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, rea

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

8

Comstock/Thinkstock

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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.

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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.

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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

0

60,000

40,000

100,000

120,000

80,000

2014

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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

38

22

5

13 18

Drug Public order

Technical violation

10

0

30

20

50

60

40

5

Status offense

Girls 15%

Boys 85%

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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

0

Black Hispanic AHPI* AIAN** White

2005 2006 20082007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Years

R at e

© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

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 facil

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.