6. dev. of youth corrections systems

4,463 views

Published on

CJCJ's Executive Director Daniel Macallair, is a practitioner-in-residence at San Francisco State University (SFSU)'s Department of Criminal Justice Studies. These slides are from his Intervention Policies in Juvenile Justice course materials.

Published in: Education, Business
1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
4,463
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3,589
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

6. dev. of youth corrections systems

  1. 1. From ReformSchools toYouthCorrectionsSystems Mid to Late 20th Century Changes 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  2. 2. Growing concern over failure of institutional treatment and administrationStudies by Sheldon & Eleanor GlueckYouth in the Toils (1938) 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  3. 3. Five Hundred Criminal Careers (Sheldon & Eleanor Glueck)• Studied 510 offenders released from Massachusetts juvenile reformatory between 1911 and 1922• Found 80% found guilty of new offenses within five years of release 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  4. 4. American Law InstituteSuicide of BennyMorenoGovernor CulbertOlsenYouth CorrectionsAuthority Act of 1941Centralized Receptionand Diagnostic Centers Evolution of Youth Corrections in California 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  5. 5. Purpose of the Youth Corrections Authority Act“protect society more effectively by substituting for retributive punishment methods of training and treatment directed toward the correction and rehabilitation of the young persons found guilty of violating the law “ 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  6. 6. Initial goals of the Youth Corrections Authority Actpromote a more “scientific” approach tothe treatment and rehabilitation of juvenileoffenders by developing new classificationand treatment options 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  7. 7. Youth Corrections Authority Act• Create three person commission• Mandated acceptance of all commitments under age 23• Created section on delinquency prevention• Authorized no authority over existing institutions 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  8. 8. Expanding the mandate: the Creation of the California Youth Authority (1943)• Administrative control of state’s training schools• Assistance to county probation systems on delinquency prevention• Development of classification and treatment methods• Institutional expansion (pop. 1700)• Parole division created (1945)• Dept. Status (1954) 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  9. 9. Youth Authority: Innovations• Reception and diagnostic centers (1954)• Interpersonal Maturity Level Classification System (I-Level)• Institutional Group Treatment methods (1950s)• Creation of Research Division (1956)• Community Treatment Project (1961)• Probation Subsidy (1965) 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  10. 10. Preston School of Industry and the Obstacles to Change• Poorly trained but entrenched staff• Institutional inertia• Replacing the superintendent• Sabotage and riot (1946) 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  11. 11. Interpersonal Maturity Level Classification System (I-Level)• Attempts to identify delinquents developmental stage• Delinquents fixated at lower levels of social maturity (including 9 delinquent subtypes)• Intended to promote individualized interventions based on the delinquents developmental stage 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  12. 12. Institutional Group Treatment Methods(1960s)• Psychotherapy• Transactional Analysis• Reality Therapy (Ventura School)• Guided Group Interaction (Preston)• Positive Peer Culture 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  13. 13. The 1960s and the decline of institutional rehabilitation THE EMERGENCE OF COMMUNITY TREATMENT 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  14. 14. The CYA and the heyday of Institutional Expansion• Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility, Whittier 1945• Preston Youth Correctional Facility, Ione 1950• El Paso de Robles Youth Correctional Facility, Paso Robles 1953• Southern California Youth Reception Center and Clinic, Norwalk 1954• Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility, Chino 1959• Ventura Youth Correctional Facility, Camarillo 1962• O. H. Close Youth Correctional Facility, Stockton 1966• DeWitt Nelson Youth Correctional Facility, Stockton 1967• N. A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility, Stockton 1991 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  15. 15. Tamarack Lodge (Preston Disciplinary Unit) 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  16. 16. Tamarack Lodge (Disciplinary Unit) 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  17. 17. Institutional barriers to effective treatment• Lack of control over types of commitments• Negative staff attitudes towards wards• Institutional ward subculture• Large unit populations and lack of individualization• Prevailing institutional practices emphasizing inmate control and service fragmentation 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  18. 18. Preston Dorm40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.orgSan Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  19. 19. Growing body of research on prison culture (1940s – 1960s)• Principles of Criminology by Edwin Sutherland (1939)• The Prison Community by Donald Clemmer (1940)• Social Types in a Prison Community by Clarence Schrag (1944)• The Inmate Social System by Gresham Sykes and Sheldon Messinger (1960)• Cottage Six by Howard Polsky (1962)• Implications of Inmate Social Organization by Carl Jesness (1962) 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  20. 20. Preston Typology Study Stick to your own race Fight if you are called out Don’t mess with staff Don’t “fink” on anyone under any conditions Don’t be “kissy” or volunteer Go along with guys even if its wrong Don’t admit seeing a rule violated or boy being pressured Don’t be friendly with lower status boys 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  21. 21. Non-institutional Innovations in the 1960s• Community Treatment Program• Probation Subsidy 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  22. 22. Community Treatment Program (1961-1969 & 1969-1974)DESIGNED TO COMPARE THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY- BASED SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT TO INSTITUTIONALIZATION 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  23. 23. Community Treatment Programs• Piloted in Sacramento, San Francisco, LA, and Stockton• Youths classified by I level• 24-month recidivism follow-up - 63% control group versus 44% for experimental• Favorable discharge from CYA within 60 months - 50% of controls vs. 69% of experimental 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  24. 24. Significance of Community Treatment Program• Demonstrated that large numbers of institutional committed delinquents could be maintained in the community• Pioneered techniques for intensive community supervision and intervention• Provided model for future community-based interventions 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  25. 25. Probation Subsidy 1966-1974 Resulted from state studies showing: At least 25% of the new admissions to state correctional agencies can be retained safely in the local communities with good supervision (in fact, with no supervision at all). State institutional commitments likely to increase 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  26. 26. Purpose of Probation Subsidy• The most effective correctional services are provided in the local community.• Probation has a greater total responsibility for the supervision of offenders than any other local correctional service.• Probation is the least costly correctional service.• Probation is as effective, if not more effective, than most forms of institutional care. 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  27. 27. How Probation Subsidy Worked• State provided funds to counties to develop intensive supervision programs and reduce CYA commitments• County subsidies based on CYA commitment reductions 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
  28. 28. Impact of Probation Subsidy• Commitments to state institutions declined (67.5 per 100,000 vs. 34 per 100,000)• Reduced county commitment disparities• Did not result in increased crime rates 40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

×