Juvenile Justice and Youth Violence [1 ed.] 9781452249544, 9780761903734

Citation preview

Juvenile Justice &Youth Violence

To my mom, Ethel, my dad, J. C , my sisters, Annette and Lynda, my wife Karen, our daughter, Megan,

and adolescents who are victims of philosophical

changes in the administration of juvenile justice.

Juvenile Justice

&Youth

Violence

James C. Howell

kSAGE Publications

I International Educational and Prolessional Publisher Thousand

Oaks

London

New

Delhi

Copyright © 1 9 9 7 by Sage Publications, Inc. A l l rights r e s e r v e d . N o p a r t o f this b o o k m a y b e r e p r o d u c e d o r utilized in a n y f o r m o r by a n y m e a n s , electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and r e t r i e v a l s y s t e m , w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n in writing f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r

For

information: SAGE Riblications, Inc.

2 4 5 5 Teller R o a d

T h o u s a n d O a k s , California 9 1 3 2 0

E-mail: o r d e r @ s a g e p u b . c o m

SAGE Riblications Ltd.

6 B o n h i l l Street

London EC2A 4PU

United Kingdom

S A G E P u b l i c a t i o n s India Pvt. L t d .

M-32 Market

Greater Kailash I

N e w Delhi 1 1 0 0 4 8 India

P r i n t e d in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s of A m e r i c a Library

of Congress

Data

Cataloging-in-Publication

H o w e l l , J a m e s C.

Juvenile justice and youth violence/

author, J a m e s C. H o w e l l ,

p. c m .

Includes bibliographical references and index.

I S B N 0 - 7 6 1 9 - 0 3 7 3 - 9 (cloth)

1. J u v e n i l e justice. A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f — U n i t e d States. 2. J u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y — U n i t e d States. 3 . Violent c r i m e s — U n i t e d

States. I. Title.

KF9779.H69 1997

364.36Ό973—dc21 97-4673

T h i s b o o k is p r i n t e d o n a c i d - f r e e p a p e r 00

01

Acquiring Editor: Editorial Assistant: Production Editor: Production Assistant: Typesetter/Designer: Indexer: Cover Designer: Print Buyer:

02

03

10

9

8

7

6

C. Terry H e n d r i x Dale Grenfell S h e r r i s e M. P u r d u m Denise Santoyo Danielle Dillahunt Edwin Durbin Ravi Balasuriya Anna Chin

5

4

3

2



Contents

P r e f a c e

vii

A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s

ix PART I

1. J u v e n i l e R e f o r m M o v e m e n t s

3

T h e First Juvenile Justice Reform Movement: Moralists

3

T h e S e c o n d Reform Movement: T h e Progressives

9

T h e Third Reform Movement: Delinquency Prevention and

A l t e r n a t i v e s to t h e J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e S y s t e m

15

T h e F o u r t h R e f o r m M o v e m e n t : Just D e s e r t s

19

Juvenile Justice Today

21

Summary

22

2 . L a n d m a r k F e d e r a l L e g i s l a t i o n

24

Previous Federal Juvenile Delinquency Legislation Congressional Hearings o n the Juvenile Justice and

24

Delinquency Prevention Act P h i l o s o p h y of t h e JJDP A c t

26

F o u r M a j o r JJDP A c t R e q u i r e m e n t s

33

31

S e p a r a t i o n of J u v e n i l e s F r o m A d u l t s in C o n f i n e m e n t

34

O b s t a c l e s to JJDP A c t S u c c e s s

38

R e a s o n s for JJDP A c t S u c c e s s

39

OJJDP C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e F i e l d

41

T h e O t h e r S i d e o f S t a t u s Offenders

45

3 . W h o ' s t o B l a m e for V i o l e n t C r i m e ?

47

T h e Perception T h e R e a l i t y of J u v e n i l e V i o l e n c e

47 48

T h e E x t e n t of V i o l e n c e in t h e U n i t e d States Hidden Adult Crime Age a n d Crime Victimization

51 52 57

Summary

62

4 . J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n c y Tfrends a n d J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e S y s t e m R e s p o n s e s Juvenile Violence Trends

65 65

Juvenile Justice System Responses

73

Summary

86

5 . R e m o v i n g J u v e n i l e s F r o m t h e J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e S y s t e m Research Results



88 90

National Trends

105

Incarcerated Juveniles

107

Summary

108 P A R T II

6 . Y o u t h G a n g H o m i c i d e s , D r u g IVafficking, a n d P r o g r a m I n t e r v e n t i o n s T h e Research Question

115 115

Gang Program Evaluations

122

R e c o m m e n d e d G a n g I n t e r v e n t i o n Strategies

123

Summary

131

7. R i s k F a c t o r s f o r Y o u t h V i o l e n c e

133

Other Social and Cultural Factors

146

Summary

153

8 . T h e C a s e f o r D e v e l o p m e n t a l C r i m i n o l o g y

154

C h r o n i c J u v e n i l e a n d A d u l t Offending

154

Developmental Criminology

156

I m p o r t a n t D e v e l o p m e n t a l K n o w l e d g e of J u v e n i l e V i o l e n c e

162

Risk- a n d P r o t e c t i v e - F o c u s e d P r e v e n t i o n

165

T h e Social Development Strategy

166

Summary

168

9. A C o m p r e h e n s i v e S t r a t e g y

170

A Comprehensive Strategy

170

Comprehensive Strategy Components

173

Summary

191

C o n c l u s i o n : R e t u r n t o R a t i o n a l i t y

193

E p i l o g u e

199

A p p e n d i x : A C o m p r e h e n s i v e S t r a t e g y for S e r i o u s , Violent, a n d C h r o n i c J u v e n i l e O f f e n d e r s

200

R e f e r e n c e s

211

I n d e x

243

A b o u t t h e A u t h o r

251



Preface

P

a r t I o f t h i s b o o k takes s t o c k of j u v e n i l e jus­ t i c e a n d y o u t h v i o l e n c e in t h e U n i t e d States. T h e first c h a p t e r c h r o n i c l e s t h e o r i g i n s a n d evolution of the juvenile justice system, a u n i q u e l y A m e r i c a n i n v e n t i o n . It w o u l d b e p r e ­ s u m p t u o u s of m e to e x p e c t t h a t m y r e c o u n t i n g of t h a t i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y i m p r o v e s o n F i n e stone's ( 1 9 7 6 ) m a s t e r f u l a c c o u n t in his c l a s s i c book, Victims of Change. N o s u c h p r e t e n t i o n e x ­ ists. R a t h e r , I t h o u g h t it w o u l d be u s e h i l to put r e c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e in t h e U n i t e d States into a his­ torical context. T h e c o n t r i b u t i o n s of the federal Juvenile J u s t i c e a n d D e l i n q u e n c y P r e v e n t i o n A c t to ju­ v e n i l e j u s t i c e a r e r e v i e w e d ( C h a p t e r 2 ) against the intellectual history backdrop of the uniquely A m e r i c a n juvenile justice system. I h o p e t h a t m y brief s u m m a r y of h i s t o r i c a l e v e n t s aids u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e c u r r e n t state of juve­ nile justice. I also h o p e t h a t f u t u r e juvenile jus­ t i c e r e f o r m e r s will benefit in s o m e w a y f r o m k n o w l e d g e of r e c e n t c h a n g e s to t h e juvenile jus­ t i c e s y s t e m in this c o u n t r y . A s S a n t a y a n a ( 1 9 4 8 , p. 2 8 4 ) a d m o n i s h e d , " T h o s e w h o c a n not r e ­ m e m b e r t h e p a s t a r e c o n d e m n e d to r e p e a t it." C h a p t e r 3 is t h e first o f t h r e e c h a p t e r s t h a t p r o v i d e a n a n a l y s i s of y o u t h v i o l e n c e a n d t h e r e s p o n s e s o f o u r s o c i e t y to this f o r m of juvenile d e l i n q u e n c y . A d u l t a n d juvenile c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h e total v o l u m e of v i o l e n t c r i m e a r e e x a m ­ ined in a n a t t e m p t to a n s w e r the question. W h o ' s t o b l a m e for v i o l e n t c r i m e ? J u v e n i l e de­ linquency trends are then reviewed (Chapter 4) to a s s e s s t h e e x t e n t a n d n a t u r e of v i o l e n t be­ havior a n d juvenile justice system responses.

A key p r e m i s e g u i d i n g this a s s e s s m e n t is t h a t c a r e m u s t b e taken in s e l e c t i n g i n d i c a t o r s of in­ c r e a s i n g juvenile v i o l e n t b e h a v i o r v e r s u s h o w s o c i e t y r e s p o n d s to juvenile delinquency. C h a p t e r 5 r e v i e w s a m a j o r c h a n g e in t h e a d ­ m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u v e n i l e justice: t r a n s f e r of a d o ­ l e s c e n t s to t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m a n d c o n ­ f i n e m e n t in a d u l t p r i s o n s . I a s s e s s r e s e a r c h o n t h e r e s u l t s o f this d e v e l o p m e n t . In Part II of t h e book, m o d i f i c a t i o n s in U . S . d e l i n q u e n c y p o l i c i e s a r e p r o p o s e d . Part II be­ gins ( C h a p t e r 6 ) w i t h a r e v i e w of c u r r e n t k n o w l ­ e d g e o f y o u t h g a n g h o m i c i d e s a n d d r u g traffick­ ing. T h i s f o r m of v i o l e n t y o u t h c r i m e is c h o s e n a s a s t a r t i n g p o i n t in revising juvenile delin­ q u e n c y policies b e c a u s e g a n g v i o l e n c e r e p r e ­ s e n t s a major p r o p o r t i o n o f j u v e n i l e v i o l e n c e . Surprisingly, few g a n g - r e l a t e d h o m i c i d e s a r e r e l a t e d to g a n g d r u g trafficking. I suggest, t h e r e ­ fore, t h a t a c l e a r e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of risk f a c t o r s for y o u t h v i o l e n c e is n e e d e d ( C h a p t e r 7 ) , a n d p r e s e n t a m e t h o d o l o g y for i m p r o v i n g o u r u n ­ d e r s t a n d i n g of v i o l e n c e : d e v e l o p m e n t a l c r i m i ­ n o l o g y ( C h a p t e r 8 ) . Part II c o n c l u d e s ( C h a p t e r 9 ) w i t h a r e c o m m e n d e d s t r a t e g y for d e a l i n g w i t h s e r i o u s , violent, a n d c h r o n i c d e l i n q u e n c y . T h e c o n c l u s i o n s of t h i s b o o k a r e n o t sus­ penseful, t h o u g h t h e y m a y c o m e a s a s u r p r i s e to m a n y r e a d e r s . Part I s h o w s , t h r o u g h a de­ tailed a s s e s s m e n t , t h a t t h e j u v e n i l e c o n t r i b u ­ t i o n s to v i o l e n c e in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a r e s m a l l a n d that a significant i n c r e a s e h a s not o c c u r r e d , e x c e p t for h o m i c i d e s ; m o s t o f t h a t i n c r e a s e m a y b e a c c o u n t e d for b y y o u t h gangs. B e c a u s e of a p h i l o s o p h i c a l shift in c r i m e policy, r e l i a n c e o n the wrong information, and misguided percep­ vu

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE

t i o n s , j u v e n i l e c r i m e p o l i c i e s in t h e U n i t e d

offered. A c o m p r e h e n s i v e s t r a t e g y is s u g g e s t e d

States have taken an unfortunate turn—with

for d e v e l o p i n g m o r e effective p r e v e n t i o n p r o ­

d e l e t e r i o u s o u t c o r a e s . Part II d e m o n s t r a t e s a

g r a m s , a c h i e v i n g a b e t t e r m a t c h b e t w e e n of­

m a j o r m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e m o s t v i o l e n t de­

fender c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a n d t r e a t m e n t p r o g r a m s ,

l i n q u e n c y , h o m i c i d e s . A w a y of a c h i e v i n g a

a n d d e v e l o p i n g a m o r e cost-effective j u v e n i l e

m o r e p r e c i s e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e e v o l u t i o n of

justice system.

s e r i o u s a n d v i o l e n t j u v e n i l e offender c a r e e r s is

Acknowledgments

I

o w e a debt of g r a t i t u d e to a n u m b e r o f g o o d p e o p l e w h o h e l p e d bring this b o o k t o life. At Sage, m y Editor, Terry H e n d r i x , g a v e m e t h e en­ c o u r a g e m e n t I s o u g h t to d e v e l o p this v o l u m e . His able assistant, Dale Grenfell, s h e p a r d e d it along. S h e r r i s e R i r d u m e x p e r t l y m a n a g e d its p r o d u c t i o n , A . J. S o b c z a k , c o p y e d i t o r for Sage, p e r f o r m e d t h e feat of identifying a n d helping m e r e s o l v e d i s c r e p a n c i e s in r e f e r e n c e s a n d s o u r c e m a t e r i a l . M y r e s e a r c h of t h e l i t e r a t u r e o n s e r i o u s , violent, c h r o n i c j u v e n i l e offenders w a s g r e a t l y a i d e d b y Phyllis S c h u l t z e , L i b r a r i a n of the Criminal Justice and National Council on C r i m e a n d D e l i n q u e n c y c o l l e c t i o n at R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y . S h e g e n e r o u s l y facilitated m y a c ­ c e s s t o this w o n d e r f i d library of j u v e n i l e a n d c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e l i t e r a t u r e . I a m also i n d e b t e d t o B a r r y Krisberg, P r e s i d e n t , N C C D , for m a k i n g this i n v a l u a b l e r e s o u r c e a v a i l a b l e to m e . M a n y o f m y c o l l e a g u e s h e l p e d e n o r m o u s l y t o im­ prove the manuscript. Discussions with Hunter H u r s t , D i r e c t o r of t h e N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for J u v e ­ n i l e J u s t i c e , g a v e m e a n u m b e r o f i d e a s for C h a p t e r s t h r e e a n d four, w h i c h M e l i s s a Sick­ m u n d at NCJJ later reviewed carefully and h e l p e d m e c o r r e c t a n u m b e r of i n t e r p r e t a t i v e e r r o r s . O t h e r NCJJ staff also facilitated a c c e s s t o a n d h e l p e d m e u n d e r s t a n d t h e e n o r m o u s col­ l e c t i o n o f s t a t i s t i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n NCJJ h a s a m a s s e d in t h e N a t i o n a l J u v e n i l e C o u r t D a t a A r c h i v e , a n d in o t h e r p r o j e c t s : H o w a r d Snyder, R i c h a r d Gable, M e l i s s a S i c k m u n d , a n d Jeffrey Butts. I a m especially indebted to Hunter Hurst, for p e r m i t t i n g m y e x t e n s i v e u s e o f m a t e r i a l NCJJ generated on juvenile delinquency and adult criminality, and juvenile and criminal

j u s t i c e s y s t e m h a n d l i n g o f o f f e n d e r s in t h e Offenders and Victims: A Na­ b o o k . Juvenile tional Report ( S n y d e r & S i c k m u n d , 1 9 9 5 ) , a n d t h e u p d a t e of it, Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence (Snyder, S i c k m u n d , & Poe-Yamagata, 1 9 9 6 ) . H o w a r d Snyder and M e l i s s a S i c k m u n d at t h e NCJJ n o t o n l y e n c o u r ­ aged m y use of their outstanding compilation o f d a t a a n d statistical review, b u t a l s o facilitated m y a c c e s s to d a t a files. I a l s o t h a n k t h e Illinois C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e I n f o r m a t i o n Authority, D e v e l ­ o p m e n t a l R e s e a r c h a n d P r o g r a m s , Inc., C a m ­ bridge University Press, and the National C o u n c i l o n C r i m e a n d D e l i n q u e n c y for p e r m i s ­ s i o n to r e p r i n t p r e v i o u s l y p u b l i s h e d m a t e r i a l . A n earlier v e r s i o n of c h a p t e r five w a s p u b l i s h e d in Law and Policy ( 1 9 9 6 , vol. 1 8 , p p . 1 7 - 6 0 , ti­ tled "Juvenile Transfers to t h e C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e System"). I a m grateful t o t h e e d i t o r s of t h a t vol­ u m e , B a r r y Feld a n d S i m o n Singer for e x c e l l e n t i d e a s for i m p r o v e m e n t s . D o n n a H a m p a r i a n , B a r r y Krisberg, a n d E l i z a b e t h M c N u l t y a l s o r e ­ v i e w e d e a r l y drafts a n d g a v e m e helpful c o m ­ m e n t s a n d suggestions. I a m a l s o i n d e b t e d to B a r r y Krisberg a n d D o m i n i c Del R o s a r i o at N C C D for a n a l y s e s o n s e r i o u s a n d v i o l e n t j u v e ­ nile offenders in juvenile a n d a d u l t c o r r e c t i o n a l s y s t e m s t h e y p r o v i d e d for this c h a p t e r C h a p t e r six is a c o m p i l a t i o n f r o m t w o p r o d u c t s devel­ oped under the support of the National Youth G a n g C e n t e r in T a l l a h a s s e e . B r u c e B u c k l e y a n d John M o o r e at the Center performed thorough r e v i e w s of draft p r o d u c t s , g r e a t l y h e l p i n g m e to i m p r o v e t h e m . C a r o l y n B l o c k , L e e Colwell, David Curry, Wes M c B r i d e , Cheryl M a x s o n , J o a n M o o r e , W a l t e r Miller, J i m S h o r t , a n d Irving IX

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND

S p e r g e l a l s o p r o v i d e d v a l u a b l e r e v i e w s of m y

YOUTH VIOLENCE

o n juvenile j u s t i c e at OJJDP H e a n d I a r e b o t h

o r i g i n a l p r o d u c t s for t h e N a t i o n a l Y o u t h Gang

i n d e b t e d t o S h a y B i l c h i k , A d m i n i s t r a t o r , OJJDP

Center. R i c h a r d Catalano reviewed chapters

for facilitating a d o p t i o n o f t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e

s e v e n a n d eight, a n d w a s of e n o r m o u s h e l p w i t h

Strategy in communities and states across the

s u g g e s t i o n s for t h e i r r e o r g a n i z a t i o n . H e a n d

c o u n t r y . Finally, a n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t , I a m v e r y

David Hawkins kindly authorized extensive

grateful to m y wife, K a r e n , a n d o u r d a u g h t e r ,

u s e of t h e i r w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l o n t h e S o c i a l De­

M e g a n , for g r a c i o u s l y t o l e r a t i n g e x t e n d e d p e r i ­

v e l o p m e n t M o d e l (in c h a p t e r eight), for w h i c h

o d s o f t i m e I s p e n t at m y c o m p u t e r . K a r e n

I a m grateful. Rolf L o e b e r a l s o r e v i e w e d c h a p t e r

h e l p e d a n a l y z e a n u m b e r of i s s u e s w i t h w h i c h

eight a n d m a d e m a n y h e l p h i l s u g g e s t i o n s for

I wrestled. She also reviewed portions of the

improvements. John Wilson, Deputy Adminis­

manuscript, and politely e n c o u r a g e d m e to

trator, Office of J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e a n d Delin­

simplify t h e m a t e r i a l . D e s p i t e all this v a l u a b l e

q u e n c y Prevention, co-authored with m e the

a s s i s t a n c e , n o d o u b t t h e r e a r e e r r o r s of o m i s ­

C o m p r e h e n s i v e S t r a t e g y for S e r i o u s , Violent,

sion a n d c o m m i s s i o n in t h i s b o o k . For t h e s e , I

a n d C h r o n i c J u v e n i l e Offenders. I a m i n d e b t e d

a c c e p t full responsibility.

t o h i m for h i s C o m p r e h e n s i v e S t r a t e g y vision, intellectual stimulation and the pleasure of

JAMES C . HOWELL

w o r k i n g w i t h h i m o n it w h i l e I w a s at OJJDP.

Herndon, Virginia

W e e n j o y e d t w o d e c a d e s of c h a l l e n g i n g w o r k

April, 1 9 9 7

Parti

T

h e b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e sys­ t e m is s u m m a r i z e d in t h e first c h a p t e r in

t o t a l v o l u m e o f v i o l e n t c r i m e in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d r e c e n t i n c r e a s e s , to a s s e s s w h o is to

this part. T h i s d i s c u s s i o n is f o l l o w e d in C h a p t e r

blame. Juvenile delinquency

2 b y a n i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y of federal legislation

t r e n d s a r e t h e n d i s c u s s e d in C h a p t e r 4 . T h e fi­

and

violence

t h a t c r e a t e d t h e Office of J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e a n d

n al c h a p t e r in Part I r e v i e w s t h e m a i n p r o d u c t

D e l i n q u e n c y P r e v e n t i o n , t h e first m a j o r federal

of the current juvenile justice reform move­

office c h a r g e d w i t h p r e v e n t i n g a n d r e d u c i n g ju­

m e n t : transfer o f j u v e n i l e s to t h e c r i m i n a l jus­

venile delinquency. Chapter 3 focuses on the

tice system.

1 Juvenile Reform Movements

F

our major reform movements have given rise to and shaped the juvenile justice system in the United States. The first movement resulted in the establishment of institutions for juveniles, removing them from confinement in prisons with adults. Creation of the juvenile court at the end of the 19th century represents the second reform movement. The third flourished in the mid-20th century viith the development of alternatives to both institutions and juvenile courts. The current and fourth reform movement replicates, in large part, the first one. Its advocates urge increased use of confinement and returning serious juvenile offenders to adult prisons.

The First Juvenile Justice Reform Movement: IVIoralists Before the 1800s, the United States had no juvenile justice system. Criminal cases involving children and adolescents were handled in criminal courts. Three events led to the creation of correctional institutions specifically for wayward children and juvenile delinquents; the emergence of "pauperism," the development of prisons, and the work of "gentleman reformers." Pauperism In the opening decades of the 19th century, New England was suffering the unexpected so cial consequences of the Industrial Revolution From 1790 to 1830, the New York state popula tion increased fivefold (Rothman, 1971, p. 57)

Rapid immigration into the major eastern cities (particularly Boston, New York City, and Philadelphia) in the early 1800s disrupted the social order. Small, relatively self-contained communities and the agrarian way of life, in which the family was able to control its offspring, gave way to urbanization. The previous orderly society was no more. Ambitious strangers were everywhere, competing for wealth, status, and power. Urbanization was a destructive force that undermined sources of morality and left individuals rudderless (Finestone, 1976, pp. 3-7). Arrival of Irish immigrants exacerbated social problems. Their sheer numbers and their impoverishment created stress in making the transition in the new country. Virtually destitute, rife vrith illnesses, and unemployed, many became homeless and resorted to begging and stealing. Family solidarity was destroyed. According to Finestone (1976, p. 4), "Juvenile delinquency slipped out of the hands of the family and the church and became a manifest public problem." White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) were offended by the arrival of non-Protestants. The large waves of Irish immigrants produced ethnic and religious tensions. Feeling that their way of life was threatened by increasing numbers of poor, destitute, and apparently idle people, these WASP moralists defined the enemy as "pauperism" and came to perceive pauperism and crime in terms of the Irish stereotype: "slatterns and drunken hell-raisers" (Pickett, 1 9 6 9 , p. 16). The upper- and upper-middleclass Protestants feared that paupers might be a source of violence and a n a r c h y such as

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE F r a n c e h a d seen during the French Revohition

(Cressey, 1 9 7 3 , p. 1 2 0 ) . T h e r e w a s o p p o s i t i o n

( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 1 9 ) . T h e i r fears w e r e bol­

to this p r a c t i c e , a n d it w a s s o o n a b a n d o n e d .

stered b y t h e b r e a k d o w n of colonial controls on

Rather, s o m e i n m a t e s "were f o r c e d to p e r f o r m

society. A s P i c k e t t ( 1 9 6 9 ) d e s c r i b e s c o n d i t i o n s .

tasks s u c h as c a r r y i n g a c a n n o n b a l l b a c k a n d forth along a corridor, walking treadmills,

Y o u n g ruffians r a n in g a n g s t h r o u g h the

turning cranks, and smashing boulders with

streets, a n d w a t c h m e n f o u n d h u n g r y

mauls and sledge h a m m e r s " (Cressey, 1 9 7 3 ,

urchins asleep under doorsteps. Beggars

p. 1 2 1 ) .

a n d c u t p u r s e s jostled t h e w e a l t h y o n b u s y

S u b s e q u e n t d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e p r i s o n in­

t h o r o u g h f a r e s . It h a d b e e n less t h a n fifty

n o v a t i o n in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s (Cressey, 1 9 7 3 ,

y e a r s s i n c e t h e s u p p o s e d l y perfect n a t i o n

pp. 1 1 9 - 1 2 8 ; Erikson, 1 9 6 6 , pp. 1 9 9 - 2 0 5 ) cen­

h a d b e e n d e v i s e d , but t h e n o b l e p l a n s of

t e r e d o n t h e e s s e n c e o f i m p r i s o n m e n t . Two c o n ­

t h e f o r e f a t h e r s a l r e a d y s e e m e d in jeop­

trasting p u n i s h m e n t philosophies emerged,

ardy, ( p p . x v i i i - x i x )

o n e in P h i l a d e l p h i a a n d t h e o t h e r in A u b u r n , N e w York. E a s t e r n S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y in P h i l a ­ d e l p h i a , o p e n e d in 1 8 2 9 , w a s a p r o d u c t o f

Prisons

Q u a k e r t h i n k i n g a n d p l a n n i n g . Its p h i l o s o p h y

T h e u s e of p r i s o n s to p u n i s h juveniles a n d

emphasized penitence and solitude. Reforma­

a d u l t s is a n i n v e n t i o n of t h e U n i t e d States a n d

tion r e q u i r e d s e p a r a t i o n of i n m a t e s f r o m evil

F r a n c e , a p r o d u c t of t h e F r e n c h a n d A m e r i c a n

i n f l u e n c e s , p u t t i n g t h e m in p o s i t i o n s w h e r e t h e

revolutions

"better n a t u r e c o u l d begin to a s s e r t itself"

(Cressey,

1 9 7 3 , pp.

119-124;

M c K e l v e y , 1 9 6 8 ) . In b o t h c o u n t r i e s , r e v o l u t i o n ­

( E r i k s o n , 1 9 6 6 , p. 2 0 1 ) . Later, i n n o v a t o r s de­

a r i e s w h o suffered f r o m t h e t y r a n n y of d e s p o t s

c i d e d t h e c r i m i n a l ' s d e g r e e of f r e e d o m s h o u l d

d e c i d e d that loss o f f r e e d o m w a s sufficient p u n ­

be s e v e r e l y limited b y p r e s s i n g t h e p r i s o n w a l l s

i s h m e n t . Q u a k e r s in N e w E n g l a n d h a d n o t for­

against h i m . E a c h p r i s o n e r w a s l o c k e d a l o n e in

g o t t e n t h e p e r s e c u t i o n s t h e y s u f f e r e d at t h e

a tiny c e l l . I n t e r a c t i o n w i t h o t h e r s w a s m i n i ­

h a n d s of E n g l i s h r u l e in t h e M a s s a c h u s e t t s B a y

m i z e d . In t h e W e s t e r n S t a t e P e n i t e n t i a r y a t

C o l o n y in t h e m i d - 1 6 0 0 s (Erikson, 1 9 6 6 ) o r t h e

P i t t s b u r g h , o p e n e d in 1 8 3 6 , a s i m i l a r " s e p a r a t e

" S a l e m w i t c h c r a f t o u t b r e a k " in 1 6 9 2 (Starkley,

a n d silent" s y s t e m w a s a d o p t e d . P r i s o n e r s w e r e

1 9 4 9 ) . In t h a t e r a , P u r i t a n s w e r e p u n i s h e d for

n o t r e q u i r e d to w o r k a n d c o n f i n e m e n t w a s soli­

q u e s t i o n a b l e a n d m i n o r offenses b y t h e "burn­

tary, in a l m o s t c o m p l e t e isolation. " T h e y w e n t

ing u g l y b r a n d s i n t o t h e i r flesh, t u r n i n g t h e m

c r a z y " ( C r e s s e y 1 9 7 3 , p. 1 9 ) .

o u t i n t o t h e w i l d e r n e s s , s h a m i n g t h e m in t h e

The

alternative philosophy

was

imple­

s t o c k s a n d pillory, flogging t h e m w i t h a h e a v y

m e n t e d s l o w l y in N e w York's A u b u r n p r i s o n ,

hand, severing their ears and mutilating their

o p e n e d in 1 8 2 0 , a n d c a m e to b e c a l l e d t h e " c o n ­

noses, and sometimes even hanging t h e m from

gregate s y s t e m , " u n d e r w h i c h cells w e r e u s e d

t h e gallows" ( E r i k s o n , 1 9 6 6 , p p . 1 8 7 - 1 8 8 ) .

o n l y at night. During t h e day, p r i s o n e r s w o r k e d

Thus, the Quakers a n d other reformers were

in s h o p s a n d t i g h t l y c o n t r o l l e d g r o u p s , e v e n

quick to c h o o s e i m p r i s o n m e n t over physical

outside the prison. Erikson ( 1 9 6 6 ) describes

p u n i s h m e n t for c r i m e . T h e leading a d v o c a t e of

conditions:

t h i s n e w c o n c e p t w a s W i l l i a m P e n n , w h o de­ v e l o p e d a c r i m i n a l c o d e , a d o p t e d as t h e "Great L a w o f P e n n s y l v a n i a " b y t h e C o l o n y in 1 6 8 2 ( C r e s s e y , 1 9 7 3 , p. 1 2 0 ) . P e n n ' s c o d e

ended

bloody tortures and decreed that crimes were to b e p u n i s h e d b y i m p r i s o n m e n t , substituting c o n f i n e m e n t for p u b l i c t o i t i u e , as w a s c o m m o n p r a c t i c e in t h e c o l o n i e s . T h e c o l o n i e s ' l e a d e r s , h o w e v e r , w e r e not s u r e that m e r e d e p r i v a t i o n of l i b e r t y w a s sufficiently painful. H a r d l a b o r t h e r e f o r e w a s s u b s t i t u t e d for c a p i t a l p u n i s h ­

T h e keynote w a s discipline: the m e n w e r e a s s e m b l e d in long g r e y r a n k s , f o r b i d d e n to s p e a k to o n e a n o t h e r , f o r c e d to w o r k as slaves, a n d s u b j e c t to c o n s t a n t h a r a s s m e n t from t h e g u a r d s — a l l of w h i c h m i r r o r e d the Piuitan conviction that a reprobate spirit m u s t be b r o k e n to t h e r o u t i n e s of a useful life b e c a u s e it c a n n o t b e t r u l y r e d e e m e d , (pp. 2 0 1 - 2 0 2 )

m e n t in P e n n s y l v a n i a ' s 1 7 7 6 c o n s t i t u t i o n . " T h e l a w w a s e n f o r c e d b y o r g a n i z i n g c o n v i c t s into c h a i n g a n g s , t e t h e r i n g t h e m o n t h e streets like cattle. T h e result w a s degradation and misery"

P r i s o n labor, u s e d t o m a n u f a c t x u e p r o d u c t s a n d in f a r m i n g , p r o d u c e d e n o u g h r e v e n u e to c o v e r most prison expenses.

Juvenile Reform Movements

C o m p e t i t i o n developed between the two

l a n d ' s first r e f o r m a t o r y s c h o o l — a s c h o o l for

m o d e l s a s visitors c a m e f r o m all o v e r t h e w o r l d

g i r l s — w a s o p e n e d at B r i s t o l in 1 8 5 4 , after e n ­

to visit the r e s p e c t i v e prisons. W h e r e a s the

a c t m e n t o f t h e first R e f o r m a t o r y S c h o o l A c t

P h i l a d e l p h i a m o d e l c l a i m e d to b e m o r e h u ­

(p. 1 1 1 ) .

m a n e , t o b e less costly, a n d to p r o v i d e a setting

In 1 9 0 9 , t h e first E n g l i s h B o r s t a l w a s c r e ­

"in w h i c h m a n ' s n a t u r a l g r a c e c o u l d e m e r g e , "

a t e d , at t h e p r i s o n n e a r t h e village of B o r s t a l ,

t h e A u b u r n c o n g r e g a t e s y s t e m "offered a set­

w h i c h w a s c o n v e r t e d i n t o a fresh t5φe of p e n a l

ting in w h i c h h i s i n h e r e n t w i c k e d n e s s c o u l d at

institution, a h a l f w a y h o u s e b e t w e e n a p r i s o n

least b e c u r b e d a n d b e n t to t h e n e e d s of society"

a n d a r e f o r m a t o r y . K e y f e a t u r e s of t h e B o r s t a l

( E r i k s o n , 1 9 6 6 , p. 2 0 2 ) . T h e results of t h e ri­

w e r e "segregation of t h e 'juvenile a d u l t ' f r o m

v a l r y c a n b e s e e n in p r i s o n s y s t e m s t h r o u g h o u t

the adult fully g r o w n , " strong e m p h a s i s on

the world. Almost every m a x i m u m security

"physical a n d i n d u s t r i a l t r a i n i n g , a n d u p o n af­

s y s t e m in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s is p a t t e r n e d after

t e r - c a r e " (Burt, 1 9 2 5 , p. 2 3 5 ) . J u v e n i l e C o l o n i e s

the A u b u r n model. E u r o p e adopted the Phila­

also w e r e established,

delphia model.

A m e r i c a n George J u n i o r R e p u b l i c . E n g l a n d h a d

p a t t e r n e d after the

T h e A u b u r n congregate model w a s super­

B r i d e w e l l s s i n c e 1 5 5 5 . T h e s e w e r e t h e first in­

s e d e d in t h e late 1 8 0 0 s b y t h e "Elmira s y s t e m , "

stitutions specifically designed to control ado­

d e v e l o p e d in N e w York's E l m i r a R e f o r m a t o r y

lescent

( 1 8 7 6 ) . E d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s w e r e a d d e d in a

Austin, 1 9 9 3 , pp. 9-10).

beggars and

vagrants (Krisberg &

p r i s o n s c h o o l , a d m i n i s t e r e d in c o n j u n c t i o n

Krisberg a n d Austin ( 1 9 9 3 , pp. 1 0 - 1 5 ; see also

w i t h i n d e t e r m i n a t e s e n t e n c e s . T h e latter w a s

Starkley, 1 9 4 9 ) detail t h e t r e a t m e n t w a y w a r d

g o v e r n e d b y a " m a r k s y s t e m " u n d e r w h i c h in­

c h i l d r e n a n d a d o l e s c e n t s r e c e i v e d in t h e N e w

mates could earn release and parole by a c c u ­

World. C h i l d r e n p r e v i o u s l y h e l d in t h e o v e r ­

m u l a t i n g c r e d i t s . A l t h o u g h this p r a c t i c e g e n e r ­

c r o w d e d Bridewells w e r e brought to the A m e r i ­

ally has been

c a s as i n d e n t u r e d s e r v a n t s . In 1 6 1 9 , t h e Vir­

abandoned,

the p r a c t i c e of

r e q u i r i n g l a b o r o f i n m a t e s h a s not b e e n d i s c o n ­

g i n i a C o l o n y c o n t r a c t e d for t h e s h i p m e n t of

t i n u e d . L a b o r for t h e g e n e r a t i o n of p r i s o n in­

orphans and destitute children from England.

c o m e b e c a m e t h e goal. Cressey ( 1 9 7 3 , p. 1 2 3 )

A large proportion of slaves w e r e children,

c o n c l u d e s that "prisons h a v e not c h a n g e d m u c h ,

m a n y of t h e m A f r i c a n . R m i s h m e n t w a s h a r s h .

really, in the h u n d r e d years since E l m i r a w a s c o n ­

C h i l d r e n in t h e M a s s a c h u s e t t s B a y C o l o n y

ceived. . . . V a r i o u s i n e f f e c t i v e

c o u l d b e put to d e a t h for c u r s i n g o r "smiting"

rehabilitation

programs have been added, along with public

t h e i r n a t u r a l f a t h e r or m o t h e r . C h i l d r e n of p o o r

r e l a t i o n s d e p a r t m e n t s t h a t puff t h e m up."

f a m i l i e s c o u l d b e " b o u n d out" as i n d e n t u r e d

E u r o p e adopted the Pennsylvania solitary

servants. Compulsory apprenticeships were

c o n f i n e m e n t s y s t e m . A s late as t h e b e g i n n i n g

u s e d as a n o r m of s o c i a l c o n t r o l for y o u t h s p e r ­

of t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u r y , b e t w e e n 2 , 0 0 0 a n d 3 , 0 0 0

c e i v e d as t r o u b l e s o m e . C h i l d l a b o r in i n d u s ­

c h i l d r e n u n d e r t h e a g e of 1 6 w e r e i m p r i s o n e d

tries s u p p l a n t e d t h e a p p r e n t i c e s h i p s y s t e m .

a n n u a l l y in E n g l a n d (Burt, 1 9 2 5 , p. 1 0 5 ) . B u r t

P r i s o n s w e r e first v i e w e d as a h u m a n e a l t e r ­

a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t "less t h a n a c e n t u r y ago, t h e y

n a t i v e to b a r b a r i c p u b l i c b e a t i n g a n d t o r t u r e o f

w e r e n o t o n l y f o r c e d to a w a i t t h e i r trial in t h e

adult

c o m m o n jail, but w e r e liable to be s e n t e n c e d to

( A i c h o r n , 1 9 3 9 ) . R e f o r m e r s in e a r l y 1 9 t h c e n ­

criminals

and

juvenile

delinquents

d e a t h . . . for p e t t y offenses t h a t t o - d a y w o u l d

tury A m e r i c a believed that the criminal class

h a r d l y be t h o u g h t to w a r r a n t a fine" (p. 1 0 5 ) .

could be saved through the application of rea­

A l t h o u g h the C r o w n h a d b e c o m e m o r e civi­

s o n , equity, a n d h u m a n e t r e a t m e n t ( R o t h m a n ,

l i z e d of late, B u r t tells of o n e c a s e "of a b o y of

1 9 7 1 , pp. 6 0 - 6 1 ) . Thus, penitentiaries w e r e

eight, w h o . . . h a d set fire to a b a r n ; a n d , b e i n g

e r e c t e d for a d u l t s , a l o n g w i t h H o u s e s o f Refuge

c o n v i c t e d of a felony, w a s d u l y h a n g e d , " a n d

a n d a s y l u m s for c h i l d r e n . P r e s u m a b l y , jails a n d

t h a t "so late as 1 8 3 3 a b o y of n i n e w a s s e n t e n c e d

detention c e n t e r s w e r e c r e a t e d at a b o u t the

t o d e a t h , t h o u g h n o t e x e c u t e d , for s t e a l i n g

s a m e t i m e , a l t h o u g h t h e h i s t o r i c a l r e c o r d is si­

t w o p e n n y - w o r t h of paint" (p. 1 0 5 ) . Fortunately,

l e n t o r v a g u e in t h e s e a r e a s ( M a t t i c k , 1 9 7 4 ,

in 1 9 0 8 s u c h m e a s u r e s w e r e a b o l i s h e d b y t h e

p. 7 8 2 ) . I n s t i t u t i o n s w e r e s e e n as t h e p a n a c e a

Children Act, w h i c h prohibited imprisoning

for t r e a t m e n t a n d c o n t r o l of d e v i a n t s ( B r e m n e r ,

c h i l d r e n u n d e r the age of 14. Burt suggested

1 9 7 0 , p. 1 0 4 ) . A l t h o u g h r e f o r m e r s w a n t e d t o

t h a t "it w o u l d b e w e l l if, b y future legislation,

develop specialized c o r r e c t i o n a l institutions

a n a g e y e t h i g h e r m i g h t b e fixed" (p. 1 0 6 ) . E n g ­

for c h i l d r e n a n d a d o l e s c e n t s , it d o e s n o t a p p e a r

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

t h a t t h e y i n t e n d e d t h a t p r i s o n s be u s e d to w a r e ­

s o u g h t t o t u r n b a c k t h e c l o c k , to d e n y u r b a n i ­

h o u s e j u v e n i l e s . In c h o o s i n g to u s e p r i s o n s a n d

zation.

r e f o r m a t o r i e s to p u n i s h a n d c o r r e c t j u v e n i l e de­

Having c o n c l u d e d that pauperism (poverty) u n d e r m i n e d t h e i r d r e a m society, t h e g e n t l e m a n

linquents,

r e f o r m e r s set o u t t o e l i m i n a t e its effects. T h e i r A m e r i c a n s took a step that w a s to leave

initial efforts t a r g e t e d w a y w a r d c h i l d r e n . T h e y

a n i n d e l i b l e i m p r i n t o n t h e f u t u r e treat­

g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r in v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s a n d

m e n t of c h i l d r e n a n d a d u l t s in t r o u b l e

p r o m o t e d reforms that would neutralize ur­

a n d to c h a n g e i r r e v o c a b l y t h e s e a r c h for

banization's consequences. Something

c o m m u n i t y s o l u t i o n s to d e v i a n t b e h a v i o r

n e e d e d in t h e large cities, b e c a u s e c o n t i n u a t i o n

was

t h a t h a d c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e s o c i a l o r d e r of

of t h e c o l o n i a l p r a c t i c e of p l a c i n g u n r u l y o r n e ­

c o l o n i a l society. . . . It w a s a s o c i a l i n v e n ­

g l e c t e d c h i l d r e n in t h e h o m e of a n e i g h b o r be­

t i o n of p r o f o u n d s i g n i f i c a n c e . ( E m p e y ,

c a m e i m p r a c t i c a l in e x p a n d i n g u r b a n a r e a s s u c h as N e w York, B o s t o n , a n d P h i l a d e l p h i a . A

1 9 7 8 , p. 8 1 )

m e e t i n g w a s c o n v e n e d in 1 8 1 7 t o c o n s i d e r T h e p r e c e d e n t for i n s t i t u t i o n s for c h i l d r e n o r i g i n a t e d in

16th century European and

c u r e s for p a u p e r i s m a n d c r i m e . T h i s m e e t i n g led t o f o r m a t i o n of t h e S o c i e t y for t h e P r e v e n ­

F r e n c h religious reform m o v e m e n t s . T h e s e re­

tion of P a u p e r i s m in N e w Y o r k City. T h e s o c i e t y

f o r m e r s c h a n g e d t h e p u b l i c p e r c e p t i o n of c h i l ­

w a s a p p a l l e d to find c h i l d r e n c o n f i n e d

d r e n from that of "miniature adults" to i m m a t u r e

thieves, p r o s t i t u t e s , a n d l u n a t i c s in u n s a n i t a r y

persons w h o s e moral and mental capacities w e r e

q u a r t e r s ( D e a n & R e p p u c c i , 1 9 7 4 , p. 8 6 6 ) . I n

with

n o t fully f o r m e d . T h e s o l u t i o n w a s p r o v i s i o n

1 8 2 2 , it c a l l e d p u b l i c a t t e n t i o n to t h e c o r r u p ­

o f b o a r d i n g s c h o o l s in w h i c h rigid r e g i m e n s

tion of c h i l d r e n b y l o c k i n g t h e m u p w i t h a d u l t

would help develop the mental and moral ca­

c r i m i n a l s . T h e s o c i e t y c a l l e d for t h e r e s c u e

p a c i t i e s o f t h e c h i l d (Aries, 1 9 6 2 ) .

o f c h i l d r e n f r o m a f u t u r e of c r i m e a n d d e g r a ­

T h e r e is n o r e c o r d of t h e n u m b e r s o f y o u t h s

d a t i o n . In 1 8 2 3 , it r e c o n s t i t u t e d itself as t h e S o ­

c o n f i n e d in a d u l t p r i s o n s in this c o u n t r y d u r i n g

c i e t y for t h e R e f o r m a t i o n o f J u v e n i l e D e l i n ­

e i t h e r t h e c o l o n i a l e r a or t h e p e r i o d o f t h e In­

quents, as juveniles

d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n . In fact, a c o m p l e t e c u r r e n t

r e f o r m ( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 2 2 ) . No doubt,

c o u n t is n o t a v a i l a b l e to this day. A s a p p a l l i n g

this decision w a s influenced b y an 1 8 2 2 re­

as this is, t h e r e a l i t y is t h a t this c o u n t r y i n h e r ­

p o r t to t h e S o c i e t y for t h e P r e v e n t i o n o f P a u ­

ited f r o m E n g l a n d a n d o t h e r E u r o p e a n c o u n ­

p e r i s m t h a t said.

b e c a m e its t a r g e t

for

tries a d i s r e g a r d for c h i l d r e n . "Childhood" w a s n o t d i s c o v e r e d until m u c h later ( E m p e y , 1 9 7 8 ) .

It is w i t h p a i n t h a t w e state t h a t , in five

' A d o l e s c e n c e " w a s n o t yet u n d e r s t o o d . It w a s

o r s i x y e a r s past, a n d until t h e last few

n o t until t h e n e x t r e f o r m m o v e m e n t , in w h i c h

m o n t h s , t h e n u m b e r of y o u t h u n d e r four­

t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t w a s c r e a t e d n e a r t h e begin­

t e e n y e a r s o f a g e c h a r g e d w i t h offenses

ning of the 2 0 t h century, that these terms were

against t h e l a w h a s d o u b l e d ; a n d t h a t t h e

d e v e l o p e d a n d u s e d in d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n

s a m e boys are again and again brought up

and control policies.

for e x a m i n a t i o n , s o m e of w h o m a r e c o m ­ m i t t e d , a n d s o m e tried; a n d t h a t i m p r i s o n ­

Gentleman Reformers E a s t e r n s o c i e t y in t h e e a r l y 1 8 0 0 s w a s led b y a g r o u p of m o r a l i s t a d v o c a t e s w h o m F i n e s t o n e ( 1 9 7 6 , p. 1 8 ) calls " g e n t l e m a n r e f o r m e r s . " T h e y w e r e largely white A n g l o - S a x o n Protes­ tants (although quite a few w e r e Quakers), middle- and upper-class, cosmopolitan men w h o kept u p w i t h r e f o r m s e l s e w h e r e , i n c l u d i n g abroad. T h e y were a very active group of ama­ teur, b u t diligent a n d h i g h l y d e d i c a t e d , indi­ viduals. Guided by the 18th century Enlighten­ ment, they were imbued with humanitarian idealism,

moralism, and rationalism. They

m e n t b y its f r e q u e n c y r e n d e r s t h e m h a r d ­ e n e d a n d fearless, ( c i t e d in H a w e s , 1 9 7 1 , p. 2 9 ) In t h e v i e w of t h e g e n t l e m a n r e f o r m e r s , w a y ­ ward youth were a p r o d u c t of their bad envi­ r o n m e n t a n d t h e failure of t h e family. A r m e d with the idealism of the Enlightenment, the gentleman reformers believed that delinquents and other deviants could be helped by exposing t h e m to a good environment, provided that one c o u l d get t o t h e m e a r l y e n o u g h , b e f o r e c r i m i n a l i n f l u e n c e s got t o t h e m . T h e y w e r e i n f l u e n c e d b y L o c k e ' s tabula rasa d o c t r i n e t h a t c h i l d r e n ' s

Juvenile Reform Movements m i n d s wrere s h a p e d e n t i r e l y b y t h e i r e a r l y e x ­ p e r i e n c e s , r a t h e r t h a n being p r e d e t e r m i n e d (Fi­ nestone, 1 9 7 6 , pp. 2 0 - 2 1 ) .

H o u s e s o f Refuge T h e gentleman reformers created the New Y o r k H o u s e o f Refuge in 1 8 2 5 . B e c a u s e a n u n ­ s t a b l e e n v i r o n m e n t w a s c o r r u p t i n g , t h e y felt t h a t c h i l d r e n n e e d e d to b e p l a c e d in a c o n t r o l ­ led e n v i r o n m e n t , in a "refuge," a shelter, w h e r e t h e y c o u l d b e i n c u l c a t e d w i t h the " a p p r o p r i a t e m o r a l i t y " ( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 5 ) . "Their g e n e r a l p u r p o s e w a s t o s a v e c h i l d r e n f r o m l i v e s of c r i m e by i n c u l c a t i n g t h e m w i t h m i d d l e - c l a s s v a l u e s — n e a t n e s s , diligence, p u n c t u a l i t y , a n d thrift" ( M e n n e l , 1 9 7 3 , p. 1 8 ) . T h e y offered food, c l o t h i n g , shelter, a n d e d u c a t i o n to h o m e l e s s and destitute children while removing juvenile offenders f r o m p r i s o n s (Fox, 1 9 7 0 , p p . 1 1 8 8 ­ 1 1 8 9 ) . E m p h a s i s w a s placed on work, educa­ tion, a n d morality. Reformation w a s encour­ aged by a c o m p l e x system of rewards a n d p u n i s h m e n t s . T h e a i m w a s to c r e a t e s m a l l m o d ­ els for t h e r e f o r m e r s ' ideal society. R e s c u i n g c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e d e s t r u c t i v e f o r c e s in a r a p i d l y changing society w a s considered a benevolent a c t . "So c e r t a i n w e r e its f o u n d e r s o f t h e right­ e o u s n e s s o f their m i s s i o n t h a t t h e y s h o w e d lit­ tle c o n c e r n w i t h t h e n i c e t i e s of t h e civil rights o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h e y institutionalized; a d m i s ­ sions included homeless children and con­ victed juvenile offenders indiscriminately" ( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 6 ) . T h e r e f o r m e r s w e r e a w a r e of t h e failure of prisons to correct adults, w h i c h Finestone ( 1 9 7 6 ) b e l i e v e s p a r t l y e x p l a i n s , ironically, their e n t h u s i a s m for juvenile institutions. " T h e h o p e w a s a l w a y s t h e r e t h a t m e a s u r e s t h a t h a d failed w i t h a d u l t s m i g h t p r o v e t o b e effective w i t h c h i l d r e n " b e c a u s e c h i l d r e n w e r e b e l i e v e d to be m o r e m a l l e a b l e (p. 2 4 ) . T h e r e w e r e o t h e r rea­ s o n s r e f o r m e r s f a v o r e d i n c a r c e r a t i o n for juve­ niles. T h e y w e r e p e r t u r b e d by t h e a p p a r e n t le­ n i e n c y o f c r i m i n a l c o u r t judges t o w a r d d e v i a n t y o u t h . T h e y o b j e c t e d t o h o u s i n g juveniles w i t h adult criminals. Perhaps more important, they w e r e a l a r m e d o v e r a large i n c r e a s e in offenses a m o n g y o u n g offenders. Finally, t h e y w e r e e n ­ t i c e d b y t h e i d e a of s p e c i a l i z e d c o r r e c t i o n a l in­ stitutions for y o u n g offenders b e c a u s e t h e y h a d b e g u n t o e r e c t a n a r r a y of institutions: "peni­ t e n t i a r i e s for t h e c r i m i n a l , a s y l u m s for t h e in­ s a n e , a l m s h o u s e s for t h e poor, a n d o r p h a n asy­

l u m s for h o m e l e s s c h i l d r e n . . ." ( R o t h m a n , 1 9 7 1 , p. xiii). T h e c o n c e p t o f r e f o r m a t o r i e s for d e l i n ­ q u e n t s c a u g h t o n . H o u s e s of Refuge w e r e built b y p r i v a t e p h i l a n t h r o p i s t s in N e w Y o r k C i t y in 1 8 2 5 , in P h i l a d e l p h i a in 1 8 2 8 , b y t h e B o s t o n C i t y C o u n c i l i n l 8 2 5 , a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y in o t h e r c i t i e s . T h e y b e c a m e f a m i l y s u b s t i t u t e s , "not o n l y for t h e less s e r i o u s juvenile, b u t for o t h e r c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e defined a s a p r o b l e m — t h e r u n a w a y , t h e d i s o b e d i e n t o r defiant c h i l d , o r t h e v a g r a n t w h o w a s in d a n g e r o f falling p r e y t o l o o s e w o m e n , t a v e r n s , g a m b l i n g h a l l s , or t h e a t e r s " ( E m p e y , 1 9 7 8 , p. 8 2 ) . O n l y t h o s e w h o c o u l d still b e r e s c u e d c o u l d b e s e n t to t h e H o u s e by t h e c o u r t s — c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e p r e m a t u r e l y c o r r u p t e d a n d c o r r u p t i n g . M a j o r j u v e n i l e of­ f e n d e r s w e r e left in t h e a d u l t c r i m i n a l s y s t e m (Fox, 1 9 7 0 , pp. 1 1 9 0 - 1 1 9 1 ) . D e p e n d e n t , ne­ glected, and delinquent children w e r e h o u s e d together, a p r a c t i c e t h a t lingers in m o s t j u v e n i l e d e t e n t i o n facilities t o d a y (Krisberg & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 , p. 1 7 ) . T h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s w e r e p a t t e r n e d after t h e A u b u r n c o n g r e g a t e m o d e l a n d t h e E l m i r a R e f o r m a t o r y for a d u l t s . A c o n g r e g a t e structure was implemented that mixed educa­ tion a n d i n c o m e - g e n e r a t i n g labor. S o o n , t h e ju­ venile facilities w e r e c a l l e d reform schools. W h e n this n a m e b e c a m e objectionable, the school idea was given prominence, a n d they c a m e to b e c a l l e d i n d u s t r i a l o r t r a i n i n g s c h o o l s (Dean & R e p p u c c i , 1 9 7 4 , p. 8 6 7 ) . It did n o t o c c u r t o r e f o r m e r s t h a t t h e y m i g h t infringe o n t h e r i g h t s o r best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n t h e y t r i e d t o s a v e w i t h t h e H o u s e s of Refuge. For t h e m o s t part, c l i e n t s w e r e p r e d e ­ linquents, guilty of little m o r e t h a n b e i n g p o o r and neglected. T h e r e w e r e no notices of charges o r j u r y t r i a l . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t [Ex parte Grouse, 4 W h a r t . 9 , 1 8 3 8 ) a l l o w e d s t a t e c o m ­ m i t m e n t of a j u v e n i l e t o a n i n s t i t u t i o n w i t h o u t d u e p r o c e s s rights, u p h o l d i n g t h e H o u s e of Ref­ u g e p r a c t i c e . T h e Grouse c o u r t a l s o e l a b o r a t e d t h e parens patriae c o n c e p t , p r o v i d i n g t h e legal basis for t h e e x t e n d e d p o w e r s o f t h e f u t u r e ju­ venile court. Parens patriae ( p a r t of t h e c o u n t r y ) origi­ n a t e d in British d o c t r i n e , referring t o t h e right of t h e king (state) to p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n for a n y p e r s o n s w h o did n o t p o s s e s s fidl legal c a p a c i t y , including insane and incompetent persons. T h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of E n g l i s h c h a n c e r y c o u r t s w a s e x t e n d e d to abused, dependent, a n d neglected children. In the U n i t e d States, t h e parens patriae

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND c o n c e p t w a s e x p a n d e d to i n c l u d e children.

delinquent

YOUTH VIOLENCE

Sunday schools that provided moral and aca­ d e m i c i n s t r u c t i o n , as w e l l a s t h e a d u l t p r i s o n s in E l m i r a , N e w Y o r k , a n d t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t , those

Institutionalization of Reform Schools

in

Pennsylvania

and

Massachusetts

(Miller & Ohlin, 1 9 8 5 , p p . 1 3 - 1 4 ) . T h e C h i c a g o

D e s p i t e a n e n o r m o u s a m o u n t of c r i t i c i s m

R e f o r m S c h o o l w a s e s t a b l i s h e d in 1 8 5 6 . It r e ­

( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p p . 2 9 - 3 0 ; Krisberg & A u s t i n ,

c e i v e d b o y s c o n v i c t e d of a n y n o n c a p i t a l of­

1 9 9 3 , p p . 1 7 - 2 1 ) a n d little e v i d e n c e of s u c c e s s .

fense, i n c l u d i n g j u v e n i l e s c o n v i c t e d in c r i m i ­

Houses

of

Refuge

survived;

indeed,

they

nal c o u r t s . It differed f r o m t h e H o u s e of Refuge,

t h r i v e d for a t i m e . T h e N e w York C i t y H o u s e of

however,

Refuge g r e w to c o n s i s t o f s e v e r a l m a s s i v e build­

p l a c e d o n s m a l l facilities. C h i l d r e n w e r e to be

in o t h e r r e s p e c t s . E m p h a s i s

was

ings a n d h o u s e d 1 , 0 0 0 children by the mid­

p r o t e c t e d , n o t p u n i s h e d for t h e i r m i s d e e d s .

1 8 0 0 s (Fox, 1 9 7 0 , p. 1 2 0 8 ) . P r a c t i c e s i n s i d e t h e

E m p h a s i s w a s p l a c e d o n c r e a t i n g a f a m i l y life

H o u s e s o f R e f u g e did n o t m a t c h t h e b e n e v o ­

for c h i l d r e n (Fox, 1 9 7 0 , p p . 1 2 0 7 - 1 2 1 3 ) . B y t h e

l e n c e w i t h w h i c h t h e y w e r e f o u n d e d (Krisberg

m i d d l e of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y , e s t a b l i s h m e n t of

& A u s t i n , p p . 1 8 - 2 1 ) . First, c h i l d r e n of i m m i ­

c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s for p o o r , w a y w a r d ,

g r a n t s m a d e u p t h e m a j o r i t y of i n m a t e s . M i d ­

and delinquent youth was well entrenched.

dle- a n d u p p e r - c l a s s w h i t e s w e r e h o s t i l e to­

T h r o u g h o u t the 1 9 t h century, juvenile re­

w a r d Irish i m m i g r a n t s a n d v i e w e d their p a r e n t s

form schools witnessed

t o b e c o r r u p t a n d u n s u i t a b l e for p a r e n t i n g . S e c ­

overcrowding, abusive discipline,

ond, routines were enforced by corporal pun­

reforms, and r e n e w e d regimentation (Bremner,

repeated scandals, subsequent

ishment, solitary confinement, whipping, and

1 9 7 0 ; H a w e s , 1 9 7 1 ; Holl, 1 9 7 1 ; M e n n e l , 1 9 7 3 ;

other physical punishments

1848).

Pickett, 1 9 6 9 ; Piatt, 1 9 6 9 ; S c h l o s s m a n , 1 9 7 7 ) .

T h i r d , t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e r e q u i r e d to labor in

V a r i a t i o n s e m e r g e d in t h e 1 8 5 0 s a n d 1 8 6 0 s ,

(Devoe,

large w o r k s h o p s , p r o d u c i n g s h o e s , nails, a n d

c o n s i s t i n g of family-style c o t t a g e s in r u r a l set­

c h a i r s . F o u r t h , t h e y w e r e c o m m i t t e d to t h e ref­

tings that r e s e m b l e d s c h o o l c a m p u s e s , pat­

u g e h o u s e s for i n d e t e r m i n a t e p e r i o d s a n d c o u l d

t e r n e d after t h e E l m i r a , N e w York, r e f o r m a t o r y

g e n e r a l l y o b t a i n r e l e a s e o n l y b y r e a c h i n g age

for adults. T h e s e t o o w e r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y e x ­

of majority, t h r o u g h a n a p p r e n t i c e s h i p , or es­

t r e m e d i s c i p l i n a r y m e a s u r e s , e x c e s s i v e regi­

c a p i n g . F e w w e r e d e c l a r e d to be "reformed" a n d

mentation, and overcrowding. Although treat­

released. Despite these problems, the enthusi­

m e n t w a s the professed goal, the c u s t o d i a l

a s m o f t h e g e n t l e m a n r e f o r m e r s for H o u s e s of

c h a r a c t e r of juvenile institutions

R e f u g e w a s n o t d a m p e n e d . T h e y a r g u e d that

d o m i n a t e d b y m a i n t e n a n c e of o r d e r a n d d i s c i ­

t h e i d e a o n l y n e e d e d f u r t h e r p e r f e c t i o n . Public

p l i n e a s p r e c o n d i t i o n s for t r e a t m e n t (Miller &

prevailed,

r e l a t i o n s efforts h e l p e d lead to a r a p i d prolif­

O h l i n , 1 9 8 5 , p. 1 4 ) . In s o m e i n s t a n c e s , o v e r ­

e r a t i o n of s i m i l a r i n s t i t u t i o n s a c r o s s t h e c o u n ­

crowding was relieved by transferring older

try (Rothman, 1 9 7 1 ) .

b o y s to r e f o r m a t o r i e s in o t h e r states t h a t p r o ­

T h e H o u s e o f Refuge c o n c e p t "phased o v e r

vided vocational training (Mennel, 1 9 7 3 ) .

into t h a t of t h e r e f o r m a t o r y as t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y

Juvenile reform schools did not b e c o m e

p r o g r e s s e d " ( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 3 0 ) . S u s t a i n ­

what the reformers envisaged (Finestone, 1 9 7 6 ,

ing s u p p o r t c a m e f r o m r e f o r m e r s w h o w e r e

pp. 2 9 - 3 2 ; Krisberg & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 , p p . 2 3 - 2 6 ) .

h i g h l y c r i t i c a l of p e n i t e n t i a r i e s . T h i s d e v e l o p ­

R a t h e r t h a n a n institution of first r e s o r t , juve­

m e n t r e n e w e d r e f o r m e r s ' i n t e r e s t in c o r r e c ­

nile r e f o r m a t o r i e s b e c a m e a n i n s t i t u t i o n of last

t i o n a l facilities for y o u n g offenders. T h e y also

resort. T h e i r m e t a m o r p h o s i s t u r n e d t h e m into

s a w a r o l e for j u v e n i l e r e f o r m s c h o o l s in t h e

p r i s o n s , p r o v i d i n g c u s t o d y r a t h e r t h a n treat­

larger c o r r e c t i o n a l a p p a r a t u s , as a first r e s o r t

m e n t . Gradually, t h e y b e c a m e a c c e p t a b l e as t h e

w i t h i n t h e e v o l v i n g c o r r e c t i o n a l s y s t e m (Fine-

c h o i c e p l a c e for c o n f i n e m e n t of l o w e r - c l a s s a n d

stone, 1 9 7 6 , pp. 1 9 - 3 0 ) .

m i n o r i t y y o u t h s . In a b o u t 1 8 6 0 , s t a t e a n d m u ­

M a s s a c h u s e t t s built t h e first s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d

n i c i p a l g o v e r n m e n t s b e g a n taking o v e r t h e i r a d ­

i n s t i t u t i o n s for juveniles: t h e L y m a n S c h o o l for

m i n i s t r a t i o n . B y 1 8 7 6 , t h e r e w e r e 5 1 refuges o r

B o y s in W e s t b o r o u g h in 1 8 4 7 a n d t h e S c h o o l

r e f o r m s c h o o l s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . P r o b l e m s

for Girls in L a n c a s t e r in 1 8 5 4 . T h e s e r e f o r m

p e r s i s t e d a n d grew. R e p e a t e d v i o l e n c e in t h e r e ­

s c h o o l s w e r e m o d e l e d after t h e earlier H o u s e s

f o r m a t o r i e s b e c a m e p u b l i c k n o w l e d g e . A series

of Refuge, E u r o p e a n boarding schools,

of

and

investigations

was

conducted

(Wines,

Juvenile Reform Movements

1 8 8 0 / 1 9 7 0 ) t h a t p r o d u c e d f u r t h e r efforts t o i m ­

target w a s t h e i n d i v i d u a l , a n d t h e i r s t r a t e g i c a p ­

p r o v e j u v e n i l e r e f o r m s c h o o l s . B o a r d s of S t a t e

p r o a c h r e q u i r e d getting t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l early,

C h a r i t y w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d to inspect r e f o r m

before t h e h a r m h d effects of t h e u r b a n e n v i r o n ­

s c h o o l s a n d r e c o m m e n d i m p r o v e m e n t s (Krisberg

m e n t c o u l d t a k e h o l d ( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 3 5 ) .

& Austin, 1 9 9 3 , pp. 2 5 - 2 6 ) . Several changes

T h e c h a r i t y w o r k e r s , w h o later c a l l e d t h e m ­

w e r e attempted, including transferring young­

s e l v e s "social w o r k e r s , " c r e a t e d t h e F i v e P o i n t s

sters t o m o r e d e c e n t facilities a n d s e l e c t i n g t h e

M i s s i o n ( 1 8 5 0 ) , t h e N e w York J u v e n i l e A s y l u m

m o r e " h a r d e n e d offenders" for s p e c i a l i z e d fa­

( 1 8 5 1 ) , and the Children's A i d Society ( 1 8 5 3 ) .

cilides s u c h as the Elmira Reformatory.

O n e of t h e i r l e a d e r s w a s C h a r l e s L o r i n g B r a c e ,

B o t h large r e f o r m s c h o o l s a n d c o t t a g e sys­

f o u n d e r o f t h e N e w York C h i l d r e n ' s A i d Society.

t e m s w i t h c e n t r a l i z e d a c a d e m i c or v o c a t i o n a l

H e initially s o u g h t to r e f o r m c h i l d r e n b y r e ­

e d u c a t i o n facilities w e r e relied o n b y t h e states

moving homeless youth from the poverty-

to h o u s e d e l i n q u e n t s ,

r i d d e n slums of N e w York City a n d relocating

status offenders,

and

n o n o f f e n d e r s into t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u r y . After W o r l d

t h e m with foster families

W a r II, s m a l l g r o u p h o m e s , h o u s i n g f r o m 1 2 to

1 8 7 2 / 1 9 6 7 ; Langsam, 1 9 6 4 ) . B r a c e called his

out West (Brace,

2 0 youth, w e r e used as a residential alternative

r e m e d y "placing out." In a d d i t i o n to alleviating

for p a r t of t h e r e f o r m a t o r y p o p u l a t i o n . T h e s e

t h e v a g r a n c y p r o b l e m . B r a c e e x p e c t e d to d e m ­

w e r e f o l l o w e d b y s m a l l f o r e s t r y c a m p s for

o n s t r a t e t h e effectiveness of foster h o m e s a s a n

y o u t h , m o d e l e d after t h o s e c r e a t e d b y t h e Cali­

alternative to institutions.

fornia Y o u t h A u t h o r i t y ( B r e e d , 1 9 5 3 ) . T h e s e de­

h o m e s in t h e c o u n t r y w e r e a d v e r t i s e d for d e ­

Good

Christian

v e l o p m e n t s did not d o m u c h to relieve o v e r ­

pendent and neglected children. Labor was per­

c r o w d i n g of j u v e n i l e r e f o r m s c h o o l s or i m p r o v e

f o r m e d b y t h e c h i l d r e n in e x c h a n g e for r o o m ,

programming within them.

b o a r d , religious training, a n d e d u c a t i o n . T h e y w e r e visited b y a n official of t h e S o c i e t y w i t h i n a few m o n t h s to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e

The Second Reform Movement:

T h e Progressives

child should remain there. Subsequent

con­

tacts were m a d e periodically by mail or per­ sonal visits. Over the next 4 0 years, nearly

A n e w e r a of r e f o r m e r s c r i t i q u e d juvenile refor­

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 children were placed across the coun­

m a t o r i e s a n d led t h e s e a r c h for a l t e r n a t i v e w a y s

try ( B r a c e , 1 8 7 2 / 1 9 6 7 ; L a n g s a m , 1 9 6 4 ) . Out-of-state p l a c e m e n t of children

of a d d r e s s i n g t h e j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y p r o b ­

was

l e m . T w o g r o u p s of "progressives" d o m i n a t e d

c a l l e d into q u e s t i o n b e c a u s e of d u e p r o c e s s a n d

r e f o r m efforts d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d 1 8 5 0 - 1 9 2 0 , o n e

e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n i s s u e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e in­

o n t h e E a s t C o a s t a n d t h e o t h e r in C h i c a g o .

v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e of the p r a c t i c e , although m a n y youths were placed by their relatives

East Coast "Charity Workers"

(often w i t h o t h e r r e l a t i v e s ) . C o n c e r n s also w e r e raised regarding abuse, indentured servitude,

T h e first g r o u p of "progressives" w a s led b y a n e w g r o u p o f E a s t C o a s t r e f o r m e r s t h a t Fi­ n e s t o n e ( 1 9 7 6 , p. 3 3 ) c a l l e d "charity w o r k e r s . " C r i t i c s o f t h e H o u s e s of Refuge, t h e y w e r e a n e w

substandard

facilities,

undesirable

foster

b r e e d of u p p e r - c l a s s p r a g m a t i c p h i l a n t h r o p i s t s w h o m a d e s o c i a l r e f o r m their v o c a t i o n . D e s p i t e having c o m e from conservative backgrounds,

pp.

o n c e t h e y b e c a m e f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p o v e r t y is­ sue, t h e y b e c a m e liberal r e f o r m e r s . M o r e opti­

t h e c h i l d r e n , h e c r e a t e d a v a r i e t y of s c h o o l s ,

mistic than the gentleman reformers about the possibilities of r e f o r m i n g y o u t h , t h e y o b j e c t e d t h a t t h e s e i n s t i t u t i o n s did n o t r e a c h e n o u g h

e m p h a s i z i n g t h e r o l e of t h e family, in s h a r p c o n ­

c h i l d r e n . M o r e o v e r , t h e y p r e f e r r e d family life t o i n s t i t u t i o n s for g e n e r a t i n g m o r a l r e f o r m

ily is God's reformatory" (quoted in Finestone,

(Krisberg & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 ) . T h e E a s t C o a s t c h a r ­ ity w o r k e r s felt c h a l l e n g e d to o v e r c o m e t h e d e l e t e r i o u s effects of u r b a n i z a t i o n . T h e i r m a i n

B r a c e b e c a m e t h e first n o t a b l e c r i t i c of t h e

homes, and the likelihood of higher rates of de­ l i n q u e n c y a n d v a g r a n c y in t h e r e c e i v i n g s t a t e s (Hall, Barker, Parkhill, P i l o t t a , & W h i t e , 1 9 8 2 , 1 - 3 ) . O n c e this p r a c t i c e d r e w s t r o n g c r i t i ­

c i s m . B r a c e b e c a m e r e c o n c i l e d to t r a i n i n g c h i l ­ d r e n for life in t h e u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t . To assist lodging h o u s e s , a n d o t h e r s p e c i a l p r o g r a m s , all trast to t h e d i s t r u s t t h a t g e n t l e m a n r e f o r m e r s h a d of p o o r families. His m a n t r a w a s " T h e f a m ­ 1976,

p. 3 3 ) .

u s e of institutions to r e f o r m juvenile

delin­

q u e n t s . H e w a s c o n v i n c e d t h a t large i n s t i t u ­

10

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

tions, like t h e N e w York H o u s e of Refuge, "by v i r t u e of t h e i r size, s e v e r e discipline, a n d in­ flexible r o u t i n e , e l i m i n a t e d i n d i v i d u a l i t y a n d p e r s o n a l responsibility, c o n v e r t i n g t h e i n m a t e s i n t o m a c h i n e l i k e c r e a t u r e s w h o w e r e unfit to do well outside the institution" (Finestone, 1 9 7 6 , p. 3 4 ) . H e w a s joined b y a n o t h e r c h a r i t y w o r k e r . H o m e r Folks, t h e h e a d of t h e Children's A i d S o c i e t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a , w h o d e v o t e d his c a r e e r to d e v e l o p i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s to institutions for i m p o v e r i s h e d families a n d t h e i r c h i l d r e n ( M e n n e l , 1 9 7 3 , p. 1 1 2 ) . Folks "viewed t h e e n ­ v i r o n m e n t as p r i m a r i l y s o c i a l , a s c o m p o s e d o f p a r e n t s , p e e r g r o u p s , a n d t h e individual's v i e w o f h i m s e l f " ( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 3 4 ) . His m a i n c o n c e r n s w e r e t h e child's p a r e n t s , p r o t e c t i n g t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h their c r e a t i o n s , a n d e n ­ s u r i n g t h e integrity of t h e c h i l d . T h u s , m e t h o d s of w o r k i n g w i t h t h e c h i l d in his or h e r o w n e n ­ vironment without diminishing parental re­ s p o n s i b i l i t y w e r e p r e f e r r e d o v e r institutionali­ z a t i o n . Folks e v e n d e v i s e d a p r o g r a m for supervision of children w h o had been con­ v i c t e d b y c r i m i n a l c o u r t s , p r o v i d i n g a n alter­ native to their imprisonment (Finestone, 1 9 7 6 , p. 3 5 ) . Like B r a c e , Folks f o c u s e d his efforts o n saving the individual.

Chicago Progressive Reformers In c o n t r a s t to t h e E a s t C o a s t c h a r i t y w o r k e r s , t h e C h i c a g o p r o g r e s s i v e r e f o r m e r s of t h e late 19th and early 20th centuries accepted the re­ ality o f u r b a n i z a t i o n a n d its d e s t r u c t i v e n e s s . In­ s t e a d of a t t e m p t i n g to n e u t r a l i z e urbanization's e f f e c t s b y p r e p a r i n g i n d i v i d u a l s for it, t h e y sought to h u m a n i z e it "through a broadly c o n ­ ceived p r o g r a m of social engineering based u p o n e m p i r i c a l i n q u i r y a n d t h e p r i n c i p l e s of t h e s o ­ cial a n d psychological sciences" (Finestone, 1 9 7 6 , p. 7 ) . T h e C h i c a g o p r o g r e s s i v e r e f o r m e r s s a w s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s , r a t h e r t h a n t h e individ­ u a l , a s t h e t a r g e t for c h a n g e . T h e i r s t r a t e g y c a l l e d for c h a n g i n g t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d b y im­ p r o v i n g s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s . T h e y w e r e biioyed b y t h e s o c i a l o p t i m i s m of t h e late 1 8 0 0 s , t h e g r o w t h of C h i c a g o , a n d a n e w kind of s o c i a l t h o u g h t t h a t h u m a n i t a r i a n v a l u e s c o u l d be in­ c o r p o r a t e d into s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s ( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 4 1 ) . J a n e A d d a m s w a s o n e of t h e m o s t influential leaders a m o n g the Chicago progressive reform­ ers. S h e w a s o n e of s e v e r a l u p p e r - m i d d l e - c l a s s

advocates who had achieved success with the g r o w t h of C h i c a g o . A d d a m s a n d o t h e r s (Julia Lathrop and L u c y Flower) formed a fellowship that w a s b o u n d t o g e t h e r by t h e s a m e r e f o r m in­ terests: t h e c h i l d a n d his o r h e r family. T h e y v i e w e d juvenile d e l i n q u e n c y a n d y o u t h p r o b ­ lems from a social-psychological perspective, a n d t h e y s a w a b e r r a n t y o u t h b e h a v i o r as a r e ­ s p o n s e to u r b a n c h a n g e s , poverty, c u l t u r e c o n ­ flict, a n d l o w e r - c l a s s origin. T h e y e s t a b l i s h e d s e t t l e m e n t h o u s e s , therefore, t h a t t a r g e t e d t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d for c h a n g e . U n l i k e t h e g e n t l e ­ m a n reformers, w o r k e r s in the settlement h o u s e s did not v i e w the p o o r w i t h disdain. Rather, t h e y k n e w t h e m as fellow h u m a n beings w h o w e r e v i c t i m s of d i s s o l u t i o n o f s o c i a l in­ s t i t u t i o n s as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f u r b a n i z a t i o n (Finestone, 1 9 7 6 , pp. 4 2 - 4 3 ) . In t h e m e a n t i m e , efforts t o m a k e j u v e n i l e r e ­ f o r m s c h o o l s a n effective i n s t r u m e n t for deal­ ing w i t h juvenile d e l i n q u e n c y did not a p p e a r to be s u c c e e d i n g , despite c o n t i n u i n g o p t i m i s m . S e v e r a l i n n o v a t i o n s w e r e i n t r o d u c e d in t h e late 1 8 0 0 s (Krisberg & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 , p p . 2 7 - 2 8 ) , in­ cluding physical exercise training, militarylike drills, n u t r i t i o n a l r e g i m e n s , i n m a t e selfgovernment, and privately financed systems. Less socially acceptable innovations w e r e at­ t e m p t e d in t h e S o u t h . A c o n v i c t lease s y s t e m r e p l a c e d t h e p r i s o n s d e s t r o y e d by t h e Civil W a r C o n v i c t s , i n c l u d i n g juveniles, w e r e l e a s e d t o p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y in a f o r c e d l a b o r s y s t e m . T h i s system eventually was replaced by public c h a i n gangs. N o n e o f t h e s e i n n o v a t i o n s s e r v e d to i n c r e a s e a c c e p t a n c e of i n c a r c e r a t i o n a s a n effective m e t h o d for p r e v e n t i n g o r r e d u c i n g de­ linquency. H o m e r Folks's a s s e s s m e n t of m a j o r p r o b ­ l e m s w i t h r e f o r m a t o r i e s in t h e l a t e 1 8 0 0 s s e e m e d v a l i d to t h e p r o g r e s s i v e s : T h e y t e m p t e d p a r e n t s to t h r o w off their s a c r e d responsibili­ ties, t h e y p r o v i d e d a " c o n t a m i n a t i n g i n f l u e n c e of association, a n e n d u r i n g stigma resulted f r o m h a v i n g b e e n c o m m i t t e d , it w a s i m p o s s i b l e t o s t u d y a n d treat e a c h c h i l d i n d i v i d u a l l y in t h e institutional environment, a n d the institution c r e a t e d a life greatly d i s s i m i l a r f r o m life out­ side" ( M e n n e l , 1 9 7 3 , p. 1 1 1 ) . S e v e r a l c o u r t de­ c i s i o n s q u e s t i o n e d t h e l a c k of p r o c e d u r a l safe­ guards a n d the quasi-penal c h a r a c t e r of j u v e n i l e i n s t i t u t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g The People v. Turner ( 1 8 7 0 ) , Siafe v. Ray ( 1 8 8 6 ) , a n d E x parte Becknell ( 1 8 9 7 ) . S e e E m p e y a n d Stafford ( 1 9 9 1 )

Juvenile Reform Movements

11

a n d K e t c h a m a n d P a u l s e n ( 1 9 6 7 ) for t h e s e a n d

t h e M i d d l e E a s t , a n d in G r e e c e , R o m e , a n d

other pertinent cases.

E u r o p e , to " t h r o w c h i l d r e n away." I n f a n t i c i d e appears to h a v e been practiced as late as the 1 7 t h c e n t u r y in F r a n c e a n d E n g l a n d (Illick,

Creation of the Juvenile Court

1 9 7 4 ) . D e M a u s e ( 1 9 7 4 , p. 2 5 ) r e p o r t s t h a t t h e

B y t h e e n d of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y , p u b l i c p o l i c y

a g e - o l d p r a c t i c e o f killing i l l e g i t i m a te c h i l d r e n

in r e s p o n s e t o t h e j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y p r o b ­

c o n t i n u e d into the 1 9 t h century. P r a c t i c e s

l e m r e a c h e d a t u r n i n g point. S e v e r a l r e f o r m s

a d o p t e d by t h e wealthy, s u c h as using

h a d b e e n tried. P r o g r e s s i v e r e f o r m e r s o n t h e

n u r s e s a n d s w a d d l i n g , r e s u l t e d in h i g h infant

wet

E a s t C o a s t a n d in C h i c a g o s h a r e d a c o m m o n

m o r t a l i t y r a t e s ( E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p. 2 3 ) .

p e r s p e c t i v e , t h e i m p o r t a n c e of f o c u s i n g o n t h e

Children w e r e sometimes used as sex objects.

e n v i r o n m e n t a s a m e a n s of c o m b a t i n g delin­

Roman men

quency. Despite the fact that the two groups

M a u s e , 1 9 7 4 , p. 4 6 ) . A p p r e n t i c e s h i p r a t h e r

preferred castrated boys

(De-

versus

than formal education w a s the m a i n m e t h o d of

c o m m u n i t y c h a n g e ) t o a c h i e v e t h e i r a i m s , it

e d u c a t i n g c h i l d r e n , p r e p a r i n g t h e m for a d u l t

w a s t h e i r e m p h a s i s o n t h e i m p o r t a n c e of taking

roles, a l t h o u g h it is n o t c l e a r w h e t h e r c h i l d r e n

c h o s e different priorities (individual

into a c c o u n t t h e i n d i v i d u a l in his or h e r f a m i l y

w e r e v i e w e d primarily as apprentices o r as ser­

a n d c o m m u n i t y setting t h a t g a v e rise to t h e c o n ­

v a n t s (Gillis, 1 9 7 4 ) .

c e p t of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . T h i s e t h o s , o r dis­

T h e m o d e r n v i e w of c h i l d h o o d b e g a n to

t i n c t i v e outlook, e m b o d i e d in t h e w o r k o f t h e

emerge during the colonial period, despite the

two progressive reform groups provided the

fact that older traditions c o n t i n u e d to c a r r y

f o u n d a t i o n for t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ( F i n e s t o n e ,

w e i g h t ( E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p. 2 7 ) . C h i l ­

1 9 7 6 , pp. 39, 4 3 ) .

d r e n t y p i c a l l y "were v i e w e d a s s o u r c e s of l a b o r

Both East Coast and Chicago progressive re­

a n d s e r v i c e , n o t a s fragile, u n d e v e l o p e d

beings

formers c o n c l u d e d that juvenile correctional

r e q u i r i n g long p e r i o d s of s p e c i a l c a r e a n d free­

i n s t i t u t i o n s s e e m e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e for r e m e d i a ­

d o m f r o m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y " ( E m p e y & Stafford,

tion o f d e l i n q u e n c y b e c a u s e t h e y did not take

1 9 9 1 , p. 2 8 ) . A n e w c o n c e p t o f

i n t o a c c o u n t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , specifically its

s l o w l y e m e r g e d f r o m its r o o t s in t h e v i e w s o f

chddhood

c o m m u n i t y locus. T h e Chicago progressive re­

15th- to 1 7 t h - c e n t u r y reformers, w h o

f o r m e r s in p a r t i c u l a r c a m e to s e e a d o l e s c e n c e

t h a t n e w e r s t a n d a r d s of m o r a l i t y for c h i l d r e n

insisted

as a cleavage between parents and children that

b e e n f o r c e d . T h e s e w e r e e m b o d i e d in t r e a t i s e s

w a s a n i n e v i t a b l e d e v e l o p m e n t in t h e city. In

a n d m a n u a l s w r i t t e n in t h e 1 7 t h a n d 1 8 t h c e n ­

t h e u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t , p a r e n t s w e r e n o longer

turies to guide parents. S t a n d a r d s by w h i c h

a b l e t o e x e r t t r a d i t i o n a l familial a u t h o r i t y o v e r

parents were judged included proper supervi­

their children. T h e Chicago progressives saw

sion, disciplining r a t h e r t h a n p a m p e r i n g , m o d ­

n o t o n l y t h a t p o o r families n e e d e d h e l p in p r o ­

e s t y in m o r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , p a r e n t a l dili­

v i d i n g m o r a l g u i d a n c e t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n but also

g e n c e , a n d o b e d i e n c e o f c h i l d r e n to a u t h o r i t y

t h a t o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s n e e d e d to b e s t r u c t u r e d

( E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p. 3 6 ) . Signs o f Uiese

i n a w a y t h a t w o u l d b e beneficial, r a t h e r t h a n

p r i n c i p l e s w e r e e v i d e n t in t h e w o r k of t h e g e n ­

h a r m f u l , to c h i l d r e n a n d a d o l e s c e n t s .

t l e m a n r e f o r m e r s in t h e e a r l y 1 8 0 0 s .

They

c a m p a i g n e d , t h e r e f o r e , for c o m p u l s o r y s c h o o l ­

O t h e r s t a n d a r d s p e r t a i n i n g to c h i l d h o o d

ing a n d t h e a b o l i t i o n of c h i l d labor. M o r e o v e r ,

w e r e d e v e l o p e d in t h e l a t e 1 9 t h a n d e a r l y 2 0 t h

t h e y s a w t h a t a different i n s t r u m e n t o f s o c i a l

c e n t u r i e s , i n c l u d i n g n u r t u r a n c e rights, e d u c a ­

c h a n g e w a s n e e d e d for t h e task of dealing w i t h

tional rights, a n d distinctive legal rights ( E m p e y

juvenile

& Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p p . 5 6 - 5 8 ) . R i g h t s t o hfe, food,

delinquency.

T h e r e w a s y e t a n o t h e r i m p o r t a n t b a s i s for

clothing, and shelter were bestowed on chil­

p r o g r e s s i v e reformers' views. T h e y c a m e to

dren. Formal education replaced the appren­

a d o p t a different v i e w o f c h i l d r e n a n d of c h i l d ­

ticeship system. Child labor laws soon were en­

h o o d , o n e t h a t b e g a n to e m e r g e following t h e

a c t e d . T h e d i s t i n c t i v e legal r i g h t s o f c h i l d r e n

M i d d l e A g e s ( 5 0 0 t o 1 4 0 0 ; E m p e y & Stafford,

e m a n a t e d f r o m E n g l i s h m e d i e v a l d o c t r i n e giv­

1 9 9 1 , pp. 2 1 - 3 0 ) . Until then, children were

ing t h e c r o w n t h e right t o i n t e r v e n e in f a m i l y

e i t h e r d i s c a r d e d , i g n o r e d , o r e x p l o i t e d . It w a s

m a t t e r s o n b e h a l f of c h i l d r e n t o p r o t e c t p r o p ­

n o t u n c o m m o n in t h e a n c i e n t c i v i l i z a t i o n s of

e r t y rights of t h e y o u n g . D u e p r o c e s s r i g h t s did

12

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE

n o t a p p l y to t h e m in t h e s a m e m a n n e r as to

s e r v i n g as a c a t c h m e n t for c h i l d r e n of poor, u n ­

adults because adults needed protection from

caring parents (Schlossman, 1 9 7 7 , pp. 5 7 - 6 3 ) .

u n r e a s o n a b l e a n d a r b i t r a r y a c t i o n s . Rather, le­

T h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t w a s e x p e c t e d to a d v a n c e t h e

gal a u t h o r i t i e s w o u l d n e e d b r o a d d i s c r e t i o n a r y

emerging conception of childhood by enforcing

p o w e r s "to i n q u i r e i n t o t h e m o s t p r i v a t e of fam­

n e w l a w s p e r t a i n i n g to c h i l d c a r e a n d t h e be­

ily a n d p e r s o n a l m a t t e r s , to p r o t e c t c h i l d r e n 's

h a v i o r of c h i l d r e n e m b o d i e d in t h e n e w c o n ­

d e p e n d e n t a n d u n e q u a l s t a t u s . If c h i l d r e n w e r e

c e p t of c h i l d h o o d .

to be p r o p e r l y raised, a n d their n u r t u r a n c e

The Chicago Women's Club was instrumen­

r i g h t s e n s u r e d , t h e s t a t e r e q u i r e d legal m e a n s —

tal in officially c r e a t i n g t h e first j u v e n i l e c o u r t .

part c r i m i n a l a n d p a r t c i v i l — t o m a k e this p o s ­

In t h e late 1 8 0 0 s it w o r k e d to i m p r o v e t h e c r i m i ­

sible" ( E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p. 5 7 ) . For this

nal j u s t i c e s y s t e m a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n s in jails.

humanitarian perspective, the progressive re­

F i n d i n g its efforts in t h e s e a r e a s i n a d e q u a t e ,

f o r m e r s c a m e to be l a b e l e d n e g a t i v e l y as "child

a n d as a result of t h e i n f l u e n c e of A d d a m s a n d

s a v e r s " (Piatt, 1 9 6 9 ) .

o t h e r r e f o r m e r s , t h e W o m e n ' s C l u b t u r n e d its holding

reformist z e a l to i m p r o v i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s in

s e p a r a t e c o u r t h e a r i n g s for c h i l d r e n , as e a r l y as

w h i c h c h i l d r e n w e r e c o n f i n e d . Its m e m b e r s

1 8 7 0 in Suffolk C o u n t y , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , a n d

c a m e u p w i t h t h e i d e a of e s t a b l i s h i n g a s p e c i a l

1 8 7 7 in N e w Y o r k ( B r e m n e r , 1 9 7 0 , vol. 2, p p .

c o u r t a n d s e p a r a t e c o r r e c t i o n a l p r o c e d u r e s for

4 8 5 - 5 0 1 ) . Indiana a n d Rhode Island quickly

c h i l d r e n (Krisberg & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 , p. 2 9 ) . T h e

Some states already had begun

f o l l o w e d suit ( S u s s m a n & B a u m , 1 9 6 9 ) . T h e ju­

Women's Club believed that a separate juvenile

v e n i l e c o u r t t h u s e v o l v e d o n p a r a l l e l t r a c k s in

c o u r t c o u l d be a n effective i n s t r u m e n t for t h e

t h e N o r t h e a s t a n d M i d w e s t . In t h e m e a n t i m e ,

a d v a n c e m e n t o f y o u t h w e l f a r e , t h a t it c o u l d

t h e p r o b a t i o n f u n c t i o n w a s c r e a t e d — l a t e r to b e

s u c c e e d w h e r e i n s t i t u t i o n s h a d failed. T h u s , its

i n c o r p o r a t e d into the emerging juvenile and

m e m b e r s s a w t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t as "the c o r n e r ­

c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m s . J o h n A u g u s t u s , t h e fa­

s t o n e of a c o m p r e h e n s i v e c h i l d c a r e s y s t e m "

t h e r o f p r o b a t i o n , w a s its i n g e n i o u s o r i g i n a t o r

( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 4 5 ) .

b y v i r t u e of h a v i n g b a i l e d a B o s t o n d r u n k a r d

Supported by other philanthropic groups,

o u t o f jail in 1 8 4 1 , w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s p e r m i s s i o n

s u c h as t h e C h i c a g o B a r A s s o c i a t i o n , t h e C h i ­

t o p r o v i d e for h i m w h i l e e n g a g i n g in r e f o r m a ­

c a g o W o m e n ' s C l u b d r a f t e d a bill c r e a t i n g a ju­

tion efforts. A u g u s t u s a l s o took in juveniles. H e

v e n i l e c o u r t . T h e Illinois J u v e n i l e C o u r t A c t

b a i l e d t h e m o u t of jail a n d w o r k e d w i t h t h e m ,

w a s p a s s e d b y t h e Illinois legislature in 1 8 9 9

w i t h t h e a g r e e m e n t of t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e i r c a s e s

(111. L a w s , 1 8 9 9 , 1 3 1 - 1 3 7 ) . A s e n v i s a g e d in t h e

w o u l d b e c o n t i n u e d "as a s e a s o n of p r o b a t i o n . "

n e w s t a t u t e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t w a s to r e p r e s e n t

F i v e or 6 m o n t h s later, A u g u s t u s w o u l d bring

a r a d i c a l d e p a r t u r e in t h e t r e a t m e n t of t h e de­

t h e b o y s into c o u r t at o n e t i m e . " T h e judge e x ­

linquent. It w a s to t r e a t w a 5 w a r d y o u t h first as

p r e s s e d m u c h p l e a s u r e as w e l l as s u r p r i s e , at

c h i l d r e n , a n d s e c o n d as offenders. It w a s to a p ­

t h e i r a p p e a r a n c e , a n d r e m a r k e d , t h a t t h e object

p r o x i m a t e t h e m a n n e r in w h i c h

of l a w h a d been a c c o m p l i s h e d a n d expressed his

p a r e n t s w o u l d d e a l w i t h t h e i r offspring, in a

cordial a p p r o v a l of m y plan to save a n d reform"

c a r i n g b u t firm m a n n e r . T h e c r i m i n a l c o u r t e x ­

(Augustus, q u o t e d in M o r e l a n d , 1 9 4 1 , p. 5 ) .

p e r i e n c e focused on the offense w a s trans­

C h i l d h o o d principles w e r e crystallized by

benevolent

f o r m e d in t h e I l h n o i s A c t i n t o a j u d i c i a l setting

t h e p r o g r e s s i v e r e f o r m e r s in t h e i r c r e a t i o n of

focused instead on the offender

t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . T h e y v i e w e d it as s e r v i n g

t h r o u g h t h e m e d i u m of p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

functioning

broader purposes than the criminal court. T h e

Adjudication proceedings involved a hearing

j u v e n i l e c o u r t w a s e x p e c t e d to r a i s e t h e s t a n d ­

in w h i c h t h e judge e x p l o r e d t h e child's p r o b l e m

ards of child rearing and ensure that children

w i t h t h e c h i l d , his f a m i l y a n d friends, a n d t h e

were not exploited or maltreated. This respon­

p r o b a t i o n officer.

and

T h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d a t r a d i t i o n of

schools, the main institutions charged with

p a y i n g m u c h less a t t e n t i o n t o t h e c r i m i n a l a c t

sibility

included

monitoring

families

r e a r i n g c h i l d r e n . If t h e y failed, t h e j u v e n i l e

itself, i n s t e a d looking at g e n e r a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s

c o u r t w o u l d a s s u m e the parental role (Empey

lying b e h i n d t h e offender's m i s c o n d u c t . T h e

the

goal w a s to identify t h e c a u s e of t h e b e h a v i o r

c o u r t w a s e x p e c t e d t o a p p l y scientific k n o w l ­

and then administer the appropriate rehabili­

& Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p. 6 4 ) . S i m u l t a n e o u s l y

e d g e in c u r i n g t h e e m o t i o n a l ills of c h i l d r e n a n d

t a t i v e m e a s u r e s . For d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n w h o

c o n t r i b u t e to t h e p r e v e n t i o n of d e l i n q u e n c y b y

w e r e the victims of faulty socialization, the

Juvenile Reform Movements

court developed

13

a rehabilitative/treatment

nal j u s t i c e s y s t e m , n o t in that of t h e j u v e n i l e

m o d e l o f j u s t i c e . In t h e m o r e s e r i o u s c a s e s , t h e

j u s t i c e s y s t e m . T h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t w a s to p r o ­

juvenile c o u r t relied on m o r e punitive m e a ­

tect youngsters from misbehaviors a n d reha­

s u r e s t o p u r s u e t h e o v e r a l l goal of r e m e d i a t i n g

bilitate t h e m t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f s u c h m e c h a ­

d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r (Maloney, R o m i g , & A r m ­

n i s m s as p r o b a t i o n , d e t e n t i o n , t r e a t m e n t , a n d

s t r o n g , 1 9 8 8 , p. 4 7 ) .

i n c a r c e r a t i o n , if n e c e s s a r y . T h e last of t h o s e r e ­

'Acting in t h e best i n t e r e s t s of t h e child" w a s

s p o n s e s , w h i c h o r i g i n a t e d w i t h t h e H o u s e s of

t h e p r e d o m i n a n t t h e m e o f t h e juvenile c o u r t

Refuge, w a s still v i e w e d a s a m e a n s o f p r o t e c t ­

m o v e m e n t ; t h e r e f o r e , "no r e a s o n e x i s t e d to for­

ing c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e v a g a r i e s o f u r b a n life.

m u l a t e legal r e g u l a r i t i e s o f d e f e n d a n t rights,

B e t w e e n 1 9 0 0 and 1 9 1 0 , thirty-two states

d u e p r o c e s s , a n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s a f e g u a r d s that

e n a c t e d legislation e s t a b l i s h i n g j u v e n i l e p r o b a ­

m a r k e d t h e a d u l t judicial p r o c e s s " ( M a l o n e y et

tion. B y 1 9 1 2 , 2 2 s t a t e s h a d j u v e n i l e c o u r t s , a n d

al., 1 9 8 8 , p. 4 8 ) . L a w v i o l a t i o n s b y juveniles

b y 1 9 2 5 all but t w o s t a t e s h a d e s t a b l i s h e d t h e m

w e r e n o t v i e w e d in t h e s a m e w a y as t h o s e b y

(Krisberg & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 , p. 3 0 ) . B y 1 9 3 0 , e v e r y

a d u l t s . J u v e n i l e m i s b e h a v i o r s w e r e not to be

state e x c e p t VVyoming h a d legislatively a u t h o r ­

h e l d a g a i n s t t h e m in later life. T h e m i s s i o n of

ized juvenile probation, a n d in m o s t states the

t h e c o u r t w a s to g u i d e j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n t s to­

courts were assigned administrative responsi­

w a r d responsible and productive adulthood,

bility. At t h a t t i m e , 1 5 s t a t e s still h a d n o t legis­

n o t p u n i s h t h e m ( N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for J u v e n i l e

latively a u t h o r i z e d p r o b a t i o n for a d u l t s ( H u r s t ,

J u s t i c e , 1 9 9 1 , p. 8 ) .

1990).

T h e Illinois s t a t u t e did not a u t h o r i z e i n c a r ­

T h e probation innovation, coupled with the

c e r a t i o n o f j u v e n i l e s in adult p r i s o n s . It p r o ­

advent of the "medical model" of treatment,

v i d e d t h a t c h i l d r e n o v e r 1 0 y e a r s of age c o u l d

p r o v i d e d a c o m m u n i t y - o r i e n t e d a p p r o a c h to

b e c o m m i t t e d to t h e s t a t e r e f o r m a t o r y (sec. 9 )

juvenile justice (Finestone, 1 9 7 6 ; Hagan &

a n d t h a t c h i l d r e n u n d e r 1 2 y e a r s of a g e c o u l d

Leon, 1977; Schlossman, 1977).

n o t b e c o m m i t t e d to a jail or p o l i c e station (sec.

c a m e to b e v i e w e d a s a s o c i a l d i s e a s e t h a t c o u l d

11). T h e statute further provided that

be c u r e d through early intervention a n d treat­

Delinquency

ment using psychiatric and c a s e w o r k tools. w h e n a n y c h i l d s h a l l be s e n t e n c e d to c o n ­

P r o b a t i o n officers w e r e t h e t r e a t m e n t a g e n t s .

f i n e m e n t in a n y institution to w h i c h a d u l t

T h e i r task w a s to p r e v e n t d e l i n q u e n t s f r o m be­

c o n v i c t s a r e s e n t e n c e d it shall be u n l a w ­

c o m i n g c r i m i n a l s b y h e l p i n g t h e m in t h e c o m ­

ful to c o n f i n e s u c h c h i l d in t h e s a m e

munity, t h e r e b y a v o i d i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y of insti­

b u i l d i n g w i t h s u c h a d u l t c o n v i c t s , o r to

tutional confinement. A s Boston Judge Harvey

c o n f i n e s u c h c h i l d in t h e s a m e y a r d o r

Baker (1910) explained,

e n c l o s u r e w i t h s u c h a d u l t c o n v i c t s , o r to

w o u l d c a r e for c h i l d r e n o v e r long p e r i o d s o f

b r i n g s u c h c h i l d into a n y y a r d o r building

time.

in w h i c h s u c h a d u l t c o n v i c t s m a y b e p r e ­ sent, ( s e c . 1 1 )

probation

officers

F o x ( 1 9 7 0 , p. 1 2 0 7 ) a r g u e s t h a t t h e logical basis for t h e c r e a t i o n o f j u v e n i l e c o u r t s w a s t h e h u m a n i t a r i a n c o n c e r n , m o r e specifically,

Within 1 0 years of the 1 8 9 9 Juvenile Court Act, t h e definition of d e l i n q u e n c y w a s b r o a d e n e d in s e v e r a l Illinois legislative a c t s . "Peculiarly

the

delinquency prevention rationale supporting t h e H o u s e of Refuge c o n c e p t . In t h i s r e s p e c t , juvenile courts could be v i e w e d as an extension

j u v e n i l e offenses" w e r e a d d e d , i n c l u d i n g fre­ quenting areas w h e r e gaming devices were op­ e r a t e d , incorrigibility, a n d g r o w i n g u p in idle­

of institutions. M o r e generally, the

n e s s o r c r i m e . Later, n m n i n g a w a y f r o m h o m e , loitering, a n d u s i n g p r o f a n i t y w e r e a d d e d t o t h e

middle-class society (Finestone, 1 9 7 6 , pp. 4 9 ­

list ( N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e , 1 9 9 1 , p. 8 ) . A l t h o u g h s i m i l a r b e h a v i o r s w e r e offenses for a d u l t s (telling f o r t u n e s , g a m b l i n g , begging,

trol o v e r t h e children of the poor. Granted, r e ­

l e w d a n d d i s o r d e r l y b e h a v i o r , loitering), t h e i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n is t h a t c o m p a r a b l e of­ f e n s e s o n t h e p a r t o f j u v e n i l e s d r e w a different legal r e s p o n s e . C r i m e , p u n i s h m e n t , d e t e r r e n c e , a n d r e t r i b u t i o n w e r e in t h e l e x i c o n of t h e c r i m i ­

juvenile

c o u r t p r o v i d e d a s o c i a l r e s p o n s e to t h e t h r e a t t h a t l o w e r - c l a s s y o u t h p o s e d to t h e s e c u r i t y of 5 0 ) . A b o v e all, t h e m i d d l e c l a s s e s w a n t e d c o n ­ formers possessed g e n u i n e idealism. "However, a s t h i s i d e a l i s m w a n e d , t h e c o u r t b e c a m e insti­ tutionalized as a legally s a n c t i o n e d c o m p r e ­ h e n s i v e i n s t r u m e n t of p a t e r n a l i s t i c a n d i m p e r ­ s o n a l s o c i a l c o n t r o l " ( F i n e s t o n e , 1 9 7 6 , p. 4 9 ) . Juvenile courts also served a very utilitarian purpose: providing relief from institutional

14

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

overcrowding. A s Miller a n d Ohlin ( 1 9 8 5 , pp. 14-15) contend. T h e juvenile court m o v e m e n t . . . helped e n o r m o u s l y in relieving o v e r c r o w d i n g by creating an alternative control option with the rapid growth of supervised probation in t h e c o m m u n i t y . P r o b a t i o n offered a m o r e b e n i g n , i n d i v i d u a l i z e d f o r m of treat­ ment and control. T h e n e w j u v e n i l e c o u r t i n h e r i t e d t h e parens pa­ triae p h i l o s o p h y b e s t o w e d o n r e f o r m s c h o o l s . T h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d a u t h o r i t y to p l a c e c h i l ­ dren o n probation, institutionalize them, or p l a c e t h e m in foster h o m e s o r o r p h a n a g e s . U n ­ p a i d p r o b a t i o n officers a s s i s t e d judges a n d su­ pervised youngsters. M o s t i m p o r t a n t , e s t a b l i s h m e n t of juvenile c o u r t s r e v e r s e d a 1 0 0 - y e a r t r a d i t i o n in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f h a n d l i n g juvenile offenders in c r i m i n a l c o u r t s . B e f o r e their c r e a t i o n , n o n e of the states h a d statutory provisions requiring t h a t j u v e n i l e s be t r e a t e d a n y differently f r o m a d u l t s . A s H u t z l e r ( 1 9 8 2 , p. 2 5 ) states. O n l y "infants," t h o s e b e l o w the age of rea­ s o n [ p r e s u m e d to b e a g e 7] a n d t h e r e f o r e i n c a p a b l e of c r i m i n a l intent, w e r e e x e m p t f r o m p r o s e c u t i o n a n d p u n i s h m e n t . Chil­ d r e n o v e r t h e age o f s e v e n s t o o d trial in c r i m i n a l c o u r t for their c r i m e s a n d c o u l d b e s e n t e n c e d t o p r i s o n , or e v e n d e a t h , if convicted. In e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , r e f o r m e r s achieved the main objective that they had s o u g h t s i n c e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f g o v e r n m e n t in t h e U n i t e d States: r e m o v i n g juveniles f r o m t h e harsh criminal justice system. T h e underlying justification for a s e p a r a t e s y s t e m w a s that c h i l ­ d r e n a n d a d o l e s c e n t s , b y v i r t u e of their age a n d i m m a t u r i t y , "are n o t fully r e s p o n s i b l e for their a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v i o r a n d c a n , if h u m a n e l y t r e a t e d in p r o p e r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o g r a m s , be­ c o m e p r o d u c t i v e m e m b e r s of s o c i e t y " (Hutzler, 1 9 8 2 , p. 2 6 ) . O n e of t h e d i s t i n c t i v e features of t h e n e w ju­ v e n i l e c o u r t w a s t h a t it c o n t r o l l e d its o w n in­ take, u n l i k e t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m , w h i c h r e c e i v e d c l i e n t s at t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e district attorney. Legal considerations, centered on the offense, g o v e r n e d i n t a k e in t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m . B y c o n t r a s t , offender c o n s i d e r a t i o n s g o v e r n e d j u v e n i l e c o u r t intake, i n c l u d i n g so­

cial, psychological, and educational factors. T h e intake a n d a d j u d i c a t i o n p r o c e s s s o u g h t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e s o u r c e of p r o b l e m b e h a v i o r , p r o ­ viding t h e basis for t r e a t m e n t efforts. T h e c r i m i ­ nal j u s t i c e s y s t e m p r e m i s e t h a t " p u n i s h m e n t s h o u l d fit t h e c r i m e " h a d n o p l a c e in t h e juve­ nile c o u r t disposition for a m i s g u i d e d c h i l d . Whatever the c o n d u c t that brought the c h i l d to t h e c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n , t h e juvenile c o u r t judge w a s to c o n s i d e r t h e b r o a d r a n g e of social facts r e g a r d i n g t h e c h i l d a n d his f a m i l y a n d to d i r e c t t r e a t m e n t "in t h e child's best interests" a n d in a c c o r d ­ a n c e w i t h his n e e d s . (Hutzler, 1 9 8 2 , p. 2 7 ) H e n c e , j u v e n i l e c o u r t s r e j e c t e d fixed t e r m s of c o n f i n e m e n t in f a v o r o f t h e i n d e t e r m i n a t e sen­ t e n c e . C h i l d r e n w e r e r e l e a s e d o n c e their r e h a ­ bilitation w a s c o m p l e t e . T h e juvenile c o u r t p e r s i s t e d in its f o c u s o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e f a m i l y f r o m 1 9 0 0 to t h e 1 9 3 0 s , d o m i n a t e d in its t r e a t m e n t p h i l o s o p h y by biological, Freudian, and medical ap­ p r o a c h e s (Empey, 1 9 8 5 ) . T h e n , f r o m t h e 1 9 3 0 s through the 1960s, treatment emphasis gradu­ ally shifted to c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f e x t r a f a m i l i a l factors: poverty, discrimination, inequality, a n d t h e r o l e o f p e e r g r o u p s . F i n a l l y , in t h e 1 9 7 0 s , interest in t h e f a m i l y a s a s o u r c e of de­ linquency w a s revived, along with recognition that o t h e r s o u r c e s o f failures in t h e s o c i a l i z a ­ tion process included the school and other youth-serving institutions (Empey, 1 9 8 5 , pp. 26-27). Little is k n o w n a b o u t t h e o p e r a t i o n s of t h e juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e 2 0 t h c e n t u r y to t h e 1 9 6 0 s . According to Finestone ( 1 9 7 6 , pp. 5 4 - 7 6 ) a n d Krisberg a n d A u s t i n ( 1 9 9 3 , p p . 3 5 - 5 1 ) , t h e p e ­ riod was characterized by application of the n e w l y e m e r g i n g s c i e n c e of d e l i n q u e n c y c o n t r o l in b o t h d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s and juvenile courts. Psychiatry, psychology, a n d s o c i o l o g y p r o v i d e d t h e tools t h a t t h e r e ­ formers hoped would cure, rather than punish, c h i l d m i s b e h a v i o r (Hutzler, 1 9 8 2 ) . D u r i n g t h i s period, juvenile r e f o r m s c h o o l s s p r a n g u p all over the country, and increasing n u m b e r s of youths were c o m m i t t e d to them. E x p e r i m e n t a ­ tion w i t h o t h e r f o r m s of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f juveniles continued (McCorkle, 1 9 5 2 ; Weeks, 1 9 5 8 ) . For e x a m p l e , s h o r t l y b e f o r e t h e begin­ ning of W o r l d W a r II, C a l i f o r n i a c e n t r a l i z e d its c o r r e c t i o n a l institutions u n d e r t h e C a l i f o r n i a

15

Juvenile Reform Movements

Y o u t h A u t h o r i t y (CYA; Krisberg & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 ,

The Crime Commission

p. 4 6 ) . U n d e r t h e C Y A m o d e l , c r i m i n a l c o u r t s c o m m i t t e d y o u t h s a g e d 1 6 - 2 1 to t h e C Y A ,

In k e e p i n g w i t h its m a n d a t e to f o c u s o n t h e

w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d appropriate dispositions.

justice apparatus, the President's C o m m i s s i o n

During the 1 9 4 0 s and 1950s, Wisconsin and

on L a w E n f o r c e m e n t a n d Administration of

M i n n e s o t a developed variations of the CYA

Justice (called the Crime Commission, estab­

c o n c e p t (Krisberg & A u s d n , 1 9 9 3 , p. 4 6 ) . O t h e r

l i s h e d in 1 9 6 5 ) e x a m i n e d t h e w o r k i n g s of t h e

s t a t e s c o n t i n u e d e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n w i t h differ­

existing system of juvenile justice a n d m a d e

ent treatment approaches, including

s u g g e s t i o n s for i m p r o v i n g it. It m a d e t h e first

guided-

g r o u p i n t e r a c t i o n a n d g r o u p therapy. " C o r r e c ­

c o m p r e h e n s i v e a s s e s s m e n t of t h e A m e r i c a n ju­

tional Administrators and social

venile justice system. M o r e specifically,

scientists

h o p e d for a significant b r e a k t h r o u g h in treat­

the

Crime Commission focused on the juvenile

m e n t , b u t it n e v e r c a m e " (Krisberg & A u s t i n ,

c o u r t a n d f o u n d it t o b e ineffective. "It h a s b e e n

1993,

p r o v e n to b e t r u e for a v a r i e t y of r e a s o n s t h a t

p. 4 7 ) .

Likewise, the juvenile court ran into prob­

t h e p r o m i s e of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s t o h e l p t h e c h i l d , to r e h a b i l i t a t e h i m , to lead h i m into a

lems:

h e a l t h y a n d c o n s t r u c t i v e life h a s n o t b e e n kept" D e s p i t e t h e e a r l y s u c c e s s of its s w e e p across the nation . . . the juvenile justice m o v e m e n t faced serious ordnance and s u p p l y p r o b l e m s . T h e n e w w e a p o n s of d i a g n o s i s a n d t r e a t m e n t w i t h w h i c h the c a m p a i g n began never achieved their anticipated a c c u r a c y or effectiveness, and

t h e m o n e t a r y r e s o u r c e s n e e d e d to

p u r s u e the n e w strategy effectively w e r e n e v e r p r o v i d e d . T h e failure of t h e m o v e ­ m e n t to a c h i e v e its u l t i m a t e o b j e c t i v e — t h e s o l u t i o n to j u v e n i l e m i s b e h a v i o r — eventually began to erode p u b h c c o n f i d e n c e in t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . (Hutzler, 1 9 8 2 , p p . 2 7 - 2 8 )

(President's C o m m i s s i o n o n L a w E n f o r c e m e n t and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f J u s t i c e , 1 9 6 7 a , p. 3 0 ) . T w o f a c t o r s in p a r t i c u l a r a p p e a r t o h a v e in­ f l u e n c e d t h e t h i n k i n g of t h e c o m m i s s i o n . T h e first w a s t h e p r e s u m e d failures of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . I n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d in t h e c o u r s e of t h e c o m m i s s i o n ' s i n q u i r y p o i n t e d to e x t e n s i v e de­ t e n t i o n of c h i l d r e n in jails, t h e l a c k o f d u e p r o ­ cess, a s s e m b l y line justice, excessively large p r o ­ bation caseloads, crowded reformatories, and mounting evidence that juvenile correctional p r o g r a m s d i d n o t a p p e a r t o b e effective ( E m p e y , 1 9 7 8 , p. 5 3 1 ; E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p p . 3 3 3 ­ 338).

E x c e p t for p r o c e d u r a l i n a d e q u a c i e s , ris­

ing c r i m e r a t e s a n d s o c i a l u n r e s t w e r e c o n s i d ­ ered the main evidence that the juvenile court w a s ineffective. " T h o u g h it is o b v i o u s t h a t t h e juvenile court alone c o u l d s c a r c e l y h a v e been

T h e T h i r d Refornn M o v e m e n t :

Delinquency Prevention and

Alternatives to the

Juvenile Justice System

r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e s e e v e n t s , m a n y A m e r i c a n s b e g a n to b e l i e v e t h a t it w a s i n c a p a b l e of d e a l i n g w i t h t h e m " ( E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p. 3 3 9 ) . The second factor was the growing popular­ ity of labeling t h e o r y in t h e late 1 9 6 0 s . Its p r o ­

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven­

ponents (Becker, 1 9 6 3 ; Lemert, 1 9 5 1 , 1 9 6 7 ;

t i o n QJDP) A c t of 1 9 7 4 ( E L . 9 3 - 4 1 5 ) e m b o d i e d t h e r e s u l t s of t h e t h i r d juvenile j u s t i c e r e f o r m m o v e m e n t : p r e v e n t i o n a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of al­

Tannenbaum, 1 9 3 8 ) argued that most juveniles w o u l d m a t u r e o u t o f d e l i n q u e n c y if left a l o n e . T h e y c h a r g e d t h a t a g e n t s of c o n t r o l e x a c e r b a t e

t e r n a t i v e s to t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . Sev­ eral d e v e l o p m e n t s d u r i n g t h e 1 9 6 0 s a n d 1 9 7 0 s

d e l i n q u e n c y b y s e t t i n g i n t o m o t i o n a self-

l e d to t h e JJDP A c t of 1 9 7 4 . M o s t influential w e r e the President's Commission on L a w E n ­ f o r c e m e n t a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of J u s t i c e , a s u r ­

as "bad" o r "delinquent." A s a r e s u l t of o v e r -

fulfilling p r o p h e c y in officially labeling y o u t h d r a m a t i z a t i o n of initial w a y w a r d ( m i n o r ) a c t s , y o u t h s r e p e a t e d l y l a b e l e d "delinquent" b y p o ­

vey c o n d u c t e d by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, several Supreme

lice, judges, a n d p r o b a t i o n officers c o m e t o s e e

Court decisions, the National Advisory Com­ mission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, a n d M a s s a c h u s e t t s j u v e n i l e c o r r e c t i o n s

h e n c e , t h e l i k e l i h o o d of s u b s e q u e n t d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r is i n c r e a s e d , t h r o u g h t h e d y n a m i c s of

reforms.

pointed to the p r e s u m e d failure of juvenile

themselves as they are labeled by

t h e self-fulfilling

process. These

officials;

theorists

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE

16

c o u r t s as e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s y s t e m h a s a h a r m ­

s h o u l d b e g i v e n to c o m p l e t e e l i m i n a t i o n

ful effect, t h a t identifying a n d labeling c h i l d r e n

of t h e c o u r t ' s p o w e r o v e r c h i l d r e n for

as "bad" or "delinquent" o n l y m a d e t h e p r o b ­

n o n c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t . " T h e c a s e s t h a t fall

l e m w o r s e . I r o n i c a l l y , t h e t e r m "delinquent"

within the narrowed jurisdiction of the

w a s c o i n e d to a v o i d t h e s t i g m a a t t a c h e d to t h e

c o u r t a n d filter t h r o u g h t h e s c r e e n of

label " c r i m i n a l . "

prejudicial, informal disposition m o d e s

L e m e r t in p a r t i c u l a r laid a f o u n d a t i o n for t h e

w o u l d largely i n v o l v e offenders for

g r o w t h of labeling t h e o r y in t h e 1 9 7 0 s , w h e n it

w h o m m o r e vigorous measures seem

w o u l d b e t r a n s l a t e d i n t o p u b l i c policy, m o s t ef­

n e c e s s a r y . . . . W h i l e r e h a b i l i t a t i v e efforts

f e c t i v e l y b y S c h u r ( 1 9 7 3 ) in h i s "radical n o n ­

s h o u l d b e v i g o r o u s l y p u r s u e d in defer­

i n t e r v e n t i o n " n o t i o n . A l t h o u g h his p r o p o s i t i o n

e n c e to t h e y o u t h f u l n e s s of t h e offenders

t a r g e t e d m a i n l y "victimless" offenders s u c h as

a n d in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e g e n e r a l c o m m i t ­

prostitutes and drug addicts, Schur (1971,

m e n t to i n d i v i d u a l i z e d t r e a t m e n t of all

1 9 7 3 ) got t h e a t t e n t i o n of j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e law­

offenders, t h e i n c a p a c i t a t i v e , d e t e r r e n t ,

m a k e r s as well, w h o a p p l i e d t h e c o n c e p t to m i ­

a n d c o n d e m n a t o r y p u r p o s e s of t h e j u d g e ­

nor delinquents

in d i s t i n g u i s h i n g

t h e m as

ment should not be disguised. A c c o r d ­

"status offenders." S y s t e m n o n i n t e r v e n t i o n in

ingly, t h e a d j u d i c a t o r y h e a r i n g s h o u l d b e

their lives w o u l d b e c o m e the favored policy

c o n s i s t e n t w i t h b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of d u e

(see E m p e y 1 9 7 8 , p p . 3 4 1 - 3 6 8 ) .

p r o c e s s . ( 1 9 6 7 a , p. 8 1 )

L e m e r t ( 1 9 6 7 , p. 9 6 ) u r g e d t h e C r i m e C o m ­ m i s s i o n t o a d o p t t h e v i e w t h a t "If t h e r e is a de­ fensible p h i l o s o p h y for t h e juvenile c o u r t , it is o n e of j u d i c i o u s n o n i n t e r v e n t i o n . . . a n a g e n c y of last r e s o r t for c h i l d r e n , h o l d i n g to a d o c t r i n e a n a l o g o u s to t h a t o f a p p e a l s c o u r t s w h i c h r e ­ q u i r e t h a t all o t h e r r e m e d i e s be e x h a u s t e d be­ fore a c a s e will be h e a r d . " T h e c o m m i s s i o n ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s favored small correctional units, a variety of treatment alternatives, addi­ tional due process projections, decriminaliza­ t i o n of v i c t i m l e s s c r i m e s , a n d deinstitutionali­ z a t i o n of l a r g e c o r r e c t i o n a l facilities (see t h e chapter on juvenile delinquency, pp. 5 5 - 8 9 and t a b l e o f r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , p p . 2 9 3 - 3 1 0 , in President's C o m m i s s i o n on L a w Enforcement a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of J u s t i c e , 1 9 6 7 a ; see also the task force report, 1 9 6 7 b ) . T h e commission r e j e c t e d t h e c o n t e n t i o n that "the t i m e h a s c o m e to jettison the e x p e r i m e n t " a n d c o n c l u d e d , " W h a t is r e q u i r e d is r a t h e r a r e v i s e d p h i l o s o p h y of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , b a s e d o n r e c o g n i t i o n that in t h e p a s t o u r r e a c h e x c e e d e d o u r grasp" (Presi­ dent's C o m m i s s i o n o n L a w E n f o r c e m e n t a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of J u s t i c e , 1 9 6 7 a , p. 8 1 ) . It r e c ­ o m m e n d e d s e v e r a l s t e p s to i m p r o v e t h e a d ­ m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u v e n i l e justice:

A s a m e a n s of h a n d l i n g m i n o r offenders in t h e c o m m u n i t y in lieu of j u v e n i l e c o u r t , t h e Crime Commission r e c o m m e n d e d that c o m ­ munities establish n e i g h b o r h o o d youth-serving a g e n c i e s , c a l l e d Y o u t h S e r v i c e s B u r e a u s , lo­ c a t e d in c o m p r e h e n s i v e n e i g h b o r h o o d c o m ­ munity centers. These bureaus would receive juveniles (delinquent and nondelinquent) re­ ferred b y t h e p o l i c e , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , p a r e n t s , schools, and others. These agencies would act as b r o k e r s of all c o m m u n i t y s e r v i c e s for y o u n g p e o p l e a n d w o u l d a l s o fill s e r v i c e gaps, e s p e ­ c i a l l y for less s e r i o u s l y d e l i n q u e n t j u v e n i l e s (President's C o m m i s s i o n o n L a w E n f o r c e m e n t a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of J u s t i c e , 1 9 6 7 a , p. 8 3 ) . T h e c o m m i s s i o n also offered r e c o m m e n d a ­ tions a i m e d at i m p r o v i n g d e t e n t i o n a n d i n c a r ­ c e r a t i o n . It s u g g e s t e d t h a t s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n should be enacted restricting both the authority to d e t a i n a n d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h d e t e n t i o n is p e r m i t t e d . L o w - s e c u r i t y c o m m u ­ nity residential centers and similar shelters w e r e r e c o m m e n d e d for c h i l d r e n for w h o m d e ­ t e n t i o n is m a d e n e c e s s a r y in t h e a b s e n c e of a d e ­ q u a t e p a r e n t a l s u p e r v i s i o n ( 1 9 6 7 a , p. 8 7 ) . C o r ­ rectional authorities should develop more extensive c o m m u n i t y programs providing spe­

T h e formal sanctioning system and pro­ n o u n c e m e n t of d e l i n q u e n c y s h o u l d b e

cial, i n t e n s i v e t r e a t m e n t a s a n a l t e r n a t i v e to in­ s t i t u t i o n a h z a t i o n ( 1 9 6 7 a , p. 1 7 1 ) .

u s e d o n l y as a last resort. . . . A l t e r n a t i v e s already available, s u c h as those related

The commission's recommendations clearly c a l l e d for a j u v e n i l e c o u r t of m o r e r e s t r i c t e d

t o c o u r t intake, s h o u l d b e m o r e fully e x p l o i t e d . T h e r a n g e of c o n d u c t for w h i c h c o u r t i n t e r v e n t i o n is a u t h o r i z e d s h o u l d b e

s c o p e . D i v e r s i o n of y o u t h f r o m t h e j u v e n i l e jus­ tice system was encouraged. Moreover, limita­ t i o n s o n c o n f i n e m e n t of j u v e n i l e s w e r e u r g e d .

n a r r o w e d . "Serious c o n s i d e r a t i o n . . .

E q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t , t h e c o m m i s s i o n offered a

Juvenile Reform Movements delinquency prevention rationale and m e c h a ­ n i s m . It r e a s o n e d t h a t j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y could he prevented through early intervention a n d p r o v i s i o n of s e r v i c e s o u t s i d e t h e j u v e n i l e justice system. T h e favored service delivery m e c h a n i s m w a s n e i g h b o r h o o d c e n t e r s it c a l l e d Youth Service Bureaus.

The NCCD Juvenile Corrections Survey I n 1 9 6 6 , a t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s Commission on L a w Enforcement and Admini­ stration of Justice, the National Council on C r i m e a n d D e l i n q u e n c y (NCCD) s u r v e y e d state a n d l o c a l c o r r e c t i o n a l a g e n c i e s a n d institutions t h r o u g h o u t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . T h i s w a s t h e first s y s t e m a t i c s u r v e y of j u v e n i l e facilities. T h e sur­ v e y r e v e a l e d w i d e s p r e a d u s e of d e t e n t i o n facili­ ties t o h o l d in c u s t o d y juveniles a c c u s e d of n o n ­ criminal c o n d u c t — o f t e n without c o u r t petitions. W i d e variaUons in detention rates a n d lengths of stay exacerbated the situation. T h e NCCD ( 1 9 6 7 , p. 1 2 9 ) c o n c l u d e d , "Confusion a n d m i s ­ u s e p e r v a d e d e t e n t i o n . It h a s c o m e t o b e u s e d by p o l i c e a n d p r o b a d o n officers a s a disposi­ tion; judges u s e it for p u n i s h m e n t , p r o t e c t i o n , a n d storage" of y o u n g s t e r s . T h e s u r v e y r e s u l t s led t h e N C C D to r e c o m ­ m e n d t h a t "No c h i l d s h o u l d b e p l a c e d in a n y d e t e n t i o n f a c i h t y u n l e s s h e is a d e l i n q u e n t or a l l e g e d d e l i n q u e n t a n d t h e r e is a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t h e will c o m m i t a n offense d a n ­ g e r o u s t o h i m s e l f o r t h e c o m m u n i t y o r will r u n a w a y p e n d i n g c o u r t disposition. H e s h o u l d n o t b e d e t a i n e d for p u n i s h m e n t or for s o m e o n e ' s c o n v e n i e n c e " (p. 2 1 1 ) . T h e NCCD's s u r v e y also d o c u m e n t e d s i m i l a r m i s u s e of juvenile refor­ m a t o r i e s . "In theory, t r a i n i n g s c h o o l s a r e s p e ­ c i a l i z e d facilities for c h a n g i n g c h i l d r e n rela­ tively h a r d e n e d in d e l i n q u e n c y . In p r a c t i c e , . . . they house a nonselective population and are p r i m a r i l y u s e d in w a y s w h i c h m a k e t h e serving o f t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l best p u r p o s e . . . b e s i d e t h e point" (p. 1 4 3 ) . A s a result of t h e survey, t h e N C C D r e c o m ­ m e n d e d s t a n d a r d s r e s t r i c t i n g u s e of j u v e n i l e in­ s t i t u t i o n s . "No c h i l d c o m m i t t e d u n d e r n o n ­ c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s s h o u l d b e h o u s e d in institutions with those convicted under crimi­ nal proceedings. . . . Dependent and neglected c h i l d r e n s h o u l d n o t b e c o m m i t t e d to or p l a c e d in t r a i n i n g s c h o o l s or o t h e r facilities for delin­ quents" (p. 2 1 1 ) .

17 Supreme Court Decisions In 1 9 5 4 , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t of P e n n s y l v a n i a sanctioned the juvenile court's due process r e ­ s t r i c t i o n s In re Holmes (348 U.S. 973). The Court reasoned that b e c a u s e juvenile courts are not criminal courts, constitutional rights g r a n t e d to p e r s o n s a c c u s e d o f c r i m e a r e n o t a p ­ p l i c a b l e to c h U d r e n . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h this r u l ­ ing did n o t last long. B y t h e 1 9 6 0 s , r e f o r m e r s b e g a n to q u e s t i o n t h e l e g i t i m a c y of w i t h h o l d i n g d u e p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n s f r o m juveniles. T h e is­ s u e w a s f r a m e d in t e r m s o f t h e effectiveness of treatment versus due process: Do adolescents receive individual treatment the juvenile c o u r t s w e r e c r e a t e d t o p r o v i d e ? If not, w h y a r e t h e y not afforded t h e s a m e d u e p r o c e s s p r o t e c ­ tion t h a t a d u l t s e n j o y ( K e t c h a m , 1 9 6 1 ) ? Four U.S. S u p r e m e Court decisions between 1 9 6 6 and 1 9 7 1 brought about important c h a n g e s in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u v e n i l e jus­ t i c e . I n 1 9 6 6 , i n Kent v. United States ( 3 8 3 U . S . 5 4 1 ) , for t h e first t i m e , t h e C o u r t r e q u i r e d d u e p r o c e s s rights for juveniles, in its n d i n g t h a t a juvenile c a n n o t be w a i v e d to c r i m i n a l c o u r t without the granting of procedural due process. It f o u n d e v i d e n c e , in J u s t i c e A b e Fortas's w o r d s , "that the c h i l d r e c e i v e s t h e w o r s t of b o t h w o r l d s : t h a t h e gets n e i t h e r t h e p r o t e c t i o n a c ­ c o r d e d to adults n o r t h e s o l i c i t o u s c a r e a n d r e ­ g e n e r a t i v e t r e a t m e n t p o s t u l a t e d for c h i l d r e n " (p. 5 6 6 ) . T h u s , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e q u i r e d a f o r m a l w a i v e r h e a r i n g before a j u v e n i l e c o u l d b e t r a n s f e r r e d to c r i m i n a l c o u r t . T h e following year, the S u p r e m e Court's l a n d m a r k r u h n g . In re Gault ( 3 8 7 U . S . 1 , 1 9 6 7 ) , g r a n t e d o t h e r d u e p r o c e s s rights t o j u v e n i l e s facing loss of f r e e d o m ( t h r o u g h i n c a r c e r a t i o n ) i n c l u d i n g n o t i c e of t h e c h a r g e s , right to c o u n ­ sel, right to c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d c r o s s - e x a m i n a ­ tion, a n d t h e privilege a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a ­ tion. T h e s e a n d o t h e r "due p r o c e s s " rights a l r e a d y e n j o y e d b y a d u l t s in t h e c r i m i n a l jus­ t i c e s y s t e m w e r e e x t e n d e d to juveniles in t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m for t h e first t i m e (see Grisso, 1 9 8 0 ; Holtz, 1 9 8 7 ; Kobetz, 1 9 7 1 ; Na­ tional C e n t e r for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e , 1 9 9 1 ) . T h e Gault c a s e , h o w e v e r , a p p l i e d o n l y t o s o m e p r e adjudication procedures and to the adjudica­ tion h e a r i n g , not t h e d i s p o s i t i o n s t a g e of juve­ nile c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s . Tailoring t r e a t m e n t t o the i n d i v i d u a l c h i l d w a s n o t affected. P r i o r to 1 9 7 0 , t h e s t a n d a r d for d e t e r m i n i n g guilt in d e l i n q u e n c y p r o c e e d i n g s w a s a "pre­ p o n d e r a n c e " o f a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e ; t h a t is.

18

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH

" m o r e likely t h a n not." In 1 9 7 0 , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h e l d . In re Winship ( 3 9 7 U . S . 3 5 8 ) , that d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e state p r o v e "be­ y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e doubt" facts establishing a juvenile's d e l i n q u e n c y . A s in t h e Gault ruling, Winship did n o t a p p l y to p r o c e d u r e s b e y o n d t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n stage. E q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t , in t h e Gault ruling, t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t m a d e it c l e a r t h a t t h e juvenile c o u r t w a s n o t to b e e q u a t e d w i t h t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s of a d u l t c o u r t s . A n u m b e r of d e c i ­ s i o n s e x t r a c t e d s o m e m e a s u r e of i n f o r m a l i t y t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m h a d b e e n g r a n t e d in t h e h a n d l i n g of juveniles, y e t t h e s e p a r a t e n e s s of t h e s y s t e m w a s n o t s u c c e s s f u l l y c h a l l e n g e d . T h u s , juvenile c o u r t s survived the attack on parens patriae w h i l e losing s o m e g r o u n d o n de­ n i a l o f d u e p r o c e s s . In 1 9 7 1 , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r u l e d in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (403 U.S. 5 2 8 ) t h a t t h e r e is n o r e q u i r e m e n t of a jury trial in j u v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s . T h i s d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t e d parens patriae b y limiting d u e p r o ­ c e s s r i g h t s . A s late a s 1 9 8 4 , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e a f f i r m e d parens patriae in Shall v. Martin ( 4 6 7 U . S . 2 5 3 ) , in w h i c h t h e C o u r t r u l e d t h a t juveniles c h a r g e d with serious crimes are sub­ ject to p r e v e n t i v e d e t e n t i o n . T h e c o u r t t h u s r e c ­ o g n i z e d t h a t , u n l i k e a d u l t s , juveniles a r e c o n ­ t i n u o u s l y in s o m e f o r m o f c u s t o d y a n d if p a r e n t s fail, t h e s t a t e c a n a s s u m e t h e p a r e n t a l role. T h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a d s u r v i v e d t h e a t t a c k of civil l i b e r t a r i a n s a n d t h e i r allies o n t h e S u ­ p r e m e C o u r t , b u t n o t w i t h o u t t h e p r i c e of loss o f i n f o r m a l i t y (Hutzler, 1 9 8 2 , p. 2 8 ) .

The National Advisory Commission T h e National Advisory C o m m i s s i o n on C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S t a n d a r d s a n d Goals ( 1 9 7 3 ) w a s e s t a b l i s h e d in 1 9 7 1 t o f o r m u l a t e t h e first n a t i o n a l c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s t a n d a r d s , goals, a n d priorities that w o u l d constitute a "national c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e strategy." A p p o i n t e d b y t h e a d ­ m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e L a w E n f o r c e m e n t A s s i s t a n c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D e p a r t ­ m e n t o f J u s t i c e , it c o m p l e t e d its w o r k in 1 9 7 3 . Its e x h a u s t i v e s t u d y of t h e U . S . c r i m e prob­ l e m led t h e N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i s s i o n to c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e first p r i o r i t y s h o u l d be given to p r e v e n t i n g j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y , to m i n i ­ m i z i n g t h e i n v o l v e m e n t of y o u n g offenders in the juvenile and criminal justice system, and t o r e i n t e g r a t i n g d e l i n q u e n t s a n d y o u n g offend­ ers into the c o m m u n i t y (National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and

VIOLENCE

Goals, 1 9 7 3 , p. 2 3 ) . C o n t r o l l i n g c r i m e mitted by juveniles w h i l e at the s a m e p r o v i d i n g t r e a t m e n t w a s t h e c r u x of t h e lem as viewed by the National Advisory mission:

com­ time prob­ Com­

T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s a long t r a d i t i o n of dealing differently w i t h j u v e n i l e s t h a n w i t h a d u l t s w h o a r e in difficulty w i t h t h e law, in t h e h o p e t h a t j u v e n i l e s c a n b e r e - c h a n n e l l e d into b e c o m i n g l a w a b i d i n g c i t i z e n s . H o w e v e r m a n y of t h e m e t h o d s of dealing w i t h j u v e n i l e s in this c o u n t r y h a v e c o m e to b e v i e w e d e i t h e r as c o u n t e r ­ p r o d u c t i v e o r as v i o l a t i o n s of t h e r i g h t s of c h i l d r e n . T h u s t h e r e is a p r e s s i n g n e e d for n a t i o n a l s t a n d a r d s to i m p r o v e t h e q u a l i t y o f juvenile c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e s y s t e m . (National Advisory Commission on Crimi­ nal J u s t i c e S t a n d a r d s a n d Goals, 1 9 7 3 , Report on Corrections, p. 2 4 7 ) T h e c o m m i s s i o n f o c u s e d in p a r t i c u l a r o n d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r p r o b l e m s . It f o u n d t h a t "per­ s o n s in n e e d of supervision" ( P I N S ) , o r " m i n o r s in n e e d of s u p e r v i s i o n " ( M I N S ) — w h o l a t e r c a m e to be called "status offenders"—com­ p o s e d at least 5 0 % of m o s t d e t e n t i o n p o p u l a ­ t i o n s [Report on Corrections, p. 2 5 7 ; U n i t e d S t a t e s C h i l d r e n ' s B u r e a u , 1 9 6 4 ) . It a l s o esti­ mated that possibly m o r e than 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 juve­ niles w e r e h e l d in jails a n d p o l i c e l o c k u p s e a c h y e a r [Report on Corrections, p. 2 5 8 ) . T h e National Advisory Commission's stand­ a r d for D e t e n t i o n a n d D i s p o s i t i o n of J u v e n i l e s r e c o m m e n d e d that t h e d e l i n q u e n c y j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s h o u l d b e limited to t h o s e j u v e n i l e s w h o c o m m i t a c t s t h a t if c o m m i t t e d b y a n a d u l t would be criminal, and that juveniles a c c u s e d of d e l i n q u e n t c o n d u c t w o u l d n o t u n d e r a n y c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e d e t a i n e d in facilities for h o u s i n g a d u l t s a c c u s e d or c o n v i c t e d of c r i m e . T h e d e c i s i o n to d e t a i n prior to a d j u d i c a t i o n o f d e l i n q u e n c y s h o u l d b e b a s e d o n t h e following criteria. D e t e n t i o n s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d as a last resort where no other reasonable alterna­ tive is available. D e t e n t i o n s h o u l d be u s e d o n l y w h e r e t h e juvenile h a s n o p a r e n t , g u a r d i a n , c u s t o d i a n , o r o t h e r p e r s o n able t o p r o v i d e s u p e r v i s i o n a n d c a r e for h i m a n d to a s s u r e his p r e s e n c e at s u b s e q u e n t judicial hearings. Detention decisions

Juvenile Reform Movements s h o u l d b e m a d e o n l y b y t h e c o u r t o r in­ take p e r s o n n e l , n o t p o l i c e officers. J u v e ­ niles s h o u l d n o t b e d e t a i n e d in jails, lock­ u p s , o r o t h e r facilities u s e d for a d u l t s . [Report on Corrections, p. 2 5 9 ) In t h i s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , t h e N a t i o n a l A d v i ­ s o r y C o m m i s s i o n identified a p a r t i c u l a r c a t e ­ g o r y of offenders t h a t w o u l d b e c o m e t h e s u b j e c t of m u c h d e b a t e , "status offenders," a n d defined t h e m a s j u v e n i l e s w h o c o m m i t t e d offenses n o t c o n s i d e r e d c r i m e s if c o m m i t t e d b y a d u l t s . It e x ­ p r e s s e d t h e belief t h a t juvenile c o u r t effective­ n e s s w o u l d b e e n h a n c e d if it w e r e a u t h o r i z e d to i n c a r c e r a t e o n l y d e l i n q u e n t s w h o s e offenses w o u l d b e c r i m e s if c o m m i t t e d by a d u l t s [Report on Courts, p . 2 9 3 ) . T h u s , t h e N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i s s i o n reinforced the Crime C o m m i s ­ sion's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n delimiting juvenile court jurisdiction over noncriminal misbehav­ ior, b u t it w e n t a step h i r t h e r in urging t h a t t h e s e children not be incarcerated.

Revolutionary Reform in Massachusetts Large juvenile reformatories h a d been under attack virtually since their creation. Although t h e y w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d to r e h a b i l i t a t e juvenile offenders, c r i t i c s c h a r g e d t h a t t h e y w e r e "ware­ h o u s e s " a n d "schools o f c r i m e " t h a t p r o d u c e d h i g h r e c i d i v i s m rates; t h a t t h e y w e r e c u s t o d i a l , n o t t h e r a p e u t i c ; a n d t h a t t h e y d e n i e d their in­ m a t e s d u e p r o c e s s (Krisberg & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 ) . T h e s e i s s u e s c a m e to a h e a d in M a s s a c h u ­ setts. In 1 9 6 9 , t h e state's D i r e c t o r of Y o u t h Ser­ v i c e s r e s i g n e d following a series of c r i s e s in t h e state's r e f o r m a t o r i e s . His s u c c e s s o r . Dr. J e r o m e Miller, t o o k office w i t h a m a n d a t e to d e v e l o p n e w p r o g r a m s . O v e r t h e n e x t 2 y e a r s . Miller ( 1 9 7 3 ) estabhshed "therapeutic communities" w i t h i n t h e state's existing r e f o r m a t o r i e s , but a d ­ h e r e n t s of t h e o l d c u s t o d i a l p h i l o s o p h y resisted his r e f o r m s . B y 1 9 7 1 , M i l l e r c o n c l u d e d t h a t therapeutic c o m m u n i t i e s could not be run suc­ cessfully w i t h i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l r e f o r m a t o r i e s . He closed the reformatories and replaced t h e m w i t h a n e t w o r k of d e c e n t r a l i z e d c o m m u n i t y b a s e d s e r v i c e s (and a few small s e c u r e - c a r e u n i t s for v i o l e n t j u v e n i l e offenders). Miller's r e ­ f o r m e d s y s t e m r e s e m b l e d w h a t w a s c a l l e d for by t h e 1 9 6 7 C r i m e C o m m i s s i o n a n d b y t h e N a ­ tional Advisory C o m m i s s i o n (Bakal, 1 9 7 3 ; C o a t e s & Miller, 1 9 7 3 ; C o a t e s , Miller, & Ohlin, 1 9 7 3 , 1 9 7 8 ; M c E w e n , 1 9 7 8 ; Miller & OhUn,

19 1 9 8 5 ; Miller, O h l i n , & C o a t e s , 1 9 7 7 a , 1 9 7 7 b ; Ohlin, C o a t e s , & Miller, 1 9 7 8 ) . T w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s later, t h e c o m m u n i t y b a s e d s y s t e m M i l l e r initiated in M a s s a c h u s e t t s is still in p l a c e ( A r n a u d & M a c k , 1 9 8 2 ; A u s t i n , E l m s , Krisberg, & S t e e l e , 1 9 9 1 ; Lerner, 1 9 9 0 ; L o u g h r a n , 1 9 8 6 ) . D u r i n g this p e r i o d , t h e state's D e p a r t m e n t of Y o u t h S e r v i c e s h a s d e v e l o p e d a s o p h i s t i c a t e d n e t w o r k of s m a l l ( 1 5 - b e d ) s e c u r e facilities for violent offenders ( w h o c o n s t i t u t e o n l y 1 5 % o f all y o u t h s p l a c e d in t h e state's ju­ venile correctional system) and a wide range of community-based residential a n d nonresiden­ tial p r o g r a m s for t h e r e m a i n d e r o f its 1 , 7 0 0 committed youth. T h e Massachusetts changes c o n s t i t u t e d t h e m o s t s w e e p i n g r e f o r m s in y o u t h c o r r e c t i o n s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s i n c e t h e es­ t a b l i s h m e n t o f j u v e n i l e r e f o r m a t o r i e s in t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y a n d j u v e n i l e c o u r t s in t h e 2 0 t h century. M i l l e r d e m o n s t r a t e d , to C o n g r e s s a n d the nation, that juvenile corrections need not b e c e n t e r e d o n large r e f o r m a t o r i e s . H e strug­ gled to m a k e j u v e n i l e i n s t i t u t i o n s w o r k , c o n ­ c l u d e d that effective t r e a t m e n t w i t h i n t h e m was an unworkable concept, and closed them in M a s s a c h u s e t t s . T h r o u g h t h e s e a c t i o n s , h e c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h e failure of p r e v i o u s juve­ nile j u s t i c e r e f o r m s . J u v e n i l e c o u r t r e h a n c e o n institutions w a s not w o r k i n g . H e c a l l e d for al­ t e r n a t i v e s to j u v e n i l e p r i s o n s . B y t h e s u c c e s s of his a c t i o n s , M i l l e r d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t c o m m u ­ nity-based juvenile corrections was a workable concept.

T h e Fourth Reform M o v e m e n t :

Just Deserts

T h e fourth, a n d still a c t i v e , r e f o r m m o v e m e n t , w h i c h E m p e y a n d Stafford ( 1 9 9 1 , p p . 4 4 3 - 4 6 4 ) c a l l "neoclassical," is t h e p r o d u c t of t w o p h i l o ­ s o p h i c a l a p p r o a c h e s : u t i l i t a r i a n a n d just de­ serts philosophy. U t i l i t a r i a n p h i l o s o p h y is r e p ­ r e s e n t e d m a i n l y in t h e w r i t i n g s of Van d e n H a a g ( 1 9 7 5 ) and Wilson { 1 9 8 3 a , 1983b). These schol­ ars' t h i n k i n g is p r e d i c a t e d o n t w o m a i n p r i n c i ­ ples: t h a t p u n i s h m e n t d e t e r s p e o p l e f r o m c o m ­ m i t t i n g c r i m e s , a n d t h a t p u n i s h m e n t is i n d i s p e n s a b l e for m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s o c i a l order. A l t h o u g h a d e t e r r e n t effect o f p u n i s h m e n t w a s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d before o r s i n c e t h e e x t e n s i v e National A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s s t u d y (Blumstein, Cohen, & Nagin, 1 9 7 8 ; Zimring & Hawkins, 1 9 7 3 ) , Van d e n H a a g a n d W i l s o n a r g u e a g e n e r a l d e t e r r e n t effect. In t h e w o r d s o f a n E n g l i s h

20

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

judge, "Men a r e not h a n g e d for stealing h o r s e s , b u t t h a t h o r s e s m a y n o t b e stolen" (Van d e n H a a g , 1 9 7 5 , p. 6 1 ) . E s p e c i a l l y s e v e r e p u n i s h ­ m e n t s a r e b e l i e v e d to h a v e a d e t e r r e n t effect. In t h e v i e w of a f o r m e r OJJDP a d m i n i s t r a t o r , A l ­ fred R e g n e r y ( 1 9 8 6 , p p . 4 3 - 4 4 ) , "If that's t h e w a y t h e y w a n t to b e h a v e , t h e o n l y w a y to deal w i t h t h e m is to let t h e m feel t h e sting of t h e justice system." In t h e i r s e c o n d p r i n c i p l e . Van d e n H a a g a n d W i l s o n s e e p u n i s h m e n t a s r e t r i b u t i o n , fair p a y ­ m e n t t o s o c i e t y in r e t u r n for c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d . Retribution demonstrates society's willingness to p a y its d e b t s by p u n i s h i n g t h e offender a n d reinforces social sentiments against crime, h e l p i n g to p r e s e r v e t h e s o c i a l order. Van den H a a g a n d W i l s o n b e l i e v e t h a t t h e justice s y s t e m s h o u l d c o n c e n t r a t e its e f f o r t s o n p u n i s h i n g criminals, not rehabilitating them. Implica­ t i o n s o f utilitarian p h i l o s o p h y for juvenile jus­ t i c e i n c l u d e d e c r i m i n a l i z i n g s t a t u s offenses, l o w e r i n g t h e a g e o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y for c r i m e , a b o H s h i n g t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t , d e t e r m i n a n t sen­ tencing, a n d using preventive incapacitation ( E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p p . 4 4 6 - 4 4 7 ) . T h e f o u n d a t i o n for t h e "just d e s e r t s " phi­ l o s o p h y w a s p r o v i d e d by t h e A m e r i c a n Friends S e r v i c e C o m m i t t e e in its Struggle for Justice: A Report on Crime and Punishment in America ( 1 9 7 1 ) . T h e c o m m i t t e e c o n c l u d e d that t h e in­ d i v i d u a l i z e d t r e a t m e n t m o d e l , t h e ideal t o w a r d w h i c h reformers had been working, was theo­ r e t i c a l l y faulty, s y s t e m a t i c a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s o m e of o u r m o s t b a s i c c o n c e p t s of justice. R e c e i v i n g i m p e t u s f r o m t h e "war o n c r i m e " during t h e late 1 9 6 0 s a n d e a r l y 1 9 7 0 s ( G r a h a m , 1 9 7 0 ) , just de­ s e r t s a d v o c a t e s initially d i r e c t e d their r e f o r m s at t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m ( C e d e r b l o m & Blizek, 1 9 7 7 ; Fogel, 1 9 7 9 ; Fox, 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 4 ; Gayhn & R o t h m a n , 1 9 7 6 ; Von Hirsch, 1 9 7 6 ) . T h e y q u i c k l y e x p a n d e d their focus, h o w e v e r , to in­ c l u d e t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m (Feld, 1 9 8 3 ; Fogel & H u d s o n , 1 9 8 1 ; Rosenheim, 1 9 7 6 ; T h o m p s o n & M c A n a n y , 1 9 8 4 ) , b e c a u s e of its s t r o n g e r e m p h a s i s o n t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i v e ideal (Allen, 1 9 8 1 ) . L i k e u t i l i t a r i a n p h i l o s o p h e r s , just d e s e r t s a d v o c a t e s a s s u m e t h e ineffectiveness of t h e ju­ v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . B o t h g r o u p s w o u l d abol­ ish t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a n d h a v e the c r i m i n a l jus­ tice s y s t e m a d j u d i c a t e juvenile offenders, i n c a r c e r a t i n g t h e m in a d u l t p r i s o n s , as a p p r o ­ p r i a t e , c o m m e n s u r a t e wiui t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of offenses. T h e y w o u l d , therefore, h a v e t h e sys­

t e m c o n c e n t r a t e o n "doing justice" (Gaylin & Rothman, 1 9 7 6 ) rather than attempting to re­ habilitate d e l i n q u e n t s . U n l i k e utilitarian phi­ l o s o p h e r s , w h o a r g u e t h e v a l u e of p u n i s h m e n t for d e t e r r e n t p u r p o s e s , just d e s e r t s a d v o c a t e s see v i r t u e in p u n i s h m e n t itself, b e c a u s e t h e in­ d i v i d u a l d e s e r v e s it. W h e r e a s u t i l i t a r i a n phi­ l o s o p h y sees t h e i n d i v i d u a l as w i c k e d , just de­ serts p h i l o s o p h y sees t h e s t a t e a s t h e w i c k e d party, p a r t i c u l a r l y b e c a u s e o f its a s s e r t e d a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n . T h u s , j u s t d e s e r t s p h i l o s o p h y supports these principles: m e c h a n i z e d justice (to a v o i d doing h a r m b y a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n ) , s e n t e n c i n g t h e offender r a t h e r t h a n t h e offense, legal p u n i s h m e n t a s a "desert" (Von H i r s c h , 1 9 7 6 , c h a p . 7 ) , p a r s i m o n i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e in t h e lives o f c o n v i c t e d offenders, a n d a b a n d o n ­ m e n t o f d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n efforts. T h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s for j u v e n i l e justice a r e to d e c r i m i n a l i z e status offenses, l o w e r t h e age of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y , a b o l i s h t h e ju­ venile court, use determinate sentences, pun­ ish r a t h e r t h a n r e h a b i l i t a t e offenders, a n d g r a d e p u n i s h m e n t s a c c o r d i n g to t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of t h e c r i m e a n d t h e offender's p r i o r r e c o r d ( E m ­ p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p p . 4 5 6 - 4 5 7 ) . People f r o m a v a r i e t y o f p e r s p e c t i v e s c o n ­ tributed t o t h e just d e s e r t s p h i l o s o p h y ( E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p. 4 5 5 ) , i n c l u d i n g s c h o l a r s s t u d y i n g t h e w e a k n e s s e s o f p r i s o n s (Gaylin, R o t h m a n , a n d Von H i r s c h ) , a p r a c t i c i n g c o r r e c ­ tional a d m i n i s t r a t o r (Fogel), a n d legal s c h o l a r s (Feld a n d F o x ) . C o n s i d e r a b l e i m p e t u s w a s p r o ­ v i d e d to t h e i r p h i l o s o p h y by p r o g r a m e v a l u ­ ation r e v i e w s t h a t f o u n d few r e h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o ­ g r a m s to b e effective (Greenberg, 1 9 7 7 ; L i p t o n , Martinson, & Wilks, 1 9 7 5 ; Palmer, 1 9 7 8 ; S e c h r e s t , W h i t e , & B r o w n , 1 9 7 9 ) . T h e m o s t in­ fluential a m o n g t h e s e w a s t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e v i e w c o n d u c t e d b y M a r t i n s o n a n d his col­ leagues, published initially by M a r t i n s o n ( 1 9 7 4 ) . T h e g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n of t h e s e r e v i e w s w a s t h a t "nothing w o r k s . " T h u s , s t r o n g s u p p o r t w a s p r o v i d e d for t h e just d e s e r t s philosophy. Just d e s e r t s r e f o r m e r s c o n c e n t r a t e d t h e i r ef­ forts in t h e J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e S t a n d a r d s Project, initiated in 1 9 7 1 by t h e Institute of J u d i c i a l A d ­ m i n i s t r a t i o n (IJA) at N e w York University, later cosponsored by the American Bar Association ( A B A ) . T h e s e c a m e to b e k n o w n a s t h e "IJA­ A B A S t a n d a r d s " ( 1 9 8 0 ) . In a d d i t i o n to t h e Crime Commission and Supreme Court deci­ sions, drafters o f t h e I J A - A B A S t a n d a r d s w e r e i n f l u e n c e d by just d e s e r t s a d v o c a t e s s u c h as F o x ( 1 9 7 0 , 1 9 7 2 ) , a n influential investigative r e p o r t

Juvenile Reform Movements

21

( J a m e s , 1 9 6 7 ) t h a t u n c o v e r e d a b u s e of a u t h o r i t y

ard N i x o n p r o m i s e d in 1 9 6 8 , if e l e c t e d p r e s i ­

in j u v e n i l e c o u r t s , but a l s o b y labeling t h e o r i s t s

dent, t o w a g e a w a r o n c r i m e , e v e n if y o u n g p e o ­

including Becker (1963), Lemert (1951, 1967),

p l e h a d to b e n u m b e r e d a m o n g t h e e n e m y . T h e

and Schur (1973)—all of w h o m advocated a

p e r v a s i v e feeling w a s t h a t t h e n a t i o n w a s in

m o r e r e s t r i c t e d r o l e for t h e juvenile j u s t i c e sys­

d a n g e r of losing e v e r y t h i n g . T h e o n l y s o l u t i o n ,

t e m in A m e r i c a ' s c r i m e c o n t r o l a p p a r a t u s . T h e

t h e r e f o r e w a s to r e t u r n t o a m o r e r e t r i b u t i v e

2 3 v o l u m e s of I J A - A B A S t a n d a r d s ( 1 9 8 0 ) c o v ­

c o n c e p t of justice, favoring legal p u n i s h m e n t

e r e d e v e r y a s p e c t of j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e a d m i n i s t r a ­

r a t h e r t h a n rehabilitation" (p. 3 3 9 ) . T h e W a r o n

tion, s u c h as r e j e c t i o n of t h e m e d i c a l or r e h a ­

Crime would soon be heated up.

bilitative

model

of

the

juvenile

court,

Ironically, t h e n e o c l a s s i c a l p h i l o s o p h e r s , in

p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s (for i n t a k e , a d j u d i c a ­

their z e a l to b r i n g a b o u t e q u i t y in j u v e n i l e ju­

tion, a n d d i s p o s i t i o n s ) , p l e a bargaining, r e c o g ­

r i s p n i d e n c e , c a m e to a d v o c a t e a n o l d a p p r o a c h

n i t i o n o f c h i l d r e n ' s r i g h t s , p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y in

to j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y t h a t p r e v i o u s l y h a d

dispositions,

d e t e r m i n a t e s e n t e n c i n g , u s e of

b e e n r e j e c t e d b y p r o g r e s s i v e s o f t h e late 1 9 t h

least r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s , a n d r e s t r i c t i o n s o n

century: classical criminology (Beccaria, 1 9 6 3 ;

u s e of p a r o l e a n d a f t e r c a r e s u p e r v i s i o n

B e n t h a m , 1 9 4 8 ) . T h a t s c h o o l of t h o u g h t r e p u ­

(see

E m p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p p . 4 6 9 - 4 7 2 for a de­

d i a t e d r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , in t h e belief t h a t p u n i s h ­

tailed d i s c u s s i o n ) .

m e n t w o u l d d e t e r c r i m e , p r o v i d e d t h a t it w a s

T h e p o s i t i o n s of t h e I J A - A B A J o i n t C o m m i s ­

c e r t a i n a n d swift, a s w e l l as c o u p l e d w i t h p u n ­

s i o n w e r e c o u n t e r e d , to little avail, b y t h o s e o f

i s h m e n t s g r a d e d a c c o r d i n g t o offense s e r i o u s ­

t h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y F u n d Task F o r c e o n S e n ­

ness. A s a n alternative to beheading a n d o t h e r

t e n c i n g P o l i c y T o w a r d Y o u n g Offenders ( 1 9 7 8 ) .

m e a n s of e x a c t i n g a d e a t h penalty, prisons w e r e

It c o n d u c t e d a n e x h a u s t i v e r e v i e w of a v a i l a b l e

buih as a m o r e h u m a n e option, for adults a n d ju­

d a t a a n d r e s e a r c h o n c r i m i n a l a n d juvenile jus­

veniles. Neoclassical thinkers' c h o i c e t o confine

tice s y s t e m policies governing the handling of

juveniles in a d u l t p r i s o n s is e x a c t l y w h a t t h e

s e r i o u s a n d violent juvenile offenders. C o n ­

progressive reformers found abhorrent, leading

c l u d i n g t h a t "the t h e o r y b e h i n d t h e j u v e n i l e

t h e m to c r e a t e t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m .

c o u r t is n o t m e r e l y obsolete; it is a fairy tale t h a t

Utilitarian and just deserts philosophies

n e v e r c a m e true" ( Z i m r i n g , 1 9 7 8 , p. 6 ) , it fash­

s o u g h t to b r i n g a n e n d to t h e o p t i m i s t i c e r a t h e

i o n e d a "discrete p o l i c y t o w a r d y o u t h c r i m e "

progressive reformers established. T h e pro­

g u i d e d b y f o u r p r i n c i p l e s : c u l p a b i l i t y (the o l d e r

g r e s s i v e e r a w a s "a p e r i o d in A m e r i c a n h i s t o r y

t h e a d o l e s c e n t , t h e g r e a t e r the d e g r e e of r e s p o n ­

that w a s b a s e d o n h o p e a n d d e d i c a t e d to t h e

sibility), d i m i n i s h e d r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (less p u n ­

p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t d e l i n q u e n c y a n d c r i m e , like

i s h m e n t for c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d b y y o u n g e r a d o ­

other social problems, could be addressed by

l e s c e n t s b e c a u s e of t h e i r d i m i n i s h e d c a p a c i t y

compassion and mercy, by knowledge

t o c o n t r o l t h e i r c o n d u c t ) , p r o v i d i n g r o o m to r e ­

i m a g i n a t i o n . N o w , h o w e v e r , it a p p e a r s t h a t

and

f o r m (leaving y o u n g offenders' life c h a n c e s in­

n o n e of t h e s e a r e of u s e t o a n y o n e " ( E m p e y &

tact), and proportionality (punishment propor­

Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p. 4 6 0 ) .

t i o n a l to t h e s e r i o u s n e s s of t h e offense). T h e T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y F u n d Task F o r c e r e j e c t e d

Juvenile Justice Today

c a l l s for a b o l i t i o n of t h e juvenile c o u r t a n d r e c ­ o m m e n d e d i n s t e a d r e t h i n k i n g a n d r e f o r m of ju­ venile court principles and processes. J u s t d e s e r t s p h i l o s o p h y a n d p r a c t i c e g r e w in t h e 1 9 8 0 s a n d 1 9 9 0 s b e c a u s e o f rising c r i m e , prison overcrowding, and

disenchantment

w i t h t h e p r o s p e c t s of s u c c e s s f u l t r e a t m e n t p r o ­ g r a m s . M o r e generally, t h e s o c i a l u n r e s t of t h e 1 9 6 0 s a n d 1 9 7 0 s , e x p r e s s e d in t h e f o r m of civil r i g h t s p r o t e s t s , u r b a n riots, c a m p u s rebellions,

T h e m o d e r n j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e field is d o m i n a t e d b y t w o c o m p e t i n g p h i l o s o p h i c a l m o d e l s , just d e s e r t s a n d f a m i l y c o u r t . O n o n e h a n d , just d e ­ serts philosophies have gained strength over the past decade. O n the other hand, the juvenile court has b e c o m e m o r e institutionalized as a "juvenile a n d f a m i l y c o u r t . " T h e l a t t e r d e v e l ­ opment requires explanation.

p o p u l a r c o n c l u s i o n that t h e d o m i n a n t p r o g r e s ­

I m p e t u s for r e f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l juvenile court into a juvenile a n d family c o u r t

sive philosophy of the past half century had

came

c o n t r i b u t e d to a n a r c h y , not o r d e r ( E m p e y &

1 9 7 0 s . In a d d i t i o n t o t h e I J A - A B A s t a n d a r d s , t h r e e o t h e r m a j o r sets w e r e d e v e l o p e d for juve­

a n d o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e V i e t n a m War, led to the

Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p p . 3 3 8 - 3 3 9 ) . 'As a result, R i c h ­

from standards development

in

the

22

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

nile j u s t i c e in t h e 1 9 7 0 s (totaling 3 0 v o l u m e s , A l l e n - H a g e n & H o w e l l , 1 9 8 2 ) . O n e set p e r t a i n s to c o r r e c t i o n s ( d e v e l o p e d by t h e A m e r i c a n Cor­ r e c t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n ) . Two o t h e r s a d d r e s s t h e general administration of juvenile justice. These are the National Advisory Committee ( N A C , 1 9 8 0 ) Standards for the Administration of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, a n d t h e set d e v e l o p e d b y t h e N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (NACC, 1 9 7 3 ) . T h e N A C C standards rec o n c e p t u a l i z e d t h e t r a d i t i o n a l juvenile c o u r t in r e c o m m e n d i n g a d o p t i o n of a f a m i l y c o u r t s t r u c t u r e t h a t w o u l d "provide for a n i n t e g r a t e d family c o u r t t h a t w o u l d m i n i m i z e d u p l i c a t i o n of efforts a n d p r o v i d e for c o m p r e h e n s i v e treat­ m e n t of family problems. T h e family c o u r t s t r u c t u r e b e t t e r e n a b l e s t h e c o u r t t o v i e w juve­ nile b e h a v i o r a s part of a m u c h b r o a d e r f r a m e ­ w o r k and focus on the family as a whole" ( N A C C , 1 9 7 6 , p. 1 6 ) . T h e N A C C s t a n d a r d s redefined t h e clientele of j u v e n i l e a n d family c o u r t s as "families w i t h s e r v i c e needs" a n d u r g e d t h e c o u r t to u s e its legal p o w e r s to " c o m m a n d t h e a s s i s t a n c e a n d c o o p e r a t i o n of institutions serving children a n d families" (p. 3 1 3 ) . T h e s e p r i n c i p l e s w e r e e x p a n d e d a n d reaffirmed p e r i o d i c a l l y in p u b ­ l i c a t i o n s of t h e r e n a m e d N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Ju­ v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J u d g e s (NCJFCJ) in E d ­ w a r d s ( 1 9 9 2 ) , Hofford ( 1 9 8 9 ) , a n d W h i t l a t c h ( 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e stronger emphasis on rehabilita­ tion is e v i d e n t in the Desktop Guide to Good Ju­ venile Probation Practice (National C e n t e r for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e , 1 9 9 1 ) . In 1 9 9 4 , t h e N C J F C J is­ s u e d a s t a t e m e n t of its b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s a n d vi­ s i o n for t h e family c o u r t : A unified family c o u r t , h o i i s e d in a c e n ­ trally l o c a t e d family c o u r t center, s h o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d in e v e r y jurisdiction. . . . T h e c o u r t w o u l d m a n a g e a n a r r a y of fam­ ily r e l a t e d c a s e s , i n c l u d i n g j u v e n i l e delin­ q u e n c y , d e p e n d e n c y , status offenses, paternity, c u s t o d y , s u p p o r t , m e n t a l h e a l t h , a d o p t i o n , family v i o l e n c e , a n d m a r i t a l dissolution. . . . T h e c o u r t facility m u s t s e r v e as t h e c e n t e r for t h e c o o r d i n a t i o n and provision of services and resources t o c h i l d r e n a n d families in t h e c o m m u ­ nity. T h e family c o u r t c e n t e r w o u l d p r o ­ v i d e intake, e v a l u a t i o n , a n d referral to a n a r r a y of p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e s e r v i c e s , m a n y of w h i c h m a y b e l o c a t e d o n site. . . . T h e family c o u r t m u s t r e t a i n t h e i m p o r ­

t a n t d e l i n q u e n c y f u n c t i o n s of t h e t r a d i ­ tional juvenile court. Delinquent behavior n e e d s to be a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h a b a l a n c e d a p p r o a c h w h i c h i n c l u d e s p r o t e c t i o n of the community, constructive punishment, a c c o u n t a b i l i t y a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of c o m p e ­ tency that will enable the child to b e c o m e a c o n t r i b u t i n g m e m b e r of society. (National Council of Juvenile a n d Family C o u r t Judges, 1 9 9 4 , p. 2) T h u s , t h e original c o n c e p t of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t h a s b e e n reaffirmed. T h e c u r r e n t s t a t u s of juvenile justice reforms, however, c a n be c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a "schizoid revolution" ( E m ­ p e y & Stafford, 1 9 9 1 , p p . 4 6 5 - 4 8 7 ) b e c a u s e of t h e d o m i n a n c e of t h e s e c o m p e t i n g just d e s e r t s a n d family c o u r t p h i l o s o p h i e s . T h e f u n d a m e n ­ tal issue is h o w t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s v i e w s a d o l e s ­ cents. Are they immature children who, con­ s i s t e n t w i t h t h e e a r l y 1 9 t h c e n t u r y v i e w of c h i l d h o o d , d e s e r v e t h e benefit of a d e v e l o p ­ mental perspective and a second-chance op­ p o r t u n i t y to m a t u r e ? O r s h o u l d t h e y be s e e n a s part of t h e c r i m i n a l e l e m e n t o f o u r society, d e ­ serving of p u n i s h m e n t in a s y s t e m t h a t v i e w s t h e m as if t h e y w e r e a d u l t s ? A s s e s s m e n t of t h e r e s u l t s o f this c o m p e t i t i o n m u s t a w a i t t h e e n d of this v o l u m e .

Summary T h e h i s t o r y of U . S . d e l i n q u e n c y p o l i c y b e g a n w i t h d i s r e g a r d for c h i l d h o o d . N e i t h e r it n o r a d o l e s c e n c e h a d yet b e e n defined; t h u s , n o dis­ t i n c t i o n w a s m a d e in a p p l i c a t i o n o f p e n a l m e a ­ s u r e s to juveniles a n d a d u l t s . Public b e a t i n g s and torture gave w a y to imprisonment. More e n l i g h t e n e d r e f o r m e r s c r e a t e d j u v e n i l e refor­ m a t o r i e s as alternatives to prisons. Initially v i e w e d as a first resort, r e f o r m a t o r i e s also h a n ­ d l e d j u v e n i l e s c o n v i c t e d in c r i m i n a l c o u r t . T h e s e g r a d u a l l y c a m e to b e s e e n a s a last r e s o r t in a c o n t i n u u m of s o c i a l c o n t r o l s , a l t h o u g h their u s e a s s u c h n e v e r m a t e r i a l i z e d . P r o g r e s s i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e s o u r c e s of juvenile delinquency coupled with repudia­ tion of i n c a r c e r a t i o n p r o v i d e d t h e w a y for c r e a ­ tion of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t a n d , w i t h it, t h e j u v e ­ nile justice s y s t e m . T h e n e w a p p a r a t u s , c r e a t e d n e a r l y 1 0 0 y e a r s ago, w a s to s e r v e as a n alter­ native to h a n d l i n g juvenile d e l i n q u e n c y in t h e criminal justice system. Interventions focused o n t h e offender r a t h e r t h a n t h e offense. E l i m i ­

Juvenile Reform Movements

23

n a t i o n of t h e life c h a n c e s of juveniles c a m e to

A m e r i c a n experiment w a s almost jettisoned.

b e c o n s i d e r e d a s e r i o u s matter. T h e p r o m i s e o f

I n s t e a d , p u b l i c p o l i c y c a l l e d for a l t e r n a t i v e s to

r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , t h r o u g h e a r l y i n t e r v e n t i o n that

t h e juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m : p r e v e n t i o n , d i v e r ­

r e m e d i a t e d t h e s o u r c e s of p r o b l e m b e h a v i o r in

sion, a n d alternatives to i n c a r c e r a t i o n . Con­

t h e c o m m u n i t y , family, s c h o o l , p e e r g r o u p , a n d

f i n e m e n t of a d o l e s c e n t s w h o h a d n o t c o m m i t ­

i n d i v i d u a l , p r o v i d e d t h e i m p e t u s for grovrth of

t e d a c r i m e w a s r e p u d i a t e d , a l o n g viath jailing

the juvenile justice system. Incarceration, how­

of juveniles. H u m a n e a l t e r n a t i v e s to i n c a r c e r a ­

ever, c o n t i n u e d to b e a favorite r e s p o n s e .

tion were encouraged.

T h e m o d e r n era opened with attacks on the

T h e n c a m e the current reform movement,

j u v e n i l e c o u r t , b l a m i n g it for not e l i m i n a t i n g

r e t u r n i n g t o t h e p r e - I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n poli­

a d o l e s c e n t m i s b e h a v i o r . Its i n f o r m a l p r o c e ­

c i e s o f p l a c i n g j u v e n i l e s in t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e

d u r e s , i n t e n d e d to h e l p it a c h i e v e a p r i m a r y

s y s t e m a n d a d u l t p r i s o n s . Just d e s e r t s a n d p u n ­

goal of a c t i n g in t h e best i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d ,

i s h m e n t h a v e b e c o m e t h e f a v o r e d p u b l i c poli­

c a m e i n t o q u e s t i o n . L i b e r t a r i a n s a n d labeling

cies, over prevention, treatment, and rehabili­

t h e o r i s t s a c c u s e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t of defeat­

tation. O n c e a g a i n , p u n i s h i n g t h e offense r a t h e r

ing its o w n p u r p o s e s in t h e a p p h c a t i o n of c o n ­

t h a n the offender is t h e o b j e c t of c u r r e n t c r i m e

trols to juvenile

policy.

misbehavior. The

unique

2 Landmark Federal Legislation

T

his chapter reviews the fourth juvenile justice reform movement, delinquency prevention and provision of alternatives to the juvenile justice system. It culminated in the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 (PL. 93-415). This federal legislation wrrought the most significant and controversial advances in the evolution of the juvenile justice system. Developments chronicled in Chapter 1—the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967a), the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) Corrections Survey (1967), the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals (1973), and several Supreme Court Decisions—led to a new federal presence in the juvenile delinquency field in the form of the landmark JJDP Act. This act, however, was preceded by federal legislation in the 1960s that was much narrower in scope. This earlier legislation had been stimulated by growing juvenile delinquency and disenchantment with the juvenile justice system.

Previous Federal Juvenile Delinquency Legislation Federal involvement in juvenile delinquency was not significant before the 1960s (Committee on Education and Labor, 1974, p. 3). Although a Children's Bureau was established in 1912, it paid minimal attention to juvenile delinquency. It did little more than collect data on juvenile court handling of children, al24

though its mandate included investigating the operations of juvenile courts. In 1 9 4 8 , President Harry Truman convened the Mid-Century Conference on Children and Youth. It addressed methods for improving juvenile courts and social services (Raley, 1995). As a result, an Interdepartmental Committee on Children and Youth was established to coordinate federal agencies' programs in these areas. Presidential requests in 1 9 5 5 , 1 9 5 6 , and 1957 for legislation to combat delinquency (which had evidenced growth in the postwar era) were rejected by the Congress (Committee on Education and Labor, 1974, p. 63). The White House Conference on Children and Youth (Proceedings of the White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1 9 6 0 ) spurred federal activity. It provided the impetus for the Crime Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, established in 1961. This entity, consisting of representatives of federal departments, launched delinquency prevention experiments in several cities—patterned after the Mobilization for Youth model. These soon were absorbed, however, in the War on Poverty programs initiated by President Lyndon Johnson in the mid-1960s (Miller & Ohlin, 1985, pp. 20-21). Mobilization for Youth (MYF), founded in New York City in 1962 (Bibb, 1967), was the first project funded under the federal Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1 9 6 1 . This massive program, covering 67 blocks, was funded jointly by the Crime Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime, the National Institute of Mental Health,

L a n d m a r k Federal Legislation

25

t h e F o r d F o u n d a t i o n , a n d t h e City o f N e w York.

nile d e l i n q u e n c y s t r a t e g y b u t n e v e r r e q u e s t e d

D e s i g n e d t o test C l o w a r d a n d Ohlin's

funding

(1960)

" o p p o r t u n i t y theory," it a i m e d to c h a n g e t h e o p ­

for s t a t e j u v e n i l e

services (Hurst,

1 9 9 0 ) . C o n g r e s s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e office H E W

p o r t u n i t y s t r u c t u r e for d e l i n q u e n t y o u t h . M Y F

e s t a b l i s h e d to i m p l e m e n t t h e J u v e n i l e Delin­

o p e r a t e d four s e r v i c e divisions: t h e W o r l d of

quency Prevention Act, the Youth Development

Work (creating and accessing work opportuni­

and Delinquency Prevention Administration

ties), t h e W o r l d o f E d u c a t i o n ( i m p r o v i n g e d u ­

(YDDPA), failed t o i m p l e m e n t t h e n e w a c t ef­

cation and increasing educational achieve­

fectively, resulting in m o r e e x t e n s i v e j u v e n i l e

m e n t ) . I n d i v i d u a l a n d F a m i l y S e r v i c e s (helping

j u s t i c e funding u n d e r t h e L a w E n f o r c e m e n t A s ­

y o u t h s a n d families

sistance Administration (LEAA) (Committee on

access social

services

through Neighborhood Service Centers), and Specialized

S e r v i c e s to G r o u p s ,

E d u c a t i o n a n d Labor, 1 9 7 4 , p p . 2 1 - 2 2 , 3 0 - 3 3 ) .

including

T h e L E A A w a s a n e w federal a g e n c y c r e a t e d

g a n g s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , C l o w a r d a n d Ohlin's t h e ­

b y t h e O m n i b u s C r i m e C o n t r o l a n d Safe S t r e e t s

o r y c o u l d n o t b e t e s t e d b e c a u s e of p o o r p r o g r a m

A c t ( O m n i b u s C r i m e A c t ) of 1 9 6 8 ( 4 2 U . S . C .

i m p l e m e n t a t i o n (Miller, 1 9 8 5 ) a n d b e c a u s e it

3 7 8 2 ) in t h e U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e to s p e a r ­

w a s a b o r t e d as a r e s u l t of a c h a n g e in federal

h e a d t h e "War o n C r i m e " d e c l a r e d b y P r e s i d e n t

priorities following t h e a s s a s s i n a t i o n of Presi­

R i c h a r d N i x o n in 1 9 6 8 ( C a p l a n , 1 9 7 6 ; E m p e y ,

d e n t K e n n e d y (Miller, 1 9 9 0 ) . M Y F n e v e r t h e l e s s

1 9 7 4 ; Harris, 1 9 7 2 ; Jacob, 1 9 7 4 ; Milakovich &

r e p r e s e n t e d a p i o n e e r i n g a p p r o a c h to delin­

Weis, 1 9 7 5 ; M u r p h y

q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n t h a t w a s b r o a d in s c o p e a n d

Tonry 1 9 9 4 a , 1 9 9 4 b ; Vorenberg, 1 9 7 2 ) . T h e

i n s t i g a t e d federal i n v o l v e m e n t in t h e field.

W a r o n C r i m e is a figure o f s p e e c h t h a t r e q u i r e s

T h e J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n c y a n d Y o u t h Of­

1 9 7 2 ; Reiman, 1 9 7 9 ;

some explanation.

fenses C o n t r o l A c t of 1 9 6 1 ( u n d e r w h i c h t h e M Y F program was h m d e d ) , and the 1 9 6 4 and

It is s u p p o s e d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c o m m u ­

1 9 6 5 a m e n d m e n t s t o it, a i m e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e

nity is s e r i o u s l y i m p e r i l e d b y f o r c e s b e n t

n e w m e t h o d s of d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n a n d

o n its d e s t r u c t i o n a n d c a l l s for t h e m o u n t ­

c o n t r o l . It h e l p e d s u p p o r t s u c h i n n o v a t i v e p r o ­

ing of efforts t h a t h a v e c l a i m s o n all a v a i l ­

grams as the Neighborhood Youth Corps, the

a b l e r e s o u r c e s to defeat t h e peril. T h e r h e ­

Legal S e r v i c e s Corporation, and Head Start.

t o r i c a l shift f r o m " c r i m e c o n t r o l " t o " w a r

T h e s e s e r v e d as m o d e l s for later p r o g r a m s u n ­

o n c r i m e " signifies t h e t r a n s i t i o n f r o m a

der President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty

r o u t i n e c o n c e r n t o a state of e m e r g e n c y .

(Raley, 1 9 9 5 ) . O n l y $ 1 9 . 2 m i l l i o n w a s a p p r o ­

(Bittner, 1 9 7 0 , p. 4 8 )

p r i a t e d , h o w e v e r , a n d little w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d t o w a r d t h e m a i n p u r p o s e of t h e l a w ( C o m m i t t e e o n t h e J u d i c i a r y , 1 9 7 4 , p. 2 7 ) . It w a s f o l l o w e d by the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention a n d C o n t r o l A c t of 1 9 6 8 , d e s i g n e d to p r o v i d e federal f u n d s to s t a t e s a n d localities to i m p r o v e their j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y s e r v i c e s . Its effectiveness w a s q u e s t i o n a b l e ( J o r d a n & Dye, 1 9 7 0 ; Poller, 1 9 7 3 ) and was further diminished by a contro­ v e r s y r e g a r d i n g "block" ( g e n e r a l ) g r a n t s t o t h e states ( C o m m i t t e e on E d u c a t i o n a n d Labor, 1 9 7 4 , p. 4 ) . It w a s a m e n d e d in 1 9 7 1 , r e n a m e d the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Act, and extended through 1 9 7 2 . T h e n e w act created an Interdepartmental C o u n c i l to C o o r d i n a t e F e d e r a l J u v e n i l e Delin­ q u e n c y P r o g r a m s . All o f t h e s e legislative a c t s in t h e 1 9 6 0 s w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d b y t h e D e p a r t ­ m e n t of Health, E d u c a t i o n , and Welfare (HEW). H E W c o n c e n t r a t e d m a i n l y o n d e v e l o p m e n t of Youth Services Bureaus, which were intended t o p r o v i d e c o o r d i n a t e d y o u t h s e r v i c e s for di­ v e r t e d y o u t h . H E W d e v e l o p e d a n a t i o n a l juve­

T h e O m n i b u s C r i m e A c t a u t h o r i z e d funding to juvenile c o u r t s a n d c o r r e c t i o n a l s y s t e m s , a n d it e n c o u r a g e d s c r e e n i n g s t a t u s offenders o u t of t h e juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m . L E A A f u n d e d de­ l i n q u e n c y p r o g r a m s of a w i d e v a r i e t y u n d e r its b r o a d a u t h o r i t y . A g r e e m e n t w a s r e a c h e d be­ t w e e n t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l a n d t h e s e c r e t a r y of H E W that L E A A w o u l d limit its p r o g r a m a c t i v i ­ ties t o t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m , a n d H E W would concentrate on programming outside t h e juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m ( C o m m i t t e e o n E d u ­ c a t i o n a n d L a b o r , 1 9 7 4 , p. 4 ) . B y t h e e n d of 1 9 7 0 , m o r e t h a n 4 0 of L E A A s S t a t e P l a n n i n g Agencies created under the Omnibus Crime C o n t r o l a n d Safe S t r e e t s A c t w e r e a d m i n i s t e r ­ ing t h e s t a t e c o m p o n e n t of H E W ' s J u v e n i l e De­ linquency and Control Act Program (Commit­ t e e o n t h e J u d i c i a r y , 1 9 7 4 , p. 3 0 ) . C o n g r e s s e x p a n d e d L E A A s a u t h o r i t y in 1 9 7 1 a n d 1 9 7 3 , requiring the agency to place an even greater e m p h a s i s o n j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y . L E A A fund­ i n g for d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n a n d c o n t r o l

26

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

programs increased during 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 4 (Com­

n o n c r i m i n a l offenses t h e t r e a t m e n t of

m i t t e e o n tlie J u d i c i a r y , 1 9 7 4 , p. 3 1 ) .

s u c h offenses as t r u a n c y a n d r u n a w a y a l o n g w i t h s u c h s e r i o u s c r i m e s as r o b ­ bery and burglary has m e a n t that chil­

Congressional Hearings o n the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act

d r e n w h o a r e g u i l t y o f s e r i o u s offenses [do not r e c e i v e a d e q u a t e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n services]. The

result has been not the decrimi­

In 1 9 7 4 , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n g r e s s e n a c t e d

n a l i z a t i o n of c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d b y a d o l e s ­

n e w legislation t h a t c r y s t a l l i z e d t h e fourth r e ­

c e n t s but t h e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n of s u c h

form movement: delinquency prevention and

social and adjustment problems as run­

a l t e r n a t i v e s to t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e

system.

ning a w a y a n d i n c o r r i g i b i l i t y . O n c e a

T h r e e y e a r s of h e a r i n g s p r e c e d e d d e v e l o p m e n t

young person enters the juvenile justice

of t h e J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e a n d D e l i n q u e n c y P r e v e n ­

s y s t e m for w h a t e v e r r e a s o n , h e w i l l p r o b ­

tion A c t o f 1 9 7 4 (JJDP A c t ) . T h e r e s u l t s of t h e s e

a b l y b e p i c k e d u p a g a i n for d e l i n q u e n t

h e a r i n g s ( H e a r i n g s B e f o r e t h e S u b c o m m i t t e e to

a c t s a n d e v e n t u a l l y h e will, m o r e often

1972-1973,

t h a n not, g r a d u a t e t o a life o f c r i m e . . . .

Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, 1973;

Hearings Before the S u b c o m m i t t e e on

It is often v i t a l t h a t t h e y o u t h b e

E q u a l O p p o r t u n i t y , 1 9 7 4 ) w e r e s u m m a r i z e d in

r e a c h e d before b e c o m i n g involved with

the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Report

t h e f o r m a l j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . In t h e

o n its v e r s i o n of t h e JJDP A c t (S. 8 2 1 ; C o m m i t t e e

first i n s t a n c e , p r e v e n t i v e s e r v i c e s s h o u l d

o n t h e J u d i c i a r y , 1 9 7 4 , p p . 2 0 - 2 4 ) a n d in t h e

b e a v a i l a b l e for identifiable, h i g h l y v u l ­

U.S.

H o u s e of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s C o m m i t t e e o n

n e r a b l e g r o u p s to r e d u c e t h e i r e x p e c t e d

E d u c a t i o n and Labor's report on the H o u s e ver­

or p r o b a b l e r a t e of d e l i n q u e n c y . If c h i l ­

s i o n o f t h e JJDP A c t (H.R. 1 5 2 7 6 ; C o m m i t t e e o n

d r e n c o m m i t a c t s w h i c h r e s u l t in j u v e ­

E d u c a t i o n a n d Labor, 1 9 7 4 ) .

n i l e c o u r t referral, t h e n a n a t t e m p t

S e n a t o r B i r c h B a y h , c h a i r m a n of t h e S e n a t e J u d i c i a r y C o m m i t t e e a n d c h i e f a r c h i t e c t of t h e

s h o u l d b e m a d e to d i v e r t t h e m f r o m t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t . W h e n y o u t h c o m m i t seri­

JJDP A c t , m a d e t h e following a s s e s s m e n t of the

ous crimes and must clearly be subjected

juvenile justice s y s t e m in his S e n a t e floor s p e e c h

to t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e

arguing for p a s s a g e of t h e n e w legislation:

system, then the preferred disposition should be c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d treatment.

Sadly, w e m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t o u r p r e s e n t j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m h a s p r o v e n itself

G i v e n t h e h i s t o r y of f a i l u r e in p r e v e n t ­ ing d e l i n q u e n c y , t h e r e is a c o m p e l l i n g

i n c a p a b l e of t u r n i n g t h e s e y o u n g p e o p l e

n e e d for a t h o r o u g h g o i n g n a t i o n a l r e ­

a w a y f r o m a life of c r i m e . T h e r e c i d i v i s m

s p o n s e to t h i s p r o b l e m . It is e s s e n t i a l to

r a t e for p e r s o n s u n d e r 2 0 is t h e h i g h e s t

prevent children from coming under the

of a n y a g e g r o u p , c l o s e to 7 5 % w i t h i n 4

j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t or b e i n g

y e a r s . . . . O u r o v e r c r o w d e d , understaffed

involved with the traditional juvenile

juvenile courts, probation services and

c o r r e c t i o n a l s y s t e m , if t h a t is p o s s i b l e ,

training schools rarely have the time,

for b e i n g l a b e l e d as d e l i n q u e n t o r p r e d e ­

energy, or r e s o u r c e s to offer t h e i n d i v i d u a l ­

l i n q u e n t . All a l t e r n a t i v e s to c o u n t e r p r o ­

i z e d t r e a t m e n t w h i c h t h e j u v e n i l e justice

d u c t i v e i n v o l v e m e n t of y o u n g p e o p l e in

system should provide. . . . The

t r a g e d y of t h e f a i l u r e of t h e j u v e ­

the juvenile justice system m u s t be real­ i z e d at e v e r y p o i n t of d e c i s i o n m a k i n g —

n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m is f u r t h e r c o m ­

from arrest through detention, c o u r t ap­

p o u n d e d b y t h e fact t h a t n e a r l y o n e - h a l f

p e a r a n c e , c o m m i t m e n t , probation, a n d

of t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s c a s e l o a d i n v o l v e s

parole. If t h e c h i l d m u s t go i n t o t h e j u v e ­

n o n c r i m i n a l offenses, s u c h as d e p e n d ­

n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m for a s e r i o u s offense,

e n c y , n e g l e c t , a n d s t a t u s offenses i n c l u d ­

t h e n a l t e r n a t i v e s for different n e e d s a n d

ing i n c o r r i g i b i l i t y , w a y w a r d n e s s , a n d

c i r c u m s t a n c e s s h o u l d b e a v a i l a b l e to t h e

b e y o n d c o n t r o l , w h i c h a r e c r i m e s of w h i c h

j u v e n i l e c o u r t . T h i s bill p r o v i d e s , at t h e

o n l y c h i l d r e n c a n b e guilty. D u e to t h e

S t a t e a n d l o c a l levels, w h e r e this b a t t l e

juvenile court's jurisdiction over these

m u s t be w o n , long o v e r d u e a l t e r n a t i v e s

Landmark Federal Legislation for y o u t h b o t h o u t s i d e a n d i n s i d e t h e juvenile justice system. (Bayh, 1 9 7 4 a , p. S 1 3 4 8 8 )

27

level of t o l e r a n c e of a n y f u r t h e r d e v i a n c e ; the c u r f e w v i o l a t o r w h o is a n identified p a r o l e e or p r o b a t i o n e r m a y go into d e t e n ­ tion; t h e n o n - l a b e l e d offender w i l l fre­

It is e v i d e n t f r o m S e n a t o r B a y h ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e C o n g r e s s i n c o r p o r a t e d labeling t h e o r y

q u e n t l y go h o m e ; a n d t h e m i s b e h a v i n g p r o b a t i o n e r will b e r e m a n d e d t o t h e v i c e -

a n d n o t i o n s of utilitarian p h i l o s o p h y in its a s ­

p r i n c i p a l ' s office faster t h a n his n o n - p r o ­

sessment of the juvenile justice system. Other

b a t i o n fellow. A s t h e s e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s

r e f e r e n c e s in t h e legislative h i s t o r y f u r t h e r il­

a r e m a d e , t h e y o u t h is f u r t h e r c o n v i n c e d

l u s t r a t e the extent to virhich Congress w a s influ­

of t h e difference a n d o f s o c i e t y ' s d i s c r i m i ­

e n c e d b y these vievirpoints, specifically Schiir's

n a t i o n . If t h e u n a c c e p t a b l e b e h a v i o r c o n ­

( 1 9 7 3 ) "radical nonintervention" notion.

t i n u e s a n d t h e y o u n g s t e r p e n e t r a t e s fur­ t h e r into t h e j u s t i c e a n d c o r r e c t i o n a l

First, m o s t c h i l d r e n a n d y o u t h m a t u r e

a p p a r a t u s , h e is s u b j e c t e d to a n i n c r e a s i n g

a n d d e v e l o p into p o s i t i v e a n d p r o d u c t i v e

d e g r e e of s e g r e g a t i o n f r o m o t h e r s o f his

m e m b e r s of society. . . .

k i n d — f r o m s p e c i a l s c h o o l s to d e t e n t i o n to

S e c o n d , it is w e l l d o c u m e n t e d t h a t y o u t h s w h o s e b e h a v i o r is n o n c r i m i ­

state c o r r e c t i o n a l s c h o o l — e a c h step invites a greater identification with the subcul­

n a l . . . have inordinately preoccupied

t u r e of t h e d e l i n q u e n t , a n d so, again, his

t h e a t t e n t i o n a n d r e s o u r c e s of t h e j u v e ­

anti-adult-antisocial-peer-oriented values

nile justice system. Nearly 4 0 p e r c e n t

are reinforced a n d confirmed a n d the

( o n e - h a l f m i l l i o n p e r y e a r ) of t h e c h i l d r e n

s o c i a l i z i n g c o n f o r m i t y - p r o d u c i n g influ­

b r o u g h t to t h e a t t e n t i o n of t h e j u v e n i l e

e n c e s of t h e m a j o r i t y s o c i e t y a r e r e m o v e d

justice system have committed no crimi­

further f r o m h i m . T h u s , as t h e state's

n a l a c t , in a d u l t t e r m s , a n d a r e i n v o l v e d

"treatment" is intensified, s o too is t h e

simply b e c a u s e they are juveniles. . . .

r e j e c t i o n , b o t h c o v e r t , a n d o v e r t , a n d as

T h e s e [are] s t a t u s offenders. . . .

w e try h a r d e r to s o c i a l i z e t h e d e v i a n t ,

T h i r d , if t h e s t a t u s offender w e r e

we remove him further from the normal

diverted into the social service delivery

socializing processes. Our objective m u s t

network, the remaining juveniles w o u l d

be, therefore, to m i n i m i z e t h e y o u n g s t e r ' s

be those w h o have c o m m i t t e d acts

p e n e t r a t i o n into all n e g a t i v e labeling, in­

which, under any circumstances, would

stitutional p r o c e s s e s . To t h i s e n d , w e m u s t

be considered criminal. (Committee on

e x p l o i t all of t h e a v a i l a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s at

the Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , pp. 22-23)

e a c h d e c i s i o n point, i.e., s u s p e n s i o n , e x ­

A l l e n B r e e d , p r e s i d e n t of t h e N a t i o n a l A s s o ­

commitments, parole revocation. At each

pulsion, a r r e s t , d e t e n t i o n , c o u r t w a r d s h i p , c i a t i o n of S t a t e J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n c y P r o g r a m

c r i t i c a l step, w e s h o u l d e x h a u s t t h e less r e ­

A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , m a d e t h e c a s e for labeling the­

jecting, t h e less s t i g m a t i z i n g r e c o u r s e be­

o r y a n d n o n i n t e r v e n t i o n in his t e s t i m o n y be­

fore taking t h e n e x t e x p u l s i v e step.

fore the S e n a t e S u b c o m m i t t e e o n Juvenile Justice ( C o m m i t t e e o n the Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , pp. 2 3 - 2 4 ) : The structural and procedural system h a s t w o built-in p a t t e r n s t h a t t e n d to b e self-defeating. First, t h e y o u t h in n e e d is identified a n d labeled. A s h e is labeled, certain sanctions are imposed and certain critical stances assumed. T h e sanctions a n d t h e s t a n c e t e n d to c o n v i n c e t h e indi­ v i d u a l t h a t h e is a d e v i a n t , t h a t h e is dif­ ferent, a n d to c o n f i r m a n y d o u b t s h e m a y h a v e h a d a b o u t his c a p a c i t y to f u n c t i o n in t h e m a n n e r of t h e majority. S e c o n d , as t h e label is m o r e s e c u r e l y affixed, society's agencies (police, schools, etc.) lower their

Moreover, the U.S. Senate was influenced by those w h o believed that juvenile justice system r e f o r m s s h o u l d go f u r t h e r in t h e d i r e c t i o n of "deinstitutionalization" (removal of juveniles f r o m s e c u r e i n c a r c e r a t i o n settings). T h i s a r g u ­ m e n t w a s m a d e p o i g n a n t l y b y Dr. J e r o m e Miller, c o m m i s s i o n e r of Y o u t h S e r v i c e s in M a s ­ s a c h u s e t t s , w h o h a d r e c e n t l y c l o s e d t h e state's juvenile reform schools a n d replaced t h e m w i t h c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d p r o g r a m s f u n d e d in large p a r t w i t h L E A A funds ( H e a r i n g s , 1 9 7 2 ­ 1 9 7 3 , p. 3 5 ) . H e testified: I a m of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e p r i m a r y a n d m o s t c r u c i a l n e e d , if w e a r e to deal effec­

28

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE l i v e l y w i t h s e r i o u s d e h n q u e n c y in c o n t e m ­

t u r e s , b y t h e m s e l v e s , will be u n l i k e l y to p r o ­

p o r a r y A m e r i c a n society, is to r e f o r m a n d

d u c e d r a m a t i c r e d u c t i o n s in d e l i n q u e n c y a n d

r e s t r u c t u r e , at t h e m o s t b a s i c levels, the

criminality. I n s t e a d , w e will h a v e m o r e refined

juvenile correctional system. Although

failure" (p. 6 ) .

t h e r e c a n b e little q u e s t i o n that ultimately,

H o w a r d James's ( 1 9 6 7 ) R i l i t z e r Prize-winning

delinquency prevention and diversion pro­

e x p o s e of j u v e n i l e c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s a l s o

g r a m s will be t h e b a c k b o n e of a r e c o n s t i ­

got C o n g r e s s ' s a t t e n t i o n . In fact, t h e last w o r d s

tuted juvenile justice system, such pro­

p r i n t e d in t h e 1 9 7 3 v o l u m e of H e a r i n g s B e f o r e

g r a m s will n o t b e effective until s u c h t i m e

t h e S u b c o m m i t t e e to I n v e s t i g a t e J u v e n i l e De­

as w e h a v e p r o v i d e d a l t e r n a t i v e s for t h o s e

l i n q u e n c y o n t h e JJDP A c t , just p r i o r to its in­

youngsters w h o are most deeply involved

t r o d u c t i o n to C o n g r e s s , w a s a n e x c e r p t f r o m

in t h e j u v e n i l e justice system. (Hearings,

J a m e s ' s book:

1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 3 , p. 6 1 ) W h a t is n e e d e d m o s t is a n a t i o n a l effort— M i l l e r r e c o m m e n d e d full d e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i ­

a b i n d i n g t o g e t h e r of all g r o u p s i n t e r e s t e d

z a t i o n of r e f o r m a t o r i e s b y v i r t u e of h a v i n g d e m ­

in t h e p r o b l e m s of c h i l d r e n , all w o r k i n g

o n s t r a t e d in M a s s a c h u s e t t s t h a t r e f o r m s c h o o l s

for t h e s a m e goal, all p r e s s i n g for r e f o r m .

c o u l d be replaced by c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d pro­

S u c h a g r o u p , if it s p o k e w i t h a single,

g r a m s . His a c t i o n s a n d t e s t i m o n y p r o v i d e d c o n ­

concerned voice, could move mountains.

s i d e r a b l e i m p e t u s for p r o v i s i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e s

( H e a r i n g s , 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 7 3 , p. 9 2 8 )

to c o n f i n e m e n t in t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . T h e s e looked m o r e promising (Empey, 1 9 7 4 ) . Moreover,

empirical

evidence

of

training

schools' ineffectiveness w a s available. Lipton,

The Congress was

not completely

per­

s u a d e d of t h e efficacy of a l t e r n a t i v e s to i n c a r ­ c e r a t i o n for s e r i o u s offenders.

M a r t i n s o n , a n d Wilks's ( 1 9 7 5 ; see also M a r t i n ­ s o n , 1 9 7 4 ) c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e v i e w of c o r r e c ­

J u v e n i l e j u s t i c e officials a r e i n c r e a s i n g l y

t i o n a l p r o g r a m s h a d just b e e n c o m p l e t e d , c o n ­

r e c o g n i z i n g t h e n e e d for a l t e r n a t i v e f o r m s

c l u d i n g that "nothing w o r k s . " L e r m a n ( 1 9 7 0 b ,

of t r e a t m e n t for s e r i o u s y o u t h f u l offenders

1 9 7 1 ) and others (Lerman, 1 9 7 0 a ) had arrived

which are community-based. Custodial

at s i m i l a r c o n c l u s i o n s . T r a i n i n g s c h o o l a n d

i n c a r c e r a t i o n in large s t a t e w i d e institu­

p r i s o n r e h a b i l i t a t i o n state-of-the-art w a s s u m ­

tions h a s p r o v e n to be ineffective as a

m a r i z e d best b y Keller a n d A l p e r ( 1 9 7 0 ) :

treatment method; however, evaluation of c o m m u n i t y - b a s e d a l t e r n a t i v e s h a s indi­

T h e r a t e of failure f r o m o u r fixed institu­ t i o n s for y o u n g a n d old offenders h a s remained more constant through the years than any other index upon which we r e l y — c o s t of living, D o w J o n e s , or t h e a n n u a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n of rain. A n a v e r a g e of t h e r e c i d i v i s m r a t e s r e p o r t e d b y t h e m o s t reliable r e s e a r c h e r r u n s c o n s i s t e n t l y in a r a n g e of f r o m o n e - h a l f to t w o - t h i r d s . N o o t h e r facility c r e a t e d b y o u r s o c i e t y for d e a l i n g w i t h a n y o t h e r a r e a of s o c i a l pathology which showed such a consis­ t e n t l y h i g h r a t e of failure c o u l d so long e n d u r e , (p. x i ) R e a s o n s for t h e failure of p r i s o n s a n d train­ ing s c h o o l s w e r e u n c l e a r E m p e y ( 1 9 6 7 ) sug­ gested that the theory underlying custodial c o n f i n e m e n t w a s faulty. H e said, "Until i m ­ p r o v e m e n t s a r e m a d e in t h e t h e o r i e s w h i c h u n ­ d e r l i e t r e a t m e n t , c h a n g e s in c o r r e c t i o n a l s t r u c ­

c a t e d s o m e initial s u c c e s s e s b u t a s yet h a s not been conclusive. (Committee on the Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p. 2 5 ) C o n g r e s s t h u s o p t e d for t h e "least r e s t r i c t i v e alternative" for all j u v e n i l e offenders in t h e JJDP Act and required deinstitutionalization of s t a t u s offenders (DSO) a n d n o n o f f e n d e r s (de­ pendent and neglected). T h e Congress rea­ s o n e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t if t h e s y s t e m w e r e r e ­ s e r v e d for t h e m o s t s e r i o u s a n d d a n g e r o u s d e l i n q u e n t s , it c o u l d d o a b e t t e r job w i t h its s c a r c e r e s o u r c e s . N o n o f f e n d e r s , s t a t u s offend­ ers, a n d n o n s e r i o u s / n o n v i o l e n t offenders s h o u l d not o c c u p y b e d s in d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r s and reform schools. Their needs should be met t h r o u g h a l t e r n a t i v e p r o g r a m s , i n c l u d i n g shel­ ter c a r e , foster h o m e s , g r o u p h o m e s , a n d c o m ­ m u n i t y - b a s e d a l t e r n a t i v e s to i n c a r c e r a t i o n . T h e " s t a t e m e n t of t h e p r o b l e m " c o n t a i n e d in t h e r e p o r t of t h e C o m m i t t e e o n t h e J u d i c i a r y

Landmaurk F e d e r a l L e g i s l a d o n

29

( 1 9 7 4 ) idenUfied f o u r m a j o r p o l i c y

posidons

c r i m e s , s u c h as m u r d e r , r a p e , a n d robbery,

t h a t u n d e r g i r d e d t h e JJDP A c t . First, p u b l i c pol­

increased 2 1 6 % . During the s a m e period,

i c y m u s t give p r i o r i t y t o j u v e n i l e

a r r e s t s of j u v e n i l e s for p r o p e r t y c r i m e s ,

delinquency

p r e v e n t i o n . T h e c o m m i t t e e n o t e d t h a t "the

s u c h as b u r g l a r y a n d a u t o theft, i n c r e a s e d

p r o b l e m of j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y m u s t b e dealt

9 1 % . Between 1 9 6 0 and 1 9 7 0 , total juve­

w i t h in a n effective a n d m e a n i n g f u l m a n n e r if

nile a r r e s t s ( u n d e r 1 8 ) i n c r e a s e d a l m o s t

w e are to r e d u c e the ever increasing levels of

t h r e e t i m e s faster t h a n a d u l t a r r e s t s .

c r i m e a n d i m p r o v e t h e q u a l i t y o f Hfe in A m e r ­

R e c i d i v i s m r a t e s for j u v e n i l e offenders a r e

ica." T h e c o m m i t t e e q u o t e d t h e N a t i o n a l A d v i ­

e s t i m a t e d t o r a n g e from 6 0 % t o 7 5 % a n d

sory Commission on Criminal Justice Stand­

higher . . . With regard to the increasing

a r d s a n d Goals: " T h e h i g h e s t a t t e n t i o n m u s t b e

r a t e of j u v e n i l e c r i m e , r e c e n t c r i m e d a t a

given to preventing juvenile delinquency,

i n d i c a t e t h a t s e r i o u s j u v e n i l e c r i m e is

to

m i n i m i z i n g t h e i n v o l v e m e n t of y o u n g offend­

increasing at a lower rate; however, the

e r s in t h e j u v e n i l e a n d c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m

p r o b l e m r e m a i n s largely intractable, (p. 2 1 )

a n d to i n t e g r a t i n g d e l i n q u e n t s a n d y o u n g of­ fenders into the c o m m u n i t y " ( 1 9 7 4 , pp. 2 0 - 2 1 ) . S e c o n d , s t a t u s offenders m u s t b e p r o v i d e d w i t h s e r v i c e s o u t s i d e t h e juvenile j u s t i c e sys­ t e m . "Nearly 4 0 p e r c e n t ( o n e - h a l f m i l l i o n p e r y e a r ) of t h e c h i l d r e n b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of the juvenile justice system have c o m m i t t e d no c r i m i n a l a c t , in a d u l t t e r m s , a n d a r e i n v o l v e d s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e y a r e juveniles status offenders

T h e s e [are]

T h e s e juvenile status offend­

ers generally a r e inappropriate clients for the for­ mal police, courts, a n d corrections process of the juvenile justice system. T h e s e children and y o u t h s h o u l d b e c h a n n e l e d to t h o s e a g e n c i e s a n d p r o f e s s i o n s w h i c h a r e m a n d a t e d a n d in fact p u r p o r t to d e a l w i t h t h e s u b s t a n t i v e h u m a n a n d social issues involved in these areas" ( C o m m i t t e e o n t h e Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p. 2 3 ) . Third, increased juvenile justice system re­ sources and attention must be focused on the serious juvenile offender Congress expected that the juvenile justice system would be more effective if its limited r e s o u r c e s w e r e c o n c e n ­ t r a t e d o n m o r e s e r i o u s offenders. "If the status offender w e r e diverted into the social service de­ livery network, the r e m a i n i n g juveniles w o u l d be those w h o have c o m m i t t e d acts which, un­ der a n y c i r c u m s t a n c e s , would be considered c r i m i n a l . It is e s s e n t i a l t h a t g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n b e g i v e n t o s e r i o u s y o u t h c r i m e , w h i c h h a s in­ c r e a s e d significantly in r e c e n t years" (Commit­ tee o n the Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p. 2 4 ) . T h e d i s p r o p o r ­ t i o n a t e i n v o l v e m e n t of j u v e n i l e s in all m a j o r c r i m e categories was emphatically noted by the Committee on the Judiciary ( 1 9 7 4 ) : J u v e n i l e s u n d e r 1 8 a r e r e s p o n s i b l e for 5 1 % of t o t a l a r r e s t s for p r o p e r t y c r i m e s , 2 3 % o f v i o l e n t c r i m e s , a n d 4 5 % of all s e r i o u s c r i m e . F r o m 1 9 6 0 to t h e p r e s e n t , a r r e s t s of juveniles u n d e r 1 8 for v i o l e n t

Fourth, community-based p r o g r a m s m u s t be d e v e l o p e d to p r o v i d e p r o g r a m a l t e r n a t i v e s t o i n c a r c e r a t i o n . " T h e n e e d is p r e s e n t t o c o m p r e ­ h e n s i v e l y a s s e s s t h e effectiveness o f t r a d i t i o n a l institutional p r o c e d u r e s for d e a l i n g w i t h c e r ­ tain j u v e n i l e o f f e n d e r s . . . . [ a n d ] t h e s e a r c h for a l t e r n a t i v e s to i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of j u v e n i l e offenders m u s t b e c o n t i n u e d . . . . " ( C o m m i t t e e o n t h e Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p p . 2 4 - 2 5 ) . C o m m u n i t y b a s e d p r o g r a m s u s i n g t h e least r e s t r i c t i o n s p o s ­ sible, l o c a t e d n e a r t h e juvenile's h o m e , s e e m e d to h o l d t h e m o s t p r o m i s e . T h e Judiciary Committee's discovery that n e a r l y 4 0 % of i n c a r c e r a t e d j u v e n i l e s h a d c o m ­ mitted no criminal act startled the Congress. S e n a t o r H r u s k a ( 1 9 7 4 ) o b s e r v e d t h a t " T h e fig­ u r e is staggering in r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e d e t r i m e n ­ tal effects t h a t i n c a r c e r a t i o n h a s b e e n s h o w n t o p r o d u c e w i t h first o f f e n d e r s a n d j u v e n i l e s . " Thus, Congress was provided an empirical ba­ sis for c h a l l e n g i n g t h e i n f o r m a l o p e r a t i o n s of juvenile courts that m a d e possible the wide­ spread i n c a r c e r a t i o n of status offenders a n d nonoffenders. Outraged, Congress seriously considered eliminating juvenile court jurisdic­ tion o v e r s t a t u s offenders. H a v i n g b e e n

influ­

e n c e d by the work of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, t h e J u d i c i a r y C o m m i t t e e r e c o g n i z e d t h e n e e d to g r a n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rights to j u v e n i l e s i n v o l v e d in t h e f o r m a l s y s t e m . T h u s , t h e JJDP Act amended the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (which had remained virtually unchanged for 3 5 y e a r s ) to "provide b a s i c p r o c e d u r a l rights for juveniles w h o c o m e u n d e r F e d e r a l j u r i s d i c ­ tion a n d to b r i n g F e d e r a l p r o c e d u r e s u p t o t h e s t a n d a r d s set b y v a r i o u s m o d e l a c t s , m a n y s t a t e codes and court decisions" (Committee on the Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p. 1 9 ) .

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE

30

ers. . . . T h i r d , t h e s e a r c h for a l t e r n a t i v e s

T h e N e e d for S y s t e m I m p r o v e m e n t s

to i n s t i t u t i o n a U z a t i o n of j u v e n i l e offend­ Congress c o n c h i d e d that things h a d gotten

e r s m u s t be c o n t i n u e d . . . . F o u r t h , in large

o u t o f h a n d in t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . It w a s

measure, the agencies a n d institutions of

n o t m e e t i n g its ( i n d i v i d u a l i z e d justice) p r o m ­

t h e juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m h a v e not b e e n

ise. T h e q u e s t i o n w a s , W h a t kinds of c h a n g e s

h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e , a n d h a v e not b e e n w e l l

w o u l d r e v i v e t h e p r o m i s e ? In t h e v i e w of t h e

monitored. (Committee on the Judiciary,

C o n g r e s s , t h e s o l u t i o n l a y in t h r e e a r e n a s : de­

1 9 7 4 , pp. 2 4 - 2 5 )

linquency prevention, system improvements, a n d d e v e l o p m e n t of a l t e r n a t i v e s to juvenile jus­

T h e c o m m i t t e e c o n c l u d e d t h a t it w a s

tice system processing. Effective d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n p r o g r a m s

n e c e s s a r y , t h e r e f o r e , to p r o v i d e a c o m p r e ­

w e r e n e c e s s a r y to r e d u c e t h e flow of juveniles

h e n s i v e a n d c o o r d i n a t e d f o c u s t o t h e is­

into t h e s y s t e m . In t h e c o n g r e s s i o n a l view, to­

sues surrounding juvenile

day's d e p e n d e n t a n d n e g l e c t e d kids b e c o m e to­

p r e v e n t i o n , c o n t r o l , a n d offender rehabili­

m o r r o w ' s s t a t u s offenders, w h o

subsequently

delinquency

tation w i t h a b a l a n c e reflected by: assis­

b e c o m e d e l i n q u e n t s . It w a s i m p e r a t i v e that t h e

t a n c e to t h o s e a g e n c i e s a n d p r o f e s s i o n s

c y c l e b e b r o k e n , t h r o u g h a c o m b i n a t i o n of c o m ­

c h a r g e d w i t h t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for devel­

m u n i t y s e r v i c e s a n d a v o i d a n c e of labeling of

oping the positive potential of young peo­

t h e s e kids as "bad," t h e r e b y setting into m o t i o n

ple, t h e r e b y r e d u c i n g t h e Ukelihood o f

a self-fulfilling p r o p h e c y that m i g h t e n h a n c e

youthful criminal justice system involve­

t h e l i k e l i h o o d of s u b s e q u e n t d e l i n q u e n c y a n d

m e n t ; a s s i s t a n c e in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of

criminality.

Community

control

of

delin­

State a n d l o c a l m e c h a n i s m s d e s i g n e d to

q u e n c y t h e r e f o r e w a s p r e f e r r e d . In m a k i n g this

c h a n n e l juveniles, for w h o m t h e c r i m i n a l

choice. Congress adopted the approach recom­

j u s t i c e s y s t e m is i n a p p r o p r i a t e , a w a y f r o m

m e n d e d b y t h e C r i m e C o m m i s s i o n ( 1 9 6 7 a ] , giv­

a n d out of t h e s y s t e m into h u m a n p r o b ­

ing t o p p r i o r i t y to d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n by

lem-solving a g e n c i e s a n d professions; a n d

a d d r e s s i n g c o m m u n i t y c o n d i t i o n s , s c h o o l fail­

a s s i s t a n c e to p o l i c e , c o u r t s , a n d c o r r e c ­

u r e , f a m i l y p r o b l e m s , a n d u n e m p l o y m e n t . In

tional a g e n c i e s t o g e t h e r w i t h c o m m u n i t y

m a n y respects, the Congress adopted the view

r e s o u r c e s , in their efforts to c o n t r o l a n d

of C h i c a g o ' s p r o g r e s s i v e r e f o r m e r s , that juve­

r e d u c e c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d b y juveniles, to

nile d e l i n q u e n c y e m a n a t e s from undesirable

i m p r o v e t h e quality of j u s t i c e for juve­

c o m m u n i t y and family conditions, and that

niles, a n d to deal effectively a n d h u ­

community-generated solutions hold the most

m a n e l y w i t h offenders, (p. 2 2 )

p r o m i s e (Platt, 1 9 7 0 ) . Y o u t h S e r v i c e B u r e a u s , advocated by the Crime Commission, and other " m a j o r i n n o v a t i o n s in c o p i n g w i t h t h i s p r e ­ d e l i n q u e n t or p o t e n t i a l l y d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r " w e r e identified a s w a y s of "delivering n e e d e d s e r v i c e s or a t t e n t i o n in s u c h a w a y a n d at a t i m e t h a t m a y b e c r u c i a l in p r e v e n t i n g the d e v e l o p ­ m e n t of a c r i m i n a l c a r e e r " ( C o m m i t t e e o n t h e Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p. 2 3 ) . J u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m i m p r o v e m e n t s also w e r e s e e n as a t o p priority. T h e J u d i c i a r y C o m ­

T h e U.S. H o u s e of Representatives held h e a r i n g s in 1 9 7 4 o n t h e JJDP A c t ( H e a r i n g s B e ­ fore the S u b c o m m i t t e e o n E q u a l O p p o r t u n i t y , 1 9 7 4 ) . Congressman Claude Pepper s u m m e d u p t h e p r e d o m i n a n t t h e m e of t h e t e s t i m o n y heard by the Committee on Education and L a ­ b o r ( 1 9 7 4 , p. 5 ) w h e n h e d e s c r i b e d federal s u p ­ p o r t a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n of j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e p r o ­ g r a m s as a "national d i s g r a c e . " T h e c o m m i t t e e had found that

m i t t e e f o u n d four m a j o r p r o b l e m s s u r r o u n d i n g juvenile justice system operations. First, juvenile justice s y s t e m s t e n d to be f r a g m e n t e d , b i f u r c a t e d , a n d l o c a l i z e d in t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s e s to delin­ q u e n c y . . . . S e c o n d , t h e n e e d is p r e s e n t to c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y a s s e s s the effectiveness of t r a d i t i o n a l institutional p r o c e d u r e s for d e a l i n g w i t h c e r t a i n juvenile offend­

a l m o s t h a l f of all s e r i o u s c r i m e s c o m m i t ­ ted in this n a t i o n a r e c o m m i t t e d b y juve­ niles. Yet o n l y a b o u t 1 5 % of t h e r e s o u r c e s of t h e L E A A a n d $ 1 0 miUion of t h e D e p a r t ­ m e n t of H E W ' s Office of H u m a n D e v e l o p ­ ment's r e s o u r c e s a r e a l l o c a t e d for t h e p r e ­ v e n t i o n a n d t r e a t m e n t of y o u t h c r i m e . Further, t h e s e r e l a t i v e l y m e a g e r federal efforts a r e f r a g m e n t e d a n d p o o r l y c o o r d i ­

L a n d m a r k Federal Legislation

31

n a t e d . A s a c o n s e q u e n c e , efforts b y t h e

m e n t , a n d in so d o i n g s a v e t e n s o f t h o u ­

s t a t e s a n d l o c a l i d e s t o a d d r e s s this i m p o r ­

s a n d s of y o u n g p e o p l e f r o m t h e r a v a g e s o f

t a n t p r o b l e m reflect t h e t e n t a t i v e , ill-

a life of c r i m e , w h i l e h e l p i n g t h e m , t h e i r

defined a p p r o a c h of t h e federal g o v e r n ­

families a n d society.

ment. {Committee on Education and Labor, 1 9 7 4 , p. 1 )

Congress thus agreed with the National Advi­ sory Commission on Criminal Justice Stand­

Whereas the Senate Judiciary Committee

a r d s a n d Goals ( 1 9 7 3 ) t h a t t h e h i g h e s t p r i o r i t y

v i e w e d d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n in t e r m s of p r o ­

must be given to preventing juvenile

v i d i n g s e r v i c e s for d e p e n d e n t a n d n e g l e c t e d

q u e n c y , to m i n i m i z i n g t h e i n v o l v e m e n t o f c h i l ­

y o u t h s a n d o t h e r s w h o othervinse m i g h t e n t e r

d r e n a n d a d o l e s c e n t s in t h e j u v e n i l e a n d c r i m i ­

the juvenile justice system, the House E d u c a ­

nal

t i o n a n d L a b o r C o m m i t t e e s a w t h e n e e d for

d e l i n q u e n t s into t h e c o m m u n i t y .

justice

systems,

and

to

delin­

reintegrating

m o r e f u n d a m e n t a l d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n ef­ forts. C o n s e q u e n t l y , p r o v i s i o n s w e r e i n c l u d e d in t h e H o u s e v e r s i o n o f t h e JJDP A c t for d r u g

Philosophy of the J J D P Act

abuse education and prevention, alternative education programs, youth-initiated programs, y o u t h r i g h t s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i es p r o g r a m s , a n d

In its p r e a m b l e t o t h e JJDP A c t , C o n g r e s s stated the follov«ng

"findings":

advocacy programs. T h e Education and Labor C o m m i t t e e h 5 φ o t h e s i z e d t h a t j u v e n i l e delin­

(1)

j u v e n i l e s a c c o u n t for a l m o s t h a l f

q u e n c y c o u l d b e p r e v e n t e d b y w o r k i n g "to keep

t h e a r r e s t s for s e r i o u s c r i m e s in t h e

youngsters

United States today;

in

elementary

and

secondary

schools, preventing u n w a r r a n t e d and arbitrary s u s p e n s i o n s a n d e x p u l s i o n s a n d s c h o o l 'push­ outs' " { C o m m i t t e e on E d u c a t i o n a n d Labor, 1974,

p. 9 ) .

The C o m m i t t e e on Education and Labor also s a w a link b e t w e e n a d o l e s c e n t running a w a y from h o m e a n d delinquency. T h e problem, h o w e v e r , w a s c o n c e p t u a l i z e d in a u n i q u e m a n n e r : T e s t i m o n y . . . r e v e a l e d that, c o n t r a r y t o t h e o v e r l y r o m a n t i c i z e d a n d p o p u l a r view, c h i l d r e n r u n a w a y from h o m e b e c a u s e of p r o b l e m s in r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r families. It is a n e x p r e s s i o n of a s e a r c h for a c o n s t r u c ­ tive r e s o l u t i o n t o t h e s e difficulties. I n d i c a ­ t i o n s a r e t h a t , far f r o m b e c o m i n g p e r p e t r a ­ tors o f c r i m i n a l a c t s , t h e y o u t h a r e m o r e often t h e v i c t i m s of c r i m e . { C o m m i t t e e o n E d u c a t i o n a n d Labor, 1 9 7 4 , p. 9 ) In g e n e r a l . C o n g r e s s s a w p r e v e n t i n g y o u t h f r o m c o m i n g i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h t h e j u v e n i l e jus­ tice system as essential to delinquency preven­ t i o n . In h i s final a r g u m e n t for c o n g r e s s i o n a l p a s s a g e of t h e JJDP A c t , S e n a t o r B a y h { 1 9 7 4 b ) said,

(2) u n d e r s t a f f e d , o v e r c r o w d e d j u v e ­ nile courts, probation services, a n d cor­ r e c t i o n a l facilities a r e n o t a b l e t o p r o v i d e i n d i v i d u a l i z e d j u s t i c e o r effective h e l p ; (3) p r e s e n t j u v e n i l e c o u r t s , foster a n d p r o t e c t i v e c a r e p r o g r a m s , a n d s h e l t e r fa­ cilities a r e i n a d e q u a t e to m e e t t h e n e e d s of t h e c o u n t l e s s , a b a n d o n e d , a n d d e p e n d ­ ent children, w h o , b e c a u s e of this failure to p r o v i d e effective s e r v i c e s , m a y b e c o m e delinquents; (4) e x i s t i n g p r o g r a m s h a v e n o t a d e ­ quately responded to the particular prob­ l e m s of t h e i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s of y o u n g people w h o are addicted to or w h o abuse drugs, particularly nonopiate or polydrug abusers; (5)

juvenile delinquency c a n be pre­

v e n t e d t h r o u g h p r o g r a m s d e s i g n e d to k e e p s t u d e n t s in e l e m e n t a r y a n d s e c o n ­ dary schools through the prevention of unwarranted and arbitrary suspensions and expulsions; (6)

states a n d local c o m m u n i t i e s

w h i c h experience directly the devastating failures o f t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m d o n o t p r e s e n t l y h a v e sufficient t e c h n i c a l e x ­

the juvenile justice system has proven

pertise or adequate r e s o u r c e s to deal c o m ­

itself i n c a p a b l e of t u r n i n g t h e s e p e o p l e a w a y f r o m lives of c r i m e . O u r goal is to

p r e h e n s i v e l y w i t h t h e p r o b l e m s of j u v e ­ nile delinquency; and

m a k e t h e p r e v e n t i o n of d e l i n q u e n c y a No. 1 n a t i o n a l p r i o r i t y of t h e federal g o v e r n ­

(7) e x i s t i n g F e d e r a l p r o g r a m s h a v e not provided the direction, coordination,

32

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE r e s o u r c e s a n d l e a d e r s h i p r e q u i r e d to

states u n d e r the O m n i b u s C r i m e C o n t r o l a n d

m e e t t h e c r i s i s of d e l i n q u e n c y . ( P . L . 9 3 ­

Safe S t r e e t s A c t of 1 9 6 8 , w a s a p e r s u a s i v e f a c ­

4 1 5 , Sec. 101(a))

t o r T h e a g e n c y r e p o r t e d t h a t it h a d s p e n t n e a r l y $ 1 4 0 million o n a w i d e r a n g e o f juvenile delin­

Professional Associations and Public Interest Groups T h e JJDP A c t w a s e n d o r s e d b y m a n y of the m a j o r o r g a n i z a t i o n s w o r k i n g in t h e field o f youth development and delinquency preven­ tion, s u c h a s t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o n C r i m e a n d D e l i n q u e n c y , t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of J u v e n i l e Court Judges, the National Youth Alternatives P r o j e c t , t h e A m e r i c a n Institute of F a m i l y Rela­ tions, t h e A m e r i c a n P a r e n t s C o m m i t t e e , B'nai B'rith W o m e n , t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of J e w i s h W o m e n , t h e N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S t a t e J u ­ venile Delinquency Program Administrators, the National G o v e r n o r s C o n f e r e n c e , the Na­ t i o n a l L e a g u e of Cities, a n d t h e U . S . C o n f e r e n c e of M a y o r s . It a l s o w a s s u p p o r t e d b y t h e I n t e r a g e n c y Col­ l a b o r a t i o n o n J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e , c o n s i s t i n g of the B o y s ' C l u b s of A m e r i c a , B o y S c o u t s of A m e r i c a , C a m p F i r e Girls, F u t u r e H o m e m a k e r s of A m e r ­ ica, Girls' C l u b s of A m e r i c a , Girl S c o u t s of t h e U . S . A . , t h e N a t i o n a l B o a r d of Y M C A s , t h e N a ­ t i o n a l B o a r d of t h e Y W C A s , t h e N a t i o n a l Fed­ e r a t i o n of S e t t l e m e n t s a n d N e i g h b o r h o o d C e n ­ ters, t h e N a t i o n a l J e w i s h W e l f a r e B o a r d , a n d t h e Red Cross.

Federal Agency Location of the P r o g r a m Utilitarian and labehng concerns sparked a congressional debate regarding whether the n e w p r o g r a m s h o u l d b e l o c a t e d in t h e D e p a r t ­ m e n t of J u s t i c e , in its L a w E n f o r c e m e n t A s s i s ­ t a n c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ( L E A A ) , or in HEW. In the u t i l i t a r i a n a n d labeling v i e w s , p l a c e m e n t of t h e JJDP A c t office in L E A A c o u l d w e l l m e a n a c o n ­

q u e n c y p r o g r a m s in 1 9 7 2 ( C o m m i t t e e o n t h e Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p. 3 4 ) . C o n g r e s s a l s o e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n that t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e p r o g r a m in H E W w o u l d only further fragment and divide t h e F e d e r a l juvenile d e l i n q u e n c y effort and delay the development of needed p r o g r a m s . W h a t is n e e d e d n o w is m o r e c o o r d i n a t i o n a n d less c o n f u s i o n . L E A A , t h r o u g h its p r o g r a m s , is t h e o n l y a g e n c y a b l e to p r o v i d e t h e l e a d e r ­ s h i p a n d f u n d i n g for t h e c o n t i n u u m o f r e s p o n s e s w h i c h m u s t b e m a d e to d e a l with juvenile crime. . . . T h e s e goals c a n o n l y b e a c h i e v e d b y t y i n g in j u v e n i l e a n d c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e efforts w i t h t h e l a r g e r s o c i a l s e r v i c e a n d h u m a n r e s o u r c e net­ w o r k s of t h e S t a t e s a n d u n i t s of l o c a l g o v ­ e r n m e n t . L E A A is a c t i v e l y p u r s u i n g t h e s e goals. ( C o m m i t t e e o n the Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p. 3 3 ) In a d d i t i o n . C o n g r e s s felt t h a t t h e n e e d to f o c u s t h e juvenile j u s t i c e a p p a r a t u s o n t h e se­ r i o u s juvenile offender a r g u e d for p l a c i n g t h e p r o g r a m in L E A A . " T h e s o c i a l c o n t r o l of t h e ju­ venile and criminal justice system must be ap­ plied in dealing w i t h this offender, a n d L E A A is the o n l y F e d e r a l a g e n c y p r o v i d i n g s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t a n c e to t h e p o U c e , t h e c o u r t s , a n d t h e c o r ­ r e c t i o n s a g e n c i e s in t h e i r efforts t o d e a l w i t h juvenile crime" (Committee on the Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , p. 3 4 ) . A n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r in t h e d e b a t e w a s t h e r e s p e c t i v e agencies' r e s p o n s e s to a c o n g r e s ­ sional q u e r y r e g a r d i n g w h a t e a c h a l r e a d y w a s

tinuing o v e r r e a c h of the juvenile justice system into t h e lives of n o n o f f e n d e r s a n d m i n o r offend­

doing in t h e a r e a of r e s e a r c h , training, a n d in­ formation dissemination; what they w o u l d do if the p r o v i s i o n s b e c a m e law; h o w long it w o u l d

ers, h a r m f u l l y labeling t h e m as delinquent. Congress expressed misgivings regarding the J u s t i c e D e p a r t m e n t ' s ability to a d d r e s s delin­

take to establish t h e p r o g r a m ; a n d h o w m u c h m o n e y t h e y w o u l d p u t into it. L E A A r e s p o n d e d

q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n b e c a u s e o f its m a i n f o c u s o n t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . At t h e s a m e t i m e , c o n g r e s s i o n a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h H E W ' s ef­ forts in this a r e a w a s m a n i f e s t ( C o m m i t t e e o n the Judiciary, 1 9 7 4 , pp. 2 8 - 2 9 ) . T h a t L E A A h a d w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d its role in t h e j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y field, p r i m a r i l y t h r o u g h t h e a w a r d i n g of b l o c k g r a n t s t o t h e

the n e x t day; H E W finally r e s p o n d e d m o r e t h a n a m o n t h later, after c o n s i d e r a b l e p r o d d i n g ( Q u i e , 1 9 7 4 , p. H 8 7 9 4 ) . C o n g r e s s t o o k t h i s e v e n t to i n d i c a t e t h e g r e a t e r level of interest in t h e p r o g r a m in t h e J u s t i c e D e p a r t m e n t . S e n a t o r B a y h forged a partnership w i t h S e n a t o r H r u s k a , t h e "father o f L E A A , " a g r e e i n g to l o c a t e t h e n e w a g e n c y w i t h i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t of J u s t i c e (Raley, 1 9 9 5 ) . T h a t is w h e r e t h e n e w

L a n d m a r k Federal Legislation

33

Office of J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e a n d D e l i n q u e n c y P r e ­

The

NCCD's ( 1 9 6 7 ) survey also confirmed

v e n t i o n (OJJDP), c r e a t e d b y t h e JJDP A c t , w a s

t h e p r e v i o u s l y a c k n o w l e d g e d v a r i a t i o n s in de­

e s t a b l i s h e d . P r e s i d e n t G e r a l d Ford signed t h e

t e n t i o n p r a c t i c e s . "Juvenile c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

in m o s t S t a t e s is so b r o a d t h a t a l m o s t a n y c h i l d

A c t of 1 9 7 4 (EL. 9 3 - 4 1 5 ) into law on September 7,

can

1974.

detention. . . . B e c a u s e of confusion

be p i c k e d u p b y t h e p o l i c e a n d p l a c e d in between

c o u r t a n d c h i l d w e l f a r e f u n c t i o n s , m a n y legal definitions of d e l i n q u e n c y m a k e n o d i s t i n c t i o n between

Four M a j o r J J D P

Act Requirennents

c r i m e and child neglect"

(NCCD,

1 9 6 7 , p. 1 2 6 ) . R u b i n ( 1 9 6 1 , p. 4 9 ) i l l u s t r a t e d t h e v a r i e d a c t s or c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e d u n d e r t h e " d e l i n q u e n c y " h e a d i n g in A m e r i c a n j u v e n i l e

The

m o s t c o n t r o v e r s i a l f e a t u r e of t h e JJDP A c t

is t h e four m a n d a t e s t h a t it r e q u i r e d states to

c o u r t l a w s t h a t m i g h t r e s u l t in d e t e n t i o n or jail­ ing of juveniles. T h e s e i n c l u d e d

m e e t to be eligible to r e c e i v e funds u n d e r t h e act.

In a n u n p r e c e d e n t e d s t e p in f e d e r a l in­

v o l v e m e n t in c r i m e a n d d e l i n q u e n c y

policy.

C o n g r e s s d e t e r m i n e d that t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h e s e m a n d a t e s t a r g e t e d w e r e n o t in t h e best i n t e r e s t s of t h e n a t i o n a n d w e r e b e y o n d t h e c a p a b i l i t y of t h e s t a t e s to c o r r e c t . C o n g r e s s t h e r e f o r e in­ t e r v e n e d to require deinstitutionalization

of

s t a t u s offenders, s e p a r a t i o n of juveniles f r o m a d u l t s in c o n f i n e m e n t , jail a n d l o c k u p r e m o v a l , a n d r e d u c t i o n in t h e d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e c o n f i n e ­ ment of minorities.

Violates any law or o r d i n a n c e Immoral or indecent c o n d u c t Immoral conduct around schools E n g a g e s in illegal o c c u p a t i o n A s s o c i a t e s w i t h v i c i o u s or i m m o r a l p e r s o n s G r o w i n g u p in i d l e n e s s o r c r i m e E n t e r s , visits h o u s e of ill r e p u t e E a t r o n i z e s , visits p o l i c y s h o p o r g a m i n g place Eatronizes place w h e r e intoxicating liquor is s o l d

Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders

Eatronizes

public

poolroom

or

bucket

shops W a n d e r s in t h e s t r e e t s at night, n o t

H e a r i n g s t h a t C o n g r e s s h e l d p u r s u a n t to drafting t h e JJDP A c t b r o u g h t to t h e s u r f a c e t h e s u r p r i s i n g e x t e n t of c h i l d a n d a d o l e s c e n t d e t e n ­ tion. T h e N C C D ' s ( 1 9 6 7 ) s u r v e y s h o w e d that nearly 3 2 0 , 0 0 0 children and adolescents were h e l d in j u v e n i l e d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r s in 1 9 6 5 . A l ­ m o s t 9 0 , 0 0 0 w e r e h e l d in a d u l t jails. T h e c e n s u s of c h i l d r e n ' s i n s t i t u t i o n s r e p o r t e d b y E a p p e n ­ fort a n d K i l p a t r i c k ( 1 9 7 0 ) f o u n d t h a t d u r i n g

lawful

on

business

W a n d e r s about railroad yards or tracks Jumps train or enters c a r or engine without authority Habitually truant from school Incorrigible U s e s vile, o b s c e n e , o r v u l g a r l a n g u a g e (in public place)

1 9 6 7 , n e a r l y 9 0 0 c h i l d r e n of e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l age w e r e in d e t e n t i o n , as w e r e 2 5 4 c h i l d r e n u n ­ der t h e a g e of 6, of w h o m 8 1 w e r e infants. O t h e r

A b s e n t s self f r o m h o m e w i t h o u t c o n s e n t

s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d t h a t c o n d i t i o n s of c o n f i n e ­ ment were deplorable, including overcrowd­

R e f u s e s to o b e y p a r e n t , g u a r d i a n

ing, i n a d e q u a t e diet, q u e s t i o n a b l e d i s c i p l i n a r y m e a s u r e s , a n d o v e r l y long c o n f i n e m e n t — n o different f r o m d e t e n t i o n c o n d i t i o n s r e p o r t e d 4 0 y e a r s e a r l i e r ( R o s e n h e i m , 1 9 7 3 ) . For e x a m p l e , an investigative panel looking into confine­ m e n t c o n d i t i o n s in N e w York City's Spofford J u v e n i l e C e n t e r f o u n d " i n a d e q u a t e light a n d h e a t . . . faulty plumbing, p o o r lighting . . . leaky roofs, c r a c k e d h o t - w a t e r pipes, a n d i n a d e ­ q u a t e insulation" ( N C C D , 1 9 6 7 , p. 8 ) .

L o i t e r s , s l e e p s in a l l e y s

Uses intoxicating liquors D e p o r t s self so as to i n j u r e self o r o t h e r s Smokes cigarettes (around a public place) In o c c u p a t i o n o r s i t u a t i o n d a n g e r o u s t o self or o t h e r s B e g g i n g o r r e c e i v i n g a l m s ( o r in s t r e e t for p u r p o s e of) R e s e a r c h illustrated t h e u s e of i n f o r m a l ju­ v e n i l e c o u r t p r o c e d u r e s t h a t r e s u l t e d in e x c e s ­

34

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE

s i v e d e t e n t i o n a n d i n c a r c e r a t i o n of s t a t u s of­

offenders in d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r s for l i m i t e d p e r i ­

f e n d e r s in t r a i n i n g s c h o o l s a n d o t h e r r e s i d e n ­

o d s o f t i m e , but V C O v i o l a t o r s m a y n o t b e a d ­

t i a l f a c i l i t i e s (Ferster, S n e t h e n , & C o u r t l e s s ,

j u d i c a t e d d e l i n q u e n t a n d r e m o v e d f r o m t h e de-

1969;

Pappenfort & Kilpatrick, 1 9 7 0 ) . T h e s e

a n d other studies w e r e reviewed by Rosenheim

institutionalization VCO

requirement under

the

p r o v i s i o n ( H o l d e n & Kapler, 1 9 9 5 , p. 8 ) .

( 1 9 7 3 ) in h e r c h a p t e r t h a t i n f l u e n c e d c o n g r e s ­ s i o n a l thinking. S h e m a d e t h e c a s e that in m a n y states where there are no detention

facilities

a n d t e m p o r a r y s h e l t e r facilities, juveniles a r e

Separation of Juveniles F r o m A d u l t s in C o n f i n e m e n t

h e l d in a d u l t jails o r i n c a r c e r a t e d in j u v e n i l e training schools. Pappenfort and Kilpatrick

C o n g r e s s w a s a p p a l l e d b y t h e e x t e n t of ju­

( 1 9 7 0 ) r e p o r t e d t h a t in 1 9 6 5 , t h e r e w e r e o n l y

v e n i l e c o n f i n e m e n t in a d u l t jails a n d t h e c o n ­

5 4 t e m p o r a r y s h e l t e r s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ,

ditions it f o u n d u n d e r w h i c h j u v e n i l e s w e r e be­

h o l d i n g 1 , 8 3 2 c h i l d r e n , c o m p a r e d to 1 1 , 0 0 0 in

ing i n c a r c e r a t e d w i t h a d u l t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in

detention.

jails a n d p o l i c e l o c k u p s ( H e a r i n g s B e f o r e t h e

Rosenheim ( 1 9 7 3 ) m a d e a persuasive argu­

S u b c o m m i t t e e to Investigate Juvenile Delin­

m e n t for d e v e l o p m e n t of s h e l t e r c a r e facilities

quency, 1 9 7 3 ) . T h r e e studies h a d d o c u m e n t e d

a n d o t h e r p r o g r a m s t h a t w o u l d s e r v e as alter­

the deplorable circumstance. The

n a t i v e s t o d e t e n t i o n , jailing, a n d i n c a r c e r a t i o n

( 1 9 6 7 ) jail s u r v e y c o n d u c t e d for t h e 1 9 6 7 C r i m e

of s t a t u s offenders. S h e d o c u m e n t e d c o n s i s t e n t

Commission

m i s u s e of d e t e n t i o n , in t h r e e w a y s : It w a s r e ­

p r o b l e m s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e jailing of j u v e n i l e s .

s o r t e d t o w h e n a n o t h e r f o r m of c a r e w o u l d b e

C o n d u c t e d in 1 9 6 5 , it r e v e a l e d t h a t

NCCD's

d o c u m e n t e d the s c o p e of the

m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e , it w a s u s e d o u t of c o n v e n ­ i e n c e o r to satisfy t h e c a u t i o u s i n s t i n c t s of of -

t h e e s t i m a t e d n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n of j u v e ­

ficials w h e n t h e y b e l i e v e d a c h i l d s h o u l d b e

nile c o u r t age h e l d in ( a d m i t t e d to) c o u n t y

s e p a r a t e d from the family w h i l e awaiting a c o u r t

jails a n d p o h c e l o c k u p s in 1 9 6 5 w a s o v e r

a p p e a r a n c e , a n d it w a s u s e d as punishment. The

1 9 7 4 JJDP A c t r e q u i r e d t h a t states r e ­

1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . . . . N i n e t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t of t h e c o u n t r y ' s juvenile c o u r t j u r i s d i c t i o n s c o v ­

c e i v i n g f u n d s u n d e r it m u s t "provide w i t h i n

ering a b o u t 2 , 8 0 0 c o u n t i e s a n d cities . . .

two years . . . that juveniles w h o are charged

h a v e n o p l a c e of d e t e n t i o n o t h e r t h a n a

with or w h o h a v e c o m m i t t e d offenses that

c o u n t y jail o r p o l i c e l o c k u p . L e s s t h a n 2 0

w o u l d n o t b e c r i m i n a l if c o m m i t t e d b y a n a d u l t

p e r c e n t o f t h e jails in w h i c h c h i l d r e n a r e

shall not be p l a c e d in juvenile d e t e n t i o n or c o r ­

h e l d h a v e b e e n r a t e d as s u i t a b l e for a d u l t

r e c t i o n a l facilities, b u t m u s t b e p l a c e d in shel­

F e d e r a l offenders. N i n e s t a t e s forbid p l a c ­

ter facihties" ( S e c . 2 2 3 ( a ) ( 1 2 ) ) . T h e sheUer fa­

ing c h i l d r e n in jail, b u t this p r o h i b i t i o n is

c i l i t y p l a c e m e n t r e q u i r e m e n t w a s r e l a x e d in

n o t a l w a y s e n f o r c e d . In 1 9 s t a t e s t h e l a w

t h e 1 9 7 7 a m e n d m e n t s , a n d "nonoffenders" (de­

p e r m i t s juveniles t o b e jailed if t h e y a r e

pendent and neglected children) were added to

s e g r e g a t e d f r o m a d u l t s , b u t this p r o v i s i o n

the m a n d a t e . At the urging of the National

also is not a l w a y s a d h e r e d t o . C h i l d r e n

C o u n c i l of J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J u d g e s ,

u n d e r 7 y e a r s of a g e h a v e b e e n h e l d in

in 1 9 8 0 C o n g r e s s a m e n d e d t h e JJDP A c t ' s dein­

s u b s t a n d a r d c o u n t y jails for l a c k of s h e l ­

s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of s t a t u s offenders (DSO) r e ­

ter c a r e in foster h o m e s . S o m e o f t h e

q u i r e m e n t to m a k e a n e x c e p t i o n for s t a t u s of -

youngsters had committed delinquent

fenders

a c t s ; s o m e w e r e m e r e l y d e p e n d e n t or

and

nonoffenders

found

to

have

v i o l a t e d a "valid c o u r t o r d e r ( V C O ) . " J u v e n i l e

n e g l e c t e d . J u v e n i l e d e t e n t i o n is f r e q u e n t l y

c o u r t judges b e l i e v e d t h a t this e x c e p t i o n w a s

u s e d as a n inunediate p u n i s h m e n t for

n e e d e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e c a s e of c h r o n i c r u n ­

delinquent acts. (NCCD, 1 9 6 7 , pp. 1 2 1 - 1 2 2 )

aways, w h o habitually violate court orders. T h e VCO

p r o v i s i o n c a n b e a p p l i e d to s t a t u s offend­

ers o n c e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e m e t , in­ c l u d i n g c o u r t h e a r i n g s , c o n f r o n t a t i o n rights, t h e r i g h t to n o t i f i c a t i o n of c h a r g e s a g a i n s t t h e m , a n d t h e s u b m i s s i o n of a w r i t t e n r e p o r t b y a n ­ o t h e r a g e n c y o t h e r t h a n l a w e n f o r c e m e n t or a n ­ o t h e r c o u r t . It p e r m i t s c o u r t s t o c o n f i n e s t a t u s

A n Illinois jail s t u d y ( M a t t i c k & S w e e t , 1 9 6 9 ) found that juveniles represented about 6 % of t h e i n m a t e s , a l t h o u g h o t h e r s t u d i e s r e p o r t e d ju­ v e n i l e jail p o p u l a t i o n s a s l o w a s less t h a n 1 % (California) a n d as high as 4 5 % (Virginia) ( M a t t i c k , 1 9 7 4 , p. 7 9 6 ) . N e a r l y 7 0 % of t h e Illi­ n o i s c o u n t y jails w e r e 5 0 y e a r s o l d o r older.

35

L a n d m a r k Federal Legislation

Most contained double bunks. Nearly a third

could not possibly be avoided, a n d the A m e r i ­

h a d n o m e d i c a l facilities, a n d 6 4 % h a d "first

can Correctional Association had promulgated

aid" only. E l e m e n t a r y c o m m o d i t i e s s u c h as

a s t a n d a r d c a l l i n g for s e p a r a t e living q u a r t e r s

s o a p , t o w e l s , t o o t h b r u s h e s , a n d c l e a n bedding,

for juveniles h o u s e d w i t h a d u l t s ( 1 9 7 7 , p. 1 7 7 ) .

if available, w e r e in s h o r t supply. T h e o l d e r jails

T h e S e n a t e v e r s i o n of t h e JJDP A c t (S. 8 2 1 ) ,

posed a public health problem. T h e y were ha­

i n t r o d u c e d b y S e n a t o r B a y h in 1 9 7 3 , c a l l e d for

v e n s for r o d e n t s , b o d y lice, a n d o t h e r v e r m i n .

r e m o v a l o f j u v e n i l e s f r o m a d u l t jails ( S e c .

M a t t i c k c o n c l u d e d t h a t "If c l e a n l i n e s s is n e x t

4 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 3 ) ) . W h e n i n t r o d u c i n g t h e bill. S e n a t o r

to godliness, m o s t jaUs lie s e c u r e l y in t h e p r o v ­

B a y h stated:

i n c e of hell" ( 1 9 7 4 , p. 8 0 2 ) . R o s e m a r y Sarri, t h e n c o d i r e c t o r of t h e N a ­ t i o n a l A s s e s s m e n t of J u v e n i l e C o r r e c t i o n s p r o ­

T h e bill c o n t a i n s a n a b s o l u t e p r o h i b i t i o n against t h e d e t e n t i o n or c o n f i n e m e n t of

ject, p r e s e n t e d t e s t i m o n y b a s e d o n p r e l i m i n a r y

a n y j u v e n i l e alleged o r f o u n d to b e delin­

r e s u l t s f r o m t h e project's 1 9 7 2 a n a l y s i s of juve­

q u e n t in a n y i n s t i t u t i o n in w h i c h a d u l t s —

nile c o d e s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s (Sarri, 1 9 7 4 ; see

w h e t h e r c o n v i c t e d or m e r e l y a w a i t i n g

also Sarri, 1 9 7 3 , 1 9 8 1 ; Sarri & Hasenfeld, 1 9 7 6 ;

trial—are confined. Juveniles w h o are

Vinter, 1 9 7 6 ; V i n t e r , D o w n s , & H a l l , 1 9 7 5 ) ,

incarcerated with sophisticated criminals

w h i c h s h o w e d t h a t o n l y 5 states a b s o l u t e l y p r o ­

a r e m u c h less likely to b e r e h a b i l i t a t e d .

h i b i t e d jailing of j u v e n i l e s a n d that 1 3 r e q u i r e d

T h e o l d e r offenders b e c o m e t h e t e a c h e r s

t h a t j u v e n i l e s b e h e l d in s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n s of

of g r a d u a t e s e m i n a r s in c r i m e . . . . T h e r e

jails ( H e a r i n g s B e f o r e t h e S u b c o m m i t t e e to In­

is n o r e a s o n to i m p r i s o n a d u l t s a n d j u v e ­

v e s t i g a t e J u v e n i l e D e l i n q u e n c y , 1 9 7 3 , p. 3 1 ) .

niles together. O n l y h a r m c a n c o m e f r o m

Other widely recognized studies showed exten­

s u c h a policy, a n d this bill w o u l d forbid it

sive i n c a r c e r a t i o n of juveniles in a d u l t jails, in­

completely. (Hearings Before the S u b c o m ­

cluding Abbott (1916), Fishman (1923), Sum­

m i t t e e to I n v e s t i g a t e J u v e n i l e Delin­

ner ( 1 9 7 1 ) , and several NCCD studies ( 1 9 6 7 ) .

q u e n c y , 1 9 7 3 , p. 2 6 2 )

D o w n e y ( 1 9 7 0 ) s u m m a r i z e d 2 3 studies that the U.S. Children's Bureau sponsored during t h e 1 9 6 0 s t h a t e x a m i n e d 1 8 , 0 0 0 c a s e s (in 1 8 states) of c h i l d r e n in jail. H e f o u n d t h a t m o s t s t a t e l a w s t h a t w e r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t chil­ d r e n "from t h e evils of jail" did not k e e p c h i l ­ d r e n o u t of jail. D o w n e y c o n c l u d e d that m o s t c h i l d r e n h e l d in jail do n o t n e e d to b e l o c k e d up anywhere. T h e y are unnecessarily confined for m a n y r e a s o n s , i n c l u d i n g t h e u s e of jail for p u n i s h m e n t o r " t r e a t m e n t , " p o o r c o u r t poli­

T h e final v e r s i o n of t h e JJDP A c t , in S e c t i o n 2 2 3 ( a ) ( 1 2 ) , r e q u i r e d o n l y s e p a r a d o n of j u v e ­ n i l e s f r o m a d u l t s in c o n f i n e m e n t .

Complete

s e p a r a t i o n w a s r e q u i r e d , so t h a t t h e r e w a s n o sight or s o u n d c o n t a c t w i t h a d u l t offenders in t h e facility, i n c l u d i n g s a l l y p o r t s ; e n t r y / b o o k i n g a r e a s ; h a l l w a y s ; a n d sleeping, dining, r e c r e a ­ tional, e d u c a t i o n a l , v o c a t i o n a l , a n d h e a l t h c a r e areas

[0]JOP,

1 9 9 5 c , p. 2 6 ) .

c i e s , a n d l a c k o f o p e n s h e l t e r c a r e facilities. His r e v i e w s h o w e d a n a p p a r e n t i n t e n t to k e e p c h i l ­

Jail and Lockup Removal

d r e n o u t of jail, for all t h e state l a w s c o n t a i n e d a p h r a s e h k e "no c h i l d shall b e h e l d in a n y jail,

In 1 9 8 0 , t h e J J D P A c t w a s a m e n d e d ( 4 2

p o l i c e l o c k u p , " b u t t h i s p h r a s e w a s u s u a l l y fol­ less o r d e r e d b y t h e c o u r t " o r "unless t h e y a r e

U . S . C . S e c . 5 6 3 3 ( a ) ( 1 4 ) ) to r e q u i r e r e m o v a l of juveniles f r o m a d u l t jails a n d p o l i c e l o c k u p s . T h i s p r o v i s i o n d r e w its i m p e t u s f r o m t w o m a i n

h e l d in q u a r t e r s s e p a r a t e a n d a p a r t f r o m a n y

s o u r c e s : OJJDP staff a n d p u b l i c i n t e r e s t g r o u p s .

l o w e d b y a n o t h e r qualifying o n e s u c h as "un­

adult." A b o u t 4 0 % of t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e jailed

After 5 y e a r s of e x p e r i e n c e in i m p l e m e n t i n g

for a c t s t h a t w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n v i o l a t i o n s of

t h e JJDP A c t s e p a r a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t , OJJDP staff c a m e to t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e a c t s h o u l d b e a m e n d e d to r e q u i r e r e m o v a l of c h i l d r e n f r o m

l a w if c o m m i t t e d b y a n adult. The National Advisory Commission

on

Criminal Justice Standards and Goals ( 1 9 7 6 , p. 6 6 7 ) a n d t h e A m e r i c a n B a r A s s o c i a t i o n ( 1 9 8 0 ) both urged standards prohibiting c o m ­ ingling of juveniles a n d a d u l t s . T h e N a t i o n a l Sheriff's A s s o c i a t i o n ( 1 9 7 4 , p. 3 1 ) u r g e d full s e g r e g a t i o n f r o m a d u l t s w h e n jail d e t e n t i o n

a d u l t jails a n d institutions. A d e t a i l e d OJJDP staff p o s i t i o n p a p e r ( W o o d , 1 9 8 0 ) h e l p e d o b t a i n U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of J u s t i c e a n d c o n g r e s s i o n a l s u p p o r t for t h e a m e n d m e n t . T h e OJJDP staff p o s i t i o n p a p e r c i t e d s e v e r a l studies t h a t d o c u m e n t e d t h e e x t e n t o f j u v e n i l e

36

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

jailing. A s u r v e y of n i n e states b y t h e Children's D e f e n s e F u n d ( 1 9 7 6 ) f o u n d t h a t o n l y 1 8 % of ju­ v e n i l e s h e l d in jails h a d b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h a c r i m i n a l offense, 4 % h a d c o m m i t t e d n o offense at all, a n d 8 8 % w e r e t h e r e b e c a u s e of p r o p e r t y offenses. T h e L E A A s 1 9 7 0 jail c e n s u s ( L E A A , 1 9 7 1 ) , t h e first of its kind, s h o w e d that 7 , 8 0 0 juveniles w e r e c o n f i n e d in U . S . jails o n a given d a y in M a r c h 1 9 7 0 . B y 1 9 7 2 , this c e n s u s ( L E A A , 1 9 7 4 ) f o u n d t h a t t h e n u m b e r h a d i n c r e a s e d to 1 2 , 7 4 4 . T h e s e figures did n o t i n c l u d e p o l i c e lockups. H i g h e r figures c a m e f r o m o t h e r s o u r c e s . T h e National Assessment of Juvenile Corrections P r o j e c t (Sarri, 1 9 7 4 ) e s t i m a t e d t h e n u m b e r to r a n g e f r o m 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 to 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . T h e O J J D P ' s staff p o s i t i o n p a p e r ( W o o d , 1 9 8 0 ) offered s e v e r a l r a t i o n a l e s in s u p p o r t of its r e c o m m e n d a t i o n . C o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h jail r e m o v a l w o u l d b e less t h a n t h o s e r e q u i r e d to s e p a r a t e juveniles f r o m a d u l t s in jails a n d in­ stitutions. A n OJJDP s t u d y (Dykatra, 1 9 8 0 ) s u p ­ p o r t e d this position. A n o t h e r OJJDP study ( F l a h e r t y , 1 9 8 0 ) f o u n d t h e s u i c i d e rate a m o n g jailed juveniles to be s e v e n t i m e s as high as the r a t e a m o n g juveniles h e l d in d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r s . E x p e r i e n c e h a d s h o w n t h a t juveniles did not receive basic services (counseling, medical, r e c r e a t i o n a l ) in facilities c o n s t r u c t e d a n d oper­ a t e d for a d u l t s . T h e position p a p e r c i t e d (pp. 2 7 1 - 2 7 2 ) several recent Supreme Court and state court decisions that brought constitu­ tional c o n s i d e r a t i o n s to b e a r o n v a r i o u s issues a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o n f i n e m e n t of juveniles, in­ c l u d i n g Robinson v. California (cruel and un­ u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t ) , Sheldon v. Tucker (failure to u s e t h e least r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e ) . Baker v. Hamilton (denial of d u e p r o c e s s ) . Cox v. Turley ( c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t ) , Swanseyv. Elrod ( c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t ) . Baker v. Hamilton ( c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t ) , a n d LoUis V. New York State Department of Correc­ tions ( c r u e l a n d i n h u m a n e t r e a t m e n t ) . A g r o u n d s w e l l of o p p o s i t i o n to jailing juve­ niles b e g a n m u c h earlier, in t h e 1 9 6 0 s . In 1 9 6 1 , t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o n C r i m e a n d Delin­ q u e n c y ( N C C D , 1 9 6 1 ) o p p o s e d p l a c i n g juve­ niles in a d u l t jails a n d lockups, as did t h e Presi­ dent's C o m m i s s i o n on L a w Enforcement and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of J u s t i c e ( 1 9 6 7 a , p. 8 7 ) . In t h e late 1 9 7 0 s , a N a t i o n a l Coalition for Jail R e f o r m ( 1 9 8 0 ) was formed, funded by the Edna M c C o n ­ nell C l a r k F o u n d a t i o n . Its i m p r e s s i v e m e m b e r ­ s h i p of 2 8 o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n c l u d e d t h e A m e r i c a n Civil L i b e r t i e s U n i o n ( N a t i o n a l P r i s o n Project),

A m e r i c a n Correctional Association, National Sheriff's A s s o c i a t i o n , A m e r i c a n P u b l i c H e a l t h Association, J o h n H o w a r d Association, Na­ tional A s s o c i a t i o n of C o u n t i e s , N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for S t a t e C o u r t s , N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o n C r i m e a n d Delinquency, N a t i o n a l L e a g u e of Cities, a n d t h e National Moratorium on Prison Construction. O n A p r i l 2 5 , 1 9 7 9 , it a d o p t e d , b y c o n s e n s u s , the position that n o p e r s o n u n d e r age 1 8 s h o u l d be held in a n a d u l t jail, following its b a s i c p r e m ­ ise t h a t "the first step in r e f o r m i n g t h e jails is to r e m o v e p e o p l e w h o don't b e l o n g t h e r e " ( S u b ­ c o m m i t t e e o n H u m a n R e s o u r c e s , 1 9 8 0 , p. 3 0 8 ) . T h e jail r e m o v a l a m e n d m e n t also w a s s u p ­ p o r t e d by t h e U . S . J u s t i c e D e p a r t m e n t (in t h e Carter Administration), through the testimony of t h e n D e p u t y A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l C h a r l e s B . Renfrew. H e stated, in part: It h a s long b e e n r e c o g n i z e d . . . t h a t c h i l ­ dren require special protections w h e n t h e y c o m e into c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c r i m i n a l justice s y s t e m . A n initial r e a s o n for t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of juvenile c o u r t s w a s to provide such protections and separate children from the adult criminal justice s y s t e m . O n e a r e a w h e r e w e h a v e failed to provide the necessary protection, how­ ever, is t h e p l a c e m e n t of juveniles in a d u l t jails a n d l o c k - u p s . . . . T h e jailing of c h i l ­ dren remains a national catastrophe. S e p a r a t i o n h a s b e e n p a r t i c u l a r l y diffi­ c u l t to a c c o m p l i s h in c o u n t y jails a n d municipal lock-ups because adequate s e p a r a t i o n , as i n t e n d e d b y t h e A c t , is v i r t u a l l y i m p o s s i b l e w i t h i n m o s t of t h e facilities. A s a result, j u v e n i l e s a r e often i s o l a t e d in w h a t a r e t h e m o s t u n d e s i r a b l e a r e a s of t h e facilities, s u c h as s o l i t a r y cells a n d d r u n k t a n k s . . . . T h e r e q u i r e ­ m e n t of t h e A c t t h a t j u v e n i l e s a n d a d u l t s b e s e p a r a t e d in all i n s t i t u t i o n s is l a u d a ­ tory, b u t w i t h r e s p e c t to jails a n d l o c k ­ u p s w e m u s t go f u r t h e r t h a n s e p a r a t i o n . (Subcommittee on H u m a n Resources, 1 9 8 0 , pp. 3 8 - 3 9 ) S e c t i o n 2 2 3 ( a ) ( 1 4 ) of t h e JJDP A c t w a s a m e n d e d in 1 9 8 0 t o p r o h i b i t h o l d i n g juveniles in jails a n d l a w e n f o r c e m e n t l o c k u p s in w h i c h a d u l t s m a y b e d e t a i n e d o r c o n f i n e d . T h e jail r e ­ m o v a l a m e n d m e n t t o t h e JJDP A c t w a s s u p ­ ported by the S u b c o m m i t t e e on H u m a n Re­ s o u r c e s of t h e C o m m i t t e e o n E d u c a t i o n a n d L a b o r , U . S . H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , in t h e

L a n d m a r k F e d e r a l Legislation c o u r s e of t h e 1 9 8 0 r e a u t h o r i z a t i o n of t h e JJDP Act. T h e C o m m i t t e e on Education and Labor Report ( S u b c o m m i t t e e on H u m a n Resources, 1 9 8 0 , p. 2 4 ) s t a t e d t h a t "the c o m m i t t e e believes, based on evidence presented during hearings o n H. R. 6 7 0 4 (the H o u s e bill r e a u t h o r i z i n g t h e JJDP A c t ) , that the d m e h a s c o m e to go further [than separation]." Four factors w e r e identified in the C o m m i t t e e R e p o r t t h a t " p r o m p t e d " t h e a m e n d m e n t : statistics o n i n a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e ­ m e n t s , e v i d e n c e o f h a r m t o juveniles, t h e g r o w ­ ing b o d y o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law, a n d t h e e x ­ pressed belief that properly planned and i m p l e m e n t e d r e m o v a l of j u v e n i l e s f r o m a d u l t jails a n d l o c k u p s is e c o n o m i c a l l y feasible (pp. 24-25).

Disproportionate Minority Confinement E n a c t m e n t of t h e fourth JJDP A c t r e q u i r e ­ ment, reducing disproportionate minority con­ f i n e m e n t ( D M C ) , is a t t r i b u t a b l e m a i n l y to t h e s u p p o r t o f t h e C o a l i t i o n for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e . This organization (formerly called the National Coalition of State Juvenile Justice Advisory G r o u p s ) p e r f o r m s JJDP A c t f u n c t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g p r o v i s i o n of t e c h n i c a l s u p p o r t to its m e m b e r or­ ganizations (the State Advisory Groups re­ q u i r e d in t h e JJDP A c t ) a n d advising t h e presi­ d e n t , C o n g r e s s , a n d t h e OJJDP a d m i n i s t r a t o r r e g a r d i n g OJJDP operations and legislation. T h e C o a l i t i o n for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e h a s e x e r c i s e d e n o r m o u s i n f l u e n c e in t h e s e a r e a s (Coalition for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e , 1 9 9 3 ) . P e r h a p s t h e g r e a t e s t a c c o m p l i s h m e n t of t h e C o a l i t i o n for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e is its s u c c e s s f u l effort in s e c u r i n g e n a c t m e n t i n t o l a w of t h e D M C r e q u i r e m e n t . A t t h e i n s i s t e n c e of t h e c o a ­ lition. C o n g r e s s d i r e c t e d , in t h e 1 9 8 8 A m e n d ­ m e n t s to t h e JJDP A c t , t h a t specific a t t e n t i o n be g i v e n t h r o u g h o u t t h e a c t to d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of m i n o r i t y y o u t h in t h e juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m , p a r t i c u l a r l y in d e t e n t i o n facili­ ties, s e c u r e c o r r e c t i o n a l institutions, a n d a d u l t jails a n d l o c k u p s ( S e c . 2 2 3 ( a ) ( 2 3 ) ) . T h e c o a l i ­ t i o n d o c u m e n t e d t h e D M C p r o b l e m in its 1 9 8 9 r e p o r t (Coalition for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e , 1 9 8 9 ) . It called attention to the disproportionate c o n ­ f i n e m e n t of m i n o r i t y y o u t h , t h a t 5 5 % of y o u t h s c o n f i n e d in p u b l i c d e t e n t i o n a n d c o r r e c t i o n a l facilities w e r e m i n o r i t i e s , a n d t h a t t h e p e r c e n t ­ a g e h a d b e e n i n c r e a s i n g s i n c e 1 9 7 9 . O f equal c o n c e r n , t h e c o a l i t i o n (pp. 1 3 - 1 5 ) w o r r i e d that l a c k of l e g i t i m a t e e c o n o m i c o p p o r t u n i t i e s for

37 m i n o r i t y y o u n g s t e r s m i g h t i n c r e a s e t h e i r in­ v o l v e m e n t in t h e illegal d r u g t r a d e a n d e x a c e r ­ b a t e t h e D M C p r o b l e m . Its c o n c e r n t u r n e d o u t to b e p r o p h e t i c (see C o a l i t i o n for J u v e n i l e J u s ­ tice, 1 9 9 4 ; J o h n s , 1 9 9 2 ; M a n n , 1 9 9 3 ; M e d d i s , 1 9 9 3 a ; Tonry, 1 9 9 4 a , 1 9 9 4 b ) . A n 0 ) J D P s t u d y of d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e m i n o r ­ ity c o n f i n e m e n t (Pope & F e y e r h e r m , 1 9 9 3 ) s u p ­ p o r t e d t h e n e e d for t h e D M C efforts. T h i s s t u d y d o c u m e n t e d d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e c o n f i n e m e n t of minorities a c r o s s t h e country. Pope a n d Feyer­ h e r m ( 1 9 9 3 , p. 3) c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e w a s "sub­ stantial s u p p o r t . . . t h a t b o t h d i r e c t a n d indi­ r e c t r a c e effects o p e r a t e w i t h i n c e r t a i n j u v e n i l e justice systems." O t h e r studies c a r r i e d o u t in California (Austin, D i m a s , & S t e i n h a r t , 1 9 9 2 ) , F l o r i d a ( B i s h o p & Frazier, 1 9 8 8 , 1 9 9 0 ) , Georgia ( L o c k h a r t , Kurtz, & S u t p h e n , 1 9 9 1 ) , M i s s o u r i (Kempf, Decker, & Bing, 1 9 9 0 ) , a n d P e n n s y l v a ­ n i a (Kempf, 1 9 9 2 ) , as w e l l as a l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w (Pope & F e y e r h e r m , 1 9 9 0 ) , p r o d u c e d s t r o n g evi­ dence that minority youth were overrepre­ s e n t e d in t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . A d v o c a t e s u s e d t h e s e s t u d i e s t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e n e e d for s t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e D M C r e q u i r e m e n t (see C o a ­ lition for J u v e n i l e J u s d c e , 1 9 9 3 ; OJJDP 1 9 9 4 ; R h o d e n , 1 9 9 4 ; a n d R o s c o e & M o r t o n , 1 9 9 4 , for a h i s t o r y a n d o v e r v i e w of t h e o v e r r e p r e s e n t a ­ tion p r o b l e m a n d OJJDP r e s p o n s e s ) . In 1 9 9 2 , C o n g r e s s m a d e D M C t h e f o u r t h JJDP A c t m a n d a t e , r e q u i r i n g t h a t states r e c e i v ­ ing JJDP A c t f o r m u l a g r a n t s p r o v i d e a s s u r a n c e s t h a t t h e y will d e v e l o p a n d i m p l e m e n t p l a n s to r e d u c e t h e o v e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of m i n o r i t i e s in the juvenile justice system (42 U.S.C. Sec. 5 6 3 3 ( a ) ( 2 3 ) ) w h e n t h e p r o p o r t i o n of m i n o r i t y y o u t h in c o n f i n e m e n t e x c e e d s t h e p r o p o r t i o n t h o s e g r o u p s r e p r e s e n t in t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a ­ tion. To m e e t t h e D M C m a n d a t e , states m u s t c o m p l e t e t h r e e p h a s e s r e q u i r e d in t h e OJJDP Formula Grants Regulation ( 2 8 C F R 31)—prob­ lem identification, problem assessment, and program intervention—within established time frames. S i n c e e n a c t m e n t of t h e JJDP A c t in 1 9 7 4 , states h a v e m a i n t a i n e d eligibility to r e c e i v e "formula" g r a n t funding (based o n their p r o p o r ­ tion of t h e total U . S . p o p u l a t i o n u n d e r age 1 8 ) b y m a k i n g sufficient p r o g r e s s t o w a r d a c h i e v i n g t h e act's goals. In t h e 1 9 9 2 JJDP A c t a m e n d ­ m e n t s , C o n g r e s s a d d e d a financial i n c e n t i v e t o a c c e l e r a t e states' p r o g r e s s t o w a r d fidl c o m p l i ­ a n c e νήύι t h e four m a n d a t e s b y r e q u i r i n g t h a t 2 5 % of a state's formula grant allocation be

38

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE

withheld

with

d u c t i o n s in v i o l a t i o n s for e a c h m a n d a t e a r e

w h i c h t h e state is n o t c o m p l y i n g . In addition,

a n n u a l l y for e a c h m a n d a t e

9 8 % for DSO, 9 9 % for s e p a r a t i o n , a n d 9 6 % for

t h e n e w a m e n d m e n t r e q u i r e d that a n o n c o m ­

jail r e m o v a l .

p l y i n g s t a t e d i r e c t t h e r e m a i n d e r of its f o r m u l a

F i g u r e 2 . 2 s h o w s t h e d r a m a t i c d e c r e a s e in

g r a n t f u n d s to a c h i e v i n g full c o m p l i a n c e ( 4 2

d e t e n t i o n o f s t a t u s offenders s i n c e t h e OJJDP

U . S . C . S e c . 5 6 3 3 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( A ) a n d (B)).

w a s e s t a b h s h e d in 1 9 7 5 . In t h a t year, 4 0 % of j u v e n i l e c o u r t c a s e s w e r e d e t a i n e d . In 1 9 9 2 , o n l y 7 % of s t a t u s o f f e n d e r s w e r e d e t a i n e d .

State Compliance

T h r o u g h o u t t h i s p e r i o d , a b o u t 2 0 % of delin­ q u e n c y c a s e s w e r e d e t a i n e d . T h e d e c l i n e in de­

A state's p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e JJDP A c t For­

t e n t i o n of s t a t u s offenders r e p r e s e n t s t h e m o s t

m u l a G r a n t s P r o g r a m is v o l u n t a r y . To be eligible

significant c h a n g e in t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of ju­

for t h e p r o g r a m , a s t a t e m u s t s u b m i t a c o m p r e ­

v e n i l e j u s t i c e b r o u g h t a b o u t b y t h e JJDP A c t .

h e n s i v e 3 - y e a r p l a n setting forth t h e state's p r o ­

These accomplishments are unprecedented

p o s a l for m e e t i n g t h e m a n d a t e s a n d goals out­

in t h e h i s t o r y of federal s o c i a l legislation. N e v e r

l i n e d in t h e JJDP A c t . E a c h s t a t e d e t e r m i n e s its

before h a v e s u c h significant

s t r a t e g y a n d p r o g r a m p r i o r i t i e s b a s e d o n the

b r o u g h t a b o u t in t h e states in t h e a d m i n i s t r a ­

changes

been

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of its p a r t i c u l a r juvenile j u s t i c e

tion of g o v e r n m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s a n d legal p r o ­

s y s t e m . T h e state's p l a n is a m e n d e d a n n u a l l y

c e s s e s in s o c i a l s y s t e m s . E x c e p t i n g t h e c r e a t i o n

to reflect n e w p r o g r a m m i n g a n d initiatives to

of r e f o r m s c h o o l s a n d j u v e n i l e c o u r t s , t h e s e a r e

b e u n d e r t a k e n b y t h e s t a t e a n d local units of

the m o s t significant c h a n g e s in t h e h i s t o r y of

government.

juvenile j u s t i c e in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . H o w a n d

Of t h e 5 7 eligible states a n d territories, 5 5 c u r r e n t l y a r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e JJDP A c t For­

w h y did t h e s e c h a n g e s o c c u r ? W h a t f a c t o r s a c ­ c o u n t for s u c h s w e e p i n g c h a n g e s ?

m u l a G r a n t s P r o g r a m . E a c h state s u b m i t s a n a n ­ n u a l c o m p h a n c e m o n i t o r i n g r e p o r t , w h i c h de­ tails its p r o g r e s s t o w a r d i m p l e m e n t i n g its p l a n

Obstacles to JJDP Act Success

a n d a c h i e v i n g or m a i n t a i n i n g c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e m a n d a t e s of t h e JJDP A c t . T h e level of c o m ­ p l i a n c e d e t e r m i n e s t h e s t a t e ' s e l i g i b i l i t y for c o n t i n u i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e p r o g r a m . D a t a for t h e a n n u a l m o n i t o r i n g r e p o r t a r e c o l l e c t e d b y t h e s t a t e f r o m s e c u r e juvenile a n d a d u l t fa­ cilities. Verification of t h e d a t a is r e q u i r e d . Data from the 1 9 9 3 monitoring reports show an o v e r w h e l m i n g m a j o r i t y of states a n d territo­ ries in full c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e first t h r e e m a j o r m a n d a t e s (OJJIDP 1 9 9 5 d ) . Fifty-four states a n d t e r r i t o r i e s a r e in full c o m p l i a n c e w i t h the D S O m a n d a t e , w i t h z e r o or d e m i n i m u s ( m i n i m a l ) e x c e p t i o n s ; 5 5 states a n d territories a r e in full compliance with the separation mandate, with z e r o o r d e m i n i m u s e x c e p t i o n s ; 5 3 states a n d t e r r i t o r i e s a r e in full c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e jail r e m o v a l m a n d a t e , w i t h z e r o or d e m i n i m u s e x ­ c e p t i o n s ; a n d 1 1 s t a t e s h a v e c o m p l e t e d t h e first DMC phase, 7 have completed two phases, and 28 have entered the third phase. T h e time frame for s t a t e c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e D M C m a n d a t e v a r i e s b y s t a t e a c c o r d i n g to t h e specific p h a s e s . F i g u r e 2 . 1 s h o w s t h e r e d u c t i o n in state viola­ t i o n s of t h e DSO, s e p a r a t i o n , a n d jail r e m o v a l m a n d a t e s b e t w e e n t h e b a s e l i n e y e a r s a n d 1 9 9 3. T h e b a s e l i n e y e a r s a r e 1 9 7 5 for D S O a n d sepa­ r a t i o n , a n d 1 9 8 0 for jail r e m o v a l . P e r c e n t a g e r e ­

F o r m i d a b l e o b s t a c l e s to t h e JJDP A c t r e f o r m s h a d to be o v e r c o m e . F u n d i n g for t h e s e r e f o r m s w a s v e r y limited. T h e OJJDP's b u d g e t h a s n e v e r e x c e e d e d $ 1 6 5 m i l l i o n (the a m o u n t of its 1 9 9 5 a l l o c a t i o n ) , m o s t of w h i c h g o e s t o t h e states in the form of block grants u n d e r the Formula Grants Program. During the early years of the JJDP A c t , OJJDP's a p p r o p r i a t i o n r a n g e d f r o m $ 2 5 m i l l i o n to $ 1 0 0 million, m o s t of w h i c h is a l l o c a t e d to t h e states. T h e states, n e v e r t h e l e s s , h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d funds sufficient t o s e r v e as a s i g n i f i c a nt f i n a n c i a l i n c e n t i v e to a c c o m p l i s h the JJDP A c t m a n d a t e s . T h e OJJDP's p r e s i d e n t i a l l y a p p o i n t e d l e a d ­ e r s h i p h a s c h a n g e d f r e q u e n t l y s i n c e its e s t a b ­ lishment, disrupting national leadership sup­ p o r t i n g t h e JJDP A c t r e f o r m s . S i n c e t h e office w a s e s t a b l i s h e d in 1 9 7 5 , it h a s h a d 1 9 p e r m a ­ n e n t or a c t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . M a n y of t h e m , e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g the R e a g a n a n d B u s h A d m i n i ­ strations, w e r e not c o m m i t t e d to t h e goals a n d m a n d a t e s of t h e J J D P A c t (for e x a m p l e , s e e t h e w r i t i n g s o f f o r m e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r Regnery, 1 9 8 5 , 1 9 8 6 ; see also B r o d t & S m i t h , 1 9 8 8 , for a rejoinder). S t a t e a n d l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s h a v e h a d few r e s o u r c e s w i t h w h i c h to f u n d p r o g r a m s to h e l p

L a n d m a r k Federal Legislation

39

180

160 ­

140 -

i I

100 +

S"

80 +

^

• Baseline 11993

120 -­

60 +

40

20 +

0 DSO

Separation

Jail Removal

Figure 2 . 1 . Violations of JJDP A c t m a n d a t e s SOURCE: "Meeting the Mandates," Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1995), Juvenile Justice, 2, 25-28.

i m p l e m e n t t h e JJDP A c t r e f o r m s ( G u a r i n o G h e z z i & L o u g h r a n , 1 9 9 6 , p. 9 1 ; K r i s b e r g & A u s t i n , 1 9 9 3 ) . S t a t e c o r r e c t i o n s b u d g e t s in­ c r e a s i n g l y h a v e b e e n r a i d e d for t h e p u r p o s e s of p r i s o n a n d jail c o n s t r u c t i o n beginning in t h e 1 9 7 0 s , r a t h e r t h a n for t h e p u r p o s e of s u p p o r t i n g j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e r e f o r m s . P r i s o n a n d jail c o n ­ s t r u c t i o n c o s t s c o n s u m e 8 5 % of t h e $ 2 5 biUion a n n u a l l y s p e n t o n c o r r e c t i o n s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ( N C C D , 1 9 9 3 ) . J u v e n i l e c o u r t s a n d de­ tention receive the smallest proportional a m o u n t of juvenile justice system budgets. Y o u t h w o r k e r s a r e t h e m o s t u n d e r p a i d in t h e e n t i r e field. M o r e o v e r , u t i l i t a r i a n a n d just d e s e r t s phi­ l o s o p h i e s a p p e a r to h a v e d o m i n a t e d j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e p o l i c y d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d in w h i c h DSO, s e p a r a t i o n , a n d jail r e m o v a l h a v e b e e n a c c o m ­ p l i s h e d . H o w is it p o s s i b l e t h a t a c h i e v i n g c o m ­ pliance with these mandates could o c c u r while philosophies emphasizing punishment and de­ terrence are dominant? W h a t factors a c c o u n t for this possibility as w e l l a s o v e r c o m i n g this a n d o t h e r o b s t a c l e s to t h e s e juvenile justice r e ­ forms?

Reasons for J J D P Act Success First, p r o f e s s i o n a l s in t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e sys­ tem and their respective associations have

m a d e e n o r m o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n s to a c h i e v i n g c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e DSO, s e p a r a t i o n , a n d jail removal m a n d a t e s . T h e following organiza­ tions, a n d o t h e r s , r e p r e s e n t i n g a l m o s t all t h e professionals in t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e a n d y o u t h services system, as well as youth workers, h a v e long been firmly c o m m i t t e d t o t h e J J D P A c t mandates and have provided extensive train­ ing for t h e i r m e m b e r s h i p in h o w t o a c c o m ­ plish them: the A m e r i c a n Correctional Asso­ ciation, t h e A m e r i c a n Jail A s s o c i a t i o n , t h e A m e r i c a n Y o u t h W o r k Center, t h e C o u n c i l for Correctional Administrators, the International A s s o c i a t i o n of Chiefs of Police, t h e J u v e n i l e J u s ­ tice Trainers Association, the National Associa­ tion of J u v e n i l e C o r r e c t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , t h e N a t i o n a l C o l l a b o r a t i o n for Y o u t h , t h e N a ­ t i o n a l C o u n c i l of G o v e r n m e n t s , t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of J u v e n i l e a n d F a m i l y C o u r t J u d g e s (NCJFCJ), a n d t h e N a t i o n a l J u v e n i l e D e t e n t i o n Association. T h e s e c o n d k e y to a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e JJDP A c t m a n d a t e s is t h e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e it c r e a t e d t o implement the act. State advisory groups re­ q u i r e d b y t h e JJDP A c t , a p p o i n t e d b y t h e gov­ ernors and consisting of representatives of the juvenile justice s y s t e m , l o c a l u n i t s of g o v e r n ­ ment, private organizations, and youth m e m ­ bers, p l a y a n a c t i v e role in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d a p p r o v a l of s t a t e p l a n s , p r o j e c t funding, a n d o t h e r r e l a t e d activities. T h e s e b o d i e s a l s o r e ­

40

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND

YOUTH VIOLENCE

40%

35%

- Status OflFense -Delinquency 30%

25%

20% +

15%

4·

10% -f

5% +

0% CO

CO

S

F i g u r e 2 . 2 . P e r c e n t a g e o f s t a t u s offenders a n d d e l i n q u e n t s d e t a i n e d ( 1 9 7 5 - 1 9 9 2 ) SOURCE: Juvenile Offenders and Victims: A National Report (p. 147), Snyder and Sickmund, ©copyright 1995 by National Center for Juvenile Justice. Reprinted with permission. DATA SOURCE: National Juvenile Court Data Archive: Juvenile Court Case Records 1975-1992 (machine-readable data filesj, National Center for Juvenile Justice (1994).

v i e w the c o m p l i a n c e monitoring reports subm i t t e d t o OJJDP a l o n g w i t h their F o r m u l a G r a n t

a key r o l e in a c c o m p l i s h i n g t h e JJDP A c t m a n ­ d a t e s as w e l l as a d v o c a t i n g r e t a i n i n g t h e m in

P r o g r a m a p p l i c a t i o n s . A s n o t e d earlier, the C o a lition for J u v e n i l e J u s t i c e t h a t r e p r e s e n t s , t r a i n s , and serves the state advisory groups has played

t h e JJDP A c t . T h i s i n f r a s t r u c t u r e h a s l e d a n d supported m u c h analysis of the delinquency p r o b l e m a n d c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n n i n g at t h e

L a n d m a r k Federal Legislation s t a t e a n d l o c a l l e v e l s b a s e d o n t h e JJDP A c t m a n d a t e s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e JJDP A c t h a s led to i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c a w a r e n e s s of juvenile j u s t i c e a n d d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n issues, t h e c r e a ­ tion of f o r u m s for j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e i s s u e d i s c u s ­ sions, initiation of a c o o p e r a t i v e p l a n n i n g p r o ­ cess, d e v e l o p m e n t of flexible networks of c o m m u n i t y services to address the changing n e e d s of y o u t h , a n d a d o p t i o n of s t a t e legislation and p o l i c i e s ( B r o w n , 1 9 9 5 ) . T h e t h i r d m a i n f a c t o r is t h e specific p r o g r a m f o c u s o n j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e t h e JJDP A c t fostered at t h e s t a t e a n d l o c a l levels. It r e q u i r e d t h a t n o t less t h a n 7 5 % of s t a t e JJDP A c t funds b e allo­ c a t e d to " a d v a n c e d t e c h n i q u e s in developing, maintaining, and expanding programs and services designed to p r e v e n t juvenile delin­ q u e n c y , t o d i v e r t j u v e n i l e s f r o m t h e juvenile justice s y s t e m , a n d to p r o v i d e c o m m u n i t y b a s e d a l t e r n a t i v e s to j u v e n i l e d e t e n t i o n a n d c o r r e c t i o n a l facilities" ( S e c . 2 2 3 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) ) . T h e act linked t h e s e " a d v a n c e d t e c h n i q u e s " to its DSO, s e p a r a t i o n , a n d (later) jail r e m o v a l m a n ­ d a t e s . A c h i e v e m e n t of t h e t h r e e m a n d a t e s t h u s w a s s u p p o r t e d by JJDP A c t funds. A r e c e n t r e ­ v i e w s h o w e d t h a t d u r i n g 1 9 9 1 , 5 1 % of F o r m u l a G r a n t P r o g r a m funds w e r e u s e d to r e a c h c o m ­ p l i a n c e w i t h JJDP A c t m a n d a t e s , 1 6 % for preven­ tion, 7% for serious a n d violent y o u t h c r i m e , 4 % for d r u g p r o g r a m s , a n d 2 2 % for a w i d e r a n g e of o t h e r p u r p o s e s ( B r o w n , 1 9 9 5 , p. 2 4 ) . C o n s i s t e n t legal s u p p o r t in t h e D e p a r t m e n t of J u s t i c e for a d h e r e n c e to JJDP A c t legal r e ­ q u i r e m e n t s is t h e fourth f a c t o r T h e DOJ's Of­ fice of J u s t i c e P r o g r a m legal c o u n s e l h a s s t e a d ­ fastly s u p p o r t e d state c o m p l i a n c e with the m a j o r JJDP A c t m a n d a t e s . T h e states, by a n d large, h a v e r e s p o n d e d positively to t h e s e n s e of j u s t i c e a n d fairness e m b o d i e d in t h e JJDP A c t m a n d a t e s a n d to e v e n h a n d n e s s in OJJDP im­ p l e m e n t a t i o n of t h e a c t . Fifth, t h e JJDP A c t i n s p i r e d effective p r o ­ g r a m s . In o u t l i n i n g a d v a n c e d p r o g r a m t e c h ­ n i q u e s s u c h a s i n v o l v e m e n t of yoiUh a n d par­ e n t s in t h e d e s i g n a n d e v a l u a t i o n of p r o g r a m s , u s e of t h e least r e s t r i c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s , l o c a t i n g p r o g r a m s n e a r j u v e n i l e offenders' h o m e s a n d c o m m u n i t i e s , a n d u r g i n g e v a l u a t i o n of p r o ­ g r a m s , t h e JJDP A c t p r o m o t e d p r o g r e s s i v e p r o ­ g r a m m i n g . A l t h o u g h a w i d e v a r i e t y of effective and p r o m i s i n g p r o g r a m s h a s b e e n d e v e l o p e d o v e r t h e p a s t 2 0 y e a r s , this p r o g r e s s did n o t be­ gin w i t h t h e JJDP A c t . T h e juvenile j u s t i c e field already had been improving treatment and re­ h a b i l i t a t i o n p r o g r a m s for juvenile offenders.

41 Sixth, dedicated juvenile justice specialists (state e m p l o y e e s vwth r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for p l a n ­ ning a n d p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t u n d e r t h e JJDP Act block grant program) have played a key role in s o m e states. T h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u n t r y , d e d i ­ c a t e d youth workers tirelessly i m p l e m e n t a w i d e v a r i e t y of y o u t h s e r v i c e p r o g r a m s , for v e r y l o w p a y a n d few, if any, benefits. For this, t h e y r e c e i v e little r e c o g n i t i o n , y e t t h e p r o g r a m s in w h i c h they w o r k are the v e r y programs that c o m e to be recognized as promising a n d effective.

OJJDP Contributions to the J u v e n i l e Justice Field B e c a u s e it is n o t t h e p u r p o s e of this b o o k t o t o u t OJJDP p r o g r a m s , o n l y a brief r e v i e w of m a j o r p r o g r a m initiatives is m a d e h e r e . T h i s r e v i e w is also limited in its c o v e r a g e , t o t h e p r i n c i p a l t h r u s t s of t h e JJDP A c t : d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n ­ tion, a l t e r n a t i v e s to i n c a r c e r a t i o n , a n d i m p r o v ­ ing t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . T h e n u m b e r and s c o p e of p r o j e c t s is so large t h a t a n e x h a u s ­ tive a n d s y s t e m a t i c e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e i r lasting effects w o u l d r e q u i r e a m a j o r r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t of its o w n . O n l y a few s e l e c t e d p r o g r a m s , t h e r e ­ fore, a r e r e v i e w e d h e r e as i l l u s t r a t i v e c a s e s o f JJDP A c t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e field in t h e s e t h r e e a r e a s .

Delinquency Prevention O J J D P h a s u n d e r t a k e n five m a j o r d e l i n ­ q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n e x p e r i m e n t s , all of w h i c h w e r e f u n d e d in t h e late 1 9 7 0 s a n d e a r l y 1 9 9 0 s . O n e of t h e s e a i m e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n c a p a c i t y of y o u t h s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a ­ tions. T h e O J I D P p r o v i d e d f u n d i n g t o n a t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , w h i c h in t u r n s o u g h t t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e i r l o c a l affiliates' d e l i n q u e n c y prevention services. Although this p r o g r a m w a s not e v a l u a t e d , it did n o t a p p e a r to i n c r e a s e d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n s e r v i c e s significantly, but c a p a c i t y building, youth advocacy, a n d y o u t h i n v o l v e m e n t in p r o g r a m s o p e r a t e d b y t h e national organizations a p p e a r e d to i n c r e a s e (Research and Action, 1 9 8 1 ) . Two l a r g e - s c a l e OJJDP d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n ­ tion p r o g r a m s f o c u s e d o n t h e s c h o o l c o n t e x t . T h e first of these, t h e S c h o o l C r i m e R e d u c t i o n Initiative, s p o n s o r e d jointly w i t h t h e U . S . De­ p a r t m e n t of E d u c a t i o n , f u n d e d m o r e t h a n 2 0 0 teacher-student teams to assess delinquency

JUVENILE J U S T I C E AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

42

problems and develop prevention approaches.

cial D e v e l o p m e n t Project, w h i c h h a s p r o d u c e d

E v a l u a t i o n of t h e p r o g r a m (Grant & Capell,

a b r e a k t h r o u g h in d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n (see

1 9 8 3 ) , u s i n g r e p o r t s f r o m m o r e t h a n 3 5 , 0 0 0 stu­

C h a p t e r 9 ) . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e OJJDP w a s n o t

dents and 7 , 0 0 0 teachers, showed that school

a l l o w e d to e n j o y t h e fruits of t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l

t e a m s w e r e m o s t effective in p r e v e n t i n g p e r ­

w o r k it s u p p o r t e d . F u n d i n g for t h e S e a t t l e S o ­

s o n a l v i c t i m i z a t i o n in s c h o o l , c l a s s r o o m dis­

c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t P r o j e c t w a s t e r m i n a t e d in

r u p t i o n , a n d fear o f c r i m e . T h e y w e r e not, h o w ­

1 9 8 1 b y OJJDP A d m i n i s t r a t o r A l f r e d R e g n e r y

ever, s u c c e s s f u l in r e d u c i n g theft a n d d r u g use.

under whose

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n OJJDP t u r n e d

In t h e s e c o n d OJJDP s c h o o l p r o g r a m , D e h n ­

away from delinquency prevention toward pu­

quency Prevention Through Alternative Edu­

nitive a p p r o a c h e s t o d e l i n q u e n c y (see Regnery,

models

1 9 8 6 ) . L a r g e l y b e c a u s e of t h e fifth j u v e n i l e jus­

w e r e f u n d e d in 1 5 cities, targeting s c h o o l s serv­

tice reform movement's emphasis on punish­

cation, 18 delinquency

prevention

ing g r a d e s 6 t h r o u g h 1 2 in r e l a t i v e l y h i g h - c r i m e

m e n t a n d d e t e r r e n c e (see C h a p t e r 1 ) , w h i c h

c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h h i g h d e l i n q u e n c y rates. P r o ­

R e g n e r y u s h e r e d into t h e OJJDP, t h e office did

gram models varied from secondary prevention

not s u p p o r t m a j o r d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n p r o ­

p r o g r a m s t h a t p r o v i d e d s e r v i c e s to h i g h - r i s k

g r a m s d e s i g n e d s p e c i f i c a l l y for this p u r p o s e

y o u t h s o u t s i d e t h e s c h o o l to i n t e r v e n t i o n s

u n t i l C o n g r e s s m a n d a t e d t h a t it do so in t h e

w i t h i n t h e s c h o o l t h a t t a r g e t e d high-risk y o u t h s

1 9 9 2 a m e n d m e n t s to t h e JJDP A c t .

for s p e c i a l s e r v i c e s . S e r v i c e s r a n g e d f r o m

a m e n d m e n t s c r e a t e d t h e Title V D e l i n q u e n c y

These

p u r e l y e d u c a t i o n a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s to c o u n s e l i n g

P r e v e n t i o n P r o g r a m (see OJJDP 1 9 9 5 f , 1 9 9 6 ) ,

a n d w o r k - r e l a t e d i n s t r u c t i o n . E v a l u a t i o n of t h e

w h i c h is n o w being i m p l e m e n t e d in e v e r y s t a t e

p r o g r a m (Gottfredson, 1 9 8 7 ) s h o w e d t h e p r o ­

(see C h a p t e r 9 ) .

g r a m t o b e s o m e w h a t s u c c e s s f u l . It h e l p e d s c h o o l s b e c o m e safer a n d less d i s r u p t i v e . T h e n u m b e r of s c h o o l s in w h i c h n o n a t t e n d a n c e de­ c l i n e d e x c e e d e d t h e n u m b e r in w h i c h it in­

Alternatives to the Juvenile Justice System

c r e a s e d , a n d t h e n u m b e r of s c h o o l s in w h i c h expectations

for c o n t i n u i n g

schooling

in­

c r e a s e d e x c e e d e d t h e n u m b e r in w h i c h t h e y de­ clined. OJJDP's f o u r t h d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n p r o ­ g r a m a t t e m p t e d to p r e v e n t d e l i n q u e n c y in t h e c o m m u n i t y . This massive program involved 1 6 8 p r i v a t e y o u t h a g e n c i e s in 6 8 cities. A b o u t 2 0 , 0 0 0 y o u t h w e r e s e r v e d b y t h e s e p r o g r a m s in 2 y e a r s . A n a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n of t h e p r o g r a m (Krisberg, 1 9 8 1 ) f o u n d it to b e a d i s m a l failure. A l t h o u g h g r a n t e e s w e r e e n c o u r a g e d to c h o o s e f r o m s e v e r a l p r e v e n t i o n strategies, t h e y c h o s e instead to reinforce a n d e x p a n d traditional services they previously provided, mainly rec­ reation, counseling, employment, and educa­ tion. A t - r i s k y o u t h w e r e not targeted. T h e p r o ­ grams

lacked

formal

intake

procedures;

t h e r e f o r e , little d e l i n q u e n t b e h a v i o r w a s p r e ­ vented. OJJDP's fifth d e l i n q u e n c y p r e v e n t i o n p r o ­ g r a m w a s a p r o d u c t of its A s s e s s m e n t C e n t e r o n D e l i n q u e n t B e h a v i o r a n d Its P r e v e n t i o n , f u n d e d in 1 9 7 6 . After 3 y e a r s of r e v i e w i n g s t u d ­ ies o f d e l i n q u e n c y a n d p r o g r a m e v a l u a t i o n s ,

T h e OJJDP's initial efforts to d i v e r t j u v e n i l e s f r o m t h e j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m w e r e effective in a c c o m p l i s h i n g this a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a i m b u t w e r e not p a r t i c u l a r l y s u c c e s s f u l in a c h i e v i n g t h e l o n g e r - t e r m o b j e c t i v e of r e d u c i n g d e l i n ­ q u e n c y . T h e office's first p r o g r a m , Deinstitu­ t i o n a h z a t i o n of S t a t u s Offenders, s u p p o r t e d 1 3 DSO projects that served m o r e than 1 6 , 0 0 0 y o u t h s in t h e i r first 2 y e a r s of o p e r a t i o n . T h e t w o m a i n o b j e c t i v e s of this m a s s i v e p r o g r a m w e r e p r o v i d i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s to c o n f i n e m e n t of s t a t u s offenders in d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r s a n d refor­ m a t o r i e s , a n d r e c i d i v i s m r e d u c t i o n . Its n a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n (Kobrin & Klein, 1 9 8 3 ) s h o w e d t h a t a r e d u c t i o n in s e c u r e p l a c e m e n t of s t a t u s of­ f e n d e r s w a s a c c o m p l i s h e d in m o s t sites, b u t D S O c l i e n t s s h o w e d a slightly h i g h e r r e c i d i ­ vism rate than preprogram control groups. Al­ t e r n a t i v e s e r v i c e s for s t a t u s offenders w e r e n o t necessarily productive. Two o t h e r findings w e r e e q u a l l y i m p o r t a n t . T h e evaluation strongly suggested that the "pure" s t a t u s offender is r e l a t i v e l y u n c o m m o n ; m o s t j u v e n i l e s in b o t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l a n d

D e v e l o p m e n t M o d e l (Weis & H a w k i n s , 1 9 7 9 ) ,

preprogram group evidenced a mixed pattern of s t a t u s a n d d e l i n q u e n t offenses. A b o u t 1 0 % of t h e s t a t u s offenders w e r e f o u n d to be c h r o n i c

a n d d e s i g n e d a n d i m p l e m e n t e d t h e Seattle S o ­

offenders. Finally, c o n s i d e r a b l e "net w i d e n i n g "

the Assessment Center developed a theoretical model of delinquency prevention, the Social

L a n d m a r k Federal Legislation

43

a p p e a r e d to o c c u r . F u n d e d p r o g r a m s a p p e a r e d

p r o c e s s i n g a p p e a r s to b e n o m o r e s t i g m a t i z i n g

to serve m a n y youths w h o otherwise w o u l d not

than

have been detained or incarcerated. T h e experi­

e q u a l l y as l i k e l y w h e t h e r j u v e n i l e s a r e p r o ­

alternative

programs. Recidivism

is

was

c e s s e d n o r m a l l y in t h e juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m

m o r e difficult t h a n m a n y o b s e r v e r s believed .

or d i v e r t e d t o a l t e r n a t i v e p r o g r a m s ( D u n f o r d

P e r h a p s t h e m o s t difficult p a r t w a s p r o v i d i n g

et al., 1 9 8 2 ) .

ment proved that accomplishing DSO

effective a l t e r n a t i v e s e r v i c e s .

T h e OJJDP's N a t i o n a l R e s t i t u d o n P r o g r a m

A subsequent review (Schneider, 1 9 8 5 b ; see

c o n s i s t e d of 4 1 p r o j e c t s at 8 6 sites. R e s t i t u t i o n

also S c h n e i d e r , 1 9 8 6 ) of m o r e t h a n 7 0 e m p i r i c a l

c o n s i s t e d of m o n e t a r y r e p a y m e n t , c o m m u n i t y

DSO studies generally substantiated the na­

s e r v i c e , or a c o m b i n a t i o n o f b o t h . N e a r l y 2 0 , 0 0 0

t i o n a l D S O e v a l u a t i o n r e s u l t s . A l t h o u g h this r e ­

j u v e n i l e offenders w e r e r e f e r r e d t o t h e 4 1 p r o ­

v i e w c o n f i r m e d s u b s t a n t i a l r e d u c t i o n s in c o n ­

g r a m s o v e r a 2 - y e a r p e r i o d . A b o u t h a l f of d i e

finement

of

status

offenders

in

public

referred y o u n g s t e r s h a d b e e n a d j u d i c a t e d d e ­

c o r r e c t i o n a l facilities, u n i n t e n d e d side effect s

l i n q u e n t for s e r i o u s o r v e r y s e r i o u s

w e r e a p p a r e n t . C o m m i t m e n t s to p r i v a t e c o r r e c ­

Nine

tional institutions

increased

substantially.

M o r e o v e r , "relabeling" s t a t u s offenders as de ­

of

(Schneider, Schneider

the

programs

Griffith,

&

& Schneider,

were

offenses. evaluated

Schneider, 1980;

1980;

Schneider,

linquents a p p e a r e d to be a c o m m o n o c c u r ­

S c h n e i d e r , Griffidi, & W i l s o n , 1 9 8 2 ) . I n d i v i d u a l

r e n c e . S c h n e i d e r c a l l e d for c o n c e r t e d efforts t o

p r o j e c t s w e r e v e r y s u c c e s s f u l in s e e i n g t h a t of­

i m p r o v e t h e q u a l i t y of s e r v i c e s for s t a t u s of -

fenders completed court-ordered restitution

fenders.

( 8 5 % of t h e c a s e s w e r e c l o s e d in full c o m p h ­

T h e OJJDP's first e x p e r i e n c e writh d i v e r s i o n

a n c e with restitution requirements). O n the av­

p r o v e d to b e v e r y s i m i l a r to t h e D S O e x p e r i ­

e r a g e , juvenile offenders r e p a i d 7 5 % o f t h e o r ­

m e n t , as foretold b y Klein ( 1 9 7 9 ) . E l e v e n p r o ­

d e r e d dollar a m o u n t , w i t h 9 0 % of t h e m o n i e s

g r a m s w e r e f u n d e d , of w h i c h four w e r e inten ­

repaid coming from themselves. There were

s i v e l y e v a l u a t e d . A t t h e s e four sites, a r r e s t e d

virtually no differences b e t w e e n serious a n d

y o u t h s , m o r e t h a n 1 , 3 0 0 in all, w e r e a s s i g n e d

m i n o r o f f e n d e r s in s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n of

r a n d o m l y to e i t h e r o u t r i g h t r e l e a s e , referral t o

r e s t i t u t i o n o r d e r s . N o r did p r i o r offense seri­

a d i v e r s i o n p r o g r a m , or n o r m a l p r o c e s s i n g b y

o u s n e s s a p p e a r t o s t r o n g l y affect t h e reoffend­

the juvenile justice system. T h e national evalu­

ing rate. T h e reoffense r a t e , m e a s u r e d in t e r m s

ation of the p r o g r a m (Dunford, Osgood, &

o f n e w c o u r t c o n t a c t s w h i l e u n d e r p r o g r a m su­

that

p e r v i s i o n , w a s 9 % t h e first y e a r a n d 1 4 % t h e

Weichselbaum,

1 9 8 2 ) found

evidence

three of the four p r o g r a m s h a d r e d u c e d the

s e c o n d . In t h r e e o u t o f f o u r sites, r e s t i t u t i o n

p e n e t r a t i o n of y o u t h s into t h e j u s t i c e s y s t e m .

p r o g r a m youth h a d statistically lower recidi­

It a p p e a r e d t h a t t h e d i v e r s i o n p r o g r a m s w e r e

v i s m r a t e s t h a n did c o n t r o l g r o u p y o u t h d u r i n g

less c o e r c i v e a n d m o r e o r i e n t e d to m e e t i n g cli ­

a 3 - y e a r f o l l o w - u p p e r i o d , illustrating a c l e a r

ents' n e e d s t h a n w e r e c o m p a r a b l e justice agen ­

s u p p r e s s i o n effect.

cies. Diversion p r o g r a m s w e r e no m o r e s u c c e s s ­

In a n o t h e r s t u d y o f f o u r s i t e s i n

which

ful, h o w e v e r , in a v o i d i n g s t i g m a t h a n n o r m a l

y o u t h s w e r e r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d into r e s t i t u t i o n

justice p r o c e s s i n g or o u t r i g h t r e l e a s e . N o r di d

and into traditional dispositions,

d i v e r s i o n s e r v i c e s a p p e a r to i m p r o v e s o c i a l a d ­

( 1 9 8 6 ) found that on the whole, restitution m a y

justment or r e d u c e recidivism. Diversion with

h a v e a s m a l l b u t i m p o r t a n t effect o n r e c i d i v i s m .

Schneider

o r w i t h o u t s e r v i c e s w a s a b o u t e q u a l l y likely t o

S h e c o n c l u d e d t h a t n o t all p r o g r a m s w i l l b e

r e d u c e recidivism. Considerable e v i d e n c e of

able to a c h i e v e this effect, b e c a u s e of p r o g r a m

"net v n d e n i n g " w a s f o u n d . Osgood's ( 1 9 8 3 ) r e ­

m a n a g e m e n t a n d strategy, c o m m u n i t y c i r c u m ­

a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a , s e p a r a t i n g m i n o r offender s

stances, or other factors.

f r o m t h o s e w i t h m o r e s e r i o u s offense histories ,

B e c a u s e o f t h e s u c c e s s of t h e r e s t i t u t i o n p r o ­

s h o w e d n o difference in d i v e r s i o n p r o g r a m ef-

g r a m , t h e OJJDP s e r v e d a s a c a t a l y s t i n t h e de­

fectiveness. Diversion w o u l d remain an elusive

v e l o p m e n t a n d e x p a n s i o n of the restitution

p r o s p e c t for d e l i n q u e n c y r e d u c t i o n .

movement.

At the time

the program was

In a d d i t i o n t o D u n f o r d et al.'s e v a l u a t i o n o f

launched, there were only 1 5 formal juvenile

t h e OJJDP's n a t i o n a l d i v e r s i o n p r o g r a m , s e v e r a l

r e s t i t u t i o n p r o g r a m s in e x i s t e n c e ( S c h n e i d e r &

o t h e r s t u d i e s of D S O a n d d i v e r s i o n h a v e r e ­

S c h n e i d e r , 1 9 7 7 ) . B y 1 9 8 5 , 6 5 % of large j u v e ­

futed

labeling

theory

(see

Rausch, 1983;

T h o m a s , 1 9 7 6 ) . In s u m , juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m

nile c o u r t jurisdictions a n d 3 3 % of small ones h a d formal restitution programs (see

Schneider,

44

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

1985a; Schneider & Schneider, 1980; S c h n e i d e r & W a r n e r , 1 9 8 9 ) . A N a t i o n a l Resti­ tution Association was soon formed (recently r e n a m e d the National Restorative Justice Asso­ c i a t i o n ) . It r e m a i n s v e r y a c t i v e in p r o m o t i n g restitution programs (Bazemore & Umbreit, 1994).

Improving the Juvenile Justice System In a d d i t i o n t o its s u c c e s s in i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e m a j o r m a n d a t e s of t h e JJDP A c t r e v i e w e d e a r l i e r in this c h a p t e r (DSO, s e p a r a t i o n , a n d jail r e m o v a l ) , a n d in a d d i t i o n to its c u r r e n t w o r k t o w a r d r e d u c i n g t h e d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e confine­ m e n t of m i n o r i t y y o u t h , t h e OJJDP h a s m a d e o t h e r m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i o n s to i m p r o v i n g t h e ju­ v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m . T h e OJJDP h a s s u p p o r t e d t r a i n i n g for e v e r y c o m p o n e n t of t h e juvenile j u s t i c e s y s t e m : police, p r o s e c u t i o n , c o u r t , de­ tention, and corrections. T h e most substantial of t h e s e efforts, s u p p o r t e d s i n c e t h e OJJDP w a s e s t a b l i s h e d in 1 9 7 5 , is t h e professional training a n d t e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d by t h e Na­ tional Council of Juvenile and Family Court J u d g e s , not o n l y for judges but also for o t h e r j u v e n i l e c o u r t p e r s o n n e l . Illustrative training m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e t h e Desktop Guide to Good Ju­ venile Probation Practice (NCJJ, 1 9 9 1 ) d e v e l ­ o p e d by t h e NCJFCJ's N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for J u v e ­ nile J u s t i c e (NCJJ), w h i c h is u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y in t r a i n i n g judges, intake officers, a n d p r o b a ­ tion officers. T h e N C J F C J a l s o p r o v i d e s e x t e n ­ s i v e t r a i n i n g for c o u r t , s o c i a l s e r v i c e , a n d o t h e r c h i l d c a r e w o r k e r s u n d e r its P e r m a n e n c y P l a n ­ ning P r o j e c t , to r e d u c e u s e of foster c a r e e x c e p t as a last r e s o r t . T h e OJJDP r e c e n t l y b e g a n p r o ­ v i d i n g t r a i n i n g for line d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r a n d c o r r e c t i o n a l staff. T h e Desktop Guide to Good Detention Practice, p r e p a r e d b y t h e N a t i o n a l Ju­ v e n i l e D e t e n t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , is u s e d to train detention care givers and managers (Roush, 1996a). P r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , training, a n d t e c h n i ­ c a l a s s i s t a n c e o n a l t e r n a t i v e s to i n c a r c e r a t i o n a n d d e t e n t i o n h a s b e e n a c e n t r a l t h r u s t of t h e OJJDP's p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m t h e begin­ ning. T h i s w o r k b e g a n w i t h a n a t i o n a l assess­ m e n t of d e t e n t i o n a n d a l t e r n a t i v e s to its u s e ( Y o u n g & Pappenfort, 1 9 7 7 ) . T h i s a s s e s s m e n t f o u n d o v e r u s e o f s e c u r e d e t e n t i o n in m a n y p a r t s of t h e c o u n t r y , c o n c l u d i n g t h a t a large p r o ­ p o r t i o n of d e t a i n e d y o u t h c o u l d be r e l e a s e d t o

t h e i r p a r e n t s or o t h e r a d u l t s to a w a i t c o u r t a c ­ tion. S e c u r e h o l d i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e e s s e n t i a l for a s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n of alleged d e l i n q u e n t s w h o c o n s t i t u t e a d a n g e r to o t h e r s . R e s i d e n t i a l and nonresidential programs appear about equal in their ability to k e e p y o u t h s trouble-free a n d a v a i l a b l e to c o u r t . H o m e d e t e n t i o n w a s f o u n d to b e s u c c e s s f u l w i t h d e l i n q u e n t s a n d s o m e status offenders. T h e latter g r o u p s o m e ­ t i m e s r e q u i r e substitute c a r e b e c a u s e of family conflicts. Y o u n g a n d P a p p e n f o r t u r g e d t h a t in­ take d e c i s i o n s be g u i d e d by clear, w r i t t e n c r i ­ teria, t o g e t h e r w i t h c l o s e m o n i t o r i n g to g u a r d against o v e r u s e . For 1 5 y e a r s , t h e OJJDP h a s s u p p o r t e d t h e a d o p t i o n of n a t i o n a l l y r e c o g n i z e d s t a n d a r d s for t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of all a s p e c t s of j u v e n i l e jus­ tice (Allen-Hagen & Howell, 1 9 8 2 ) . N e w w o r k o n standards development is focused o n improving c o n d i t i o n s of confinement, w h i c h OJJDP's n a ­ t i o n a l a s s e s s m e n t (Parent, Leiter, L i v e n s , W e n t w o r t h , & S t e p h e n , 1 9 9 4 ) s h o w e d to b e u r ­ gently n e e d e d . T h i s p r o g r a m i n v o l v e s t h e de­ velopment of p e r f o r m a n c e - b a s e d s t a n d a r d s for d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r s a n d r e f o r m a t o r i e s in t h e a r e a s of safety, security, order, t r e a t m e n t p r o ­ g r a m s , h e a l t h , a n d justice. S t a t e juvenile c o d e revisions to i m p r o v e t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of ju­ venile justice also h a v e been e n c o u r a g e d t h r o u g h o u t the OJJDP's history, r e s u l t i n g in i m ­ p r o v e m e n t s in v i r t u a l l y e v e r y state. T e c h n i c a l a s s i s t a n c e is n o w being p r o v i d e d to state legis­ latures by t h e N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e of S t a t e Leg­ islatures. J u v e n i l e a n d family c o u r t h a n d l i n g of a b u s e a n d n e g l e c t c a s e s h a s b e e n g r e a t l y i m p r o v e d by v i r t u e of t h e C o u r t A p p o i n t e d S p e c i a l A d v o ­ c a t e s P r o g r a m (Slott, 1 9 9 1 ) . T h i s n a t i o n a l p r o ­ g r a m p r o v i d e s t r a i n e d v o l u n t e e r s w h o assist c o u r t s in investigating d e p e n d e n c y a n d n e g l e c t c a s e s . T h e N a t i o n a l I n c i d e n c e S t u d y of Miss­ ing, A b d u c t e d , R u n a w a y , a n d T h r o w n a w a y C h i l d r e n (Finkelhor, H o t a h n g , & Sedlak, 1 9 9 0 ) r e v e a l e d that o n l y a b o u t 3 % of all m i s s i n g c h i l ­ d r e n a r e a b d u c t e d b y a s t r a n g e r M o s t a r e living in c o n f l i c t - r i d d e n families, often a c c o m p a n i e d by a b u s e a n d neglect. R e s u l t s o f this r e s e a r c h h a v e b e e n i n c o r p o r a t e d in t r a i n i n g p r o g r a m s for c h i l d p r o t e c t i o n a g e n c i e s in investigating parental abduction cases, w h i c h stem mainly f r o m c u s t o d y disputes a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e p a r a ­ tion a n d d i v o r c e . A n i n t e r s t a t e p l a c e m e n t s t u d y (Hall et al., 1 9 8 2 ; see a l s o Hall, H a m p a r i a n , Pettibone, & White, 1 9 8 1 , pp. 3 - 1 6 5 ) d o c u m e n t e d excessive

L a n d m a r k Federal Legislation

45

a n d i n c o n s i s t e n t p o l i c i e s a n d p r a c t i c e s in out-

n o r i t i e s ( K e m p f et al., 1 9 9 0 ; W o o d s o n , 1 9 7 7 ,

of-state p l a c e m e n t o f c h i l d r e n a n d a d o l e s c e n t s .

1 9 8 1 ) , g e n d e r bias in p r o c e s s i n g a n d a l a c k of

A few s t a t e s w e r e f o u n d t o h a v e n e a r l y a t h o u ­

effective p r o g r a m s for females (Bishop & Frazier,

s a n d c h i l d r e n p l a c e d in o t h e r states. S e v e r a l

1 9 9 2 ) , u n a c c e p t a b l e c o n d i t i o n s of c o n f i n e m e n t

states drastically curtailed their interstate

in d e t e n t i o n c e n t e r s a n d r e f o r m a t o r i e s (Parent

p l a c e m e n t s f o l l o w i n g t h e study, w h i c h h e l p e d

et al., 1 9 9 4 ) a n d in a d u l t jails (Soler, 1 9 8 8 ) , l a c k

reverse the 100-year-old practice.

of d u e p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n s in t h e j u v e n i l e jus­

J u v e n i l e j u s t i c e s y s t e m h a n d l i n g of l e a r n i n g

t i c e s y s t e m (Forst, 1 9 9 5 ) , l a c k o f job a n d skills

d i s a b l e d (LD) c h i l d r e n a l s o h a s b e e n i m p r o v e d

t r a i n i n g for a d o l e s c e n t s ( A m e r i c a n Y o u t h W o r k

as a r e s u l t o f a r e s e a r c h a n d d e v e l o p m e n t p r o ­

Center, 1 9 9 3 ; H o w a r d , 1 9 9 5 ) , a n d t h e a b s e n c e

g r a m t h a t initially d i s c o v e r e d t h a t LD c h i l d r e n

of a n a t i o n a l y o u t h g a n g p o l i c y (Miller, 1 9 9 0 ) .

a r e n o m o r e l i k e l y t h a n n o n - L D c h i l d r e n to

T h i s listing is b y n o m e a n s e x h a u s t i v e . T h e ju­

c o m m i t d e l i n q u e n t a c t s , but t h e y a r e t w i c e as

venile justice system a n d alternative programs

likely to be a d j u d i c a t e d delinquent (Broder,

also suffer f r o m a s e v e r e l a c k of m o n e t a r y a n d

1980;

Murray, 1 9 7 7 ; Z i m m e r m a n & Broder,

staff r e s o u r c e s ( N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o f S t a t e

1 9 8 0 ) . T h i s d i s c o v e r y p o i n t e d t o t h e n e e d to i m ­

L e g i s l a t u r e s , 1 9 9 6 ) . J u v e n i l e j u s t i c e is o n t h e

p r o v e L D s c r e e n i n g m e c h a n i s m s a n d training

b o t t o m r u n g of state a n d c o u n t y b u d g e t s .

for j u v e n i l e j u s t i c e p r o f e s s i o n a l s . T h e OJJDP s p o n s o r e d t h e n e e d e d t r a i n i n g in w o r k s h o p s a r o u n d t h e c o u n t r y . T h i s led to t h e e s t a b ­ l i s h m e n t of a L e a r n i n g Disabilities Institute in Phoenix.

T h e Other Side of Status Offenders The

O n e of t h e OJJDP's m o s t significant c o n t r i ­ b u t i o n s t o i m p r o v i n g t h e juvenile j u s t i c e sys­

N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y of S c i e n c e s ' r e v i e w of

D S O ( H a n d l e r & Z a t z , 1 9 8 2 ) r e s u l t e d in t h e fol­ lowing conclusions.

t e m is in t h e a r e a of a f t e r c a r e , p e r h a p s t h e m o s t p o o r l y d e v e l o p e d p r o g r a m a r e a in t h e e n t i r e s y s t e m . T h e first c o n t r i b u t i o n in this a r e a w a s m a d e in t h e OJJDP V i o l e n t J u v e n i l e Offender (VJO) p r o g r a m , d e v e l o p e d t o p r o v i d e highly in­ t e n s i v e t r e a t m e n t for v i o l e n t a n d s e r i o u s of­ f e n d e r s in a c o r r e c t i o n a l setting. Its design in­ cluded a structured reintegradon component (Fagan, R u d m a n , & H a r t s t o n e , 1 9 8 4 ) . T h e s e c ­ ond aftercare model resulted from a national a s s e s s m e n t of i n t e n s i v e s u p e r v i s i o n p r o g r a m s (Krisberg, N e u e n f e l d t , W i e b u s h , & R o d r i g u e z , 1 9 9 4 ) . T h i s m o d e l (illustrated in C h a p t e r 9 ) in­ c o r p o r a t e s p h a s e d s t e p d o w n following s e c u r e c o n f i n e m e n t of d a n g e r o u s juvenile

offenders.

T h e t h i r d a f t e r c a r e m o d e l t h a t t h e OJJDP devel­ o p e d w a s t h e r e s u l t o f a n a t i o n a l a s s e s s m e n t of aftercare programs (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1 9 9 4 a , 1 9 9 4 b , 1 9 9 4 c , 1 9 9 5 ) . It is being tested in s e v e r a l sites. N o t all s t u d i e s of JJDP A c t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n h a v e b e e n p o s i t i v e (see A l t s c h u l e r & L u n e b u r g ,

1. T h e v a s t m a j o r i t y of a d j u d i c a t e d s t a t u s offenders h a v e b e e n r e m o v e d f r o m refor­ matories. 2. T h e r e h a s b e e n a d e c l i n e in t h e u s e o f p r e a d j u d i c a t o r y d e t e n t i o n for y o u t h s

who

h a v e b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h s t a t u s offenses. 3. F e w e r y o u t h s w h o a r e l a b e l e d s t a t u s of­ f e n d e r s a r e e n t e r i n g t h e juvenile j u s t i c e system. 4. For t h o s e s t a t u s o f f e n d e r s w h o a r e di­ v e r t e d to s o m e o t h e r s e r v i c e s y s t e m , t h e p r e d o m i n a n t f o r m s of o u t - o f - h o m e c a r e are g r o u p h o m e a n d foster c a r e a r r a n g e ­ m e n t s . It is u n c l e a r , h o w e v e r , w h a t is h a p p e n i n g to s t a t u s offenders w h o d o n o t e n t e r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t s y s t e m o r diver­ sion p r o g r a m s . M a n y of t h e s t a t e a n d lo­ cal r e s p o n d e n t s H a n d l e r a n d Z a t z inter­ viewed expressed the opinion that these y o u t h s a r e being i g n o r e d a l t o g e t h e r

1 9 9 2 ; H o w e l l , 1 9 9 5 c for d i s c u s s i o n s of r e l a t e d issues). T h e n e x t s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e s p r o b l e m s in p r o g r a m m i n g for s t a t u s offenders. O t h e r obsta­ c l e s h a v e i m p e d e d s u c c e s s in i m p r o v i n g t h e a d ­ m i n i s t r a t i o n of juvenile justice. T h e s e i n c l u d e racial bias (Bishop & Frazier, 1 9 9 2 ; Pope & Feyer­ h e r m , 1 9 9 3 ) , a l a c k of p r o g r a m m i n g for m i n o r ­ ity y o u t h a n d d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e a t t e n t i o n to t h e p r o b l e m s of w h i t e y o u t h at t h e e x p e n s e of m i ­

The National Criminal Justice Association ( N C J A ) ( H o l d e n & Kapler, 1 9 9 5 ) r e c e n d y a s ­ s e s s e d t h e p a s t 2 0 y e a r s of i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e D S O m a n d a t e . It c o n c l u d e d t h a t "over t h e p a s t t w o d e c a d e s , t h e JJDP A c t h a s f u n d a m e n t a l l y changed the w a y our Nation deals with trou­ b l e d y o u t h . . . . T h e k e y t o this t r a n s f o r m a t i o n c a n be f o u n d in t h e JJDP A c t ' s c e n t r a l m a n d a t e :

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND

46

YOUTH VIOLENCE

D S O " (p. 3 ) . T h e N C J A c o n c h i d e d t h a t a l t h o u g h

fenses (Datesman & Aickin, 1 9 8 5 ; Kobrin &

t h e m a j o r i t y of s t a t e s h a v e a c h i e v e d c o m p l i ­

Klein, 1 9 8 3 ; T h o m a s , 1 9 7 6 ; Weis, 1 9 7 9 ) . S i m i ­

a n c e with the DSO mandate and remain c o m ­

larly, t h e m o s t s e r i o u s a n d v i o l e n t

m i t t e d to its p u r p o s e s , m a i n t a i n i n g state c o m ­

also c o m m i t s t a t u s offenses w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e

juveniles

p l i a n c e "likely will d e p e n d in large part o n h o w

regularity (Thornberry, Huizinga, & Loeber,

firmly i n s t a l l e d it h a s b e c o m e in laws, policies

1 9 9 5 ) . For t h e s e a n d o t h e r r e a s o n s , E m p e y a n d

a n d p r a c t i c e s , " w h i l e states a r e facing "escalat­

Stafford ( 1 9 9 1 , pp. 5 0 2 - 5 0 4 ) a r g u e t h a t effective

ing p r e s s u r e s for m o r e p u n i t i v e a p p r o a c h e s to

i n t e r v e n t i o n r e q u i r e s t h e availability of juve­

resolving the violence problem" (Holden &

nile a n d family c o u r t r e s o u r c e s t o d e a l w i t h

Kapler, 1 9 9 5 , p. 9 ) .

r u n a w a y s and other c h r o n i c status offenders.

D e v e l o p m e n t o f effective s e r v i c e s for s t a t u s

J u v e n i l e c o u r t i n t e r v e n t i o n w i l l b e n e e d e d less

offenders r e p r e s e n t s a n o t h e r f o r m i d a b l e c h a l ­

often, p r o v i d e d t h a t i n t e g r a t e d s e r v i c e s a r e

lenge. T h e p r e s u m e d difference b e t w e e n s t a t u s

m a d e a v a i l a b l e e a r l y in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t

offenders a n d d e l i n q u e n t s is a m y t h . A m a j o r i t y

p r o b l e m b e h a v i o r s (see C h a p t e r 9 ) .

of j u v e n i l e offenders c o m m i t b o t h t y p e s of of­

of

3 Who's to Blame for Violent Crime?

T

his chapter reviews a wide variety of data sources and studies to assess what is known about the relative proportion of serious and violent crime in the United States for which juveniles and adults are responsible. Hidden adult crime is examined in the third section, followed by a reconsideration of the relationship between age and crime. Finally, a research agenda is suggested that might produce more accurate information on who is to blame for serious and violent crime in the United States.

century. "Over the next 10 years more juvenile 'superpredators' will be flooding the nation's streets" (Dilulio, 1996, p. 25). A Time magazine story (January 15, 1 9 9 6 ) reflected criminologists' warnings of "teenage time bombs" (see also Guest & Pope, 1996). Blumstein (1995a) warned that the 18-year-olds, currently today's adolescents, who are responsible for the higher homicide rates may continue reckless offending as they get older. It is said that legislators are merely responding to public pressure to enact strong measures against youth crime (Fox, in Potok & Sanchez, 1995).

The Perception

The empirical basis for these assertions is questionable, yet such statements are all too often taken as facts and incorporated into public policy statements. For example, former Senator Robert J. Dole made reference in a campaign speech to today's newborns becoming tomorrow's supeφredators (quoted in Harden, 1996). Dole called for more prosecution of juveniles as adults, an end to parole for violent crimes, and for states to build as many prisons as it takes to protect the public (quoted in Harden, 1996). An April 1 9 9 6 Los Angeles Times poll, however, indicated that voters did not appear to see crime as a top priority for presidential candidates. Only 9% of those surveyed believed Dole and Clinton should focus on crime, whereas 18% mentioned the economy and 16% health care (Harden, 1996).

In a 1 9 9 3 USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll (Meddis, 1993b), an astonishing 73% of adults said juveniles who commit violent crimes should be treated the same as adults. Why have we come to blame juveniles for violent crime in the United States? Misleading statements frequently are fed to the public that distort the juvenile contribution to crime in the United States. Here is a sampling. Teenagers are said to commit murders in a much greater proportion than their numbers in the general population (Cullen, 1995). Fox (see Butterfield, 1 9 9 5 ) described the United States as being in the calm period before a crime wave that will result in a "blood bath" of adolescent violence shortly after the turn of the

AUTHOR'S NOTE: The author is indebted to the National Center for Juvenile Justice for providing access to the spreadsheet files for figures and tables in two NCJJ reports: /uven/fe Offenders and Victims: A NaUonaJReport (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995), and Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence (Snyder, Sickmund, & Poe-Yamagata, 1996). This chapter draws significantly on both of these reports.

47

48

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

T h r e e criminologists are promoting dire f o r e c a s t s of a j u v e n i l e c r i m e wave in a b o u t 2 0 0 5 - 2 0 1 0 ( B l u m s t e i n , 1 9 9 5 a , 1 9 9 5 b , 1 9 9 6 ; Di­ lulio, 1 9 9 6 ; F o x , 1 9 9 6 ) , b a s e d o n a d e m o g r a p h i c e x p l a n a t i o n t h a t c o n s i s t s of t w o h y p o t h e s e s ( B l o c k , 1 9 8 6 , p. 1 2 ) . T h e first o n e is t h a t in­ c r e a s e s a n d d e c r e a s e s in t h e n u m b e r of c r i m e s are d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o i n c r e a s e s a n d de­ c r e a s e s in t h e n u m b e r o f c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d by y o u n g p e o p l e , e s p e c i a l l y by y o u n g b l a c k m a l e s . S e c o n d , t h e r e a s o n for t h e p a t t e r n of c r i m e in­ c r e a s e s a n d d e c r e a s e s b y y o u n g p e o p l e is t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g p a t t e r n s o f i n c r e a s e s a n d de­ c r e a s e s in t h e i r n u m b e r s . T h e m a i n p r o b l e m w i t h t h e i r d e m o g r a p h i c e x p l a n a t i o n is that it h a s b e e n p r o v e n w r o n g before. A n u m b e r of c r i m i n o l o g i s t s p r e d i c t e d a d e c r e a s e in h o m i ­ c i d e s b y y o u n g p e o p l e in t h e 1 9 8 0 s b e c a u s e their n u m b e r s w o u l d b e d e c r e a s i n g (see B l o c k , 1 9 8 7 , p. 1 2 ) . T h e i r p r e d i c t i o n w a s w r o n g . Homicides among young people increased. Other criminologists and demographers cor­ rectly questioned the demographic prediction ( s e e B l o c k , 1 9 8 7 , p. 1 3 ) . F o r e x a m p l e . S h i n ( 1 9 8 1 ) c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e age, s e x , a n d r a c e s t r u c t u r e of t h e p o p u l a t i o n a c c o u n t e d for at m o s t 1 0 % of t h e h o m i c i d e r a t e c h a n g e f r o m 1 9 3 0 to 1 9 7 5 . "It m i g h t s e e m , at first g l a n c e , that if a c e r t a i n g r o u p in t h e p o p u l a t i o n c o m m i t s c r i m e s at a h i g h e r r a t e t h a n o t h e r g r o u p s , a n d if t h e size of this p o p u l a t i o n g r o u p c h a n g e s , t h e n t h e n u m ­ ber of c r i m e s w o u l d c h a n g e c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y . H o w e v e r , t h e real s i t u a t i o n is m o r e c o m p l e x " (Block, 1 9 8 7 , p. 1 2 ) . M a n y o t h e r s o c i a l a n d c u l ­ t u r a l f a c t o r s a c c o u n t for c r i m e , v i o l e n c e , a n d h o m i c i d e , as w e s h a l l see. B e f o r e e x a m i n i n g these, let u s take a look at t h e r e a l i t y of juvenile violence.

T h e Reality of Juvenile V i o l e n c e In 1 9 9 4 , less t h a n o n e - h a l f of 1 % of all juveniles (ages 1 0 - 1 7 ) in t h e U n i t e d States w e r e a r r e s t e d for a v i o l e n t offense (Figure 3 . 1 ) . O n l y 6 % of all j u v e n i l e s w e r e a r r e s t e d for a n y offense. A m o n g all j u v e n U e a r r e s t s in 1 9 9 4 , o n l y a b o u t 7% w e r e for a n F B I Violent C r i m e I n d e x offense ( S n y d e r et al., 1 9 9 6 , p. 1 4 ) . E v e n t h e s e s m a l l n u m b e r s likely e x a g g e r a t e t h e a c t u a l n u m b e r of guilty ju­ v e n i l e s r e p r e s e n t e d in arrest statistics, b e c a u s e j u v e n i l e s o f t e n a r e a r r e s t e d in g r o u p s . T h i s p o i n t is s u p p o r t e d b y e x a m i n a t i o n o f c r i m e " c l e a r a n c e s " by a r r e s t of juveniles.

Offenses C l e a r e d b y the Arrest of a Juvenile T h e F e d e r a l B u r e a u of I n v e s t i g a t i o n ( F B I ) t r a c k s t h e n u m b e r of r e p o r t e d c r i m e s t h a t r e s u l t in a n arrest, or c r i m e s "cleared." In o t h e r w o r d s , a c r i m e is cleared o n c e s o m e o n e is c h a r g e d with that c r i m e (see S n y d e r & S i c k m u n d , 1 9 9 5 , p. 9 9 ) . Based on 1 9 9 4 c l e a r a n c e data, juveniles w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e for 1 4 % of all F B I V i o l e n t I n d e x C r i m e s a n d 2 5 % of all P r o p e r t y I n d e x C r i m e s (FBI, 1 9 9 5 ; S n y d e r et al., 1 9 9 6 ) . Surprisingly, j u v e n i l e s w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e for o n l y 1 0 % o f all m u r d e r s in 1 9 9 4 (Table 3 . 1 ) . A m o n g t h e four V i o l e n t I n d e x C r i m e s ( m u r d e r , r a p e , robbery, and aggravated assaults), the juvenile share w a s largest for r o b b e r i e s ( 2 0 % ) , w h i c h i n c l u d e s a significant p r o p o r t i o n of m i n o r offenses s u c h monetary as e x t o r t i o n i n v o l v i n g s m a l l a m o u n t s . A m o n g the four P r o p e r t y I n d e x C r i m e s (the r e m a i n i n g four offenses in Table 3.1), j u v e n i l e s w e r e d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y r e p r e ­ s e n t e d in a r s o n offenses, w h i c h a l s o i n c l u d e s a significant p r o p o r t i o n of m i n o r offenses s u c h as setting s m a l l isolated fires. T h e s e p e r c e n t ­ ages a r e m u c h l o w e r t h a n t h o s e t h a t do n o t take i n t o a c c o u n t t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f all a r r e s t s c l e a r e d b y t h e arrest of a juvenil. T h e p e r c e n t a g e of V i o l e n t I n d e x C r i m e s c l e a r e d b y t h e a r r e s t o f a j u v e n i l e ( 1 4 % ) is slightly a b o v e t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of j u v e n i l e s of t h e m o s t c r i m e - p r o n e a g e in t h e U . S . p o p u l a t i o n . In 1 9 9 4 , p e r s o n s age 1 0 t o 1 7 r e p r e s e n t e d 1 1 . 3 % of t h e total p o p u l a t i o n . S u r ­ prisingly, j u v e n i l e s a r e u n d e r r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e p e r c e n t a g e of m u r d e r s c l e a r e d b y t h e a r r e s t of a 1 0 - 1 7 - y e a r - o l d ( 1 0 % ) in 1 9 9 4 . Y o u n g a d u l t s , on the other hand, are disproportionately rep­ r e s e n t e d a m o n g m u r d e r v i c t i m s . In 1 9 9 4 , per­ s o n s age 1 8 to 3 4 m a d e u p 2 6 % of t h e U . S . p o p u ­ lation, yet t h e y r e p r e s e n t e d 5 4 % of all p e r s o n s m u r d e r e d ( a c c o r d i n g to t h e F B I S u p p l e m e n t a l H o m i c i d e Reports; s e e Perkins & K l a u s , 1 9 9 6 , p. 3 ) . S n y d e r a n d S i c k m u n d ( 1 9 9 5 , p. 9 9 ) illus­ trate t h e p r o p e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of " c l e a r a n c e " v e r s u s "arrest" data. Let us try to a n s w e r t h e question: " W h a t p r o p o r t i o n of all b u r g l a r i e s a r e c o m m i t t e d b y juveniles?" T h e U C R r e p o r t s t h a t 2 0 % of all burglaries c l e a r e d in 1 9 9 2 w e r e c l e a r e d by the a r r e s t of p e r s o n s u n d e r a g e 1 8 a n d t h a t 3 4 % o f p e r s o n s a r n ted for b u r g l a r y in 1 9 9 2 w e r e u n d e r ag,. 1 8 . H o w

W h o ' s t o B l a m e for Violent C r i m e ?

49

100%

Not arrested

Arrested for a violent crime

Arrested for all offenses

F i g u r e 3 . 1 . J u v e n i l e a r r e s t s in 1 9 9 4 SOURCE:/uven/ye Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence (p. 14), Snyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata, ©copyright 1996 by the National Center for Juvenile Justice. Reprinted with permission. DATA SOURCE: Crime in the United States 1994, Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (1995).

d o w e r e c o n c i l e t h e s e v e r y different per­ centages?

s o n s a r r e s t e d for b u r g l a r y w o u l d b e a j u v e n i l e (2 in 6 ) .

First, c a n w e be certain that the 1 3 % o f all b u r g l a r i e s that w e r e c l e a r e d in 1 9 9 2 a r e like all t h e b u r g l a r i e s c o m m i t t e d ? It could be argued that juveniles are less skilled a t a v o i d i n g a r r e s t . If so, c l e a r e d b u r g l a r i e s a r e likely t o c o n t a i n a g r e a t e r percentage of juvenile burglaries t h a n w o u l d those that are not cleared.

Clearance and arrest statistics answer different q u e s t i o n s . If y o u w a n t t o k n o w h o w m u c h c r i m e was c o m m i t t e d by juve­ niles, t h e c l e a r a n c e d a t a g i v e a b e t t e r indi­ cation because they c o u n t crimes, not ar­ r e s t e e s . H o w e v e r , if y o u w a n t to k n o w h o w m a n y p e r s o n s e n t e r e d t h e j u s t i c e sys­ tem, use the arrest data.

B u t e v e n if w e a s s u m e d t h a t t h e offender c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in t h e 1 3 % o f c l e a r e d burglaries are similar to those of the 8 7 % not cleared, h o w do w e reconcile that large difference between the juvenile c l e a r a n ce and arrest percent­ a g e ( 2 0 % vs. 3 4 % ) ? T h e k e y t o this d i f f e r e n c e c a n b e f o u n d in t h e fact t h a t , m o r e so t h a n a d u l t s , j u v e n i l e s t e n d to c o m m i t c r i m e s in g r o u p s (Reiss, 1 9 8 8 ; Z i m r i n g , 1 9 8 1 a ) . A s s u m e a p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t c l e a r e d five b u r g l a r i e s , o n e c o m m i t t e d by a p a i r of j u v e n i l e s a n d t h e o t h e r four c o m m i t t e d i n d i v i d u a l l y b y four different a d u l t s . T h e j u v e n i l e p r o p o r t i o n of b u r g l a r i e s c l e a r e d w o u l d b e 2 0 % (1 in 5 ) , w h i l e 3 3 % o f p e r ­

M o s t p u b l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f g r o w i n g ju­ venile crime inappropriately use arrest data, re­ sulting in a n e x a g g e r a t i o n of t h e p r o p o r t i o n of s e r i o u s a n d v i o l e n t c r i m e that s h o u l d b e a t t r i b ­ u t e d t o juveniles. A t t h e s a m e t i m e , t h o s e inter­ e s t e d in s h o w i n g t h e g r o w t h in j u v e n i l e c r i m e often n e g l e c t t o p o i n t o u t t h a t in 1 9 9 4 a d u l t s a c c o u n t e d for 8 6 % of t h e c l e a r a n c e s for v i o l e n t c r i m e s , a n d for 9 o u t o f 1 0 c l e a r a n c e s for m u r ­ d e r Violence and murder are overwhelmingly adult crimes.

The lyranny of Small Numbers In their a n a l y s i s o f i n c r e a s e s in a r r e s t s for violent crimes between 1 9 8 5 and 1 9 9 4 , Snyder

50

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND

T A B L E 3 . 1 P e r c e n t a g e of C r i m e s C l e a r e d b y t h e A r r e s t of a J u v e n i l e , U n i t e d States, 1 9 9 4 Offense Murder Aggravated assault Forcible rape Robbery Burglary Larceny-theft Motor vehicle theft Arson

Percentage 10 13 14 20 21 25 25 48

SOURCE: Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence (p. 13), Snyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata, ©copyright 1996 by the National Center for Juvenile Justice. Reprinted with permission. DATA SOURCE: Crime in the United States, 1994, Federal Bureau of Investigation (1995).

YOUTH VIOLENCE

adults. Juvenile arrests represent a rela­ tively small fraction of t h e total; conse­ q u e n t l y , a large p e r c e n t a g e i n c r e a s e in juvenile arrests does not necessarily translate into a large contribution to overall c r i m e growth. U s i n g F B I r e p o r t e d c r i m e a n d c l e a r a n c e sta­ tistics, S n y d e r et al. ( 1 9 9 6 , p. 2 0 ) e s t i m a t e d t h a t juveniles

committed 137,000 more

Violent

C r i m e I n d e x o f f e n s e s in 1 9 9 4 t h a n in 1 9 8 5 , while adults c o m m i t t e d an additional 3 9 8 , 0 0 0 . J u v e n i l e s , t h e r e f o r e , w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e for a b o u t o n e - f o u r t h ( 2 6 % ) o f thegrovi1:h in v i o l e n t c r i m e between 1 9 8 5 and 1 9 9 4 whereas adults were r e s p o n s i b l e for n e a r l y t h r e e - f o u r t h s ( 7 4 % ) o f t h e i n c r e a s e in v i o l e n t c r i m e c l e a r a n c e s d u r i n g this p e r i o d . S n y d e r a n d his c o l l e a g u e s i l l u s t r a t e t h e "tyr­ a n n y o f s m a l l n u m b e r s " in a n o t h e r c o m p a r i s o n

a n d his c o l l e a g u e s ( S n y d e r et al., 1 9 9 6 ) illus­ trate the "tyranny of small n u m b e r s " principle that h e a n d S i c k m u n d developed earlier (Snyder & S i c k m u n d , 1 9 9 5 , p. 1 1 0 ) :

of juvenile a n d a d u l t c o n t r i b u t i o n s to v i o l e n t c r i m e s d u r i n g the 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 9 4 p e r i o d (Snyder et a l , 1 9 9 6 , p. 2 0 ) . T h e i r analysis s h o w e d that if ju­ veniles h a d c o m m i t t e d n o m o r e violent c r i m e s in 1 9 9 4 t h a n in 1 9 8 5 , v i o l e n t c r i m e in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s w o u l d h a v e i n c r e a s e d 3 0 % i n s t e a d of

T h e n u m b e r of v i o l e n t c r i m e s r e p o r t e d to

4 0 % . If juveniles h a d c o m m i t t e d n o m o r e m u r ­

law enforcement agencies increased 4 0 %

d e r s in 1 9 9 4 t h a n in 1 9 8 5 , m u r d e r s in t h e

between 1 9 8 5 and 1 9 9 4 . Knowing that

U n i t e d S t a t e s w o u l d h a v e i n c r e a s e d 1 5 % in­

o v e r this s a m e p e r i o d , juvenile a r r e s t s

s t e a d of 2 3 % . T h e r e f o r e , j u v e n i l e s w e r e r e s p o n ­

for v i o l e n t c r i m e g r e w 7 5 % , w h i l e a d u l t

sible for a b o u t o n e - t h i r d o f t h e i n c r e a s e in m u r ­

arrests increased 4 8 % , some m a y con­

ders during the period 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 9 4 (Figure 3.2).

c l u d e t h a t j u v e n i l e s w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e for

A n o t h e r e x a m p l e s e r v e s t o illustrate h o w t h e

m o s t of t h e i n c r e a s e in v i o l e n t c r i m e .

" t y r a n n y of s m a l l n u m b e r s " c r e a t e s a d i s t o r t e d

However, even though the percentage

v i e w of juvenile

i n c r e a s e in j u v e n i l e a r r e s t s w a s m o r e t h a n

Z a w i t z ( 1 9 9 5 ) n o t e t h e i n c r e a s e of m o r e t h a n

offending.

Greenfeld

and

t h e a d u l t i n c r e a s e , t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e

1 0 0 % in t h e n u m b e r of j u v e n i l e a r r e s t s for

grovirth c a n n o t be a t t r i b u t e d t o juveniles.

weapons

An e x a m p l e s h o w s h o w this apparent c o n t r a d i c t i o n c a n o c c u r . O f t h e 1 0 0 vio­

(from 3 0 , 0 0 0 to 6 1 , 0 0 0 ) . T h e 3 3 % g r o w t h t h e y

offenses b e t w e e n

1 9 8 5 and 1 9 9 3

r e p o r t in a d u l t w e a p o n s a r r e s t s , h o w e v e r , a c t u ­

l e n t c r i m e s c o m m i t t e d in 1 9 8 5 in a s m a l l town, a s s u m e that juveniles were respon­ s i b l e for 1 0 , a n d a d u l t s for 9 0 . If t h e

ally m e a n t t h a t a d u l t s a c c o u n t e d for m o s t of t h e

n u m b e r of juvenile crimes increased 7 0 % in 1 9 9 4 , j u v e n i l e s w o u l d b e c o m m i t t i n g

w e r e r e s p o n s i b l e for n e a r l y t w i c e a s m a n y

1 7 (or 7 m o r e ) v i o l e n t c r i m e s . A 5 0 % i n c r e a s e in a d u l t v i o l e n t c r i m e s w o u l d m e a n that adults were committing 1 3 5

a r r e s t s in 1 9 9 3 t h a n in 1 9 8 5 e v e n t h o u g h t h e i r

(or 4 5 m o r e ) v i o l e n t c r i m e s . If e a c h c r i m e r e s u l t e d in a n a r r e s t , t h e p e r c e n t ­ a g e i n c r e a s e in j u v e n i l e a r r e s t s w o u l d b e m o r e than the adult increase ( 7 0 % versus 5 0 % ) . H o w e v e r , 8 7 % of t h e i n c r e a s e in v i o l e n t c r i m e ( 4 5 of t h e a d d i t i o n a l v i o l e n t c r i m e s ) w o u l d h a v e been c o m m i t t e d by

a d d i t i o n a l w e a p o n s v i o l a t i o n s . C o m p a r e d to the 3 1 , 0 0 0 additional juvenile arrests, adults (about 5 7 , 0 0 0 ) a d d i t i o n a l w e a p o n s

violations

p e r c e n t a g e g r o w t h w a s o n l y a b o u t a t h i r d of t h e juvenile p e r c e n t a g e i n c r e a s e . T h e " t y r a n n y of s m a l l n u m b e r s " h a s led t h e m e d i a a n d o t h e r s to e x a g g e r a t e t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n of juveniles b o t h to t h e t o t a l v o l u m e of v i o l e n t c r i m e in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d to t h e i n c r e a s e o v e r the p a s t d e c a d e . J u v e n i l e s t h u s h a v e be­ c o m e t h e s c a p e g o a t for e x t r e m e l y h i g h l e v e l s of v i o l e n c e in this c o u n t r y . To p u t j u v e n i l e v i o ­

W h o ' s t o B l a m e for Violent C r i m e ?

51

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

Violent Crime

Murder

Rape

Robbery

Agg. Assault

F i g u r e 3 . 2 P e r c e n t a g e c h a n g e s in a d u l t a n d juvenile violent a r r e s t s , 1 9 8 5 - 1 9 9 4 SOURCE: Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1996 Update on Violence (p. 20), Snyder, Sickmund, and Poe-Yamagata, ©copyright 1996 by the National Center for Juvenile Justice. Reprinted with permission. DATA SOURCE: Crime in the United States 1985. Federal Bureau of Investigation (1986), and Crime in the United States 1994, Federal Bureau of Investigation (1995).

l e n c e in a b r o a d e r p e r s p e c t i v e , let u s look at o v e r a l l v i o l e n c e in t h e U n i t e d States.

H o m i c i d e is e x p e c t e d t o o v e r t a k e m o t o r v e h i c l e fatalities as t h e leading c a u s e o f i n j u r y d e a t h in the United States by the year 2 0 0 3 (Fingerhut, Jones, & Makuc, 1 9 9 4 ) .

T h e Extent of Violence in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

In 1 9 9 5 , t h e A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n (ΑΜΑ) i s s u e d its first "Report C a r d : V i o l e n c e in A m e r i c a , " in w h i c h it g r a d e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s in four a r e a s : family v i o l e n c e , s e x u a l a s sault, p u b l i c v i o l e n c e , a n d "virtual v i o l e n c e " ( v i o l e n c e in e n t e r t a i n m e n t ; Α Μ Α , 1 9 9 5 ) . F o u r c r i t e r i a w e r e u s e d in t h e Α Μ Α g r a d i n g s y s t e m : w h e t h e r the problem w a s getting better or w o r s e a c c o r d i n g t o p u b l i s h e d statistical indic a t o r s , status of p u b l i c a w a r e n e s s a n d a t t i t u d e s toward the violence as measured by published s u r v e y a n d r e s e a r c h i n f o r m a d o n , effectiveness a n d availability of t r e a t m e n t a n d i n t e r v e n t i o n p r o g r a m s a s m e a s u r e d b y p u b l i s h e d statistical and research information, and cost to society in dollars, p a i n , a n d h u m a n suffering a s m e a s u r e d b y p u b l i s h e d s u r v e y a n d r e s e a r c h information. T h e overall grade the Α Μ Α gave the U n i t e d S t a t e s o n v i o l e n c e w a s a "D."

For r e a s o n s t h a t a r e n o t w e l l u n d e r s t o o d , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s a n e x t r e m e l y h i g h level o f v i o l e n c e . "Several c o u n t r i e s h a v e levels of v i o lence that a p p r o a c h our own, but no other c o u n t r y h a s o u r level o f lethal v i o l e n c e " ( B l o c k & B l o c k , 1 9 9 1 , p. 4 9 ) . A c c o r d i n g to t h e A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n ( H u t s o n et al., 1 9 9 5 , p. 1 0 3 1 ) , "the U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s t h e h i g h e s t h o m i c i d e r a t e in t h e i n d u s t r i a l i z e d w o r l d . During t h e last 2 5 y e a r s , t h e U n i t e d S a t e s h a s exp e r i e n c e d a d r a m a t i c i n c r e a s e in h o m i c i d e s , m a k i n g h o m i c i d e a m a j o r h e a l t h p r o b l e m . " In fact, t h e h o m i c i d e r a t e in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s is m a n y t i m e s h i g h e r t h a n t h a t of t h e W e s t e r n industrialized country with the next highest rate ( A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1 9 9 3 , p. 1 3 ) . A s a result o f t h e i n c r e a s e in h o m i c i d e in o u r c o u n t r y , it is n o w t h e 1 0 t h leading c a u s e o f d e a t h in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s (National C e n t e r for H e a l t h Statistics, 1 9 9 4 ) a n d t h e s e c o n d leading c a u s e o f d e a t h a m o n g m a l e s a g e d 1 5 - 3 4 (Cent e r s for D i s e a s e C o n t r o l a n d P r e v e n t i o n , 1 9 9 4 ) .

T h e n a t i o n r e c e i v e d its h i g h e s t Α Μ Α g r a d e o n family v i o l e n c e a m o n g t h e four c a t e g o r i e s (a "C"), p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e o f i n c r e a s e s in p u b l i c a w a r e n e s s a n d r e p o r t i n g of offenses, a s w e l l as t h e availability o f i n t e r v e n t i o n a n d a s s i s t a n c e p r o g r a m s . It c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e i n c i d e n c e o f

52

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND YOUTH VIOLENCE

family v i o l e n c e c o n t i n u e s to e s c a l a t e . S e x u a l a s s a u l t w a s a w a r d e d a "D" g r a d e , p r i n c i p a l l y b e c a u s e s o c i a l m y t h s a b o u t r a p e s u c h a s "no m e a n s yes" a r e still p r e v a l e n t , i m p e d i n g r e p o r t ­ ing a n d m a k i n g a p p r e h e n s i o n a n d c o n v i c t i o n of offenders difficult. P u b l i c v i o l e n c e r e c e i v e d t h e l o w e s t g r a d e , a n "F," m a i n l y b e c a u s e of t h e p e r v a s i v e n e s s of gang, drug, gun, a n d civil vio­ l e n c e . T h e Α Μ Α g r a d e d t h e n a t i o n a "D" o n vir­ t u a l v i o l e n c e b e c a u s e of t h e lasting p s y c h o s o ­ c i a l effects of television, m u s i c , film, video, a n d c o m p u t e r v i o l e n c e o n t h e individual, o n w h i c h little p r o g r e s s t o w a r d r e d u c t i o n h a s b e e n m a d e . H o w c a n t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y of v i o l e n c e in o u r society be explained? Supported by research s h o w i n g t h a t a n i n c r e a s e in t h e a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f v i o l e n c e c a n b e a t t r i b u t e d to a l a c k of effective law enforcement (Campbell, 1 9 2 1 ; McDowall & Loftin, 1 9 8 3 ) , t h e B l o c k s ( 1 9 9 1 ) a r g u e that c i t i z e n s m a y b e c o m e c o n v i n c e d t h a t s o c i e t y is u n a b l e t o p r o t e c t t h e m . T h e y m a y feel c o m ­ p e l l e d to p r o v i d e their o w n p r o t e c t i o n . Ironi­ cally, t h e e n d r e s u l t o f t h e s e a c t i o n s " m a y b e r a p i d i n c r e a s e s of levels of v i o l e n c e in t h e c o m ­ m u n i t y as a w h o l e " (p. 4 8 ) , as Loftin ( M c D o w a l l & Loftin, 1 9 8 3 ) f o u n d to be t h e c a s e during t h e e a r l y 1 9 6 0 s to t h e m i d - 1 9 7 0 s in Detroit. T h e B l o c k s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s a m e p r o c e s s m a y ex­ plain s h a r p r e c e n t i n c r e a s e s in v i o l e n c e in s o m e n e i g h b o r h o o d s of W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., a n d C h i ­ c a g o (p. 4 8 ) . A n o t h e r r e a s o n for g e n e r a l a c c e p t a n c e o f v i o l e n c e in o u r s o c i e t y m a y b e w i d e s p r e a d vio ­ lence a m o n g adults. W e next e x a m i n e hidden adult crime.

Hidden Adult Crime Adult Vicdmization of Children Doleschal's ( 1 9 7 0 ) call to e x a m i n e adult "hidden c r i m e " h a s largely b e e n i g n o r e d o v e r the past 2 5 years, except from the viewpoint of v i c t i m s , m e a s u r e d by t h e N a t i o n a l C r i m e V i c ­ t i m s S u r v e y ( N C V S ) . T h e N C V S , h o w e v e r , in ­ a d e q u a t e l y m e a s u r e s s u c h "hidden c r i m e s " a s s p o u s e a b u s e a n d c h i l d a b u s e . T h e s e a r e violen t offenses against c h i l d r e n a n d s p o u s e s t h a t a r e largely h i d d e n f r o m t h e p u b l i c a n d t h e c r i m i n a l justice system. C h i l d r e n suffer m o r e s e r i o u s f a m i l y v i o ­ l e n c e v i c t i m i z a t i o n s t h a n do a d u l t s (Finkelho r & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994b). Adults reported that t h e y inflicted a l m o s t t w i c e as m u c h s e v e r e

TABLE 3.2 Family Violence Victimization R a t e p e r 1 , 0 0 0 C h i l d r e n Versus Adults, 1 9 8 5 Perpetrator-Victim Relationship

Any Violence

Severe Violence^

Spouse to spouse I ^ e n t to child

158 620

58 107

SOURCE: Physical Violence in American Ibmilies: RiskRic­ tors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 lamilies, Straus and Gelles, ©copyright 1990 by TYansaction. DATA SOURCE: National Family Violence Resurvey, 1985. a. Includes kicking, biting, hitting with fist or object, beat­ ing, and using or threatening to use knife or gun.

v i o l e n c e against a c h i l d in their h o u s e h o l d t h a n t h e y did against t h e i r a d u l t p a r t n e r (Table 3 . 2 ; Straus & Gelles, 1 9 9 0 ; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1 9 8 0 ) . T h e s e c o n d N a t i o n a l S t u d y of t h e I n c i ­ dence and Prevalence of Child Abuse and Ne­ g l e c t ( N I S - 2 ) e s t i m a t e d t h a t official r e p o r t s w e r e m a d e o n 1.4 m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n b e l i e v e d to b e h a r m e d o r at risk of h a r m b y m a l t r e a t m e n t in 1 9 8 8 ( S e d l a k , 1 9 9 0 ) . O f t h e s e , m o r e t h a n 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 suffered " d e m o n s t r a b l e h a r m " a s a r e ­ sult o f m a l t r e a t m e n t . T h e N a t i o n a l C e n t e r for C h i l d A b u s e a n d Neglect's ( 1 9 9 6 a ) national reporting system s h o w s t h a t in 1 9 9 4 , s t a t e C h i l d P r o t e c t i v e S e r ­ vice (CPS) agencies received 2 million reports of a l l e g e d c h i l d m a l t r e a t m e n t , i n v o l v i n g 2 . 9 m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n . A m o n g t h e s e r e p o r t s , C P S in­ vestigations d e t e r m i n e d t h a t slightly m o r e t h a n 1 m i l l i o n w e r e "substantiated" o r "indicated" m a l t r e a t m e n t s . R e p o r t s of c h i l d m a l t r e a t m e n t increased by 1 4 % from 1 9 9 0 through 1 9 9 4 , w h i l e t h e n u m b e r of s u b s t a n t i a t e d c a s e s g r e w b y 2 7 % . R e p o r t s of alleged c h i l d m a l t r e a t m e n t h a v e i n c r e a s e d steadily at a b o u t this rate s i n c e 1980. Between then and 1 9 9 3 , child abuse and neglect reports increased 1 5 5 % (NCCAN, 1 9 9 5 ) . W h a t is w o r s e is t h a t t h e n u m b e r of m a l ­ t r e a t e d c h i l d r e n w h o w e r e s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d in­ c r e a s e d at a faster rate. B e t w e e n 1 9 8 6 a n d 1 9 9 3 , this n u m b e r n e a r l y q u a d r u p l e d f r o m a p p r o x i ­ mately 1 4 3 , 0 0 0 to m o r e than 5 7 2 , 0 0 0 (NCCAN, 1996b). M o s t ( 5 3 % ) of t h e c h i l d r e n m a l t r e a t e d in 1 9 9 4 suffered neglect, 2 6 % e x p e r i e n c e d p h y s i ­ cal a b u s e , 1 4 % w e r e s e x u a l l y a b u s e d , 5 % suf­ fered e m o t i o n a l a b u s e , a n d 2 2 % w e r e s u b j e c t e d to o t h e r forms of m a l t r e a t m e n t . Parents a r e about as likely to a b u s e an older child as a younger one. Nearly one-third of substantiated

W h o ' s to B l a m e for V i o l e n t C r i m e ?

53

c a s e s a r e a g e 1 0 - 1 7 , c o m p a r e d to just o v e r a

offending b y c h i l d r e n in t h e h o m e . T h r e e dif­

t h i r d w h o a r e u n d e r age 6. One-half a r e white.

ferent i n d i c a t o r s o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e w e r e e x a m ­

W i t h i n t h e 4 3 s t a t e s r e p o r t i n g to t h e N C C A N

ined: p a r t n e r v i o l e n c e , f a m i l y c l i m a t e o f h o s t i l ­

( 1 9 9 6 a ) , 1 , 1 1 1 c h i l d r e n died as a result of a b u s e

ity, a n d c h i l d m a l t r e a t m e n t . C h i l d r e n e x p o s e d

in 1 9 9 4 . T h i s n u m b e r i n c r e a s e d 8 % from 1 9 9 3 ,

to all t h r e e t y p e s o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e r e p o r t e d

w h e n 1 , 0 2 8 c h i l d r e n w e r e r e p o r t e d to h a v e d i e d

m o r e t h a n t w i c e t h e r a t e of y o u t h v i o l e n c e a s

as a r e s u l t of a b u s e or n e g l e c t ( N C C A N , 1 9 9 5 ) .

t h o s e f r o m n o n v i o l e n t families. In a s t u d y u s i n g

L i n e b a u g h ( 1 9 8 4 , p. 1 9 ) e s t i m a t e s t h a t t h e r e

official r e c o r d s , W i d o m ( 1 9 9 2 ) f o u n d t h a t a b u s e

a r e as m a n y a s 2 . 5 m i l l i o n c h i l d s e x u a l m o l e s ­

and neglect during childhood increases the

t a t i o n s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s e a c h y e a r T h i s m a y

likelihood of a r r e s t a s a j u v e n i l e b y 5 3 % , a r r e s t

w e l l b e t h e m o s t u n d e r r e p o r t e d o f all c r i m e s

as a n adult by 3 8 % , a n d the likelihood of c o m ­

c o m m i t t e d in this c o u n t r y . L e s s t h a n 1 % of all

mitting a violent c r i m e by 3 8 % .

p e r p e t r a t o r s a r e b r o u g h t into t h e c r i m i n a l jus­

S n y d e r ( 1 9 9 4 ; see S n y d e r & S i c k m u n d ,

t i c e s y s t e m ( L i n e b a u g h , 1 9 8 4 , p. 1 9 ) . M o s t p e r ­

1 9 9 5 , p p . 2 8 - 2 9 ) e s t i m a t e s t h e n u m b e r of c h i l d

p e t r a t o r s a r e k n o w n to t h e c h i l d ( m o s t often a

v i c t i m i z a t i o n s that t h e N a t i o n a l C r i m e V i c t i m s

v e r y y o u n g girl), t y p i c a l l y t h e c h i l d ' s father,

S u r v e y m a y m i s s b e c a u s e it d o e s n o t s u r v e y a n y

stepfather, sibling, or family a c q u a i n t a n c e .

v i c t i m s u n d e r t h e a g e of 1 2 . U s i n g S o u t h C a r o ­

Child molesters and pedophiles are notorious

lina d a t a r e p o r t e d b e t w e e n 1 9 9 1 a n d 1 9 9 3 u n ­

c h r o n i c offenders ( L a n n i n g , 1 9 8 4 ) . S o m e v i c ­

der the FBI National Incident-Based Reporting

t i m i z e h u n d r e d s of c h i l d r e n b e f o r e t h e y a r e

System

s t o p p e d , g e n e r a l l y o n l y t e m p o r a r i l y . T h e r e is

6 0 0 , 0 0 0 violent v i c t i m i z a t i o n s o f c h i l d r e n b e ­

(NIBRS), he

estimates

that

about

n o k n o w n c u r e . T h e r e is a l e n i e n c y gap in t h e

l o w age 1 2 o c c u r r e d in 1 9 9 2 . If t h e S o u t h C a r o ­

p u n i s h m e n t of a d u l t s for s e x u a l l y a b u s i n g a n

lina N I B R S d a t a a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of t h e a c t u a l

infant o r c h i l d v e r s u s a n o t h e r adult. T h e largest

ratio of y o u n g e r - t o - o l d e r c h i l d v i c t i m i z a t i o n s ,

d i s c r e p a n c y is in c o u r t d i s p o s i t i o n s (J. R o b e r t s ,

t h e n S n y d e r ( 1 9 9 4 ) e s t i m a t e s that t h e N C V S is

1 9 8 7 ) . P r o b a t i o n is i m p o s e d m o r e t h a n t w i c e

m i s s i n g 5 1 % of v i o l e n t s e x offenses a g a i n s t ju­

a s often in c a s e s i n v o l v i n g c h i l d r e n as in c a s e s

v e n i l e s u n d e r t h e age o f 1 8 , 9 % of r o b b e r i e s ,

i n v o l v i n g a d u l t s . I n c a r c e r a t i o n is i m p o s e d in

2 6 % of a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t s , a n d 2 2 % of s i m p l e

8 9 % of adult sexual victimizations versus 6 9 %

a s s a u l t s (Table 3 . 3 ) . T h e n u m b e r is m u c h larger

o f c h i l d v i c t i m i z a t i o n s . T h e m a j o r i t y of s e n ­

if o n e t a k e s i n t o a c c o u n t e m o t i o n a l a b u s e .

t e n c e s in c h i l d v i c t i m c a s e s a r e for less t h a n a

Miller, C o h e n , a n d W i e r s e m a ( 1 9 9 6 ) e s t i m a t e

y e a r ; 77% of a d u l t v i c t i m i z a t i o n s a r e for m o r e

that 7 9 4 , 0 0 0 children w e r e sexually,

than a year

cally, o r e m o t i o n a l l y a b u s e d in 1 9 9 0 .

Greenfeld's ( 1 9 9 6 ) a n a l y s i s also s h o w s that offenders

who

victimized

adults

physi­

Snyder's ( 1 9 9 4 ; see S n y d e r & S i c k m u n d ,

received

1 9 9 5 , p p . 2 8 - 2 9 ) a n a l y s i s s h o w s t h a t 6 in 1 0 of

longer s e n t e n c e s t h a n offenders w h o victim­

t h e o f f e n d e r s in v i o l e n t c r i m e s a g a i n s t j u v e ­

ized juveniles. Child murderers were

only

n i l e s ( u n d e r a g e 1 8 ) in S o u t h C a r o l i n a a r e

a b o u t h a l f as likely ( 1 0 % ) to b e s e n t e n c e d to

a q u a i n t a n c e s a n d o v e r 2 in 1 0 a r e f a m i l y m e m ­

death as inmates w h o m u r d e r e d another adult

b e r s (Table 3 . 4 ) . T h e p e r c e n t a g e of f a m i l y m e m ­

( 1 9 % ) . W h a t is w o r s e is t h a t n e a r l y a t h i r d

b e r offenders i n c r e a s e s to 5 0 % for c h i l d r e n a g e

( 2 9 % ) of t h e c h i l d p r e d a t o r s w e r e m u l t i p l e vio­

5 a n d y o u n g e r . T h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e of­

lent c h i l d offenders. N e a r l y 3 8 % of t h e m h a d

f e n d e r is a f a m i l y m e m b e r d e c l i n e s s u b s t a n ­

multiple m u r d e r victims. Overall, child preda­

tially for o l d e r j u v e n i l e s , a s t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f

tors got l o n g e r s e n t e n c e s t h a n a d u l t v i c t i m i z e r s

victimizations by acquaintances and strangers

for m u r d e r , k i d n a p p i n g , a n d m a n s l a u g h t e r , but

increases.

s h o r t e r s e n t e n c e s for r a p e a n d s e x u a l a s s a u l t , which were more common. A s m a n y as 3 . 3 m i l l i o n c h i l d r e n a r e esti­

H o w serious are these violent victimizations of juveniles? Snyder's ( 1 9 9 4 ) analysis s h o w s that 4 4 % of c h i l d v i c t i m s ( u n d e r age 1 2 ) of v i o ­

m a t e d to w i t n e s s s p o u s e a b u s e e a c h year, in­

lent c r i m e s r e p o r t e d to l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n ­

c l u d i n g fatal a s s a u l t s w i t h g u n s a n d / o r k n i v e s

c i e s in S o u t h C a r o l i n a r e c e i v e d a n i n j u r y t h a t

as w e l l as hitting a n d slapping (Osofsky &

r e q u i r e d m e d i c a l a t t e n t i o n . If v i c t i m i z e d , j u v e ­

Fenichel, 1 9 9 4 ) . Family violence constitutes a

niles w e r e less likely to b e i n j u r e d t h a n w e r e

m a j o r risk f a c t o r for d e l i n q u e n c y a n d v i o l e n c e .

a d u l t s , a n d c h i l d r e n w e r e less likely to b e in­

T h o r n b e r r y ( 1 9 9 4 ) f o u n d that m o r e e x p o s u r e

j i u e d t h a n w e r e o l d e r juveniles. A d u l t s w e r e in­

to f a m i l y v i o l e n c e i n c r e a s e s t h e risk of v i o l e n t

j u r e d in 5 1 % o f t h e i r v i o l e n t v i c t i m i z a t i o n s .

54

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND Y O U T H VIOLENCE

T A B L E 3 . 3 C r i m i n a l V i c t i m i z a t i o n s R e p o r t e d to P o l i c e in S o u t h C a r o l i n a , 1 9 9 1 to m i d - 1 9 9 3 , by A g e ( p e r c e n t a g e s )

VicUm's Age

All Violent Offenses

Murder

Sex Offense

Robbery

Aggravated Assault

Simple Assault

5 and younger 6-11 12-17 18-24 25-54 55 and older

1 3 12 26 53 3

3