Although juvenile crime is not on the rise, the public, misinformed
by politicians and the press, insists on increasingly cruel methods to
punish young offenders.
There are more adolescents in the population so there are more juvenile
arrests, but this does not justify giving up on rehabilitative approaches.
Overall juvenile crime has been decreasing for three years. Based on
1992 data, the Department of Justice acknowledged that juveniles are
not responsible for most of the increase in violent crime. "If juvenile
violence had not increased between 1988 and 1992, the U.S. violent crime
rate would have increased 16 percent instead of 23 percent." (Juvenile
Offenders and Victims, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
(1995), p.iv.) In fact, the arrest rate for juveniles actually dropped
slightly between 1991 and 1993: 16,036 per 100,000 were arrested in
1989, 16,893 per 100,000 were arrested in 1991, and 16,681 per 100,000
were arrested in 1993. Juvenile arrest rates for property offenses decreased
while juvenile arrest rates for violent offenses increased between 1989
and 1993. (National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Selected National
Statistics on Juvenile Arrests and Detention, October, 1995.)
Since 1980, younger and younger teenagers have been treated as adult
criminals. Boot camps for juveniles are the latest in this dangerous
trend and will be as ineffective as wholesale incarceration of youth
in adult facilities. Yet the message has not gotten out to state legislatures
and corrections departments that juvenile boot camps will neither reduce
crime nor save on prison costs.
There have been surprisingly few voices against juvenile boot camps.
Paul DeMuro, an independent consultant in Montclair, New Jersey, wrote
the 1995 unpublished report on juvenile boot camps, "Where Do We Go
from Here?", for the Annie E. Casey Foundation. DeMuro has drawn attention
to deaths in boot camps, the use of military discipline to disguise
staff mistreatment particularly of minority youth, and the absence of
follow-up supports when youth return to their communities. He has predicted
an increase in adult court referrals as youth who fail to complete boot
camps or are rearrested after their release are no longer viewed as
eligible for juvenile court. Dale Parent, a senior analyst at ABT Associates
in Massachusetts, demonstrates through statistical analysis that juvenile
boot camps cannot save money unless they have hundreds of beds and the
stay is limited to three months--conditions all agree would make the
programs pointless. His report, "Planning a Boot Camp", was written
for the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Boot Camp
Technical Assistance Workshop, held April 1, 1995. Furthermore, Parent
emphasizes that juvenile boot camps are widening the net by including
youth who previously would not have been locked up--boot camps could
only reduce correctional costs if participants are selected from the
population already qualified for incarceration. David Altschuler, a
professor and researcher at Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies,
is directing a long-term study of aftercare for juveniles leaving secure
facilities. The study is funded by the DOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). Altschuler has argued that incarceration
is only as effective as the reintegration services supporting youths
to avoid their former criminal lifestyle when they return home. He points
out that juvenile boot camps are limited to "shock incarceration" and
keep costs down by leaving aftercare to overloaded probation and parole
officers. Without any documentation that boot camps decrease delinquency
--and, in fact, reports that two early juvenile boot camps (in Florida
and Ohio) had recidivism rates of 70 percent--millions of federal and
state dollars are going into juvenile boot camp construction and operation.
Since the observations of prominent juvenile justice experts and the
absence of positive outcome studies have not deterred incarceration-minded
politicians, perhaps we should consider educating the public about the
dangers of juvenile boot camps through their experiences as parents.
Parents search for a wise balance of love and limits to meet their teenagers'
needs. The adult criminal system in general, and boot camps in particular,
fail the basic test of balancing nurturing and opportunities for independence.
Everyone who has been the parent of a teenager knows that boot camps
cannot be effective because they violate the basic principles of adolescent
development:
**Teenagers are fairness fanatics: Operating successful group programs
for this age group is difficult because most adolescents are moralistic
and intolerant of anything that seems unfair. They especially see group
punishment as unfair.
**Teenagers reject imposed structure: Although they benefit from
limits, adolescents object to being forced to adhere to structure
in which they did not have a voice. "Authority problems" in schools
and correctional programs can be, at least in part, attributed to
insistence on controlling youth who are accustomed to running their
own lives. Many youth who have been physically or sexually abused
or exposed to substance abuse or domestic violence in their families
react especially negatively to imposed outside controls.
**Teenagers respond to encouragement: Although youth may alter their
behavior momentarily to avoid adverse consequences, attitudes and
behaviors seldom change as a result of punishment.
Given their reaction against unfairness, imposed structure, and punishment,
it is not surprising that young people reject what might be offered
as assistance when they mistrust the adults in charge as unfair, controlling,
and punitive. This rejection of "help" is a strength--it is the way
that young people have survived the adversity of poverty and racism.
If this mistrust of unfair, controlling, and punitive adults is subdued,
it undermines the very survival technique that has allowed these youths
to make it as far as they have.
Ironically, as states build juvenile boot camps that are likely to
fail, the ingredients for services that enable delinquents to invest
in noncriminal futures are well-known. Delinquents change their behavior
when services build on their strengths and meet their needs. Programs
such as Associated Marine Institutes in Florida and other states, Youth
Advocacy Program in Pennsylvania, Children's Trust Neighborhood Initiative
in Washington, D.C., Alternative Rehabilitative Communities (ARC) in
Pennsylvania, Kaleidoscope in Illinois, and the family treatment program
at the Medical University of South Carolina have high success rates
with delinquents. These programs have several characteristics in common:
- They meet each youth's need to feel competent at something. These
programs provide opportunities for success and celebrate each youth's
competence. Recognizing that school and noncriminal employment have
been inaccessible, these programs offer youths real preparation for
self-respecting work.
- They meet each youth's need to be in charge. These programs emphasize
making choices and encourage genuine youth involvement in designing
the daily routine and carrying out tasks.
- They meet each youth's need to appreciate the strengths of their
families. These programs empower families and support young people
in identifying with the positive characteristics of family members
and making peace with the disappointments and hurt from their families.
- They meet each youth's need to belong. These programs offer a non-violent
group as desirable as a gang that gives recognition and encouragement
and is hopeful about the future.
Programs that are effective with serious juvenile offenders recognize
that if the young people do not want what we think they need, little
will change in their lives. However well meaning the staff, young people
will react against the imposed structure, punishment, and unfairness
of juvenile boot camps. Even when they have committed serious crimes,
young people have different needs than adults.
Marty Beyer, Ph.D., a psychologist based in Washington, D.C., works
with juvenile delinquents and their families in correctional facilities
and in neighborhood-based programs. She also assists lawyers and courts
with dispositional planning for serious juvenile offenders, and is an
expert in juvenile justice and child welfare class action litigation.
Copyright 1996 American Bar Association. All rights reserved. This
information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated
in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic
database or retrieval system without the express written consent of
the American Bar Association.
Return
to the Juvenile Justice Articles page