Intensive aftercare programs for juveniles

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: Juvenile Corrections: Probation, Community Treatment, and Institutionalization

CHAPTER OUTLINE

JUVENILE PROBATION

· Historical Development

Expanding Community Treatment

Contemporary Juvenile Probation

Duties of Juvenile Probation Officers

PROBATION INNOVATIONS

· Intensive Supervision

Electronic Monitoring

Restorative Justice

Balanced Probation

Restitution

Residential Community Treatment

SECURE CORRECTIONS

· History of Juvenile Institutions

What Does This Mean to Me?

JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS TODAY: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

· Population Trends

Physical Conditions

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILE

· Male Inmates

FOCUS ON DELINQUENCY: Mental Health Needs of Juvenile Inmates on the Rise

Female Inmates

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES

· Individual Treatment Techniques: Past and Present

Group Treatment Techniques

Educational, Vocational, and Recreational Programs

Wilderness Programs

Professional Spotlight: Kristi Swanson

Juvenile Boot Camps

THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT

· The Struggle for Basic Civil Rights

JUVENILE AFTERCARE AND REENTRY

· Supervision

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

Aftercare Revocation Procedures

FUTURE OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONS

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter you should:

· 1. Be familiar with juvenile probation.

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

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

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

· 5. Know about aftercare and reentry for juvenile offenders.

REAL CASES/REAL PEOPLE: Karen’s Story

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

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

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

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

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

community treatment

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

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

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

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

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

suppression effect

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

JUVENILE PROBATION

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

probation

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

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

Historical Development

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

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

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

Expanding Community Treatment

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

Contemporary Juvenile Probation

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

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

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

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

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

FIGURE 14.1: Probation and Correctional Population Trends

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

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

The Nature of Probation.

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

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

Conditions of Probation.

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

conditions of probation

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

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

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

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

Probation was an important component in Karen’s case.

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

Duties of Juvenile Probation Officers

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

juvenile probation officer

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

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

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

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

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

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

social investigation report (also known as predisposition report).

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

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

CHECKPOINTS

· LO1 Be familiar with juvenile probation.

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

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

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

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

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

PROBATION INNOVATIONS

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

CONCEPT SUMMARY 14.1: Community-Based Corrections

Although correctional treatment in the community generally refers to nonpunitive legal dispositions, in most cases there are still restrictions designed to protect the public and hold juvenile offenders accountable for their actions.

Type

Main Restrictions

Probation

Regular supervision by a probation officer; youths must adhere to conditions such as attend school or work, stay out of trouble.

Intensive supervision

Almost daily supervision by a probation officer; adhere to similar conditions as regular probation.

House arrest

Remain at home during specified periods; often there is monitoring through random phone calls, visits, or electronic devices.

Restorative justice

Restrictions may be prescribed by community members to help repair harm done to victim.

Balanced probation

Restrictions tailored to the risk the juvenile offender presents to the community.

Restitution

None.

Residential programs

Placement in a residential, nonsecure facility, such as group home or foster home; adhere to conditions; close monitoring.

Intensive Supervision

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

juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS)

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

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

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

Electronic Monitoring

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

house arrest

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

electronic monitoring

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

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

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

Looking Back to Karen’s Story

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

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

Restorative Justice

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

· • Crime is an offense against human relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balanced Probation

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

balanced probation

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

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

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

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

· • Transportation to and from home

· • Counseling for drug and alcohol abuse

· • Employment preparation and job placement services

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

Restitution

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

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

monetary restitution

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

victim service restitution

Offenders provide some service directly to the crime victim.

community service restitution

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

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

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

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

Does Restitution Work?

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

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

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

Residential Community Treatment

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

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

residential programs

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

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

group homes

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

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

foster care programs

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

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

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

family group homes

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

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

rural programs

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

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

CHECKPOINTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SECURE CORRECTIONS

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

History of Juvenile Institutions

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

reform schools

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

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

cottage system

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

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

Twentieth-Century Developments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· 1. Is this concern warranted? Explain.

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

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

least restrictive alternative

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

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

JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS TODAY: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE

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

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

Population Trends

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

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

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

Physical Conditions

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

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

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

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILE

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

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

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

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

State of Offense

White

Black

United States

127

605

Alabama

131

392

Alaska

228

649

Arizona

114

334

Arkansas

142

534

California

115

984

Colorado

204

1,202

Connecticut

27

360

Delaware

89

703

District of Columbia

172

501

Florida

202

650

Georgia

76

461

Hawaii

48

84

Idaho

240

257

Illinois

106

476

Indiana

207

717

Iowa

165

864

Kansas

172

1,040

Kentucky

135

577

Louisiana

96

472

Maine

131

446

Maryland

47

321

Massachusetts

54

403

Michigan

105

625

Minnesota

85

673

Mississippi

38

189

Missouri

140

586

Montana

131

581

Nebraska

217

1,716

Nevada

155

723

New Hampshire

84

389

New Jersey

26

538

New Mexico

159

652

New York

77

538

North Carolina

60

249

North Dakota

178

452

Ohio

128

712

Oklahoma

90

576

Oregon

274

1,214

Pennsylvania

111

1,316

Rhode Island

123

961

South Carolina

128

450

South Dakota

317

2,109

Tennessee

64

293

Texas

123

529

Utah

154

666

Vermont

31

0

Virginia

112

583

Washington

137

625

West Virginia

254

1,173

Wisconsin

109

1,062

Wyoming

402

1,103

Note: The rate is the number of juvenile offenders in residential placement in 2010 per 100,000 juveniles in the population.

Source: Melissa Sickmund, T J. Sladky, Wei Kang, and Charles Puzzanchera, “Easy Access to the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement,” 2011, www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/ (accessed August 30, 2012).

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

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

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

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

Male Inmates

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

· “Exploit whomever you can.”

“Don’t play up to staff.”

“Don’t rat on your peers.”

“Don’t give in to others.” 84

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

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

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

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

CRITICAL THINKING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Female Inmates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHECKPOINTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES

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

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

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

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

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

Individual Treatment Techniques: Past and Present

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

individual counseling

Counselors help juveniles understand and solve their current adjustment problems.

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

psychotherapy

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

reality therapy

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

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

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