6. dev. of youth corrections systems

From Reform
Schools to
Youth
Corrections
Systems

Mid to Late 20th Century Changes

40 Boardman Place www.cjcj.org
San Francisco, CA 94103 © Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice 2013

Growing concern over failure of institutional
treatment and administration

Studies by Sheldon & Eleanor Glueck

Youth in the Toils (1938)


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


American Law Institute
Suicide of Benny
Moreno
Governor Culbert
Olsen
Youth Corrections
Authority Act of 1941
Centralized Reception
and Diagnostic Centers

Evolution of Youth Corrections in
California

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 “


Initial goals of the
promote a more “scientific” approach to
the treatment and rehabilitation of juvenile
offenders by developing new classification
and treatment options


• Create three person commission
• Mandated acceptance of all commitments under age 23
• Created section on delinquency prevention
• Authorized no authority over existing institutions


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)


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)


Preston School of Industry and the Obstacles
to Change
• Poorly trained but entrenched staff
• Institutional inertia
• Replacing the superintendent
• Sabotage and riot (1946)


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


Institutional Group Treatment
Methods(1960s)
• Psychotherapy
• Transactional Analysis
• Reality Therapy (Ventura School)
• Guided Group Interaction (Preston)
• Positive Peer Culture


The 1960s and the decline of
institutional rehabilitation
THE EMERGENCE OF COMMUNITY TREATMENT


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


Tamarack Lodge (Preston Disciplinary
Unit)


Tamarack Lodge (Disciplinary Unit)


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


Preston Dorm


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)


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


Non-institutional Innovations in the
1960s

• Community Treatment Program

• Probation Subsidy


Community Treatment Program
(1961-1969 & 1969-1974)

DESIGNED TO COMPARE THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY-
BASED SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT TO
INSTITUTIONALIZATION


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


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


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


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.


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


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


6. dev. of youth corrections systems

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a 6. dev. of youth corrections systems

Semelhante a 6. dev. of youth corrections systems (20)

Mais de Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice

Mais de Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (13)

Último

Último (20)

6. dev. of youth corrections systems