Which intermediate sanction resembles a military style boot camp

c h a p t e r 1 4

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

JUVENILE PROBATION Historical Development Expanding Community Treatment Contemporary Juvenile Probation Organization and Administration Duties of Juvenile Probation Officers

PROBATION INNOVATIONS Intensive Supervision Electronic Monitoring Balanced Probation Restitution Residential Community Treatment What Does This Mean to Me? Community Treatment for Juvenile Offenders: Not in My Backyard

SECURE CORRECTIONS History of Juvenile Institutions

JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS TODAY: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Population Trends Physical Conditions

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILE Male Inmates Female Inmates

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES Individual Treatment Techniques: Past and Present Group Treatment Techniques Educational, Vocational, and Recreational Programs Wilderness Programs Juvenile Boot Camps

THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT The Struggle for Basic Civil Rights

JUVENILE AFTERCARE Supervision Aftercare Revocation Procedures Preventing and Treating Delinquency: Using the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter you should:

1. Be able to distinguish between community treatment and institu- tional treatment for juvenile offenders.

2. Be familiar with the disposition of probation, including how it is administered and by whom and recent trends in its use compared with other dispositions.

3. Be aware of new approaches for providing probation services to juvenile offenders and comment on their effectiveness in reducing recidivism.

4. Understand key historical develop- ments of secure juvenile corrections in this country, including the prin- ciple of least restrictive alternative.

5. Be familiar with recent trends in the use of juvenile institutions for juvenile offenders and how their use differs across states.

6. Understand key issues facing the institutionalized juvenile offender.

7. Be able to identify the various juvenile correctional treatment approaches that are in use today and comment on their effective- ness in reducing recidivism.

8. Know the nature of aftercare for juvenile offenders. 337

Co ur

te sy

o f C

N N

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

338 C H A P T E R 1 4

There is a wide choice of correctional treatments available for juveniles, which can be subdivided into two major categories: community treatment and institutional treat- ment. Community treatment refers to efforts to provide care, protection, and treat- ment for juveniles in need. These efforts include probation; treatment services (such as individual and group counseling); restitution; and other programs. The term com- munity 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.

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 refor- matories 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 youth 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. 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 prisonlike conditions and to more experi- enced delinquents without giving them the benefit of constructive treatment programs.

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 institu-

Started in the late 1980s, juvenile boot

camps were introduced as a way to get

tough on youthful offenders through rig-

orous military-style training, while at the

same time providing them with treatment

programs. In theory, a successful boot

camp program should rehabilitate juve-

nile offenders, reduce the number of beds

needed in secure institutional programs,

and thus reduce the overall cost of care.

However, evaluations of these programs

across the country found this not to be

the case, and some found juveniles in

boot camps to have higher recidivism

rates than similar youths in other institu-

tional settings. Research shows that one

of the main reasons for their ineffective-

ness is that the treatment component is

often left out. In New Jersey, juvenile jus-

tice administrators are trying to change

this trend. Here, juvenile boot camps

combine rigorous physical training with a

strong emphasis on education, drug

counseling, job skills training, and other

treatment programs to help them prepare

for their return to the community. One

other change that administrators point to

as promising is that boot camp leaders

are trained to act as mentors or role mod-

els to the juvenile offenders.

VIEW THE CNN VIDEO CLIP OF THIS

STORY AND ANSWER RELATED CRITICAL

THINKING QUESTIONS ON YOUR JUVENILE

DELINQUENCY: THE CORE 2E CD.

community treatment Using nonsecure and noninstitu- tional residences, counseling services, victim restitution pro- grams, and other community services to treat juveniles in their own communities.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

tion 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 re- duction 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.1 Murray and Cox concluded that the justice system must choose which outcome its programs are aimed at achieving: prevention of delinquency, or the care and protection of needy youths. If the former is a proper goal, institutionalization or the threat of institution- alization 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.

JUVENILE PROBATION Probation and other forms of community treatment generally refer to nonpunitive legal dispositions for delinquent youths, emphasizing treatment without incarcera- tion. 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 commu- nity. 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.

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 com- munity. It provides offenders with the opportunity to be supervised by trained per- sonnel who can help them reestablish forms of acceptable behavior in a community setting. When applied correctly, community treatment maximizes the liberty of the individual while at the same time vindicating the authority of the law and protecting the public; promotes rehabilitation by maintaining normal community contacts; avoids the negative effects of confinement, which often severely complicate the re- integration of the offender into the community; and greatly reduces the financial cost to the public.2

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 magis- trates 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.3

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.4

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 pro- vide. 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.

J U V E N I L E C O R R E C T I O N S : P R O B AT I O N , C O M M U N I T Y T R E AT M E N T, A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L I Z AT I O N 339

suppression effect A reduction of the number of arrests per year for youths who have been incarcerated or other- wise punished.

probation Nonpunitive, legal disposition of juveniles emphasizing commu- nity treatment in which the juve- nile is closely supervised by an officer of the court and must adhere to a strict set of rules to avoid incarceration.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

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.5 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 can be beneficial or reduce recidivism.6

Contemporary Juvenile Probation Traditional probation is still the backbone of community-based corrections. As Fig- ure 14.1 shows, almost 400,000 juveniles were placed on formal probation in 1999, which amounts to more than 60 percent of all juvenile dispositions. The use of pro- bation has increased significantly since 1990, when around 220,000 adjudicated youths were placed on probation.7 These figures show that, regardless of public sen- timent, probation continues to be a popular dispositional alternative for judges. Here are the arguments in favor of probation:

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

2. Probation allows the court to tailor a program to each juvenile offender, includ- ing those involved in interpersonal offenses.

3. The justice system continues to have confidence in rehabilitation, while accom- modating demands for legal controls and public protection, even when case- loads may include many more serious offenders than in the past.

4. Probation is often the disposition of choice, particularly for status offenders.8

340 C H A P T E R 1 4

Probation is the most widely used legal disposition for juve- nile offenders. It emphasizes community treatment without incarceration and requires juve- niles to be closely supervised and adhere to a number of conditions. Here, Chance Copp, fifteen, with his mother, heads back to juvenile detention fol- lowing a hearing in Ross County Juvenile Court in Chilli- cothe, Ohio, on November 26, 2003. Copp, already on proba- tion for arson, acknowledged that he was afraid of getting caught for smoking marijuana so he submitted a male rela- tive’s urine. To add to his prob- lems the sample tested positive for cocaine.

© 2

00 4

AP /W

id e

W or

ld P

ho to

s

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

The Nature of Probation In most jurisdictions, probation is a direct judi- cial 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. De- pending 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 ma- jority). 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. Gen- erally, discretion lies with the probation officer to discharge youths who are adjusting to the treatment plan.

Conditions of Probation Probation conditions 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 addi- tion 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

J U V E N I L E C O R R E C T I O N S : P R O B AT I O N , C O M M U N I T Y T R E AT M E N T, A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L I Z AT I O N 341

Figure 14.1 Probation and Correctional Population Trends, 1990–1999

Adjudicated delinquency cases

Year

0

150,000

100,000

50,000

250,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

350,000

1991 1993 19951990 1992 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999

Probation

Residential placement

Other sanction

Dismissed

Note: There was a substantial increase in the number of cases in which adjudicated juveniles were placed on probation or ordered to a residential facility between 1990 and 1999.

Source: Charles Puzzanchera, Anne L. Stahl, Terrence A. Finnegan, Nancy Tierney, and Howard N. Snyder, Juvenile Court Statistics 1999 (Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice, 2003).

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

from associating with certain types of people, and remain in a particular area unless they have permission to leave.

Although probation conditions vary, they are never supposed to be capricious, cruel, or beyond the capacity of the juvenile to satisfy. Furthermore, conditions of pro- bation 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 man- datory program of treatment, ordering indefinite terms of probation, and demand- ing 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.9 However, courts have ruled that it is per- missible to bar juveniles from such sources of danger as a “known gang area” in order to protect them from harm.10

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.11

Organization and Administration Probation services are administered by the local juvenile court, or by the state adminis- trative office of courts, in twenty-three states and the District of Columbia. In another fourteen states, juvenile probation services are split, with the juvenile court having control in urban counties and a state executive serving in smaller counties. About ten states have a statewide office of juvenile probation located in the executive branch. In three states, county executives administer probation.12 These agencies employ an estimated eighteen thousand probation officers throughout the United States.

In the typical juvenile probation department, the chief probation officer is central to its effective operation. In addition, large probation departments include one or more assistant chiefs, each of whom is responsible for one aspect of probation service. One assistant chief might oversee training, another might supervise special offender groups, and still another might act as liaison with police or community- service agencies.

Duties of Juvenile Probation Officers The juvenile probation officer plays an important role in the justice process, begin- ning with intake and continuing throughout the period in which a juvenile is under court supervision. 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 post- adjudication stage, they assist the court in reaching its dispositional decision. During postdisposition, they supervise juveniles placed on probation.

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 fam- ily 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

342 C H A P T E R 1 4

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

social investigation report (also known as predisposition report) Developed by the juvenile proba- tion officer, this report includes clinical diagnosis of the juvenile and the need for court assistance, relevant environmental and per- sonality factors, and other infor- mation to assist the court in developing a treatment plan.

conditions of probation Rules and regulations mandating that a juvenile on probation be- have in a particular way.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

court assistance based on an evaluation of social functioning, personality, and envi- ronmental 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 re- solving the problems. All of this information is brought together in a complex but meaningful picture of the offender’s personality, problems, and environment.

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. Exhibit 14.1 summarizes the probation officer’s role. Perfor- mance 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

J U V E N I L E C O R R E C T I O N S : P R O B AT I O N , C O M M U N I T Y T R E AT M E N T, A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L I Z AT I O N 343

Juvenile probation officers pro- vide supervision and treatment in the community. The treatment plan is a product of the intake, diagnostic, and investigative aspects of probation. Treatment plans vary in terms of approach and structure. Some juveniles simply report to the probation officer and follow the conditions of probation. In other cases, juvenile probation officers will supervise young people more intensely, monitor their daily activities, and work with them in directed treatment programs. Here, a juvenile probation officer and police officer talk with Crips gang members in California.

© A

. R am

ey /P

ho to

Ed it

Checkpoints ✔ Community treatment refers to

efforts to provide care, protection, and treatment for juveniles in need.

✔ Institutional treatment facilities restrict the movement of residents through staff monitoring, locked exits, and interior fence controls.

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

✔ First developed in Massachusetts, probation had become a corner- stone of the court structure by 1890.

✔ Massachusetts has closed most of its secure juvenile facilities and relies almost entirely on community treatment.

✔ 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 proba- tion 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.

To quiz yourself on this material, go to questions 14.1–14.9 on the Juvenile

Delinquency: The Core 2e Web site.

Exhibit 14.1 Duties of the Juvenile Probation Officer

• Provide direct counseling and casework services.

• Interview and collect social service data.

• Make diagnostic recommendations.

• Maintain working relationships with law enforcement agencies.

• Use community resources and services.

• Direct volunteer case aides.

• Write predisposition or social investiga- tion reports.

• Work with families of children under supervision.

• Provide specialized services, such as group therapy.

• Supervise specialized caseloads involv- ing children with special problems.

• Make decisions about revocation of probation and its termination.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

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 correc- tions.13 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 cor- rections. In some cases this has involved the use of police officers, working in collabo- ration with probation officers, to enhance the supervision of juvenile probationers.14

These programs can be viewed as “probation plus,” because they add restrictive pen- alties 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 below)?

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.15 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 com- plete their education while avoiding the pains of imprisonment.

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.16 However, most research indicates 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.17 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.

344 C H A P T E R 1 4

Community-Based Corrections

Although correctional treatment in the community generally refers to nonpunitive legal disposi- tions, 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; youth 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 monitor- ing through random phone calls, visits, or electronic devices.

Balanced probation Restrictions are 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.

Concept Summary 14.1

juvenile intensive probation supervision (JIPS) A true alternative to incarceration that involves almost daily supervi- sion of the juvenile by the proba- tion officer assigned to the case.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

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 en- hancement, 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.18

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.

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 unremovable monitoring device that alerts the probation depart- ment’s computers if they leave their place of confinement.19

Recent indications are that electronic monitoring can be effective. Evaluations show that recidivism rates are no higher than in traditional programs, costs are lower, and institutional overcrowding is reduced. Also, 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.20

Electronic monitoring combined with house arrest is being hailed as one of the most important developments in correctional policy. Its supporters claim that it has the benefits of relatively low cost and high security, while at the same time it helps offenders avoid imprisonment in overcrowded, dangerous state facilities. Further- more, fewer supervisory officers are needed to handle large numbers of offenders. Despite these strengths, electronic monitoring has its drawbacks: existing systems can be affected by faulty telephone equipment, most electronic monitoring/house arrest programs do not provide rehabilitation services, and some believe electronic monitoring is contrary to a citizen’s right to privacy.21

J U V E N I L E C O R R E C T I O N S : P R O B AT I O N , C O M M U N I T Y T R E AT M E N T, A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L I Z AT I O N 345

A number of probation innova- tions have been experimented with to keep juvenile offenders from being sent to secure juve- nile facilities. One of these is juvenile intensive probation supervision, which, in addition to having to follow strict condi- tions, requires the juvenile to report to a probation officer as often as every day. Here, a juvenile probation officer dis- cusses court papers with a juvenile offender.

© J

am es

S ha

ffe r/

Ph ot

oE di

t

house arrest Offender is required to stay home during specific periods of time; monitoring is done by random phone calls and visits or by elec- tronic devices.

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

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

Balanced Probation In recent years some jurisdictions have turned to a balanced probation approach in an effort to enhance the success of probation.22 Balanced probation systems inte- grate community protection, the accountability of the juvenile offender, and individ- ualized attention to the offender. These programs are based on the view that juve- niles 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.23

One promising 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 per- cent problem has become the 8 percent solution thanks to the probation department initiating a comprehensive, multiagency program targeting this group of offenders.24

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 Cen- ter. Here the youth’s needs are assessed and an appropriate treatment plan is devel- oped. 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 families25

Although balanced probation programs are still in their infancy and their effec- tiveness remains to be tested, they have generated great interest because of their po- tential for relieving overcrowded correctional facilities and reducing the pain and stigma of incarceration. There seems to be little question that the use of these inno- vations, and juvenile probation in general, will increase in the years ahead. Given the $40,000 cost of a year’s commitment to a typical residential facility, it should not be a great burden to develop additional probation services.

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.26

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 organiza- tion (community service restitution).

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 partici- pate in community programs—for example, working in schools for mentally chal- lenged children. In some cases, juveniles are required to contribute both money and community service. Other programs emphasize employment.27

346 C H A P T E R 1 4

balanced probation Programs that integrate commu- nity 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.

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.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

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 num- ber 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 de- tention 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 to- ward 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 fifteen formal restitution programs around the United States. By 1985, formal programs existed in four hundred jurisdictions, and thirty-five states had statutory provisions that gave courts the authority to order juvenile restitution.28 Today, all fifty states, as well as the District of Columbia, have statutory restitution programs.

Does Restitution Work? How successful is restitution as a treatment alter- native? Most evaluations have shown that it is reasonably effective, and should be ex- panded.29 In an analysis of federally sponsored restitution programs, Peter Schneider and his associates found that about 95 percent of youths who received restitution as a condition of probation successfully completed their orders.30 Factors related to success were family income, good school attendance, few prior offenses, minor current offense, and size of restitution order. Schneider found that the youths who received restitution as a sole sanction (without probation) were those originally viewed by juvenile court judges as the better risks, and consequently they had lower failure and recidivism rates than youths ordered to make restitution after being placed on probation.

Anne Schneider conducted a thorough analysis of restitution programs in four different states and found that participants had lower recidivism rates than youths in control groups (regular probation caseloads).31 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 restitu- tion 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.

Restitution programs may be difficult to implement in some circumstances. Of- fenders may find it difficult to make monetary restitution without securing new em- ployment, which can be difficult during periods of high unemployment. Problems also arise when offenders who need jobs suffer from drug abuse or emotional problems. Public and private agencies are likely sites for community-service restitution, but their directors are sometimes reluctant to allow delinquent youths access to their organiza- tions. In addition to these problems, some juvenile probation officers view restitution programs as a threat to their authority and to the autonomy of their organizations.

Another criticism of restitution programs is that they foster involuntary servi- tude. Indigent clients may be unfairly punished when they are unable to make resti- tution payments or face probation violations. To avoid such bias, probation officers should first determine why payment has stopped and then suggest appropriate ac- tion, 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 youths is a mistake. Confinement in a high-security institution usually cannot solve

J U V E N I L E C O R R E C T I O N S : P R O B AT I O N , C O M M U N I T Y T R E AT M E N T, A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L I Z AT I O N 347

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

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 provided individualized services for a small number of participants. Large training schools have not proved to be effective.32

This realization has produced a wide variety of residential community-treatment programs to service youths who need a more secure environment than can be pro- vided by probation services, but who do not require a placement in a state-run juve- nile 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 facil- ity. Residential programs are generally divided into four major categories: group homes, including boarding schools and apartment-type settings; foster homes; fam- ily group homes; and rural programs.

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 twelve to fifteen 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.

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.

One example of a successful foster care program is the multidimensional treat- ment foster care (MTFC) program, developed by social scientists at the Oregon Social Learning Center. Designed for the most serious and chronic male young of- fenders, 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.33 Foster care families also receive close super- vision 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, par- ticipating youths were significantly less likely to be arrested than a control group.34

Family group homes combine elements of foster care and group home place- ments. 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 start-up costs and neighborhood opposition often associated with establishing a public institution.

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

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; see the accompanying What Does This Mean to Me? feature.

348 C H A P T E R 1 4

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

foster care programs Placement with families who pro- vide attention, guidance, and care.

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

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

reform schools Institutions in which educational and psychological services are used in an effort to improve the con- duct of juveniles who are forcibly detained.

cottage system Housing in a compound of small cottages, each of which accommo- dates twenty to forty children.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

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.

SECURE CORRECTIONS When the court determines that community

treatment can’t meet the special needs of a delin- quent youth, a judge may refer the juvenile to a secure treatment program. Today, correctional in- stitutions operated by federal, state, and county gov- ernments 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.35 In

the following sections, we analyze the state of secure juvenile corrections, beginning with some historical background. This is followed by a discussion of life in institutions, the juvenile client, treatment issues, legal rights, and aftercare programs.

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 1899.36 Early juvenile institutions were industrial schools modeled after adult pris- ons 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 this, 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 Agri- cultural and Industrial School in 1849, and Maine opened the Maine Boys’ Training School in 1853. By 1900, thirty-six states had reform schools.37 Although it is difficult to determine exact population of these institutions, by 1880 there were approximately eleven thousand youths in correctional facilities, a number that more than quadru- pled by 1980.38 Early reform schools were generally punitive in nature and were based on the concept of rehabilitation (or reform) through hard work and discipline.

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

The first cottage system was established in Massachusetts in 1855, the second in Ohio in 1858.39 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.40

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, cot- tage 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

✔ Checkpoints

J U V E N I L E C O R R E C T I O N S : P R O B AT I O N , C O M M U N I T Y T R E AT M E N T, A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L I Z AT I O N 349

What Does This Mean to Me?

Community Treatment for Juvenile Offenders: Not in My Backyard How do 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 juve- nile 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.

• Is this concern warranted? Explain. • What arguments might you make to allay the public’s con-

cerns and win support for community-based programs?

Checkpoints ✔ There are new programs being

developed that are “probation plus,” because they add restrictive penalties and conditions to com- munity service orders.

✔ Juvenile intensive probation super- vision (JIPS) involves treatment as part of a very small probation caseload that receives almost daily scrutiny.

✔ Electronic monitoring combined with house arrest is being imple- mented in juvenile correction policy.

✔ Balanced probation systems inte- grate community protection, ac- countability 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.

To quiz yourself on this material, go to questions 14.10–14.13 on the Juvenile

Delinquency: The Core 2e Web site.

Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

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.41 Southern Cali- fornia 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 rehabil- itative than training schools, and by 1935 California had established a network of forestry camps for delinquent boys. The idea soon spread to other states.42

Also during the 1930s, the U.S. Children’s Bureau sought to reform juvenile cor- rections. 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.43

Another innovation came in the 1940s with passage of the American Law Insti- tute’s Model Youth Correction Authority Act. This act emphasized reception/classifi- cation 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.

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 non- criminal 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 institution- alized population around so that one training school houses all delinquents and another houses all status offenders, but actual conditions remain the same.

Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, admissions to juvenile correctional facilities grew substantially.44 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 correc- tions expenditures for public facilities grew to more than $2 billion in 1995, an increase of 20 percent from 1982.45 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.46

JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS TODAY: PUBLIC AND PRIVATE Most juveniles are housed in public institutions that are administered by state agen- cies: child and youth services, health and social services, corrections, or child welfare.47 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 correc- tions from an existing adult corrections department or mental health agency. How- ever, the majority of states still place responsibility for the administration of juvenile corrections within social service departments.