Compare/Contrast Paper
Liberty University
Juvenile correctional facilities have methods that are similar yet so very different from
those of Group Homes. Each of these institutions shares a common purpose of correcting
delinquent Juveniles yet have different processes as well as outcomes for the Juveniles that are
placed in each of these institutions. Juvenile arrests regarding violence amongst youth have
increased tremendously over the years and have become a national concern. From 1984 to 1993
arrests of juveniles for violent offenses rose by nearly 60 percent. Nearly two-thirds of all youth
arrested are referred to a court with juvenile jurisdiction for further processing. Cases that
advanced through the system could have led to judgment and court-ordered supervision, out-of-
home placement or even a transfer for criminal prosecution. Due to this increase in juvenile
crimes government implemented juvenile correctional institutions that would be used for the
installation of any juvenile adjudicated of having committed an offense and group home care as
an alternative to institutional confinement for at-risk youths. The one Bible scripture that is a
constant reminder of a parent’s duty to their child is Proverbs 22:6 (NIV) – “Start children off on
the way they should go, and when they are old they will not turn from it.”
Due to a rise in violent juvenile crime during the early 1990s, fear began to spark within
the public regarding the occurrence of extreme juvenile offenders. Because of this occurrence
legislators implemented a "get tough" approach that resulted in tougher sanctions on juvenile
offenders, meaning there would be more mandatory and determinate sentences, blended
sentencing (combining juvenile and adult sanctions), and more offenses that qualified for the
most severe sentences, progressive sanctions, and “zero tolerance” policies. During the “get
tough” era many juvenile facilities faced crowding issues due to youths extended lengths of stay.
The increased reliance on confinement and adult transfers placed tremendous burdens on existing
juvenile and adult detention and correctional facilities (Correctional Facilities, 2010).
Juvenile correctional facilities are operated by the state government and are typically
large to accommodate the rapid placements of these young people. Based on the size of each
institution measures the amount of security that the facility operated under, for instance, wire
fences are placed around the perimeter of the facility to deter potential escapes, youths reside in
living units or dormitories that have a certain number of juvenile offenders in each of these so
that they are separated from one another. Some of the most troubled juvenile offenders are placed
in single rooms that are termed as hardened cells to help maintain facility-wide control of any
major disruptions that the troubled youth may cause while he or she is serving their time at the
facility. Juveniles that get to the correctional facility stage are often those that have a long
history of involvement in crimes regarding severe offenses and have previously been in foster
care, group homes, and detention centers. They are at this stage of their criminal escapades
because the already listed options did not produce a change in the youth's delinquent behavior
(Ruddell & Thomas, 2009).
Based on a nationwide survey that conducted on juvenile correction facilities found that
more than 75 percent of youths incarcerated nationwide housed in facilities that violate federal
standards related to living space. Youths housed in these types of services often have higher rates
of physical injury, mental health problems, and suicide attempts, as well as inferior educational
outcomes, compared with counterparts who are treated in the community (Correctional Facilities,
2010). Because of the circumstances that revolve around correctional facilities, the government
decided it was best to find better options to restrain delinquent juveniles.
Group homes are considered less restraining than juvenile correctional facilities. They are
secured by the staff members as opposed to correctional facilities, and there are usually fewer
restraints on how youth can interact with the community. Youth in group homes can be
characterized as individuals that live on the edge based on the high rates of behavioral and
emotional difficulties, neglect, social and economic impairments, and educational challenges.
The sole purpose of group home care is mainly about managing or reducing youths’ behavior
problems and reducing poor behavioral outcomes. Group homes were initially sparked in the
mid to late nineteenth century, where orphanages housed children who were orphaned,
abandoned, or whose parents were temporarily unable to care for them because of illness or
poverty (Group Homes, 2008).
During the 1900's, growing concern about the adverse developmental, psychological and
social effects on children as a result of institutionalization led to legislative and social reform
and the development of alternative ways of caring for children, including direct supports and
services for families, and adoption. Subsequently, most orphanages closed or were redesigned
into various congregate care models such as group homes. The continuum of care for out-of-
home placement starts with traditional foster care. Group homes are considered to be a little
more restrictive than regular foster care but not as opposed to locked institutions. Instead, group
homes commonly serve youth who has emotional or behavioral issues that are a lot more than
traditional family foster care can handle. Because of this, group homes’ organizational structures
and practices are often designed to care for and control youth with problematic behaviors
(Wonnum, 2014).
Overall, there is little research to support the overall effectiveness of group homes, and
the study available does have several limitations. One explanation for the disappointing long-
term outcomes of therapeutic group homes may be the psychological profiles of their clients.
Group homes are frequently seen as the last option before secure detention, and the youth
referred to them often suffer from severe mental or behavioral problems that have prevented
successful placement in foster care. It is essential for group homes to be seen as only one step in
a continuum of care that emphasizes continued treatment after discharge from the house.
Defining and understanding positive outcomes among group home youth is critical to the fields
of child welfare, development, and mental health as well as social work. Group homes are
criticized due to little support for their effectiveness and links to positive, long-lasting outcomes
for their young residents. Even still group homes remain a viable out-of-home placement option
for troubled youth because there are few alternatives due to youths' prior placement failure(s) and
inadequate capacity of group homes to care for the vast needs of youth referred to them
(Wonnum, 2014).
As it has been proven Juvenile correctional facilities and Group homes or placement care have
very few similarities when it comes to how to handle delinquent juveniles. But because someone
wanted better for the juvenile society they paved the way through Correctional facilities and
Group homes to provide deterrences. The teenage years can be painful and lonely because at
this particular time in their lives teens are struggling to fit in and take on new responsibilities.
Social media and peers both continuously overwhelm youth with the ideas that they are never
good enough and will never measure up. Teens are entitled to just as much encouragement and
love as they can be given. 1 Timothy 4:12 (NIV)- “Don't let anyone look down on you because
you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, and in
purity.
In conclusion, due to the increased amounts juvenile crimes and juvenile arrests,
governments are looking for more ways to try to encourage and deter juveniles from
participating in criminal activities. Compared to one another state-operated correctional
facilities and group homes or out of home placements they each share a considerable amount of
differences, but they each share the same purpose, and that is to rehabilitate troubled youth. It is
very easy for someone that is not within the criminal justice system to wonder why there is a
need to develop so many different ways to rehabilitate delinquent juvenile, but it is indeed
necessary to help defend those that are our future.
References:
Bible (New International Version).
Correctional Facilities (n.d.). (2010). Retrieved December 13, 2017, from,
https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Correctional_Facilities.pdf.
Group Homes (n.d.). (2008). Retrieved December 13, 2017, from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Group_Homes.pdf.
Ruddell, R., & Thomas, M. O. (2009). Juvenile corrections. Richmond, KY: Newgate Press.
ISBN: 9780979645518.
Wonnum, S. (2014). Group Home Care: The Influence of Positive Youth Development Factors
and Social Capital on Youth Outcomes. Retrieved December 13, 2017, from
https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4567&context=etd.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
