Special Populations: A Challenge to Juvenile Justice

Consider the goals of the juvenile justice system, which focus on reintegrating juveniles into the community as productive members of society. Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapters 8 and 9 of Introduction to Juvenile Justice. In addition,

Read Youth Pathways to Placement: The Influence of Gender, Mental Health Needs and Trauma on Confinement in the Juvenile Justice SystemLinks to an external site.
Read Treatment Services in the Juvenile Justice System: Examining the Use and Funding of Services by Youth on ProbationLinks to an external site.
Read The Impact of Victimization and Mental Health Symptoms on Recidivism for Early System-Involved Juvenile OffendersLinks to an external site.
Read Research Review: Independent Living Programmes: The Influence on Youth Ageing out of CareLinks to an external site.
Watch Juvenile Justice Links to an external site..

You are also encouraged to review the

Week 4 Recommended Resources

Compare and contrast treatment options for special populations identified in our text (i.e., early starters, juvenile gangs, or juvenile sex offenders) and advocate for, or against, shifting juveniles in this category to treatment options outside normal juvenile delinquency programs. You should identify a specific category identified as being part of special populations and a treatment option as part of the discussion. What are the benefits to this program in addressing the special population? Are there drawbacks, if so what are they? How are outcomes identified and measured?

Note: this discussion format will differ from formats in prior courses. The goal of this discussion forum is to have a single conversation about the topic of treatment for special populations of juvenile offenders, not a series of separate conversations. You must post in the discussion on at least three separate days by Day 7; your total word count for your posts should be a minimum of 600 words. There is no required word count for individual posts as long as your combined posts total at least 600 words. However, you must use at least one in-text citation to support your claims and properly cite any references.

Guided Response: Only start a new thread if you want to address a new theme within the topic and only post after carefully reading what others have written. For example, if the first post is talking about juvenile sex offenders and you are talking about early starters. In other words, not every student will directly answer the question in the original discussion prompt; however, each of you should be focusing on one category of the special population and comparing prior posts’ evaluation of treatment options to the one you researched. Do not repeat what your classmates have already said and respond to any questions you are asked. Try to keep the conversation moving forward.

The purpose of the conversation is to help each other reach a better understanding of the issues. To that end, you should respectfully critique your classmates’ reasoning. Identify and challenge their assumptions, question their reasoning, and push them to the next level. Push yourself, too. Use this as a forum to help you better understand the week’s material. Continue to monitor the discussion forum throughout the day on Day 7 of the week, and respond with robust dialogue to anyone who replies to your posts.

Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

▪ Summarize the history behind the residential placement of youth.

▪

Define confinement and who is most likely to be sentenced to institutions for juveniles.

▪

Explain the different types of short-term residential placements for youth.

▪

Describe the advantages and disadvantages of group homes.

▪

Explain the degree of effectiveness of wilderness camps.

▪

Identify the different types of short-term residential placements for youth.

▪

Summarize the issues associated with long-term secure correctional facilities.

▪

Describe the risks involved with confining juveniles in adult facilities.

▪

Identify the components of successfully helping juveniles reintegrate into society after release.

Residential and Institutional
Placement of Juveniles

Comstock/Thinkstock

Chapter Outline
8.1 Introduction

8.2 Defining Confinement for Juveniles

▪ Population Characteristics of Residential Facilities

▪ Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)

8.3 Short-Term Residential Facilities

8.4 Group Homes

8.5 Wilderness Camps/Ranches

8.6 Residential Treatment Centers

8.7 Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

▪ The Characteristics

▪ Does Confinement Work?

– Costs

– Effectiveness

8.8 Juveniles in Adult Facilities

8.9 Preparing for Release

▪ Post-Release Challenges

▪ Aftercare

– Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)

– Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)

During 2008, a juvenile correctional center in Ohio lost over half of its staff. The center, called
Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility, saw a significant increase in violence among residents of
the facility. In fact, according to the Columbus Dispatch,

Assaults on staff members have resulted in a broken nose, a slash across the face,
choking, unconsciousness, bites, a blown-out knee and the indignity of being
doused with milk cartons filled with urine. Guards, teachers and other prison
workers regularly are assaulted. Last year, they missed the equivalent of seven
years of workdays because of injuries and disabilities. Large youth fights have
sent staff members to the hospital four, five, six at a time. Slightly more than half
of the frustrated, frightened and fatigued guards quit last year, some walking
away from $15.80-an-hour jobs after only a few days. (Ludlow, 2008)

As with any situation, the causes of violence are varied; however, reports indicated that gang
violence and understaffing all contributed to the situation at the Marion Juvenile Correctional
Facility. The state was hit with a federal lawsuit after evidence of widespread abuse by staff
surfaced. As a result, correctional staff members were trained to use less force when managing
unruly youth. However, as noted by the unions representing correctional officers, the hands-off
policy created concerns for correctional officers, who indicated they felt unsafe at the facility.

Section 8.1Introduction

At the time the Columbus Dispatch article was written in early 2008, the department direc-
tor expressed optimism about being able to turn around the correctional facility. The director
noted that staff training would help to reduce use-of-force incidents against youth. In addi-
tion, the facility worked to identify gang-involved youth and transfer them to other facilities.
Just one year later, on January 8, 2009, the Ohio Department of Youth Services issued a press
release announcing the closure of the Marion Juvenile Correctional Facility.

Fast forward to today. Ohio has made great strides to reform its juvenile justice system. Since
2008, the juvenile justice population residing in youth centers has declined from 1,700 youth
to 429. The state also created the Reentry Continuum, an innovative plan that relies on best
practices in rehabilitation. The plan calls for a number of principles that guide Ohio’s approach
toward managing youth in the juvenile justice system:

• Adopt the Effective Practices in Community Supervision (EPICS) model for parole staff
• Implement risk and need assessment tools to assign treatment programming
• Reduce the length of time on parole for low and low-moderate risk youth by collaborat-

ing with judges
• Support reentry courts at the county level
• Develop discharge plans to assist youth with any needed services post-release

The Reentry Continuum is just one example of major reforms that states nationwide have
adopted to reduce the number of youth in custody.

8.1 Introduction
Confining juveniles as a form of punishment is not without controversy. Throughout this text,
we have discussed how shifts in policy are often influenced by the social climate of the time.
Not surprisingly, when it comes to confining juvenile offenders as a form of punishment, we
have seen (and continue to see) shifts in policy. For example, there was an increase in the use
of confinement for juveniles during the get-tough era of the 1980s and 1990s. Since that time,
however, states have reduced by nearly half the population of youth confined. The recent shift
is due to several factors. For one thing, the cost of confinement has forced states to rethink
their policies. Moreover, there is a growing recognition that confinement can exacerbate
rather than solve the problems that bring youth to the juvenile justice system. Even so, the
confinement of juveniles has a long history and is unlikely to be abandoned in the near future.

The use of confinement has often been justified on the grounds of deterrence. For example,
although probation is the most widely used sanction for juveniles, there has always been a
concern that the general public views probation as merely a slap on the wrist. From a deter-
rence standpoint, justice should be swift, certain, and just severe enough to outweigh the
benefits of crime. Using the biblical reference “to spare the rod is to spoil the child,” some
observers argued during the 1990s and early 2000s that only after delinquents experienced
the harsh hand of justice in the form of boot camps, chain gangs, or confinement would they
think twice about committing crime in the future. Policymakers argued that the firm hand of
justice would steer youth onto the right path.

Over the past decade, there has been a groundswell of support for reducing the use of con-
finement for juveniles. For example, it has been argued that institutions for juveniles act as
“crime schools,” as youth from various criminal backgrounds come together and reinforce

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

their criminal status. In these situations, juveniles can learn how to commit other crimes
from fellow juveniles. Second, there are concerns about the physical and emotional effects
of confinement on youth who are still developing and growing. In particular, youth could be
traumatized by their confinement experiences. Third, there are concerns regarding inequal-
ity in terms of who is placed in these settings. In particular, girls appear to be more likely to
be sent to facilities for minor charges, and African American youth are disproportionately
represented. Finally, critics contend that juveniles sentenced to serve time in adult facilities
do worse than those who remain in the juvenile system. The complexity of these issues can-
not be underestimated. We will discuss these and other issues in this chapter as we examine
the impact and effectiveness of institutional placement for juveniles.

8.2 Defining Confinement for Juveniles
The words confinement or institutional placement often conjure an image of a large, concrete
prison with bars and barbed wire. These images of prison have been popularized by movies
such as Shawshank Redemption and Dog Pound, and television shows such as Orange Is the
New Black and Empire. Although media-derived
images of prison may be accurate for some
maximum-security adult prisons, juvenile
facilities are more varied and complex. The ter-
minology used to define juvenile facilities var-
ies so greatly that the terms residential or out-
of-home placements are often used rather
than the term prison. In fact, according to
Melissa Sickmund (2010),

Juvenile facilities are known by many
different names across the country:
detention centers, juvenile halls, shel-
ters, reception and diagnostic cen-
ters, group homes, wilderness camps,
ranches, farms, youth development
centers, residential treatment centers,
training or reform schools, and juvenile
correctional institutions. (p. 1)

The lack of a standard definition for these
facilities can lead to a great deal of confusion.
For example, to examine whether residential
placement or community placement is more
effective in reducing recidivism among youth,
we would need to make sure we are not com-
paring apples to oranges. We would also need
to decide how to measure or quantify residential placement. We would expect, for example,
that a juvenile placed in a wilderness camp would be exposed to a different set of experiences
than a juvenile placed in a secure correctional facility. In an effort to identify these differences
and the impact they have on the behavior of juveniles, we will examine each of these settings
in detail in subsequent sections. First, though, let’s look at the broad data on which and how

Comstock/Thinkstock
Out-of-home placements for juveniles range
from detention centers to group homes to
residential treatment centers.

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

many juveniles are in these facilities, with the understanding that the common thread among
all of these facilities is that juveniles reside at the facility rather than in their homes.

Population Characteristics of Residential Facilities
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) conducts a census of resi-
dential facilities for juveniles every other year. The results of the 2016 survey indicated that
45,567 juvenile offenders were held in juvenile residential facilities, representing a decline
of more than 58% since 2000 (Puzzanchera, Hockenberry, Sladky, & Kang, 2018). Table 8.1
illustrates that the majority of juvenile facilities are labeled “residential treatment centers.”
Those facilities most similar to what we consider a “prison” in adult terms are labeled “long-
term secure correctional facilities.” Table 8.1 indicates that there are 189 of these facilities
across the country.

Table 8.1: The number of residential juvenile facilities by type, 20

Detention
center Shelter

Reception/
diagnostic

center

Group
home

Ranch/
wilderness

camp

Long-
term

secure

Residential
treatment

center

Number
of
facilities

662 131 58 344 30 189 678

Source: From “Table: Year by facility self-classification, United States,” in Juvenile residential facility census databook: 2000–
2016, by C. Puzzanchera, S. Hockenberry, T. J. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/jrfcdb/
asp/selection_profile.asp

By examining the latest trends, we see in Figure 8.1 that the number of juveniles in residential
placement has declined significantly. This decline is not surprising, since as we discussed in
Chapter 1 the overall arrest rates among youth have also declined significantly.

Figure 8.1: Juveniles in residential placement, 2000 and

2014

From “Table: Number of facilities and juvenile offenders by facility size, United States (for years 2004 and 2014),” in Juvenile
residential facility census databook: 2000–2016, by C. Puzzanchera, S. Hockenberry, T. J. Sladky, and W. Kang, 2018, Retrieved
from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/jrfcdb/asp/display_profile.asp

All facilities Small
(<20 beds)

200

Medium
(21–100 beds)

Large
(>100 beds)

108,802

50,821

13,207
8,73

39,609

27,366

55,974

14,70020,000

60,000

40,000

100,000

120,000

80,000

2014

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

As seen in Table 8.2, the number of juveniles in residential placement varies quite a bit by state.
For example, Table 8.2 lists both the number of juveniles in placement (for 2015) and the rate
of placement. The rate of placement is the number of juveniles in custody per 100,000 youth.
A rate helps to account for differences in state population. In other words, we would expect
that California would have more juveniles in custody, given that it is the most populous state
in the country. However, in the case of California, we see the placement rate of 165 is below
that for many other states. Six of the most populous states—California, Texas, Florida, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio—have reduced their placement rates by nearly half since 1997
(Hockenberry, 2018).

Table 8.2: The number of juveniles in residential placement by state, 2015

State where offense occurred
(upper age of juvenile court
jurisdiction in 2015)

Number of juvenile offenders
in public or private residential
placement, 2015

Residential placement rate,
2015 (per 100,000 youth)

U.S. total 48,043 152

Alabama (17) 849 168

Alaska (17) 207 262

Arizona (17) 717 98

Arkansas (17) 555 175

California (17) 6,726 165

Colorado (17) 999 177

Connecticut (17) 141

Delaware (17) 162 176

District of Columbia (17) 105 251

Florida (17) 2,853 153

Georgia (16) 1,110 111

Hawaii (17) 51 39

Idaho (17) 393 200

Illinois (17) 1,524 112

Indiana (17) 1,563 217

Iowa (17) 675 207

Kansas (17) 564 177

Kentucky (17) 510 112

Louisiana (16) 831 193

Maine (17) 81 67

Maryland (17) 612 101

Massachusetts (17) 426 66

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

Table 8.2: The number of juveniles in residential placement by state, 2015
(continued)

State where offense occurred
(upper age of juvenile court
jurisdiction in 2015)

Number of juvenile offenders
in public or private residential
placement, 2015

Residential placement rate,
2015 (per 100,000 youth)

Michigan (16) 1,554 172

Minnesota (17) 852 149

Mississippi (17) 243 74

Missouri (16) 948 173

Montana (17) 171 1

Nebraska (17) 465 225

Nevada (17) 627 209

New Hampshire (17) 69 54

New Jersey (17) 636 69

New Mexico (17) 363 164

New York (15) 1,386 99

North Carolina (15) 468

North Dakota (17) 144 203

Ohio (17) 2,163 178

Oklahoma (17) 552 131

Oregon (17) 1,113 286

Pennsylvania (17) 2,826 228

Rhode Island (17) 198 200

South Carolina (16) 693 161

South Dakota (17) 228 254

Tennessee (17) 660 97

Texas (16) 4,299 153

Utah (17) 453 114

Vermont (17) 27 47

Virginia (17) 1,227 147

Washington (17) 921 1

West Virginia (17) 567 329

Wisconsin (16) 762 147

Wyoming (17) 177 296

Source: From “Table: In 2015, the national commitment rate was twice the detention rate, but rates varied by state,” in Juveniles in
residential placement, 2015, by S. Hockenberry, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/250951

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

The types of offenses that lead to residential placement are shown in Figure 8.2. Person
offenses, which include violent offenses such as murder and robbery, represent the largest
category, with the second largest category being property offenses. In fact, 60% of the juve-
niles in residential placement were there as a result of a person or property offense.

Figure 8.2: Percentage of juveniles in any residential setting by offense
type, 2015

From “Table: Year of census by most serious offense general,” in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement:
1997–2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/
ezacjrp/asp/display.asp

If we examine gender, we can see in Figure 8.3 that 85% of youth in residential placement
are boys. What this doesn’t illustrate, however, is that girls of color are more likely than white
girls to be placed in a residential setting. Girls are also more likely to be placed in residential
settings for lower level offense. According to the latest statistics available from the OJJDP
(Sickmund, Sladky, Kang, & Puzzanchera, 2017), more than half of youth placed in residential
settings for running away are girls.

Figure 8.3: Percentage of juveniles in residential placement by gender, 2015

Eighty-five percent of the youth in residential placement were boys.

From “Table: Year of census by sex,” in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M.
Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/display.
asp?row_var=v01&col_var=v02&display_type=rowp&export_file=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v01

Person Property

Drug Public
order

Technical
violation

Status
offense

Girls
15%

Boys
85%

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

If we examine race, we see that there are differences overall and by state. Table 8.3 illustrates
that the total percentage of minority youth in custody in the United States is higher (42%
black, 22% Hispanic) than for white youth (31%). The table also illustrates differences by
state. Table 8.3 shows 17 states where 50% or more of the population under state custody is
black. The jurisdictions with the highest rates include District of Columbia (97%), Delaware
(80%), Louisiana (80%), Maryland (79%), Mississippi (77%), Georgia (74%), and New Jer-
sey (72%). What is difficult to assess from the table is the extent to which these percentages
represent disproportionality.

Table 8.3: Percentage under state custody by race/ethnicity, 2015

State of offense White Black Hispanic1
American

Indian2 Asian Other

U.S. total 31% 42% 22% 2% 1% 2%

Alabama 35 60 3 0 0 1

Alaska 38 14 1 36 1 10

Arizona 33 16 36 8 1 7

Arkansas 36 57 6 0 1 1

California 13 28 55 1 2 1

Colorado 36 21 39 1 1 1

Connecticut 23 47 26 0 0 4

Delaware 13 80 7 0 0 2

Dist. of Columbia 0 97 0 0 0 0

Florida 29 62 9 0 0 0

Georgia 18 74 5 0

1 2

Hawaii 18 0 6 0 53 29

Idaho 70 2 23 2 2 1

Illinois 21 63 14 0 0 1

Indiana 53 36 7 0 0 4

Iowa 56 29 9 2 1 2

Kansas 46 33 19 1 1 1

Kentucky 56 34 2 0 0 8

Louisiana 17 80 1 1 0 1

Maine 78 15 0 4 0 4

Maryland 14 79 6 0 0 0

Massachusetts 23 30 41 0 1 6

Michigan 40 47 6 1 0 6

Minnesota 38 40 7 10 2 4

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

Table 8.3: Percentage under state custody by race/ethnicity, 2015 (continued)

State of offense White Black Hispanic1
American

Indian2 Asian Other

Mississippi 22 77 0 0 0 1

Missouri 49 44 3 0 0 3

Montana 54 12 12 16 0 5

Nebraska 40 25 23 5 1 5

Nevada 25 37 31 2 2 3

New Hampshire 78 9 9 4 0 4

New Jersey 8 72 18 0 0 0

New Mexico 14 7 74 4 0 2

New York 28 52 16 1 1 2

North Carolina 21 67 7 2 0 3

North Dakota 54 13 4 25 0 4

Ohio 42 50 3 0 0 4

Oklahoma 39 40 8 11 0 2

Oregon 56 13 24 4 1 1

Pennsylvania 29 53 14 0 0 3

Rhode Island 32 30 32 0 3 3

South Carolina 32 48 16 1 0 3

South Dakota 49 4 3 39 1 3

Tennessee 46 41 9 0 0 3

Texas 21 34 44 0 0 1

Utah 50 9 34 5 2 1

Vermont 89 11 0 0 0 0

Virginia 24 62 11 0 0 3

Washington 43 22 20 6 2 7

West Virginia 84 8 2 1 0 5

Wisconsin 28 56 9 3 1 2

Wyoming 66 7 14 12 0 2

1The Hispanic category includes person of Latin American or other Spanish culture or origin regardless of race.
2American Indian includes Alaskan Natives; Asian includes Pacific Islanders.
Source: From “Table: Race/ethnicity by state, 2015,” in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–
2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/
asp/State_Race.asp?state=&topic=State_Race&year=2015&percent=row

Section 8.2Defining Confinement for Juveniles

Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC)
The rate of confinement for minority populations has led to a number of initiatives, most
notably the Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) initiative designed to reduce the
number of minorities who come in contact with the system. According to the Juvenile Jus-
tice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, states receiving formula grants are required to
address the issue of overrepresentation of minorities at each stage of the juvenile justice sys-
tem, which includes institutions. The OJJDP has become a leader in collecting data to examine
the national rates of contact. As an example of this leadership, they developed the National
Disproportionate Minority Contact Databook (see https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/).

Data from this source are referred to as the Relative Rate Index (RRI). The RRI assesses the
levels of disproportionate minority contact at various stages of juvenile justice system pro-
cessing at the national level. This rate helps us understand the extent of disproportionality
by taking into account the population size of different minority groups (e.g., black, Hispanic,
Asian, American Indian) in the United States. The rate calculated is compared to the rate for
white youth. The OJJDP created the RRI matrix to help states and jurisdictions measure levels
of disparity within different parts of the juvenile justice system. By capturing the extent of
disproportionate minority contact within communities, stakeholders can identify decision
points that may need policy reforms. These data now allow us to examine trends over time.

Figure 8.4 illustrates that, with the exception of Asian American youth, all other minority
youth have a rate of placement in residential settings that is higher than for white youth.
Black and Hispanic youth have the highest rates of placement compared to other groups.

Figure 8.4: Relative rate index for youth receiving residential placement,
2005–2015

*AHPI: Asian, Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander
**AIAN: American Indian or Alaskan Native

From “Relative rate indices of adjudication and placement of delinquency referrals,” in National disproportionate minority
contact databook, by C. Puzzanchera and S. Hockenberry, 2018, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/dmcdb/asp/
display_trend.asp?display_in=1&point=9&offense=1&displaytype=rri&show_chart=yes

1.4

1.6

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Black Hispanic AHPI* AIAN** White

2005 2006 20082007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Years

R
at
e

Section 8.4Group Homes

8.3 Short-Term Residential Facilities
Several different types of facilities are referred to as short-term residential facilities, includ-
ing detention centers, reception/diagnostic centers, and youth shelters. Detention centers
provide a temporary form of confinement typically used before the intake or adjudication
phase. The police may decide to detain youth who pose a risk to themselves or others. In
addition, if the police are unable to locate a youth’s parents or guardians, they may place the
juvenile in detention until the responsible party can be located.

Reception/diagnostic centers typically house youth for short periods while correctional offi-
cials assess the juveniles’ needs in order to determine the best placement. The process is similar
to the intake process; however, two characteristics distinguish it from the traditional intake
process. First, unlike the intake process in which a youth may meet with a probation officer in
the community, youth remain confined during this assessment process. Second, the assessment
of youth at this stage often occurs once the youth has been adjudicated as delinquent and has
been remanded to serve time in a residential facility (Sickmund, 2010). For example, in Ohio,
all youth committed to the Department of Youth Services are sent to one reception center to be
assessed for placement in one of the state’s secure juvenile correctional facilities.

Youth shelters are another example of a short-term residential facility. Shelters are designed
to provide short-term placement for youth who cannot be immediately returned to their fami-
lies. Although designed primarily to serve status offenders and abuse and neglect cases, youth
shelter care facilities can also serve delinquent youth if a detention center bed is unavailable.
Most youth spend only days at youth shelters; however, the stay can be extended to weeks if
the court finds placement to be difficult. Some youth shelters provide extensive services (e.g.,
psychological counseling, educational services), whereas others simply provide temporary
supervised housing (Hicks-Coolick, Burnside-Eaton, & Peters, 2003).

8.4 Group Homes
Group homes may be either short or long term, and they can serve a variety of youth in the
juvenile justice system. The typical group home concept provides supervision and services in
a home-like setting. Group homes tend to be smaller than other residential facilities, typically
serving 15 or fewer youth at any given time. The facility is considered nonsecure (e.g., no
barbed wire or other security precautions) but does have locked doors, and youth who leave
without permission may be punished.

Group homes vary in terms of both the population they serve and the services they offer. In
terms of the population served, juvenile group homes accept those adjudicated as delinquent
and abuse and neglect cases. They can serve both boys and girls, although coed facilities are
rare. In some states, group homes can be used as halfway houses for youth released from
long-term secure facilities. In terms of services, group homes can provide myriad services and
programs. For example, youth residing in these group homes may be able to leave the home to
attend school or outpatient therapy at a treatment center. Other times, therapy groups can be
run at the facility itself with all of the residents of the home (Farmer, Siefert, Wagner, Burns,
& Murray, 2017).

Section 8.4Group Homes

Because the services at the facilities vary greatly, assessing their effectiveness is difficult. The
most well-known group home, called Boys Town, was established in 1917 by Father Flanagan,
a Catholic priest in Omaha, Nebraska. The program, which was featured in a motion picture
by the same name in 1938, is described in the accompanying Spotlight.

Boys Town has been studied more extensively than other group homes across the country.
Results of those evaluations find positive results (Kingsley, Ringle, Thompson, Chmelka, &
Ingram, 2008); however, other studies suggest that group homes without treatment do not
produce long-term change in youth (Barth, 2005). Why are the results mixed? It is likely the
results are different because measuring the efficacy of Boys Town group homes suffers from
the same problem that we have in assessing all juvenile facilities: the group homes even within
Boys Town are quite varied. For example, some homes simply provide supervised housing,
whereas others may provide more extensive services. A home that is simply a residential set-
ting for the youth, without treatment services designed to address their issues, is less likely
to have an impact.

Spotlight: Boys Town

The Boys Town concept evolved out of Father Flanagan’s concern for abused and neglected
children. The original Boys Town program was an orphanage for young boys (Friman et
al., 1996). Today, the nonprofit organization runs treatment programs in nine states and,
according to its website (boystown.org), provides services for 1.6 million children per year.
The programs serve both boys and girls.

The Boys Town program maintains its original focus on abused and neglected juveniles,
targeting at-risk youth in an effort to make them productive members of society. Father
Flanagan’s original goal was to help abused and neglected boys to be productive citizens by
providing them with opportunities to work in a loving home. Today’s program has expanded
to serve at-risk youth who are not necessarily in the foster care system but need services.
According to the organization’s website, the program has five objectives:

• Teaching children and families life-changing skills
• Helping children and families build healthy relationships
• Empowering children and families to make good decisions on their own
• Caring for children in a family-style environment
• Supporting children and families in religious practices and values

Boys Town operates a number of different types of programs in different settings. Typical
services include the following:

• Residential treatment programs
• Group homes
• In-home family care programs
• Foster care
• Community support and mentoring programs

Studies suggest that the services offered, particularly the residential treatment centers, are
effective in increasing independent living skills, family functioning, and healthy relationship
development (Friman et al., 1996).

Section 8.5Wilderness Camps/Ranches

8.5 Wilderness Camps/Ranches
Wilderness camps, also known as wilderness ranches, became popular in the 1960s and
1970s. These camps attempt to shape the self-efficacy of youth by exposing them to chal-
lenging situations. For example, youth may be asked to complete a ropes course or a hiking
expedition. They may also be asked to camp outdoors for a period of time and use survival
skills to build a fire, find shelter, and cook their own food. Challenging troubled youth to over-
come certain physical challenges is thought to increase their belief in themselves and their
ability to reach their goals. The idea of building self-efficacy through direct experiences is the
foundation of the experiential learning approach, which is the act of learning through doing.
Engaging in physical activities to learn a concept rather than more passive strategies such as
reading a book will provide youth with a different set of experiences (Kolb, 1984).

VisionQuest, a national nonprofit organization that began offering a variety of services to
juvenile delinquents in the 1970s, is most well known for its outdoor programs. One of the
more interesting programs is referred to as the Wagon Train. According to the organization’s
website (www.vq.com), the Wagon Train program “gives troubled youth the extraordinary
experience of traveling cross-country for an extended period of time via horseback and cov-
ered wagon.” Youth in the program are required to take care of the horses pulling the wagons
and to set up camp each night. The website touts the program as one that provides outdoor
experiences that mold the character of wayward youth.

Wilderness camps typically last from several weeks to months. For example, a highly struc-
tured wilderness camp in Florida called the Florida Environmental Institute targets youth
adjudicated of felony charges by the
Department of Juvenile Justice in Florida.
Nicknamed the “Last Chance Ranch,” the
program is in a remote area of the Florida
Everglades, which makes escape nearly
impossible. Participants typically stay at
the ranch for 12 months and during that
time assist with raising pigs, cattle, horses,
and various crops in addition to engaging
in more traditional activities such as edu-
cational programs and mental health and
substance abuse treatment. Youth are
required to progress through four phases
to eventually obtain release. Although
evaluations of the program are not avail-
able, its founders argue the work ethic
builds character among youth.

Are wilderness camps effective at reduc-
ing recidivism among delinquent youth?
Unfortunately, studies suggest that the
core foundation of a wilderness camp (e.g.,
challenging outdoor activities) is not suffi-
cient to influence recidivism rates in delin-
quent youth. A review of the literature by
Sandra Jo Wilson and Mark Lipsey (2001)

Paul M. Walsh/The Leader Telegram/Associated Press
Wilderness camps are more effective when
treatments such as therapy are used in addition
to challenging outdoor activities.

Section 8.6Residential Treatment Centers

concluded that wilderness-based camps simply focused on physically challenging situations
are not effective in reducing recidivism. However, they did find that some programs were
more effective if they added treatment services such as family, individual, and group therapy
(Wilson & Lipsey, 2001). Other studies have also concluded that the treatment services were
the reason for the reductions in recidivism, not the structure of the camp (MacKenzie, Gover,
Styve, & Mitchell, 2000). The question becomes, then, if the only way to make wilderness
programs more effective is to add treatment groups, do the physical challenges have any ben-
eficial effect? There is no definitive answer yet, but it appears increasingly unlikely that the
physical challenges are beneficial.

8.6 Residential Treatment Centers
Residential treatment centers have increased in popularity during the past few decades.
Based on the data in Table 8.1, 32% of all residential facilities for juveniles are residential
treatment centers. At their basic level,
these centers provide treatment services
to juveniles in a residential environment.
For example, youth may attend school at
the facility during the day and group-
based treatment (e.g., for substance abuse
or anger management) in the evenings or
on weekends. The focus of the facility is
treatment rather than punishment. The
centers are intended to serve youth who
present with significant issues (e.g.,
behavioral or emotional) that are not
deemed severe enough to warrant place-
ment in a long-term secure correctional
facility. In theory, the facilities are designed
to be short term to stabilize and provide
the youth with treatment.

As with all of the facilities and programs we have discussed, the juveniles served at these
facilities vary greatly as well. According to Zelechoski et al. (2013), the majority of youth
housed in these facilities tend to have severe emotional and behavioral problems, complex
histories of trauma and abuse, and significant issues with regard to family, schools, and peers.
Moreover, Preyde et al. (2011) found that half of the youth attending residential treatment
centers in their study did not live with their parents prior to their admission to the facility.
At the same time, painting these centers and the youth they serve with such a broad brush is
difficult. Some residential treatment centers may primarily admit high-need youth, whereas
others may serve youth from less severe backgrounds.

As a result, two critical issues or concerns emerge with regard to these centers. First, there
are concerns that these facilities could be mixing together high-risk youth with those who are
lower risk. As a result, the centers could act as “crime schools,” increasing the problems of the
low-risk youth (Holman & Zeidenburg, 2013). The second concern is whether these centers
are sufficiently intensive. As we just discussed, these centers often serve youth with significant

Spencer Grant/age fotostock/SuperStock
Youths housed in residential treatment centers
attend group-based treatment programs for
their specific issues.

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

behavioral problems and histories involving complex trauma and abuse. As such, the treat-
ment should be sufficiently intensive to address the youth’s needs. For example, studies sug-
gest that treatment should last 3–12 months depending on the youth’s needs (Lipsey, 2009).
However, the length of stay at these facilities is often relatively short and doesn’t appear to
vary based on needs. Baglivio et al. (2018) found that when residential centers addressed the
youth’s needs and provided appropriate treatment dosage, outcomes improved greatly.

8.7 Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities
Long-term secure correctional facilities are the closest parallel to adult prisons. The labels
given to these facilities vary by state. For example, North Carolina refers to its four secure
institutions as youth development centers, Ohio refers to its three secure institutions as juve-
nile correctional facilities, and California refers to its three secure facilities as youth correc-
tional facilities. By contrast, Rhode Island refers to its one secure residential facility as a train-
ing school.

The Characteristics
According to Sickmund et al. (2017), just over 12,000 youth were committed to long-term
secure facilities in 2015. The size of the facilities varies quite a bit, as illustrated in Figure 8.5.
For example, 20% house between 21 and 50 youth, 50% hold between 51 and 150 youth, and
16% hold more than 200 youth.

Figure 8.5: Long-term secure facilities by size in 2015

Long-term secure facilities vary widely in size.

From “Table: Facility size by year of census,” in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M.
Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/display.
asp?row_var=v10&col_var=v01&display_type=colp&export_file=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110&v128=v128

What are the demographic profiles of youth held at these facilities? Eighty-seven percent of
those in custody are boys, and, as shown in Figure 8.6, 43% are African American (Sickmund
et al., 2017). Although the charges for which youth were incarcerated vary (see Figure 8.7),

1 to 10 11 to 20

1 2

21 to 50 51 to 150 151 to 200

100

201 +

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

the most frequently occurring offense type is person offenses, which include robbery, aggra-
vated assault, and sexual assault.

Figure 8.6: Percentage of youth sent to long-term secure facilities by race, 2015

From “Table: Year of census by race,” in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–2015, by M.
Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/asp/selection.
asp?row_var=v01&col_var=v03&display_type=&export_file=&printer_friendly=&v0110=v0110&v128=v128

Figure 8.7: Percentage of youth sent to secure facilities by offense type, 2015

Forty-eight percent of offenses were associated with persons and 24% with property, while only 4%
of offenses were associated with drugs.

From “Year of census by most serious offense general,” in Easy access to the census of juveniles in residential placement: 1997–
2015, by M. Sickmund, T. J. Sladky, W. Kang, and C. Puzzanchera, 2017, Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezacjrp/
asp/display.asp

Does Confinement Work?
The use of punitive strategies for juveniles became popular in the 1980s and 1990s. This phe-
nomenon was seen in the rate of out-of-home placements for youth. For example, placements
in residential facilities increased by more than 40% during the 1990s (Snyder & Sickmund,
2006). Now, however, we are seeing a significant reduction in the number of juveniles placed

Asian
.5%

Other
2%

American Indian
2%

Paci�c Islander
.5%

White
27%

Black
43%

Hispanic
25%

Status
1%

Technical
violation

10%

Person
48%

Property
24%

Public order
12%

Drug
4%

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

in long-term secure facilities. The decline in the number of juveniles in custody is partly
reflective of the reduction in arrests for juvenile delinquency. However, as mentioned in the
beginning of the chapter, it also is likely emanating from two additional sources: costs and
effectiveness.

Costs
Institutionalizing juveniles is not a cost-
efficient sanction. In fact, the American
Correctional Association estimates that it
costs as much as $88,000 per year to
house a juvenile in a high-security institu-
tion (although the figures vary by state).
This figure is particularly high compared
to other community-based sanctions. For
example, one study found that the average
costs of community-based programs were
estimated to be close to $9,000 per year,
compared to just over $57,000 for a secure
facility in Ohio (Lowenkamp & Latessa,
2005).

The high cost of incarcerating juveniles
comprises staffing costs, the amount of
money needed to run the institution (e.g.,
heat, water, food), and costs to maintain services (e.g., medical, mental health). Added ser-
vices can increase the cost dramatically. A study in California revealed that incarcerating a
juvenile with mental illness can increase the cost by as much as $18,800 per year (Cohen &
Pfeifer, 2008, p. 31).

Some of the costs of confinement can be justified on the grounds of public safety. In other
words, if incarcerating juveniles leads to a reduction in crime and makes neighborhoods safer,
the costs might be worth it. However, the issue of the effectiveness of long-term incarceration
of juveniles is not as straightforward as it might seem.

Effectiveness
The effectiveness of confining youth is complex and difficult to assess. If we take a step back
and examine this issue from a philosophical perspective, we should ask ourselves, What is
the purpose of confinement? For example, there are typically said to be four primary goals of
confinement: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Let’s examine each
in detail.

Retribution rests with the notion of revenge for the harm a criminal has inflicted on soci-
ety. Retributive policies have one intention: to punish. The justification for punishment is
not about why youth commit crime or what social circumstances should be changed in their
lives. Rather, the focus and the intent rest with punishment for the youth’s transgressions.
Retribution as a goal of incarceration isn’t necessarily related to effectiveness. In other words,
the punishment is for punishment’s sake, not to change behavior for the future. However, if

Alan Spearman/The Commercial Appeal/Associated Press
Detention center services such as education
make long-term confinement an expensive
option compared to other community-based
sanctions.

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

asked, most people would say they hope the punishment produces a long-term change in the
incarcerated youth. The idea that punishment should produce future changes in youth is the
foundation for deterrence theory.

Deterrence theory asserts that punishment should reduce the future likelihood of crime.
This can be accomplished in two ways. First, punishment sends a message to juveniles that
certain behavior is not acceptable, that a sanction will occur if they conduct themselves in a
particular way. The sanction should teach youth that there are consequences for behavior,
and this consequence should reduce future criminal behavior. This phenomenon is referred
to as specific deterrence. Second, the punishment may have a wider effect on the behavior of
others who see that the youth was punished. You may hear judges or prosecutors say they
want to “send a message” to would-be criminals that the behavior in question will not be
tolerated in the community. A judge in that circumstance may sentence the youth to an insti-
tution in the hopes that doing so will make others who may be thinking about committing a
crime reconsider their actions. This is referred to as general deterrence. During the get-tough
period of the 1980s and 1990s, the philosophy of deterrence became increasingly popular.
This was seen in both the transfer of juveniles to the adult system (and thereby adult prisons)
and the increase in the use of confinement in juvenile institutions.

Incapacitation is a third goal that fits with the confinement of juveniles. The logic of inca-
pacitation is that a person who is confined cannot commit crime. Although this is not exactly
accurate, given that juveniles can commit crimes of violence or theft while confined, it does
minimize crime in the community. It can be argued that incarcerating juveniles during the
years in which they are at higher risk for committing crime (e.g., 16–18 years of age) would
reduce the crime rate.

Finally, a fourth goal, rehabilitation, maintains that providing treatment services for youth
should be the guiding philosophy for changing troubled behavior and reducing crime. Treat-
ment or rehabilitation focus on the issues or problems that propelled the youth into delin-
quency. Supporters would argue that if we can fix those issues or problems, then we could
expect the youth to refrain from committing crime again in the future. In other words, if you
fix the “cause,” you can fix the problem.

If we examine the impact or effectiveness of confinement for juveniles, we need to ask our-
selves, Is the goal of confinement to punish, to deter, to incapacitate, or to rehabilitate? If it
is simply to punish for the sake of revenge for the wrongdoing, then confinement could be
argued to serve that purpose. If the purpose is to incapacitate to reduce crime in the com-
munity while the youth is confined, one could argue that such a goal, at least on the individual
level, is likely realized. However, if the goal is either to deter or to rehabilitate, then effective-
ness becomes questionable.

Holman and Zeidenburg (2006) suggested that confinement of youth, particularly in long-
term secure placement, increases the risk of recidivism. They argued that the increase in
recidivism can be attributed to a number of things. Confinement has been found to dimin-
ish the mental health of those youth struggling with mental illness; to label youth as “crimi-
nal,” thereby increasing their chances of identifying as criminals; to decrease their chances to
associate with positive peers who might help them get on the right path; and to reduce school
achievement, which further limits opportunity and further entrenches youth in the criminal
justice system.

Section 8.7Long-Term Secure Correctional Facilities

With regard to rehabilitation, studies sug-
gest that if a prison culture is one that sup-
ports treatment services, it can be more
effective. For example, most institutions
provide educational services for youth
where they attend school for a significant
portion of the day. Moreover, many offer
group-based treatment services targeted
at substance addiction, life-skills develop-
ment, or victim awareness. Others provide
vocational opportunities for youth. These
may include computer programming,
woodworking, agricultural activities, or
auto repair. Although youth do not leave
the facility fully equipped for these
careers, the exposure may increase their
interest in pursuing a certificate or degree
in some area. Studies find that youth who
serve time in treatment-oriented facilities have better attitudes toward the institution (Man-
check & Cullen, 2014).

The reality, however, is that long-term secure institutions often prioritize confinement and
security over rehabilitation. Studies find that institutions focusing on custody can inadver-
tently create the violence they are trying to prevent. For example, studies find that highly
punitive institutions that were coercive toward youth actually encouraged violence. A highly
coercive environment encourages youth to create a hierarchy within the institution in order
to gain some sense of power and control over their environment. Stronger youth then prey
on weaker youth and treat those youth the same way the guards are treating them (de Valk,
Kuiper, van der Helm, Maas, & Stams, 2016; Feld, 1978).

Further illustrating this point is a recent study on prison rape in juvenile institutions. The
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) conducted the study in response to legislation passed in
2003 called the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The PREA legislation is designed to
address the problem of sexual victimization in prison (for juveniles and adults). The act has
several provisions including the tracking of sexual victimization incidents in prison. BJS now
publishes annual statistics on the topic of sexual victimization among juveniles in correc-
tional institutions. According to the latest statistics, nearly 1,500 youth reported being sexu-
ally victimized while housed in a facility. The rate of victimization increased between 2005
and 2012. The reason for this upward trend is unclear.

The 2012 victimization study (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016) also included other insights
into violence that occurs within these facilities, including the following:

• 55% of the incidents involved youth-on-youth violence; 45% staff on youth.
• Violence or threat of violence was used in nearly a quarter of youth on youth

incidents.
• 64% of staff involved incidents were perpetrated by a female staff member.
• State juvenile systems have higher rates of victimization than local or private juve-

nile facilities.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Studies suggest that vocational programs offered
in long-term secure institutions may increase
a youth’s interest in studying the area once
released.

Section 8.8Juveniles in Adult Facilities

With such high rates of violence, the question shifts from is rehabilitation a goal of these
facilities to can it be a goal? Exacerbating the problem is the transfer of juveniles to the adult
system.

8.8 Juveniles in Adult Facilities
Once transferred to the adult criminal court system, juveniles can be sent to adult prisons to
serve their period of confinement. The trend peaked in the late 1990s when more than 5,000
persons under the age of 18 were housed in adult prisons. According to the latest statistics,
just under 1,000 juveniles are housed in adult prisons (Carson & Mulako-Wangota, 2018).

Unfortunately, we see a racial disparity in terms of who is more likely to be sentenced to
prison once transferred to the adult court system. For example, an analysis of juveniles in
adult custody published in 2000 found that “in comparison with the adult prison popula-
tion, a higher proportion of youth were black (55% of youthful inmates versus 48% of adult
inmates) and were convicted of a crime against persons (57% of youth versus 44% of adult
inmates)” (Austin, Johnson, & Gregoriou, 2000, p. 12).

How well do these juveniles fare in adult prisons? The research finds that they typically do
not fare well compared to juveniles kept in the juvenile justice system. For example, juveniles
transferred to adult court fail more often, more quickly, and in a variety of ways compared to
those retained in the juvenile justice system (Lambie & Randall, 2013). A study by Kuanliang,
Sorensen, and Cunningham (2008) found that juveniles in adult prisons had significantly
higher rates of disciplinary infractions than adults in the same prison. And another study
found that these juveniles were more likely to be sexually assaulted when in adult prisons
(Fagan & Kupchik, 2011).

Given these findings, many states have revised their transfer laws for juveniles. A report
issued by the Council of State Governments notes that several states in particular are giving
judges more discretion in allowing juveniles a second chance:

• In 2007, Virginia changed the “once an adult, always an adult” law. Previously, a one-
time transfer of a juvenile to adult court was enough to keep a juvenile in the adult
system for all future proceedings, no matter how minor the charge.

• In 2008, a Colorado act allowed a juvenile charged with felony murder to serve in
the juvenile justice system. Virginia allowed a juvenile sentenced as an adult to gain
earned sentence credits while serving the juvenile portion of the sentence in a juve-
nile center rather than in an adult facility.

• In 2008, a Maine law provided that juveniles under age 16 who receive adult prison
sentences can begin serving the sentence in a juvenile facility.

• In 2009 and 2010, Nevada, Mississippi, and Utah left it to the juvenile court to deter-
mine whether transfer to the adult court was necessary.

• In 2012, a Colorado law barred “district attorneys from charging juveniles as adults
for many low- and mid-level felonies.” The act also raised from 14 to 16 the age at
which young offenders may be charged as adults for more serious crimes (Brown,
2012, p. 5).

Section 8.9Preparing for Release

The juveniles’ experiences while confined can influence how well they assimilate back into
society. It would be reasonable to expect that youth who experience coercive prison environ-
ments are more likely to do worse when they return to the community. One study found this
to be true among adult prisoners (Listwan, Sullivan, Agnew, Cullen, & Colvin, 2013). Those
individuals who experienced victimization in prison were more likely to return to prison, a
finding that runs counter to what deterrence theory would suggest.

8.9 Preparing for Release
Approximately 100,000 youth reenter the community each year. Reentry is the label typically
used to describe the process youth go through when they return to the community from a
period of confinement. The process varies for each individual. Some youth may be returning
to an alternative environment such as foster care; others will return to the same environment
they previously left.

Post-Release Challenges
Although the process of reentry is not
new, there is renewed attention surround-
ing reentry services for youth. The atten-
tion is understandable if we consider that
a study of adults found that the vast major-
ity of those reentering the community
failed within three years (Alper, Durose, &
Markman, 2018). According to one study
of juveniles detained in Wisconsin, 70%
were arrested or returned to secure deten-
tion within one year of release (Bezruki,
Varana, & Hill, 1999).

The question is, Why do so many juveniles struggle after release? There are a number of
possibilities. Some youth may not be receiving adequate treatment services while institution-
alized. As we have discussed, treatment services are often lacking in both short- and long-
term facilities. There are also concerns that confinement in a residential facility disrupts the
key protective factors of school, peers, and family relationships. For example, youth who are
removed from traditional school settings when placed in prison must be integrated back into
the school system or, if they obtained a GED while institutionalized, they must determine how
to find their way into the workplace. Meaningful employment for youth is difficult even in a
healthy job market. As noted by Nellis and Wayman (2009), even when programs exist in the
institutions where youth are placed, “vocational programming designed to prepare young
people for a job upon release was not accompanied by any industry certification or associated
with high-growth jobs in the communities where the youth would be returning” (p. 18).

Over the past decade, however, there have been a number of reentry reforms in juvenile
justice. For example, as we’ve discussed, many states have chosen to reduce the number of
commitments to long-term secure facilities. This reluctance to incarcerate is a response to
both the costs and the effectiveness of such a sanction. States have had to be mindful of what

Ken Tannenbaum/SuperStock
Despite reentry and aftercare programs, some
juvenile offenders return to detention centers
shortly after release.

Section 8.9Preparing for Release

services are needed in the community to ensure that youth are well served. One example is
Wraparound Milwaukee, a program that is a collaboration among mental health, juvenile jus-
tice, child welfare systems, and educational systems. This program provides services to youth
in the areas of education, mental health, substance abuse treatment, and in-home therapy.
Family is a key component of the program as well. Similarly, as we discussed at the beginning
of the chapter, Ohio’s Reentry Continuum has been developed to guide that state’s practices.

The importance of treatment services as we prepare youth for release is not new. Research sup-
ports the idea that aftercare services are needed to help youth transition into the community.

Aftercare
Preparing youth for their release back into the community is one of the central tenets of after-
care. Aftercare provides the client with services that focus on ongoing community support
and treatment. Steve Geis (2003) noted:

Two key components of the aftercare concept distinguish it from the tradi-
tional juvenile justice model. First, offenders must receive both services and
supervision. (Offenders in the traditional juvenile justice system are generally
sentenced to some type of supervision and are sometimes provided with ser-
vices.) Second, they must receive intensive intervention while they are incar-
cerated, during their transition to the community, and when they are under
community supervision. This second component refines the concept of rein-
tegrative services to include services that occur before release as well as after
release. (p. 1)

Aftercare should not simply be an occasional meeting with a probation officer. Instead, after-
care should focus on the issues the juvenile faces. For some, that may mean an intensive
intervention that includes multiple levels of services given to both the youth and the family.
For example, a youth who is returning to a nonsupportive, chaotic family environment with
exposure to drug and alcohol abuse will need a different level of service than a youth who is
returning to a stable family environment.

According to Nellis and Wayman (2009), reentry programs for youth should, at a minimum

• Be located in the community where returning youth live
• Be individualized to assist with developmental deficits
• Concentrate heavily on ensuring school reenrollment, attendance, and success
• Focus on permanent family/guardianship connections
• Include access to mental health and substance abuse treatment
• Recognize the diverse needs of returning youth
• Include a structured workforce preparation and employment component
• Include housing support and assistance for youth who cannot live with relatives and

are transitioning to adulthood

Although these components are important, the reality is that many state juvenile justice sys-
tems are fragmented and not organized around meeting the needs of these youth in a system-
atic way. For example, most states have both rural and urban areas. In urban areas, there are
often more services available to youth simply due to the needs of the population. Chicago will

Section 8.9Preparing for Release

have more services available to youth than, say, a smaller town in Illinois. Rural areas simply
do not have the resources of larger towns or cities. So the aftercare experiences of youth
returning to a smaller town will differ from those of youth returning to a rural area. In effect,
the quality of aftercare is dependent on geography.

Pennsylvania has developed a comprehensive aftercare model based on the state’s Compre-
hensive Aftercare Reform Initiative. The initiative led to the creation of 17 goals related to
aftercare, including early assessment and planning, multiagency collaboration, monitoring,
school reintegration, and case management. Each probation officer must develop a compre-
hensive plan that includes the school, family, and others who could act as protective supports
for the youth.

Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP)
In another example, the OJJDP sponsored the evaluation of a project referred to as the Inten-
sive Aftercare Program (IAP). The IAP is designed to provide youth with aftercare services
that begin while they are incarcerated and continue during reentry into the community. Pro-
gram staff develop collaborations with agencies in the community, and, while institutional-
ized, youth receive services designed to prepare them for the transition. For example, voca-
tional programs offered while youth are institutionalized could then be linked to similar
programs or even job opportunities in the community.

The IAP model is a comprehensive service-based approach that enables youth to make a
structured transition back into the community rather than a transition that is haphazard or
based on things like geography. To ensure the approach is systematic and structured for each
youth, case management is key (Altschuler & Armstrong, 1996). For example, staff should not
wait until the youth is about to go back home to start thinking about reentry. Instead, staff
in these programs should begin thinking about the youth’s transition back to the community
from the beginning of the youth’s confinement. This gives program staff time to develop a
plan for how youth will transition back, where youth will go, and how to best support youth
and their families (Geis, 2003).

The approach is not simply about treatment services, although that is a significant compo-
nent of the program. For example, program staff also advocate for the importance of super-
vision services for youth. The probation or parole officer is still seen as key to the youth.
This may include home visits, drug testing, school monitoring, and many of the surveillance
activities discussed in Chapter 7. Initial reviews indicated that this approach was success-
ful; however, other studies suggest that it did not achieve reductions in recidivism (Wiebush,
Wagner, McNulty, Wang, & Le, 2005). Studies suggest that this approach often failed to engage
families in meaningful ways that could have led to long-term benefits (Abrams, Mizel, Nguyen,
& Shlonsky, 2014).

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
Another example of a structured approach to reintegration and aftercare is the Serious and
Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). In 2003, the federal government launched the
SVORI to address the needs of violent adult and juvenile offenders reentering the community.
According to Lattimore, MacDonald, Piquero, Linster, and Visher (2004),

Summary of Learning Objectives

the goals of the initiative are to improve quality of life and self-sufficiency
through employment, housing, family and community involvement; improve
health by addressing substance use (sobriety and relapse prevention) and
physical and mental health; reduce criminality through supervision and by
monitoring noncompliance, reoffending, rearrest, reconviction, and reincar-
ceration; achieve system change through multi-agency collaboration and case
management strategies. (p. 2)

Ultimately, 69 agencies nationwide received over $100 million in funds to develop reentry
programs. The 69 states agencies included 88 different programs. According to Lattimore and
colleagues (2004), of those programs, 35 targeted adults only, 34 targeted juveniles only, 2
targeted youthful offenders only, and 17 targeted some combination of adults, juveniles, and
youthful offenders. The SVORI programs for youth are similar to the programs just noted. The
delivery of services begins during the youth’s period of incarceration and continues with the
youth while in the community. The process was designed to be structured and to work with
youth at all levels (e.g., families, schools, peers, community).

So the question is, Did the SVORI programs fare better than the IAP programs? Unfortunately,
the answer is no if we look at the national data. Overall, the SVORI programs did not signifi-
cantly reduce the recidivism rates of youth participating in the program compared to youth
who did not participate in the program. Among juvenile clients, there was no difference in
reported substance abuse or in criminal behavior. However, a few differences between the
two approaches were noted. For example, SVORI participants did slightly better with regard
to housing or employment; however, the programs were not considered a success due their
lack of outcomes (Lattimore & Visher, 2009).

Why did these programs fail to achieve the expected results? Implementing treatment for
youth is difficult. In Chapter 10 we will summarize these issues and identify promising or
effective interventions for youth.

Summary of Learning Objectives
Summarize the history behind the residential placement of youth.

• The use of confinement for juvenile delinquency remains controversial.
• The majority of states have substantially reduced the number of confined youth.

Define confinement and who is most likely to be sentenced to institutions for juveniles.

• Juvenile facilities used for confinement are varied and complex. The terminology
used to define juvenile facilities varies so greatly that the terms residential or out-of-
home placements are often used rather than the term prison.

• In 2016, over 45,000 juveniles under the age of 21 were held in juvenile residential
facilities. This represents a 53% decline since 2000.

• Overall, 15% of these youth are girls.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Explain the different types of short-term residential placements for youth.

• Short-term residential facilities include detention centers, reception/diagnostic
centers, and youth shelters.

• In the majority of cases, these placements provide temporary housing for youth
prior to adjudication.

Describe the advantages and disadvantages of group homes.

• Group homes are smaller than other residential facilities and can provide a variety
of treatment services to youth.

• Group homes that rely simply on supervision without treatment services tend to be
ineffective.

Explain the degree of effectiveness of wilderness camps.

• Wilderness programs are designed to increase self-efficacy of the youth by exposing
them to challenging situations.

• Overall, the camps are found to be ineffective as they do not focus on changing the
problems youth face in their communities.

Identify the different types of short-term residential placements for youth.

• Residential treatment centers are the newest type of residential facilities that typi-
cally serve youth with complex needs who otherwise would have been sent to long-
term secure correctional facilities.

• Though more effective than group homes and wilderness camps, residential treat-
ment centers show mixed results. It is more effective to treat youth in the commu-
nity than in a residential environment.

Summarize the issues associated with long-term secure correctional facilities.

• Long-term secure correctional facilities serve youth deemed a risk to the community.
The rate of youth placed in custody has declined since the early 2000s.

• Long-term secure facilities are criticized for their high cost and lack of effectiveness
(i.e., their failure to reduce recidivism). Studies suggest these facilities fail to reha-
bilitate or deter youth from future criminal acts.

Describe the risks involved with confining juveniles in adult facilities.

• Transferring youth to adult court became popular in the late 1980s and 1990s. By
the late 1990s, more than 5,000 persons under the age of 18 were housed in adult
prisons. Today fewer than 1,000 are housed in adult prisons.

• Studies suggest that youth transferred to adult facilities have worse outcomes than
those who remain in the juvenile justice system.

Identify the components of successfully helping juveniles reintegrate into society after release.

• Release or reentry back to the community is an important issue for juvenile
delinquents.

Summary of Learning Objectives

• Aftercare services are crucial for youth returning home from a period of
confinement.

• There are several notable programs; however, studies suggest aftercare programs
struggle to provide the services required to address juveniles’ needs.

Critical Thinking Questions
1. Do you like the idea of wilderness camps or ranches? Why or why not? Are you dis-

suaded by mixed findings regarding their effectiveness?
2. What do you see as the biggest problems with long-term secure facilities for juve-

niles? Do you support reducing their use or increasing it? Explain your answer.
3. Do you agree with the states that have begun revising their transfer laws for juve-

niles to make them less stringent? Or do you believe we should continue to transfer
juveniles to the adult system? Explain your answer.

4. Why do you think that juveniles struggle as they return back to the community from
a period of incarceration? What should we do about it, particularly given the mixed
findings regarding the IAP and SVORI programs?

Key Terms
detention centers Short-term facilities
used to confine youth before the intake or
adjudication phase.

deterrence theory The theory asserting
that punishment should reduce the future
likelihood of crime through specific deter-
rence, which sends a message to juveniles
that certain behavior is not acceptable and
so not to repeat criminal behavior, and gen-
eral deterrence, which is intended to send a
message to other would-be criminals.

Disproportionate Minority Contact
(DMC) An initiative designed to reduce the
number of minorities who come in contact
with the juvenile court system.

experiential learning A learning approach
built on the idea that self-efficacy is attained
through direct experiences.

group homes Either short- or long-term
facilities that serve a variety of youth in the
juvenile justice system. Group homes typi-
cally provide supervision and services in a
home-like setting.

incapacitation The confinement of indi-
viduals who commit criminal acts.

Intensive Aftercare Program A program
designed to provide aftercare services to
youth beginning while they are incarcerated
and continuing into the community.

out-of-home placements A term fre-
quently used for juvenile facilities in place of
terms such as prison.

rate of placement The number of juveniles
in custody per 100,000 youth.

reception/diagnostic centers Facilities
that typically house youth for short periods
while correctional officials assess the juve-
niles’ needs in order to determine the best
placement.

rehabilitation A goal of confinement
according to which providing treatment
services, not punishment, for youth should
be the guiding philosophy for changing
troubled behavior and reducing crime.

retribution A goal of confinement accord-
ing to which revenge is enacted for the
harm a criminal has inflicted on society; the
primary intention of retributive policies is
to punish.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative (SVORI) A structured approach
to reintegration and aftercare launched to
address the needs of violent adult and juve-
nile offenders reentering the community.

youth shelters Facilities that provide
short-term placement for youth who cannot
be immediately returned to their families.

VisionQuest A popular program most well
known for its wilderness camps.

Learning Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:

▪ Describe the issues early starters face in their everyday lives, the characteristics of persistently disruptive
children, and the methods used to prevent and treat early delinquent behavior.

▪ Explain the complexity of defining gangs and gang behavior and the relationship between gangs and crime.

▪

Analyze the complexity surrounding the labeling of juvenile sex offenders.

9Special Populations

Cultura Limited/SuperStock

Chapter Outline
9.1 Introduction

9.2 Early Starters

▪ Issues Faced by Early Starters

▪ Prevention and Treatment

9.3 Juvenile Gangs

▪ What Is a Gang?

▪ Gang Prevalence in the United States

▪ Girl Gangs

▪ Gang-Related Crime

▪ Consequences of Gang Membership

▪ Gang Prevention: Programs and Initiatives

9.4 Juvenile Sex Offenders

▪ Laws/Statutory Rape

▪ The Juvenile Sex Offender

▪ Policy Initiatives

▪ Juvenile Sex Offenders and Rehabilitation

In the summer of 1981, 6-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted from a Hollywood, Florida,
shopping mall. His mother allowed Adam to play video games near the front entrance while
she shopped for lamps. She indicated she was gone for only 10 minutes. According to the store
security guard, he found Adam and several other boys fighting over the video games and
escorted all of them out of the store. It is believed that Adam was left alone outside the store, at
which point he was abducted.

Adam’s decapitated head was found approximately two weeks later; however, the police never
recovered his body. The national manhunt remained a cold case for years until, in 2008, offi-
cials declared that a previous suspect of the murder was the killer. That man had died in prison
12 years earlier and was never officially tried for Adam’s abduction and murder.

Adam’s father, John Walsh, is well known around the world as the man behind the television
show America’s Most Wanted. He is actively involved in missing children cases and advocating
for harsher laws surrounding child molesters. Some 25 years later, in 2006, President George
W. Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. The law, passed with
bipartisan support, requires more stringent sex-offender registration requirements. Although
there was no evidence that Adam Walsh was sexually assaulted, given that his body was never
found, the man accused of his murder had a history of juvenile delinquency and sex offend-
ing. The legislation was seen as a positive step toward holding sex offenders accountable.
That accountability is represented in a three-tier notification system that requires serious sex
offenders to be listed on a national registry for life.

Section 9.2Early Starters

Sex-offender registration laws are very popular with the public. The popularity of these laws
is understandable—people feel they have the right to know if a sex offender is living next
door or in their neighborhood. One issue we will examine in this chapter is whether the situ-
ation changes when a juvenile is involved. As discussed in previous chapters, many serious
adult offenders begin their criminal careers as juveniles. Yet we know that not all juvenile sex
offenders become adult offenders. In fact, juvenile sex offenders are more complex than the
label suggests.

9.1 Introduction
We often talk in terms of the “typical” juvenile delinquent, but certain juvenile delinquents are
deserving of special attention. These special populations present particular challenges for the
juvenile justice system and, to an extent, the communities in which they reside. For example,
some juvenile delinquents are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior at a young age,
and they are more likely to continue their criminal involvement as adults. Intervening in the
lives of these juveniles is particularly important. Moreover, there are certain types of juvenile
delinquents whose behavior is more violent and detrimental to their families, schools, and
communities. These populations present special issues and concerns for the juvenile justice
system, both from a policy standpoint and from a rehabilitation standpoint.

The word special may seem a misnomer in this circumstance as it is typically used in a posi-
tive context. In this chapter, however, we use special to refer to those who depart from typical
patterns of criminal behavior among adolescents. The three types of juvenile delinquents that
most significantly depart from the norm are the very young delinquents often called early
starters, gang-involved youth, and juvenile sex offenders.

What is interesting about each of these types of delinquents is that although they share simi-
larities they also are very different. In particular, juvenile sex offenders are a heterogeneous
group, meaning that all juvenile sex offenders do not look alike, act alike, or in most circum-
stances have the same backgrounds. Understanding the complex legal and social issues at
stake with these three special populations is also important.

9.2 Early Starters
What does the label early starter mean? Although the age at which we label a juvenile an “early
starter” is somewhat debatable, the label is typically reserved for those who begin commit-
ting crimes before the age of 14. The number of juveniles who commit crimes before that age
is relatively small. In fact, most studies find that early starters represent merely 5% to 7% of
the juvenile delinquents arrested in any given year (Loeber & Farrington, 2000). Terrie Mof-
fitt (1993) categorized delinquents into two groups: adolescent limited offenders and antiso-
cial persistent offenders. Both groups can include early starters. Adolescent limited offenders
typically stop their delinquent behavior by the end of adolescence. By contrast, antisocial
persistent offenders continue their criminal careers into adulthood. They are also more likely
to be early starters. In fact, studies find that early starters are two to three times more likely

Section 9.2Early Starters

than juveniles who start offending at a
later age to become chronic adult offend-
ers (Loeber & Farrington, 2000).

Issues Faced by Early Starters
As youth, antisocial persistent offenders
often encountered cumulative disadvan-
tages that exacerbated their problems.
Once these youth are off on the wrong
foot, the cycle becomes difficult to break.
They are more likely to have neurological
difficulties that include impulsivity, hyper-
activity, and poor verbal and problem-
solving skills (Moffitt, 1993). Understand-
ing how and why these juveniles begin
their delinquent careers is important for
managing and intervening with this population.

These early starters can be a drain on the juvenile justice system. They are more likely than
other juvenile offenders to commit crime more frequently. They are also more likely to esca-
late their criminal behavior and become increasingly violent. As a result, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) formed a study group. The group, referred to
as the Study Group on Very Young Offenders, was comprised of 39 experts on the topic of
child delinquency. The study group published a number of reports that can be found at OJJDP.
gov under the title Child Delinquency Series. They classified young offenders as those aged 7
to 12. There are several interesting points to highlight:

• Juveniles whose first referral to court for a delinquency offense had occurred
before age 13 were far more likely to become chronic offenders—that is, to have
had at least four referrals to juvenile court—than juveniles whose first referral had
occurred when they were older.

• Early starters, particularly boys, are at risk for becoming teenage parents.
• Early starters are more likely to experience complex trauma, emanating from both

their families and communities.
• Early starters are at higher risk for mental health issues such as depression

and suicide.
• Early starters are more likely to experience trouble in school and have higher tru-

ancy and dropout rates.
• Early starters are more likely to begin using substances at an earlier age (Loeber &

Farrington, 2001).

If early starters’ offending persists into adulthood, they are less likely to desist or stop com-
mitting crime. DeLisi and Piquero (2011) argue that as delinquents persist into their 20s
and beyond, they become increasingly invested in their criminal behavior, reducing their
opportunities for legitimate work, relationships, and connections to the community. Given

BananaStock/Thinkstock
According to current trends, young offenders are
more likely to engage in substance abuse at an
earlier age than in previous years.

Section 9.2Early Starters

the potential for these youth to become adult offenders, many argue that we should intervene
in their lives in order to prevent this destructive set of events from happening.

Prevention and Treatment
The OJJDP study group concluded that interventions focused on preventing child delinquency
would exhibit the greatest impact on crime (Loeber, Farrington, & Petechuk, 2003). These
efforts should be focused in particular on identifying and intervening with persistently dis-
ruptive children. Persistently disruptive children are those who exhibit a pattern of nega-
tive behaviors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a period of at least six months.
These disruptive youth often experience a number of problems in their lives. For example,
they are more likely to have trouble at home, be diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperac-
tivity disorder (ADHD), be victims of child abuse, and do poorly in school (Manuzza, Klein,
Bessler, & Maloy, 1993; Moffitt, 1990).

The logic here is that children involved in the juvenile justice system often exhibit disrup-
tive behavior long before their first official contact with the formal system (e.g., an arrest).
Although not all of these youth will become delinquent youth, they are more likely (some
studies find about 25%–50% of these youth) to become formally involved in the juvenile jus-
tice system (Loeber & Farrington, 2000). Identifying the youth who are exhibiting disruptive
behavior before they come into contact with the system is the best way to prevent the cycle
before it happens.

The family is an important factor for these youth. Family abuse, criminal behavior among fam-
ily members (e.g., parents and siblings), lack of supervision, lack of closeness, and low socio-
economic status can all contribute to the youth’s delinquency. Similarly, a study by Romeo
Vitelli (1997) found early starters are more likely to have a history of exposure to violence in
childhood. A study by Alltucker, Bullis, Close, and Yovanoff (2006) found that children who
were in foster care were four times more likely to be early starters, and children with a crimi-
nal family member were twice as likely to be early starters. Loeber and Farrington (2000)
argue that serious delinquents often begin committing delinquent acts in the home and then
branch out into their schools and community.

More recently researchers are exploring the importance of trauma on early starters. Those
who experience traumatic events are significantly more likely to experience psychological
problems and involvement in the juvenile justice system. Studies suggest that youth involved
with the juvenile justice system are highly likely to have a history of trauma exposure. In fact,
a study of juvenile detainees in Cook County, Illinois, found that 92.5% of the youth sampled in
the facility had experienced at least one traumatic event or experience (Abrams et al., 2004).
Another study, conducted by Kerig and colleagues (2009), found that 92.3% of their juvenile
detention sample had exposure to at least one traumatic event. Trauma-exposed youth are
at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, and substance
abuse (Kilpatrick et al., 2000). Researchers have begun exploring the impact of traumatic
events in a more systematic way, using the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale, which
we detail in the accompanying Spotlight.

Section 9.2Early Starters

Although there is little question that inter-
vening with these youth is important, the
remaining problem is how and when to
intervene. Intervention is more compli-
cated than it might at first seem. A young
bully on the playground might be tomor-
row’s serious and persistent juvenile
delinquent, but some aggressive behavior
among preschoolers and early elementary
schoolers is normal as kids test out their
boundaries and relationships with others.
When does aggressiveness among young
children go beyond the norm?

Experts suggest there are some early
warning signs. For example, kids who are
more aggressive than is considered nor-
mal for their similarly aged peers may be
a concern. Others find that juveniles who
show conduct problems in preschool are
more likely to eventually engage in prop-
erty and violent crime (Loeber, 1988).
They also note that kids who are fire
setters or show cruelty to animals are a
particularly high-risk group (Putnam &
Kirkpatrick, 2005). And based on our pre-
ceding discussion, youth who experience
difficulties within the family and school or have experienced trauma, foster care exposure,
and abuse are at greater risk for becoming chronic delinquents.

However, the question remains, How and when do we intervene? Who will assess these early
warning signs? Do we place the responsibility on the teacher to identify and intervene? Should
all children be required to answer a survey in school to help identify troubled youth? Should
schools be given the legal authority to do so? Or should these youth only be identified once
they become particularly burdensome to the schools? One such intervention, First Steps to
Success, argues that the schools should intervene with youth as early as kindergarten (see
the accompanying Spotlight).

Spotlight: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale

The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) scale measures various forms of abuse and
neglect (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016), which are outlined below. The
specific items refer to the respondent’s first 18 years of life.

Abuse

• Emotional abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home swore at you,
insulted you, put you down, or acted in a way that made you afraid that you might be
physically hurt.

• Physical abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home pushed, grabbed,
slapped, threw something at you, or hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured.

• Sexual abuse: An adult, relative, family friend, or stranger who was at least 5 years
older than you ever touched or fondled your body in a sexual way, made you touch his/
her body in a sexual way, attempted to have any type of sexual intercourse with you.

Household Challenges

• Mother treated violently: Your mother or stepmother was pushed, grabbed, slapped,
had something thrown at her, kicked, bitten, hit with a fist, hit with something hard,
repeatedly hit for over at least a few minutes, or ever threatened or hurt by a knife or
gun by your father (or stepfather) or mother’s boyfriend.

• Household substance abuse: A household member was a problem drinker or alcoholic
or a household member used street drugs.

• Mental illness in household: A household member was depressed or mentally ill or a
household member attempted suicide.

• Parental separation or divorce: Your parents were ever separated or divorced.
• Criminal household member: A household member went to prison.

Neglect1

• Emotional neglect: Someone in your family helped you feel important or special, you
felt loved, people in your family looked out for each other and felt close to each other,
and your family was a source of strength and support.2

• Physical neglect: There was someone to take care of you, protect you, and take you to
the doctor if you needed it2, you didn’t have enough to eat, your parents were too drunk
or too high to take care of you, and you had to wear dirty clothes.

Each experience of a traumatic event is considered “1” point. Items such as emotional
neglect (i.e., those without someone to help them feel important) are reverse scored. The
original study conducted by the CDC found that more than half of people experienced at
least one traumatic childhood event. An ACE score of 4 or more indicates an increased risk
for depression, suicide, alcohol disorders, and other health-related problems (Felitti et al.,
1998). Researchers found that early starters were significantly more likely than other juve-
nile offenders to have higher ACE scores and were more likely to persist offending into adult-
hood (Baglivio, Wolff, Piquero, & Epps, 2015).

More information about the ACE scale can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/violence
prevention/acestudy/index.html
1Collected during Wave 2 only.
2Items were reverse-scored to reflect the framing of the question.

Hemera/Thinkstock
Early disruptive behaviors, such as defiance,
disobedience, and hostility, are considered
indicators of future delinquency.

Spotlight: First Steps to Success

Concerned with the prevention of juvenile delinquency, the OJJDP formed the Study Group
on Very Young Offenders. The study group was charged with identifying the needs and issues
confronting these youth with the ultimate goal of developing prevention and intervention
techniques. Intervention techniques are important for the youth, their communities, and ulti-
mately for the juvenile justice system (Walker et al., 1998).

(continued on next page)

Section 9.2Early Starters

Spotlight: The Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale

Abuse

• Emotional abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home swore at you,
insulted you, put you down, or acted in a way that made you afraid that you might be
physically hurt.

• Physical abuse: A parent, stepparent, or adult living in your home pushed, grabbed,
slapped, threw something at you, or hit you so hard that you had marks or were injured.

Household Challenges

• Household substance abuse: A household member was a problem drinker or alcoholic
or a household member used street drugs.

• Mental illness in household: A household member was depressed or mentally ill or a
household member attempted suicide.

• Parental separation or divorce: Your parents were ever separated or divorced.
• Criminal household member: A household member went to prison.

Neglect1

Hemera/Thinkstock
Early disruptive behaviors, such as defiance,
disobedience, and hostility, are considered
indicators of future delinquency.

Spotlight: First Steps to Success

(continued on next page)

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

Interventions for these youth need to accommodate the fact that youth experience different
types of problems at different times in their lives. For example, for very young children the
family environment is the most important. As youth age, peers begin to replace parents as the
most important socializing agent. Treatment and prevention efforts must account for devel-
opmental issues or milestones in order to be responsive to the youth’s needs. Some of the
interventions geared toward prevention should be directed to very young children, which can
mean as early as the preschool or even infant years. A promising intervention is a nurse’s
program that works with at-risk mothers during the prenatal and postnatal stages. Others
programs focus on peers, schools, parents, and communities in an effort to intervene in the
lives of at-risk youth.

Many of the youth in the other two at-risk populations addressed in this chapter—gang mem-
bers and juvenile sex offenders—could also be early starters.

9.3 Juvenile Gangs
During the early 1900s, cities began to experience increased crime rates as populations
migrated to urban centers for better job opportunities. The increase in crime rates resulted in

Spotlight: First Steps to Success (continued)

Emerging from this study group was the First Steps to Success program, which is designed
for youth 5 to 6 years old to prevent problems in school. The intervention targets youth
whose teachers rate them as troublesome. The ratings include some of the following
behaviors:

• Aggression
• Oppositional defiant behavior
• Severe fits of temper
• Victimization of others

The intervention calls for a three-pronged approach for identifying and managing early juve-
nile delinquents:

• Universal screening of all kindergartners
• School-based intervention involving the teachers, child, and parents
• Parent training and involvement

The program offers a variety of services:

• Skill building with teachers to train them how to manage disruptive behavior
• Awarding points to children for good behavior
• Visual cues (green versus red cards) used by teachers to help youth identify good ver-

sus poor behaviors
• Rewards for youth who maintain good behavior
• Written daily reports for parents who are instructed to encourage and reward behavior

at home

A study conducted by Hill Walker and colleagues (1998) found that kids who participated in
the program were rated by teachers as more adaptive and less aggressive in school.

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

part from the emergence of gangs. This makes sense in the context of migration. Early gangs
were often comprised of ethnic or racial minority group members (e.g., Italian, Irish, Russian)
who came to the United States as outsiders in search of a better life (Curry & Decker, 2003).

The next cycle in the growth of criminal gangs occurred in the 1960s (Klein, 1995b). During
this time, African American and Latino gangs increased in prevalence. David Curry and Scott
Decker (2003) noted that these newer youth gangs were different from those that developed
in the early 1900s. For example, they argued the following:

These new gangs were more extensively involved in criminal activity, espe-
cially violence. The availability of guns and automobiles gave these gangs
more firepower and the mobility to interact with and fight gangs in neighbor-
hoods across a city. The more extensive involvement in crime, in turn, led to
increased convictions and prison time. As a consequence, the prison became
an important site for the growth and perpetuation of gangs. In Illinois and Cal-
ifornia in particular, the prison became an important site for recruiting gang
members and strengthening gangs. (p. 15)

The complex relationship between prison and community gangs is a significant issue for the
police as they try to reduce gang membership.

What Is a Gang?
The question “What is a gang?” seems like
a reasonable question that should have a
reasonably simple answer. However, this
is not the case. The U.S. Department of Jus-
tice officially defines a gang as an associa-
tion of three or more individuals who
adopt a collective identity and engage in
criminal activity with the intention of pre-
serving the power or economic resources
of the group (Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, 2015). But the complexity has more
to do with how to define small or disorga-
nized gangs than with identifying large
organized gangs.

For example, several large, well-known gangs operate in the United States. Those gangs
include the Aryan Brotherhood, Bloods, Crips, Latin Kings, Black Gangster Disciples, MS-13,
and the Mexican Mafia. These gangs are organized and by many estimates include thousands
of members. For example, the Crips are thought to have over 30,000 members while the Latin
Kings boast between 20,000 and 30,000 members spread throughout the country (National
Gang Intelligence Center, 2011). But what about other gangs that are less organized or have
fewer members? Some police departments even consider a group of two or more individuals
a gang. But we know that two or even three teenagers picked up for vandalizing school prop-
erty is not an example of a gang in the traditional sense.

Kevork Djansezian Associated Press
Gangs often claim territory by vandalizing public
areas with graffiti.

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

Curry and Decker (2003) argue instead that the criteria for defining gang members must
include several elements:

• Symbols: often include colors, tattoos, clothing
• Communication: handshakes/signs, graffiti
• Permanence: gang exists over a period of time
• Turf: territory, can be as small as a street to as large as an entire neighborhood
• Crime: involvement in illegal behavior

Curry and Decker make the point that an element of family, of a form of kinship and support,
is also a key feature in gangs. The idea of gangs representing family is common to many gang
members they interviewed:

“Well, in my words, a gang ain’t nothing but people come together to do crime
and make money and be a family to each other… It’s a second family. They are
like your brothers. They will help you out when you need help. Whenever you
mess up they will take care of you too.” (Curry & Decker, 2003, p. 11).

This touches on the lack of support and/or trauma that many juvenile delinquents experi-
ence at early ages, which further complicates the formation of gangs and the related criminal
behavior that ensues.

Gang Prevalence in the United States
Several attempts have been made to measure gang involvement, from interviewing gang
members to asking police departments to quantify how many gang members they have
arrested. The most comprehensive source of information on the extent of youth gangs in the
United States comes from the OJJDP’s National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS). The NYGS began
in 1995 and surveys police departments about gang activity in their areas. Survey results
were collected annually for over a decade, covering on average nearly 2,300 police depart-
ments. The most recent survey was conducted in 2012.

Survey results indicate that there were around 30,000 gangs in the United States in 2012,
with just over 850,000 members. Not surprisingly, gangs are more prevalent in larger urban
areas than in suburban areas (more on that later), and according to the 2011 NYGS, 46.2% of
all documented gang members are Hispanic/Latino, 35.3% are black or African American/
black, and 11.5% are white (National Gang Center, n.d.).

Girl Gangs
Girl gangs and girl gang members represent an interesting and generally misunderstood
subset of gang activity (Sutton, 2017). According to the NYGS, gangs are comprised primarily
of male members. In fact, in 2012, law enforcement agencies reported that less than 10% of
known gang members were girls. However, they note that gangs with girl members (i.e., coed
gangs) are much more common than girl-only gangs. Other studies find that the percentages
of female and male gang members may not be so different. In fact, Esbensen, Brick, Melde,
Tusinski, and Taylor (2008) found that nearly identical percentages of boys and girls self-
reported gang involvement.

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

The complexity surrounding the prevalence of girl gangs versus coed gangs led Walter Miller
(1975) to create three categories to describe girl gangs: (a) girl-only gang affiliated with a
male gang, (b) girl-only gang with no affiliation, and (c) coed gang. Miller argued that the girl-
only gangs with no affiliation were nearly nonexistent. More recent research finds that girl-
only gangs are more prevalent than when Miller conducted his studies; however, the preva-
lence of all-girl gangs is still lower than those considered coed or mixed gender (Peterson,
Miller, & Esbensen, 2001).

The most controversial aspect of girl gang members is the exact role they play in the gang.
The OJJDP sponsored a series of publications on youth gangs. A publication by Joan Moore
and John Hagedorn (2001), titled Female Gangs: A Focus on Research, noted that “most early
reports focused on whether female gangs were ‘real’ gangs or merely satellites of male groups”
(p. 1). Instead of seeing girl gang members as equal to their male counterparts, many saw girl
gang members as simply sex toys or tomboys who acted as drug mules or weapon carriers for
their male members.

Recent research suggests that female gang members are more likely to have family members
in a gang (Miller, 2002). However, the exact role they play is difficult to disentangle. Some
studies suggest that girl gang members are subordinate to male members, and others sug-
gest that this finding may vary by race or ethnicity. For example, some research suggests that
Latina gang members may take a more subordinate role than is the case for girls in Afri-
can American gangs (Miller & Brunson, 2000). Other studies suggest girl gang members are
fully integrated and play an equal role. For example, male members may commit more delin-
quency, but researchers found that both genders engaged in a range of delinquent acts (Melde
& Esbensen, 2013).

Research examining the pathways that lead boys and girls into gangs has found both simi-
larities and differences between the two populations. In their bulletin, Moore and Hagedorn
(2001) suggest a number of reasons girl members choose the gang life. For example, eco-
nomic poverty is a risk factor for both girls and boys, meaning that those who come from
impoverished backgrounds are more likely to seek out gangs, either for economic survival
or as a second family while parents are unavailable. In terms of differences, some research
suggests that the incidence of past sex abuse and trauma is significantly higher among female
gang members than among male gang members. Moreover, they may experience continued
sexual abuse from other gang members after joining. Regardless of these differences, how-
ever, additional studies are needed to examine these issues.

As mentioned previously, one of the key features of gangs is their involvement in criminal
activity (otherwise, we could consider the Boy Scouts a gang). The criminal element is impor-
tant for a variety of reasons, most notably to help organize prevention and detection tech-
niques to reduce gang membership.

Gang-Related Crime
If we examine the latest statistics, we see that gang members are responsible for a dispro-
portionate amount of the violent crime committed each year. In other words, if we look just
at the raw numbers, juveniles affiliated with a gang commit more violent crime than juve-
niles not affiliated with a gang. In fact, research suggests that gang members commit between

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

68% and 85% of the serious violent crime committed by juveniles (Thornberry, 1998; Thorn-
berry, Huizinga, & Loeber, 2004). The NYGS (National Gang Center, 2012) makes the following
estimation:

In a typical year in the so-called “gang capitals” of Chicago and Los Angeles,
around half of all homicides are gang-related; these two cities alone accounted
for one in five gang homicides recorded in the NYGS from 2006 to 2010.

Moreover, the National Gang Threat Assessment survey results from 2011 indicate that up to
48% of the violent crime committed in the United States each year is attributable to gangs,
and that percentage is even higher in some cities (National Gang Intelligence Center, 2011).

Even though we know that gang members contribute disproportionately to the crime rate, the
other issue to examine is the extent to which the criminal behavior is gang related or simply
committed by an individual who is affiliated with a gang but whose criminal behavior is unre-
lated to the gang. For example, if a youth steals from a convenience store on his or her own
accord, is arrested by the police for the crime, and is a known gang member, the police may
record this as a gang-related crime. Disentangling this question is nearly impossible given the
lack of data on the issue. For example, the NYGS reveals that other than for homicide and graf-
fiti, most police departments do not record whether a crime was gang involved.

One of the more interesting issues involves determining the features of gangs that seem to
drive or increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. For example, if we are to believe the
previously discussed trends—gang members are more likely to commit crime, particularly
violent crime—then what are the driving forces behind these statistics? It turns out that sev-
eral prominent features may be influencing these rates.

First, some observers argue for a “birds of a feather flock together” perspective on gang mem-
bership. That is, like-minded, violence-prone youth typically seek out one another and rein-
force one another’s violent or aggressive behavior (Gravel, Allison, West-Fagan, McBride, &
Tita, 2018; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991). Second, a popular theory about gang involvement and
crime, social contagion theory, argues that how people act in groups may differ from how
they would act independently. In particular, this theory argues that the members of the group
can influence collective behavior. Group members may feel anonymous within the group,
leading them to diffuse their own degree of responsibility for the behavior. Within this con-
text, people become more susceptible to influences by other members of the group (Nye,
1975; Papachristos, Braga, Piza, & Grossman, 2015). Third, given the prevalence of gangs
in particular areas, we could surmise that environment plays a role. Social disorganization
theory provides an understanding of how cities can create crime through the lack of oppor-
tunities for successful advancement into the labor market and a lack of cohesion among com-
munity members. A final explanation might be that all of these factors work together to create
an environment more hospitable to gang violence. In fact, Decker and Van Winkle (1996)
proposed that we examine how individual, group, and community factors interact to predict
involvement in gang delinquency.

Gang members are often involved with drug-related crime. Some research finds that gangs
can be very organized in their approach to trafficking drugs, whereas other research finds
that most gang members use or distribute drugs on their own accord without involvement
from the gang as a formal organization. For example, some researchers argue that gangs can
be highly organized and have formal leadership structures that facilitate highly successful
drug-trafficking rings (Padilla, 1992; Sanchez-Jankowski, 1991; Skolnick, 1990). In fact, the

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

organization acts much like a corporation with profits from the drug sales recycled back into
the organization. Within these gangs are leaders who must orchestrate a fairly complex sys-
tem of trafficking in drugs, which includes drug mules or carriers. Each of these members
must be kept in check in order for the organization to run smoothly.

Others argue that most gangs are disorganized and do not have the leadership structure in
place that is noted in these studies (Howell & Griffiths, 2018). They argue that most gangs are
loosely organized and have many transient members who often do not have the same goals.
In fact, John Hagedorn (1988) interviewed gang members in Milwaukee and argued that the
gangs he observed were not well organized, did not have a system in place to control their
members, and were not profitable.

Consequences of Gang Membership
Let’s consider the possibility that many of
these gang members could be early start-
ers as well. These individuals may have
been involved in early disruptive behav-
ior that has become more serious. They
have often accumulated a number of risk
factors that put them at greater risk for
continuing their criminal careers.
Researchers using meta-analysis tech-
niques to study risk factors for crime are
able to identify which risk factors are
most important. For example, Gendreau,
Andrews, Goggin, and Chanteloupe
(1992) found that the most common risk
factors they surveyed included lower
social-class origin (poverty), personal
distress/psychopathology, educational/vocational achievement, parental/family factors,
temperament/personality, antisocial attitudes, and antisocial associates. The top five risk
factors in this list are school, family, personality, attitudes, and peers. Gang members often
have trouble with each of these areas.

The gang can place youth on a negative trajectory that can hamper future opportunities for
college, employment, marriage, and so on. As such, these individuals are at risk for becoming
chronic offenders who will continue their criminal behavior well into adulthood. The con-
cerns regarding youth gang involvement in crime and the potential for these offenders to
become chronic and persistent criminals has led to a number of anti-gang programs and ini-
tiatives. In the following section, we will highlight a number of promising programs.

Gang Prevention: Programs and Initiatives
In Chapter 5, on policing, we discussed two gang prevention programs: the Gang Resistance
Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T) program and Boston’s Operation Ceasefire. Several other
types of programs are designed to either reduce gangs or prevent gang violence.

First, the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families established the Youth Gang
Drug Prevention Program in the late 1980s. The program is designed to provide funding

Stock Connection/SuperStock
Gang membership puts youth at risk of
becoming chronic offenders.

Section 9.3Juvenile Gangs

for communities to develop coordinated efforts to reduce gang problems in their areas. The
funding provided to agencies led to the development of a range of programs including peer
support, education, mentoring, crisis intervention, and recreation programs. Unfortunately,
evaluations of the programs found that they were ineffective at reducing gang involvement
(Cohen, Williams, Bekelman, & Crosse, 1995).

In the mid-1990s, the OJJDP developed another program, called the Comprehensive Gang
Model. (Visit http://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Comprehensive-Gang-Model/About to
learn more.) The model, originally implemented in Chicago, is now operating in other states
as well. It includes targeting five specific areas to reduce and prevent gang involvement and
gang-related crime:

• Community mobilization: involvement of community
• Opportunity provision: development of education and employment training
• Social intervention: service linkages utilizing schools, social service agencies,

families, etc.
• Suppression: formal supervision and monitoring of gang activity
• Organizational change and development: creation of policies and procedures

Results of the pilot in Chicago indicated that the model could be effective in reducing crimi-
nal activity and gang involvement by the youth in the study (Spergel, 2007). The model was
expanded to several other states; however, studies revealed that for the model to be effective,
it must be implemented appropriately. As we will discuss in Chapter 10, implementation can
be the most influential issue impacting treatment programs.

In 2010, the OJJDP issued a report titled Best Practices to Address Community Gang Problems.
The report advocates for the five areas identified in the Comprehensive Gang Model; however,
it also notes that communities must be organized and mobilized around the needs of youth.
In that vein, the OJJDP argues for early interventions such as prenatal and infant care and
identifying at-risk elementary school children to intervene before they may choose to join a
gang. In addition, the report advocates for truancy reduction programs and after-school activ-
ities to keep youth active and away from gang members. Finally, it advocates for identifying
gang leaders and removing them from the community while simultaneously targeting youth
who were previously gang involved and are returning home from a period of confinement
(National Gang Center, 2010). This chapter’s Featured Program box highlights PanZou, one of
the programs noted in the OJJDP report.

Featured Program: PanZou: North Miami Beach Gang
Reduction Program
The PanZou program targets youth, primarily of Haitian descent, in an area of the city of
North Miami Beach. Many of the residents speak only the native Haitian language of Creole.
This language barrier and a lack of services in the area represent obstacles to intervening
with the youth and their families (National Gang Center, 2010).

The program is organized around three primary efforts: prevention, intervention, and sup-
pression. Prevention efforts typically focus on the following:

(continued on next page)

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

Another popular intervention that addressed gang involvement, the Chicago Area Project
(CAP), is based on social disorganization theory and is designed to increase community cohe-
sion and address the issues that lead communities to experience high levels of crime (e.g.,
unemployment, truancy). The CAP program includes after-school programs, mentoring,
tutoring, employment training programs, life skills, and counseling (learn more at www.chi-
cagoareaproject.org).

Gang prevention programs remain a popular option for police departments and communi-
ties across the nation. These programs can be effective in creating community cohesion and
reducing violence. To reach their maximum potential, the programs should be multipronged
and engage schools, families, community resources, and the police.

9.4 Juvenile Sex Offenders
The label “sex offender” is typically applied to an individual convicted of a sex offense. Sex
offenses can include sexual assault, rape, sodomy, fondling, or any forced sex act. Sex offend-
ers are often placed on the lowest rung of the criminal hierarchy—meaning that most people
feel that sex offenders are the worst of the worst. Those who violate children are particularly
vilified. This feeling toward sex offenders also extends into prison life. Sex offenders, par-
ticularly pedophiles, are often placed in protective custody as other inmates may choose to
victimize them in retribution for their crimes (Man & Cronan, 2001).

Featured Program: PanZou: North Miami Beach Gang
Reduction Program (continued)

• Pairing youth with a mentor
• Teaching youth early literacy and life skills
• Strengthening families by helping them to develop parenting skills
• Working with schools to develop alternatives to school suspension and reduce

truancy rates
• Offering gender-responsive programs for girls
• Increasing recreational programs in communities
• Providing social skills training to youth

Intervention efforts vary but typically focus on the following:

• Substance abuse counseling
• Vocational training
• Community service
• Referral to community agencies for further treatment (e.g., substance abuse treatment)

Suppression efforts typically focus on the following:

• Involving the police in foot and bike patrol of “hot spots”
• Early identification of gang leaders
• Gang intelligence gathering by police to proactively engage with the community
• Dedicated gang unit within the police department

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

Note, however, that sex offenders are a heterogeneous group. There are many differences
among sex offenders, in terms of not only their victims—children, adults, men, women—but
also whether they are “generalists” or “specialists.” Generalists tend to engage in a variety of
criminal behaviors (e.g., drugs, theft, sexual violence). By contrast, specialists typically repeat
the same offense type (e.g., sexual violence). It is difficult to understand exactly who these
youth are, but Finkelhor, Ormond, and Chaffin (2009) make the following observation:

The sexual behaviors that bring youth into clinical settings can include events
such as sharing pornography with younger children, fondling a child over the
clothes, grabbing peers in a sexual way at school, date rape, gang rape, or per-
forming oral, vaginal, or anal sex on a much younger child. (p. 3)

Some researchers have argued for narrowing the definition of who should qualify as a sex
offender. For example, sexual behavior among consenting adults can include a range of devi-
ant acts that may seem unpleasant to some but are normal to others if shared in private.
Prentky, Harris, Frizzell, and Righthand (2000) developed a risk-assessment tool and argued
that there are several different types of sex offenders: child molesters, rapists, sexually reac-
tive children, fondlers, paraphilics, and a combination/unknown group. Some experts argue
that sex offenders suffer from a mental disorder known as paraphilia, which is characterized
by sexual arousal involving nonhuman objects or nonconsenting persons such as children,
which causes harm or distress to others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

The issue of consent is complex when it comes to juvenile offenders and victims. For sex
offenders, an act of force or coercion that causes distress for others is a key condition. How-
ever, that definition is not used by states that identify juvenile sex offenders for the purposes
of classification, treatment, or supervision. In the following sections, we will discuss laws
surrounding sex offenses, typologies proposed to identify sex offenders, characteristics of
juvenile sex offenders, policies designed to prevent or address sex offending in the commu-
nity, and treatments.

Laws/Statutory Rape
A complex issue surrounding juvenile sex offending involves the ages of the offender and the
victim and whether the behavior should be labeled as a sex offense. When an adult or even an
older adolescent sexually abuses a child, it is obviously a case of sexual assault. But what if the
child is 12 and the perpetrator is 14, and the 12-year-old consented to the behavior?

The age of consent is considered the legal age at which a juvenile can consent to sexual activ-
ity. Prior to that age, the juvenile is said not to have the mental capacity to consent to sexual
activity. In most states, 16 years is the age of consent. Statutory rape refers to sexual activity
involving those who are younger than the age of consent (Waites, 2005).

However, there are peer group exceptions (also known as close-in-age exceptions) to the
age of consent rule. For example, what if two young people who are 14 engage in nonforced
sexual activity? The law recognizes that juveniles may experiment in sexual activity prior to
the age of 16. As long as the youths are not too far apart in age, the law provides for this peer
group exception. The age difference between the victim and perpetrator is important. In some
states the difference in age is five years between the victim and the perpetrator, in others it
could be greater. An example can be found in North Carolina statutory rape law (14-27.7A):

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

(a) A defendant is guilty of a Class B1 felony if the defendant engages in vagi-
nal intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years
old and the defendant is at least six years older than the person, except when
the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

(b) A defendant is guilty of a Class C felony if the defendant engages in vaginal
intercourse or a sexual act with another person who is 13, 14, or 15 years old
and the defendant is more than four but less than six years older than the per-
son, except when the defendant is lawfully married to the person.

Class B felonies are considered more serious and carry more severe sanctions. What you
might notice from the preceding statute, however, is that it only refers to youth who are 13
and older. What about those who engage in sexual activity prior to the age of 13? Juveniles
who are 12 and younger are considered unable to consent to any sexual activity. Again, how-
ever, the courts will examine the age of both parties in deciding whether to apply the peer
group exception.

The Juvenile Sex Offender
According to David Finkelhor and colleagues (2009), juvenile offenders commit 26% of the
sex offenses that occur annually in the United States. Even so, juvenile sex offenders represent
a fairly small group, at just 3.1% of the general juvenile criminal population. Over 40% of the
very young victims in both the under 6 and 7–11-year-old categories are victimized by an
offender who is under the age of 18. The vast majority of these offenders knew their victims,
as shown in Figure 9.1.

Figure 9.1: Relationship between victim and offender

In over 80% of cases, victims of sex offenses know the offenders.

From Juveniles who commit sex offenses against minors, by D. Finkelhor, R. Ormond, & M. Chaffin, 2009. Office of Justice
Programs: Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Prevention and Prevention Child Delinquency Bulletin Series. Washington, D.C.

Family Acquaintance Stranger

Victim’s relation to offender

Victim also
offender

Unknown

P
er

ce
n

ta
g

e
o

f
se

x
o

ff
en

se
s

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

Other interesting findings emerged from this survey. What types of sexual assault are juve-
niles committing? Of the sexual assaults, half were acts of fondling, followed by 24% for rape,
12.5% for sodomy, 9.5% for nonforced sex, and 4.7% for sexual assault involving an object.
Finally, in terms of time of day, Figure 9.2 illustrates that the majority of assaults occurred
during the afternoon, likely when juveniles are out of school and less likely to be supervised.

Figure 9.2: Percentage of incidents by time of day

Only 5% of incidents involving juveniles occur at night. In contrast, 43% occur during
afternoon hours.

Why do juveniles commit sex crimes? There is no easy answer to this question. The cycle of
abuse is often cited as an issue that has the potential to propel a juvenile into sexual miscon-
duct. Studies suggest that more than 40% of juvenile sex offenders have a history of abuse
(Awad & Saunders, 1991; Phan & Kingree, 2001; Seto & Lalumière, 2010). Some research
suggests that those who suffer sexual abuse are also more likely to begin offending at an
earlier age and abuse more victims (Cooper, Murphy, & Haynes, 1996; Fox, 2017). Miner
(2002) suggests that juvenile sex offenders who start young are at greater risk for recidivism.
Similarly, Langstrom and Grann (2000) suggest that those with a prior record involving a sex
offense and those with multiple victims have an increased likelihood of recidivism.

Some studies suggest that these juveniles are more likely to have mental health disorders
such as ADHD, depression, and conduct disorder, whereas others even suggest they are more
likely to be diagnosed with psychopathy (Veneziano & Veneziano, 2002). Some studies also
suggest that exposure to pornography can increase the likelihood of deviant sexual behavior;
however, recent research argues that the only increase is among those people predisposed to
be sexually aggressive (Malamuth, 2018).

Policy Initiatives
Community notification laws are a popular way for states to hold sex offenders accountable.
These laws, often designed based on cases with adults, can impact juveniles. For example,
Megan’s Law came into effect in 1996 and not only required sex offenders to register with the

Morning
27%

Afternoon
43%

Evening
25%

Night
5%

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

police but also required the police to
notify the community. Over 25 states
require juveniles to register along with
adults. In addition, the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act was signed into
law in 2006. This act led to SORNA, the
Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Act (Office of Justice Programs, 2008).

SORNA is designed to protect the public
from sex offenders because it requires
a more uniform approach to report-
ing requirements in each state. Prior to
SORNA, most states required sex offenders
to be identified on a public register. Sev-
eral provisions of SORNA are relevant for
juveniles. For example, Caldwell, Ziemke,
and Vitacco (2008) note:

Juvenile offenders who offend
after their 14th birthday and who
were adjudicated delinquent for
a crime comparable to or more
severe than aggravated sexual
assault as defined by federal law
(Sexual Abuse Act of 1986) will be
included in the registry. (p. 90)

In most cases, those on the registry have
to reregister every three months.

The legislation also sets forth the registration length. For example, tier-three offenders—those
convicted of forcible felony sex crimes—must register for their entire lifetime (this applies to
the juveniles noted previously who are adjudicated for offenses comparable to aggravated
sexual assault). In addition, as noted by Michael Caldwell and colleagues (2008), individuals
subject to SORNA registration will be required to submit to a search of person or property at
any time, with or without a warrant, on the basis of a reasonable suspicion of a violation of
probation or unlawful conduct (p. 90). This is particularly important when you consider that
juveniles are often not given jury trials and are held to different evidentiary standards than
those found in adult court. These procedural differences could make juveniles more vulner-
able to illegal search and seizure.

The logic for this registration rests on the notion that these youth will remain a long-term
risk to the public. Yet studies suggest that the relationship is not always clear. In fact, juvenile
sex offenders have low recidivism rates, and their sex offending history does not put them at
higher risk for future sex offenses as compared to other delinquents (Caldwell, 2007; Zimring,
Piquero, & Jennings, 2007). Another justification for registration is the notion that juvenile
sex offenders must be significantly different from juveniles convicted of nonsex offenses.
Although some studies suggest there can be differences (Blaske, Bordiun, Henggeler, & Mann,

C.H. Pete Copeland/Associated Press
SORNA sets certain public registration require-
ments for sex offenders. Under this act, offend-
ers as young as 14 may be required to register.

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

1989; Fox 2017), others do not find this to be the case (Caldwell, 2007; van Wijk et al., 2006).
Think of this in the context of the 2010 Supreme Court case Graham v. Florida, which con-
cluded that juveniles are less culpable due to their brain development in the area of reason-
ing. If it is true that juveniles should be held to a different standard than adults, some observ-
ers question why the same logic should not apply to national lifetime registries.

Perhaps most compelling is a study finding that the criteria used by SORNA to place juveniles
on sex offender registries for life failed to predict sex offending. In other words, the youth
who would be placed on these lists were not more likely to reoffend than any other juvenile.
This research calls into question the utility of placing youth on these lists, particularly given
the emotional and social toll it takes on them and their families. Another concern is that the
laws could unintentionally lead to fewer prosecutions. For example, research suggests that
prosecutors may be less likely to bring charges against a juvenile because they are worried
about the long-term ramifications for a youth who will be placed on a registry (Letourneau,
Bandyopadhyay, Sinha, & Armstrong, 2009).

In sum, these studies suggest that although juvenile sex offenders are a concern for the com-
munity, there is also a risk that treating them punitively could have long-lasting impacts that
could influence their life course.

Juvenile Sex Offenders and Rehabilitation
Cognitive behavioral therapy is considered one of the most effective treatment approaches
for sex offenders. Cognitive behavioral therapy is designed to shape behavior through a pro-
cess of changing how people think (their cognitions) and shaping their behavior through the
use of rewards and punishments.

How offenders think is the focus of one particular strategy in which therapists work with cli-
ents to get them to understand their offense cycle, which refers to the thoughts and behaviors
leading to the sex offense. The thoughts and behaviors that can lead to a sexual offense can
occur over hours or maybe days, weeks, or even years. This process is often called grooming.
Grooming, or the act of manipulating victims into complying with a sex act, is a process that
can be short or quite lengthy. Grooming behaviors often involve children, and the offender can
be an adult or another juvenile.

Often with young children, the grooming can include intimidation, games, or other incentives
(Pryor, 1996). For example, to include inappropriate touching of the victim, the perpetrator
can use a game of wrestling or play. The perpetrator can use candy, toys, or other enticements
to engage with the victim. Keeping in mind that the majority of juvenile sex offenders commit
acts against someone they know (e.g., a relative or an acquaintance), they may already have
built trust with the victim prior to engaging in the sex act. But even when a juvenile is involved
in stranger rape, the decision to rape is preceded by particular thoughts and behaviors.

As we discussed earlier, sex offenders and offenses cannot be easily put into one box. In other
words, not all sex offenders go through a lengthy process in choosing their victims, particu-
larly juveniles. However, the process or cycle is an important one to understand because it
illustrates the cognitive or psychological aspects of sex offending.

Section 9.4Juvenile Sex Offenders

In therapy, a counselor will often work to have the juvenile understand that criminal sexual
behavior does not just happen. In other words, the juvenile may make a statement such as,
“I don’t know how it happened, before I knew it I was doing it.” The counselor, however, will
often challenge the youth’s perspective that an offense “just happened.” Similar to any other
criminal behavior, such as using drugs or alcohol, the decision is often preceded by a series
of decisions. For example, the decision to use a drug is often preceded by a decision to go to
a party where alcohol is being served or by a decision to hang out with friends who often use
drugs. We refer to these decisions and situations as high-risk thoughts or high-risk places.

Sometimes high-risk thoughts are called cognitive distortion or thinking errors. High risk in
this context means that they contribute to the probability of crime. A high-risk thought about
marijuana use might be, “It is OK to smoke marijuana because it should be legal anyway.” A
high-risk situation might be attending a party where the youth knows alcohol and drugs will
be present and peer pressure to use substances will be high. These situations and thoughts
contribute to the likelihood that the youth will decide to use alcohol or drugs.

If we apply this concept to sex offending, the therapist will attempt to get juveniles to under-
stand that their actions and behaviors before the offense matter. For example, consider a cli-
ent who meticulously planned to be alone with the victim—either through volunteering to
babysit or by taking the child to a location where they could be alone. Did the client feel the
behavior was justified as experimentation even though the victim was very young? In other
circumstances, the therapist might explore the youth’s perspective on consent and whether
the client believes that a person has the right to say no at any time, even when the victim con-
sented at an earlier time.

Studies on the effectiveness of therapy for juvenile sex offenders are promising. In fact, stud-
ies suggest that juvenile sex offenders are very amendable to treatment and therapy. They
also underscore the idea that juveniles are different from adults, and that we need to be mind-
ful of tailoring services to them from a therapeutic standpoint (Caldwell et al., 2008).

Although the results of therapy are promising, there are those who do recidivate. One of the
key factors as it relates to success in treatment is motivation. Without motivation to engage
in treatment, a youth is not likely to be successful (McGrath, 1991). Motivation may be a key
issue for programs that experience high attrition rates. In fact, a study by Hunter (2000)
found that more than 50% of youth dropped out of a community-based sex-offender treat-
ment program in its first year of operation.

The high attrition rate noted in the Hunter study is concerning, but the vast majority of juve-
nile sex offenders do not persist into adulthood. In fact, most studies find that less than 10%
of juvenile sex offenders are rearrested for a sex-related offense.

Overall, the general public’s impression of juvenile sex offenders probably has more to do
with a particularly heinous case of sex offending highlighted on the evening news than the
types of behavior that occur in reality. There is no easy way to identify youth who are likely to
recidivate, but punitive approaches are less likely to have an impact. As can be seen through-
out our discussions of all three groups of “special” offenders, treatment and prevention hold
the most promise.

Summary of Learning Objectives

Summary of Learning Objectives
Describe the issues early starters face in their everyday lives, the characteristics of persistently
disruptive children, and the methods used to prevent and treat early delinquent behavior.

• Early starters are those juveniles who begin committing crimes before the age of 14.
• Early starters are more likely to have problems within their families, at school, and

within their communities.
• Persistently disruptive children are those who exhibit a pattern of negative behav-

iors and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for a period of at least six months.
• Identifying youth who are exhibiting disruptive behavior before they come into con-

tact with the system is the best way to prevent the cycle before it happens.

Explain the complexity of defining gangs and gang behavior and the relationship between
gangs and crime.

• Gangs are difficult to study because they are difficult to define.
• Researchers suggest police consider the following criteria when deciding whether a

group of youth should be classified as a gang: symbols, communication, permanence,
turf, and criminal behavior.

• Girl-only gangs are uncommon; however, coed gangs are quite prevalent.
• Statistics suggest that up to 48% of violent crimes in the United States may be

gang related.
• A number of gang-prevention and treatment programs exist, although their

effectiveness is limited.

Analyze the complexity surrounding the labeling of juvenile sex offenders.

• Juvenile sex offenders are a complex group of youth who can be involved in a range
of sexual behaviors.

• The age of consent is a key issue with regard to juvenile sex offenders.
• Sex offender notification laws are popular but tend not to be an effective way to

reduce recidivism among sex offenders.
• Cognitive behavioral therapy is considered one of the most effective treatment

approaches for sex offenders.
• The recidivism rates of juvenile sex offenders are low; however, early starters may

have a higher probability of recidivism.

Critical Thinking Questions
1. What is the best way to prevent the cycle of disruptive behavior in juveniles?
2. What criteria do you think should be used to decide if a group is a gang?
3. In what areas do early starters typically have problems?

Summary of Learning Objectives

Key Terms
age of consent The legal age at which a
juvenile can consent to sexual activity.

Comprehensive Gang Model An approach
developed by the OJJDP to “reduce and pre-
vent youth gang violence.”

First Steps to Success An intervention pro-
gram that argues schools should intervene
with youth as early as kindergarten.

girl gangs Gangs with all female members.

grooming The act of manipulating victims
into complying with a sex act.

National Youth Gang Survey (NYGS) The
most reliable source of information on the
extent of youth gangs in the United States.

offense cycle The process leading up to a
sex offense.

PanZou A program that targets youth, pri-
marily of Haitian descent, in an area of the
city of North Miami Beach.

paraphilia A disorder characterized by
sexual arousal involving nonhuman objects
or nonconsenting persons such as children,
which causes harm or distress to others.

peer group exceptions Exceptions to the
age of consent rule, also known as close-in-
age exceptions.

persistently disruptive children Children
who exhibit a pattern of negative behaviors
and are defiant, disobedient, and hostile for
a period of at least six months.

social contagion theory A theory that
argues that how people act in groups may
be different from how they would act
independently.

SORNA Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act; an act designed to protect
the public from sex offenders by requir-
ing a more uniform approach to reporting
requirements in each state.

Study Group on Very Young Offenders A
study group formed by the OJJDP and com-
prised of 39 experts on the topic of child
delinquency.

Youth Gang Drug Prevention Program A
program designed to provide funding for
communities to develop coordinated efforts
to reduce gang problems in their areas.

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Special Populations: A Challenge to Juvenile Justice ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order