CRJ 301 UAGC Persistently Disruptive Juveniles Intervention Discussion

Consider the goals of the juvenile justice system, which focus on reintegrating juveniles into the community as productive members of society. Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapters 8 and 9 of Introduction to Juvenile Justice. In addition,

Compare and contrast treatment options for special populations identified in our text (i.e., early starters, juvenile gangs, or juvenile sex offenders) and advocate for, or against, shifting juveniles in this category to treatment options outside normal juvenile delinquency programs. You should identify a specific category identified as being part of special populations and a treatment option as part of the discussion. What are the benefits to this program in addressing the special population? Are there drawbacks, if so what are they? How are outcomes identified and measured?

Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8
Residential and
Institutional
Placement of
Juveniles
Comstock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish
the following objectives:
Summarize the history behind the residential
placement of youth.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 1 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Define confinement and who is most likely to be
sentenced to institutions for juveniles.
Explain the different types of short-term residential
placements for youth.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of group
homes.
Explain the degree of effectiveness of wilderness
camps.
Identify the different types of short-term residential
placements for youth.
Summarize the issues associated with long-term
secure correctional facilities.
Describe the risks involved with confining juveniles
in adult facilities.
Identify the components of successfully helping
juveniles reintegrate into society after release.
During 2008, a juvenile correctional center in Ohio lost over half of its staff. The center, called Marion Juvenile
Correctional Facility, saw a significant increase in violence among residents of the facility. In fact, according to
the Columbus Dispatch,
Assaults on staff members have resulted in a broken nose, a slash across the face, choking,
unconsciousness, bites, a blown-out knee and the indignity of being doused with milk cartons filled
with urine. Guards, teachers and other prison workers regularly are assaulted. Last year, they missed
the equivalent of seven years of workdays because of injuries and disabilities. Large youth fights have
sent staff members to the hospital four, five, six at a time. Slightly more than half of the frustrated,
frightened and fatigued guards quit last year, some walking away from $15.80-an-hour jobs after only
a few days. (Ludlow, 2008)
As with any situation, the causes of violence are varied; however, reports indicated that gang violence and
understaffing all contributed to the situation at the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility. The state was hit with
a federal lawsuit after evidence of widespread abuse by staff surfaced. As a result, correctional staff members
were trained to use less force when managing unruly youth. However, as noted by the unions representing
correctional officers, the hands-off policy created concerns for correctional officers, who indicated they felt
unsafe at the facility.
At the time the Columbus Dispatch article was written in early 2008, the department director expressed optimism
about being able to turn around the correctional facility. The director noted that staff training would help to
reduce use-of-force incidents against youth. In addition, the facility worked to identify gang-involved youth and
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 2 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
transfer them to other facilities. Just one year later, on January 8, 2009, the Ohio Department of Youth Services
issued a press release announcing the closure of the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility.
Fast forward to today. Ohio has made great strides to reform its juvenile justice system. Since 2008, the juvenile
justice population residing in youth centers has declined from 1,700 youth to 429. The state also created the
Reentry Continuum, an innovative plan that relies on best practices in rehabilitation. The plan calls for a number
of principles that guide Ohio’s approach toward managing youth in the juvenile justice system:
Adopt the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model for parole staff
Implement risk and need assessment tools to assign treatment programming
Reduce the length of time on parole for low and low-moderate risk youth by collaborating with judges
Support reentry courts at the county level
Develop discharge plans to assist youth with any needed services post-release
The Reentry Continuum is just one example of major reforms that states nationwide have adopted to reduce the
number of youth in custody.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 3 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.1 Introduction
Confining juveniles as a form of punishment is not without controversy. Throughout this text, we have discussed
how shifts in policy are often influenced by the social climate of the time. Not surprisingly, when it comes to
confining juvenile offenders as a form of punishment, we have seen (and continue to see) shifts in policy. For
example, there was an increase in the use of confinement for juveniles during the get-tough era of the 1980s and
1990s. Since that time, however, states have reduced by nearly half the population of youth confined. The recent
shift is due to several factors. For one thing, the cost of confinement has forced states to rethink their policies.
Moreover, there is a growing recognition that confinement can exacerbate rather than solve the problems that
bring youth to the juvenile justice system. Even so, the confinement of juveniles has a long history and is
unlikely to be abandoned in the near future.
The use of confinement has often been justified on the grounds of deterrence. For example, although probation is
the most widely used sanction for juveniles, there has always been a concern that the general public views
probation as merely a slap on the wrist. From a deterrence standpoint, justice should be swift, certain, and just
severe enough to outweigh the benefits of crime. Using the biblical reference “to spare the rod is to spoil the
child,” some observers argued during the 1990s and early 2000s that only after delinquents experienced the harsh
hand of justice in the form of boot camps, chain gangs, or confinement would they think twice about committing
crime in the future. Policymakers argued that the firm hand of justice would steer youth onto the right path.
Over the past decade, there has been a groundswell of support for reducing the use of confinement for juveniles.
For example, it has been argued that institutions for juveniles act as “crime schools,” as youth from various
criminal backgrounds come together and reinforce their criminal status. In these situations, juveniles can learn
how to commit other crimes from fellow juveniles. Second, there are concerns about the physical and emotional
effects of confinement on youth who are still developing and growing. In particular, youth could be traumatized
by their confinement experiences. Third, there are concerns regarding inequality in terms of who is placed in
these settings. In particular, girls appear to be more likely to be sent to facilities for minor charges, and African
American youth are disproportionately represented. Finally, critics contend that juveniles sentenced to serve time
in adult facilities do worse than those who remain in the juvenile system. The complexity of these issues cannot
be underestimated. We will discuss these and other issues in this chapter as we examine the impact and
effectiveness of institutional placement for juveniles.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 4 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.2 Defining Confinement for Juveniles
The words confinement or institutional placement often conjure an image of a
large, concrete prison with bars and barbed wire. These images of prison have
been popularized by movies such as Shawshank Redemption and Dog Pound, and
television shows such as Orange Is the New Black and Empire. Although mediaderived images of prison may be accurate for some maximum-security adult
prisons, juvenile facilities are more varied and complex. The terminology used to
define juvenile facilities varies so greatly that the terms residential or out- ofhome placements are often used rather than the term prison. In fact, according
to Melissa Sickmund (2010),
Juvenile facilities are known by many different names across the country:
detention centers, juvenile halls, shelters, reception and diagnostic centers,
group homes, wilderness camps, ranches, farms, youth development centers,
residential treatment centers, training or reform schools, and juvenile
correctional institutions. (p. 1)
Comstock/Thinkstock
The lack of a standard definition for these facilities can lead to a great deal of
Out-of-home placements
confusion. For example, to examine whether residential placement or community
for juveniles range from
placement is more effective in reducing recidivism among youth, we would need
detention centers to group
to make sure we are not comparing apples to oranges. We would also need to
homes to residential
decide how to measure or quantify residential placement. We would expect, for
treatment centers.
example, that a juvenile placed in a wilderness camp would be exposed to a
different set of experiences than a juvenile placed in a secure correctional facility.
In an effort to identify these differences and the impact they have on the behavior of juveniles, we will examine
each of these settings in detail in subsequent sections. First, though, let’s look at the broad data on which and how
many juveniles are in these facilities, with the understanding that the common thread among all of these facilities
is that juveniles reside at the facility rather than in their homes.
Population Characteristics of Residential Facilities
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) conducts a census of residential facilities for
juveniles every other year. The results of the 2016 survey indicated that 45,567 juvenile offenders were held in
juvenile residential facilities, representing a decline of more than 58% since 2000 (Puzzanchera, Hockenberry,
Sladky, & Kang, 2018). Table 8.1 illustrates that the majority of juvenile facilities are labeled “residential
treatment centers.” Those facilities most similar to what we consider a “prison” in adult terms are labeled “longterm secure correctional facilities.” Table 8.1 indicates that there are 189 of these facilities across the country.
Table 8.1: The number of residential juvenile facilities by type, 2016
Number
of
Detention
center
662
Shelter
Reception/diagnostic
center
Group
home
Ranch/wilderness
camp
Longterm
secure
131
58
344
30
189
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Residential
treatment
center
678
Page 5 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
facilities
Source: From “Table: Year by facility self-classification, United States,” in Juvenile residential facility census databook: 2000–2016, by C. Puzzanchera,
S. Hockenberry, T. J. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/jrfcdb/asp/selection_profile.asp
(http
(h ttpss:://w
//ww
ww.ojjd
w.o jjdp
p.g
.goov/o
v/ojs
jstatbb
tatbb/jr
/jrfcdb
fcdb/as
/a sp/s
p /selection_
election_p
profile.
rofile.as
aspp))
By examining the latest trends, we see in Figure 8.1 that the number of juveniles in residential placement has
declined significantly. This decline is not surprising, since as we discussed in Chapter 1 the overall arrest rates
among youth have also declined significantly.
Figure 8.1: Juveniles in residential placement, 2000 and 2014
From “Table: Number of facilities and juvenile offenders by facility size, United States (for years 2004 and
2014),” in Juvenile residential facility census databook: 2000–2016, by C. Puzzanchera, S. Hockenberry, T. J.
Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/jrfcdb/asp/display_profile.asp
(http
(h ttpss:://ww
//ww w.
w.ojjdp.
o jjd p.ggo
ov/ojs
v/o jsta
tatbb/jr
tb b/jrfcd
fcdb
b/as
/asp/d
p/dis
isppla
lay_
y_ppro
rofile.a
file.asspp))
As seen in Table 8.2, the number of juveniles in residential placement varies quite a bit by state. For example,
Table 8.2 lists both the number of juveniles in placement (for 2015) and the rate of placement. The rate of
placement is the number of juveniles in custody per 100,000 youth. A rate helps to account for differences in
state population. In other words, we would expect that California would have more juveniles in custody, given
that it is the most populous state in the country. However, in the case of California, we see the placement rate of
165 is below that for many other states. Six of the most populous states—California, Texas, Florida, New York,
Pennsylvania, and Ohio—have reduced their placement rates by nearly half since 1997 (Hockenberry, 2018).
Table 8.2: The number of juveniles in residential placement by state, 2015
State where offense occurred (upper
age of juvenile court jurisdiction in
2015)
U.S. total
Number of juvenile offenders in
public or private residential
placement, 2015
48,043
Residential placement
rate, 2015 (per 100,000
youth)
152
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 6 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Alabama (17)
849
168
Alaska (17)
207
262
Arizona (17)
717
98
Arkansas (17)
555
175
California (17)
6,726
165
Colorado (17)
999
177
Connecticut (17)
141
38
Delaware (17)
162
176
District of Columbia (17)
105
251
Florida (17)
2,853
153
Georgia (16)
1,110
111
Hawaii (17)
51
39
Idaho (17)
393
200
Illinois (17)
1,542
112
Indiana (17)
1,563
217
Iowa (17)
675
207
Kansas (17)
564
177
Kentucky (17)
510
112
Louisiana (16)
831
193
Maine (17)
81
67
Maryland (17)
612
101
Massachusetts (17)
426
66
Michigan (16)
1,554
172
Minnesota (17)
852
149
Mississippi (17)
243
74
Missouri (16)
948
173
Montana (17)
171
170
Nebraska (17)
465
225
Nevada (17)
627
209
New Hampshire (17)
69
54
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 7 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
New Jersey (17)
636
69
New Mexico (17)
363
164
1,386
99
North Carolina (15)
468
60
North Dakota (17)
144
203
2,163
178
552
131
Oregon (17)
1,113
286
Pennsylvania (17)
2,826
228
Rhode Island (17)
198
200
South Carolina (16)
693
161
South Dakota (17)
228
254
Tennessee (17)
660
97
Texas (16)
4,299
153
Utah (17)
453
114
Vermont (17)
27
47
Virginia (17)
1,227
147
Washington (17)
921
130
West Virginia (17)
567
329
Wisconsin (16)
762
147
Wyoming (17)
177
296
New York (15)
Ohio (17)
Oklahoma (17)
Source: From “Table: In 2015, the national commitment rate was twice the detention rate, but rates varied by state,” in Juveniles in residential
placement, 2015, by S. Hockenberry, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/250951.pdf ( hhttp
t tpss:://w
//www.
ww.oojjd
jjdpp.g
. goovv//ppu
ubs
bs//25
2509
0951
51..pd
pdff))
The types of offenses that lead to residential placement are shown in Figure 8.2. Person offenses, which include
violent offenses such as murder and robbery, represent the largest category, with the second largest category
being property offenses. In fact, 60% of the juveniles in residential placement were there as a result of a person
or property offense.
Figure 8.2: Percentage of juveniles in any
residential setting by offense type, 2015
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 8 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
From “Table: Year of census by most serious offense general,” in Easy
access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by
M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved
from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/display.asp
( ht
h tttps
ps:: / / w
ww
ww.oj
w. ojjjdp
dp.. gov
g ov//oojs
jsta
tatb
tbbb/e
/ezza ccjr
jrpp/a
/as pp/d
/dis
isp la
lay.
y.aasspp))
If we examine gender, we can see in Figure 8.3 that 85% of youth in residential placement are boys. What this
doesn’t illustrate, however, is that girls of color are more likely than white girls to be placed in a residential
setting. Girls are also more likely to be placed in residential settings for lower level offense. According to the
latest statistics available from the OJJDP (Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2017), more than half of
youth placed in residential settings for running away are girls.
Figure 8.3: Percentage of juveniles in
residential placement by gender, 2015
Eighty-five percent of the youth in
residential placement were boys.
From “Table: Year of census by sex,” in Easy access to the
census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by
M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera,
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…content&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 9 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
2017, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/displa
y.asp?
row_var=v01&col_var=v02&display_type=rowp&
export_file=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110
( ht
h tttppss::///w
/ww
ww.
w.ojj
o jjd
dpp.g
.goovv/o
/ ojs
jsta
tatb
t bbb/e
/ezzaac jr
j rpp/a
/assp /d
/dis
isppla
l ay.
y.a
a sspp??
ro
row
w_ va
varr=v0
=v011&co
&col_
l_va
varr=v0
=v022&d
&dis
isppla
lay_
y_typ
type=ro
e=row
wpp&exp
&expoorrt_
t_ff
ile=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110)
ile=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110)
If we examine race, we see that there are differences overall and by state. Table 8.3 illustrates that the total
percentage of minority youth in custody in the United States is higher (42% black, 22% Hispanic) than for white
youth (31%). The table also illustrates differences by state. Table 8.3 shows 17 states where 50% or more of the
population under state custody is black. The jurisdictions with the highest rates include District of Columbia
(97%), Delaware (80%), Louisiana (80%), Maryland (79%), Mississippi (77%), Georgia (74%), and New Jersey
(72%). What is difficult to assess from the table is the extent to which these percentages represent
disproportionality.
Table 8.3: Percentage under state custody by race/ethnicity, 2015
White
Black
Hispanic1
American Indian2
Asian
Other
U.S. total
31%
42%
22%
2%
1%
2%
Alabama
35
60
3
0
0
1
Alaska
38
14
1
36
1
10
Arizona
33
16
36
8
1
7
Arkansas
36
57
6
0
1
1
California
13
28
55
1
2
1
Colorado
36
21
39
1
1
1
Connecticut
23
47
26
0
0
4
Delaware
13
80
7
0
0
2
Dist. of Columbia
0
97
0
0
0
0
Florida
29
62
9
0
0
0
Georgia
18
74
5
0
1
2
Hawaii
18
0
6
0
53
29
Idaho
70
2
23
2
2
1
Illinois
21
63
14
0
0
1
Indiana
53
36
7
0
0
4
Iowa
56
29
9
2
1
2
Kansas
46
33
19
1
1
1
State of offense
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 10 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Kentucky
56
34
2
0
0
8
Louisiana
17
80
1
1
0
1
Maine
78
15
0
4
0
4
Maryland
14
79
6
0
0
0
Massachusetts
23
30
41
0
1
6
Michigan
40
47
6
1
0
6
Minnesota
38
40
7
10
2
4
Mississippi
22
77
0
0
0
1
Missouri
49
44
3
0
0
3
Montana
54
12
12
16
0
5
Nebraska
40
25
23
5
1
5
Nevada
25
37
31
2
2
3
New Hampshire
78
9
9
4
0
4
New Jersey
8
72
18
0
0
0
New Mexico
14
7
74
4
0
2
New York
28
52
16
1
1
2
North Carolina
21
67
7
2
0
3
North Dakota
54
13
4
25
0
4
Ohio
42
50
3
0
0
4
Oklahoma
39
40
8
11
0
2
Oregon
56
13
24
4
1
1
Pennsylvania
29
53
14
0
0
3
Rhode Island
32
30
32
0
3
3
South Carolina
32
48
16
1
0
3
South Dakota
49
4
3
39
1
3
Tennessee
46
41
9
0
0
3
Texas
21
34
44
0
0
1
Utah
50
9
34
5
2
1
Vermont
89
11
0
0
0
0
Virginia
24
62
11
0
0
3
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 11 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Washington
43
22
20
6
2
7
West Virginia
84
8
2
1
0
5
Wisconsin
28
56
9
3
1
2
Wyoming
66
7
14
12
0
2
1The Hispanic category includes
person of Latin American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.
2
American Indian includes Alaskan Natives; Asian includes Pacific Islanders.
Source: From “Table: Race/ethnicity by state, 2015,” in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M. Sickmund, T.
J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/State_Race.asp?
state=&topic=State_Race&year=2015&percent=row (h
(http
ttpss:://w
/ /ww
ww.o
w.ojjd
jjdpp..ggoovv/o
/ojs
j sta
tatb
tbb /e
/ezzaaccjr
jrp/a
p /asspp/S
/ Sta
tate
te__R
Ra cce ..aasspp??
ssttaattee=
=&
&ttooppiicc=
=SSttaattee__R
Raaccee&
&yyeeaarr=
=22001155&
&ppeerc
rceenntt=
=ro
row ))
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
The rate of confinement for minority populations has led to a number of initiatives, most notably the
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) initiative designed to reduce the number of minorities who come
in contact with the system. According to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, states
receiving formula grants are required to address the issue of overrepresentation of minorities at each stage of the
juvenile justice system, which includes institutions. The OJJDP has become a leader in collecting data to
examine the national rates of contact. As an example of this leadership, they developed the National
Disproportionate Minority Contact Databook (see https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/
(https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/) ).
Data from this source are referred to as the Relative Rate Index (RRI). The RRI assesses the levels of
disproportionate minority contact at various stages of juvenile justice system processing at the national level.
This rate helps us understand the extent of disproportionality by taking into account the population size of
different minority groups (e.g., black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian) in the United States. The rate
calculated is compared to the rate for white youth. The OJJDP created the RRI matrix to help states and
jurisdictions measure levels of disparity within different parts of the juvenile justice system. By capturing the
extent of disproportionate minority contact within communities, stakeholders can identify decision points that
may need policy reforms. These data now allow us to examine trends over time.
Figure 8.4 illustrates that, with the exception of Asian American youth, all other minority youth have a rate of
placement in residential settings that is higher than for white youth. Black and Hispanic youth have the highest
rates of placement compared to other groups.
Figure 8.4: Relative rate index for youth receiving residential
placement, 2005–2015
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 12 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
*AHPI: Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander
**AIAN: American Indian or Alaskan Native
From “Relative rate indices of adjudication and placement of delinquency referrals,” in National
disproportionate minority contact databook, by C. Puzzanchera and S. Hockenberry, 2018, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/asp/display_trend.asp?
display_in=1&point=9&offense=1&displaytype=rri&show_chart=yes
(htt
(h ttp
pss:://w
// ww
ww.
w.o
ojjjjdp
dp.. gov
gov//oj
o jst
stat
a tbb
bb//dm
dmc db/
d b/a
asp
sp/d
/dis
isppla
layy__tre
t renndd..a
a sspp??
dis
d isp
p lay
la y_
_iin=
n=1&
1&ppo
oiint
nt=9
= 9&
&ooff ffeens
nse
e =1
= 1&d
&dis
isp
pla
layt
y typ
ypee=
=rrrri&
i&sshhoow
w__c h aarrt=
t=yyeess))
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 13 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.3 Short-Term Residential Facilities
Several different types of facilities are referred to as short-term residential facilities, including detention centers,
reception/diagnostic centers, and youth shelters. Detention centers provide a temporary form of confinement
typically used before the intake or adjudication phase. The police may decide to detain youth who pose a risk to
themselves or others. In addition, if the police are unable to locate a youth’s parents or guardians, they may place
the juvenile in detention until the responsible party can be located.
Reception/diagnostic centers typically house youth for short periods while correctional officials assess the
juveniles’ needs in order to determine the best placement. The process is similar to the intake process; however,
two characteristics distinguish it from the traditional intake process. First, unlike the intake process in which a
youth may meet with a probation officer in the community, youth remain confined during this assessment
process. Second, the assessment of youth at this stage often occurs once the youth has been adjudicated as
delinquent and has been remanded to serve time in a residential facility (Sickmund, 2010). For example, in Ohio,
all youth committed to the Department of Youth Services are sent to one reception center to be assessed for
placement in one of the state’s secure juvenile correctional facilities.
Youth shelters are another example of a short-term residential facility. Shelters are designed to provide shortterm placement for youth who cannot be immediately returned to their families. Although designed primarily to
serve status offenders and abuse and neglect cases, youth shelter care facilities can also serve delinquent youth if
a detention center bed is unavailable. Most youth spend only days at youth shelters; however, the stay can be
extended to weeks if the court finds placement to be difficult. Some youth shelters provide extensive services
(e.g., psychological counseling, educational services), whereas others simply provide temporary supervised
housing (Hicks-Coolick, Burnside-Eaton, & Peters, 2003).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 14 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.4 Group Homes
Group homes may be either short or long term, and they can serve a variety of youth in the juvenile justice
system. The typical group home concept provides supervision and services in a home-like setting. Group homes
tend to be smaller than other residential facilities, typically serving 15 or fewer youth at any given time. The
facility is considered nonsecure (e.g., no barbed wire or other security precautions) but does have locked doors,
and youth who leave without permission may be punished.
Group homes vary in terms of both the population they serve and the services they offer. In terms of the
population served, juvenile group homes accept those adjudicated as delinquent and abuse and neglect cases.
They can serve both boys and girls, although coed facilities are rare. In some states, group homes can be used as
halfway houses for youth released from long-term secure facilities. In terms of services, group homes can
provide myriad services and programs. For example, youth residing in these group homes may be able to leave
the home to attend school or outpatient therapy at a treatment center. Other times, therapy groups can be run at
the facility itself with all of the residents of the home (Farmer, Siefert, Wagner, Burns, & Murray, 2017).
Because the services at the facilities vary greatly, assessing their effectiveness is difficult. The most well-known
group home, called Boys Town, was established in 1917 by Father Flanagan, a Catholic priest in Omaha,
Nebraska. The program, which was featured in a motion picture by the same name in 1938, is described in the
accompanying Spotlight.
Spotlight: Boys Town
The Boys Town concept evolved out of Father Flanagan’s concern for abused and neglected children. The
original Boys Town program was an orphanage for young boys (Friman et al., 1996). Today, the nonprofit
organization runs treatment programs in nine states and, according to its website (boystown.org
(https://www.boystown.org/Pages/default.aspx) ), provides services for 1.6 million children per year. The
programs serve both boys and girls.
The Boys Town program maintains its original focus on abused and neglected juveniles, targeting at-risk
youth in an effort to make them productive members of society. Father Flanagan’s original goal was to
help abused and neglected boys to be productive citizens by providing them with opportunities to work in
a loving home. Today’s program has expanded to serve at-risk youth who are not necessarily in the foster
care system but need services. According to the organization’s website, the program has five objectives:
Teaching children and families life-changing skills
Helping children and families build healthy relationships
Empowering children and families to make good decisions on their own
Caring for children in a family-style environment
Supporting children and families in religious practices and values
Boys Town operates a number of different types of programs in different settings. Typical services
include the following:
Residential treatment programs
Group homes
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 15 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
In-home family care programs
Foster care
Community support and mentoring programs
Studies suggest that the services offered, particularly the residential treatment centers, are effective in
increasing independent living skills, family functioning, and healthy relationship development (Friman et
al., 1996).
Boys Town has been studied more extensively than other group homes across the country. Results of those
evaluations find positive results (Kingsley, Ringle, Thompson, Chmelka, & Ingram, 2008); however, other
studies suggest that group homes without treatment do not produce long-term change in youth (Barth, 2005).
Why are the results mixed? It is likely the results are different because measuring the efficacy of Boys Town
group homes suffers from the same problem that we have in assessing all juvenile facilities: the group homes
even within Boys Town are quite varied. For example, some homes simply provide supervised housing, whereas
others may provide more extensive services. A home that is simply a residential setting for the youth, without
treatment services designed to address their issues, is less likely to have an impact.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 16 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.5 Wilderness Camps/Ranches
Wilderness camps, also known as wilderness ranches, became popular in the 1960s and 1970s. These camps
attempt to shape the self-efficacy of youth by exposing them to challenging situations. For example, youth may
be asked to complete a ropes course or a hiking expedition. They may also be asked to camp outdoors for a
period of time and use survival skills to build a fire, find shelter, and cook their own food. Challenging troubled
youth to overcome certain physical challenges is thought to increase their belief in themselves and their ability to
reach their goals. The idea of building self-efficacy through direct experiences is the foundation of the
experiential learning approach, which is the act of learning through doing. Engaging in physical activities to
learn a concept rather than more passive strategies such as reading a book will provide youth with a different set
of experiences (Kolb, 1984).
VisionQuest, a national nonprofit organization that began offering a variety of services to juvenile delinquents in
the 1970s, is most well known for its outdoor programs. One of the more interesting programs is referred to as
the Wagon Train. According to the organization’s website (www.vq.com (http://www.vq.com//) ), the Wagon Train
program “gives troubled youth the extraordinary experience of traveling cross-country for an extended period of
time via horseback and covered wagon.” Youth in the program are required to take care of the horses pulling the
wagons and to set up camp each night. The website touts the program as one that provides outdoor experiences
that mold the character of wayward youth.
Wilderness camps typically last from several weeks to months. For
example, a highly structured wilderness camp in Florida called the
Florida Environmental Institute targets youth adjudicated of felony
charges by the Department of Juvenile Justice in Florida. Nicknamed
the “Last Chance Ranch,” the program is in a remote area of the
Florida Everglades, which makes escape nearly impossible.
Participants typically stay at the ranch for 12 months and during that
time assist with raising pigs, cattle, horses, and various crops in
addition to engaging in more traditional activities such as educational
programs and mental health and substance abuse treatment. Youth are
required to progress through four phases to eventually obtain release.
Although evaluations of the program are not available, its founders
argue the work ethic builds character among youth.
Are wilderness camps effective at reducing recidivism among
delinquent youth? Unfortunately, studies suggest that the core
foundation of a wilderness camp (e.g., challenging outdoor activities)
is not sufficient to influence recidivism rates in delinquent youth. A
review of the literature by Sandra Jo Wilson and Mark Lipsey (2001)
Paul M. Walsh/The Leader Telegram/Associated
Press
concluded that wilderness-based camps simply focused on physically
challenging situations are not effective in reducing recidivism.
Wilderness camps are more effective
However, they did find that some programs were more effective if they when treatments such as therapy are
added treatment services such as family, individual, and group therapy used in addition to challenging
outdoor activities.
(Wilson & Lipsey, 2001). Other studies have also concluded that the
treatment services were the reason for the reductions in recidivism, not
the structure of the camp (MacKenzie, Gover, Styve, & Mitchell, 2000). The question becomes, then, if the only
way to make wilderness programs more effective is to add treatment groups, do the physical challenges have any
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 17 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
beneficial effect? There is no definitive answer yet, but it appears increasingly unlikely that the physical
challenges are beneficial.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 18 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.6 Residential Treatment Centers
Spencer Grant/age fotostock/SuperStock
Youths housed in residential treatment centers
attend group-based treatment programs for
their specific issues.
Residential treatment centers have increased in popularity
during the past few decades. Based on the data in Table 8.1,
32% of all residential facilities for juveniles are residential
treatment centers. At their basic level, these centers provide
treatment services to juveniles in a residential environment.
For example, youth may attend school at the facility during
the day and group-based treatment (e.g., for substance
abuse or anger management) in the evenings or on
weekends. The focus of the facility is treatment rather than
punishment. The centers are intended to serve youth who
present with significant issues (e.g., behavioral or
emotional) that are not deemed severe enough to warrant
placement in a long-term secure correctional facility. In
theory, the facilities are designed to be short term to
stabilize and provide the youth with treatment.
As with all of the facilities and programs we have
discussed, the juveniles served at these facilities vary
greatly as well. According to Zelechoski et al. (2013), the majority of youth housed in these facilities tend to
have severe emotional and behavioral problems, complex histories of trauma and abuse, and significant issues
with regard to family, schools, and peers. Moreover, Preyde et al. (2011) found that half of the youth attending
residential treatment centers in their study did not live with their parents prior to their admission to the facility.
At the same time, painting these centers and the youth they serve with such a broad brush is difficult. Some
residential treatment centers may primarily admit high-need youth, whereas others may serve youth from less
severe backgrounds.
As a result, two critical issues or concerns emerge with regard to these centers. First, there are concerns that these
facilities could be mixing together high-risk youth with those who are lower risk. As a result, the centers could
act as “crime schools,” increasing the problems of the low-risk youth (Holman & Zeidenburg, 2013). The second
concern is whether these centers are sufficiently intensive. As we just discussed, these centers often serve youth
with significant behavioral problems and histories involving complex trauma and abuse. As such, the treatment
should be sufficiently intensive to address the youth’s needs. For example, studies suggest that treatment should
last 3–12 months depending on the youth’s needs (Lipsey, 2009). However, the length of stay at these facilities is
often relatively short and doesn’t appear to vary based on needs. Baglivio et al. (2018) found that when
residential centers addressed the youth’s needs and provided appropriate treatment dosage, outcomes improved
greatly.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 19 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.7 Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities
Long-term secure correctional facilities are the closest parallel to adult prisons. The labels given to these
facilities vary by state. For example, North Carolina refers to its four secure institutions as youth development
centers, Ohio refers to its three secure institutions as juvenile correctional facilities, and California refers to its
three secure facilities as youth correctional facilities. By contrast, Rhode Island refers to its one secure residential
facility as a training school.
The Characteristics
According to Sickmund et al. (2017), just over 12,000 youth were committed to long-term secure facilities in
2015. The size of the facilities varies quite a bit, as illustrated in Figure 8.5. For example, 20% house between 21
and 50 youth, 50% hold between 51 and 150 youth, and 16% hold more than 200 youth.
Figure 8.5: Long-term secure facilities by size in 2015
Long-term secure facilities vary widely in size.
From “Table: Facility size by year of census,” in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement:
1997–2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/display.asp?
row_var=v10&col_var=v01&display_type=colp&export_file=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v01
10&v128=v128 ((ht
htttps:
p s:////w
ww
ww.
w.oj
ojjjdp
dp.. gov
g ov//oojs
jsta
tatb
tbbb/e
/ezza ccjr
jrpp/a
/asspp/d
/dis
isppla
lay.
y.aasspp??
ro w_va
w_ varr =v1
=v10
0&col_var
&co l_ var=v0
=v01
1&d
&dis
is ppla
lay_typ
y_type=co
e=co lp
lp&exp
&expoorrt_
t_file=&p
file=&prrin
inter __fr
frien
ienddly=&v0
ly=&v011
1100=v0
=v011
1100&v1
&v12288=v1
=v12288)
What are the demographic profiles of youth held at these facilities? Eighty-seven percent of those in custody are
boys, and, as shown in Figure 8.6, 43% are African American (Sickmund et al., 2017). Although the charges for
which youth were incarcerated vary (see Figure 8.7), the most frequently occurring offense type is person
offenses, which include robbery, aggravated assault, and sexual assault.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 20 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Figure 8.6: Percentage of youth sent
to long-term secure facilities by race,
2015
From “Table: Year of census by race,” in Easy access to the
census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by
M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera,
2017, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/selecti
on.asp?
row_var=v01&col_var=v03&display_type=&expo
rt_file=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110&v128=
v128
( ht
h tttppss::///w
/ww
ww.
w.ojj
o jjd
dpp.g
.goovv/o
/ ojs
jsta
tatb
t bbb/e
/ezzaac jr
j rpp/a
/assp /s
/seele
leccttiioonn..a
a sspp
?
row
ro w_
_var
va r=v0
=v01&col_
1&co l_ va
varr=v0
=v033&d
&dis
isppla
lay_
y_typ
type=&exp
e=&expoorrt_
t_file=
file=
&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110&v128=v128)
&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110&v128=v128)
Figure 8.7: Percentage of youth sent
to secure facilities by offense type,
2015
Forty-eight percent of offenses were
associated with persons and 24% with
property, while only 4% of offenses were
associated with drugs.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 21 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
From “Year of census by most serious offense general,” in
Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential
placement: 1997– 2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W.
Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/displa
y.asp
( ht
h tttppss::///w
/ww
ww.
w.ojj
o jjd
dpp.g
.goovv/o
/ ojs
jsta
tatb
t bbb/e
/ezzaac jr
j rpp/a
/assp /d
/dis
isppla
l ay.
y.a
a sspp))
Does Confinement Work?
The use of punitive strategies for juveniles became popular in the 1980s and 1990s. This phenomenon was seen
in the rate of out-of-home placements for youth. For example, placements in residential facilities increased by
more than 40% during the 1990s (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006). Now, however, we are seeing a significant
reduction in the number of juveniles placed in long-term secure facilities. The decline in the number of juveniles
in custody is partly reflective of the reduction in arrests for juvenile delinquency. However, as mentioned in the
beginning of the chapter, it also is likely emanating from two additional sources: costs and effectiveness.
Costs
Institutionalizing juveniles is not a cost-efficient sanction.
In fact, the American Correctional Association estimates
that it costs as much as $88,000 per year to house a juvenile
in a high-security institution (although the figures vary by
state). This figure is particularly high compared to other
community-based sanctions. For example, one study found
that the average costs of community-based programs were
estimated to be close to $9,000 per year, compared to just
over $57,000 for a secure facility in Ohio (Lowenkamp &
Latessa, 2005).
Alan Spearman/The Commercial Appeal/Associated Press
The high cost of incarcerating juveniles comprises staffing
Detention center services such as education
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 22 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
make long-term confinement an expensive
costs, the amount of money needed to run the institution
option compared to other community-based
(e.g., heat, water, food), and costs to maintain services
sanctions.
(e.g., medical, mental health). Added services can increase
the cost dramatically. A study in California revealed that
incarcerating a juvenile with mental illness can increase the cost by as much as $18,800 per year (Cohen &
Pfeifer, 2008, p. 31).
Some of the costs of confinement can be justified on the grounds of public safety. In other words, if incarcerating
juveniles leads to a reduction in crime and makes neighborhoods safer, the costs might be worth it. However, the
issue of the effectiveness of long-term incarceration of juveniles is not as straightforward as it might seem.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of confining youth is
complex and difficult to assess. If we take
a step back and examine this issue from a
philosophical perspective, we should ask
ourselves, What is the purpose of
confinement? For example, there are
typically said to be four primary goals of
confinement: retribution, deterrence,
incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Let’s
examine each in detail.
Retribution rests with the notion of
revenge for the harm a criminal has
inflicted on society. Retributive policies
have one intention: to punish. The
justification for punishment is not about
why youth commit crime or what social
circumstances should be changed in their
lives. Rather, the focus and the intent rest
with punishment for the youth’s
transgressions. Retribution as a goal of
incarceration isn’t necessarily related to
effectiveness. In other words, the
punishment is for punishment’s sake, not
to change behavior for the future.
However, if asked, most people would say
they hope the punishment produces a
long-term change in the incarcerated
youth. The idea that punishment should
produce future changes in youth is the
foundation for deterrence theory.
Influences and Treatment
Running treatment in prison can be rewarding and
difficult.
0:00 / 2:16
1.
2.
Discuss the benefits of running treatment programs in
prison.
Identify the potential pitfalls and how they may be
overcome.
Deterrence theory asserts that punishment should reduce the future likelihood of crime. This can be
accomplished in two ways. First, punishment sends a message to juveniles that certain behavior is not acceptable,
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 23 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
that a sanction will occur if they conduct themselves in a particular way. The sanction should teach youth that
there are consequences for behavior, and this consequence should reduce future criminal behavior. This
phenomenon is referred to as specific deterrence. Second, the punishment may have a wider effect on the
behavior of others who see that the youth was punished. You may hear judges or prosecutors say they want to
“send a message” to would-be criminals that the behavior in question will not be tolerated in the community. A
judge in that circumstance may sentence the youth to an institution in the hopes that doing so will make others
who may be thinking about committing a crime reconsider their actions. This is referred to as general deterrence.
During the get-tough period of the 1980s and 1990s, the philosophy of deterrence became increasingly popular.
This was seen in both the transfer of juveniles to the adult system (and thereby adult prisons) and the increase in
the use of confinement in juvenile institutions.
Incapacitation is a third goal that fits with the confinement of juveniles. The logic of incapacitation is that a
person who is confined cannot commit crime. Although this is not exactly accurate, given that juveniles can
commit crimes of violence or theft while confined, it does minimize crime in the community. It can be argued
that incarcerating juveniles during the years in which they are at higher risk for committing crime (e.g., 16–18
years of age) would reduce the crime rate.
Finally, a fourth goal, rehabilitation, maintains that providing treatment services for youth should be the guiding
philosophy for changing troubled behavior and reducing crime. Treatment or rehabilitation focus on the issues or
problems that propelled the youth into delinquency. Supporters would argue that if we can fix those issues or
problems, then we could expect the youth to refrain from committing crime again in the future. In other words, if
you fix the “cause,” you can fix the problem.
If we examine the impact or effectiveness of confinement for juveniles, we need to ask ourselves, Is the goal of
confinement to punish, to deter, to incapacitate, or to rehabilitate? If it is simply to punish for the sake of revenge
for the wrongdoing, then confinement could be argued to serve that purpose. If the purpose is to incapacitate to
reduce crime in the community while the youth is confined, one could argue that such a goal, at least on the
individual level, is likely realized. However, if the goal is either to deter or to rehabilitate, then effectiveness
becomes questionable.
Holman and Zeidenburg (2006) suggested that confinement of youth, particularly in long-term secure placement,
increases the risk of recidivism. They argued that the increase in recidivism can be attributed to a number of
things. Confinement has been found to diminish the mental health of those youth struggling with mental illness;
to label youth as “criminal,” thereby increasing their chances of identifying as criminals; to decrease their
chances to associate with positive peers who might help them get on the right path; and to reduce school
achievement, which further limits opportunity and further entrenches youth in the criminal justice system.
With regard to rehabilitation, studies suggest that if a prison
culture is one that supports treatment services, it can be
more effective. For example, most institutions provide
educational services for youth where they attend school for
a significant portion of the day. Moreover, many offer
group-based treatment services targeted at substance
addiction, life-skills development, or victim awareness.
Others provide vocational opportunities for youth. These
may include computer programming, woodworking,
agricultural activities, or auto repair. Although youth do not
leave the facility fully equipped for these careers, the
exposure may increase their interest in pursuing a
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 24 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Studies suggest that vocational programs
offered in long-term secure institutions may
increase a youth’s interest in studying the area
once released.
certificate or degree in some area. Studies find that youth
who serve time in treatment-oriented facilities have better
attitudes toward the institution (Mancheck & Cullen, 2014).
The reality, however, is that long-term secure institutions
often prioritize confinement and security over
rehabilitation. Studies find that institutions focusing on
custody can inadvertently create the violence they are trying to prevent. For example, studies find that highly
punitive institutions that were coercive toward youth actually encouraged violence. A highly coercive
environment encourages youth to create a hierarchy within the institution in order to gain some sense of power
and control over their environment. Stronger youth then prey on weaker youth and treat those youth the same
way the guards are treating them (de Valk, Kuiper, van der Helm, Maas, & Stams, 2016; Feld, 1978).
Further illustrating this point is a recent study on prison rape in juvenile institutions. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics (BJS) conducted the study in response to legislation passed in 2003 called the Prison Rape Elimination
Act (PREA). The PREA legislation is designed to address the problem of sexual victimization in prison (for
juveniles and adults). The act has several provisions including the tracking of sexual victimization incidents in
prison. BJS now publishes annual statistics on the topic of sexual victimization among juveniles in correctional
institutions. According to the latest statistics, nearly 1,500 youth reported being sexually victimized while housed
in a facility. The rate of victimization increased between 2005 and 2012. The reason for this upward trend is
unclear.
The 2012 victimization study (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016) also included other insights into violence that
occurs within these facilities, including the following:
55% of the incidents involved youth-on-youth violence; 45% staff on youth.
Violence or threat of violence was used in nearly a quarter of youth on youth incidents.
64% of staff involved incidents were perpetrated by a female staff member.
State juvenile systems have higher rates of victimization than local or private juvenile facilities.
With such high rates of violence, the question shifts from is rehabilitation a goal of these facilities to can it be a
goal? Exacerbating the problem is the transfer of juveniles to the adult system.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 25 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.8 Juveniles in Adult Facilities
Once transferred to the adult criminal court system, juveniles can be sent to adult prisons to serve their period of
confinement. The trend peaked in the late 1990s when more than 5,000 persons under the age of 18 were housed
in adult prisons. According to the latest statistics, just under 1,000 juveniles are housed in adult prisons (Carson
& Mulako-Wangota, 2018).
Unfortunately, we see a racial disparity in terms of who is more likely to be sentenced to prison once transferred
to the adult court system. For example, an analysis of juveniles in adult custody published in 2000 found that “in
comparison with the adult prison population, a higher proportion of youth were black (55% of youthful inmates
versus 48% of adult inmates) and were convicted of a crime against persons (57% of youth versus 44% of adult
inmates)” (Austin, Johnson, & Gregoriou, 2000, p. 12).
How well do these juveniles fare in adult prisons? The research finds that they typically do not fare well
compared to juveniles kept in the juvenile justice system. For example, juveniles transferred to adult court fail
more often, more quickly, and in a variety of ways compared to those retained in the juvenile justice system
(Lambie & Randall, 2013). A study by Kuanliang, Sorensen, and Cunningham (2008) found that juveniles in
adult prisons had significantly higher rates of disciplinary infractions than adults in the same prison. And another
study found that these juveniles were more likely to be sexually assaulted when in adult prisons (Fagan &
Kupchik, 2011).
Given these findings, many states have revised their transfer laws for juveniles. A report issued by the Council of
State Governments notes that several states in particular are giving judges more discretion in allowing juveniles a
second chance:
In 2007, Virginia changed the “once an adult, always an adult” law. Previously, a one-time transfer of a
juvenile to adult court was enough to keep a juvenile in the adult system for all future proceedings, no
matter how minor the charge.
In 2008, a Colorado act allowed a juvenile charged with felony murder to serve in the juvenile justice
system. Virginia allowed a juvenile sentenced as an adult to gain earned sentence credits while serving
the juvenile portion of the sentence in a juvenile center rather than in an adult facility.
In 2008, a Maine law provided that juveniles under age 16 who receive adult prison sentences can begin
serving the sentence in a juvenile facility.
In 2009 and 2010, Nevada, Mississippi, and Utah left it to the juvenile court to determine whether
transfer to the adult court was necessary.
In 2012, a Colorado law barred “district attorneys from charging juveniles as adults for many low- and
mid-level felonies.” The act also raised from 14 to 16 the age at which young offenders may be charged
as adults for more serious crimes (Brown, 2012, p. 5).
The juveniles’ experiences while confined can influence how well they assimilate back into society. It would be
reasonable to expect that youth who experience coercive prison environments are more likely to do worse when
they return to the community. One study found this to be true among adult prisoners (Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew,
Cullen, & Colvin, 2013). Those individuals who experienced victimization in prison were more likely to return
to prison, a finding that runs counter to what deterrence theory would suggest.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 26 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
8.9 Preparing for Release
Approximately 100,000 youth reenter the community each year. Reentry is the label typically used to describe
the process youth go through when they return to the community from a period of confinement. The process
varies for each individual. Some youth may be returning to an alternative environment such as foster care; others
will return to the same environment they previously left.
Post-Release Challenges
Although the process of reentry is not new, there is
renewed attention surrounding reentry services for youth.
The attention is understandable if we consider that a study
of adults found that the vast majority of those reentering
the community failed within three years (Alper, Durose, &
Markman, 2018). According to one study of juveniles
detained in Wisconsin, 70% were arrested or returned to
secure detention within one year of release (Bezruki,
Varana, & Hill, 1999).
Ken Tannenbaum/SuperStock
The question is, Why do so many juveniles struggle after
Despite reentry and aftercare programs, some
release? There are a number of possibilities. Some youth
juvenile offenders return to detention centers
may not be receiving adequate treatment services while
shortly after release.
institutionalized. As we have discussed, treatment services
are often lacking in both short- and long-term facilities.
There are also concerns that confinement in a residential facility disrupts the key protective factors of school,
peers, and family relationships. For example, youth who are removed from traditional school settings when
placed in prison must be integrated back into the school system or, if they obtained a GED while
institutionalized, they must determine how to find their way into the workplace. Meaningful employment for
youth is difficult even in a healthy job market. As noted by Nellis and Wayman (2009), even when programs
exist in the institutions where youth are placed, “vocational programming designed to prepare young people for a
job upon release was not accompanied by any industry certification or associated with high-growth jobs in the
communities where the youth would be returning” (p. 18).
Over the past decade, however, there have been a number of reentry reforms in juvenile justice. For example, as
we’ve discussed, many states have chosen to reduce the number of commitments to long-term secure facilities.
This reluctance to incarcerate is a response to both the costs and the effectiveness of such a sanction. States have
had to be mindful of what services are needed in the community to ensure that youth are well served. One
example is Wraparound Milwaukee, a program that is a collaboration among mental health, juvenile justice,
child welfare systems, and educational systems. This program provides services to youth in the areas of
education, mental health, substance abuse treatment, and in-home therapy. Family is a key component of the
program as well. Similarly, as we discussed at the beginning of the chapter, Ohio’s Reentry Continuum has been
developed to guide that state’s practices.
The importance of treatment services as we prepare youth for release is not new. Research supports the idea that
aftercare services are needed to help youth transition into the community.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 27 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Aftercare
Preparing youth for their release back into the community is one of the central tenets of aftercare. Aftercare
provides the client with services that focus on ongoing community support and treatment. Steve Geis (2003)
noted:
Two key components of the aftercare concept distinguish it from the traditional juvenile justice model.
First, offenders must receive both services and supervision. (Offenders in the traditional juvenile
justice system are generally sentenced to some type of supervision and are sometimes provided with
services.) Second, they must receive intensive intervention while they are incarcerated, during their
transition to the community, and when they are under community supervision. This second component
refines the concept of reintegrative services to include services that occur before release as well as after
release. (p. 1)
Aftercare should not simply be an occasional meeting with a probation officer. Instead, aftercare should focus on
the issues the juvenile faces. For some, that may mean an intensive intervention that includes multiple levels of
services given to both the youth and the family. For example, a youth who is returning to a nonsupportive,
chaotic family environment with exposure to drug and alcohol abuse will need a different level of service than a
youth who is returning to a stable family environment.
According to Nellis and Wayman (2009), reentry programs for youth should, at a minimum
Be located in the community where returning youth live
Be individualized to assist with developmental deficits
Concentrate heavily on ensuring school reenrollment, attendance, and success
Focus on permanent family/guardianship connections
Include access to mental health and substance abuse treatment
Recognize the diverse needs of returning youth
Include a structured workforce preparation and employment component
Include housing support and assistance for youth who cannot live with relatives and are transitioning to
adulthood
Although these components are important, the reality is that many state juvenile justice systems are fragmented
and not organized around meeting the needs of these youth in a systematic way. For example, most states have
both rural and urban areas. In urban areas, there are often more services available to youth simply due to the
needs of the population. Chicago will have more services available to youth than, say, a smaller town in Illinois.
Rural areas simply do not have the resources of larger towns or cities. So the aftercare experiences of youth
returning to a smaller town will differ from those of youth returning to a rural area. In effect, the quality of
aftercare is dependent on geography.
Pennsylvania has developed a comprehensive aftercare model based on the state’s Comprehensive Aftercare
Reform Initiative. The initiative led to the creation of 17 goals related to aftercare, including early assessment
and planning, multiagency collaboration, monitoring, school reintegration, and case management. Each probation
officer must develop a comprehensive plan that includes the school, family, and others who could act as
protective supports for the youth.
Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 28 of 35
Print
In another example, the OJJDP sponsored
the evaluation of a project referred to as
the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP).
The IAP is designed to provide youth with
aftercare services that begin while they
are incarcerated and continue during
reentry into the community. Program staff
develop collaborations with agencies in
the community, and, while
institutionalized, youth receive services
designed to prepare them for the
transition. For example, vocational
programs offered while youth are
institutionalized could then be linked to
similar programs or even job
opportunities in the community.
The IAP model is a comprehensive
service-based approach that enables youth
to make a structured transition back into
the community rather than a transition that
is haphazard or based on things like
geography. To ensure the approach is
systematic and structured for each youth,
case management is key (Altschuler &
Armstrong, 1996). For example, staff
should not wait until the youth is about to
go back home to start thinking about
reentry. Instead, staff in these programs
should begin thinking about the youth’s
transition back to the community from the
beginning of the youth’s confinement.
This gives program staff time to develop a
plan for how youth will transition back,
where youth will go, and how to best
support youth and their families (Geis,
2003).
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Teens Transition to the Outside World
Teens re-entering the community from a period of
confinement are at great risk for recidivism.
Teens Transition to Outside World
From Title: On the Outside: Social Challenges for Teens Re…
(https://fod.infobase.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?wID=100753&xtid=37256)
© Infobase. All Rights Reserved.
1.
2.
Length: 03:27
What other ways would you suggest kids cope with
stress at home and school?
Why is it important to match the type of activity to the
youth’s interests?
The approach is not simply about treatment services, although that is a significant component of the program. For
example, program staff also advocate for the importance of supervision services for youth. The probation or
parole officer is still seen as key to the youth. This may include home visits, drug testing, school monitoring, and
many of the surveillance activities discussed in Chapter 7. Initial reviews indicated that this approach was
successful; however, other studies suggest that it did not achieve reductions in recidivism (Wiebush, Wagner,
McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005). Studies suggest that this approach often failed to engage families in meaningful
ways that could have led to long-term benefits (Abrams, Mizel, Nguyen, & Shlonsky, 2014).
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 29 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
Another example of a structured approach to reintegration and aftercare is the Serious and Violent Offender
Reentry Initiative (SVORI). In 2003, the federal government launched the SVORI to address the needs of
violent adult and juvenile offenders reentering the community. According to Lattimore, MacDonald, Piquero,
Linster, and Visher (2004),
the goals of the initiative are to improve quality of life and self-sufficiency through employment,
housing, family and community involvement; improve health by addressing substance use (sobriety
and relapse prevention) and physical and mental health; reduce criminality through supervision and by
monitoring noncompliance, reoffending, rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration; achieve system
change through multi-agency collaboration and case management strategies. (p. 2)
Ultimately, 69 agencies nationwide received over $100 million in funds to develop reentry programs. The 69
states agencies included 88 different programs. According to Lattimore and colleagues (2004), of those
programs, 35 targeted adults only, 34 targeted juveniles only, 2 targeted youthful offenders only, and 17 targeted
some combination of adults, juveniles, and youthful offenders. The SVORI programs for youth are similar to the
programs just noted. The delivery of services begins during the youth’s period of incarceration and continues
with the youth while in the community. The process was designed to be structured and to work with youth at all
levels (e.g., families, schools, peers, community).
So the question is, Did the SVORI programs fare better than the IAP programs? Unfortunately, the answer is no
if we look at the national data. Overall, the SVORI programs did not significantly reduce the recidivism rates of
youth participating in the program compared to youth who did not participate in the program. Among juvenile
clients, there was no difference in reported substance abuse or in criminal behavior. However, a few differences
between the two approaches were noted. For example, SVORI participants did slightly better with regard to
housing or employment; however, the programs were not considered a success due their lack of outcomes
(Lattimore & Visher, 2009).
Why did these programs fail to achieve the expected results? Implementing treatment for youth is difficult. In
Chapter 10 we will summarize these issues and identify promising or effective interventions for youth.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 30 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Summary of Learning Objectives
Summarize the history behind the residential placement of youth.
The use of confinement for juvenile delinquency remains controversial.
The majority of states have substantially reduced the number of confined youth.
Define confinement and who is most likely to be sentenced to institutions for juveniles.
Juvenile facilities used for confinement are varied and complex. The terminology used to define juvenile
facilities varies so greatly that the terms residential or out-of- home placements are often used rather
than the term prison.
In 2016, over 45,000 juveniles under the age of 21 were held in juvenile residential facilities. This
represents a 53% decline since 2000.
Overall, 15% of these youth are girls.
Explain the different types of short-term residential placements for youth.
Short-term residential facilities include detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, and youth
shelters.
In the majority of cases, these placements provide temporary housing for youth prior to adjudication.
Describe the advantages and disadvantages of group homes.
Group homes are smaller than other residential facilities and can provide a variety of treatment services
to youth.
Group homes that rely simply on supervision without treatment services tend to be ineffective.
Explain the degree of effectiveness of wilderness camps.
Wilderness programs are designed to increase self-efficacy of the youth by exposing them to challenging
situations.
Overall, the camps are found to be ineffective as they do not focus on changing the problems youth face
in their communities.
Identify the different types of short-term residential placements for youth.
Residential treatment centers are the newest type of residential facilities that typically serve youth with
complex needs who otherwise would have been sent to long-term secure correctional facilities.
Though more effective than group homes and wilderness camps, residential treatment centers show
mixed results. It is more effective to treat youth in the community than in a residential environment.
Summarize the issues associated with long-term secure correctional facilities.
Long-term secure correctional facilities serve youth deemed a risk to the community. The rate of youth
placed in custody has declined since the early 2000s.
Long-term secure facilities are criticized for their high cost and lack of effectiveness (i.e., their failure to
reduce recidivism). Studies suggest these facilities fail to rehabilitate or deter youth from future criminal
acts.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 31 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
Describe the risks involved with confining juveniles in adult facilities.
Transferring youth to adult court became popular in the late 1980s and 1990s. By the late 1990s, more
than 5,000 persons under the age of 18 were housed in adult prisons. Today fewer than 1,000 are housed
in adult prisons.
Studies suggest that youth transferred to adult facilities have worse outcomes than those who remain in
the juvenile justice system.
Identify the components of successfully helping juveniles reintegrate into society after release.
Release or reentry back to the community is an important issue for juvenile delinquents.
Aftercare services are crucial for youth returning home from a period of confinement.
There are several notable programs; however, studies suggest aftercare programs struggle to provide the
services required to address juveniles’ needs.
Critical Thinking Questions
1. Do you like the idea of wilderness camps or ranches? Why or why not? Are you dissuaded by mixed
findings regarding their effectiveness?
2. What do you see as the biggest problems with long-term secure facilities for juveniles? Do you support
reducing their use or increasing it? Explain your answer.
3. Do you agree with the states that have begun revising their transfer laws for juveniles to make them less
stringent? Or do you believe we should continue to transfer juveniles to the adult system? Explain your
answer.
4. Why do you think that juveniles struggle as they return back to the community from a period of
incarceration? What should we do about it, particularly given the mixed findings regarding the IAP and
SVORI programs?
Key Terms
Click on each key term to see the definition.
detention centers
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Short-term facilities used to confine youth before the intake or adjudication phase.
deterrence theory
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 32 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The theory asserting that punishment should reduce the future likelihood of crime through specific deterrence,
which sends a message to juveniles that certain behavior is not acceptable and so not to repeat criminal behavior,
and general deterrence, which is intended to send a message to other would-be criminals.
Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
An initiative designed to reduce the number of minorities who come in contact with the juvenile court system.
experiential learning
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A learning approach built on the idea that self-efficacy is attained through direct experiences.
group homes
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Either short- or long-term facilities that serve a variety of youth in the juvenile justice system. Group homes
typically provide supervision and services in a home-like setting.
incapacitation
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The confinement of individuals who commit criminal acts.
Intensive Aftercare Program
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 33 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A program designed to provide aftercare services to youth beginning while they are incarcerated and continuing
into the community.
out-of-home placements
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A term frequently used for juvenile facilities in place of terms such as prison.
rate of placement
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
The number of juveniles in custody per 100,000 youth.
reception/diagnostic centers
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Facilities that typically house youth for short periods while correctional officials assess the juveniles’ needs in
order to determine the best placement.
rehabilitation
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 34 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(17 AM
A goal of confinement according to which providing treatment services, not punishment, for youth should be the
guiding philosophy for changing troubled behavior and reducing crime.
retribution
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A goal of confinement according to which revenge is enacted for the harm a criminal has inflicted on society; the
primary intention of retributive policies is to punish.
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A structured approach to reintegration and aftercare launched to address the needs of violent adult and juvenile
offenders reentering the community.
youth shelters
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
Facilities that provide short-term placement for youth who cannot be immediately returned to their families.
VisionQuest
(http://content.thuzelearning.com/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/
Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/J
ohnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Jo
hnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Joh
nson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/Johnson.5439.18.1/sections/cover/books/John
son.5439.18.1/sections/cover#)
A popular program most well known for its wilderness camps.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=fd879d04-6215-2839-9930-e246a7c9598d&np=ch08
Page 35 of 35
Print
6/5/19, 6(20 AM
9
Special Populations
Cultura Limited/SuperStock
Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to
accomplish the following objectives:
Describe the issues early starters face in their
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=842b9b08-8b92-9ae8-86e8-4098d6259da5&np=ch09
Page 1 of 30
Print
6/5/19, 6(20 AM
everyday lives, the characteristics of persistently
disruptive children, and the methods used to
prevent and treat early delinquent behavior.
Explain the complexity of defining gangs and gang
behavior and the relationship between gangs and
crime.
Analyze the complexity surrounding the labeling of
juvenile sex offenders.
In the summer of 1981, 6-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted from a Hollywood, Florida, shopping mall. His
mother allowed Adam to play video games near the front entrance while she shopped for lamps. She
indicated she was gone for only 10 minutes. According to the store security guard, he found Adam and
several other boys fighting over the video games and escorted all of them out of the store. It is believed that
Adam was left alone outside the store, at which point he was abducted.
Adam’s decapitated head was found approximately two weeks later; however, the police never recovered his
body. The national manhunt remained a cold case for years until, in 2008, officials declared that a previous
suspect of the murder was the killer. That man had died in prison 12 years earlier and was never officially
tried for Adam’s abduction and murder.
Adam’s father, John Walsh, is well known around the world as the man behind the television show America’s
Most Wanted. He is actively involved in missing children cases and advocating for harsher laws surrounding
child molesters. Some 25 years later, in 2006, President George W. Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act. The law, passed with bipartisan support, requires more stringent sexoffender registration requirements. Although there was no evidence that Adam Walsh was sexually assaulted,
given that his body was never found, the man accused of his murder had a history of juvenile delinquency and
sex offending. The legislation was seen as a positive step toward holding sex offenders accountable. That
accountability is represented in a three-tier notification system that requires serious sex offenders to be listed
on a national registry for life.
Sex-offender registration laws are very popular with the public. The popularity of these laws is
understandable—people feel they have the right to know if a sex offender is living next door or in their
neighborhood. One issue we will examine in this chapter is whether the situ ation changes when a juvenile is
involved. As discussed in previous chapters, many serious adult offenders begin their criminal careers as
juveniles. Yet we know that not all juvenile sex offenders become adult offenders. In fact, juvenile sex
offenders are more complex than the label suggests.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=842b9b08-8b92-9ae8-86e8-4098d6259da5&np=ch09
Page 2 of 30
Print
6/5/19, 6(20 AM
9.1 Introduction
We often talk in terms of the “typical” juvenile delinquent, but certain juvenile delinquents are deserving of
special attention. These special populations present particular challenges for the juvenile justice system and,
to an extent, the communities in which they reside. For example, some juvenile delinquents are more likely to
be involved in criminal behavior at a young age, and they are more likely to continue their criminal
involvement as adults. Intervening in the lives of these juveniles is particularly important. Moreover, there
are certain types of juvenile delinquents whose behavior is more violent and detrimental to their families,
schools, and communities. These populations present special issues and concerns for the juvenile justice
system, both from a policy standpoint and from a rehabilitation standpoint.
The word special may seem a misnomer in this circumstance as it is typically used in a positive context. In
this chapter, however, we use special to refer to those who depart from typical patterns of criminal behavior
among adolescents. The three types of juvenile delinquents that most significantly depart from the norm are
the very young delinquents often called early starters, gang-involved youth, and juvenile sex offenders.
What is interesting about each of these types of delinquents is that although they share similarities they also
are very different. In particular, juvenile sex offenders are a heterogeneous group, meaning that all juvenile
sex offenders do not look alike, act alike, or in most circumstances have the same backgrounds.
Understanding the complex legal and social issues at stake with these three special populations is also
important.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=842b9b08-8b92-9ae8-86e8-4098d6259da5&np=ch09
Page 3 of 30
Print
6/5/19, 6(20 AM
9.2 Early Starters
What does the label early starter mean? Although the age at which we label a juvenile an “early starter” is
somewhat debatable, the label is typically reserved for those who begin committing crimes before the age of
14. The number of juveniles who commit crimes before that age is relatively small. In fact, most studies find
that early starters represent merely 5% to 7% of the juvenile delinquents arrested in any given year (Loeber &
Farrington, 2000). Terrie Moffitt (1993) categorized delinquents into two groups: adolescent limited
offenders and antisocial persistent offenders. Both groups can include early starters. Adolescent limited
offenders typically stop their delinquent behavior by the end of adolescence. By contrast, antisocial persistent
offenders continue their criminal careers into adulthood. They are also more likely to be early starters. In fact,
studies find that early starters are two to three times more likely than juveniles who start offending at a later
age to become chronic adult offenders (Loeber & Farrington, 2000).
Issues Faced by Early Starters
As youth, antisocial persistent offenders often
encountered cumulative disadvantages that exacerbated
their problems. Once these youth are off on the wrong
foot, the cycle becomes difficult to break. They are more
likely to have neurological difficulties that include
impulsivity, hyperactivity, and poor verbal and problemsolving skills (Moffitt, 1993). Understanding how and
why these juveniles begin their delinquent careers is
important for managing and intervening with this
population.
BananaStock/Thinkstock
According to current trends, young offenders
These early starters can be a drain on the juvenile justice
are more likely to engage in substance abuse at
system. They are more likely than other juvenile
an earlier age than in previous years.
offenders to commit crime more frequently. They are also
more likely to escalate their criminal behavior and
become increasingly violent. As a result, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
formed a study group. The group, referred to as the Study Group on Very Young Offenders, was comprised
of 39 experts on the topic of child delinquency. The study group published a number of reports that can be
found at OJJDP.gov (https://www.ojjdp.gov) under the title Child Delinquency Series. They classified young
offenders as those aged 7 to 12. There are several interesting points to highlight:
Juveniles whose first referral to court for a delinquency offense had occurred before age 13 were far
more likely to become chronic offenders—that is, to have had at least four referrals to juvenile court
—than juveniles whose first referral had occurred when they were older.
Early starters, particularly boys, are at risk for becoming teenage parents.
Early starters are more likely to experience complex trauma, emanating from both their families and
communities.
Early starters are at higher risk for mental health issues such as depression and suicide.
Early starters are more likely to experience trouble in school and have higher truancy and dropout
rates.
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=842b9b08-8b92-9ae8-86e8-4098d6259da5&np=ch09
Page 4 of 30
Print
6/5/19, 6(20 AM
Early starters are more likely to begin using substances at an earlier age (Loeber & Farrington,
2001).
If early starters’ offending persists into adulthood, they are less likely to desist or stop committing crime.
DeLisi and Piquero (2011) argue that as delinquents persist into their 20s and beyond, they become
increasingly invested in their criminal behavior, reducing their opportunities for legitimate work,
relationships, and connections to the community. Given the potential for these youth to become adult
offenders, many argue that we should intervene in their lives in order to prevent this destructive set of events
from happening.
Prevention and Treatment
The OJJDP study group concluded that interventions focused on preventing child delinquency would exhibit
the greatest impact on crime (Loeber, Farrington, & Petechuk, 2003). These efforts should be focused in
particular on identifying and intervening with persistently disruptive children. Persistently disruptive
children are those who exhibit a pattern of negative behaviors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a
period of at least six months. These disruptive youth often experience a number of problems in their lives.
For example, they are more likely to have trouble at home, be diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), be victims of child abuse, and do poorly in school (Manuzza, Klein, Bessler, & Maloy,
1993; Moffitt, 1990).
The logic here is that children involved in the juvenile justice system often exhibit disruptive behavior long
before their first official contact with the formal system (e.g., an arrest). Although not all of these youth will
become delinquent youth, they are more likely (some studies find about 25%–50% of these youth) to become
formally involved in the juvenile justice system (Loeber & Farrington, 2000). Identifying the youth who are
exhibiting disruptive behavior before they come into contact with the system is the best way to prevent the
cycle before it happens.
The family is an important factor for these youth. Family abuse, criminal behavior among family members
(e.g., parents and siblings), lack of supervision, lack of closeness, and low socioeconomic status can all
contribute to the youth’s delinquency. Similarly, a study by Romeo Vitelli (1997) found early starters are
more likely to have a history of exposure to violence in childhood. A study by Alltucker, Bullis, Close, and
Yovanoff (2006) found that children who were in foster care were four times more likely to be early starters,
and children with a criminal family member were twice as likely to be early starters. Loeber and Farrington
(2000) argue that serious delinquents often begin committing delinquent acts in the home and then branch out
into their schools and community.
More recently researchers are exploring the importance of trauma on early starters. Those who experience
traumatic events are significantly more likely to experience psychological problems and involvement in the
juvenile justice system. Studies suggest that youth involved with the juvenile justice system are highly likely
to have a history of trauma exposure. In fact, a study of juvenile detainees in Cook County, Illinois, found
that 92.5% of the youth sampled in the facility had experienced at least one traumatic event or experience
(Abrams et al., 2004). Another study, conducted by Kerig and colleagues (2009), found that 92.3% of their
juvenile detention sample had exposure to at least one traumatic event. Trauma-exposed youth are at risk for
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, and substance abuse (Kilpatrick et al.,
2000). Researchers have begun exploring the impact of traumatic events in a more systematic way, using the
https://content.ashford.edu/print/Johnson.5439.18.1?sections=ch0…ontent&clientToken=842b9b08-8b92-9ae8-86e8-4098d6259da5&np=ch09
Page 5 of 30
Print
6/5/19, 6(20 AM
Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale, which we detail in the accompanying Spotlight.
Spotlight: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale
The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale measures various forms of abuse and neglect
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016), which are outlined below. The specific items
refer to the respondent’s first 18 years of life.
Abuse
Emotional abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home swore at you, insulted
you, put you down, or acted in a way that made you afraid that you might be physically hurt.
Physical abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home pushed, grabbed, slapped,
threw something at you, or hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured.
Sexual abuse: An adult, relative, family friend, or stranger who was at least 5 years older
than you ever touched or fondled your body in a sexual way, made you touch his/ her body in
a sexual way, attempted to have any type of sexual intercourse with you.
Household Challenges
Mother treated violently: Your mother or stepmother was pushed, grabbed, slapped, had
something thrown at her, kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, hit with something hard, repeatedly hit
for over at least a few minutes, or ever threatened or hurt by a knife or gun by your father (or
stepfather) or mother’s boyfriend.
Household substance abuse: A household member was a problem drinker or alcoholic or a
household member used street drugs.
Mental illness in household: A household member was depressed or mentally ill or a
household member attempted suicide.
Parental separation or divorce: Your parents were ever separated or divorced.
Criminal household member: A household member went to prison.
Neglect1
Emotional neglect: Someone in your family helped you feel important or special, you felt
loved, people in your family looked out for each other and felt close to each other, and your
family was a source …