Compare and contrast treatment options for special populations

NO PLAGIARISM DUE WEDNESDAY JUNE 19, 2019 DISCUSSION#1. ATTACHED IS CHAPTERS AND ARTICLES TO HELP WITH 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,

Read Youth Pathways to Placement: The Influence of Gender, Mental Health Needs and Trauma on Confinement in the Juvenile Justice System
Read Treatment Services in the Juvenile Justice System: Examining the Use and Funding of Services by Youth on Probation
Read The Impact of Victimization and Mental Health Symptoms on Recidivism for Early System-Involved Juvenile Offenders
Read Research Review: Independent Living Programmes: The Influence on Youth Ageing out of Care
Watch Juvenile Justice.

You are also encouraged to review the Week 4 Recommended Resources.

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?

Note: this discussion format will differ from formats in prior courses. The goal of this discussion forum is to have a single conversation about the topic of treatment for special populations of juvenile offenders, not a series of separate conversations. You must post in the discussion on at least three separate days by Day 7; your total word count for your posts should be a minimum of 600 words. There is no required word count for individual posts as long as your combined posts total at least 600 words. However, you must use at least one in-text citation to support your claims and properly cite any references.

Learning Objectives After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

▪ Summarize the history behind the residential placement of youth. ▪ 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.

Residential and Institutional Placement of Juveniles

Comstock/Thinkstock

Chapter Outline 8.1 Introduction

8.2 Defining Confinement for Juveniles

▪ Population Characteristics of Residential Facilities ▪ Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

8.3 Short-Term Residential Facilities

8.4 Group Homes

8.5 Wilderness Camps/Ranches

8.6 Residential Treatment Centers

8.7 Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

▪ The Characteristics ▪ Does Confinement Work? – Costs

– Effectiveness

8.8 Juveniles in Adult Facilities

8.9 Preparing for Release

▪ Post-Release Challenges ▪ Aftercare – Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)

– Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)

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.

Section 8.1Introduction

At the time the Columbus Dispatch article was written in early 2008, the department direc- tor 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 addi- tion, the facility worked to identify gang-involved youth and 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 collaborat-

ing 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.

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 deter- rence 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 con- finement 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

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

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 inequal- ity 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 can- not be underestimated. We will discuss these and other issues in this chapter as we examine the impact and effectiveness of institutional placement for juveniles.

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 media-derived images of prison may be accurate for some maximum-security adult prisons, juvenile facilities are more varied and complex. The ter- minology used to define juvenile facilities var- ies so greatly that the terms residential or out- of-home 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, shel- ters, reception and diagnostic cen- ters, group homes, wilderness camps, ranches, farms, youth development centers, residential treatment centers, training or reform schools, and juvenile correctional institutions. (p. 1)

The lack of a standard definition for these facilities can lead to a great deal of confusion. For example, to examine whether residential placement or community placement is more effective in reducing recidivism among youth, we would need to make sure we are not com- paring apples to oranges. We would also need to decide how to measure or quantify residential placement. We would expect, for 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

Comstock/Thinkstock Out-of-home placements for juveniles range from detention centers to group homes to residential treatment centers.

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

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 resi- dential 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 “long- term 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

Detention center Shelter

Reception/ diagnostic

center Group home

Ranch/ wilderness

camp

Long- term

secure

Residential treatment

center

Number of facilities

662 131 58 344 30 189 678

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

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

All facilities Small (<20 beds)

2000

Medium (21–100 beds)

Large (>100 beds)

108,802

50,821

13,207 8,735

39,609

27,366

55,974

14,70020,000

60,000

40,000

100,000

120,000

80,000

2014

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

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)

Number of juvenile offenders in public or private residential placement, 2015

Residential placement rate, 2015 (per 100,000 youth)

U.S. total 48,043 152

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) 1,524 112

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

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

Table 8.2: The number of juveniles in residential placement by state, 2015 (continued)

State where offense occurred (upper age of juvenile court jurisdiction in 2015)

Number of juvenile offenders in public or private residential placement, 2015

Residential placement rate, 2015 (per 100,000 youth)

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

New Jersey (17) 636 69

New Mexico (17) 363 164

New York (15) 1,386 99

North Carolina (15) 468 60

North Dakota (17) 144 203

Ohio (17) 2,163 178

Oklahoma (17) 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

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

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

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 juve- niles 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

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

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, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/display. asp?row_var=v01&col_var=v02&display_type=rowp&export _file=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110

Person Property

13 18

Drug Public order

Technical violation

Status offense

Girls 15%

Boys 85%

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

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 Jer- sey (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

State of offense 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

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

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

Table 8.3: Percentage under state custody by race/ethnicity, 2015 (continued)

State of offense White Black Hispanic1 American

Indian2 Asian Other

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

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. 2American 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

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

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 Jus- tice 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 sys- tem, 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/).

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 pro- cessing 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

*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

1.4

1.6

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Black Hispanic AHPI* AIAN** White

2005 2006 20082007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Years

R a te

Section 8.4Group Homes

8.3 Short-Term Residential Facilities Several different types of facilities are referred to as short-term residential facilities, includ- ing 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 offi- cials 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 short-term placement for youth who cannot be immediately returned to their fami- lies. 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).

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).

Section 8.4Group Homes

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.

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 set- ting for the youth, without treatment services designed to address their issues, is less likely to have an impact.

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), 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 • 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).

Section 8.5Wilderness Camps/Ranches

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 chal- lenging 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 over- come 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), the Wagon Train program “gives troubled youth the extraordinary experience of traveling cross-country for an extended period of time via horseback and cov- ered 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 struc- tured 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 edu- cational 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 avail- able, its founders argue the work ethic builds character among youth.

Are wilderness camps effective at reduc- ing recidivism among delinquent youth? Unfortunately, studies suggest that the core foundation of a wilderness camp (e.g., challenging outdoor activities) is not suffi- cient to influence recidivism rates in delin- quent youth. A review of the literature by Sandra Jo Wilson and Mark Lipsey (2001)

Paul M. Walsh/The Leader Telegram/Associated Press Wilderness camps are more effective when treatments such as therapy are used in addition to challenging outdoor activities.

Section 8.6Residential Treatment Centers

concluded that wilderness-based camps simply focused on physically challenging situations are not effective in reducing recidivism. However, they did find that some programs were more effective if they added treatment services such as family, individual, and group therapy (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 ben- eficial effect? There is no definitive answer yet, but it appears increasingly unlikely that the physical challenges are beneficial.

8.6 Residential Treatment Centers 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 place- ment 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

Spencer Grant/age fotostock/SuperStock Youths housed in residential treatment centers attend group-based treatment programs for their specific issues.

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

behavioral problems and histories involving complex trauma and abuse. As such, the treat- ment should be sufficiently intensive to address the youth’s needs. For example, studies sug- gest 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.

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 juve- nile correctional facilities, and California refers to its three secure facilities as youth correc- tional facilities. By contrast, Rhode Island refers to its one secure residential facility as a train- ing 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=v0110&v128=v128

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),

1 to 10 11 to 20

1 2

21 to 50 51 to 150 151 to 200

100

201 +

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

the most frequently occurring offense type is person offenses, which include robbery, aggra- vated assault, and sexual assault.

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/selection. asp?row_var=v01&col_var=v03&display_type=&export _file=&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.

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/display.asp

Does Confinement Work? The use of punitive strategies for juveniles became popular in the 1980s and 1990s. This phe- nomenon 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

Asian .5%

Other 2%

American Indian 2%

Paci�c Islander .5%

White 27%

Black 43%

Hispanic 25%

Status 1%

Technical violation

10%

Person 48%

Property 24%

Public order 12%

Drug 4%

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

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 institu- tion (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).

The high cost of incarcerating juveniles comprises staffing costs, the amount of money needed to run the institution (e.g., heat, water, food), and costs to maintain services (e.g., medical, mental health). Added ser- vices 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 soci- ety. 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

Alan Spearman/The Commercial Appeal/Associated Press Detention center services such as education make long-term confinement an expensive option compared to other community-based sanctions.

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

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.

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, 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 insti- tution 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 inca- pacitation 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. Treat- ment or rehabilitation focus on the issues or problems that propelled the youth into delin- quency. 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 our- selves, 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 com- munity 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 effective- ness 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 dimin- ish the mental health of those youth struggling with mental illness; to label youth as “crimi- nal,” 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.

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

With regard to rehabilitation, studies sug- gest that if a prison culture is one that sup- ports 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 develop- ment, 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 certificate or degree in some area. Studies find that youth who serve time in treatment-oriented facilities have better attitudes toward the institution (Man- check & 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 inadver- tently 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 correc- tional institutions. According to the latest statistics, nearly 1,500 youth reported being sexu- ally 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 juve-

nile facilities.

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.

Section 8.8Juveniles in Adult 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.

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 popula- tion, 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 juve- nile 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 deter- mine 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).

Section 8.9Preparing for Release

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 environ- ments 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.

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 surround- ing reentry services for youth. The atten- tion is understandable if we consider that a study of adults found that the vast major- ity 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 deten- tion within one year of release (Bezruki, Varana, & Hill, 1999).

The question is, Why do so many juveniles struggle after release? There are a number of possibilities. Some youth may not be receiving adequate treatment services while institution- alized. 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

Ken Tannenbaum/SuperStock Despite reentry and aftercare programs, some juvenile offenders return to detention centers shortly after release.

Section 8.9Preparing for Release

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 jus- tice, 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 sup- ports the idea that aftercare services are needed to help youth transition into the community.

Aftercare Preparing youth for their release back into the community is one of the central tenets of after- care. 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 tradi- tional 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 ser- vices.) Second, they must receive intensive intervention while they are incar- cerated, during their transition to the community, and when they are under community supervision. This second component refines the concept of rein- tegrative 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, after- care 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 sys- tems are fragmented and not organized around meeting the needs of these youth in a system- atic 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

Section 8.9Preparing for Release

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 Compre- hensive 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 compre- hensive plan that includes the school, family, and others who could act as protective supports for the youth.

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) In another example, the OJJDP sponsored the evaluation of a project referred to as the Inten- sive 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. Pro- gram staff develop collaborations with agencies in the community, and, while institutional- ized, youth receive services designed to prepare them for the transition. For example, voca- tional 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).

The approach is not simply about treatment services, although that is a significant compo- nent of the program. For example, program staff also advocate for the importance of super- vision 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 success- ful; 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).

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),

Summary of Learning Objectives

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 reincar- ceration; 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 signifi- cantly 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.

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.

Summary of Learning Objectives

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 typi- cally 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 treat- ment centers show mixed results. It is more effective to treat youth in the commu- nity 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 reha- bilitate or deter youth from future criminal acts.

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.

Summary of Learning Objectives

• 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 dis-

suaded by mixed findings regarding their effectiveness? 2. What do you see as the biggest problems with long-term secure facilities for juve-

niles? 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 juve-

niles 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 detention centers Short-term facilities used to confine youth before the intake or adjudication phase.

deterrence theory The theory asserting that punishment should reduce the future likelihood of crime through specific deter- rence, which sends a message to juveniles that certain behavior is not acceptable and so not to repeat criminal behavior, and gen- eral deterrence, which is intended to send a message to other would-be criminals.

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) An initiative designed to reduce the number of minorities who come in contact with the juvenile court system.

experiential learning A learning approach built on the idea that self-efficacy is attained through direct experiences.

group homes Either short- or long-term facilities that serve a variety of youth in the juvenile justice system. Group homes typi- cally provide supervision and services in a home-like setting.

incapacitation The confinement of indi- viduals who commit criminal acts.

Intensive Aftercare Program A program designed to provide aftercare services to youth beginning while they are incarcerated and continuing into the community.

out-of-home placements A term fre- quently used for juvenile facilities in place of terms such as prison.

rate of placement The number of juveniles in custody per 100,000 youth.

reception/diagnostic centers Facilities that typically house youth for short periods while correctional officials assess the juve- niles’ needs in order to determine the best placement.

rehabilitation 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 A goal of confinement accord- ing to which revenge is enacted for the harm a criminal has inflicted on society; the primary intention of retributive policies is to punish.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) A structured approach to reintegration and aftercare launched to address the needs of violent adult and juve- nile offenders reentering the community.

youth shelters Facilities that provide short-term placement for youth who cannot be immediately returned to their families.

VisionQuest A popular program most well known for its wilderness camps.

Calculate Price

Price (USD)

ORDER NOW

Pro Academia Help

Compare and contrast treatment options for special populations

Calculate Price

Don't Miss Our Special Offers