Corrections and Treatment

Write a 350- to 700-word paper summarizing information on juvenile corrections and community-based treatment programs. Include the following in your paper:

Community-based treatment

Describe two or three community-based treatment efforts.

Briefly explain the purpose and importance of these treatment efforts.

Institutionalization

Describe two or three issues affecting institutionalized juveniles.

Address why the juvenile justice system should be concerned with those issues.

Aftercare programs

Describe two of the three Intensive Aftercare Programs (IAP) discussed in Juvenile Delinquency: The Core.

Address the importance of aftercare programs.

Format your paper consistent with APA guidelines.

c h a p t e r 1 4

Juvenile Corrections: Probation,
Community Treatment,
and Institutionalizatio

CHAPTER OUTLINE

JUVENILE PROBATION
Historical Developmen

Expanding Community Treatment
Contemporary Juvenile

Probation

Organization and Administration
Duties of Juvenile Probation Officer

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

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.

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.

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.

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

50,000

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).

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.

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.

. 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.

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.

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.

am
es

S
ha

ffe
r/

Ph
ot

oE
di

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Supplementing publicly funded institutions are private facilities that are main-
tained and operated by private agencies funded or chartered by state authorities.

350 C H A P T E R 1 4

least restrictive alternative
A program with the least restric-
tive or secure setting that will
benefit the child.

Most of today’s private institutions are relatively small facilities holding fewer than
thirty 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, there were slightly less than 109,000 juvenile offend-
ers being held in public (70 percent) and private (30 percent) facilities in the United
States.48 Between 1997 and 1999, the number of juveniles held in custody increased
3 percent.49 The juvenile custody rate varies widely among states: South Dakota makes
the greatest use of custodial treatment, incarcerating around 630 delinquents in juve-
nile facilities per 100,000 juveniles in the population, while Vermont and Hawaii have
the lowest juvenile custody rates (less than 100). Although not a state, the District of
Columbia actually has the highest juvenile custody rate in the nation, at over 700 per
100,000 juveniles. This is almost twice the national average (see Table 14.1).50 Some
states rely heavily on privately run facilities, while others place many youths in out-of-
state facilities.

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 under-age juve-
niles 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 hid-
den, 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.51

These data suggest that the number of institutionalized children may be far greater
than reported in the official statistics.52

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 effec-
tive 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 infor-
mation about the facilities in which juvenile offenders are held, found that 39 percent
of the 2,875 facilities that reported information were overcrowded—that is, they had
more residents than available standard beds.53 Some states, like Massachusetts and
Rhode Island, report that upwards of 75 percent of all of their facilities for juvenile
offenders are overcrowded. It was also found that overcrowded facilities were signifi-
cantly more likely than other facilities (45 percent versus 38 percent) to report having
transported juveniles to emergency rooms because of injuries sustained in fights.54

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 ad-
ministrators realize that more modernization is necessary to comply with national

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 351

standards for juvenile institutions. Correctional administrators have described con-
ditions as horrendous, and health officials have cited institutions for violations such
as pollution by vermin and asbestos.55 Although some improvements have been
made, there are still enormous problems to overcome.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZED JUVENILE
The typical resident of a juvenile facility is a fifteen- to sixteen-year-old White male
incarcerated for an average stay of five months in a public facility or six months in a
private facility. Private facilities tend to house younger youths, while public institu-
tions provide custodial care for older ones, including a small percentage between
eighteen and twenty-one years of age. Most incarcerated youths are person, property,
or drug offenders.

352 C H A P T E R 1 4

Table 14.1 State Comparison of Numbers and Rates
of Juvenile Offenders in Custody, 1999

State of offense Number Rate

U.S. total 108,931 371

Upper age 17

Alabama 1,589 333

Alaska 382 419

Arizona 1,901 334

Arkansas 705 234

California 19,072 514

Colorado 1,979 407

Delaware 347 431

Dist. of Columbia 259 704

Florida 6,813 427

Hawaii 118 96

Idaho 360 220

Indiana 2,650 384

Iowa 1,017 296

Kansas 1,254 383

Kentucky 1,188 270

Maine 242 167

Maryland 1,579 269

Minnesota 1,760 290

Mississippi 784 229

Montana 246 220

Nebraska 720 342

Nevada 789 378

New Jersey 2,386 273

New Mexico 855 378

North Dakota 235 297

Ohio 4,531 345

State of offense Number Rate

Oklahoma 1,123 273

Oregon 1,549 404

Pennsylvania 3,819 285

Rhode Island 310 284

South Dakota 603 632

Tennessee 1,534 256

Utah 985 320

Vermont 67 96

Virginia 3,085 415

Washington 2,094 307

West Virginia 388 202

Wyoming 310 488

Upper age 16

Georgia 3,729 475

Illinois 3,885 322

Louisiana 2,745 580

Massachusetts 1,188 206

Michigan 4,324 417

Missouri 1,161 205

New Hampshire 216 167

South Carolina 1,650 441

Texas 7,954 370

Wisconsin 1,924 338

Upper age 15

Connecticut 1,466 513

New York 4,813 334

North Carolina 1,429 221

Note: The rate is the number of juvenile offenders in residential placement in 1999 per 100,000 juveniles age ten through
the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction in each state. The U.S. total includes 2,645 juvenile offenders in
private facilities for whom state of offense was not reported and 174 juvenile offenders in tribal facilities.

Source: Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
tion, 2004).

Minority youths are incarcerated at a rate two to five times that of White youths.
The difference is greatest for African-American youths, with a custody rate of 1,004
per 100,000 juveniles; for White youths the rate is 212.56 In a number of states such as
Illinois, New Jersey, and Wisconsin the difference in custody rates between African-
American and White youths is considerably greater (Table 14.2). 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.57 Of equal importance, mi-
norities are more likely to be confined in secure public facilities rather than in open,
private facilities that might provide more costly and effective treatment,58 and among
minority groups African-American youths are more likely to receive more punitive
treatment—throughout the juvenile justice system—compared with others.59

Minority youths accused of delinquent acts are less likely than White youths to be
diverted from the court system into informal sanctions and are more likely to receive
sentences involving incarceration. Racial disparity in juvenile disposition is a growing
problem that demands immediate public scrutiny.60 In response, some jurisdictions
have initiated studies of racial disproportion in their juvenile justice systems.61 Today,
more than six in ten juveniles in custody belong to racial or ethnic minorities, and
seven in ten youths held in custody for a violent crime are minorities.62

For more than two decades, shocking exposés, sometimes resulting from investi-
gations by the U.S. Department of Justice’s civil rights division, continue to focus
public attention on the problems of juvenile corrections.63 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.

Male Inmates
Males make up the great bulk of institutionalized youth, accounting for six out of
every seven juvenile offenders in residential placement,64 and most programs are
directed toward their needs. In many ways their experiences mirror those of adult
offenders. In an important paper, Clement Bartollas and his associates identified
an inmate value system that they believed was common in juvenile institutions:

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 353

Although the physical conditions
of secure facilities for juveniles
have greatly improved over the
years, one of the arguments in
opposition to sending juveniles
to these facilities is that many
are overcrowded and expose
juveniles to serious health prob-
lems. Shown here is the Con-
necticut Juvenile Training School
located in Middletown, Con-
necticut. Its fifteen-foot-high
security fence surrounds a
modern, $15 million facility.

00
1

AP
/W
id
e
W
or
ld
P
ho
to
s

To read about life in a secure
Canadian facility, go to the
Web site maintained by the
Prince George Youth Custody
Center in British Columbia that
provides a range of programs
to allow youths to make
maximal constructive use of
their time while in custody.
Click on Web Links under the
Chapter Resources at http://
cj.wadsworth.com/siegel_
jdcore2e.

ht
tp

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

“Exploit whomever you can.

Don’t play up to staff.

Don’t rat on your peers.

Don’t give in to others.”65

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 Whites (“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.66 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

354 C H A P T E R 1 4

Table 14.2 State Comparison of Custody Rates Between
White and African-American Juvenile Offenders, 1999

African
State of offense White American

U.S average 212 1,004

Alabama 208 588

Alaska 281 612

Arizona 234 957

Arkansas 139 575

California 269 1,666

Colorado 257 1,436

Connecticut 160 2,143

Delaware 203 1,143

Dist. of Columbia 173 855

Florida 306 964

Georgia 273 878

Hawaii 39 87

Idaho 203 871

Illinois 152 1,005

Indiana 280 1,260

Iowa 240 1,726

Kansas 239 1,691

Kentucky 192 1,030

Louisiana 223 1,127

Maine 166 390

Maryland 136 575

Massachusetts 93 648

Michigan 243 1,058

Minnesota 183 1,504

Mississippi 118 300

African
State of offense White American

Missouri 146 554

Montana 148 1,463

Nebraska 220 1,552

Nevada 305 1,019

New Hampshire 150 1,278

New Jersey 70 1,108

New Mexico 211 1,011

New York 169 1,119

North Carolina 123 466

North Dakota 204 1,136

Ohio 221 1,038

Oklahoma 194 821

Oregon 353 1,689

Pennsylvania 123 1,230

Rhode Island 155 1,363

South Carolina 244 772

South Dakota 436 2,908

Tennessee 170 576

Texas 204 965

Utah 267 1,043

Vermont 93 698

Virginia 225 1,024

Washington 232 1,507

West Virginia 166 1,060

Wisconsin 164 1,965

Wyoming 396 2,752

Note: Custody rate (per 100,000).

Note: The custody rate is the number of juvenile offenders in residential placement on October 27, 1999, per 100,000
juveniles age ten through the upper age of original juvenile court jurisdiction in each state. The U.S. total includes
2,645 juvenile offenders in private facilities for whom state of offense was not reported and 174 juvenile offenders
in tribal facilities.

Source: Melissa Sickmund, Juveniles in Corrections (Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 2004).

scheme to manipulate staff and take advantage of weaker peers. However, in institu-
tions 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 girls in criminal behavior and the influence of the femi-
nist movement have drawn more attention to the female juvenile offender. This atten-
tion 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 pro-
grams and fewer services. Institutions for girls also do a less-than-adequate job of reha-
bilitation. 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.67

Over the years, the number of females held in public institutions has declined.
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. So although a majority of males are housed in public
facilities today, most female delinquents reside in private facilities.68

The same double standard that brings a girl into an institution continues to exist
once she is in custody. Females tend to be incarcerated for longer terms than males.
In addition, institutional programs for girls tend to be oriented toward reinforcing tra-
ditional roles for women. How well these programs rehabilitate girls is questionable.

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 histo-
ries, lack of placement options).69 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. A recent (1998) interview
survey conducted by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency uncovered

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 355

Girls in a Marlin, Texas, juvenile
facility. While the trend has
been to remove female juvenile
inmates from closed institutions
and place them in private or
community-based facilities,
female inmates continue to face
numerous obstacles, including
being placed in institutions far
from family members and re-
ceiving inadequate educational
and recreational services.

av
id

W
oo

/S
to

ck
, B

os
to

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

numerous incidents of abuse, and bitter resentment by the young women over the
brutality of their custodial treatment.70

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 are often not adequately trained to under-
stand and address the unique needs of this population.71 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.72

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.73 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 deci-
sion making and system structure.74

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT FOR JUVENILES
Nearly all juvenile institutions implement some form of treatment program: coun-
seling, vocational and educational training, recreational programs, and religious
counseling. In addition, most institutions provide medical programs as well as occa-
sional 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 rarely attained because in large
part the programs are poorly implemented.75 A significant number of juvenile of-
fenders commit more crimes after release and some experts believe that correctional
treatment has little effect on recidivism.76 However, a careful evaluation of both
community-based and institutional treatment services found that juveniles who re-
ceive treatment have recidivism rates about 10 percent lower than untreated juveniles,
and that the best programs reduced recidivism between 20 and 30 percent.77 The most
successful programs provide training to improve interpersonal skills, self-control, and
school achievement. These programs also tend to be the most intensive in amount
and duration of attention to youths. Programs of a more psychological orientation,
such as individual, family, and group counseling, showed only moderate positive
effects on delinquents. Education, vocational training, and specific counseling strate-
gies can be effective if they are intensive, relate to program goals, and meet the youth’s
individual needs.78

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

✔ Checkpoints

356 C H A P T E R 1 4

Checkpoints
✔ Massachusetts opened the first

juvenile correctional facility, the
Lyman School for Boys in
Westborough, in 1846.

✔ 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
109,000 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.

✔ The typical resident of a juvenile
facility is a fifteen- to sixteen-year-
old White male incarcerated for
an average stay of five months in
a public facility or six months in a
private facility.

✔ Minority youths are incarcerated
at a rate two to five times that of
Whites.

✔ Males make up the bulk of institu-
tionalized youth, and most pro-
grams 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.

To quiz yourself on this
material, go to questions
14.14–14.16 on the Juvenile

Delinquency: The Core 2e Web site.
Juvenile Delinquency: The Core COPYRIGHT © 2005 Wadsworth, a division of Thomson Learning, Inc

concern. It costs a substantial amount of money per year to keep a child in an institu-
tion, which explains why institutions generally do not employ large professional staffs.

The most glaring problem with treatment programs is that they are not admin-
istered as intended. Although the official goals of many may be treatment and reha-
bilitation, 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 institu-
tions use it to some extent. This is not surprising, because psychological problems
such as depression are prevalent in juvenile institutions.79 Individual counseling
does not attempt to change a youth’s personality. Rather, it attempts to help indi-
viduals 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.

Professional counseling may be based on psychotherapy. Psychotherapy
requires extensive analysis of the individual’s childhood experiences. A skilled thera-
pist 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.80 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 con-
cern of the counselor. Many institutions rely heavily on this type of therapy because
they believe trained professionals aren’t needed to administer it. In fact, a skilled
therapist is essential to the success of this form of treatment.

Behavior modification is used in many institutions.81 It is based on the theory
that all behavior is learned and that current behavior can be shaped through rewards
and punishments. This type of program is easily used in an institutional setting that
offers privileges as rewards for behaviors such as work, study, or the development of
skills. It is reasonably effective, especially when a contract is formed with the youth to
modify certain behaviors. When youths are aware of what is expected of them, they
plan their actions to meet these expectations and then experience the anticipated
consequences. In this way, youths can be motivated to change. Behavior modification
is effective in controlled settings where a counselor can manipulate the situation, but
once the youth is back in the real world it becomes difficult to use.

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

One disadvantage of group therapy is that it provides little individual attention.
Everyone is different, and some group members may need more individualized treat-
ment. Others may be afraid to speak up in the group and thus fail to receive the bene-
fits of the experience. Conversely, some individuals may dominate group interaction,
making it difficult for the leader to conduct an effective session. In addition, group
condemnation may seriously hurt a participant. Finally, there is also the concern that

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 357

If you want to learn more
about improving the condi-
tions of children in custody,
click on Web Links under the
Chapter Resources at http://
cj.wadsworth.com/siegel_
jdcore2e.ht

tp
:

To learn more about reality
therapy, go to William
Glasser’s Web site by clicking
on Web Links under the
Chapter Resources at http://
cj.wadsworth.com/siegel_
jdcore2e.ht

tp
:

individual counseling
Counselors help juveniles under-
stand and solve their current
adjustment problems.

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 empha-
sizes current behavior and requires
the individual to accept responsi-
bility for all of his or her actions.

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

group therapy
Counseling several individuals
together in a group session.

by providing therapy in a group format, those who are more chronically involved in
delinquency may negatively affect those who are marginally involved.82

Guided group interaction (GGI) is a fairly common method of group treatment.
It is based on the theory that, through group interactions a delinquent can acknowl-
edge and solve personal problems. A leader facilitates interaction, and a group culture
develops. Individual members can be mutually supportive and reinforce acceptable
behavior. In the 1980s, a version of GGI called positive peer culture (PPC) became
popular. These programs used groups in which peer leaders encourage other youths to
conform to conventional behaviors. The rationale is that if negative peer influence can
encourage youths to engage in delinquent behavior, then positive peer influence can
help them conform.83 Though research results are inconclusive, there is evidence that
PPC may facilitate communication ability for incarcerated youth.84

Another common group treatment approach, milieu therapy, seeks to make all
aspects of the inmates’ environment part of their treatment and to minimize differ-
ences between custodial staff and treatment personnel. Milieu therapy, based on psy-
choanalytic theory, was developed during the late 1940s and early 1950s by Bruno
Bettelheim.85 This therapy attempted to create a conscience, or superego, in delin-
quent youths by getting them to depend on their therapists to a great extent and then
threatening them with loss of the caring relationship if they failed to control their
behavior. Today, milieu therapy more often makes use of peer interactions and at-
tempts to create an environment that encourages meaningful change, growth, and
satisfactory adjustment. This is often accomplished through peer pressure to conform
to group norms.

Today, group counseling often focuses on drug and alcohol issues, self-esteem
development, or role-model support. In addition, because more violent juveniles are
entering the system than in years past, group sessions often deal with appropriate
expressions of anger and methods for controlling such behavior.

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

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

Ideally, institutions should allow the inmates to attend a school in the commu-
nity or offer programs that lead to a high school diploma or GED certificate. Unfortu-
nately, not all institutions offer these types of programs. Secure institutions, because
of their large size, are more likely than group homes or day treatment centers to offer
programs such as remedial reading, physical education, and tutoring. Some offer
computer-based learning and programmed learning modules.

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

358 C H A P T E R 1 4

To see how positive peer
culture can be used effec-
tively, click on Web Links
under the Chapter Resources
at http://cj.wadsworth.com/
siegel_ jdcore2e.ht

tp
:

guided group interaction (GGI)
Through group interactions a de-
linquent can acknowledge and
solve personal problems with sup-
port from other group members.

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

milieu therapy
All aspects of the environment are
part of the treatment, and mean-
ingful change, increased growth,
and satisfactory adjustment are
encouraged.

These programs alone are not panaceas. Youths need
to acquire the kinds of skills that will give them hope for
advancement. The Ventura School for Female Juvenile
Offenders, established under the California Youth Au-
thority, has been a pioneer in the work placement con-
cept. Private industry contracts with this organization to
establish businesses on the institution’s grounds. The
businesses hire, train, and pay for work. Wages are divided
into a victim’s restitution fund, room and board fees, and
forced savings, with a portion given to the juvenile to
purchase canteen items.86 A study by the National Youth
Employment Coalition (NYEC) finds that employment
and career-focused programs can do a great deal to pre-
pare youth involved in the juvenile justice system for a
successful transition to the workforce as long as they are
comprehensive, last for a relatively long period of time,
and are connected to further education or long-term
career opportunities.87

Recreational activity is also important in helping
relieve adolescent aggressions, as evidenced by the many
programs that focus on recreation as the primary treat-
ment technique.

In summary, the treatment programs that seem to
be most effective for rehabilitating juvenile offenders are
those that use a combination of techniques. Programs
that are comprehensive, build on a juvenile’s strengths,
and adopt a socially grounded position have a much
greater chance for success. Successful programs address
issues relating to school, peers, work, and community.

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

A few wilderness programs for juvenile offenders have been evaluated for their
effects on recidivism. In a detailed review of the effects of wilderness programs
on recidivism, Doris MacKenzie concludes that these programs do not work.88

Although some of the programs show success, such as the Spectrum Wilderness
Program in Illinois,89 others had negative effects; that is, the group that received the
program had higher arrest rates than the comparison group that did not. Taken to-
gether, the programs suffered from poor implementation, weak evaluation designs
or problems with too few subjects or large dropout rates, and failure to adhere to
principles of successful rehabilitation, such as targeting high-risk youths and lasting
for a moderate period of time.90

Juvenile Boot Camps
Correctional boot camps combine the get-tough elements of adult programs with
education, substance-abuse treatment, and social skills training. In theory, a successful
boot camp program should rehabilitate juvenile offenders, reduce the number of beds
needed in secure institutional programs, and thus reduce the overall cost of care. The
Alabama boot camp program for youthful offenders estimated savings of $1 million
annually when compared with traditional institutional sentences.91 However, no one
seems convinced that participants in these programs have lower recidivism rates than

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 359

Most juvenile facilities have ongoing vocational and educa-
tional programs. Here, a detention caseworker looks in on
juvenile inmates in a classroom at the Northern Maine Juve-
nile Detention Facility in Charleston, Maine.

00
4

AP
/W
id
e
W
or
ld
P
ho
to
s

wilderness probation
Programs involving outdoor expe-
ditions that provide opportunities
for juveniles to confront the diffi-
culties of their lives while achiev-
ing positive personal satisfaction.

boot camps
Programs that combine get-tough
elements with education, sub-
stance abuse treatment, and social
skills training.

those who serve normal sentences. Ronald Corbett and Joan Petersilia do note, how-
ever, that boot camp participants seem to be less antisocial upon returning to society.92

Other successes of juvenile boot camps were revealed in a national study com-
paring the environments of boot camps with more traditional secure correctional
facilities for juveniles. Some of the main findings include these:

■ Boot camp youths report more positive attitudes to their environment.

■ Initial levels of depression are lower for boot camp youths but initial levels of
anxiety are higher; both of these declined over time for youths in both tradi-
tional and boot camp facilities.

■ Staff at boot camps report more favorable working conditions, such as less stress
and better communication among staff.93

However, the bottom line for juvenile boot camps, like other correctional sanc-
tions, is whether or not they reduce recidivism. A recent metanalysis of the effects
of juvenile boot camps on recidivism found this to be an ineffective correctional
approach to reducing it; from the sixteen different program samples, the control
groups had, on average, lower recidivism rates than the treatment groups (boot
camps).94 Interestingly, when compared with the effects of twenty-eight program
samples of boot camps for adults, the juvenile boot camps had a higher average
recidivism rate, although the difference was not significant.95

Why do boot camps for juveniles fail to reduce future offending? The main rea-
son is that they provide little in the way of therapy or treatment to correct offending
behavior. Experts have also suggested that part of the reason for not finding differ-
ences in recidivism between boot camps and other correctional alternatives (the
control groups) may be due to juveniles in the control groups receiving enhanced
treatment while juveniles in the boot camps are spending more time on physical
activities.96

The ineffectiveness of boot camps to reduce reoffending in the community by
juvenile offenders (and adult offenders) appears to have resulted in this approach
falling into disfavor with some correctional administrators. At the height of its popu-
larity in the mid-1990s, more than seventy-five state-run boot camps were in opera-
tion in more than thirty states across the country; today, fifty-one remain.97 Despite

360 C H A P T E R 1 4

Juvenile boot camps use strict
discipline regimes, which some
critics find demeaning to in-
mates. Here at the Prison Boot
Camp in Illinois, one correc-
tional officer bangs a metal
wastebasket against the cement
floor. Both officers yell at the
new inmate, demanding that he
hurry and gather his newly cut
hair into the basket. They hurl a
barrage of nonprofane insults at
him. Profanity by correctional
officers as well as inmates is
forbidden at the boot camp.

ck
so

nv
ill

e
Co

ur
ie

r/
Zu

za
na

K
ill

ia
m

/T
he

Im
ag

e
W

or
ks

To read more about boot
camps, click on Web Links
under the Chapter Resources
at http://cj.wadsworth.com/
siegel_ jdcore2e.

ht
tp
:

metanalysis
An analysis technique that synthe-
sizes results across many programs
over time.

this, boot camps appear to still have a place among the array of sentencing options, if
for no other reason than to appease the public with the promise of tougher sentences
and lower costs.98 If boot camps are to become a viable alternative for juvenile cor-
rections they must be seen not as a panacea that provides an easy solution to the
problems of delinquency, but merely part of a comprehensive approach to juvenile
care that is appropriate to a select group of adolescents.99

THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TREATMENT
The primary goal of placing juveniles in institutions is to help them reenter the com-
munity successfully. Therefore, lawyers claim that children in state-run institutions
have a legal right to treatment.

The concept of a right to treatment was introduced to the mental health field
in 1960 by Morton Birnbaum, who argued that individuals who are deprived of their
liberty because of a mental illness are entitled to treatment to correct that condi-
tion.100 The right to treatment has expanded to include the juvenile justice system,
an expansion bolstered by court rulings that mandate that rehabilitation and not
punishment or retribution be the basis of juvenile court dispositions.101 It stands to
reason then that, if incarcerated, juveniles are entitled to the appropriate social ser-
vices that will promote their rehabilitation.

One of the first cases to highlight this issue was Inmates of the Boys’ Training
School v. Affleck in 1972.102 In its decision, a federal court argued that rehabilitation
is the true purpose of the juvenile court and that, without that goal, due process
guarantees are violated. It condemned such devices as solitary confinement, strip
cells, and lack of educational opportunities, and held that juveniles have a statutory
right to treatment. The court also established the following minimum standards
for all juveniles confined in training schools:

■ A room equipped with lighting sufficient for an inmate to read until 10 P.M.

■ Sufficient clothing to meet seasonal needs

■ Bedding, including blankets, sheets, pillows, and pillow cases, to be changed once
a week

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

■ A change of undergarments and socks every day

■ Minimum writing materials: pen, pencil, paper, and envelopes

■ Prescription eyeglasses, if needed

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

■ Daily showers

■ Daily access to medical facilities, including provision of a twenty-four-hour
nursing service

■ General correspondence privileges103

In 1974, in the case of Nelson v. Heyne, the First Federal Appellate Court
affirmed that juveniles have a right to treatment and condemned the use of corporal
punishment in juvenile institutions.104 In Morales v. Turman, the court held that all
juveniles confined in training schools in Texas have a right to treatment, including
development of education skills, delivery of vocational education, medical and psy-
chiatric treatment, and adequate living conditions.105 In a more recent case, Pena v.
New York State Division for Youth, the court held that the use of isolation, hand re-
straints, and tranquilizing drugs at Goshen Annex Center violated the Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process and the Eighth Amendment right to protection
against cruel and unusual punishment.106

✔ 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 361

Checkpoints
✔ Nearly all juvenile institutions

implement some form of treatment
program.

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

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

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

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

✔ Wilderness programs involve
troubled youth using outdoor
activities as a mechanism to im-
prove their social skills, self-
concepts, and self-control.

✔ Correctional boot camps combine
the get-tough elements of adult
programs with education, sub-
stance abuse treatment, and social
skills training.

To quiz yourself on this
material, go to questions
14.17–14.19 on the Juvenile

Delinquency: The Core 2e Web site.

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

The right to treatment has also been limited. For example, in Ralston v. Robinson,
the Supreme Court rejected a youth’s claim that he should continue to be given treat-
ment after he was sentenced to a consecutive term in an adult prison for crimes com-
mitted while in a juvenile institution.107 In the Ralston case, the offender’s proven
dangerousness outweighed the possible effects of rehabilitation. Similarly, in Santana
v. Callazo, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a suit brought by residents
at the Maricao Juvenile Camp in Puerto Rico on the ground that the administration
had failed to provide them with an individualized rehabilitation plan or adequate
treatment. The circuit court concluded that it was a legitimate exercise of state au-
thority to incarcerate juveniles solely to protect society if they are dangerous.

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

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

There are a number of mechanisms for enforcing these standards. For example,
the federal government’s Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) gives
the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) the power to bring
actions against state or local governments for violating the civil rights of persons insti-
tutionalized in publicly operated facilities.108 CRIPA does not create any new substan-
tive rights; it simply confers power on the U.S. Attorney General to bring action to
enforce previously established constitutional or statutory rights of institutionalized
persons; about 25 percent of cases involve juvenile detention and correctional facili-
ties. There are many examples in which CRIPA-based litigation has helped ensure that
incarcerated adolescents obtain their basic civil rights. For example, in November 1995
a federal court in Kentucky ordered state officials to remedy serious deficiencies in the
state’s thirteen juvenile treatment facilities. The decree required the state to take a
number of steps to protect juveniles from abuse, mistreatment, and injury; to ensure
adequate medical and mental health care; and to provide adequate educational, voca-
tional, and aftercare services. Another CRIPA consent decree, ordered by a federal
court in Puerto Rico in October 1994, addressed life-threatening conditions at eight
juvenile detention and correction facilities. These dire conditions included juveniles
committing and attempting suicide without staff intervention or treatment, wide-
spread infection-control problems caused by rats and other vermin, and defective
plumbing that forced juveniles to drink from their toilet bowls.

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

JUVENILE AFTERCARE
Aftercare in the juvenile justice system is the equivalent of parole in the adult criminal
justice system. When juveniles are released from an institution, they may be placed in
an aftercare program of some kind, so that those who have been institutionalized are
not simply returned to the community without some transitional assistance. Whether
individuals who are in aftercare as part of an indeterminate sentence remain in the
community or return to the institution for further rehabilitation depends on their
actions during the aftercare period. Aftercare is an extremely important stage in the
juvenile justice process because few juveniles age out of custody.109

362 C H A P T E R 1 4

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

To learn more about the right
to treatment, read “Meeting
the Needs of the Mentally
Ill—A Case Study of the
‘Right to Treatment’ as Legal
Rights Discourse in the USA,”
by Michael McCubbin and
David N. Weisstub. Click on
Web Links under the Chapter
Resources at http://cj.
wadsworth.com/siegel_
jdcore2e.

ht
tp

In a number of jurisdictions, a paroling authority, which may be an independent
body or part of the corrections department or some other branch of state services,
makes the release decision. Juvenile aftercare authorities, like adult parole officers,
review the youth’s adjustment inside the institution, whether there is chemical de-
pendence, what the crime was, and other specifics of the case. Some juvenile authori-
ties are even making use of parole guidelines first developed with adult parolees.
Each youth who enters a secure facility is given a recommended length of confine-
ment that is explained at the initial interview with parole authorities. The stay is
computed on the basis of the offense record, influenced by aggravating and mitigat-
ing factors. The parole authority is not required to follow the recommended sentence
but uses it as a tool in making parole decisions.110 Whatever approach is used, sev-
eral primary factors are considered by virtually all jurisdictions when recommending
a juvenile for release: institutional adjustment, length of stay and general attitude,
and likelihood of success in the community.

Risk classifications have also been designed to help parole officers make deci-
sions about which juveniles should receive aftercare services.111 The risk-based sys-
tem uses an empirically derived risk scale to classify youths. Juveniles are identified as
most likely or least likely to commit a new offense based on factors such as prior
record, type of offense, and degree of institutional adjustment.

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

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

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 363

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

parole guidelines
Recommended length of confine-
ment and kinds of aftercare assis-
tance most effective for a juvenile
who committed a specific offense.

The Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model New models of
aftercare have been aimed at the chronic or violent offender. The Intensive Aftercare
Program (IAP) model developed by David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong offers a
continuum of intervention for serious juvenile offenders returning to the community
following placement.112 The IAP model begins by drawing attention to five basic
principles, which collectively establish a set of fundamental operational goals:

1. Preparing youth for progressively increased responsibility and freedom in the
community

2. Facilitating youth-community interaction and involvement

3. Working with both the offender and targeted community support systems (fam-
ilies, peers, schools, employers) on qualities needed for constructive interaction
and the youths’ successful community adjustment

4. Developing new resources and supports where needed

5. Monitoring and testing the youths and the community on their ability to deal
with each other productively

These basic goals are then translated into practice, which incorporates individual
case planning with a family and community perspective. The program stresses a mix
of intensive surveillance and services and a balance of incentives and graduated con-
sequences coupled with the imposition of realistic, enforceable conditions. There is
also “service brokerage,” in which community resources are used and linkage with
social networks established.113

The IAP initiative was designed to help correctional agencies implement effec-
tive aftercare programs for chronic and serious juvenile offenders. After more than
twelve years of testing, the program is now being aimed at determining how juveniles
are prepared for reentry into their communities, how the transition is handled, and
how the aftercare in the community is provided.114 The Focus on Preventing and
Treating Delinquency feature, “Using the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) Model,”
illustrates how it is being used in three state jurisdictions.

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

■ Adhere to a reasonable curfew set by youth worker or parent.
■ Refrain from associating with persons whose influence would be detrimental.
■ Attend school in accordance with the law.
■ Abstain from drugs and alcohol.
■ Report to the youth worker when required.
■ Refrain from acts that would be crimes if committed by an adult.
■ Refrain from operating an automobile without permission of the youth worker

or parent.
■ Refrain from being habitually disobedient and beyond the lawful control of

parent or other legal

authority.

■ Refrain from running away from the lawful custody of parent or other lawful

authority.

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

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

364 C H A P T E R 1 4

Intensive Aftercare Program
(IAP)
A balanced, highly structured,
comprehensive continuum of
intervention for serious and vio-
lent juvenile offenders returning
to the community.

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

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

■ They have the right to introduce documentary evidence and witnesses.

■ They have the right to a hearing before an officer who shall be an attorney but
not an employee of the revoking agency.115

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 365

Using the Intensive Aftercare
Program (IAP) Model
How has the IAP model been used around the nation?

Colorado
Although adolescents are still institutionalized, community-
based providers begin weekly services (including multifamily
counseling and life-skills services) that continue during after-
care. Sixty days prior to release, IAP youths begin a series of
step-down measures, including supervised trips to the com-
munity, and thirty days before release, there are overnight or
weekend home passes. Upon release to parole, most program
youths go through several months of day treatment that, in
addition to services, provides a high level of structure during
the day. Trackers provide evening and weekend monitoring
during this period of reentry. As a youth’s progress warrants,
the frequency of supervision decreases. The planned
frequency of contact is once a week during the first few
months of supervision, with gradual reductions to once a
month in later stages of supervision.

Nevada
Once the parole plan is finalized, all IAP youth begin a
thirty-day prerelease phase, during which IAP staff provide a
series of services that continue through the early months of
parole. These consist primarily of two structured curricula
on life skills (Jettstream) and substance abuse (Rational
Recovery). In addition, a money management program (The
Money Program) is initiated. Youths are provided with mock
checking accounts from which “bills” must be paid for rent,
food, insurance, and other necessities. They can also use their
accounts to purchase recreation and other privileges, but
each must have a balance of at least $50 at the end of the
thirty days to purchase his bus ticket home. The initial thirty
days of release are considered an institutional furlough (that
is, the kids are still on the institutional rolls) that involves
intensive supervision and service, any time during which
they may be returned to the institution for significant pro-
gram infractions. During furlough, they are involved in day
programming and are subject to frequent drug testing and
evening and weekend surveillance. Upon successful comple-

tion of the furlough, the IAP transition continues through
the use of phased levels of supervision. During the first three
months, three contacts per week with the case manager or
field agent are required. This level of supervision is reduced
to two contacts per week for the next two months, and then
to once a week during the last month of parole.

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

CRITICAL THINKING

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

2. Should juvenile offenders who have committed less
serious offenses also have to go through intensive after-
care programs?

INFOTRAC COLLEGE EDITION RESEARCH
To learn more about aftercare programs for juvenile

offenders, read Kit Glover and Kurt Bumby, “Re-Entry at the
Point of Entry,” Corrections Today 63:68 (December 2001) on
InfoTrac College Edition. Use “juvenile corrections” as a key
term to find out more about this topic.

Source: Richard G. Wiebush, Betsie McNulty, and Thao Le, Implemen-
tation of the Intensive Community-Based Aftercare Program (Washing-
ton, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
Juvenile Justice Bulletin, 2000).

Preventing and Treating Delinquency

To quiz yourself on this
material, go to questions
14.20–14.21 on the Juvenile

366 C H A P T E R 1 4

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

• The most widely used community treatment method
is probation. Behavior is monitored by probation
officers. If rules are violated, youths may have their
probation revoked.

• It is now common to enhance probation with more
restrictive forms of treatment, such as intensive supervi-
sion and house arrest with electronic monitoring. Resti-
tution programs involve having juvenile offenders either
reimburse their victims or do community service.

• Residential community treatment programs allow
youths to live at home while receiving treatment. There
are also residential programs that require that youths
reside in group homes while receiving treatment.

• The secure juvenile institution was developed in the
mid-nineteenth century as an alternative to placing
youths in adult prisons. Youth institutions evolved from

large, closed institutions to cottage-based education-
and rehabilitation-oriented institutions.

• The juvenile institutional population appears to have
stabilized in recent years, but an increasing number
of youths are “hidden” in private medical centers and
drug treatment clinics.

• A disproportionate number of minorities are incarcer-
ated in more secure, state-run youth facilities.

• Most juvenile institutions maintain intensive treat-
ment programs featuring individual or group therapy.
Little evidence has been found that any single method
is effective in reducing recidivism, yet rehabilitation
remains an important goal of juvenile practitioners.

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

• Juveniles released from institutions are often placed on
parole, or aftercare. There is little evidence that com-
munity supervision is more beneficial than simply
releasing youths. Many jurisdictions are experiencing
success with halfway houses and reintegration centers.

SUMMARY

community treatment, p. 338
suppression effect, p. 339
probation, p. 339
juvenile probation officer, p. 342
social investigation report,

predisposition report, p. 342
conditions of probation, p. 342
juvenile intensive probation

supervision (JIPS), p. 344
house arrest, p. 345
electronic monitoring, p. 345
balanced probation, p. 346
monetary restitution, p. 346
victim service restitution, p. 346

community service restitution,
p. 346

residential programs, p. 348
group homes, p. 348
foster care programs, p. 348
family group homes, p. 348
rural programs, p. 348
reform schools, p. 348
cottage system, p. 348
least restrictive alternative, p. 350
individual counseling, p. 357
psychotherapy, p. 357
reality therapy, p. 357
behavior modification, p. 357

group therapy, p. 357
guided group interaction (GGI),

p. 358
positive peer culture (PPC), p. 358
milieu therapy, p. 358
wilderness probation, p. 359
boot camps, p. 359
metanalysis, p. 360
right to treatment, p. 361
aftercare, p. 362
parole guidelines, p. 362
Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP),

p. 364

KEY TERMS

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

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

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

4. Is juvenile restitution fair? Should a poor child have to
pay back a wealthy victim, such as a store owner?

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

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 367

5. What are the most important advantages to commu-
nity treatment for juvenile offenders?

6. What is the purpose of juvenile probation? Identify
some conditions of probation and discuss the respon-
sibilities of the juvenile probation officer.

7. Has community treatment generally proven successful?
8. Why have juvenile boot camps not been effective in

reducing recidivism?

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

short-circuited his academic success. Jim himself shows
remorse and appears to be a sensitive youngster who is
easily led astray by older youths.

You must now make a decision. You can place Jim on
probation and allow him to live with his grandmother
while being monitored by county probation staff. You can
place him in a secure incarceration facility for up to three
years. You can also put him into an intermediate program
such as a community-based facility, which would allow him
to attend school during the day while residing in a halfway
house and receiving group treatment in the evenings. Al-
though Jim appears salvageable, his crime was serious and
involved the use of a weapon. If he remains in the commu-
nity he may offend again; if he is sent to a correctional
facility he will interact with older, tougher kids. What mode
of correctional treatment would you choose?

• Would you place Jim on probation and allow him to
live with his grandmother while being monitored?

• Would you send him to a secure incarceration facility
for up to three years?

• Would you put him into an intermediate program
such as a community-based facility?

APPLYING WHAT YOU HAVE LEARNED

Before you answer these questions, you may want to re-
search the effectiveness of different types of correctional
treatment for juvenile offenders. Use “juvenile correctional
treatment” in a key word search on InfoTrac College Edition.
To learn more about juvenile treatment options, click on
Web Links under the Chapter Resources at http://cj.
wadsworth.com/siegel_jdcore2e to go to the California
Department of the Youth Authority, Center for the Study

and Prevention of Violence, Washington State Institute for
Public Policy on Juvenile Justice, the National Council on
Crime and Delinquency and Children’s Research Center,
and the Urban Institute.

Pro/Con discussions and Viewpoint Essays on some of the topics
in this chapter may be found at the Opposing Viewpoints Resource
Center: www.gale.com/OpposingViewpoints.

DOING RESEARCH ON THE WEB

Juvenile justice measures designed to prevent delinquency
can include the police making an arrest as part of an op-
eration to crack down on gang problems, a juvenile court
sanction to a secure correctional facility, or in the extreme
case, a death penalty sentence. Although these measures
have as an objective the prevention of future delinquent
activities (or repeat offending, or recidivism), they can
also be referred to as measures of delinquency control or
delinquency repression. This is because, unlike with the
other strategies to prevent delinquency—the primary
prevention and secondary prevention efforts discussed in
the two earlier preventing delinquency essays—juvenile
justice measures also have as an objective the protection
of the public. For this to happen there also needs to be
some type of formal control exercised over offenders.

From a public health perspective, juvenile justice
measures are a form of tertiary-level delinquency preven-
tion. Tertiary prevention focuses on intervening with
offenders once a delinquent activity or crime has been
committed. This form of delinquency prevention is con-
sidered reactive—there is a response only after (for the
most part) a crime has taken place. It can also be consid-
ered the measure of last resort.

Many experts argue that there is an overreliance on
police, courts, and corrections to prevent juvenile crime.
Many are also of the opinion that this approach has be-
come increasingly harsh or punitive in recent years.
Juvenile courts have delivered harsher sentences, more
juvenile offenders have been transferred to adult court,
there has been a greater reliance on the use of confine-
ment than rehabilitation, and a growing number of
juvenile offenders are serving time in prison. This in-
creased punitiveness has led many scholars to argue that
the treatment and protection aims of the juvenile system
have become more a matter of the abstract than of real-
ity. According to University of Minnesota law professor
Barry Feld:

Evaluations of juvenile court sentencing practices,
treatment effectiveness, and conditions of confine-
ment reveal increasingly punitive juvenile court and
corrections systems. These various indicators

strongly suggest that despite juvenile courts’ persist-
ing rehabilitative rhetoric, the reality of treating juve-
niles closely resembles punishing adult criminals.1

For some, this increased punitiveness in dealing with
juvenile offenders makes the juvenile justice system seem
less appealing as a vehicle for preventing delinquency.
It may be that more checks and balances are needed for
tertiary prevention measures. It may also be that a greater
balance needs to be struck among this approach and
primary and secondary delinquency prevention strate-
gies. But the juvenile system plays an integral role in
addressing juvenile delinquency, and there are many
promising delinquency prevention programs operated
by the police, courts, and corrections.

POLICE
The police are the first contact that juvenile offenders
have with the juvenile justice system. Working with juve-
nile offenders presents special challenges for police, such
as role conflicts arising from traditional policing practices
and wanting to steer youths away from crime, the use of
discretion, and the low regard held by youths toward
police. But police have taken the lead in delinquency pre-
vention. They have used a number of strategies: some rely
on their deterrent powers whereas others rely on their
relationship with schools, the community, and other juve-
nile justice agencies, or another on a problem-solving
model.

These policing innovations have produced results.
Boston’s Operation Ceasefire, which brought together
the police, juvenile probation, social services, and other
key local, state, and federal agencies, more than halved
the number of juvenile homicide victims and greatly
reduced gang activity across the city.2 Another promising
example of police taking the lead in preventing delin-
quency is the Partnerships to Reduce Juvenile Gun Vio-
lence Program. This involves problem-oriented policing
strategies and other interventions, including a public
information campaign to communicate the dangers and

N e w D i r e c t i o n s i n

P r e v e n t i n g D e l i n q u e n c y

Tertiary Prevention Efforts:

The Role of the Juvenile Justice System

368 N E W D I R E C T I O N S I N P R E V E N T I N G D E L I N Q U E N C Y

consequences of gun violence to juveniles, families, and
community residents.3

COURTS
Many critical decisions are made at this stage of the juve-
nile justice system that have implications for preventing
delinquency in the short or long term. Some of these are
whether to detain a youth or release the youth to the
community, whether to waive youths to the adult court
or retain them in the juvenile system, or whether to treat
them in the community or send them to a secure treat-
ment center.

In recent years, the juvenile court has introduced a
number of innovations to foster more effective delin-
quency prevention for specific types of juvenile offend-
ers. One of these is the juvenile drug court. Although
these courts operate under a number of different frame-
works, the aim is to place nonviolent first offenders into
intensive treatment programs rather than into a custodial
institution. Teen or youth court is another alternative
to the traditional juvenile court in which young people
rather than adults determine the disposition in a case.
Cases handled in these courts typically involve young
juveniles with no prior arrest records who have been
charged with minor law violations. A recent evaluation
of teen courts in four states found promising results in
reducing recidivism.4

CORRECTIONS
At this stage of the juvenile system, measures to prevent
delinquency can be organized into two main categories:
community treatment and institutional treatment. Com-
munity treatment covers a wide range of modalities,
including probation, treatment services (such as individ-
ual and group counseling), and restitution. There are also
a wide variety of institutional treatments for juvenile
offenders, ranging from training schools or reformatories
to boot camps.

There exists much debate about the effectiveness of
community versus institutional treatment. Considerable
research shows that warehousing juveniles without
proper treatment does little to prevent future delinquent
activities. The most effective secure corrections programs
are those that provide individual services for a small
number of participants.5 Evaluations of community
treatment provide evidence of a number of successful
ways to prevent delinquency without jeopardizing the
safety of community residents.

There is also a long-standing debate about the effec-
tiveness of correctional treatments compared with other
delinquency prevention measures. In their assessment
of the full range of interventions to prevent serious and
violent juvenile offending, Rolf Loeber and David Far-
rington found that it is never too early and never too late
to make a difference.6

T E R T I A R Y P R E V E N T I O N E F F O R T S : T H E R O L E O F T H E J U V E N I L E J U S T I C E S Y S T E M 369

C O N C L U D I N G N O T E S 371

We have reviewed in this text the current knowledge of
the nature, cause, and correlates of juvenile delinquency
and society’s efforts to bring about its elimination and
control. We have analyzed research programs, theoretical
models, governmental policies, and legal cases. Taken in
sum, this information presents a rather broad and com-
plex picture of the youth crime problem and the most
critical issues confronting the juvenile justice system.
Delinquents come from a broad spectrum of society;
kids of every race, gender, class, region, family type, and
culture are involved in delinquent behaviors. To combat
youthful law violations, society has tried a garden variety
of intervention and control strategies: tough law enforce-
ment; counseling, treatment and rehabilitation; provi-
sion of legal rights; community action; educational pro-
grams; family change strategies. Yet, despite decades
of intense effort and study, it is still unclear why delin-
quency occurs and what, if anything, can be done to
control its occurrence. One thing is certain, juvenile
crime is one of the most serious domestic problems
faced by Americans.

Though uncertainty prevails, it is possible to draw
some inferences about youth crime and its control. After
reviewing the material contained in this volume, certain
conclusions seem self-evident. Some involve social facts;
that is, particular empirical relationships and associa-
tions have been established that have withstood multiple
testing and verification efforts. Other conclusions involve
social questions; there are issues that need clarification,
and the uncertainty surrounding them has hampered
progress in combating delinquency and treating known
delinquents.

In sum, we have reviewed some of the most impor-
tant social facts concerning delinquent behavior and

posed some of the critical questions that still remain to
be answered.

The statutory concept of juvenile
delinquency is in need of review
and modification.
Today, the legal definition of a juvenile delinquent is a
minor child, usually under the age of 17, who has been
found to have violated the criminal law (juvenile code).
The concept of juvenile delinquency still occupies a legal
position falling somewhere between criminal and civil
law; juveniles still enjoy more rights, protections, and
privileges than adults. Nonetheless, concerns about teen
violence may eventually put an end to the separate juve-
nile justice system. If kids are equally or even more vio-
lent as adults, why should they be given a special legal
status consideration? If the teen violence rate, which has
been in a decline, begins to rise again, so too may calls
for the abolition of a separate juvenile justice system.

The concept of the status offender
(PINS, CHINS, and MINS) may be in
for revision.
Special treatment for the status offender conforms with
the parens patriae roots of the juvenile justice system.
Granting the state authority to institutionalize noncrimi-
nal youth in order “to protect the best interest of the
child” cannot be considered an abuse of state authority.
While it is likely that the current system of control will
remain in place for the near future, it is not beyond the
realm of possibility to see the eventual restructuring of
the definition of status offenders, with jurisdiction of
“pure” noncriminal first offenders turned over to a de-
partment of social services, and chronic status offenders

Concluding Notes:
American
Delinquency

and those with prior records of delinquency petitioned
to juvenile court as delinquency cases.

Juvenile offenders are
becoming less violent.
Official delinquency data suggests that there has been a
decade-long decrease in the juvenile violence rate. After
a long-term increase in juvenile violence, juvenile offend-
ers are now decreasing their involvement in murder and
other serious felony offenses. While this news is welcome,
some forecasters suggest that this respite will be a short-
term phenomenon and predict a long-term increase in
the violence rate.

Easy availability of guns is a
significant contributor to teen violence.
Research indicates a close tie between gun use, control
of drug markets, and teen violence. Efforts to control the
spread of handguns and/or devise programs to deter
handgun use have resulted in reduced violence rates.

The chronic violent juvenile offender
is a serious social problem for society
and the juvenile justice system.
Official crime data indicate that the juvenile violence rate
is at an all-time high. Chronic male delinquent offenders
commit a disproportionate amount of violent behavior,
including a significant amount of the most serious juve-
nile crimes, such as homicides, rapes, robberies, and
aggravated assaults. Many chronic offenders become
adult criminals and eventually end up in the criminal
court system. How to effectively deal with chronic juve-
nile offenders and drug users remains a high priority for
the juvenile justice system.

The best approach to dealing with chronic offenders
remains uncertain, but concern about such offenders has
shifted juvenile justice policy toward a punishment-
oriented philosophy.

Female delinquency has been increasing
at a faster pace than male delinquency.
The nature and extent of female delinquent activities
changed in the late 1980s, and it now appears that girls
are engaging in more frequent and serious illegal activity
than ever before. While male delinquency rates have
actually declined during the past decade female rates
have continued the trend upward. While gender differ-
ences in the rate of the most serious crimes such as mur-
der still persist, it is possible that further convergence
will occur in the near future.

There are distinct racial patterns
in the delinquency rate.
African-American youths are arrested for a dispropor-
tionate number of murders, rapes, robberies, and

assaults, while White youths are arrested for a dispropor-
tionate share of arsons. Some experts believe that racial
differences can be explained by institutional racism:
police are more likely to arrest African-American youths
than they are White offenders. Others argue that struc-
tural disparity in society is responsible for racial differ-
ences: minority youth are more likely to be poor and live
in disorganized areas.

There is little question that family
environment affects patterns of
juvenile behavior.
Family relationships have been linked to the problem of
juvenile delinquency by many experts. While divorce may
not be a per se cause of delinquency, there is evidence that
children being raised in single-parent households are more
inclined to behavioral problems than those who reside in
two-parent homes. Limited resource allocations limit the
single parent’s ability to control and supervise children.

There is a strong association
between abuse and delinquency.
There seems to be a strong association in family relation-
ships between child abuse and delinquency. Cases of
abuse and neglect have been found in every level of the
economic strata, and a number of studies have linked
child abuse and neglect to juvenile delinquency. While
the evidence is not conclusive, it does suggest that a
strong relationship exists between child abuse and subse-
quent delinquent behavior.

Juvenile gangs have become a serious
and growing problem in many major
metropolitan areas throughout the
United States.
Ethnic youth gangs, mostly males aged 14 to 21, appear
to be increasing in such areas as Los Angeles, Chicago,
Boston, and New York. National surveys of gang activity
now estimate that there are more than 750,000 members
in the United States, up sharply over the previous twenty
years. One view of gang development is that such groups
serve as a bridge between adolescence and adulthood in
communities where adult social control is not available.
Another view suggests that gangs are a product of lower-
class social disorganization and that they serve as an
alternative means of economic advancement for poorly
motivated and uneducated youth. Today’s gangs are
more often commercially than culturally oriented, and
the profit motive may be behind increasing member-
ships. It is unlikely that gang control strategies can be
successful as long as legitimate economic alternatives are
lacking. Look for rapid growth in ganging when the cur-
rent adolescent population matures and limited job op-
portunities encourage gang members to prolong their
involvement in illegal activities.

372 C O N C L U D I N G N O T E S

Many of the underlying problems
of youth crime and delinquency are
directly related to education.
Numerous empirical studies have confirmed that lack of
educational success is an important contributing factor
in delinquency; experts generally agree chronic offenders
have had a long history of school failure. Dropping out
of school is now being associated with long-term anti-
social behavior. About 10 percent of all victimizations
occur on school grounds. Though some school-based
delinquency control projects have been very successful,
a great deal more effort is needed in this critical area of
school-delinquency prevention control.

Substance abuse is closely associated
with juvenile crime and delinquency.
Self-report surveys indicate that more than half of all high
school-age kids have tried drugs. Surveys of arrestees
indicate that a significant proportion of teenagers are
drug users and many are high school dropouts. While one
national survey shows that teenage drug use increased
slightly in the past year, both national surveys report that
drug and alcohol use are much lower today than 5 and
10 years ago. Traditional prevention efforts and education
programs have not had encouraging results.

Prevention is a key component of
an overall strategy to address the
problem of juvenile delinquency.
In recent years, many different types of delinquency
prevention programs have been targeted at children,
young people, and families, and many of these programs
show positive results in reducing delinquency as well as
other problem behaviors, such as substance abuse and
truancy. They have also been shown to lead to improve-
ments in other areas of life, such as educational achieve-
ment, health, and employment. These benefits often
translate into substantial cost savings.

An analysis of the history of juvenile
justice over the past 100 years shows
how our policy regarding delinquency
has gone through cycles of reform.
Many years ago, society primarily focused on the treat-
ment of youths who committed criminal behavior, often
through no fault of their own. Early in the nineteenth
century, juveniles were tried in criminal courts, like
everyone else. Reformers developed the idea of establish-
ing separate institutions for juvenile offenders in which
the rehabilitation idea could proceed without involve-
ment with criminal adults. As a result, the House of
Refuge Movement was born. By the late 1890s the system
proved unworkable, because delinquent juveniles, minor
offenders, and neglected children weren’t benefiting from
institutional placement. The 1899 Illinois Juvenile Court

Act was an effort to regulate the treatment of children
and secure institutional reform. Parens patriae was the
justification to ignore legal formalities in the juvenile
courts up until the early twentieth century. In the 1960s,
the Gault decision heralded the promise of legal rights
for children and interrupted the goal of individualized
rehabilitation. The 1970s yielded progress in the form
of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the juvenile justice
system seemed suspended between the assurance of due
process and efforts to provide services for delinquent
children and their families. Today, society is concerned
with the control of serious juvenile offenders and the
development of firm sentencing provisions in the juve-
nile courts. These cycles represent the shifting philoso-
phies of the juvenile justice system.

Today no single ideology or view
dominates the direction, programs,
and policies of the juvenile justice
system.
Throughout the past decade, numerous competing posi-
tions regarding juvenile justice have emerged. As the
liberal program of the 1970s has faltered, more restrictive
sanctions have been imposed. The “crime control” posi-
tion seems most formidable in this new millennium.
However, there remains a great deal of confusion over
what the juvenile justice system does, what it should do,
and how it should deal with youthful antisocial behavior.
The juvenile justice system operates on distinctly differ-
ent yet parallel tracks. On the one hand, significant fund-
ing is available for prevention and treatment strategies.
At the same time, states are responding to anxiety about
youth crime by devising more punitive measures.

Today’s problems in the juvenile
justice system can often be traced
to the uncertainty of its founders,
the “child savers.”
Such early twentieth-century groups formed the juvenile
justice system on the misguided principle of reforming
wayward youth and remodeling their behavior. The “best
interest of the child” standard has long been the guiding
light in juvenile proceedings, calling for the strongest avail-
able rehabilitative services. Today’s juvenile justice system
is often torn between playing the role of social versus
crime control agent.

In recent years, the juvenile justice
system has become more legalistic by
virtue of U.S. Supreme Court decisions
that have granted children procedural
safeguards in various court proceedings.
The case of In re Gault of the 1960s motivated state legisla-
tors to revamp their juvenile court legal procedures. Today,

C O N C L U D I N G N O T E S 373

the Supreme Court is continuing to struggle with making
distinctions between the legal rights of adults and those of
minors. Recent Court decisions that allowed children to be
searched by teachers and denied their right to a jury trial
showed that the Court continues to recognize a legal sepa-
ration between adult and juvenile offenders.

Despite some dramatic distinctions,
juveniles have gained many of the legal
due process rights enjoyed by adults.
Among the more significant elements of due process are
the right to counsel, evidence efficiency, protection from
double jeopardy and self-incrimination, and the right to
appeal. While the public continues to favor providing
juveniles with the same due process and procedural guar-
antees accorded to adults, it is likely that constitutional
protections that adults receive are not actually provided
to juvenile offenders. High caseloads, poor pretrial
preparation and trial performance, and the lack of dis-
positional representation are issues where juveniles are
being denied due process of law. More resources are
needed to implement constitutional procedures so that
legal protections are not discarded.

The key area in which due process is required by
Gault is the right to counsel. While progress has been
made in improving the availability and quality of legal
counsel afforded youths in delinquency proceedings in
over four decades since Gault, much remains to be done.

States are increasingly taking legislative
action to ensure that juvenile arrest and
disposition records are available to
prosecutors and judges.
Knowledge of defendants’ juvenile records may help deter-
mine appropriate sentencing for offenders aged 18 to 24,
the age group most likely to be involved in violent crime.
Laws that are being passed include (1) police fingerprint-
ing of juveniles charged with crimes that are felonies if
committed by an adult; (2) centralized juvenile arrest and
disposition record-holding and dissemination statutes;
(3) prosecutor and court access to juvenile disposition
records; and (4) limitations on expungement of juvenile
records when there are subsequent adult convictions.

The Juvenile Court is the focal point of
the contemporary juvenile justice system.
Created at the turn of the century, it was adopted as an
innovative solution to the problem of wayward youth. In
the first half of the century, these courts (organized by the
states and based on the historic notion of parens patriae)
were committed to the treatment of the child. They func-
tioned without procedures employed in the adult crimi-
nal courts. When the system was reviewed by the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1966, due process was imposed on the
juvenile court system. Almost 40 years have since passed,

and numerous reform efforts have been undertaken. But
the statement of Judge Abe Fortas “that the child receives
the worst of both worlds—neither the protection afforded
adults nor the treatment needed for children,” still rings
true. Reform efforts have been disappointing.

What are the remedies for the
current juvenile court system?
Some suggest abolishing the delinquency-status jurisdic-
tion of the courts. This is difficult to do because the orga-
nization of the courts is governed by state law. Others
want to strengthen the legal rights of juveniles by improv-
ing the quality of services of legal counsel. The majority of
experts believe there is an urgent need to develop mean-
ingful dispositional programs and expand treatment ser-
vices. Over the last fifty years, the juvenile court system
has been transformed from a rehabilitative to a quasi-
criminal court. With limited resources and procedural
deficiencies, there is little likelihood of much change in
the near future. One area of change has been the develop-
ment of specialized courts, such as drug courts, which
focus attention on specific problems, and teen or youth
courts, which use peer jurors and other officers of the
court to settle less serious matters.

The death penalty for children has
been upheld by the Supreme Court.
According to the Wilkens v. Missouri and Standford v.
Kentucky cases in 1989, the Supreme Court concluded
that states are free to impose the death penalty for mur-
derers who commit their crimes while age 16 or 17.
According to the majority decision written by Justice
Antonin Scalia, society has not formed a consensus that
such executions are a violation of the cruel and unusual
punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. In August
2003, the Supreme Court of Missouri declared the death
penalty to be unconstitutional for offenders under the
age of 18, and petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take
up this matter. In January 2004, the Supreme Court
agreed to decide whether the death penalty for 16- and
17-year-olds violates the Constitution.

New approaches to policing juvenile
delinquency show promising results
in reducing serious offenses, such
as gang activity and gun crimes.
Some of these new approaches include aggressive law
enforcement, community-based policing services, and
police in schools. One of the most successful approaches
has involved the police working closely with other juve-
nile justice agencies and the community. Operation
Ceasefire in Boston, which brought together a broad
range of juvenile justice and social agencies and commu-
nity groups, produced substantial reductions in youth
homicide victims, youth gun assaults, and gang violence

374 C O N C L U D I N G N O T E S

across the city. Versions of this successful program are
now being replicated in other cities across the country.

The use of detention in the juvenile
justice system continues to be a
widespread problem.
After almost three decades of work, virtually all jurisdic-
tions have passed laws requiring that status offenders be
placed in shelter care programs rather than detention
facilities. Another serious problem related to the use of
juvenile detention is the need to remove young people
from lockups in adult jails. The Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention continues to give millions of
dollars in aid to encourage the removal of juveniles from
such adult lockups. But eliminating the confinement of
children in adult institutions remains an enormously
difficult task in the juvenile justice system. Although most
delinquency cases do not involve detention, its use is
more common for cases involving males, minorities, and
older juveniles. Juvenile detention is one of the most im-
portant elements of the justice system and one of the
most difficult to administer. It is experiencing a renewed
emphasis on programs linked to short-term confinement.

The use of waiver, bind-over, and transfer
provisions in juvenile court statutes is
now more common.
This trend has led toward a criminalization of the juvenile
system. Because there are major differences between the
adult and juvenile court systems, transfer to an adult
court exposes youths to more serious consequences of
their antisocial behavior and is a strong recommendation
of those favoring a crime control model. Waiver of serious
offenders is one of the most significant developments in
the trend to criminalize the juvenile court. According to
the National Conference of State Legislatures, every state
has transfer proceedings. Many states are considering
legislation that makes it easier to transfer juveniles into
adult courts. States continue to modify age and offense
criteria, allowing more serious offenders to be tried as
criminals; some are considering new transfer laws, such
as mandatory and presumptive waiver provisions.

The role of the attorney in the juvenile
justice process requires further research
and analysis.
Most attorneys appear to be uncertain whether they
should act as adversaries or advocates in the juvenile
process. In addition, the role of the juvenile prosecutor
has become more significant as a result of new and more
serious statutory sentencing provisions, as well as legal
standards promulgated by such organizations as the
American Bar Association and the National District At-
torneys Association. Juvenile defendants also need and
are entitled to effective legal representation. Through

creative and resourceful strategies, many more states are
providing comprehensive representation for delinquent
youth. These programs include law internships, attorney
mentoring, and neighborhood defender services.

Juvenile sentencing procedures now
reflect the desire to create uniformity
and limited discretion in the juvenile
court, and this trend is likely to continue.
Many states have now developed programs such as
mandatory sentences, sentencing guidelines, and limited-
discretion sentencing to bring uniformity into the juve-
nile justice system. As a result of the public’s fear about
serious juvenile crime, legislators have amended juvenile
codes to tighten up juvenile sentencing provisions. Grad-
uated sanctions are the latest type of sentencing solution
being explored by states. The most popular piece of juve-
nile crime legislation in the near future will be tougher
sentences for violent and repeat offenders. Perhaps the
most dramatic impact on sentencing will be felt by the
imposition of “blended sentences” that combine juvenile
and adult sentences. Today, more than a dozen states now
use blended sentencing statutes, which allow courts to
impose juvenile and/or adult correctional sanctions on
certain young offenders.

In the area of community sentencing,
new forms of probation supervision
have received greater attention in
recent years.
Intensive probation supervision, balanced probation,
wilderness probation, and electronic monitoring have
become important community-based alternatives over
the last few years. Some studies report mixed results for
these new forms of probation, but more experimentation
is needed. Probation continues to be the single most sig-
nificant intermediate sanction available to the juvenile
court system.

Restorative community juvenile justice
is a new designation that refers to a
preference for neighborhood-based,
more accessible, and less formal
juvenile services.
The restorative justice idea focuses on the relationship
between the victim, the community, and the offender. For
the victim, restorative justice offers the hope of restitu-
tion or other forms of reparation, information about the
case, support for healing, the opportunity to be heard,
and input into the case, as well as expanded opportunities
for involvement and influence. For the community, there
is the promise of reduced fear and safer neighborhoods,
a more accessible justice process, and accountability, as
well as the obligation for involvement and participation
in sanctioning crime, supporting victim restoration,

C O N C L U D I N G N O T E S 375

reintegrating offenders, and crime prevention and con-
trol. For the offender, restorative justice requires account-
ability in the form of obligations to repair the harm to
individual victims and victimized communities, and the
opportunity to develop new competencies, social skills,
and the capacity to avoid future crime.

Deinstitutionalization has become
an important goal of the juvenile
justice system.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-
tion has provided funds to encourage this process. In the
early 1980s, the deinstitutionalization movement seemed
to be partially successful. Admissions to public juvenile
correctional facilities declined in the late 1970s and early
1980s. In addition, the number of status offenders being
held within the juvenile justice system was reduced.
However, the number of institutionalized children in the
1990s and in the early part of the 2000s has increased,
and the deinstitutionalization movement has failed to
meet all of its optimistic goals. Nonetheless, the majority
of states have achieved compliance with the DSO man-
date (Deinstitutionalizing Status Offenders). Because
juvenile crime is a high priority, the challenge to the
states will be to retain a focus on prevention despite soci-
etal pressures for more punitive approaches. If that can
be achieved, then deinstitutionalization will remain a
central theme in the juvenile justice system.

The number of incarcerated
youths remains high.
The juvenile institutional population appears to have
stabilized in recent years (there are slightly less than
109,000 youths in some type of correctional institution).
The juvenile courts, however, seem to be using the most
severe of the statutory dispositions, that is, commitment
to the juvenile institution, rather than the “least restric-
tive statutory alternative.” There is also a wide variation
in juvenile custody rates across the nation. The District
of Columbia has the highest juvenile incarceration rate at
over 700 per 100,000 juveniles, which is almost twice the
national average.

Minority youths have higher
incarceration rates.
A disproportionate number of minority youths are incar-
cerated in youth facilities. The difference is greatest for
black youths, with the incarceration rate being almost five
times greater than that for whites. Of equal importance,
minorities are more likely to be placed in secure public
facilities rather than in open private facilities that might
provide more costly and effective treatment. The OJJDP is
committed to ensuring that the country address situa-
tions where there is disproportionate confinement of
minority offenders in the nation’s juvenile justice system.

Juvenile boot camps don’t work.
Correctional boot camps, which combine get-tough
elements of adult programs with education, substance-
abuse treatment, and social-skills training, are used to
shock the offender into going straight. Systematic reviews
and meta-analyses of the research evidence show that
juvenile boot camps fail to reduce future offending. De-
spite their poor results, many states continue to use boot
camps as a correctional option for juvenile offenders.

The future of the legal right to treatment
for juveniles remains uncertain.
The appellate courts have established minimum stan-
dards of care and treatment on a case-by-case basis, but it
does not appear that the courts can be persuaded today to
expand this constitutional theory to mandate that incar-
cerated children receive adequate treatment. Eventually,
this issue must be clarified by the Supreme Court. Re-
forms in state juvenile institutions often result from class-
action lawsuits filed on behalf of incarcerated youth.

A serious crisis exists in the
U.S. juvenile justice system.
How to cope with the needs of large numbers of children
in trouble remains one of the most controversial and
frustrating issues in our society. The magnitude of the
problem is such that around 2 million youths are arrested
each year; over 1.6 million delinquency dispositions and
150,000 status offense cases are heard in court. Today, the
system and the process seem more concerned with crime
control and more willing to ignore the rehabilitative ideal.
Perhaps the answer lies outside the courtroom in the
form of greater job opportunities, improved family rela-
tionships, and more effective education. Much needs to
be done in delinquency prevention. One fact is also cer-
tain: according to many experts, the problem of violent
juvenile crime is a national crisis. While the good news is
that the juvenile crime rate declined in recent years, vio-
lence by juveniles is still too prevalent and remains an
issue of great concern. Developing programs to address
juvenile violence seems to overshadow all other juvenile
justice objectives.

Federal funding for juvenile delinquency
is essential to improving state
practices and programs.
The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974 has had a tremendous impact on America’s juvenile
justice systems. Its mandates to deinstitutionalize status
offenders and remove juveniles from adult jails have
spurred change for over two decades. The survival of
many state programs will likely depend on this federal
legislation. Because the Act has contributed to a wide
range of improvements, Congress will most likely ap-
prove future financial incentives.

376 C O N C L U D I N G N O T E S

Today, the juvenile justice system and
court of 100 years is under attack
more than ever before.
Yet the system has weathered criticism for failing to con-
trol and rehabilitate juveniles. It is a unique American
institution duplicated in many other countries as being
the best model for handling juveniles who commit
crime. The major recommendations of such important
organizations as the national Council of Juvenile Court
Judges, the American Bar Association, and the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention for the new

century are (1) the court should be a leader for juvenile
justice in the community; (2) people (judges, attorneys,
and probation officers) are the key to the health of the
juvenile justice system; (3) public safety and rehabilita-
tion are the goals of the juvenile justice system; (4) juve-
nile court workloads are shaped today and in the future
by the increase of substance abuse cases that must be
resolved; and (5) the greatest future needs of the juvenile
court in particular are resources and funding for more
services, more staff, and more facilities.

C O N C L U D I N G N O T E S 377

378 A P P E N D I X

Amendment I (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of
a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed.

Amendment III (1791)
No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any
house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of
war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV (1791)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V (1791)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other-
wise infamous, crime unless on a presentment or indict-
ment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land
or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in
time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy

of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of
life, liberty, or property; without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use without
just compensation.

Amendment VI (1791)
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of
the state and district wherein the crime shall have been
committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the wit-
nesses against him; to have compulsory process for ob-
taining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance
of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII (1791)
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy
shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall
be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be other-
wise reexamined in any court of the United States, than
according to the rules of common law.

Amendment VIII (1791)
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.

Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others re-
tained by the people.

Appendix:
Excerpts from the
U.S. Constitution

Amendment X (1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are re-
served to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section I. All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens

of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any laws which abridge
the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, lib-
erty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.

A P P E N D I X 379

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Corrections and Treatment ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Still stressed from student homework?

Get quality assistance from academic writers!

Order now