly references

camkai3

https___dftj9wb4gc6c5.cloudfront.net_Bethel_Courses_CCJ_4300_Unit_5_read1.pdf

Home >Law homework help >Criminal homework help >1200 words and three scholarly references

Chapter ObjeCtives After studying this chapter, you should be able to

• Define community-based corrections

• Describe common objectives of community-based correctional programs

• Describe different kinds of at-home community-based programs

• Describe different types of out-of-home or residential community-based programs

• Describe standard probation and how it varies between and within jurisdictions

• Describe the basic roles performed by juvenile probation officers

• evaluate the effectiveness of standard probation

• Describe recent trends in juvenile probation

• Describe problems that confront community-based correctional programs

• evaluate the effectiveness of community-based correctional programs

• explain why aftercare is a key component of juvenile corrections

Chapter Outline introduction

at-home Community-based programs for juvenile Offenders

Out-of-home (residential) Community-based placements for juvenile Offenders

the effectiveness of Community-based Corrections for juvenile Offenders

linking institutional and Community-based Corrections: aftercare programs

legal issues

Chapter summary

Key Concepts

review Questions

additional readings

notes

Community-Based Correctional Programs for Juvenile Offenders

chapter

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ introduction

When youths are adjudicated, a number of dispositional options may be exercised by juvenile courts, although the options available in many jurisdictions are limited because of a lack of community resources. Regardless of the number of options available to courts, however, they fall into three broad categories. One category of options is nonformal processing, which includes dismissal of the case, used in a small percentage of cases; referral to a community diversion program (note that some states limit the types of crimes that can be referred to diversion programs); and placement on nonformal probation. The two categories of formal processing options are placement in a community-based correctional program and placement in an institutional correctional program. This chapter examines the operation and effectiveness of placement in community-based correctional programs.

The term community-based corrections refers to diverse types of supervision, treatment, reintegration, control, and support programs for youths involved in the juvenile justice process. These programs are based on the belief that the most effective way to encourage law-abiding behavior on the part of youths is to help them assume legitimate roles in the community.1 Examples of community-based programs are diversion, pretrial release, probation, foster care, group home placement, and parole. Some of these programs, which are referred to as at-home community-based programs, are designed to provide services to youths in their own homes. Other community-based programs provide services to youths who are removed from their homes, at least for short periods of time; these are referred to as out-of-home community-based programs.

Like other correctional interventions, community-based programs are intended to accom- plish a variety of objectives, although the objectives actually pursued by different programs vary to some extent. These objectives include controlling and sanctioning youths, allowing youths to maintain existing ties with the community, helping them restore ties and develop new and positive ones with the community (reintegration), helping the individual avoid the negative consequences of institutional placement, providing a more cost-effective response to those who violate the law, and reducing the likelihood of recidivism.2

■ at-home Community-based programs for juvenile Offenders

probation

Probation is the most frequently used correctional response to youths who are adjudicated in juvenile courts. For example, in 2009, 6 out of every 10 delinquency cases (60%) adjudicated in juvenile courts were given probation.3 probation is the conditional release of an adjudicated youth into the community under the supervision of the court. The conditions under which a youth is released constitute the rules of probation. Typical rules of probation require the probationer to obey all laws; follow home rules; be home each day by a certain time; meet with the probation officer when requested; and, if the youth is of school age, attend school each day and obey the rules of the school. However, a court may make other rules of probation if it thinks they are necessary to assist the youth and protect the community. The court, for example, might demand that the youth avoid certain people or places, attend counseling, and make restitution to the victim. The role of the probation officer is to monitor the youth and/ or assist the youth in his or her efforts to adhere to the rules of probation.

Simply defining probation, however, does not reflect the complexities of probation or the disparities that exist in the practice of probation. In fact, considerable variability in

nonformal processing

Includes various ways of processing

cases that do not involve an adju- dication and the

initiation of a formal juvenile court record

for the youth.

formal processing Case processing that results in an adjudi- cation and initiation of a formal juvenile

court record.

community-based corrections

Noninstitutional correctional

programs and inter- ventions designed

to provide services to children in a com-

munity setting.

probation The conditional

release of an adjudi- cated youth into the

community under the supervision of

the court.

284 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

probation practice can occur in the same state and even in the same probation department. Some juvenile courts have more than one type of probation program for youths under their supervision. These different programs—sometimes called standard, moderate, and intensive probation—are intended to reflect different levels of contact between probation officers and their clients. Other courts or probation departments do not make a formal distinction between types of proba- tion programs. Whether probation is called standard, moderate, or even intensive probation in some cases, the level of contact between a probation officer and a client can range from regular to infrequent. There are jurisdictions that, because of large caseloads, are able to provide only “file drawer probation,” which is characterized by a lack of meaningful and regular contact between probation officers and probationers. Moreover, there is considerable variability in the training, skills, motivation, and workloads of individual probation officers. Some probation officers are well trained, highly skilled, and motivated, and work with small caseloads. Others have received relatively little training, lack motivation, and have large caseloads, which of course prevents them from having regular contact with each of their clients.4 In order to determine the number of probation officers available for working with (or for) juvenile courts, some states use population formulas. In other states, the deter- mination of the number of available probation officers is made locally and may be based on the level of community resources and various political factors.5

Not only do probation officers differ in terms of their ability and willingness to supervise or work with clients, but communities also vary in the number and quality of services available for use by probation officers and probationers. Some communities have a range of high-quality programs appropriate for probationers, such as alternative education programs, day treatment programs, educational support services, job training and placement programs, substance abuse treatment programs, counseling services, and structured recreational programs. Unfortunately, many other communities lack such programs or have only a few high-quality programs that are accessible to court-involved youths. The availability of high-quality programs in a community is important to probation officers, because they often serve as service brokers who attempt to link clients with appropriate community services and thereby reduce the likelihood of further law-violating behavior. Juvenile courts and other governmental units responsible for funding or administering probation departments also vary in their support of probation services. Some probation departments receive considerably more resource support than others. For example, probation departments vary considerably with respect to the number of probation staff, the number and types of support staff, staff training, pay and benefits, and effective supervision and administration of the department.

Although the actual practice of probation varies, probation officers usually perform six important functions in the juvenile justice process: (1) they do intake screening; (2) they conduct presentence investigations; (3) they supervise offenders and monitor the extent to which youths adhere to their probation orders; (4) they provide assistance to youths placed on probation; (5) they provide ongoing assessments of clients’ needs; and (6) they complete a variety of job-related administrative tasks. In some jurisdictions, all of these functions are the responsibility of the same individual, whereas in other jurisdictions, probation officers specialize in one or more.

file drawer probation A form of probation where probation officers (POs) have large caseloads that limit interaction with clients and where POs spend most of their time in their offices, in court, and preparing reports and other documents for legal proceedings.

at-home community-Based programs for Juvenile Offenders 285

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

F Y i the level OF prObatiOn supervisiOn varies aCrOss jurisDiCtiOns anD Clients

Many probation officers develop their own levels of probation supervision for their caseload or their own sys- tem for prioritizing their cases, based on their assessment of need and the time they have available for the various tasks they are required to perform. For example, at any one time, some cases on a probation officer’s caseload will be in crisis (e.g., because of a family fight, the suspension of a youth from school, or because the youth lost his or her job) and will require considerable expenditure of time and energy on the part of the officer. In contrast, other cases will be relatively trouble free and close to discharge from probation. as a result, the probation officer will have considerably more contact with some probationers than with others. Moreover, because probation officers are responsible for preparing reports for the court and attending court hearings, the number of these events will affect the time pOs have to meet with clients.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y prObatiOn Can Mean regular supervisiOn anD prOvisiOn OF serviCes

Myth—Most juvenile probation officers have large caseloads that prevent them from effectively monitoring their clients, thus endangering public safety. reality—although some juvenile probation officers have caseloads of more than 200 clients, the average juvenile probation caseload is about 41 active cases (11 more than the optimal caseload of 30 suggested by probation officers themselves).6 Moreover, most youths placed on probation are nonviolent offenders. Only 25% of the adjudicated cases that were placed on probation in 2007 involved person offenses.7

As noted previously, intake screening involves making decisions about the most appropriate ways of processing cases referred to the juvenile court. It is at the intake stage that decisions to dismiss, petition, or handle a case in some nonformal way are made. Moreover, those who perform intake screening may employ considerable discretion in making intake decisions. In addition to this, the presentence investigation plays a critical role in juvenile court dispositions because hearing officers rely on these investigations to decide upon the most appropriate way of handling formal cases.

The supervision and assistance roles of probation officers involve monitoring probationers to ensure that they are complying with the rules of probation and providing various types of help to them. The supervision role requires checking to ensure that probationers are at school, work, home, or other places at designated times or monitoring youths assigned to electronic or officer-monitored house arrest programs. It may also require collecting urine samples from youths to enable screening for substance use. The assistance role may encompass service brokerage and the provision of direct services to clients. When acting as a service broker, the probation officer attempts to link youths and possibly families with community agencies. The officer might also provide direct services, such as basic counseling, job search assistance, basic family counseling, and crisis intervention services, as well as act as an advocate for youths in dealings with parents or other relatives, teachers, school administrators, employers, and social service personnel. In cases where probation officers have an opportunity to have regu- lar contacts with clients, they are in a position to better understand problems that may have contributed to the youths’ involvement with the court. They can also conduct investigations into the youths’ and families’ needs. Such investigations may uncover problems that were passed over or have arisen since the presentence investigation. By becoming aware of current problems, the probation officer will be in a better position to recommend or develop, possibly with the court’s assistance, strategies for helping youths successfully complete probation and avoid subsequent delinquent activity.

presentence investigation

An investigation that is typically com-

pleted by a proba- tion officer prior to

the disposition; it is intended to assist

the hearing officer in deciding the best

response to an adju- dicated youth.

286 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Because probation officers work for and with governmental agencies with significant legal responsibilities, probation officers also engage in a variety of job-related administrative tasks such as filing orders and paperwork related to the processing of cases and preparing reports of casework activity. Furthermore, probation officers may be employed in specialized programs operated by or on behalf of courts. For example, juvenile courts or other government agencies may have a variety of programs, such as diversion and foster care programs, and also operate their own shelter-care units, group homes, and detention centers. Probation officers may be used to staff these programs or may be responsible for providing basic casework services to youths in these programs.

In performing their various duties, probation officers may experience conflict between their supervision and assistance roles (sometimes referred to as their “law enforcement” and “social work” roles).8 One the one hand, as social control agents, probation officers have a responsibil- ity to protect the community and to make sure that their clients follow the rules of probation. This is their law enforcement role. Indeed, probation officers may be sworn officers of the court and may possess the same arrest powers with respect to juveniles as any other law enforcement officer. On the other hand, they may be expected to work closely with other agencies and with parents in assisting their clients. Moreover, they are expected to work closely with the youths on their caseload in order to help them make appropriate choices and avoid further law-violating behavior. This is their social work role. Their law enforcement and social work roles are not always compatible,9 and individual officers may deal with the role conflict by emphasizing one role over another or by attempting to balance the roles,10 often emphasizing different roles with different probationers. However, large caseloads cause many probation officers, regardless of their own beliefs about their roles, to operate in a crisis intervention mode. When clients’ problems come to their attention, they attempt to react to these crises as best they can, but they may have very little time left over to spend in providing proactive assistance to clients.

F Y i prObatiOn OFFiCers perFOrM a nuMber OF FunCtiOns

By the mid-1990s, there were an estimated 18,000 juvenile probation officers in the United States. approximately 85% of these individuals were line staff involved in providing basic intake, investigation, and supervision services; the remaining 15% were involved in the administration of probation offices or the supervision of probation staff.11

F Y i there is COnsiDerable variabilitY in prObatiOn praCtiCe

although probation involves doing intake screening, conducting presentence investigations, supervising cases, providing assistance to clients, conducting ongoing evaluations of clients’ needs, and completing routine job-related administrative tasks, the amount of time that probation officers spend on the different tasks var- ies considerably. In some jurisdictions, probation officers spend a majority of their time dealing directly with clients or making client-related contacts designed to assist youths on probation. In other jurisdictions, much of their time is spent preparing court reports and engaging in other administrative tasks.

The Organization of Juvenile Probation The organization and administration of juvenile probation varies from state to state. The most common model is for probation to be part of a state executive agency. This model is used in 12 states (Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Vermont). Also, state execu- tive agencies are involved in some way in the administration of probation in 11 other states

at-home community-Based programs for Juvenile Offenders 287

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

(Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wyoming). In those states where a state executive agency has all or some responsibility for administering probation, the most common type of state executive agency used to administer probation is a juvenile corrections agency, such as a state Department of Juvenile Justice. In other states, the executive agency responsible for probation, at least in part, is a state child protection agency, human services agency, or an adult corrections agency.12

In addition to the state executive agency model of juvenile probation administration, other states employ a local judicial model in which juvenile probation is placed under local juvenile courts. This is the model employed in nine states (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Texas). Also, in 15 other states (Alabama, California, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming), probation is administered by local juvenile courts in some parts of the state, such as urban areas.13

In other states, a state-level judicial model is used to administer probation. In this model, a state-level judicial agency, such as a State Court Administrator’s Office or Administrative Office of the Courts, oversees the operation of probation services. Ten states use the state-level judicial model (Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia). The District of Columbia also uses a judicial model in which the Family Court of the District of Columbia Superior Court oversees the operation of probation.14

The least common model of probation administration is the local executive model. Only one state, New York, places juvenile probation entirely under a local executive agency. In New York, 58 county probation departments are responsible for providing probation services. However, in five other states (California, Nevada, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin), local executive agencies are responsible for probation services in some areas. Also, in one state, Oregon, responsibility for juvenile probation is shared by a state agency (the Oregon Youth Authority) and local executive agencies (county juvenile departments).15

Research on Standard Juvenile Probation Effectiveness Research on the effectiveness of juvenile probation is complicated by the wide variability in probation practices across and within jurisdictions, by the lack of research on probation in general, and by the failure of studies of probation to clearly document the types of interventions used by probation officers and the quality of services provided to youths. The lack of research on probation effectiveness is somewhat surprising considering that juvenile probation has existed since the mid-1800s. Nevertheless, some studies indicate that probation is effective at both reducing and prolonging recidivism16 and represents a cost-effective alternative to incarcera- tion,17 particularly for moderately delinquent youths.18 Other studies, however, suggest that probation does not appear to be particularly effective at reducing recidivism, particularly for those involved in serious delinquency,19 thus questioning its ability to protect the public from chronic or serious offenders. Other research indicates that community-based programs have often failed to provide needed services to clients and have failed to reduce correctional costs.20

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y prObatiOn is OFten as eFFeCtive as institutiOnal plaCeMent

Myth—Youths who are placed on probation usually engage in additional crimes while on probation or when they are discharged. reality—research indicates that youths on probation in many communities avoid offending while on probation as well as subsequent to court discharge, thus indicating that probation is at least as effective at reducing recidivism as institutional placement.21 Moreover, there is growing evidence that some types of probation programs are effective with serious or violent juvenile offenders.22

288 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Given the variation in the level of supervision and quality of services provided to youths on probation, it is not surprising that the limited research on probation effectiveness has produced mixed findings. However, more recent research that has explored program effectiveness indi- cates that some juvenile justice programs, including programs for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders, are effective. For example, a meta-analysis of more than 500 programs conducted by Mark Lipsey found that the typical juvenile justice program reduced recidivism. Indeed, the recidivism rate in more than 200 court supervision programs ranged from 21% to 34%.23 Moreover, an earlier meta-analysis of 200 experimental or quasi-experimental studies of programs for serious offenders found that the typical program for these youths reduced recidivism by 12%, and the most effective programs reduced recidivism by 40%.24 In addition, an examination of juvenile probation in selected jurisdictions conducted by Howard Snyder and Melissa Sickmund found that only 15% of juvenile probationers were adjudicated for new offenses while they were on probation.25 Not only is there increasing evidence that many court- operated programs for offenders are effective at reducing recidivism, there is also evidence that community-based interventions are more cost effective than institutional programs.26

Recent Trends in Juvenile Probation A recent trend in probation involves the development of intensive probation (supervision) programs, which in some jurisdictions can also involve house arrest (home confinement). Intensive supervision programs are intended to ensure that there is regular contact between probationers and probation officers. They also serve as an intermediate sanction for youths that is more restrictive than standard probation but less restrictive and costly than incarceration. However, as in the case of standard probation programs, the frequency of contact between pro- bation officers and probationers varies considerably across intensive supervision programs.27

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y prObatiOn is eFFeCtive with sOMe YOuths

Myth—probation is not an effective response to more serious juvenile offenders, cannot be used for youths who otherwise would be placed in institutions, and endangers community safety. reality—although standard probation programs do not appear to reduce recidivism among chronic or serious offenders, probation can be successfully used as an alternative to institutionalization for nonserious offenders who account for a sizable proportion of those youths placed in institutional settings.28 In addition, research that has looked at some intensive supervision programs found that they were just as effective in reducing recidivism as institutional placement. In one study, William Barton and Jeffrey Butts examined a population of Michigan youths who were randomly assigned to participate in an intensive supervision program or placed in state institutions. those assigned to the intensive supervision program were part of small caseloads, were closely monitored, and were given a variety of support services, including individual counseling, social skills training, parent counseling, and involvement in youth groups and recreational activities. after being in the program for a 12-month period, the youths were placed on standard probation. In their evaluation, Barton and Butts found that, controlling for time in the community, the intensive supervision program was as effective at reducing recidivism as institutionalization. Moreover, they found that the intensive supervision program was considerably less expensive.29

Although there is wide variability in what intensive supervision means in different jurisdic- tions, there is some indication that programs that provide frequent supervision of offenders and provide services are as effective as incarceration at reducing recidivism.30 Programs show- ing particular promise are those that help youths develop interpersonal skills; use behavioral and cognitive-behavioral interventions; employ social learning techniques such as modeling and role playing; and address risk factors in the domains of the family, school, peer group, and community.31 Moreover, there is evidence suggesting that intensive programs are more cost effective than incarceration, providing they actually divert a sizable number of youths from institutions.32 However, other research indicates that some intensive supervision programs

meta-analysis A data analysis tech- nique that makes it possible to examine treatment effects across different studies.

house arrest See home confinement.

intensive supervision program A program intended to ensure that there is regular contact between probation- ers and probation officers. Although the contact is regular, its frequency varies considerably across programs.

intermediate sanction A diverse range of responses (e.g., intensive supervi- sion, day treatment, and house arrest) to offenders that are more restrictive than standard probation but less restrictive than institutional placement.

at-home community-Based programs for Juvenile Offenders 289

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

may not be as cost effective as other interventions that keep youths in the community, such as standard probation and programs using cognitive-behavioral treatment.33 Moreover, failure rates in these programs can be high, particularly among young property offenders.34 This is not surprising because youths placed on intensive supervision programs are often more seri- ous offenders, and enhanced monitoring of these youths increases the probability that viola- tions of program rules or further law violations will be uncovered. Also, as we have already noted, there is considerable variation in the quality of programs offered to youths involved in juvenile justice.

Intensive supervision sometimes employs home confinement or house arrest, which began to be used with juvenile offenders in the 1970s35 and has grown in popularity since that time. Today, home confinement or house arrest programs use two mechanisms to monitor youths: frequent probation officer contacts and electronic monitoring (which requires the offender to wear a tamper-resistant electronic device that automatically notifies the probation department if the juvenile leaves his or her home or another designated location).

Although home confinement programs have grown in popularity around the country, there has been limited research on their effectiveness. Nevertheless, the research that has been done is somewhat encouraging. For example, in one national evaluation of seven home confinement programs that included officer monitoring, the researchers found that the pro- grams were able to prevent both recidivism and violations of program rules. Moreover, when participants did run into problems, it was usually for violating program rules, not for com- mitting new criminal offenses.36

Although home confinement has a long history, electronic monitoring of juvenile offend- ers began in the 1980s and has become more prevalent since that time.37 However, because electronic monitoring technology is new, diverse, and being rapidly developed, relatively little research has focused on its ability to reduce recidivism and the types of clients that are likely to fare well on electronic monitoring programs. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that recidivism is no higher in electronic monitoring programs than in other community-based programs, costs can be lower, and they may help reduce institutional crowding. A more recent review of the research on the effectiveness of electronic monitoring (EM) programs, however, did not find clear evidence that these programs are effective at reducing recidivism. A primary problem noted in this review is that there have been too few high-quality evaluations to make strong statements about the positive effect of these programs on recidivism.38 Moreover, there is some indication that serious felony offenders—those with substance abuse problems, repeat offenders, and those with long sentences—are least likely to be successful in these programs.39

Researchers have documented some of the reasons why some jurisdictions find electronic monitoring attractive: It is a way to ease the problem of detention overcrowding; it allows youths to participate in counseling, educational, and vocational programs without endangering public safety; it allows youths to live in a natural environment, albeit with supervision; and it allows court workers to better assess the ability of youths to live in the community under standard probation after they leave the program.40

Other at-home Community-based interventions for juveniles

Aside from probation, juvenile courts in some jurisdictions may employ a variety of other types of community-based interventions, such as restitution or community service programs, wilderness probation programs, and day treatment programs. In practice, probation is often combined with one of these other community-based interventions. For example, it is common for courts to place a youth on probation and order him or her to make restitution to the victim.

Restitution restitution programs require offenders to compensate victims for damage to property or for physical injuries.41 The primary goal of restitution programs is to hold youths accountable for

home confinement The state of being

confined to home. A home confinement

program requires the participants to

spend certain hours at home. Supervision in these programs is

done by probation officers who make random checks on clients or monitor

compliance by elec- tronic monitoring.

Also called home arrest or house

arrest.

electronic monitoring

The ability to deter- mine an individual’s

movement by having him or her wear a

tamper-resistant electronic device that allows com-

munication between the device and a

computer housed at the monitoring

agency.

restitution program A program that

requires offenders to compensate victims

for damages to prop- erty or for physical

injuries.

290 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

b O x 1 1 - 1 IntervIew: James mcIntyre, JuvenIle COurt COunselOr, nOrth CarOlIna DePartment Of JuvenIle JustICe anD DelInquenCy PreventIOn

education: BS, criminal Justice, Western carolina University

Q: how long have you been a juvenile court counselor? a: Fifteen years.

Q: how did you get interested in juvenile justice? a: Since I was about seven or eight, I knew I wanted to work in the justice field. at first I wanted to work in

law enforcement, but while I was in college I worked as a volunteer with child-serving groups and really liked it. also, after I graduated, I worked at a children’s home. My job title was “resident counselor.” I was part of an interdisciplinary team that provided crisis intervention, basic counseling, and supervision to emotionally disturbed kids who were placed out of their homes. In many instances, these children were the victims of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse and neglect. that position provided me with an excellent experiential base for my present job.

Q: Does your department have specialized units? a: Units, no, there are only three of us in this county. But we do have specialized tasks and responsibilities.

Q: What is your role? a: I am responsible for delinquency intake as well as maintaining a moderately sized supervision caseload of

15–18. I also serve on numerous boards and committees such as the Juvenile crime prevention council and communities-In-Schools. One of my coworkers is responsible for undisciplined intake while also maintaining a slightly larger supervision caseload of 22–27. My other coworker is responsible for a supervision caseload of 30–35. Like me, my two coworkers serve on several boards.

Q: tell me about your caseload and how you spend your time. a: Most of my time is focused on delinquency intake. I receive a report from law enforcement, which I then

review and enter into our department’s database. I then create a petition. Soon thereafter, I contact the victim and then meet with the juvenile and his or her family. that interview concerns the allegations facing the juvenile as well as how things are at home, at school, and in the community. I then make a decision as to whether the juvenile should be approved for court or if a lesser community-based intervention can be utilized to address the situation. If the juvenile is an adjudicated delinquent, I then prepare a report on the child and family, which includes an evaluation of risk and need factors. I also recommend to the court what measures should be taken to protect the community as well as how best to assist the juvenile and family in correcting and moving away from the problems that contributed to the juvenile’s current situation. From that point, the case is supervised by me or one of my coworkers until the child is no longer under the jurisdiction of the court (usually one year).

Q: From your perspective, why do children get involved with the court? a: there is no easy answer to that. For most children, part of the equation is certainly the breakdown of the

family unit, which many times is multigenerational in nature. this breakdown often manifests itself through a lack of appropriate parenting skills. Let’s face it, if these parents were not exposed to appropriate skills, such as consistent discipline and structure, by their own parents, how can they accomplish that for their own children? Many of the children I see come from single-parent homes where the fathers are absent. this can have a negative impact on areas such as self-esteem and is often a root cause of many behavioral problems, such as poor anger management and substance abuse. a significant number of these families face serious economic problems as well.

Q: how dangerous is your work? a: I don’t perceive much of a risk/threat from the children or their families. however, many of these families

live in dangerous neighborhoods, so it’s important that we keep our eyes and ears open when we visit the area.

(continues)

at-home community-Based programs for Juvenile Offenders 291

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

their actions. In addition, restitution programs may also seek to provide services or treatment to juveniles and/or provide services or reparation to victims.42 There are several types of restitu- tion. Monetary restitution involves making a cash payment to the victim for harm done. Victim service restitution requires that the offender provide some service to the victim. The last type, community service restitution, requires the offender to provide some assistance to a community organization.43 Each of these types has its own rationale. Monetary restitution is intended to help the juvenile offender realize the economic costs incurred by the victim as a result of the offender’s behavior. In-kind or in-person victim restitution is intended, among other things, to help humanize the victim. Community service restitution is intended to help the juvenile offender repay the community for the harm it suffered as a result of the youth’s actions.

Like research on the effectiveness of other juvenile justice programs, research on the effectiveness of juvenile restitution programs shows mixed results. Data collected as part of a national evaluation of juvenile restitution programs found extremely high rates of compliance with restitution orders in many programs. One national study published in the early 1980s found that 95% of youths participating in various federally sponsored restitu- tion programs successfully carried out their restitution orders.44 A more recent national survey published in the late 1990s reported completion rates as high as 88%.45 However, compliance rates appear to be considerably higher in well-managed and more structured programs than in informal and less structured programs, in which offenders are simply ordered to make restitution but there is little follow-up. One evaluation of structured and unstructured programs conducted in Wisconsin found that only 45% of those youths involved in unstructured programs completed their restitution, compared with 91% of the youths in formal programs.46

Other research indicates that restitution programs also can collect substantial amounts of monetary restitution for victims and can produce substantial amounts of community service and victim service hours. One national survey of restitution programs in 1991 found that the programs had collected $44.5 million in 1990. This same survey also found that restitution program participants had performed approximately 17.1 million hours of community service and 44,000 hours of direct victim service during 1990.47

Some studies show that restitution programs can have an effect on recidivism when they are used either prior to or after adjudication. For example, a study of Utah restitution programs found that, when used at both the preadjudicatory stage and as part of formal probation, youths involved in restitution relapsed less than those who received other non- formal responses or youths who were placed on probation alone.48 A study of four restitu- tion programs located in Boise, Idaho; Washington, D.C.; Clayton County, Georgia; and

Q: What do you like about your work? a: I like working with children and families. I know that sounds ambiguous; I like the challenge and I don’t

take the responsibility lightly. I really like trying to serve the child’s best interests, along with doing what is in the best interest of the community. I also enjoy collaborating with other agencies. We all work together in order to maximize our opportunities to successfully serve the community and its children and families. I also like the flexibility in my schedule and setting my daily agenda—except for court hearings; you don’t have a choice about that.

Q: What do you not like? a: Being told that there are no “funding streams” available to finance services for a juvenile and his or her

family. Money should be the last consideration, but is often the first and highest hurdle we must overcome.

b O x 1 1 - 1 (COntInueD)

292 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, found that the programs in Washington and Clayton County produced significantly lower rates of recidivism than traditional probation programs in those two jurisdictions. In the two remaining programs, the differences were not significant.49 Still another study of six experimental restitution programs found that juveniles who were randomly assigned to a restitution program were less likely to relapse than youths placed on probation or given short terms of incarceration.50 In a national survey of restitution programs conducted in 1991, the overall recidivism rate was 28.8%; however, it was 23.8% among youth who successfully completed the program.51 These findings that juvenile restitution programs can reduce recidivism are further supported by more recent research on multiple types of interventions for youths that indicate that restitution programs for youths are associated with modest reductions in recidivism.52

C O M pa r at i v e F O C u s

restitution is a Common response of Youth Courts in Other Countries such as england

as a result of reforms in english law in the late 1990s, reparation orders have become more common responses to youths who plead to or who are convicted of less serious types of offenses. these orders require youths to make reparations to the victim (if the victim agrees) or to the community at large. Moreover, courts are required to state the reasons for not entering such orders when they have the opportunity to do so. In entering a reparation order, the court must ensure that it is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense, and it may not exceed 24 hours.53

Despite the growing popularity of juvenile restitution programs54 and the recognition that some programs effectively reduce recidivism, there are potential problems with these programs. Some programs (those that are informal or poorly managed) have low compliance rates,55 some programs experience high recidivism rates,56 and some hearing officers make unrealistic orders that cannot be complied with by juveniles. Moreover, concern over who should be responsible for restitution is not uncommon. Is restitution the youth’s responsibility, or the responsibility of the parents or guardian? The existence of such problems and concerns indicates that not all restitution programs are holding youths responsible for their actions or resulting in satisfactory outcomes from the point of view of the youths involved, their par- ents, or the victims. Indeed, such problems and concerns can lead to negative perceptions of juvenile justice.

Two additional problems are that restitution programs can contribute to net-widening,57 and restitution requirements can be subject to discretionary abuse.58 There is always the potential that restitution programs will subject youths to juvenile court control who would otherwise not be subjected to such control. Moreover, after youths fall under the control of a court, they are at risk for additional coercive treatment. Although controlling some youths is appropriate and can even help them and protect the community, in other cases court control is clearly counterproductive: It may result in harm to youths and increased danger to the community. Finally, youths who commit similar offenses may receive substantially different restitution orders,59 although some jurisdictions have established restitution guidelines in an attempt to remedy this problem.

Wilderness Probation (Outdoor Adventure) Programs Wilderness probation programs, or outdoor adventure programs for juvenile offenders, are based, in part, on ideas derived from the Outward Bound organization. A basic assumption underly- ing these programs is that learning is best accomplished by acting in an environment where there are consequences for one’s actions.60 Consequently, these programs expose youths to physically and psychologically challenging outdoor experiences intended to help them develop

net-widening Increasing the avail- ability of programs to handle youth offenders, thereby causing youths who would otherwise have been left alone to be placed into programs.

wilderness probation program A program designed to change youths’ behavior and atti- tudes by involving them in wilderness activities, including solo camping. The philosophy behind such programs is partly based on the philosophy of the Outward Bound organization.

at-home community-Based programs for Juvenile Offenders 293

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

confidence in themselves, learn to accept responsi- bility for themselves and others, and develop trust in program staff.61 The participants engage in such activities as camping, backpacking, rock climbing, canoeing, and sailing, and in many programs, they complete a solo wilderness experience that lasts one or more nights.

Evaluations of wilderness probation programs have indicated that some programs may produce posi-

tive effects, such as an increase in self-esteem during and after the program, and a decrease in criminal activity after the program.62 In a meta-analysis of wilderness programs, Sandra Wilson and Mark Lipsey found that youths in wilderness programs engaged in less post-program delinquency than comparison youths. Moreover, they found that short-term programs lasting up to six weeks appeared to be the most effective, along with those with distinct therapeutic components.63 However, other research indicates that programs lacking a strong therapeutic component are not effective.64 In addition, there is some indication that the positive effects associated with these programs may diminish over time65 or may be no greater than the effects produced by probation programs in which regular and meaningful contact occurs between probation officers and probationers.66 Moreover, as Wilson and Lipsey note, the evaluations done on these programs have focused primarily on white males already in the system, so the effects of these programs for other populations of youths is unknown.67

F Y i seriOus prObleMs have been FOunD in sOMe wilDerness prOgraMs

although there appear to be a number of well-run wilderness programs in the United States, there is clear evidence that some programs have been guilty of abusing and neglecting youths in their care. Moreover, there have been cases where youths have died as a result of their treatment in some wilderness programs.68

Day Treatment Programs Day treatment programs for juvenile offenders are operated in a number of jurisdictions around the United States. These programs, which usually target serious offenders who would other- wise be candidates for institutionalization, provide treatment or services to youths during the day and allow the youths to return home at night. Because they are viewed as alternatives to incarceration, they are thought to be cost effective, and because they are often highly structured programs, they are capable of protecting community safety as well. The range of services or treatments may include academic remediation, individual and group counseling, job skills training, job placement services, and social skills training.

An example of day treatment is the AMIkids day treatment programs in Florida. The programs, which typically provide services to youths for four to six months, are designed to improve youths’ academic and vocational skills, to improve participants’ school attendance, and to reduce youths’ involvement in problem behaviors such as substance use and delinquency. In addition to providing academic and vocational services to participants, staff make home visits and provide counseling services to youths and their families in order to address issues in the community and at home. A quasi-experimental evaluation of the program that compared AMIkids participants with a matched group of youths who completed residential program- ming found that those involved in the AMIkids program were less likely to be adjudicated for an offense 12 months after release.69

One state that has begun to rely more heavily on community-based programs, such as day treatment, is Missouri. In these programs, youths spend from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday

day treatment program

A program that provides treat-

ment or services to youths during the

day and allows them to return home at

night.

publishing/thinkstock

294 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

through Friday, receiving academic instruction and counseling, followed by some combination of tutoring and individual or family counseling. Also, like day treatment programs in other states, Missouri’s programs are frequently used as “step-down” programs for youths who are returning from residential placement.70

Unfortunately, there is a lack of research on day treatment programs. There is some evi- dence that some programs are no more effective at reducing recidivism than standard proba- tion. Nevertheless, there is also evidence that other programs are as effective or more effective than institutional placement, and they are far less expensive.71 For example, research in Mis- souri revealed that only 11% of the youths released from residential care into community-based programs over a two-year period were rearrested or returned to state custody within a year. Moreover, they reported significantly lower correctional costs compared with surrounding states.72 Juvenile justice practitioners in Missouri cite several keys to the operation of success- ful programs in that state. These keys include focusing on community safety and carefully screening youths for placement in community-based programs, hiring high-quality staff, and building a supportive constituency for community-based programs.73 Another key component in many day treatment programs is involvement of the child’s parents, guardian, or custodian. This involvement may range from something as simple as aiding in overnight monitoring to undergoing intensive family counseling. Parental involvement is key to the success of these programs because any lack of involvement or indifference shown by the parents gives a clear message to the child that cooperation is not important. At present, there is a need to conduct sound research on these programs in order to evaluate their effectiveness.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y COMMunitY-baseD interventiOns Can be eFFeCtive with sOMe seriOus juvenile OFFenDers

Myth—community-based interventions are not appropriate for serious juvenile offenders. reality—Some community-based interventions have been proven to be effective with some serious and chronic offenders. For example, Multisystemic therapy (MSt) has been found to be a highly effective treatment for many youths engaged in serious and chronic delinquency. MSt is a theory- and research-based comprehensive treatment approach that provides intensive family-focused services and is designed to address individual, family, peer, school, and neighborhood factors that encourage serious antisocial behavior. Moreover, MSt is designed to foster collaborative relationships with families and other social institutions and to mobilize these institutions in an effort to change behaviors that foster delinquency. Importantly, controlled studies have found that MSt is a cost-effective treatment approach that is associated with decreased criminal activity and lower levels of incarceration among program participants.74

■ Out-of-home (residential) Community-based placements for juvenile Offenders

Although many community-based programs are designed to provide services to youths in their own homes, other programs provide services to youths who are removed from their homes and placed in some type of residential setting. Typically, these community-based placements are intended to provide services to youths who are placed out of their homes for a short period of time—from several days to several months. A few programs are longer term and may last for many months or even years.

Foster homes

Foster homes have an extensive history in the United States. For example, in colonial villages, children older than the age of 7 years who were not appropriately supervised by their parents

community-based placement An out-of-home placement for a youth offender, often lasting from one day to several months, although occasion- ally longer.

foster home A family-like setting to which youths are temporarily assigned. In foster care programs, foster parents are licensed to provide care for one or more youths (usually no more than three) and are paid a daily rate (per diem) for the cost of care.

Out-of-home (residential) community-Based placements for Juvenile Offenders 295

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

or who engaged in the “sin of idleness” were placed with other parents.75 Also, as we noted earlier, placing out, which consisted of placing youths on farms and ranches in the Midwest and West, was used as a response to many destitute and problem children throughout much of the 1800s and early 1900s. Indeed, the major response of child welfare organizations, whether private or public, has been to remove children from parents when those parents have been deemed unfit, and foster care has often been the result.76 Today, foster care is still a popular means for dealing with children whose parents abuse them or fail to care for them, children who come from chaotic families, and children who exhibit behavioral problems. In 2011, some 646,000 children spent time in foster care.77

Unlike institutional or some other types of community-based programs, foster care is intended to resemble, as much as possible, life in a family-like setting. Foster parents are licensed to provide care for one or more youths (usually one to three) and are paid a daily rate (per diem) for the cost of care. Foster placements are often used by courts when a youth’s home life has been particularly chaotic or harmful. In these cases, foster homes are used to temporarily separate the conflicting parties—the youth and the parents or guardian—in an effort to resolve those problems that resulted in the youth’s removal. However, foster homes are also used instead of more restrictive institutional placements, such as detention or assign- ment to a state training school, for some nonviolent delinquent offenders. Programs that use foster homes in these two ways can be classified as halfway-in programs. Programs that use foster homes as transitional placements for youths who are returning from an institutional placement can be classified as halfway-out programs.

Although foster homes are widely used by juvenile courts in some jurisdictions, there are few sound evaluations of these programs. Clearly, many foster homes provide a supportive and caring environment for youths and help them lead law-abiding lives. However, the limited research that exists indicates that traditional foster care is not generally effective and may even be counterproductive as a strategy for reducing delinquency.78 These findings parallel other efforts to examine foster care outcomes for nondelinquent populations that demonstrate that many foster care children fare poorly on indicators of well-being such as neurological and cognitive development, and they tend to exhibit behavioral and emotional problems compared with other youths.79 Although some foster home placements undoubtedly help youths, the short length of time youths often spend in foster homes, the use of multiple foster care place- ments for youths, the poor or inadequate treatment given some youths in foster care,80 and the problems that children may bring with them may account for less-than-favorable results in too many other cases.

The effectiveness of foster care depends in large part on the abilities of the individual fos- ter parents, the characteristics of the youths, and the ability of the foster parents to establish meaningful individual relationships with their foster children. The operation of foster care programs, unfortunately, can act as a barrier to effective or humane care. According to child advocate Ben Wolf, associate legal director at the Roger Baldwin Foundation of the American Civil Liberties Union, foster parents are often mistreated by child welfare agencies. For example, they are often told they will be reimbursed for expenses but remain unpaid, they are often denied opportunities for respite or vacations, they are often denied the training and support needed to work with troubled youths, they may be given little or no information about a child’s health or other needs, and they may receive very few support services.81

Although there is good evidence that typical foster care placements may not adequately serve children’s needs, there is evidence that treatment foster care (TFC) can be an effective response to some youths, including serious and chronic juvenile offenders. One such program was developed by the Oregon Social Learning Center. The program provides specialized train- ing for foster parents, and they receive support from a program case manager. The program is designed to reinforce youths’ positive behaviors, provide close supervision, assist youths

placing out An effort to respond

to the growing number of prob-

lem children in the cities during the

1800s. It consisted of the placement of

children on farms and ranches in the

Midwest and West.

296 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

b O x 1 1 - 2 IntervIew: COnnIe lOvIska, fOster Parent

Q: how many years have you been a foster parent? a: I have been a foster parent for 34 years.

Q: Who are the members of your family? a: We have five sons, now all grown, and we adopted a girl who was a foster child. My husband and I were

married for 43 years when he died suddenly in December 2002, but I continue to be a foster mother.

Q: What impact has being a foster parent had on your children? a: a very positive impact. My children are very compassionate people who are very supportive of individuals

who are disadvantaged or who are having day-to-day problems. they want to help everyone get a fair chance in life; but, at the same time, they are not tolerant of people who play the “victim” all the time. they all have a well-developed social conscience and sense of community service.

Q: What led you to become a foster parent? a: Originally, we had relatives who needed help, and we would take care of their children off and on. One of

my son’s friends was having some difficulty, and the juvenile court got involved. We contacted the court about this child and ended up being licensed by the court as foster parents.

Q: What do you see as the main day-to-day challenges of being a foster parent? a: the most difficult thing is making the foster children realize that they must obey the rules of the home.

In many instances, they come from dysfunctional families that have no boundaries or inconsistent rules. We have to show them that normal families have rules, that normal people all have rules to follow. closely related to this, of course, is the challenge of holding the foster child accountable for rule violations. Often, they don’t understand about accountability or responsibility. Last, it is often difficult to cooperate with the foster child’s natural family and not come across as judgmental of them. as soon as you become judgmental of the child’s family—even if the judgment is accurate—you have erected a barrier and given the child ammunition to use against you.

Q: What are the rewards of being a foster parent? a: children that succeed! By success I mean becoming a normal functioning adult, not dependent on welfare,

not involved in the criminal justice system. It’s the satisfaction of knowing that you helped break the cycle of abuse and dysfunction that brought the child into your home in the first place.

Q: What types of children have you fostered, and do you specialize? a: We have neglected, emotionally fragile, and delinquent teenagers in our home. We specialize in delinquent

teens.

Q: What do you do to positively influence your foster children? a: We teach them about families and proper family relationships, interaction, and behavior by including them

in our family. We work together, we play together, we travel together. through these family activities, we teach.

Q: have you ever been victimized by a foster child? a: Yes, but rarely over the long haul. I have been physically attacked, threatened, and have had property

damaged. It’s the property damage that’s really upsetting. I can understand a flash of anger from a child I’m confronting who might physically lash out at me, but “coolly” calculated property damage hurts all the kids in the home, not just me.

Q: how do you see foster care in the overall continuum of care for juveniles? a: Of course I believe that foster care is very important for kids in the system. the problem is that it’s not used

soon enough. In recent years, the courts are leaving kids in dysfunctional homes too long, which makes my job as a foster parent much more difficult. the kids’ attitudes become entrenched, and the longer they go being irresponsible, the harder it is for me to teach them to be responsible!

(continues)

Out-of-home (residential) community-Based placements for Juvenile Offenders 297

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

in following rules and provide appropriate consequences for rule violations, support the development of youths’ academic skills and work habits, and improve family communication skills. Importantly, evaluations of TFC indicate that it can be more effective than traditional foster or group care programs, as well as many other community-based programs, at reducing delinquency, and it is more cost effective.82 Moreover, another specialized approach to foster care, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), has also been found to be associated with positive outcomes. In the MTFC model, foster parents are provided specialized training and they work as part of a treatment team. The foster parents are responsible for implementing a structured and individualized program for each youth in the home (one or two youths are placed in MTFC homes). The program is designed to build on youths’ strengths and involves establishing clear rules, expectations, and limits. MTFC parents are contacted daily, Monday through Friday, by telephone, and data are collected on the youths’ behavior during the past 24 hours. Additional components of the program include weekly supervision and support meetings for MTFC parents; skill-focused individual treatment for youths; weekly family therapy for biological parents or guardians; frequent contact between youths and their bio- logical parents/guardians that includes home visits, close monitoring of youths’ performance in school, coordination with probation or parole workers, and coordination with psychiatric/ mental health services; and medication management when needed.

Importantly, youths in MTFC report significantly fewer contacts with the juvenile jus- tice process than youths in standard forms of group care,83 and less substance use.84 Thus,

Q: What special training or expertise do you have? a: No training can replace 34 years of experience. however, I regularly attend conferences to learn new tech-

niques in dealing with difficult children. I go to eight or nine trainings each year through our licensing agency and the state foster care association. I also keep up with the available literature and with tV shows that help.

Q: how much money do you earn from being a foster parent? a: Foster parenting is not a money-making proposition. the per diem can never reimburse you for all of the

little things that are involved in raising children in a family. all of those expenses, from varsity jackets to music, cannot be predetermined or reimbursed. I don’t do it for the money, nor did my husband and I do it for the money. We valued what would be called the “nonmonetary” rewards that make foster parenting so worthwhile.

Q: What advice would you give to a person who might want to consider becoming a foster parent? a: Be certain that you have the support of your entire family and friends. Foster parenting is a lot of work, and

it’s easy to become isolated. Make it a family decision. When everyone is part of the decision, they aren’t so ready to draw lines between “us” and “them,” which always leads to conflict.

Q: In your opinion, what are the major challenges facing foster parents in the future? a: allegations of improper conduct. It’s great that kids today have been educated about abusive behavior

and dangerous situations, but this does not mean that every allegation is true or that their opinion about what is abusive or appropriate is accurate. every foster parent lives in fear of a foster child making false allegations in an attempt to manipulate a situation. Be sure to know why you are a foster parent. as time passes, reevaluate. You may want to change age groups or types of problems in the children you have, or you may need to take a break. It’s okay to need time for yourself.

Q: Is there anything else you would like to say? a: I intend to stay with it as long as I can. I still love the children and the challenges they bring. the lasting

rewards are all of the wonderful relationships that still continue.

b O x 1 1 - 2 (COntInueD)

298 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

specialized forms of foster care may represent viable community-based programs for some (including serious and chronic) juvenile offenders.

group homes and halfway houses

Similar to foster homes, group homes and halfway houses are open, nonsecure community- based placements85 that may be used as halfway-in programs (i.e., as a last alternative before institutional placement) or halfway-out programs (i.e., for youths leaving institutional set- tings). Consequently, group homes and halfway houses are another type of intermediate sanc- tion found in many communities. However, group homes and halfway houses are somewhat larger and are often more impersonal and less family-like than foster homes.86 Typically, these facilities are operated by staff who work shifts, as opposed to “parents” who live in the foster home. In fact, the purpose of many group homes and halfway houses is to avoid requiring youths to accept “substitute parents,” partly because many youths who need placement are in the process of developing emotional independence from parental figures.87 Nonetheless, staff in these facilities serve as important role models, and the facilities themselves are intended to be less impersonal than more closed institutions and are often designed to individualize treatment as much as possible.

One advantage of group homes is that they are less expensive than more restrictive insti- tutional placements, and because they are often located in urban or suburban neighborhoods, residents have an opportunity to take advantage of a variety of community services. For exam- ple, youths who reside in group homes and halfway houses may go to school in the community or work in the community.88 They may also participate in recreational and cultural activities in the community and use various types of treatment and educational services. Group home and halfway house treatment programs typically arrange for individual and group counseling to be provided by group home staff or outside counselors. In addition, residents may receive academic instruction and participate in social and vocational skills-building courses within the facility or in the community.

Although group homes are used extensively in juvenile justice, there is relatively little evidence that these programs are effective.89 One well-known study of a group home program, the Silverlake Experiment, did find that youths placed in this program for approximately six months were neither more nor less likely to engage in subsequent delinquency than similar youths who were randomly assigned to a more restrictive institutional setting.90 However, evaluations that have compared MTFC with group home treatment indicate that MTFC appears to be more effective than many group home programs.91

There is no doubt that group home programs often face a number of obstacles that act as barriers to the effective treatment of youths. These barriers include poor pay and benefits for staff, a lack of staff training on how to work with troubled youths, a paucity of support services for staff, and local resistance to allowing group homes into the community. Moreover, short-term group home placements do not allow sufficient time to affect youths in a positive way, and large group homes are not able to offer the types of individualized treatment that many youths need.

Another problem that sometimes plagues group homes, halfway houses, and other types of residential placement settings is the victimization of residents. Although the extent of this problem is not clear, there have been instances when youths residing in such settings have been victimized by other residents or even staff. Robert Mutchnick and Margaret Fawcett, in a study of nine group homes in southwestern Pennsylvania, found that some of the homes were more likely to have high levels of resident victimization than others. Group homes with high levels of resident victimization were characterized by extremely open or closed environments, a lack of program structure, staff who displayed little concern for security, and residents who expressed attitudes of mistrust and negativism. In contrast, homes with low levels of resident victimization were characterized by open but structured environments, close staff supervision,

group home An open, nonsecure community-based setting, larger and often less “family like” than a foster home. Group homes provide a place for youths to reside temporarily without having to accept “substitute parents,” which can be ben- eficial if a youth is in the process of devel- oping emotional independence from parental figures.

Out-of-home (residential) community-Based placements for Juvenile Offenders 299

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

consistent enforcement of policies and rules, staff who demonstrated concern for residents, and residents who exhibited relatively positive attitudes.92

shelter-Care placements

Shelter-care settings are like group homes, although they often hold youths for shorter peri- ods of time. A shelter-care program is a type of nonsecure program that typically provides a temporary residence for youths prior to returning them home or determining the suitability of some other placement. Shelter care is often used for youths who have run away from home, who have been abused by their parents, who have engaged in minor types of delinquency, or who need temporary emergency placement. Shelter care typically involves short-term crisis intervention services, basic counseling, and basic educational programming.

Family group homes

Family group homes are similar to both foster homes and group homes—they are run by fos- ter parents but house more youths than a regular foster home. Although family group homes are designed to provide youths with parent substitutes and a more family-like environment than might be found in a traditional group home, and although they have sometimes been advocated as a way of reducing community opposition to larger institutional facilities, little is known about the effectiveness of family group home programs. There is some evidence that homes that use more therapeutic interventions delivered by highly trained staff may lead to positive outcomes among youths while they are in group home care, but there is little evidence that these positive outcomes are maintained over time.93 Moreover, these programs can suf- fer from the same problems that confront traditional foster care and group home programs.

■ the effectiveness of Community-based Corrections for juvenile Offenders

As indicated earlier, the research that has been done on community-based corrections pro- grams has produced mixed results. Studies of some community-based programs indicate they are as effective as or more effective than institutional placements at reducing recidivism,94 and more recent studies of various types of intervention strategies indicate that many interventions such as restorative justice (i.e., restitution and mediation), counseling (e.g., individual, fam- ily, group, peer, and mentoring), skill building (e.g., behavioral, cognitive-behavioral, social skills, challenge, academic, and job related), and those providing multiple coordinated services (e.g., case management, service brokerage), which are often utilized in community settings, are associated with reductions in recidivism.95 There is also evidence that community-based programs are far less costly than institutional programs—in some cases only half as costly.96 It should be noted, however, that evaluations of other programs indicate that they have little effect on subsequent offending. Such findings are not surprising, however, given the diversity in both the types of programs and the quality of programs that are in operation around the country. Despite the mixed research results on the effectiveness of community-based programs, the efforts of some states to deinstitutionalize their juvenile offender populations and move toward a more community-based system have met with considerable success.97

A good example of a state that has moved toward a more community-based corrections system is Massachusetts. Under the leadership of a new commissioner of youth corrections, Dr. Jerome Miller, Massachusetts began closing its state training schools in the 1970s. At first, Miller attempted to implement reforms in the Massachusetts institutions where he observed frequent abuse of residents. When these reforms were resisted, he began closing the training schools and developed or used community-based programs for youths who were released from the institutions. Despite the abuse and inhumane conditions in Massachusetts’ train- ing schools, Miller continued to face strong opposition to his efforts to deinstitutionalize the juvenile offender population. Moreover, many politicians and others allied with the existing

300 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

system of institutions argued that deinstitutionalization would lead to an increase in juvenile crime as “hardened” young offenders were released into the community. However, despite the protestations of those opposed to deinstitutionalization, a juvenile crime wave did not sweep the state.98 In fact, evaluations of deinstitutionalization in Massachusetts conducted by Harvard’s Center for Criminal Justice and by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency found that the community-based programs were effective alternatives to institutions and did not threaten public safety. In communities that had a variety of quality programs for offend- ers, recidivism decreased rather than increased, contrary to what skeptics had argued would happen.99 The Massachusetts experiment initiated by Miller demonstrated that a network of high-quality community-based programs can serve as a viable alternative to a system of juvenile correctional institutions.

M Y t h v s r e a l i t Y ManY YOuths in institutiOns COulD be better serveD in COMMunitY-baseD prOgraMs

Myth—Most youths housed in juvenile correctional institutions pose an immediate threat to public safety. reality—as Jerome Miller notes in his book Last One Over the Wall: The Massachusetts Experiment in Closing Reform Schools, many youths in juvenile correctional facilities could be more effectively served in community- based programs without endangering community safety. Miller points out that in Massachusetts, only about 25% of the youths committed to state correctional facilities had committed offenses against persons. Furthermore, many of these supposedly violent offenses did not actually involve physical violence or the threat of physical violence. this shows that many of the youths who are placed in correctional facilities, including those confined for “violent offenses,” do not pose a grave threat to public safety.100

■ linking institutional and Community-based Corrections: aftercare programs

aftercare involves the provision of services intended to help youths successfully make the transition from juvenile institutions to life back in the community. The services are the same as those provided by the community-based programs described earlier. Indeed, aftercare may encompass foster care, shelter care, or group home placement; home placement; or efforts to help youths live on their own (independent living). parole, which consists of the conditional release of a youth from a correctional facility, is one form of aftercare. Youths on parole are required to adhere to certain conditions, such as avoidance of illegal behaviors, attendance at school, and attendance at meetings with their parole officers upon request. If youths violate these conditions, they may be returned to an institution. Parole services are typically provided by a parole officer who is a state employee. However, a variety of aftercare services are pro- vided to youths, and these services may be provided by court probation staff or even by staff hired by an institution to provide follow-up services after a youth returns to the community.

Unfortunately, the quality of many aftercare programs is questionable, and many youths fail to receive any services after institutional release. Parole supervision may actually involve very little contact between parole officers and parolees. Moreover, large caseloads carried by aftercare workers may preclude the provision of meaningful services. In other instances, the supervision that occurs may be focused primarily on surveillance and control, and may provide little in the way of treatment or service. Indeed, research on parole has not found it to be particularly effective. In one study of juvenile parolees in California, it was discovered that there were no differences in the likelihood of a subsequent arrest among youths ran- domly assigned to parole supervision or to discharge without supervision. However, those who were given parole supervision were more likely to be arrested for a serious offense.101 In another California study, youths who were placed on intensive parole supervision after a short institutional stay were as likely to have their parole suspended for illegal activity as youths

aftercare The provision of services intended to assist youths in successfully making the transition from juvenile institu- tions to life in the community.

parole The conditional release of a youth from a correctional facility (one form of aftercare).

Linking Institutional and community-Based corrections: aftercare programs 301

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

placed in California Youth Authority facilities.102 (Keep in mind that efforts to deinstitution- alize correctional populations have not led to increases of recidivism when a range of quality community-based programs are available.103)

More recently, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) has supported an effort to develop an effective approach to aftercare called the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP). Developed by David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong, the IAP is intended to be a theory-driven comprehensive approach to juvenile aftercare that overcomes the institu- tional boundaries that frequently prevent institutions and community-based programs from developing and implementing sound collaborative plans for youths’ return to the community. A key component of the IAP model is the concept of overarching case management that con- sists of five elements:

• risk assessment designed to identify and focus services on high-risk youths • individualized case planning that includes both institutional and community-based

staff, as well as family and community members, and addresses youths’ needs within their families, peers, schools, and other socializing institutions

• a mix of both intensive surveillance and services • the use of a graduated system of incentives for positive behavior and sanctions for

violations of program rules • the development of links with community resources that can support program success104

The IAP model was implemented and evaluated in Denver, Clark County, Nevada ( Las Vegas), and Norfolk, Virginia. Although evaluation results indicated that the IAP model received considerable support at each site and resulted in improved relationships between institutional and aftercare staff, no difference in recidivism among IAP youths and controls (similar youth not receiving IAP services) was found. Indeed, 60% to 70% of both groups were arrested for a felony or misdemeanor offenses during a 12-month follow-up period.105 Although the IAP model is based on sound theory and understanding of the problems tra- ditionally associated with aftercare, its inability to reduce recidivism suggests that additional program development and research is needed before the IAP model can be said to represent a viable approach to aftercare.

CrItICal thInkIng questIOn

What role should community-based corrections play in the juvenile justice process?

■ legal issues

Community service restitution programs carry with them a possibility of civil liability. If a juvenile is injured doing community service, the supervising court, the probation officer, or the community agency could be held legally responsible for any supervisory negligence. They could also be held legally responsible if the juvenile, during the course of doing the community service, injures someone or damages property in a negligent or reckless manner.

The monitoring of delinquent youths in a community-based corrections program raises the issue of the legal authority of probation and parole officers, foster parents, and group home personnel to apprehend, take into custody, and generally control youths under their supervision. In many states, probation officers are considered to be government officials with the power to arrest, apprehend, detain, or place a child.106 Probation officers are often “sworn” employees of a court or government agency. Foster parents, unless they are sworn probation officers, which would be unusual, are not empowered as probation officers and would have to rely on a liaison probation officer or law enforcement officer to help them control youths placed in their homes. Group homes can be privately run or can run under court auspices.

302 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

If private, then group home personnel would not be considered government officials. If the group home were run by the court, the employees could be considered probation officers.

Juvenile courts, by their very nature, deal primarily with juveniles. A juvenile court has a legitimate expectation that, for each juvenile it deals with, there will be a responsible adult or adults, such as parents, guardians, or custodians, in the home. Just as a juvenile on probation is subject to orders of the court, in many jurisdictions, adults who are responsible for the care of a juvenile can also be subject to court orders. As mentioned earlier, in many jurisdictions, adults can be ordered to make monetary restitution for their children’s acts, and this restitu- tion would necessarily be court ordered. The payment of restitution by minors raises the issue of the means or method a juvenile court can use to enforce its orders over an adult. The most commonly used means is to cite the adult for contempt of court for failure to obey a court order. Two kinds of contempt are generally recognized, civil and criminal:

1. Criminal contempt usually results from an act done in the presence of the court during a hearing or while the court is in session, such as swearing at the judge. This kind of con- tempt does not require a hearing but may be summarily determined by the judge, and sanctions, including jail, may be levied.

2. civil contempt is usually associated with an individual’s failure to obey a court order that has been legally served on the individual. In a case of restitution, the responsible parent would be given an opportunity in a court hearing to “show cause” as to why he or she is not in contempt and could usually “purge” him- or herself of contempt by obeying the order—even after a hearing that resulted in the parent being found in contempt of court. Usual consequences for contempt include monetary fines, court costs, and jail for limited time periods. One of the realities of the adult criminal justice system is that, because of chronic jail overcrowding, persons held for contempt are often the first to be released if there is a shortage of beds.

civil contempt Willful failure of an individual to obey a court order that has been legally served on the individual. Consequences may include monetary fines, court costs, and jail for limited time periods.

Legal Issues 303

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter suMMarY

This chapter examined the operation and effectiveness of community-based corrections pro- grams for juvenile offenders. These types of corrections programs consist of (1) at-home programs, such as probation, restitution, community service, day treatment, house arrest, and aftercare or parole programs, which are typically designed for youths who reside in their own homes, and (2) out-of-home programs, such as foster care, group homes, shelter care, and family group home programs, which provide services to youths who are removed from their own homes and placed in residential settings.

Like other corrections programs, community-based programs attempt to accomplish a number of objectives. Although individual programs vary in the extent to which they empha- size these objectives, they typically include sanctioning and controlling youths, helping them maintain existing ties within the community, helping them restore ties that have been severed as a result of their delinquent behavior, assisting youths’ efforts to develop new and positive ties to others in the community, providing a correctional response that avoids the negative consequences of institutional placement, providing a more cost-effective response to juvenile crime, and reducing the likelihood of recidivism.

Since the development of the juvenile court in the late 1800s, the most popular correc- tional response to juvenile offenders has been probation. Despite its long history, however, little is known about the effectiveness of probation. Moreover, what is known suggests that, although some forms of traditional probation are effective with nonserious juvenile offend- ers, it is not always effective with chronic or serious offenders. As a result, many jurisdictions have developed intensive supervision programs that are intended to increase levels of offender supervision and service. In addition, a number of jurisdictions have developed a variety of other interventions (e.g., restitution and community service, day treatment, and house arrest) that are often used in combination with probation. Although research on these interventions has produced mixed results, there is evidence that some programs that employ these interventions help youths avoid subsequent offending behavior. Moreover, there is sound evidence that some community-based interventions, even when used with chronic and serious juvenile offenders, can be effective in reducing recidivism and avoiding the negative aspects of incarceration.

Similar to studies of at-home community-based programs, those that have examined residential community-based programs have also produced mixed results. Nevertheless, at least some studies indicate that residential community-based programs are as effective as or more effective than institutionalization at reducing recidivism. In addition, research indicates that residential community-based corrections are considerably less expensive.

Because of the paucity of research on individual programs, it is difficult to make definitive statements about the effectiveness of many community-based corrections programs. Neverthe- less, there is good evidence that some programs not only provide high-quality services and successfully address a variety of client needs, but they also do an effective job of protecting public safety. There is, unfortunately, good evidence that other programs fail to do any of these things. Nevertheless, community-based programs clearly play a critical role in the juvenile corrections system. Overall, they have been found to be more effective at reducing recidivism than institutional programs, and they are less expensive than incarceration, and as a result, they are likely to play an even more important role in juvenile corrections in the future.

key COnCePts

aftercare: The provision of services intended to assist youths in successfully making the transition from juvenile institutions to life in the community.

304 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

civil contempt: Willful failure of an individual to obey a court order that has been legally served on the individual. Consequences may include monetary fines, court costs, and jail for limited time periods. community-based corrections: Noninstitutional correctional programs and interventions designed to provide services to children in a community setting. community-based placement: An out-of-home placement for a youth offender, often last- ing from one day to several months, although occasionally longer. day treatment program: A program that provides treatment or services to youths during the day and allows them to return home at night. electronic monitoring: The ability to determine an individual’s movement by having him or her wear a tamper-resistant electronic device that allows communication between the device and a computer housed at the monitoring agency. file drawer probation: A form of probation where probation officers (POs) have large case- loads that limit interaction with clients and where POs spend most of their time in their offices, in court, and preparing reports and other documents for legal proceedings. formal processing: Case processing that results in an adjudication and initiation of a for- mal juvenile court record. foster home: A family-like setting to which youths are temporarily assigned. In foster care programs, foster parents are licensed to provide care for one or more youths (usually no more than three) and are paid a daily rate (per diem) for the cost of care. group home: An open, nonsecure community-based setting, larger and often less “ family like” than a foster home. Group homes provide a place for youths to reside temporarily without having to accept “substitute parents,” which can be beneficial if a youth is in the process of developing emotional independence from parental figures. home confinement: The state of being confined to home. A home confinement program requires the participants to spend certain hours at home. Supervision in these programs is done by probation officers who make random checks on clients or monitor compliance by electronic monitoring. Also called home arrest or house arrest. house arrest: See home confinement. intensive supervision program: A program intended to ensure that there is regular contact between probationers and probation officers. Although the contact is regular, its frequency varies considerably across programs. intermediate sanction: A diverse range of responses (e.g., intensive supervision, day treat- ment, and house arrest) to offenders that are more restrictive than standard probation but less restrictive than institutional placement. meta-analysis: A data analysis technique that makes it possible to examine treatment effects across different studies. net-widening: Increasing the availability of programs to handle youth offenders, thereby causing youths who would otherwise have been left alone to be placed into programs. nonformal processing: Includes various ways of processing cases that do not involve an adjudication and the initiation of a formal juvenile court record for the youth. parole: The conditional release of a youth from a correctional facility (one form of aftercare). placing out: An effort to respond to the growing number of problem children in the cities during the 1800s. It consisted of the placement of children on farms and ranches in the Midwest and West.

Key concepts 305

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

presentence investigation: An investigation that is typically completed by a probation officer prior to the disposition; it is intended to assist the hearing officer in deciding the best response to an adjudicated youth. probation: The conditional release of an adjudicated youth into the community under the supervision of the court. restitution program: A program that requires offenders to compensate victims for dam- ages to property or for physical injuries. wilderness probation program: A program designed to change youths’ behavior and attitudes by involving them in wilderness activities, including solo camping. The phi- losophy behind such programs is partly based on the philosophy of the Outward Bound organization.

revIew questIOns

1. What is the definition of community-based juvenile corrections? 2. What types of at-home and out-of-home (residential) community-based corrections pro-

grams are discussed in the text? Describe each one. 3. What are the objectives of community-based corrections programs? 4. What is probation? 5. What are some typical rules of probation? 6. What factors influence the operation of probation between and within jurisdictions? 7. What are the basic roles performed by juvenile court probation officers? What do these

roles entail? 8. According to the research, how effective is standard probation? 9. What are some recent trends in juvenile probation?

10. Other than probation, what other types of community-based programs exist around the country?

11. How effective are community-based corrections programs at reducing recidivism? 12. What types of legal authority are possessed by juvenile probation officers? 13. What legal issues are raised by juvenile court-ordered restitution?

aDDItIOnal reaDIngs

Empey, L. T., & Erickson, M. L. (1972). The Provo experiment: Evaluating community control of delinquency. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Empey, L. T., & Lubeck, S. G. (1971). The Silverlake experiment: Testing delinquency theory and community intervention. Chicago: Aldine.

Gendreau, P. (1994). Intensive rehabilitation supervision: The next generation in com- munity corrections? Federal Probation, 58, 72–78.

Howell, J. C. (2009). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency: A comprehensive framework (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Jacobs, M. D. (1990). Screwing the system and making it work: Juvenile justice in the no- fault society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147.

306 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Miller, J. G. (1998). Last one over the wall: The Massachusetts experiment in closing reform schools (2nd ed.). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising (Report to the U.S. Congress). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

nOtes

1. Ohlin, L. E., Miller, A. D., & Coates, R. B. (1977). Juvenile correctional reform in Massachusetts: A preliminary report of the Center for Criminal Justice of the Harvard Law School. Washington, DC: National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

2. McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (1991). Community-based corrections (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

3. Puzzanchera, C., Adams, B., & Hockenberry, S. (2012). Juvenile Court Statistics 2009. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice.

4. Jacobs, M. D. (1990). Screwing the system and making it work: Juvenile justice in the no-fault society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 125–129; Rubin, H. T. (1998). The juvenile court landscape. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice: Policies, programs, and services (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

5. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 712A.9; Mich. Stat. Ann. 27.3178(598.9). 6. Torbet, P. M. (1996). Juvenile probation: The workhorse of the juvenile justice system.

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

7. Livsey, S. (2010). Juvenile delinquency probation caseload, 2007. OJJDP Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

8. Jacobs, 1990; Reese, W. A., Curtis, R. L., Jr., & Richard, A., Jr. (1989). Juvenile justice as people-modulating: A case study of progressive delinquent dispositions. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 329–357.

9. Ohlin, L. E., Piven, H., & Pappenfort, D. M. (1956). Major dilemmas of the social worker in probation and parole. Crime and Delinquency, 2, 211–225; Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1990). Juvenile justice: An introduction. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

10. Whitehead & Lab, 1990. 11. Torbet, 1996. 12. Griffin, P., & King, M. (2006). National overviews. State Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pitts-

burgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 13. Griffin & King, 2006. 14. Griffin & King, 2006. 15. Griffin & King, 2006. 16. Empey, L. T., & Erickson, M. L. (1972). The Provo experiment: Evaluating community

control of delinquency. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; Murray, C. A., & Cox, L. A. (1979). Beyond probation: Juvenile corrections and the chronic delinquent. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; National Institute of Mental Health. (1973). Community-based corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social controls. American Sociological Review, 16, 196–207; Scarpitti, F. R., & Stephenson, R. M. (1968). A study of probation effectiveness. Journal

Notes 307

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 59, 361–369; Wooldredge, J. D. (1988). Differentiating the effects of juvenile court sentences on eliminating recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 264–300.

17. Empey & Erickson, 1972. 18. Scarpitti & Stephenson, 1968. 19. Lab, S. P., & Whitehead, J. T. (1988). An analysis of juvenile correctional treatment.

Crime and Delinquency, 34, 60–83; Lipton, D. S., Martinson, R., & Wilks, J. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger; Robison, J., & Smith, G. (1971). The effectiveness of correctional programs. Crime and Delinquency, 17, 67–80.

20. Greenberg, D. F. (1975). Problems in community corrections. Issues in Criminology, 10, 1–33; Hylton, J. H. (1982). Rhetoric and reality: A critical appraisal of community cor- rectional programs. Crime and Delinquency, 28, 341–373.

21. Empey & Erickson, 1972; Lipsey, 2007; Scarpitti & Stephenson, 1968; Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Wooldredge, 1988.

22. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective interventions for serious juvenile offend- ers: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. B. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

23. Lipsey, M. W. (2007). A standardized program evaluation protocol for programs serv- ing juvenile probationers. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology.

24. Lipsey & Wilson, 1998. 25. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. 26. Aos, S., Phipps, P., Bamoski, R., & Lieb, R. (2001). The comparative costs and benefits of

programs to reduce crime. Olympia WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy; Petterutti, A., Walsh, N., & Velazquez, T. (2009). The costs of confinement: Why good juvenile justice policies make good fiscal sense. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

27. Armstrong, T. L. (1988). National survey of juvenile intensive probation supervision (Parts 1 and 2). Criminal Justice Abstracts, 20, 342–348, 497–523.

28. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

29. Barton, W. H., & Butts, J. A. (1990). Viable options: Intensive supervision programs for juvenile delinquents. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 238–256.

30. Barton & Butts, 1990; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Wiebush, R. G. (1993). Juvenile intensive supervision: The impact on felony offenders diverted from institutional placement. Crime and Delinquency, 39, 68–89; Walker, E. N. (1989). Community Intensive Treatment for Youth program: A specialized community-based program for high risk youth in Alabama. Law and Psychology Review, 13, 175–199.

31. Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Can intervention rehabilitate serious delinquents? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 564, 421–166; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998.

32. Barton & Butts, 1990. 33. Robertson, A. A., Grimes, P. W., & Rogers, K. E. (2001). A short-run cost-benefit analysis

of community-based interventions for juvenile offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 265–284.

308 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

34. Ryan, J. E. (1997). Who gets revoked? A comparison of intensive supervision successes and failures in Vermont. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 104–118.

35. Ball, R. A., Huff, C. R., & Lilly, J. R. (1988). House arrest and correctional policy: Doing time at home. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

36. Young, T. M., & Pappenfort, D. M. (1977). Secure detention of juveniles and alternatives to its use: National evaluation program, phase one. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

37. Ford, D., & Schmidt, A. K. (1985). Electronically monitored home confinement. NIJ Reports. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; Renzema, M., & Skelton, D. T. (1990). Use of electronic monitoring in the United States: 1989 update. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

38. Renzema, M., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2005). Can electronic monitoring reduce crime for moderate- to high-risk offenders? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 215–237.

39. Roy, S. (1997). Five years of electronic monitoring of adults and juveniles in Lake County, Indiana: A comparative study on factors related to failure. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20, 141–160.

40. Vaughn, J. B. (1989). A survey of juvenile electronic monitoring and home confinement programs. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 40, 1–36.

41. Durham, A. M., III. (1994). Crisis and reform: Current issues in American punishment. Boston: Little, Brown.

42. Schneider, A. L., & Warner, J. S. (1989). National trends in juvenile restitution program- ming. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

43. Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2012). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and law (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

44. Schneider, P. R., Schneider, A. L., Griffith, W. R., & Wilson, M. J. (1982). Two-year report on the national evaluation of the juvenile restitution initiative: An overview of program performance. Eugene, OR: Institute of Policy Analysis.

45. Schneider, P. R., & Finkelstein, M. C. (Eds.). (1998). RESTTA national directory of restitu- tion and community service programs. Bethesda, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/restta/index.html.

46. Schneider, A. L., & Schneider, P. R. (1984). A comparison of programmatic and “ad hoc” restitution in juvenile courts. Justice Quarterly, 1, 529–547.

47. Schneider & Finkelstein, 1998. 48. Butts, J. A., & Snyder, H. N. (1992). Restitution and juvenile recidivism. OJJDP Update

on Statistics. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 49. Schneider, A. L. (1986). Restitution and recidivism rates of juvenile offenders: Results

from four experimental studies. Criminology, 24, 533–552. 50. Ervin, L., & Schneider, A. (1990). Explaining the effects of restitution on offenders: Results

from a national experiment in juvenile courts. In B. Galaway & J. Hudson (Eds.), Criminal justice, restitution, and reconciliation. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

51. Schneider & Finkelstein, 1998. 52. Lipsey, 2009. 53. Bottoms, A., & Dignan, J. (2004). Youth justice in Great Britain. In M. Tonry and A. N.

Doob (Eds.), Youth crime and youth justice: Comparative and cross-national perspectives (Vol. 31). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

54. Schneider & Warner, 1989.

Notes 309

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

55. Schneider & Schneider, 1984. 56. Bazemore, G., & Schneider, P. R. (1985). Research on restitution: A guide to rational

decision-making. In The Guide to Juvenile Restitution: A Training Manual for Restitu- tion Program Managers. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

57. Austin, J., & Krisberg, B. (1982). The unmet promise of alternatives to incarceration. Crime and Delinquency, 28, 374–409.

58. Siegel & Welsh, 2012. 59. Siegel & Welsh, 2012. 60. Golins, G. L. (1980). Utilizing adventure education to rehabilitate juvenile delinquents.

Las Cruces, NM: Educational Resources Information Center, Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

61. Golins, 1980; Minor, K. I., & Elrod, P. (1994). The effects of a probation intervention on juvenile offenders’ self-concepts, loci of control, and perceptions of juvenile justice. Youth and Society, 25, 490–511.

62. Callahan, R. (1985). Wilderness probation: A decade later. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 36, 31–35; Kelly, F. J., & Baer, D. J. (1971). Physical challenge as a treatment for delinquency. Crime and Delinquency, 12, 437–445; Winterdyk, J., & Roesch, R. O. (1982). A wilderness experiential program as an alternative for probationers: An evaluation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 24, 39–49.

63. Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2000). Wilderness challenge programs for delinquent youth: A meta-analysis of outcome evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 1–12.

64. MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). Reducing the criminal activities of known offenders and delinquents: Crime prevention in the courts and corrections. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. C. Welsh, & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention. New York: Routledge.

65. Winterdyk, J., & Griffiths, C. (1984). Wilderness experience programs: Reforming delinquents or beating around the bush? Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 35, 35–44; Winterdyk & Roesch, 1982.

66. Elrod, H. P., & Minor, K. I. (1992). Second wave evaluation of a multi-faceted intervention for juvenile court probationers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Compara- tive Criminology, 36, 247–262.

67. Wilson & Lipsey, 2000. 68. Community Alliance for the Ethical Treatment of Youth (CAFETY). (n.d.). Retrieved

from http://cafety.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=629&Itemid=8; Coalition Against Institutionalized Child Abuse (CAICA). Available from http://www .caica.org/index.htm. This resource provides a list of deaths of children in residential facilities.

69. Winokur Early, K., Hand, G. A., Blankenship, J. L., & Chapman, S. F. (2010). Experi- mental community-based interventions for delinquent youth: An evaluation of recidi- vism and cost effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp .gov/mpg/AMIkids%20Community-Based%20Day%20Treatment%20Ser vices - MPGProgramDetail-968.aspx.

70. Mendel, R. A. (2001). Less cost, more safety: Guiding lights for reform in juvenile justice. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.

310 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.caica.org/index.htm

http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/AMIkids%20Community-Based%20Day%20Treatment%20Services-MPGProgramDetail-968.aspx

71. Mendel, 2001; Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

72. Mendel, 2001. 73. Mendel, 2001. 74. Henggeler, S. W., Mihalic, S. F., Rone, L., Thomas, C., & Timmons-Mitchell, J. (1998).

Multisystemic therapy. In D. S. Elliott (Ed.), Blueprints for violence prevention (Book 6). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

75. Golden, R. (Ed.). (1996). Disposable children: America’s child welfare system. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

76. Golden, 1996. 77. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth

and Families. (2008). Trends in foster care and adoption: FY 2002–FY 2011. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends_july2012.pdf.

78. Elrod, H. P., & Brown, M. P. (1991). Individual, court and offense-related variables as predictors of subsequent offense activity among juvenile court probationers: A preliminary analysis. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting, San Francisco, California; McCord, J., McCord, W., & Thurber, E. (1968). The effects of foster- home placement in the prevention of adult antisocial behavior. In J. R. Stratton & R. M. Terry (Eds.), Prevention of delinquency: Problems and programs. New York: Macmillan.

79. Vandivere, S., Chalk, R., & Moore, K. A. (2003). Children in foster homes: How are they faring? (Child Trends Research Brief Publication No. 2003-23). Washington, DC: Child Trends.

80. Rubin, H. T. (1985). Juvenile justice: Policy, practice, and law (2nd ed.). New York: Ran- dom House.

81. Wolf, B. (1997). Advocate’s narrative: Ben Wolf. In R. Golden (Ed.). Disposable children: America’s child welfare system. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

82. Chamberlain, P. (1990). Comparative evaluation of specialized foster care for seriously delinquent youths: A first step. Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care, 2, 21–36; Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (1998). Comparison of two community alternatives to incarceration for chronic juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 624–633; Chamberlain, P. (1998). Treatment foster care. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Robst, J., Armstrong, M., & Dollard, N. (2011). Comparing outcomes for youth served in treatment foster care and treatment group care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 696–705.

83. Chamberlain & Reid, 1998; Chamberlain, P., Leve, L. D., & DeGarmo, D. S. (2007). Multi- dimensional treatment foster care for girls in the juvenile justice system: 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 187–193; Eddy, J. M., Whaley, R. B., & Chamberlain, P. (2004). The prevention of violent behavior by chronic and serious male juvenile offenders: A 2-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 2–8; Leve, L. D., Chamberlain, P., & Reid, J. B. (2005). Intervention outcomes for girls referred from juvenile justice: Effects on delinquency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1181–1185.

84. Smith, D. K., Chamberlain, P., & Eddy, M. (2010). Preliminary support for multidimen- sional treatment foster care in reducing substance use in delinquent boys. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 19, 343–358.

Notes 311

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

85. Finckenauer, J. O. (1984). Juvenile delinquency and corrections: The gap between theory and practice. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

86. Finckenauer, 1984. 87. Simonsen, C. E. (1991). Juvenile justice in America (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. 88. Simonsen, 1991. 89. Daly, D. L. (1996). More restrictive may be more effective. Caring (Winter), 2–9. 90. Empey, L. T., & Lubeck, S. G. (1971). The Silverlake experiment: Testing delinquency theory

and community intervention. Chicago: Aldine. 91. Chamberlain & Reid, 1998; Chamberlain et al., 2007; Eddy et al., 2004; Leve et al., 2005;

Robst, Armstrong, & Dollard, 2011. 92. Mutchnick, R. J., & Fawcett, M. (1991). Group home environments and victimization of

resident juveniles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminol- ogy, 35, 126–142.

93. Kirigin, K. A., Braukmann, C. J., Atwater, J. D., & Wolf, M. M. (1982). Evaluation of teaching-family (achievement place) group homes for juvenile offenders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 1–16.

94. Barton & Butts, 1990; Empey & Lubeck, 1971; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Mendel, 2001; Palmer, 1992; Walker, 1989; Wiebush, 1993.

95. Lipsey, 2009. 96. Aos et al., 2001; Greenwood, P. W., Model, K. E., Chiesa, J., & Rydell, C. P. (1996).

Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits (Rev. ed.). Santa Monica, CA: RAND; Steele, P. A., Austin, J., & Krisberg, B. (1989). Unlocking juvenile corrections: Evaluating the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services—Final report. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency; Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, T. A. Louis, & F. Mosteller (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Rus- sell Sage Foundation; Petterutti, Walsh, & Velazquez, 2009; Rutherford, A., & Benger, O. (1975). Community-based alternatives to juvenile incarceration: Final report (National Evaluation Program, phase 1 assessment). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 27–31; Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 1–27; Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children, 5, 51–75; Zavlek, S. (2005). Planning community-based facilities for violent juvenile offenders as part of a system of graduated sanctions. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

97. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. (n.d.). Juvenile justice: Tough enough? San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency; Lundman, R. J. (2001). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

98. Miller, J. G. (1998). Last one over the wall: The Massachusetts experiment in closing reform schools (2nd ed.). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

99. Miller, 1998. 100. Miller, 1998.

312 chapter 11 community-Based correctional programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

101. Jackson, P. (1983). The paradox of control: Parole supervision of youthful offenders. New York: Praeger.

102. Lerman, P. (1975). Community treatment and social control: A critical analysis of juvenile correctional policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

103. Miller, 1998. 104. Altschuler, D. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1994). Intensive aftercare for high-risk juveniles:

A community care model summary. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Gies, S. V. (2003). Aftercare services. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

105. Wiebush, R. G., Wagner, D., McNulty, B., Wang, Y., & Le, T. N. (2005). Implementation and outcome evaluation of the intensive aftercare program: Final report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

106. Mich. Court Rules 5.903(11).

Notes 313

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter ObjeCtives After studying this chapter, you should be able to

• Describe the different types of juvenile corrections facilities found in the United states

• Describe the basic functions of juvenile detention facilities, how these institutions operate, and recent trends in the use of detention

• articulate the different rationales that are used to support detention

• Describe the two essential components of a juvenile detention program

• Define a token economy and explain how it is used in juvenile institutions

• Describe the problems associated with the detention of juveniles

• Describe the problems confronted by correctional personnel and juveniles when youths are placed in jail

• Describe the characteristics of juvenile training schools

• Describe the types of educational, vocational, and treatment programs found in state training schools

• Describe the problems that confront today’s training schools

• Describe the basic features of diagnostic and reception centers, outdoor programs, boot camps, and private institutional settings

• Describe recent trends in juvenile incarceration

• Describe the research that has looked at the effectiveness of juvenile institutions

• Describe the challenges that currently face juvenile corrections institutions

• Discuss important legal issues related to juvenile incarceration

Chapter OUtline introduction

Overview of institutional Corrections for juveniles

types of juvenile Correctional institutions

Institutional Corrections Programs for Juvenile Offenders

chapter

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

■ introduction

Institutional or residential placement is the most restrictive type of placement used in juvenile justice. Indeed, a distinguishing characteristic of institutional placement is that it restricts youths’ access to the community to a greater degree than does assignment to a community- based program. Institutional and residential placement settings include a variety of residential facilities, such as juvenile detention facilities, jails, diagnostic and reception centers, forestry camps, ranches, boot camps, and state training schools, among others. Although many of these facilities house a diverse mix of youths who have committed a variety of offenses, others house specialized offender populations, such as sex offenders, youths with mental health needs, or those with substance abuse problems.

Although institutions for juvenile offenders have existed since the early 1800s and have played an important role in juvenile corrections, they have become increasingly popular as tools for responding to juvenile crime in recent years. The growing popularity of institutional placement appears to be, in part, a result of an increase in arrests of youths for violent offenses during the latter half of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s, but it also appears to reflect the belief by many policy makers that the best approach to juvenile crime is to “get tough” with juvenile offenders—a trend that was apparent by the mid-1970s. Today, institutional placement is used for many youths charged with violent juvenile offenses. However, now, as in the past, this type of placement is used not only for youths charged with and adjudicated for serious offenses, but also for those charged with and adjudicated for minor offenses. Indeed, in many instances, it is used for youths who could be better and more cheaply served by community-based programs, and in some instances, it is used for youths who could be better served outside the juvenile justice process.

Despite the lengthy history of juvenile institutions and their increasing popularity, there is little evidence that the incarceration of youths is an effective correctional response to juvenile crime. As we noted previously, early institutions for juveniles faced a number of problems, including overcrowding, mixing minor or status offenders with serious offenders, poor pro- gramming, inhumane treatment of residents, inadequate or nonexistent aftercare, and high recidivism rates. Although the state of institutional juvenile corrections has generally improved

trends in juvenile incarceration

the effectiveness of institutional Correctional programs for juveniles

Challenges Facing juvenile Correctional institutions

legal issues

Chapter summary

Key Concepts

review Questions

additional readings

notes

316 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

since the 1800s, none of these problems has been completely eliminated. As a result, critics charge that institutions have often failed to achieve their stated goals of rehabilitating youths or protecting the public.

This chapter examines contemporary institutional placements for juvenile offenders. It begins with a general overview of juvenile corrections institutions, then examines types of juvenile corrections institutions found in the United States, with special attention paid to the two most common: detention centers and state training schools. Throughout, the chapter focuses on the purpose and operation of these institutions as well as their problems. The chapter concludes with an examination of trends in juvenile incarceration and the effective- ness of juvenile corrections institutions.

■ Overview of institutional Corrections for juveniles

As noted previously, juvenile corrections institutions represent the most restrictive option available to juvenile courts. These institutions, however, vary in the extent to which they focus on custody and control. For example, some employ a variety of security hardware and structures, such as perimeter fencing or walls, and surveillance and detection devices, such as motion detectors, sound monitors, and security cameras.1 These juvenile institutions are classified as secure facilities (or closed facilities), and their purpose is to closely monitor the movements of residents within the facility and restrict their access to the community. In many ways, these institutions resemble secure adult institutions. Most public and private detention centers, reception and diagnostic centers, and state training schools are secure or closed facilities.2

Other juvenile institutions rely much less on security devices. These facilities have no perimeter fencing, and some do not lock entrances or exits at night.3 These facilities are classified as open institutions,4 and they rely more heavily on staff security than on security hardware, structures, and devices. Most private facilities, as well as most public shelters, ranches, forestry camps, and farms, are considered open institutions.5 Juvenile corrections institutions also differ in a number of ways besides the degree of reliance on security hardware, structures, and devices. For example, some institu- tions are privately operated and some are publicly operated. In fact, a majority of juvenile correctional facilities are privately operated, although the majority of youths are held in public institutions. When the 2010 Census of Juveniles in Residen- tial Placement (CJRP) was taken, approximately 69% of the youths in juvenile facilities were residing in state or local facilities, and about 31% were residing in private facilities.6

As one might expect, there are often important differences between private facilities and public facilities. For example, private facilities tend to be smaller than those that are publicly operated.7 Another difference is the types of youths that are placed in public and private institutions. Although some private facilities specialize in treating youths who have committed violent or serious offenses, as a general rule, public facilities contain a much higher percentage of youths who have committed serious delinquent offenses than do private facilities. Conversely, private facilities typically house a much higher percentage of youths who are in custody for committing status offenses and for other nondelinquent reasons.8 The differences in the types of youths admitted to public and private facilities are likely due to several factors, including the ability of private facilities to choose who they will serve, the existence of specialized programming (e.g., substance abuse or mental health treatment) in many private facilities, and

secure facility A facility that closely constrains and monitors residents’ activities and physically restricts their access to the community, typically through the use of various hardware devices, such as locked metal doors, security cameras, motion and sound detectors, and fences with climb-resistant mesh and razor wire, to limit residents’ movement within the institution and to prevent escape.

closed facility See secure facility.

open institution A facility that is not locked down, has no walls or fencing, and relies on staff to control inmates.

private facility A facility that is privately owned and operated. Private facilities can gener- ally choose whom to accept, allowing them to focus on specific types of juve- niles, such as sexual offenders or less seri- ous offenders.

public facility A government- run facility. Public facilities have less ability than private facilities to screen out difficult and violent offenders and usually house more of both.

cGloughlin/ShutterStock, Inc.

Overview of Institutional corrections for Juveniles 317

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

economic considerations that require private facilities to accept youths who have insurance or the ability to pay for placement.

F Y i the CensUs OF jUveniles in resiDential plaCement (Cjrp) prOviDes valUable Data On YOUths in institUtiOnal plaCements

the census of Juveniles in residential placement (cJrp) is conducted every two years and contains data on the types of facilities in which youths are held, the characteristics of youths placed in facilities, and the types of services youths are provided.

F Y i private FaCilities OFten hOUse DiFFerent pOpUlatiOns than pUbliC FaCilities

In 2010, status offenders accounted for 9.7% of the residents of private facilities, but only 2.1% of the resi- dents of local facilities and 1.7% of those in state facilities. Moreover, while 32.8% of the residents of private facilities had committed offenses against persons, 32.2% of the residents in local facilities and 44.6% of the residents in state facilities had committed offenses against persons.9 Moreover, a substantial percentage of youths admitted to private facilities are “voluntarily” admitted by their parents or by school officials.10

Historically, publicly operated facilities were more likely to hold greater proportions of nonwhite youths, males, and older youths.11 More recently, however, the demographic characteristics of youths in public and private facilities appear more similar, although private facilities hold a greater proportion of youths younger than 15 years of age and state facilities hold a greater proportion of youths who are 17 years old or older.12 Another way that public institutions differ from private institutions is that public institutions are more likely to be overcrowded. According to the 2004 Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC), 11% of public facilities reported that they were operating above their bed capacity, compared with only 1% of private institutions. However, a larger percentage of private institutions (33%) indicated that they were operating at 100% capacity, compared with public institutions (16%).13

Juvenile correctional institutions vary in other ways as well. For example, the majority of both private and public institutions are small, housing 50 residents or less. However, 2.2% of juvenile institutions house 200 or more residents,14 and some institutions house 800 or more youths.15 Also, some institutions are coed institutions, whereas others are single-gender institutions.

Facilities also differ in the average length of time that residents stay. Typically, youths committed to state facilities by juvenile courts stay longer than those placed in private facilities or local detention facilities.16 In addition, some private and public facilities are designed for short-term placement, but others are intended for long-term stays. Detention centers, jails, and diagnostic and reception centers tend to be short-term facilities, and ranches, forestry camps, farms, and training schools are generally considered long-term facilities. However, there is considerable variation in the average length of time youths spend in institutions clas- sified as long term.17

Another way that juvenile institutions differ is in the types of programming and the qual- ity of institutional life they provide. Almost all juvenile correctional institutions offer basic education and counseling programs for their residents. Moreover, more than half of all insti- tutions provide family counseling and employment counseling, hold peer group meetings, or use behavioral contracts or a point system. However, there is wide variability in the extent to which programming that goes beyond basic education and counseling is offered.18 Although

318 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

a majority of all institutions provide some substance abuse screening and treatment services, and about half of all institutions provide mental health screening of youths,19 the quality of these services is unknown in many cases.

A common problem in juvenile correctional facilities is overcrowding.20 According to the 2008 Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 25% of correctional facilities indicated that they were at or over their bed capacity.21 Also, as noted earlier, children have often been sub- jected to abuse and inhumane treatment in juvenile correctional institutions. Certainly, the overall quality of institutional life in juvenile correctional facilities has vastly improved since youths were first placed in the houses of refuge and early reform and training schools. Many juvenile institutions are administered by competent, caring, and professional administrators who oversee skilled and caring staff involved in the delivery of a variety of quality services to residents. Yet, in other instances, many of the problems that have historically plagued juvenile correctional institutions are still evident. For example, a 2011 report on juvenile corrections facilities published by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, No Place for Kids: The Case for Reducing Juvenile Incarceration, noted that these facilities are too often (1) dangerous, (2) ineffective, (3) unnecessary, (4) obsolete, (5) wasteful, and (6) inadequate.22 We will return to the problems facing juvenile correctional institutions later in this chapter.

m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y pUbliC versUs private FaCilities

Myth—private facilities provide more humane care for juveniles than do public facilities. reality—there are many well-run private facilities that provide excellent care for delinquent and problem youths. however, just because a juvenile corrections facility is privately operated does not automatically make it better than many publicly operated facilities. Indeed, some privately operated facilities have treated their charges as badly as the worst public facilities. research by David Shichor and clemens Bartollas that looked at public and private facilities used by a large probation department in southern california found that private facilities did not always provide promised services to clients, that many private facility staff members did not have appropriate qualifications, and that private facilities did not always separate violent and older youths from younger and less serious offenders.23 also, keep in mind that there are many well-run publicly operated programs around the United States.

■ types of juvenile Correctional institutions

Juvenile detention centers, jails, diagnostic and reception centers, forestry camps, ranches, boot camps, and state training schools are among the main types of institutions used by the juvenile courts. These types of facilities differ from each other, of course, but there are often considerable differences between facilities of the same type. This section provides a general overview of juvenile institutions employed in juvenile justice. For purposes of organization, it divides juvenile institutions into two types: preadjudicatory institutions, which are primarily intended to house youths awaiting adjudication, and postadjudicatory institutions, which are more often used for youths after adjudication.

preadjudicatory institutional placements

Detention Centers Detention centers (sometimes called juvenile halls or juvenile homes) are common in the United States. Indeed, many large counties and even many small ones operate their own detention facilities. In addition, many states operate regional detention centers that may be used to house youths taken into custody around the state. Detention centers, whether local or regional, house youths in physically restrictive settings “pending juvenile court action, or following adjudication pending disposition, placement, or transfer” to some other setting.24

preadjudicatory institution A temporary institu- tion for juveniles who are awaiting trial or awaiting sentencing.

postadjudicatory institution An institution to which a juvenile offender has been sentenced.

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 319

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Although they are designed primarily to house youths awaiting adjudication, disposition, or placement in another correctional setting, such as a state training school, they are also used for post-dispositional placement in some jurisdictions.25

Detention centers constitute the most popular type of correctional institution employed in juvenile justice and account for the great majority of admissions to juvenile correctional facilities each year. Typically, youths spend only a short time in detention. In 2006, approxi- mately 27% of youths placed in detention centers were there for less than one week and 72% were housed in detention for one month or less. However, almost 3% of the youths placed in detention remained there for more than six months.26

Typically, youths are detained in one of two ways. First, they can be detained after an arrest by a police officer. Incarceration in a detention center is seldom automatic, however. During court hours, an arrested juvenile is usually brought to the court with the necessary paperwork, the juvenile is charged by the prosecutor or state attorney, and a detention hear- ing is held. After hours, an “on-call” person designated by the judge typically makes the detention decision.

The second way juveniles are detained is by the issuance of a court order, sometimes called a warrant, complaint, pick-up order, or apprehension and detention order (A & D order). This court order allows the arrest (apprehension) and incarceration (detention) of a juvenile, with a hearing to follow within a specified period of time, usually 24 hours, excluding weekends and holidays. The legal grounds for these orders vary, but the following common grounds are included:

• The juvenile engaged in serious delinquent behavior that, if engaged in by an adult, would justify that adult’s arrest and incarceration.

• The juvenile failed to appear in court after having been properly summoned by the court for a hearing.

• The juvenile ran away from a setting where he or she was ordered to be placed by the court (this may also be considered a probation violation).

Children found to be in situations that threaten their safety (e.g., neglected or abused children) can also be subject to an A & D order and be picked up by the police and placed in shelter care or foster care. These youths should not be placed in a detention center. Neverthe- less, this happens in some instances.

Status offenders should not be detained for running away unless they are under the court’s jurisdiction and court ordered into a placement. Indeed, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974, as amended, prohibits the detention of status offenders, although the law does permit detention under the valid court order (VCO) exception. This means that status offenders can be detained if they violate a valid court order. As a result, many courts skirt the intention of the JJDPA by holding hearings and ordering youths to, for example, stay at home or attend school. If youths violate these orders, then they are detained for violation of a legitimate court order, not the offense of running away or failing to attend school. A more recent version of the JJDPA omits the VCO exception, but it had not been passed by both houses of Congress as of spring 2013.

F Y i tODaY, Over 20,000 YOUths are resiDing in DetentiOn in the UniteD states

according to the 2010 census of Juveniles in residential placement, 20,579 youths were residing in detention on the day of the census. Of these youths, 84.4% were males and 71% were minorities.27

320 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y YOUths maY be DetaineD FOr minOr OFFenses

Myth—Only youths who have committed the most serious offenses are placed in detention centers. reality—Many youths who are detained have not committed serious crimes. according to the 2010 census of Juveniles in residential placement, only 36% of the youths residing in detention centers were placed there because they had committed crimes against persons. about 22% were detained for technical violations, such as violations of probation, parole, or a court order, and slightly more than 12% were detained for public order offenses. approximately 2% were detained for status offenses. Other offenses for which youths were detained included property offenses (22%) and drug offenses (6%).28

The key point to remember is that taking a child into custody may or may not be a judicial decision, but keeping a juvenile in secure detention must be a judicial decision.

The detention of juveniles is supported on a number of legal grounds: • The juvenile, if released, may commit other offenses, injuring other persons or property. • The juvenile, if released, may be harmed or injured by others. • The juvenile, if released, is not likely to appear at future court hearings. • Unless the juvenile is detained, an uncooperative parent may remove him or her from

the state, making the juvenile unavailable for trial. • There is no responsible adult willing or able to provide supervision or care for the

juvenile.29

In addition to the statutorily authorized grounds for detention, there are a number of reasons that detention is favored as a juvenile justice response in some localities. According to H. Ted Rubin, who has extensive experience as a juvenile justice practitioner and researcher, these include the following reasons:

• Detention is used as a form of punishment. • Detention is used to fill up detention beds and demonstrate a need for detention. • Detention represents a convenient response to juvenile offenders that can be exercised

by juvenile justice agents. • Detention placates law enforcement officials who demand tough responses to juvenile

offenders. • Detention is used as an emergency mental health placement because such placements

are often in short supply.30

F Y i the jUvenile COUrt, Or thOse aUthOrizeD bY the COUrt, maKe DetentiOn DeCisiOns

It should be noted that police officers and others must request that juveniles be detained. this is because the decision to detain a youth is typically made by the juvenile court or those authorized by the juvenile court to make detention decisions. In practice, however, such requests are rarely denied.

The Operation of Detention After a juvenile is brought to a detention facility, a detention intake or admittance procedure is followed. Although procedures vary across detention facilities, detention intake procedures tend to have some common features. One of the first things done by the staff, if this has not

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 321

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

already been done by the arresting officer, is to attempt to make contact with the minor’s parents or guardian. At the same time, a variety of other steps are taken to ensure the safety of the juvenile and detention personnel and to acclimate the juvenile to the facility:

• The youth is searched. A strip search may be used to make sure the youth is not in possession of any contraband, drugs, or weapons.

• The youth’s personal possessions are collected and stored until the youth is released. • The youth is screened to determine if he or she is under the influence of drugs or alco-

hol, if any medical intervention is required, and if the youth has a medical condition that may affect other residents.

• Basic information about the youth, such as gender, age, address, complete name, date of birth, parents’ names, school, and the reasons for detention, is collected.

• The rules that residents are expected to follow while in the facility are explained. The youth may be given a handbook that explains facility rules and may be required to take a test to demonstrate understanding of the rules prior to placement with the other residents.

In a detention facility, the detention (or institutional) program “is the sum of all activities in which the child engages while in the detention home.”31 Two important components of a detention program are (1) the rules that youths are expected to follow while in detention and (2) the interventions, such as the educational curriculum and the behavior management system, used by detention personnel to educate, influence, or control resident behavior.

Many detention facilities try to manage resident behavior through use of a token economy. In a token economy, youths earn tokens (or points) for exhibiting appropriate behavior. For example, youths may earn points for using appropriate language and gestures, helping clean the facility, completing homework assignments, and following other program rules. As they accumulate points, they are able to purchase or earn privileges, such as more recreational time, more telephone time, and a later bedtime. Supporters of token economy programs argue that they help reinforce positive behavior among youthful detainees. These programs are based on operant conditioning principles that assume that behaviors that are reinforced are more likely to be exhibited in the future.

When token economies are implemented by people who clearly understand their purpose and operation, they can help shape youths’ behavior in the desired way. When these programs are not implemented properly, however, they can increase the potential for conflict among residents and also between residents and staff. A major problem in many facilities with token economy programs is inconsistency in the operation of the programs. Such inconsistency can cause residents to perceive some groups or individuals as being given differential or preferen- tial treatment, which in turn can increase the level of hostility among residents and between residents and staff.

Another concern is that token economy programs can disguise punitive programming with a veil of scientific language. For example, many programs contain a large number of rules that can result in residents’ losing points but relatively few ways for residents to earn points. As a result, the overall focus of these programs becomes punishment, not reward, and such punitive programs are inappropriate, according to critics, because many youths in detention have not been adjudicated.32

A variety of other interventions are found in detention facilities. For example, many detention centers, to be in compliance with state compulsory education laws, operate basic educational programs staffed by certified teachers who work for local school systems. These programs typically provide basic and individualized instruction for residents, although some facilities offer more specialized programs, including vocational training or college-level instruction.33 Unfortunately, the motivation and training of teachers in these programs and the resources devoted to them vary considerably.

detention (or institutional)

program The total set of

organized activities in which youths are involved while in a

detention facility (or institutional setting).

token economy A type of behavior modification pro-

gram in which juve- niles, in return for

appropriate behav- iors, earn points that

can be redeemed for privileges, snack

foods, and so on.

322 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

It is also common for detention facilities to provide some basic health care services, such as health appraisals, instruction on how to access various health services, and routine screening for health problems.34 Most detention centers have mental health professionals available to youths who require such services, and some type of basic counseling is offered as well. However, only 30% of detention centers report that all youth are screened for mental health problems, and 8% of detention facilities report that no youths are evaluated.35 Moreover, information on the extent to which counseling is a part of detention center programming and the quality of existing counseling programs is not available.

Many detention centers also operate some type of recreational program for residents. Although almost all centers meet American Correctional Association standards, which require youths to be allowed at least one hour of recreation that involves large muscle activity (exercise) per day and at least one hour of leisure time per day, some operate more structured recreation programs (though the number of these is not known).

problems confronting Juvenile Detention Today, juvenile detention faces a number of problems. One major problem is the absence of strict standards governing the use of juvenile detention and a lack of agreement over the purpose of detention in many jurisdictions.36 Indeed, wide discretion to detain juveniles is the rule in many communities.37 As a result, almost any youth charged with a criminal offense in some jurisdictions can be detained.38 This has contributed to another significant problem in many jurisdictions: institutional overcrowding.

F Y i DetentiOn aDmissiOn prOCeDUres have sOmetimes been abUsive

Given the need to protect the safety of residents and staff, the admission steps listed previously seem rea- sonable. however, there have been many instances of abuse associated with intake admissions, including dehumanizing searches intended to threaten and intimidate residents, such as pelvic examinations and vaginal searches of females, isolation of youths, and physical abuse.39 Unfortunately, the extent to which such practices still occur is unknown. For information about the abuse of children in institutional settings, see the coalition against Institutionalized child abuse at www.caica.org.

Although the intent of the juvenile court is to provide for the care, protection, and reha- bilitation of youths, abuse is a potential problem in any system intended to exercise restrictive control over youths. One type of abuse occurs when youths are detained without sufficient evidence that detention is necessary. Abuse also occurs when detention becomes a form of pun- ishment. This is particularly troublesome prior to adjudication, because youths are presumed to be innocent prior to fact finding by the court. However, punishment after adjudication can also be abusive when the express intention of the court is to “teach the youth a lesson,” and even in cases where the intent is to treat or rehabilitate a youth. Importantly, efforts to treat or rehabilitate youths often involve some element of punishment. Furthermore, when juveniles are detained in order to ensure subsequent court appearances or to protect victims from harm, those making decisions to detain youths are making predictions about their future behavior. However, accurate predictions about juveniles’ future behavior are difficult to make and are often based on criteria that have little relationship to their likelihood of appearing in court or engaging in subsequent delinquent acts.40

This is not to say, however, that using detention as a short-term solution cannot have some benefits. Most county or local detention facilities do not have the programming to keep juveniles for an extended period of time, but short-term detention that supports the authority of the court, probation, and programs such as house arrest can have a beneficial effect on the lives of some youths. However, many courts may be too willing to rely on detention when other less restrictive alternatives would be as, or even more, effective.

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 323

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

The effectiveness of detention, unfortunately, is continually being undermined by the chronic overcrowding and poor living conditions in many detention facilities. Many facilities have licensed limits on their capacities, and exceeding those limits can result in loss of licensing, to say nothing about increased legal liability, increased stress on the staff and the residents, and the increased financial costs associated with detention. Indeed, crowding influences all aspects of institutional life. It is related to increased levels of anger and hostility between residents, and between residents and staff, that contribute to disciplinary infractions, escapes, and violence. It also negatively affects residents’ perceptions of safety and leads to a variety of resident responses, such as joining gangs for protection or acting “crazy” so that they will be placed in isolation, where they feel less threatened. Crowding also leads to a variety of staff responses, such as greater focus on control and confinement of youths in locked rooms for longer periods of time, and it makes adequate classification and placement of youths within the facility more difficult. In short, crowding leads to a variety of responses on the part of residents and staff that exacerbate many of the problems that exist in institutional settings.41

Unlike the adult justice system, which makes bail available to most offenders, juvenile justice relies heavily on preventive detention. Most states allow judges to deny bail to adult suspects only if they have committed capital crimes (e.g., murder), if they have jumped bail in the past, or if they have committed another offense while on bail.42 However, in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Schall v. Martin, a majority of the justices ruled that the preventive detention of a juvenile is proper if there is reason to believe that the juvenile would commit additional crimes while awaiting adjudication, although the court also ruled that juveniles have a right to a detention hearing and a statement indicating the reasons why they are being detained. In handing down its decision, the majority justified its position by noting that such detention protects both the juvenile and society from the “hazards” related to pretrial crime. Furthermore, the court argued that preventive detention was appropriate because juveniles, unlike adults, are always in some form of custody43 (see the discussion of Schall v. Martin). The court also pointed out that many states allowed preventive detention of juveniles, which indicates that the concept did not offend any fundamental due process right. So long as juve- nile courts afford juveniles timely hearings to challenge detention decisions, the constitutional right to be free from “excessive bail,” found in the Eighth Amendment, takes a back seat to society’s interest in the supervision and control of children.

Unfortunately, one of the results of Schall v. Martin has been to serve as a legal justifica- tion for the overuse of detention. The excessive use of detention occurs in many jurisdictions, despite national organizations and commissions, such as the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, the National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Jus- tice and Delinquency Prevention, the Institute of Judicial Administration, and the American Bar Association, that recommend that detention be used only as a last resort for youths who have allegedly committed serious delinquent acts.44 Indeed, in many jurisdictions, the great majority of youths who are detained pending a hearing are released after their hearing, often on probation. Many, then, question why it is necessary to detain these youths, when later it seems evident that they present no danger to the community.

Although a number of grounds appear to be used to justify the detention of juveniles, research on detention decisions suggests that a variety of factors appear to influence them, although the factors vary across jurisdictions. Early studies suggested that the availability of detention facilities and a lack of alternative placements in a community influenced the level of detention use.45 Still other research revealed that the willingness of parents or guardians to accept youths back into their homes after being taken into custody by the police influenced detention decisions.46 Some research has found that race is related to detention decisions, particularly when minority youths live in disadvantaged neighborhoods.47 According to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, minority youths are disproportionately

324 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

represented in detention facilities. For example, the 2010 census found that African American youths accounted for 41.7% of the youths in detention but only 16.7% of the juvenile popula- tion between 10 and 17 years of age.48

Although the incarceration of females, particularly minority females, increased during the 1990s and early 2000s, there has been some reduction in the number of females placed in detention since 2001.49 However, African American female juveniles accounted for 40.6% of the girls in detention when the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement was taken in 2010, even though they accounted for only 16.8% of the female population ages 10–17 years.50 Obviously, the disproportionate overrepresentation of black girls in detention deserves careful scrutiny. Historically, girls have been much more likely than males to be detained for status offenses, such as running away and incorrigibility.51 Moreover, many girls who end up in detention have been victims of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse and fail to receive needed treatment while detained.52 Since the late 1990s, however, males have composed the majority of youths placed in detention for status offenses. Also, males account for the great majority of youths detained for person, property, drug, and public order offenses, and for technical viola- tions such as violations of probation, parole, and court orders.53

C O m pa r at i v e F O C U s

preventive Detention is also Used in japan

the structure of the juvenile justice process in Japan is similar in many respects to that in the United States. In Japan, as in the United States, preventive detention of youths is possible when the family court judge believes it is in the best interests of the child. In most instances, the period of detention lasts no longer than four weeks, although it is possible to keep a youth in detention for up to eight weeks. also, when the youth is in detention, assessments of the youth are conducted in order to develop a treatment plan for the child.54

Another problem uncovered by research is that youths who are detained are more likely to be treated more severely at the next stage of the juvenile justice process than similar youths who are not detained.55 The explanation for the difference might be that youths who are detained are less able to assist in the preparation of their defense than youths released pending a hearing. Also, hearing officers at subsequent hearings may feel that youths who have been detained represent more of a threat to community safety, making the officers more likely to impose severe sanctions on these youths than those who are not detained. Judges who are elected (and hearing officers appointed by and responsible to those judges) are not oblivious to public sentiments regarding juvenile crime. Although judges and referees may protect juveniles’ due process rights at trial, detention often proves to be an easy and attractive remedy that earns them community support. Being tough on delinquent juveniles is almost always a popular political stand.

Not only are there problems associated with decisions to detain youths, but there are also problems associated with the daily operation of many detention facilities. One serious prob- lem is child neglect and abuse, which has occurred despite the fact that part of the mission of detention facilities is to provide youths with a safe environment. As noted earlier, the history of juvenile institutions has been characterized by punishment and inhumane treatment touted as rehabilitation. Many youths in detention have been physically and sexually assaulted by other residents and staff, many have been subjected to intimidation and other forms of psy- chological abuse, and many have been exposed to a variety of degrading and dehumanizing conditions. Unfortunately, abuse and inhumane treatment have not been eradicated from all juvenile detention facilities.

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 325

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Today, there is evidence that isolation, mechanical restraints (e.g., handcuffs, straitjackets, anklets, etc.), and physical restraints (i.e., tackling and body holds) are still overused in some facilities. For example, according to a large-scale study of confinement conditions in juvenile correctional facilities published in 1994, there is some evidence that isolation and “time out” is overused in many facilities. This same study found that almost three-quarters (72%) of detention facilities reported the use of mechanical restraints, usually handcuffs and/or anklets. Other problems found in some facilities include high numbers of juvenile injuries (which typically result from attacks by other residents), occasional escapes and escape attempts, and occasional self-destructive behaviors among youths.56 In a more recent report on juvenile corrections, Richard Mendel noted that more than 50 lawsuits over the past four decades had documented a pattern of abuse in juvenile corrections facilities involving allegations of systemic violence, physical and/or sexual abuse by facility workers, excessive use of isolation and restraint, and a failure to provide services to residents such as education, health care, and mental health services.57 Unfortunately, few jurisdictions allow for regular independent examinations of the conditions in juvenile facilities, so the extent to which these problems exist in most facilities is not known.

Despite the problems that plague some juvenile detention facilities, there are well-run institutions managed and staffed by well-trained and caring employees who work diligently to ensure that children under their supervision live in a safe, supportive, and secure environ- ment. Such facilities share a number of program characteristics, according to David Roush, a former detention director and currently consultant to juvenile corrections agencies. They tend to have an adequate number of qualified staff, a concern with safety, a range of positive activities, strong leadership, a focus on staff education about detention, and a strong evalua- tion component.58

m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y jUvenile COrreCtiOnal FaCilities, inClUDing DetentiOn Centers, are nOt alwaYs saFe envirOnments FOr ChilDren

Myth—Juvenile correctional institutions are safe environments for youths. reality—Many juvenile correctional facilities strive to ensure that youths are safe while they are in placement. however, others are not safe environments for children and have experienced ongoing problems with ensuring youths’ safety. according to a survey of states by the associated press, there were more than 13,000 claims of abuse in juvenile correctional institutions, including detention centers, between 2004 and 2007. Sadly, many critics believe that the actual level of abuse may be much higher.59

jails

In some jurisdictions, juveniles may also be placed in adult jails. Like detention centers, jails represent a type of preadjudicatory institutional placement. The jailing of juveniles often occurs in rural jurisdictions, where there are few juvenile detention facilities. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at midyear 2011, approximately 5,900 juveniles were being held in adult jails. Of these youths, approximately 77% were being held as adults, and about 23% were being held as juveniles.60 In fact, each year that surveys were done on jail inmates between 1995 and 2006, at least 6,000 youths younger than the age of 18 years were residing in adult jails. However, the number of youths has been declining in recent years from a high of more than 9,000 in 1999.61

The reduction in the number of juveniles being held in adult jails in recent years has been influenced by federal government efforts to encourage states to remove juveniles from adult jails. These efforts have been under way since 1980, as a result of an amendment to the 1974 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act calling for jail removal. In testifying before

326 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on the reauthorization of the act in 1980, the deputy attorney general of the United States, Charles B. Renfrew, noted the following:

The jailing of children is harmful to them in several ways. The most widely-known harm is that of physical and sexual abuse by adults in the same facility. Even short term, pretrial or relocation detention exposes juveniles to assault, exploitation and injury. Sometimes, in an attempt to protect a child, local officials will isolate a child from contact with others. Because juveniles are highly vulnerable to emotional pressure, isolation of the type provided in adult facilities can have a long-term negative impact on an individual child’s mental health. Having been built for adults who have committed criminal acts, jails do not provide an environ- ment suitable for the care and maintenance of delinquent juveniles or status offenders. In addition, being treated like a prisoner reinforces a child’s negative self-image. Even after release, a juvenile may be labeled as a criminal in his community as a result of his jailing, a stigma which can con- tinue for a long period. The impact of jail on children is reflected in another grim statistic—the suicide rate for juveniles incarcerated in adult jails during 1978 was approximately seven times the rate among children in secure juvenile detention facilities.62

Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, states that received federal funds under the act were required to separate juveniles from adults. Furthermore, as a result of a 1980 amendment to the act, they were required to remove juveniles from adult jails within five years or lose federal funds.63 Additional legislation, however, indicated that 75% compli- ance by 1985 was acceptable.64 The most recent proposed amendments to the JJDPA ban the jailing of juveniles except for limited periods before their release or prior to transporting them to an appropriate juvenile facility.65

The JJDPA has encouraged the removal of children from adult jails, at least in some states. For example, in 1991, the state of Indiana abolished the jailing of juveniles. In writing about the jail removal efforts in Indiana, Barry Krisberg and James Austin, two respected juvenile justice researchers, noted the following:

For years, the state of Indiana placed hundreds of children in dangerous situations in adult jails. Yet a bipartisan coalition led by the Department of Corrections convinced state lawmakers that better alternatives existed. The jail removal movement in Indiana demonstrated again that the goals of child protection and public safety were not antithetical. Moreover, many Indiana communities have learned that sensible alternatives to jailing, such as temporary shelter care or home detention, can be created without requiring large new expenditures of public funds. Also, elected officials in Indiana and many other states learned that they could support humane poli- cies for children without suffering the alleged political liability of appearing to be soft on crime. Successes in the jail removal area illustrate the power of legislative action to discourage harmful practices. These stories also suggest that the long standing inferior treatment of children can be quickly remedied.66

Other states, such as Idaho, Ohio, and North Dakota, have also made significant headway in this area.67

Despite pressure from the federal government on the states, however, jail removal has not been completely successful. Although progress has been made in some jurisdictions, juve- niles are still being incarcerated in adult jails. In fact, there is some pressure from “get tough on crime” advocates to place more juveniles in adult facilities.68 As a result of such pressure, a failure of states to develop juvenile detention facilities, and an unwillingness to develop appropriate alternatives to the jailing of juveniles in some jurisdictions, a number of juveniles continue to be housed in jails each year. Moreover, “get-tough” measures that have resulted in more youths being tried and sentenced as adults mean that a number of persons younger than 18 years are being jailed as adults. Although the optimistic assessment of Barry Krisberg and James Austin quoted earlier regarding the removal of juveniles from adult jails was clearly

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 327

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

justified in the early 1990s and still holds true in some states, the jailing of juveniles continues to occur in some jurisdictions.

F Y i jUveniles maY be plaCeD in aDUlt jails UnDer Certain COnDitiOns

the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention act does not completely ban the jailing of juveniles. Sub- sequent court rulings and legislation permit juveniles to be incarcerated in adult facilities under certain circumstances—for example, when a juvenile is being tried as an adult or has been convicted of a felony. also, a juvenile can be held in an adult jail or lockup for up to six hours while other arrangements are being made, provided there is “sight and sound separation” of adults and juveniles. also, in rural areas, a juvenile may be held in an adult jail or lockup for up to 24 hours if the following conditions are met:

• the minor is awaiting an initial court appearance. • an alternative placement is not available. • there is sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults.69

Problems Associated with Placing Juveniles in Adult Jails Incarcerating juveniles in adult jails creates a variety of problems for those juveniles who are incarcerated as well as those who are responsible for their safety. Indeed, many of today’s jails face a number of serious problems: a deteriorated or poorly designed physical plant, overcrowding, a lack of services and constructive activities for prisoners, gang conflicts, and violence. It is worth noting that many jails have difficulty meeting the needs of adult inmates, let alone the needs of juveniles.

One obvious problem facing juveniles in jails is the risk of physical and sexual assault. Although juveniles are supposed to be separated from adult prisoners, there have been instances where this did not occur. Moreover, there are often inmate groups in jails, such as trustees, who have access to juveniles even when they are separated from the regular adult population in the jail.70 Furthermore, many jails do not do a good job of isolating juveniles who are at risk of victimization by older and more aggressive juveniles. Consider the case of Eric, a 13-year-old who was jailed for stealing a dirt bike. He was incarcerated “next to a 17-year-old who was being held for assault and who had a history of violent and sexual offenses.” In 1986, a class action suit was filed by private attorneys in Portland, Maine, with help from the Youth Law Center in San Francisco, alleging that staff in the jail left the cell doors open, allowing the 17-year-old to assault Eric and force him to have oral intercourse.71 More recently, a 2009 article in the Dallas Morning News reported that four juveniles may have been abused in the Dallas County Jail.72 Juvenile girls may be particularly vulnerable to sexual assaults by jail personnel. As Meda Chesney Lind notes, they may be “doubly disadvantaged” because they are females and juveniles.73

Physical and sexual assault are but two of the numerous problems associated with plac- ing juveniles in adult facilities. Even when juveniles do not come into direct contact with adults, they may be subjected to psychological abuse by adult prisoners. In a 1967 report, the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice noted that jail is characterized by “enforced idleness, no supervision, and rejection. It is a demoralizing expe- rience for a youngster at a time when his belief in himself is shattered or distorted. Repeated jailing of youth has no salutary effect on the more sophisticated youngster; on the contrary, it reinforces his delinquency status with his peers and his self-identification as a criminal. Enforced idleness in a jail gives the sophisticated juvenile ample time and reason for striking back at society.”74

The idleness and rejection experienced by youths in jail, coupled with inadequate supervi- sion due to understaffing and jail personnel who are often poorly trained to deal with juveniles,

328 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

can leave psychologically fragile youths in a vulnerable position. Ironically, steps taken to protect youths, such as keeping them segregated from adults, often exac- erbate the effects of jailing because separation often amounts to solitary confinement. Under such condi- tions, depression is not uncommon, and the probabil- ity of youths engaging in self- destructive behaviors, such as suicide and self-mutilation, is increased. As noted earlier, suicide or attempted suicide is a well- known problem associated with placing juveniles in adult jails. Indeed, research clearly demonstrates that the rate of suicide among children held in adult jails is much greater than that among youths in juvenile detention centers or among youths in the general population of the United States.75

F Y i jailing jUveniles inCreases their risK FOr selF-DestrUCtive behaviOrs

Jail inmates younger than 18 years of age have the highest rates of suicide. Moreover, juveniles in adult jails are 19 times more likely to commit suicide than youths of the same age in the general population.76

Although juveniles of any age or gender can experience problems in jail, females may be particularly vulnerable. This is because female juveniles often have a history of sexual and physical abuse, which makes them susceptible to depression and self-destructive behaviors.77 This type of history is often related to running away from home and other status offenses— behaviors that may result in incarceration in jails. There is considerable evidence that girls are often jailed for status offenses, such as running away, or because they are neglected or dependent youth.78 In addition, they are often younger than male juveniles who are jailed. Typically, jails are even less adequately prepared to meet the needs of female juveniles than male juveniles, and they often end up becoming victimized a second time—by the juvenile justice system supposedly there for their protection.

Not only does the jailing of children create serious problems for children, but it also cre- ates problems for jail administrators and staff. First, the requirement to separate juveniles from adults causes serious difficulty for jail administrators, who already have the burden of segregating a variety of offender groups. For example, jails need to separate males and females and isolate prisoners who have medical problems and those who are disruptive. They may also separate younger adults from older adults and separate offenders awaiting trial from those who are serving sentences. Another problem for administrators is that jails are often crowded and frequently lack adequate personnel and support services, such as mental health workers, to assist those in need of such services. A third problem is that the jailing of juveniles creates additional liability for jails and county or city governments. In short, when juveniles are admit- ted to jails, they simply increase the headaches experienced by jail staff, who have a diverse population to work with already.

The truth of the matter is that jails are often not equipped to deal with the needs of many adult offenders, much less children. Most have neither the physical facilities nor an adequate number of correctional and other staff to adequately care for juvenile offenders. Furthermore, correctional staff are rarely trained to deal with the special needs and problems presented by young adult or juvenile inmates, nor do jails typically have ancillary resources at their disposal to help them meet the needs of these inmates. The problems associated with jailing juveniles raise serious questions about the appropriateness of this practice. Despite these problems, however, the practice continues in a number of jurisdictions.

onkey Business Im ages/ShutterStock, Inc.

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 329

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

postadjudicatory institutional placement

State Training Schools State training schools, which are public facilities, often serve as the last resort for youths des- ignated as serious or repeat offenders. Yet not all youths who reside in such facilities are there because they are violent. Indeed, in 2010, only 49% of the juveniles committed to secure long-term state correctional institutions were held because they had committed a violent crime against a person.79

Some training schools actually resemble adult prisons. These institutions have a closed environment. They are physically secure; they can have various combinations of physical security devices such as high walls and fences, razor wire, motion detectors, and locked cell blocks; and they are often self-sufficient (i.e., the laundry, infirmary, school, and maintenance facility are run by institutional staff ). They may also have solitary confinement or isolation rooms for those who consistently misbehave, they may employ mechanical restraints, and they place considerable emphasis on physical security.

Other training schools, however, use a cottage system. In these cottage institutions, youths are housed in cottages, which are usually small and have a more “homelike” atmosphere. Each cottage is run by cottage “parents,” or staff who work on shifts. These institutions have a more open environment. Rather than relying on fences and walls and other hardware for security, they rely on staff to maintain security in the institution.

Training School Operation Programming in state training schools usually consists of a combination of (1) academic education, (2) vocational education, (3) recreation, (4) basic counseling, and (5) behavior management. In addition, a variety of specialized treatment and education programs exist in some facilities. For example, more than half of all training schools offer family counseling, health and nutrition counseling, substance abuse education, and sex offender treatment. Reli- gious counseling and programs are also prevalent in juvenile training schools and are more common than any other type of volunteer program found in juvenile correctional facilities. It should be noted that training schools are more likely to offer programs that do not require counseling staff,80 because institutional budgets often preclude hiring highly paid profes- sional staff.

The rate of school enrollment of youths placed in custody is significantly less than that of same-age youths in the general population, and they are more likely to have repeated a grade. Moreover, youths in custody are more likely to have disabilities that make school difficult for them.81 Consequently, the educational programs at juvenile correctional facilities focus on basic skills, and most are designed to help students obtain a general equivalency diploma (GED). The majority of youths in training schools have access to special education classes, and almost all have access to literacy or remedial reading programs.82 Despite their focus on basic education, however, some facilities also offer college programs for residents.83

F Y i the majOritY OF YOUths in CUstODY repOrt that theY aspire tO higher eDUCatiOn

according to the Survey of Youth in residential placement, more than two-thirds of youths indicated that they would like to attend school beyond high school.84

Today, most youths confined in state training schools have access to vocational education programs. Like the academic programs offered in these facilities, the vocational programs offered are also intended to give youths basic skills. The most common types of vocational courses offered are carpentry and various building trades, food services, and auto mechanics,

state training school

A restrictive facility often designed to

deal with repeat or more serious

juvenile offenders.

cottage institution Facility in which

juvenile offenders live in a “home-

like” setting. Such institutions are typically more

open and smaller than other types of

juvenile correctional institutions, are run by “cottage parents,” and have high staff-

to-juvenile ratios.

330 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

although printing, cosmetology, secretarial training, retail trades, and forestry/agriculture are found in at least 10% of training schools.85 One problem, however, with many of these pro- grams is sex typing—a problem that may be more difficult to avoid in single-sex institutions.86 Another problem is that they do not necessarily prepare youths for employment after they leave the institution. After youths leave institutions, they may have difficulty joining unions or they may still lack the necessary education needed for many jobs.87 Although some insti- tutions provide job training, few offer job placement programs that attempt to match youths with jobs offering a chance of advancement.

F Y i a majOritY OF YOUths plaCeD in COrreCtiOnal institUtiOns are plaCeD in seCUre FaCilities

although juvenile institutions vary in their use of security hardware and structures (e.g., walls and perimeter fences), the use of physical security devices is common. In 2006, 78% of juveniles who were committed to juvenile correctional facilities were housed in locked facilities. as might be expected, the great majority (88%) of long-term secure institutions were classified as locked facilities.88

Most training schools operate recreational programs for residents. Indeed, courts have ruled that the failure of institutions to allow children regular exercise and recreation violates juveniles’ constitutional rights.89 The American Correctional Association (ACA), in its Stan- dards for Juvenile Training Schools, recommends that juveniles be given two hours of recreation each school day and an additional hour on nonschool days.90 Most training schools have an outdoor playing field, an outdoor basketball court, an outdoor volleyball court, indoor table games, Ping-Pong tables, and television sets. Many also have an indoor gym. Although program administrators typically view recreational programming as an important responsibility, it is worth noting that a national study of juvenile correctional facilities in the mid-1990s found that 19% of juvenile training schools failed to meet the ACA-recommended requirements for recreation.91

Another program component consists of counseling or treatment. According to cor- rectional administrators, approximately half or more of the residents in their facilities are experienced with at least one of the following problems: family difficulties, drug or alcohol abuse, peer problems, parental abuse, disruptive behavior, and depression.92 Consequently, most institutions offer basic individual counseling. This type of counseling is provided by a range of program staff and is intended to help youths deal with adjustment problems within the institution and general problems they are experiencing in their lives. Some institutions use more structured therapeutic counseling, such as psychotherapy or reality therapy. This type of counseling is conducted by trained therapists and is also designed to help youths adjust to the institution and resolve a variety of personal problems.

In addition to individual counseling, many institutions use some type of group counsel- ing, such as guided group interaction (GGI), positive peer culture (PPC), or milieu therapy. Group counseling is less costly than individual counseling, because counselors work with more than one youth at a time. The goal of group counseling is to develop a group that helps the members identify personal issues and supports individual change. Group counseling can be a powerful intervention when it is led by a skilled therapist. Unfortunately, there is little informa- tion on the quality of the different types of counseling programs found in juvenile correctional facilities and the qualification and training of staff who provide counseling to residents.

In many institutions, treatment and behavior management programs include a behavior modification component. Behavior modification is based on the idea that behaviors are learned and that current and future behaviors can be shaped by a system of rewards and punishments.

sex typing Where males are taught tradition- ally male skills such as carpentry and females are taught traditionally female skills such as cosmetology.

group counseling A type of therapy designed to use group members to help individuals identify personal issues and support individual change.

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 331

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Like detention centers and other types of correctional programs, training schools commonly employ a token economy program, in which youths earn or lose points based on their behav- ior. Indeed, release may be based on the earning of a specified minimum number of points, indicating the youth has achieved the treatment goals set by the institution.

F Y i manY YOUths invOlveD in the jUvenile jUstiCe prOCess sUFFer FrOm sOme FOrm OF mental DisOrDer

research on mental disorders among youths involved in the juvenile justice process indicates that youths involved in juvenile justice have higher rates of mental disorders than youths in the general population. One recent study of mental disorders among youths in juvenile facilities revealed that 18.9% had some type of anxiety disorder (generalized anxiety, panic, posttraumatic stress, etc.), 9.1% had some form of mood disorder (major depressive, manic episode, etc.), 31.8% suffered from some form of disruptive disorder (conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder), and 49.3% had a substance use disorder.93

Problems Associated with Juvenile Training Schools One serious problem facing a majority of training schools is overcrowding. In crowded facili- ties, youths have less privacy, the probability of interpersonal conflict is increased, and “double bunking” (sleeping more than one resident to a room) increases the chances of physical or sexual assault. Despite the drawbacks of overcrowding, according to a 2010 bulletin, Condi- tions of Confinement, just 36% of youths confined in juvenile correctional facilities slept in a private room, and 17% slept in an area with 10 or more residents.94 According to the 2008 Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 25% of residential facilities report that the number of youths they held either met or exceeded their bed capacity.95 Consequently, many juveniles in training schools are housed in rooms that do not meet ACA standards for living space and are housed in units that exceed the ACA-recommended standard for residents per unit (25 or less) or do not conform to local fire codes.96 This last point is particularly troubling because slightly over one in five residents indicate that they do not know what to do in case of a fire.97

Contributing to institutional overcrowding is the inappropriate placement of many nonse- rious offenders in state training schools. In 2010, less than half (47%) of all youths committed to state-operated long-term secure facilities had committed a person offense. Slightly more than 27% had committed property offenses, approximately 11% were held for public order offenses, and about 5% were incarcerated for drug offenses. In addition, slightly more than 9% were incarcerated for technical violations, and 1% were held for status offenses.98 Certainly, juvenile offenders who represent a clear threat to others need to be detained. However, one must question the extensive use of expensive and often ineffective state institutional place- ments for nonviolent offenders.

Another problem facing some training schools is escapes. Data collected in the early 1990s indicated that, during a typical month, juvenile training schools reported 454 successful escapes and 478 unsuccessful escape attempts, which would translate into roughly “5,500 escapes and more than 5,700 unsuccessful attempts per year.”99 In a more recent survey of 3,690 juvenile facilities conducted in 2000, it was found that 34% of these facilities reported at least one unauthorized absence over a one-month reference period, with most of these escapes coming from small, non-secure facilities.100 Escapes and escape attempts can result in injury to staff and residents, can result in injury to escapees on the run, and can become a public relations nightmare for correctional administrators, who frequently face some community resistance to institutional programs.

Still another problem faced by facilities is too few staff and treatment resources. Because of inadequate funding, many facilities have lower-than-recommended security staff ratios.101

332 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Many also have fewer treatment staff, particularly professional treatment staff such as trained counselors, and other programming staff than they would like. Scarce resources may mean that staff members do not receive adequate training. Unfortunately, when budgets are austere, treatment programming and staff training typically suffer, and more emphasis is placed on security than treatment.

In addition to the previously identified problems, many juvenile correctional facilities are plagued by violence and the abuse of residents. For example, in testimony before the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, Barry Krisberg noted the following:

The California DJJ [Department of Juvenile Justice] is plagued with high levels of violence and fear. Fights, assaults on staff, and riots are common occurrences. Incidents of violence, gang and racial conflicts, and staff fears have led to reliance on extended periods of lockdown, with many youth spending an average of 21 hours per day in their cells. There is virtually daily use of chemical and mechanical restraints, and many correctional staff wear equipment such as security vests and hel- mets that are more typical of maximum security prisons than juvenile correctional institutions. A video tape showing several DJJ staff beating up two youth was aired on national television news shows and the Internet. In the past, some of the facilities have employed guard dogs to maintain order. Suicide attempts are frequent events, and four youths took their own lives in the last two years. Sexual assaults are part of these horrific conditions.102

Overcrowding, inappropriate placement of nonviolent offenders in institutional set- tings, violence, abuse, inadequate treatment staff and programming, and poor staff training combine to adversely affect the correctional environment in many training schools. At best, mere warehousing of youths is the result. At worst, residents are exploited by other residents and, in some cases, by staff. In either case, such institutions fail to rehabilitate youths, protect them, or respond to them in ways that ensure community safety. These problems represent only a sample of the difficulties that currently confront publicly operated juvenile training schools. Additional problems for juvenile institutions in general, including training schools, are examined later in this chapter.

Other institutions Used for postadjudicatory placement

Besides publicly operated juvenile training schools, there are a variety of other institutions and programs in which juveniles are placed following adjudication. These include diagnos- tic and reception centers; ranches, forestry camps, farms, and outdoor programs; boot camps; and private institutions. This section describes these types of facilities.

F Y i manY jUvenile FaCilities Fail tO assess YOUths’ mental health statUs

according to the 2010 Survey of Youth in residential placement, less than half of all youths in residential placement were in facilities that provide mental health assessments for all youths, and more than one-quarter (26%) were in facilities that failed to screen all residents for suicide risk.103

Diagnostic and Reception Centers The goal of diagnostic and reception centers is to assess youths who have been committed to state care by juvenile courts and determine the best treatment plans and placements for them. After a diagnostic and reception center completes an assessment, which takes an average of five weeks,104 the youth is placed in a training school or another correctional facility to complete the period of commitment. Although these centers are used in only a few states, where they do exist they play an important role in determining the placements and the treatment goals for youths under state care. In states without diagnostic and reception centers, many of the functions performed by them are performed at each individual institution.

diagnostic and reception center A facility that holds juveniles tempo- rarily while they are evaluated to determine the best ultimate placement for them.

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 333

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

The focus of diagnostic and reception centers is on determining each youth’s short-term treatment needs. Typically, this is accomplished by conducting a general assessment that may encompass psychiatric and psychological evaluations, educational assessment, a social his- tory, and behavioral observations, as well as a review of information provided to the center by the juvenile court and other social agencies. For example, a psychiatrist may conduct a psychiatric evaluation and then treat the youth if treatment is needed. A clinical psychologist may administer a variety of psychological tests, such as IQ, personality, and other diagnostic tests. A social worker may compile a social history that examines the youth’s family and social background. Educational staff may screen the youth for learning disabilities and other learn- ing and academic problems. Unit supervisors may assess the youth’s institutional adjustment and peer relationships. All the information acquired is compiled and summarized in order to determine the treatment needs and the best institutional placement for the youth.105

Ranches, Forestry Camps, Farms, and Outdoor Programs Ranches, forestry camps, farms, and outdoor programs make up a diverse category of juvenile institutions. In most instances, these institutions are considered long-term placements, but they are usually reserved for youths who do not require secure custody.106 Although many of these facilities are not secure and residents have more access to the community than in some other types of institutions, their physical location often serves as a barrier between them and the community. Perhaps because of their location, they rely less on formal security measures, such as institutional head counts and classification systems that separate groups of offenders, than training schools, detention centers, and diagnostic and reception centers. In addition, they typically have lower security-staff-to-resident ratios than other institutional settings.107

Ranches, forestry camps, farms, and outdoor programs are not new. Indeed, the basic philosophy behind these facilities and programs dates back to the placing-out movement active in the 1800s.108 At that time, many reformers believed that children could be reformed if they were removed from the corrupting influence of the city and reared in wholesome rural environments where they could learn the value of honest work. Today, these programs focus on teaching youths responsibility and self-sufficiency and building

their self-esteem. Like earlier programs, they are premised on the idea that “by placing a child in a totally foreign environment, old attitudes may be altered, and new, acceptable behavior patterns may be created.”109

Boot Camps Although military boot camps have existed for some time, their first modern correctional equivalent was founded in 1973 by a former marine, George Cadwalader. This boot camp, called the Penikese Island School, was based on the belief that serious young offenders could be influenced in a positive way by exposing them to rigorous military-style training.110 It was not until the 1980s, however, that boot camps began to become popular for dealing with young adult offenders, and it was not until the 1990s that their popularity began to spread to juvenile justice.111

A number of juvenile boot camps have been developed around the United States. They exhibit considerable variability, but share one essential feature: military-style training and discipline.112 Consequently, drill instructors and other staff with military backgrounds play a critical role in these institutions, although teachers and case managers are also employed.113 In addition, substance abuse treatment specialists and other treatment providers are beginning to play a more prominent role in many of these institutions.

juvenile boot camp A camp for youths that uses military- style training and

discipline to control and modify their

behavior.

334 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Typical elements of a juvenile boot camp include a platoon structure (with platoons made up of 10 to 13 youths who move through the program together), military-style uniforms for residents and drill instructors, military customs and jargon, a strenuous daily routine that begins at 5:30 or 6:00 a.m. and ends with lights out at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., immediate responses to minor rule infractions (e.g., push-ups) and progressive sanctions (including removal from the program for serious rule violations), and a public graduation ceremony.114

The idea of placing juvenile offenders in boot camps has become popular with some indi- viduals, particularly those with military backgrounds. And of course the discipline they impose, the belief that they reduce institutional populations in long-term facilities, and the claim that boot camps lower correctional costs appeal to many policy makers. However, evaluations of boot camp programs have indicated that they face a number of difficulties. Low salaries, high staff turnover and burnout, and inadequate aftercare have plagued many of these programs.115 Other problems found in some programs have included staff abuse of “trainees,” including the deaths of several youths in juvenile boot camps.116 Although there is some evidence that boot camp experiences may be viewed positively by some participants and they may be no more expensive than other forms of institutional placement,117 there is no evidence that these programs lead to significant reductions in correctional populations or correctional costs.118 Moreover, multiple studies of boot camps have demonstrated that they do not lead to lower recidivism rates among participants.119 In writing about boot camps, criminologist Frank Cullen and his colleagues have noted how such “common-sense” thinking in corrections can lead to problems because it “seems so correct, leaves our biases unchallenged, and requires virtually no effort to activate.”120 In the case of boot camps, not only have they proven to be ineffective on a number of measures, but they have led to the harm of participants in many cases. As a result, a number of states have closed, scaled back, or significantly modified their boot camp programs for youths.121

Private Institutions Privately operated juvenile correctional institutions, which have a long if not always distin- guished history, continue to play a significant role in juvenile corrections. As noted previously, the first correctional institutions designed especially for children in this country, the houses of refuge, were privately operated. Moreover, a number of juvenile justice interventions, such as placing out and juvenile probation, were first developed as private sector endeavors.

The large number of private institutions designed to deal with children’s problems make up what longtime juvenile justice researcher and practitioner Ira Schwartz refers to as a “hid- den system” of control.122 This system of control comprises detention facilities, shelter homes, group homes, training schools, drug and alcohol programs, ranches, farms, forestry programs, outdoor experiential programs, and mental health facilities, among others. The quality of care given children in these institutions, however, is as varied as the types of institutions that exist. A number of them provide outstanding care to their clients—better care, indeed, than many publicly operated facilities, owing to their lower staff–resident ratios, their greater flexibility, and the greater numbers of qualified professional staff they can afford to hire. In addition, many privately operated facilities are more cost effective than many publicly operated insti- tutions,123 and evidence indicates some may be more successful at reducing recidivism than many traditional training schools.124 However, there is considerable evidence that many of the admissions to privately operated chemical dependency and mental health facilities are medi- cally unnecessary.125 There is additional evidence that the quality of care provided to children in many private facilities is woefully inadequate, despite the exorbitant prices charged. Some programs appear to be more interested in profit than quality of care or treatment.126 Consider the following examples cited by Ira Schwartz in his book (In)Justice for Juveniles: Rethinking the Best Interests of the Child: “‘One private psychiatric hospital [in Los Angeles County] served its new adolescent patients only a cheese sandwich and milk for each meal until they

types of Juvenile correctional Institutions 335

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

earned enough points to eat other items.’ Another private hospital in the same community ‘conducted routine strip searches, where female adolescents had to squat, en masse, and were, on occasion, subjected to involuntary pelvic exams for contraband.’”127 Such practices ended only after a threat of legal action by local advocacy groups.128

F Y i “KiDs FOr Cash” jUDge gets 28 Years

In a high-profile case indicating potential problems associated with private correctional programs for youths, a pennsylvania judge, Mark ciavarella Jr., was sentenced to 28 years in prison in august 2011 for accepting some $1 million in bribes from the operator of two private juvenile correctional facilities in that state for placing kids in their facilities, often for minor offenses. Judge ciavarella was one of two judges found guilty of accepting bribes in what became known as “kids-for-cash.”129

F Y i privatelY OperateD COrreCtiOns FaCilities plaY a signiFiCant rOle in jUvenile jUstiCe

In 2010, private facilities housed 30.6% of all juvenile offenders. however, privately operated facilities housed a majority of youths placed in shelters (77%) and group homes (71%), close to half of the youths placed in reception and diagnostic centers (46%), and more than one-third (37%) of those housed in ranch/wilderness or outdoor programs. Much smaller percentages of youths were found in privately operated detention centers (8%) and long-term secure facilities (6%).130

F Y i a varietY OF institUtiOns exist FOr COntrOlling YOUths

a substantial number of the admissions to private facilities are so-called voluntary admissions, although they result from referrals by parents or school officials, and the juveniles in question hardly have a choice. Such admissions represent the growing “medicalization of defiance.”131 the result is that behaviors like “running away from home, habitual truancy, and being in conflict with one’s parents are now being classified as emotional and psychiatric disorders”132 that are dealt with by a growing medical industry that charges insurance companies and parents as much as $200 to $600 a day for inpatient psychiatric and chemical dependency treatment.133

voluntary admission The placement of a juvenile into an institution by his or her parents or guardian without benefit of a court order or a review

of due process. The cost of such a place-

ment is borne not by the public, but by the parents or

guardian.

■ trends in juvenile incarceration

Incarceration was an increasingly popular response to delinquency from the 1970s and well into the 2000s. According to the annual Children in Custody Census and the more recent Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement, which provide estimates of the number of children placed in juvenile facilities on a specific day during a particular year, the number of youths placed in public and private juvenile facilities increased from approximately 74,270 in 1975 to approximately 134,011 in 1999, an increase of more than 80%.134 However, by 2006, this number had decreased to 92,721, and by 2010, to 70,792.135 Clearly, institutional placement has declined significantly in recent years, although as we have noted elsewhere in this chapter, incarceration is still used for many youths who represent no significant threat to public safety.

Aside from the increase in the number of youths incarcerated, several other interesting trends in juvenile incarceration have been noted in recent years. One important trend has been the increasing privatization of juvenile corrections. Both the number of admissions and the

336 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

rate of admissions to private juvenile facilities grew substantially between the late 1970s and the late 1980s. A similar trend was also evident in the 1990s. The number of youths commit- ted to private facilities increased by 79% during the 1990s, whereas commitments to public facilities increased by 41%.136 This trend appears to have abated in recent years, however. Since the late 1990s, private facilities have housed about 30% of the juvenile population in out-of-home placements.137

Another significant trend since the late 1970s has been the increasing number of minority youths placed in institutional settings. As a result, by 2010, more than two-thirds (67.6%) of the youths in residential placement were minority youths (i.e., Hispanic/Latino, black, American Indian, Asian), although they made up only 36% of the juvenile population between 10 and 17 years of age.138 Moreover, disproportionate minority confinement was evident in almost every state.139

C O m pa r at i v e F O C U s

the Youth incarceration rate is Considerably higher in the United states Compared with Other Developed Countries

a comparison of juvenile incarceration rate in the United States published in 2008 found that the juvenile incarceration rate in the United States was 336 per 100,000 youths. the countries with the next highest rates were South africa (69 per 100,000) and New Zealand (68 per 100,000). Most developed countries have low rates of juvenile incarceration. Japan (0.1), Finland (3.6), and Sweden (4.1) have very low rates.140

F Y i DisprOpOrtiOnate minOritY COnFinement is a signiFiCant prOblem

the 1992 amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention act (JJDpa) require that states deter- mine whether the proportion of juveniles in confinement exceeds the proportion of juveniles in the population. States are also required to determine whether there is disproportionate minority confinement (DMc) and, if so, to take steps to remedy the problem.141

■ the effectiveness of institutional Correctional programs for juveniles

Despite the long history of juvenile correctional institutions and their popularity as a response to youths’ problems, little research on their effectiveness has been done. Moreover, what is known is not encouraging. Although some institutional programs for juveniles appear to be effective, the bulk of the evidence indicates that many juvenile institutions have little effect on recidivism. (This is not surprising, perhaps, considering the quality-of-life characteristic of many juvenile institutions and the woeful lack of good treatment programs in many facilities.) One review of rearrest rates in states that rely heavily on juvenile institutions found that the percentage of youths rearrested ranged from 51% to more than 70%.142

Another study, which followed up with almost 450 youths released from state training schools, discovered that the recidivism rate increased each year after discharge, reaching 54% in the fourth year.143 An examination of the rearrest rates of youths discharged from correc- tional facilities in New York state found that 51% were picked up by the police within a year of release.144 Still more recent data collected by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice found that 55% of youths released from placements in Virginia, Florida, and New York were rearrested within 12 months.145 Furthermore, a number of literature reviews have found that institutional placements and correctional treatments in general have little positive effect on recidivism.146 For example, a recent examination of rearrests of youths from correctional

the effectiveness of Institutional correctional programs for Juveniles 337

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

programs in six states found rearrest rates of 37% to 67% within one year of release. Also, in four other states, the rearrest rates were from 74% to 75% three years after release.147

In contrast, other studies and literature reviews have presented a more favorable picture of the effectiveness of some institutional programs. For example, one large-scale review of the literature on residential programs found that such programs do produce a modest reduc- tion in recidivism.148 Moreover, a more recent review of institutional programs for serious juvenile offenders conducted by Mark Lipsey and David Wilson indicated that although some institutional programs have no appreciable effect on recidivism, others were associated with substantial reductions in subsequent offending.149

Overall, then, the research that has examined the effectiveness of institutional pro- grams for youths has produced mixed results. There are quality institutional programs that treat youths humanely and are operated by caring and professional staff. There is some evi- dence that small, secure treatment facilities that target violent or chronic offenders, employ a therapeutic philosophy, and effectively implement therapeutic, cognitive-behavioral, and skill-building interventions are effective at reducing recidivism.150 In contrast, many institutional programs are characterized by a lack of genuine caring and concern for youths as well as poorly designed and implemented programs. Moreover, many institutions, particularly large state institutions, are little more than warehouses for youths and have little positive effect on the behavior of former residents. In fact, they may increase the likelihood that youths will engage in subsequent delinquency.

m Y t h v s r e a l i t Y sOme institUtiOnal plaCements are eFFeCtive

Myth—Institutional programs for juvenile offenders are not effective. reality—although some institutional programs are not effective, there is clear evidence that some programs are associated with substantial reductions in recidivism.

■ Challenges Facing juvenile Correctional institutions

A number of challenges currently face juvenile correctional institutions. One challenge is a lack of comprehensive information on these facilities. Although the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, with assistance from other organizations and individuals such as the National Center for Juvenile Justice, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and university researchers, collects and disseminates valuable information about juvenile institutions, there is still much that is not known about contemporary correctional institutions for youths. Indeed, relatively little is known about the institutional environments found in many facilities, the quality of programs and services provided to youths, and the effectiveness of those programs and services. Until the early 1990s, much of what was known came from studies of individual institutions or studies that looked at several institutions within one state. Unfortunately, regular, nationally representative studies of juvenile facilities were uncommon. What the existing research made clear, however, was that the quality of care in residential and institutional settings varied considerably. Indeed, this research, along with lawsuits filed against various institutions, showed that, at least in some facilities, the exploitation and victimization of residents, both male and female, occurred all too frequently.

To some extent, the lack of knowledge about juvenile corrections was alleviated in 1994 by the publication of Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities. Mandated by Congress as part of the amendments to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre- vention Act, this study represented an important contemporary milestone in our understand- ing of juvenile institutions nationwide. Perhaps not surprisingly, it found that there were still a number of widespread problems confronting juvenile institutions, including the following:

therapeutic interventions Interventions

intended to have some positive

rehabilitative or habilitative effect on

the individual.

cognitive- behavioral interventions

Interventions based on the premise that

many offenders have not acquired the

necessary cognitive (thinking) skills nec-

essary for effective social interaction.

Consequently, these approaches attempt to help youths iden- tify problem think-

ing patterns, take responsibility for

their thoughts and actions, and develop

the skills necessary to engage in effective

social interaction.

skill-building interventions Interventions

designed to help youths develop

various social and interpersonal skills needed for effective social functioning.

These skills may include anger man-

agement, conflict resolution, effective

communication, dealing with author-

ity, planning and decision making,

and avoiding risk.

338 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

• Crowding was a pervasive problem in juvenile facilities. As a result, a significant number of juveniles were housed in facilities where they had inadequate living space.

• A substantial number of juvenile facilities had lax security measures, which led to escapes and injuries.

• Suicidal behavior was a problem in juvenile institutions, and many institutions lacked adequate measures for preventing suicide.

• Many institutions failed to conduct health appraisals and health screenings in a timely manner. In addition, institutions often lacked good data on health care services given to residents.151

In a more recent examination of data from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) in 2003, a number of other problems were found. For example, the data indicated that 20% of residents were housed in units with youths who were three or more years older, youths who had committed less serious offenses were frequently housed with more serious offenders, only slightly more than one-third (36%) of confined youths were housed in private rooms, and about one-third reported difficulty sleeping. In addition, 22% reported that they did not know what to do in case of a fire, less than half (42%) reported that they had access to legal counsel, 43% indicated they lived in units with poor staff–youth relations, one-third reported that there were problems with the grievance process in their facility, and 28% reported that staff used some form of mechanical restraint on them.152

A significant problem found in many institutions is a failure to address the psychological and emotional needs of residents. According to the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement, 16% of youths do not know how to find a staff member if they are upset,153 many institutions fail to adequately screen youths for suicide risk, and as we noted previously, less than half of youths are in facilities that provide mental health evaluations of all residents.154 This lack of screening and assessment is important because substantial numbers of youths in corrections programs have significant mental health needs. Depression, particularly among girls, and anxiety are common among institutionalized youths, and a majority of youths in these settings report some form of posttraumatic experiences, such as those due to abuse.155

Other studies point to a variety of other difficulties confronting juvenile institutions. As noted earlier, one of these is the disproportionate confinement of minorities in institutional settings. For example, in the United States in 2010, the custody rate per 10,000 youths who were adjudicated and committed to a juvenile correctional facility was 0.81 for whites, 4.71 for blacks, 1.86 for Hispanics, 3.41 for American Indians, and 0.20 for Asians and Pacific Islanders.156 As a result, in many facilities, minorities account for a large proportion of the institutional population.

Possibly not surprisingly, racial tension is another problem found in many settings. Racial tension is often exacerbated when institutions have sizable gang populations because gangs are often divided along racial lines. Racial and gang rivalries can feed on one another, creating the potential for institutional conflict. Importantly, a majority of administrators of state-operated secure facilities indicate that the youths being admitted to their facilities are more likely to be members of gangs than was true in the past.157 Today, about one-third of youths in correctional facilities report a gang affiliation, and 60% report that there are gangs in the facilities where they reside.158 The result is an increased probability of conflict within institutions.

Another challenge facing juvenile institutions is the development of an organizational climate and culture conducive to positive behavioral change. Too many institutions still foster an inmate code that operates to subvert institutional treatment goals. The inmate code consists of a set of norms and values that stand in opposition to the expressed norms and values of the institution. For example, in a study of institutionalized juveniles, Clemens Bartollas, Stuart Miller, and Simon Dinitz found an inmate code according to which exploiting others, main- taining distance from staff, not giving in to others, and not “ratting” on peers were considered

inmate code An unwritten set of norms and values that stand in opposi- tion to the expressed norms and values of the institution.

challenges Facing Juvenile correctional Institutions 339

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

proper ways to behave.159 Other research has also confirmed the existence of inmate subcultures that influence youth behaviors within institutions.160

One characteristic of the organizational climate and inmate code of a number of institu- tions is support for the exploitation of others. Such exploitation ranges from the theft of goods from weaker residents by older or more physically imposing residents to rape and other types of physical and sexual assault by residents or staff.161 In their 1976 study of a male training school in Ohio, Bartollas, Miller, and Dinitz found that 90% of the 150 residents were being exploited by others or were exploiting another resident. Their research found a clear hierarchy of roles within the institution and a system of exploitation based on hierarchical position. This exploitation involved taking food, clothing, cigarettes, and sex from those in lower positions.162 In a follow-up to this study, these researchers found a similar institutional culture, although there was less sexual victimization (when residents engaged in sexual relations, these relations were more likely to be consensual).163

A clear challenge facing each juvenile institution is to develop a positive social organiza- tion characterized by a positive and supportive set of relationships that exist between those who work and live in the institution. As noted earlier, one type of adaptation can result in subcultures that promote violence and exploitation. However, other types of adaptations to institutional life are also possible. For example, institutionalized youths are deprived of normal heterosexual relationships, which can lead to a variety of adaptations. In some cases, a hierarchy of roles is created, and youths at the bottom of the hierarchy, who are generally less able to defend themselves, become the sexual objects of those higher up in the hierarchy. In other cases, the development of sexual roles is based on the need to replace normal relationships that are denied youths who are institutionalized. Incarcerated youths may develop kinship role systems, such as make-believe families, in which youths take on various family roles (e.g., mother, father, husband, wife, sister, and brother). Members of the make-believe family give each other mutual advice and assistance, look out for one another’s interests, and participate in institutional activities together. In addition, some youths may develop homosexual alliances. In a study of three coed and four all-female training schools, Alice Propper found that 17% of institutionalized girls reported at least one homosexual experience, ranging from kissing to intimate sexual contact. Also, about half of the girls reported taking a make-believe family role. Propper found that make-believe families were as common in coed institutions as in all-female facilities.164 Other research has produced similar findings.165

Exploitation and violence toward others, homosexual relationships, and make-believe families are examples of secondary adjustments that youths make to the organizational climate of the institution. These secondary adjustments are responses to the unique characteristics of the institutional environment and may not be seen by the juvenile as reasonable or appropriate in another context. For example, a youth may engage in a homosexual relationship with another youth within an institutional setting, yet not view himself as a homosexual or consider the relationship conceivable in another social context.

The type of organizational culture that develops within an institution and the types of adaptations that residents make to that culture are not simply an outgrowth of placing “delin- quents” in institutions. To a large degree, the social organization of an institution is a product of the management style and philosophy employed in the institution, the available resources, and the training and correctional philosophy of the staff.166 For example, research indicates that persons placed in custody-oriented institutions report higher levels of violence than those in treatment-oriented institutions.167 Moreover, an institutional focus on custody has been found to encourage the development of an inmate code that runs counter to institutional goals.168

Of course, the social organization of an institution affects not only the youths who reside there, but also the correctional staff. Consequently, another challenge facing juvenile correc- tions is to develop a social organization that meets staff needs. Working in a juvenile facility

secondary adjustment

A response that a juvenile makes

to the unique characteristics of

an institutional environment that

may not be per- ceived as reasonable

or appropriate in another context.

Examples include violence, homo-

sexual relationships, and make-believe

families.

social organization Refers to the types

and quality of relationships that

exist between people who come together in a particular set- ting, such as those who live, work, or

participate in a cor- rectional institution or some other orga- nizational or social

setting.

340 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

can be a very exciting and rewarding experience, but it can also be a frustrating and stressful experience, particularly when staff members are concerned about being assaulted by residents or feel that the residents lack needed services.169

Another problem that can contribute to staff stress is role conflict—conflict between the staff ’s custody and treatment responsibilities. Facility staff members are often expected to enforce rules and to be confidants and helpers to youths under their care. However, these roles are not simultaneously compatible, and staff may emphasize one of these roles over the other, emphasize both of these roles, or emphasize neither. Unfortunately, role conflict can lead to confusion among both residents and staff about which roles are appropriate. In addition, other factors, such as low pay, poor training, a lack of public understanding, and indifference from management can produce stress.170 The result can be staff burnout and high staff turnover, which are problems that confront many institutions. Consequently, it is important that staff be given the training, supervision, and support they need in carrying out their roles within the institution.

The role of institutional corrections, however, does not end when a youth is released from a corrections facility. Indeed, a major challenge facing contemporary corrections is the development of effective aftercare (often called parole) for released juveniles. As noted previously, aftercare involves the provision of services intended to help youths successfully make the transition from juvenile institutions to life back in the community. Ideally, aftercare provides a planned transition from the institution to the community. Unfortunately, as Rich- ard Snarr notes, “In many jurisdictions, aftercare [parole] is an after-thought. . . . Many times little or no thought and planning are given to the transition when a youth is released from an institution or residential setting and faced with living back in the community.”171 The failure to provide adequate aftercare for youths released from institutions is widely recognized as a major shortcoming in juvenile corrections, and the development of effective aftercare programs represents a significant challenge.172

Good aftercare programs do exist. For example, Kalamazoo County (Michigan) Juvenile Court has developed a day treatment program to provide aftercare for juveniles returning to the community from institutional placements. The program includes a strict phone and/or tether monitoring program, family counseling, and educational and vocational components. The program is partly based on the realization that, no matter to what extent the out-of-home placement changes the juvenile, if the home environment does not change, the chance of a suc- cessful return home will be diminished. Intensive family counseling helps all family members understand their roles in reintegrating the juvenile back into the family and into the community.

A final and serious challenge facing juvenile correctional institutions is the development of more programs that respond to children in humane ways and that protect the community. Ultimately, of course, this is the goal of most correctional programs—a goal that is, at present, unmet in far too many instances. Yet there is some reason for optimism. There are model programs around the country that can serve as exemplars for those interested in programs that really do work. And there are a variety of other reasons to believe that a more reasonable and effective response to juvenile offenders can be achieved.

■ legal issues

In some instances, the institutionalization of a child may be necessary in order to rehabilitate the child, deliver appropriate punishment, or protect the community. How institutional place- ment is accomplished and what happens to the juvenile while in the institution pose a number of important legal questions. Moreover, decisions to incarcerate youths and the conditions of their confinement influence the extent to which the juvenile justice process helps youths and protects the community or harms the youth and threatens public safety.

aftercare Supervision given to children for a limited time after they are released from a correctional facility but are still under the control of the facility or the juvenile court.

Legal Issues 341

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Clearly, the decision to remove a child from his or her home is a serious one and affects not only the child, but also the family and others. Given the seriousness of this decision, it is important to consider a number of issues related to the incarceration of youths:

• What rights do juveniles have at the time that treatment decisions are made? • Do juveniles have a right to treatment? • Do juveniles have the right to refuse treatment? • What types of conditions should juveniles be subjected to, and what types of treatment

should juveniles receive in institutions? • How long should juveniles remain in institutions? • Are adult facilities appropriate for the placement of juveniles? • How does the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act apply to juveniles in custody? • What are the liabilities that correctional institutions and institutional personnel are

subject to?

what rights Do juveniles have at the time that treatment Decisions are made?

The power to remove children from their homes is an ominous one and requires that chil- dren have some protection when removal is a possibility. The importance of such protection is clearly articulated in the Gault ruling, which stated that juveniles have a right to counsel when facing the prospect of institutionalization. But what if the parents are the ones initiat- ing commitment on grounds other than delinquency? One case that examined this issue was Heryford v. Parker,173 in which it was determined that before a child could be committed to a training school for the “feeble minded,” he or she was entitled to representation by counsel. Moreover, this ruling held that representation was necessary even though the parents had initiated the commitment. Consequently, court rulings have indicated that juveniles have a right to counsel when facing institutionalization even when their parents have initiated com- mitment proceedings, but these rulings tell us nothing about the quality of assistance that children should receive.

Do juveniles have the right to treatment?

On the most fundamental level, the placement of a juvenile in an institutional setting against his or her will raises a question about the purpose of incarceration. In order to pass constitu- tional muster, there must be a legal justification for every deprivation of liberty, regardless of age. Historically, the placement of children in institutions by the juvenile courts rests on the parens patriae obligation of the state to provide care for children in need. If the state assumes responsibility for the child’s welfare and then fails to protect that welfare, the child’s due pro- cess rights are violated.

Another persuasive argument for a juvenile’s right to treatment is found in the equal protection safeguard. Juveniles are often “sentenced” to institutional placements for a much longer time than an adult convicted of a similar offense. The only way that this disparity can be justified is if the term of incarceration of the juvenile is for treatment, not punishment. Of course, the obligation “to treat” carries with it the presumption that treatment is available. Certainly, a juvenile should be able to make sure of the availability and suitability of treatment before being committed to that treatment. Consequently, juvenile courts may also be required to consider additional factors regarding placement, such as the location of the institution. Is it in the state or out of the state, and do the distance and the available transportation make it convenient or inconvenient for family members to be involved in treatment? If the placement is out of the state or far away, are equivalent closer facilities available? Will the placement cause the child or the family undue hardship?174

equal protection The constitutional

right of all persons to have equal access

to the government and courts and to be

treated equally by the law and courts.

342 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Do juveniles have the right to refuse treatment?

“Treatment” is a nebulous concept, and the line between treatment and punishment is often nonexistent. In reality, treatment usually involves some level of discomfort or punishment regardless of the intentions of the treatment providers. Moreover, there are many instances in which treatment cannot be reasonably justified because of the abusive conditions that youths experience in some institutional settings. Consequently, juveniles have legitimate concerns about the actual type of treatment they are asked to receive. If asked about their treatment needs, many youths might choose a different type of treatment. Still others might opt for confinement so that they could “do their time” and be done with it.

Certainly, juveniles have the “right” not to be placed into programs that degrade or dehumanize them or that are designed to embarrass or humiliate them. The American Bar Association has promulgated standards that would allow children to refuse services except school attendance, services designed to prevent harm to their health, and services that are court ordered as conditions for noninstitutional placement (e.g., probation). The common denominator of these services is that they are “services” that society would reasonably expect to be accepted.175 However, standards like the American Bar Association’s standards invari- ably result in conflicts between those who feel that treatment providers and others have an obligation to provide for children’s needs (i.e., that children have a right to treatment) and those who are concerned about the coercive nature of service provision.

what types of Conditions should juveniles be subjected to, and what types of treatment should juveniles receive in institutions?

Because children have the right to be treated, the type of treatment they receive is of utmost importance. The Eighth Amendment forbids treatment that is so foul, so inhumane as to violate basic societal concepts of decency. For example, long-term solitary confinement, inadequate hygiene facilities, dirty or unsanitary rooms or cells, and failure to allow for proper clothing have all been determined by appellate courts to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that many juvenile institutions have dealt with children in abusive and neglectful ways.

In addition, because the state has a higher degree of responsibility for children than for adults, some maintain that juveniles could suffer cruel and unusual punishment if they are denied rehabilitative opportunities such as therapy, school, and job training programs.176 Without these opportunities, any placement becomes punishment, which raises equal protec- tion and due process issues as well.

how long should juveniles remain in institutions?

Determining when a juvenile has been rehabilitated is not an exact science. Rehabilitation as an outcome is as individualized as the person who is being rehabilitated. Determining that a juvenile needs to be in placement, in many instances, is not very difficult. Determining when a youth is rehabilitated is often more difficult. To keep a child in an institution longer than necessary to protect the community and effect rehabilitation would be an unjustifiable depriva- tion of liberty177 and a waste of public tax dollars. This issue takes on new importance in view of the increasing privatization of treatment institutions. If profit is the goal of a placement, there may be pressure on the institution to keep the child longer than necessary in order to achieve financial objectives. In addition, some residents who have had a successful experience may find themselves not being returned home because the institution wants to use them as mentors and role models for new, incoming juveniles. Most, if not all, juvenile court statutes and applicable court rules have provisions for periodic reviews to check on the welfare and progress of juveniles removed from the home. These review requirements provide “windows

Legal Issues 343

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

of opportunity” for return home and act as safeguards against “extra” or unnecessary time in placement.178

are adult Facilities appropriate for the placement of juveniles?

As noted earlier in this chapter, the jailing of juveniles presents a variety of problems for cor- rectional personnel as well as juveniles. In recognition of the potentially harmful effects of jailing juveniles, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act was amended in 1980 to abolish the confinement of juveniles in adult jails and lockups in states that received funds under the act.179 The power of the purse can be an excellent persuader, but it has no effect on states that choose to opt out of participation. Moreover, as noted earlier in this chapter, there are circumstances under which juveniles can be placed in adult jails. As a result, juveniles continue to be placed in jails in some jurisdictions. Moreover, youths younger than 18 years are also committed to state prisons each year. For example, there were 2,295 persons younger than 18 years of age residing in state prisons at midyear 2010.180 This occurs despite the fact that good evidence exists that such commitments neither help youths nor protect community safety because youths sent to adult facilities have a greater likelihood of recidivism than similar youths handled in the juvenile justice process.

how Does the Civil rights of institutionalized persons act apply to juveniles in Custody?

The federal government has recognized the dangers inherent in the confinement and deten- tion of youths. The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) can help eliminate unlawful and dangerous conditions of confinement. Under its provisions, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has the power to investigate and bring legal actions against state or local governments for violating the civil rights of persons, including youths, institutionalized in publicly operated facilities.

Although enacted by Congress in 1980, CRIPA remains underutilized as a means to protect youth in confinement. In order to initiate an investigation by the Department of Justice, there has to be a complaint or some action requesting that the Civil Rights Division do something. Parents, advocates, and juveniles should be aware of the very significant role they can have in bringing attention to harmful or unlawful conditions of confinement for juveniles.

In addition to receiving information that would trigger an investigation, the Department of Justice must also determine that the facility is a “public institution.” Public institutions are those that:

• are owned, operated, or managed by any state or political subdivision; • are a private facility under contract to a state or local government; • house juveniles awaiting trial; • house juveniles for care or treatment; • house juveniles for any other purpose than solely for education. After these thresholds are crossed, the Department of Justice can conduct an investigation.

If civil rights violations are found, the jurisdiction controlling the facility gets a “findings letter” that sets forth the alleged violations and the underlying factual basis. This letter also sets forth suggested steps to correct the violations. The Department of Justice must wait 49 days after issuing the findings letter to file suit, thus giving the parties ample opportunity to negotiate a settlement of the matter. Most CRIPA actions to date have resulted in settlements.

Because almost half of the juveniles incarcerated have multiple needs, including mental health disabilities, CRIPA can be used to ensure not only civil rights, but also the right to treat- ment for youths in custody. For additional discussions about remedies for youths incarcerated, see the discussion about the use of ombudsman programs.

344 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

what are the liabilities that Correctional institutions and institutional personnel are subject to?

Should correctional personnel be liable for harm to juveniles in their care? Generally, states are protected from liability based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity. However, in a Kan- sas case, C.J.W. by and through L.W. v. State, the state was found liable under the state’s tort claims act.181 At issue in this case was whether the state had an obligation to ensure the safety of minors by making reasonable efforts to convey known information about an aggressive and sexually deviant juvenile resident to protect other youths with whom this youth came into contact. The state was found liable for injuries suffered by a 12-year-old youth who was attacked and sexually abused by an older youth on two separate occasions.182

CrItICal thInkIng QuestIOn

Based on what you have learned about juvenile institutions, under what circumstances, if any, should they be used and what would be required to ensure that they are humane and effective?

Legal Issues 345

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Chapter sUmmarY

A variety of types of institutions and programs are used for the placement of youths who violate the law, including detention centers, jails, training schools, ranches, farms, forestry camps, outdoor programs, chemical dependency units, and mental health facilities. However, even institutions and programs of the same type can have substantial differences. For example, contemporary correctional facilities can vary significantly in their operation, in the types of programs they offer, in their social organization, and in their effectiveness. Moreover, some of these facilities are categorized as open institutions, whereas others are closed. Some institu- tions, such as detention centers, reception and diagnostic centers, and training schools, house a mixed population of youths, whereas other facilities focus on specialized offender groups, such as youths who are chemically dependent or who have mental health problems. Some are publicly operated, whereas others are privately operated (and these arguably constitute a growing “hidden system” of juvenile control).

The use of institutional placement is a popular response to youths who have violated the law and is supported by a punitive “get-tough” approach to problem youths. However, although institutional placement is a popular response to youths’ illegal behavior, it is not applied to all groups of children equally. As has always been the case, poor children, minorities, and males are disproportionately represented in institutional populations. Particularly striking is the overrepresentation of minorities in publicly operated juvenile institutions.

Although the incarceration of problem children is popular, there is little scientific evidence that indicates that incarceration in general has a significant effect on the level of juvenile crime or a positive effect on juvenile offenders. A possible reason is that many juvenile correctional institutions are ill equipped to respond to the needs of juvenile offenders. They typically lack the monetary resources, facilities, treatment interventions, aftercare programs, and political support needed to effectively respond to children’s needs. The worst institutions expose youths to inhumane treatment, victimizing those they are supposedly there to help and protect. These institutions protect neither youths nor the community.

Clearly, there are many challenges facing juvenile institutions, such as the provision of adequate living space, the development of better security measures, the discovery of better ways to prevent self-destructive behaviors, and the provision of better health screening. Too many institutions failed to assess youths’ mental health needs or screen them for suicide risk on admission, and the mixing of youths of different ages and offense backgrounds is far too common. Moreover, these are just some of the problems that are widespread in juvenile cor- rectional institutions. The inappropriate placement of juveniles in institutional environments, including jails and adult prisons; the overrepresentation of minorities in institutional settings; negative social organization; a lack of sound aftercare programs; and meager evaluation of existing programs are additional problems that currently exist. In spite of these problems, however, there are institutional programs that appear to make a difference in the lives of youths and thus offer the promise of protecting the community as well. And there is no question that institutions capable of handling juvenile offenders are needed. What must be determined is which youths need to be placed in institutions and what types of institutions these should be.

key COnCePts

aftercare: Supervision given to children for a limited time after they are released from a correctional facility but are still under the control of the facility or the juvenile court. closed facility: See secure facility.

346 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

cognitive-behavioral interventions: Interventions based on the premise that many offend- ers have not acquired the necessary cognitive (thinking) skills necessary for effective social interaction. Consequently, these approaches attempt to help youths identify problem thinking patterns, take responsibility for their thoughts and actions, and develop the skills necessary to engage in effective social interaction. cottage institution: Facility in which juvenile offenders live in a “homelike” setting. Such institutions are typically more open and smaller than other types of juvenile correctional institutions, are run by “cottage parents,” and have high staff-to-juvenile ratios. detention (or institutional) program: The total set of organized activities in which youths are involved while in a detention facility (or institutional setting). diagnostic and reception center: A facility that holds juveniles temporarily while they are evaluated to determine the best ultimate placement for them. equal protection: The constitutional right of all persons to have equal access to the govern- ment and courts and to be treated equally by the law and courts. group counseling: A type of therapy designed to use group members to help individuals identify personal issues and support individual change. inmate code: An unwritten set of norms and values that stand in opposition to the expressed norms and values of the institution. juvenile boot camp: A camp for youths that uses military-style training and discipline to control and modify their behavior. open institution: A facility that is not locked down, has no walls or fencing, and relies on staff to control inmates. postadjudicatory institution: An institution to which a juvenile offender has been sentenced. preadjudicatory institution: A temporary institution for juveniles who are awaiting trial or awaiting sentencing. private facility: A facility that is privately owned and operated. Private facilities can gener- ally choose whom to accept, allowing them to focus on specific types of juveniles, such as sexual offenders or less serious offenders. public facility: A government-run facility. Public facilities have less ability than private facilities to screen out difficult and violent offenders and usually house more of both. secondary adjustment: A response that a juvenile makes to the unique characteristics of an institutional environment that may not be perceived as reasonable or appropriate in another context. Examples include violence, homosexual relationships, and make-believe families. secure facility: A facility that closely constrains and monitors residents’ activities and physically restricts their access to the community, typically through the use of various hard- ware devices, such as locked metal doors, security cameras, motion and sound detectors, and fences with climb-resistant mesh and razor wire, to limit residents’ movement within the institution and to prevent escape. sex typing: Where males are taught traditionally male skills such as carpentry and females are taught traditionally female skills such as cosmetology. skill-building interventions: Interventions designed to help youths develop various social and interpersonal skills needed for effective social functioning. These skills may include

Key concepts 347

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

anger management, conflict resolution, effective communication, dealing with authority, planning and decision making, and avoiding risk. social organization: Refers to the types and quality of relationships that exist between people who come together in a particular setting, such as those who live, work, or partici- pate in a correctional institution or some other organizational or social setting. state training school: A restrictive facility often designed to deal with repeat or more seri- ous juvenile offenders. therapeutic interventions: Interventions intended to have some positive rehabilitative or habilitative effect on the individual. token economy: A type of behavior modification program in which juveniles, in return for appropriate behaviors, earn points that can be redeemed for privileges, snack foods, and so on. voluntary admission: The placement of a juvenile into an institution by his or her parents or guardian without benefit of a court order or a review of due process. The cost of such a placement is borne not by the public, but by the parents or guardian.

revIew QuestIOns

1. What are the distinguishing characteristics of institutional or residential placements? 2. What are the four most common problems of institutional placements? 3. Describe the fundamental differences between secure facilities and open facilities. 4. How do private institutional placements differ from public institutional placements? 5. Describe the essential characteristics of the most common preadjudicatory institutional

placement. 6. In what ways do juveniles commonly access detention? 7. What is a token economy? 8. What were the major issues and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Schall

v. Martin? 9. What are the arguments against using adult jails to house juveniles?

10. How are training schools commonly used? 11. How are diagnostic and reception centers used? 12. What are the distinguishing characteristics of juvenile boot camps? 13. Describe the recent trends involving institutional and residential placements for juveniles. 14. Is aftercare necessary? Provide a sound argument for the development of aftercare

programs. 15. What are secondary adjustments? 16. What legal rights do juveniles have while incarcerated or institutionalized?

addItIOnal readIngs

Bartollas, C. M., Miller, S. J., & Dinitz, S. (1976). Exploitation matrix in a juvenile insti- tution. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 4, 257–270.

Giallombardo, R. (1974). The social world of imprisoned girls: A comparative study of institutions for juvenile delinquents. New York: Wiley.

348 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective interventions for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. B. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Miller, J. G. (1998). Last one over the wall: The Massachusetts experiment in closing reform schools (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Rothman, D. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the New Republic. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Schwartz, I. M. (1989). (In)justice for juveniles: Rethinking the best interests of the child. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Sedlak, A. J., & McPherson, K. S. (2010a). Conditions of confinement: Findings from the survey of youth in residential placement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Sedlak, A. J., & McPherson, K. S. (2010b). Youth’s needs and services: Findings from the survey of youth in residential placement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

nOtes

1. Elrod, P., Kinkade, P. T., Smith, A., Brown, F., & Matthews, A. (1992). Toward an under- standing of state operated juvenile institutions: A preliminary descriptive analysis of a survey of chief correctional administrators. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology annual meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana.

2. Thornberry, T. P., Tolnay, S. E., Flanagan, T. J., & Glynn, P. (1991). Children in custody 1987: A comparison of public and private juvenile custody facilities. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

3. Elrod et al., 1992. 4. Thornberry et al., 1991. 5. Thornberry et al., 1991. 6. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2011). Easy access to the Cen-

sus of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb /ezacjrp/.

7. Livsey, S., Sickmund, M., Sladky, A., et al. (2009). Juvenile residential facility census, 2004: Selected findings. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report Series. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

8. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

9. Sickmund et al., 2011. 10. Snyder, H. N. & Sickmund, M. (1995). Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report.

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 11. Sickmund, M. (2004). Juveniles in corrections. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National

Report Series. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 12. Sickmund et al., 2011.

Notes 349

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp

13. Livsey et al., 2009. 14. Hockenberry, S., Sickmund, M., & Sladky, A. (2011). Juvenile Residential Facility Census,

2008. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: National Report Series. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

15. Elrod et al., 1992. 16. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., Kang, W., & Puzzanchera, C. (2008). Easy access to the Cen-

sus of Juveniles in Residential Placement. Retrieved from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb /ezacjrp/.

17. Sickmund et al., 2008; Thornberry et al., 1991. 18. Thornberry et al., 1991. 19. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. 20. Parent, D. G., Lieter, V., Kennedy, S., Livens, L., Wentworth, D., & Wilcox, S. (1994).

Conditions of confinement: Juvenile detention and corrections facilities. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

21. Hockenberry et al., 2011. 22. Mendel, R. A. (2011). No place for kids: The case for reducing juvenile incarceration. Bal-

timore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. 23. Shichor, D., & Bartollas, C. (1990). Private and public juvenile placements: Is there a

difference? Crime and Delinquency, 36, 286–299. 24. Parent et al., 1994, p. 1. 25. Snyder & Sickmund, 1995. 26. Sickmund et al., 2008. 27. Sickmund et al., 2011. 28. Sickmund et al., 2011. 29. Rubin, H. T. (1985). Juvenile justice: Policy, practice, and law (2nd ed.). New York: Ran-

dom House. 30. Rubin, 1985. 31. Griffiths, K. A. (1964). Program is the essence of juvenile detention. Federal Probation,

28, 31–34. 32. Rubin, 1985. 33. Livsey et al., 2009; Parent et al., 1994. 34. Livsey et al., 2009; Parent et al., 1994. 35. Parent et al., 1994. Also see Sedlak, A. J., & McPherson, K. S. (2010b). Youth’s needs

and services. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

36. Burrell, S., DeMuro, P., Dunlap, E., Sanniti, C., & Warboys, L. (1998). Crowding in juvenile detention centers: A problem-solving manual. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Pappenfort, D. M., & Young, T. M. (1980). Use of secure detention for juveniles and alternatives to its use. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

37. Frazier, C. E. (1989). Preadjudicatory detention. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Juvenile justice: Policies, programs, and services. Chicago: Dorsey Press.

38. Frazier, C. E., & Bishop, D. M. (1985). The pretrial detention of juveniles and its impact on case dispositions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 1132–1152.

350 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp

39. Chesney-Lind, M., & Shelden, R. G. (2004). Girls, delinquency and juvenile justice (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth; Parent et al., 1994; Puritz, P., & Scali, M. A. (1998). Beyond the walls: Improving conditions of confinement for youth in custody. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

40. Frazier, 1989. 41. Burrell et al., 1998. This resource reviews the literature. 42. Senna, J. J., & Siegel, L. J. (1992). Juvenile law: Cases and comments (2nd ed.). St. Paul,

MN: West. 43. Schall v. Martin, 467 U.S. 253 (1984). 44. Burrell, DeMuro, Dunlap, Sanniti, & Warboys, 1988; Schwartz, I. M., Fishman, G.,

Hatfield, R. R., Krisberg, B. A., & Eisikovits, Z. (1987). Juvenile detention: The hidden closets revisited. Justice Quarterly, 4, 219–235.

45. Kramer, J. H., & Steffensmeier, D. J. (1978). Differential detention/jailing of juveniles: A comparison of detention and non-detention courts. Pepperdine Law Review, 5, 795–807; Lerman, P. (1977). Discussion of “differential selection of juveniles for detention.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 14, 166–172; Pappenfort & Young, 1980; Poulin, J. E., Levitt, J. L., Young, T. M., & Pappenfort, D. M. (1977). Juveniles in detention centers and jails: An analysis of state variations during the mid 1970’s. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

46. Rubin, H. T. (1980). Juveniles in justice: A book of readings. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear. 47. Maupin, J., & Bond-Maupin, L. J. (1999). Detention decision-making in a predominately

Hispanic region: Rural and non-rural differences. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 50, 11–23.

48. Data from Puzzanchera, C., Sladky, A., & Kang, W. (2012). Easy access to juvenile popu- lations: 1990–2011. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezapop/; Sickmund et al., 2011.

49. Data from Sickmund et al., 2011. For reviews of this research, see Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; McCarthy, B. R. (1987). Preventive detention and pretrial custody in the juvenile court. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 185–200.

50. Data from Sickmund et al., 2011; Data from Puzzanchera et al., 2012. 51. Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004. 52. Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004; Hoyt, S., & Scherer, D. G. (1998). Female juvenile delin-

quency: Misunderstood by the juvenile justice system, neglected by social science. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 81–107.

53. Sickmund et al., 2011. 54. Elrod, P., & Yokoyama, M. (2006). Juvenile justice in Japan. In P. C. Friday & X. Ren

(Eds.), Delinquency and juvenile justice systems in the non-Western World. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

55. Frazier & Bishop, 1985; Henretta, J. C., Frazier, C. E., & Bishop, D. M. (1986). The effect of prior case outcomes on juvenile justice decision making. Social Forces, 65, 542–562.

56. Parent et al., 1994. 57. Mendel, 2011; also see Sedlak & McPherson, 2010b. 58. Roush, D. W. (1995). Juvenile detention programming. In R. A. Weisheit & R. G.

Culbertson (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency: A justice perspective (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Notes 351

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

59. Mohr, H. (2008, March 2). AP: 13K claims of abuse in juvenile detention since ’04. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-02 -juveniledetention_N.htm.

60. Minton, T. (2012). Jail inmates at midyear 2011: Statistical tables. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

61. Sabol, W. J., Minton, T. D., & Harrison, P. M. (2007). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

62. Schwartz, I. M. (1989). (In)justice for juveniles: Rethinking the best interests of the child. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, pp. 66–67. This reference contains a quotation from the deputy attorney general of the United States, Charles B. Renfrew.

63. Senna & Siegel, 1992. 64. Rubin, H. T. (2003). Juvenile justice: Policies, practices, and programs. Kingston, NJ: Civic

Research Institute. 65. Center for Children’s Law and Policy. (2010). JJDPA reauthorization. Retrieved from

http://www.cclp.org/JJDPA_reauthorization.php. 66. Republished with permission of Sage Publications from Reinventing juvenile justice

by Krisberg, B. & Austin, J.F., 1993, p. 177; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center.

67. Rubin, 2003. 68. Schwartz, 1989. 69. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. 70. Lotz, R., Regoli, R. M., & Poole, E. D. (1985). Juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice.

New York: Random House. 71. Schwartz, 1989. 72. Jennings, D. (2009, January 23). Jail teacher faces more sexual abuse charges. Dallas Morn-

ing News. Retrieved from http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews /stories/DN-santos_23met.ART.State.Edition1.4efed73.html.

73. Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Girls in jail. Crime and Delinquency, 34, 150–168. 74. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). Task

Force Report: Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 122. 75. Campaign for Youth Justice. (2007). Jailing juveniles: The dangers of incarcerating youth in

adult jails in America. Retrieved from http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/Downloads /NationalReportsArticles/CFYJ-Jailing_Juveniles_Report_2007-11-15.pdf; Commu- nity Research Associates. Juvenile suicides in adult jails: Findings from a national survey of juveniles in secure detention facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; Flaherty, M. (1983). The national incidence of juvenile suicide in adult jails and juvenile detention centers. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 13(2), 85–94; Memory, J. M. (1989). Juvenile suicides in secure detention facilities: Correction of published rates. Death Studies, 13, 455–463.

76. Campaign for Youth Justice, 2007. 77. Browne, A., & Finkelhor, D. (1986). Impact of child sexual abuse: A review of research.

Psychological Bulletin, 99, 66–77. 78. Chesney-Lind & Shelden, 2004. 79. Sickmund et al., 2011.

352 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-02-juveniledetention_N.htm

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-santos_23met.ART.State.Edition1.4efed73.html

http://www.campaign4youthjustice.org/Downloads/NationalReportsArticles/CFYJ-Jailing_Juveniles_Report_2007-11-15.pdf

80. Parent et al., 1994. 81. Sedlak, A. J., & Bruce, C. (2010c). Youth’s characteristics and backgrounds: Findings from

the survey of youth in residential placement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

82. Gemignani, R. J. (1994). Juvenile correctional education: A time for change. OJJDP Update on Research. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

83. Parent et al., 1994. 84. Sedlak & Bruce, 2010c. 85. Parent et al., 1994. 86. Siegel, L. J., Welsh, B. C., & Senna, J. J. (2003). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice, and

law (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 87. Bartollas, C., & Miller, S. J. (2005). Juvenile justice in America (4th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall. 88. Sickmund et al., 2008. 89. Soler, M. I., Shotton, A. C., Bell, J. R., Jameson, E. J., Shauffer, C. B., & Warboys, L. M.

(1990). Representing the child client. New York: Matthew Bender. 90. American Correctional Association. (1991) Standards for juvenile training schools (3rd

ed.). Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association. 91. Parent et al., 1994. 92. Snyder & Sickmund, 1995, p. 169. This resource cites Leiter, V. (1993). Special analysis

of data from the OJJDP conditions of confinement study. Boston, MA: Abt Associates. 93. Wasserman, G. A., Ko, S. J., & McReynolds, L. S. (2004). Assessing the mental health

status of youth in juvenile justice settings. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

94. Sedlak, A. J., & McPherson, K. S. (2010a). Conditions of confinement. Findings from the survey of youth in residential placement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

95. Hockenberry et al., 2011. 96. Sickmund, M. (2002). Juvenile residential facility census, 2000: Selected findings. Juvenile

Offenders and Victims: National Report Series, Bulletin. Washington, DC: OJJD; Snyder & Sickmund, 1995.

97. Sedlak & McPherson, 2010a. 98. Sickmund et al., 2011. 99. Snyder & Sickmund, 1995, p. 172.

100. Dobrin, A., & Gallagher, C. A. (2004). Escapes from juvenile justice residential facilities: An examination of the independent and additive effects of security components. Journal for Juvenile Justice Services, 19, 47–57.

101. Snyder & Sickmund, 1995. 102. Krisberg, B. (2006, June 1). Stopping sexual assaults in juvenile corrections facilities: A

case study of the California Division of Juvenile Justice. Testimony before the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, Boston. Reprinted by permission of Barry Krisberg, Ph.D.

103. Sedlak & McPherson, 2010b.

Notes 353

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

104. Parent et al., 1994. 105. Bartollas & Miller, 2005. 106. Austin, J., Krisberg, B., DeComo, R., Rudenstine, S., & Del Rosario, D. (1995). Juveniles

taken into custody: Fiscal year 1993, Statistics report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

107. Parent et al., 1994. 108. Rogers, J. W., & Mays, G. L. (1987). Juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. New York:

John Wiley. 109. Rogers & Mays, 1987, p. 435. 110. Binder, A., Geis, G., & Dickson, D. B. (1997). Juvenile delinquency: Historical, cultural,

and legal perspectives (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. 111. Bourque, B. B., Cronin, R. C., Pearson, F. R., Felker, D. B., Han, M., & Hill, S. M. (1996).

Boot camps for juvenile offenders: An implementation evaluation of three demonstra- tion programs. National Institute of Justice Research Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

112. Binder et al., 1997. 113. Bourque et al., 1996. 114. Bourque et al., 1996. 115. Bourque et al., 1996. 116. Blackwood, A. (2001, July 6). Death spotlights youth boot camps. Associated Press.

Retrieved from http://www.nospank.net/n-i06.htm; Fla. juvenile boot camp death: No charges. (2010, April 16). CBSNews.com. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews .com/2100-201_162-6402852.html; Lyons, P. J. (2007, October 12). Acquittal fits the pattern in boot camp deaths. New York Times. Retrieved from http://thelede.blogs .nytimes.com/2007/10/12/acquittal-fits-the-pattern-in-boot-camp-deaths/; Selcraig, B. (2000, November/December). Camp fear. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www .motherjones.com/politics/2000/11/camp-fear.

117. Parent, D. G. (2003). Correctional boot camps: Lessons from a decade of research. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

118. Austin, J., Camp-Blair, D., Camp, A., Castellano, T., Adams-Fuller, T., Jones, M., et al. (2000). Multi-site evaluation of boot camp programs, final report. Washington, DC: The Institute on Crime, Justice, and Corrections at The George Washington University; MacKenzie, D. L., Gover, A. R., Armstrong, G. S., & Mitchell, O. (2001). A national study comparing the environments of boot camps with traditional facilities for juve- nile offenders. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

119. Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Washington State Insti- tute for Public Policy Report, #06-10-1201. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=06-10-1201; Austin et al., 2000; Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4, 124–147; McKenzie et al., 2001.

120. Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Trager, J. S., & Gendreau, P. (2005). The rise and fall of boot camps: A case study in common sense corrections. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 40, 53–70, p. 66.

354 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-6402852.html

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/acquittal-fits-the-pattern-in-boot-camp-deaths

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2000/11/camp-fear

121. Rubin, H. T. (2003). Juvenile justice: Policies, practices, and programs. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

122. Schwartz, 1989. 123. Durham, A. M. (1989). Origins of interest in the privatization of punishment: The nine-

teenth and twentieth century American experience. Criminology, 27, 107–139. 124. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (Producer). (1996). Effective pro-

grams for serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders teleconference [Video]. Available from http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/jjjournal/jjjournal1297/pubs.html.

125. Schwartz, I. M., Jackson-Beeck, M., & Anderson, R. (1984). The “hidden” system of juvenile control. Crime and Delinquency, 30, 371–385.

126. Schwartz, 1989; Shichor & Bartollas, 1990. 127. Schwartz, 1989, p. 139. This reference cites B. D. Lurie. 128. Schwartz, 1989. 129. Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. (2011, August 11). Pennsylvania judge is sen-

tenced to 28 years in prison. Retrieved from http://jjie.org/pennsylvania-juvenile-judge -gets-years/19888; Rubinkam, M. (2011, October 11). Mark Ciavarella, Jr., judge, gets 28 years in “kids for cash” case. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost .com/2011/08/11/mark-ciavarella-jr_n_924324.html.

130. Sickmund et al., 2011. 131. Schwartz, 1989, p. 131. This reference cites Patricia Guttridge. 132. Schwartz, 1989, p. 131. 133. Schwartz, 1989. 134. It is likely that this figure underestimates the percentage increase in the juvenile popu-

lation of correctional facilities due to improvements in data collection. However, there is no doubt that the incarceration of youths for illegal behaviors became more popular during the 1970s and into the 2000s; Flanagan, T. J., & Maguire, K. (Eds.). (1990). Source- book of criminal justice statistics, 1989. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, p. 559, Table 6.6; Moone, J. (1997). Juveniles in private facilities, 1991–1995. Fact Sheet #64. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Moone, J. (1997). States at a glance: Juveniles in public facilities, 1995. Fact Sheet #69. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Sickmund, 2004.

135. Sickmund et al., 2011. 136. Krisberg, B., DeComo, R., & Herrera, N. C. (1992). National juvenile custody trends,

1978–1989. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Sickmund, 2004.

137. Sickmund et al., 2011. 138. Sickmund et al., 2011; Puzzanchera et al., 2012. 139. Sickmund, M., Sladky, T. J., & Kang, W. (n.d.). Census of juveniles in residential place-

ment databook. Retrieved from http://OJJDP.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/asp/Offense_Race .asp; Sickmund, 2004.

140. Hazel, N. (2008). National comparison of youth justice. London: Youth Justice Board. 141. Pope, C. E., Lovell, R., & Hsia, H. M. (2002). Disproportionate minority confinement:

A review of the research literature from 1989 through 2001. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

142. Krisberg et al., 1992.

Notes 355

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

http://jjie.org/pennsylvania-juvenile-judge-gets-years/19888

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/mark-ciavarella-jr_n_924324.html

http://OJJDP.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/cjrp/asp/Offense_Race.asp

143. Miller, S. (1971). Post-institutional adjustment of 443 consecutive TICO releases (Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

144. Goldman, I. J. (1974). Arrest and reinstitutionalization after release from state schools and other facilities of the New York State Division for Youth: Three studies of youths released January 1971 through March 1973. Albany: New York State Division for Youth.

145. Snyder & Sickmund, 2006. This reference cites Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice. (2005). Juvenile recidivism in Virginia. DJJ Research Quarterly. Richmond: Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice.

146. Whitehead, J. T., & Lab, S. P. (1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 276–295. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54; Wright, W. E., & Dixon, M. C. (1977). Community prevention and treatment of juvenile delin- quency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 14, 35–67.

147. Mendel, 2011. 148. Garrett, C. J. (1985). Effects of residential treatment on adjudicated delinquents: A meta-

analysis. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22, 287–308. 149. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective interventions for serious juvenile offend-

ers: A synthesis of research. In R. Loeber & D. B. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Lundman, R. J. (2001). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, Chapter 10.

150. Howell, J. C. (2009). Preventing and reducing juvenile delinquency. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Krisberg, B. (1992). Juvenile justice: Improving the quality of care. San Francisco, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency; Lipsey, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Palmer, T. (1996). Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful interven- tion. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

151. Parent et al., 1994. 152. Sedlak & McPherson, 2010a. 153. Sedlak & McPherson, 2010a. 154. Sedlak & McPherson, 2010b. 155. Fazel, S., Doll, H., & Langstrom, N. (2008). Mental disorders among adolescents in juve-

nile detention and correctional facilities: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25 surveys. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 47, 1010–1019; Sedlak & McPherson, 2010b.

156. Calculations based on data from Sickmund et al., 2011, and Puzzanchera et al., 2012. 157. Elrod et al., 1992. 158. Sedlak and McPherson, 2010a. 159. Bartollas, C., Miller, S. J., & Dinitz, S. (1976a). Juvenile victimization: The institutional

paradox. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 160. Sieverdes, C. M., & Bartollas, C. (1986). Security level and adjustment patterns in juvenile

institutions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 14, 135–145. 161. Bartollas, C. M., Miller, S. J., & Dinitz, S. (1976b). Exploitation matrix in a juvenile

institution. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 4, 257–270; Miller, J. G. (1998). Last one over the wall: The Massachusetts experiment in closing reform schools (2nd ed.). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

356 chapter 12 Institutional corrections programs for Juvenile Offenders

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

162. Bartollas, Miller, & Dinitz, 1976b. 163. Bartollas & Miller, 2005. 164. Propper, A. M. (1982). Make-believe families and homosexuality among imprisoned

girls. Criminology, 20, 127–138. 165. Giallombardo, R. (1974). The social world of imprisoned girls: A comparative study of

institutions for juvenile delinquents. New York: Wiley. 166. See Miller, 1998; Poole, E. D., & Regoli, R. M. (1983). Violence in juvenile institutions:

A comparative study. Criminology, 21, 213–232; Sieverdes & Bartollas, 1986. 167. Poole & Regoli, 1983. 168. Sieverdes & Bartollas, 1986. 169. Blevins, K. R., Cullen, F. T., Frank, J., Sundt, J. L., Holmes, S. T. (2006). Stress and satisfac-

tion among juvenile correctional workers: A test of competing models. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 55–79; Dembo, R., & Dertke, M. (1986). Work environment correlates of staff stress in a youth detention facility. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 13, 328–344.

170. Blevins et al., 2006. 171. Snarr, R. (1996). Introduction to corrections (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown. 172. Altschuler, D. M., Armstrong, T. L., & MacKenzie, D. L. (1999). Reintegration, super-

vised release, and intensive aftercare. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

173. Heryford v. Parker, 396 F. 2d 393 (10th Cir. 1968). 174. Mich. Court Rules 5.943(E)(2). 175. Thornton, W. E., & Voight, L. (1992). Delinquency and justice (3rd ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill, p. 432. 176. Holt v. Sarver, 309 F. Supp. 362 (E.D. Ark 1970). 177. Thornton & Voight, 1992. 178. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 712A.18(1)(e); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 712A.18(c)(3); Mich.

Comp. Laws Ann. 712A.18(d); Mich. Court Rules 5.944(c)(1)–(4). 179. Thornton & Voight, 1992. 180. Guerino, P., Harrison, P. M., & Sabol, W, J. (2011). Prisoners 2010. Bulletin. Washington,

DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. 181. C.J.W. by and through L.W. v. State, 853 P. 2d 4 (Kan. 1993). 182. Del Carmen, R. V., Parker, M., & Reddington, F. P. (1998). Briefs of leading cases in juvenile

justice. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Notes 357

F O S T E R , C E D R I C 1 6 9 2 T S

9781449667603_CH11

11 Community-Based Correctional Programs for Juvenile Offenders

Introduction
At-Home Community-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders
Out-of-Home (Residential) Community-Based Placements for Juvenile Offenders
The Effectiveness of Community-Based Corrections for Juvenile Offenders
Linking Institutional and Community-Based Corrections: Aftercare Programs
Legal Issues
Chapter Summary
Key Concepts
Review Questions
Additional Readings
Notes

9781449667603_CH12

12 Institutional Corrections Programs for Juvenile Offenders

Introduction
Overview of Institutional Corrections for Juveniles
Types of Juvenile Correctional Institutions
Trends in Juvenile Incarceration
The Effectiveness of Institutional Correctional Programs for Juveniles
Challenges Facing Juvenile Correctional Institutions
Legal Issues
Chapter Summary
Key Concepts
Review Questions
Additional Readings
Notes