9. The Development of Youth Corrections Systems

www.cjcj.org
© Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013
40 Boardman Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
Mid to Late 20th
Century Changes
From Reform
Schools to
Youth
Corrections
Systems

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
1930s: the Decade of Complacency and Decline
• The great depression leads to
widespread budget cuts
• Flogging reinstated at Preston
• Self government system at Preston
was eliminated
• Cadet system remains in place at
Preston and Whittier
• Eugenics practices on decline due
to budget cuts
• Attempts to implement cottage
system at Whittier falters
• Girls facility subject of ongoing
controversy
Otto H Close, Preston Superintendent
(1920-1945)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Growing National Concern Over Institutional
Treatment and Administration
Studies by Sheldon & Eleanor Glueck
Youth in the Toils (1938)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Evolution of Youth Corrections in California
• American Law Institute’s Model
Youth Corrections Authority Act
• Suicide of Benny Moreno and
Edward Leiva
• Lindsey Investigations into
institutional conditions
Governor Culbert Olsen
(1938-1842)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Investigations into Benny Moreno’s Death
Judge Ben Lindsey Dr. Aaron J Rosanoff

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Death of Benny Moreno

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Youth Corrections Authority Act of 1941
• “
“ 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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Initial goals of the Youth Corrections Authority Act
promote a more “scientific” approach to the
treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile
offenders by developing new classification
and treatment options

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Expanding the mandate:
the Creation of the California Youth Authority (1943)
• Assumed administrative control
of state’s training schools
• Assistance to county probation
systems on delinquency
prevention
• Development of new
classification and treatment
methods
• Institutional expansion (pop.
1700)
• Parole division created (1945)
• Dept. Status (1954)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Youth Authority: Innovations
• Centralized Management
• Reception and diagnostic centers
(1954)
• Forestry and Fire Camps
• Specialized Institutions
• Interpersonal Maturity Level
Classification System (I-Level)
• Institutional Group Treatment
methods (1950s)
• Creation of Research Division
(1956)
• Community Treatment Project
(1961)
• Probation Subsidy (1965)
Karl Holton, Youth Authority
Director (1943-1952)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Preston School of Industry and the Obstacles to
Change
• Poorly trained but
entrenched staff
• Institutional inertia
• Use of ward honor clubs
• Replacing the
superintendent
• Sabotage and riot (1946)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Challenging the Youth Authority’s Constitutionality
• In re Carlos Herrera et al
• People v Ralphs
• People v Scherbing

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Institutional Group Treatment Methods(1960s)
• Psychotherapy
• Transactional Analysis
• Reality Therapy (Ventura
School)
• Guided Group Interaction
(Preston)
• Positive Peer Culture

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
The 1960s and the decline of
institutional rehabilitation
The emergence of community treatment

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Tamarack Lodge (Preston Disciplinary Unit)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Tamarack Lodge (Disciplinary Unit)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Isolation 1920-2007

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Preston Dorm
Preston Dorm 2007 Preston Dorm 1960s

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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)

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
The Demise of Institutional Rehabilitation and the Development of
Non-institutional Policy
Seeking Alternatives to Institutional Commitments

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Non-institutional Innovations in the 1960s
• Community Treatment Program
• Probation Subsidy

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Community Treatment Program (1961-
1969 & 1969-1974)
Designed to compare the impact of
community-based supervision and
treatment to institutionalization

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
Policy Foundations 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.

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

www.cjcj.org
40 Boardman Place
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

9. The Development of Youth Corrections Systems

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 9. The Development of Youth Corrections Systems

Similar to 9. The Development of Youth Corrections Systems (18)

More from Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

More from Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

9. The Development of Youth Corrections Systems