Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice. Series: OJJDP Published: October 1996 471 pages 975,975 bytes Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice Research Report David W. Roush, Ph.D. National Juvenile Detention Association Center for Research and Professional Development Michigan State University with the assistance of numerous juvenile justice and detention services professionals from across the United States Shay Bilchik, Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention October 1996 The National Juvenile Detention Association Executive Committee: Wayne R. Liddell, President Thomas K. Stokes, President-Elect Anne M. Nelsen, 1st Vice President Barbara C. Dooley, Ph.D., 2nd Vice President Dana A. Menard, Secretary-Treasurer Steven P. Kossman, Immediate Past President Earl L. Dunlap, Executive Director National Juvenile Detention Association Earl L. Dunlap, Executive Director Executive Office Eastern Kentucky University 301 Perkins Building Richmond, KY 40475-3127 (606) 622-6259 Fax (606) 622-2333 National Juvenile Detention Association Center for Research and Professional Development Michigan State University 130 Baker Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1118 (517) 432-1242 Fax (517) 432-1787 The National Juvenile Detention Association would like to express its appreciation to D. Elen Grigg, Project Monitor, for her support and guidance on this and other JJPIP products. This document was prepared by the National Juvenile Detention Association under grant #92-JN-CX-0006 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. National Juvenile Detention Association Practitioner Network Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project Volunteer Network Janet S. Abee Volusia Regional Juvenile Department 3840 Old Deland Road Daytona Beach, FL 32124 Linda Albrecht JJPDT R.R. 1, Box 195 Carrs Cove Union Springs, NY 13160 Charles Baker, M.D. Los Angeles Juvenile Court Health Services 1925 Daly Street, First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90031 Marta Flora Balleste Nueces County Juvenile Department 2310 Gollihar Road Corpus Christi, TX 78415 Ronald F. Bates Boys' Village of Maryland 11001 Frank Tippett Road Cheltenham, MD 20623 James R. Bell, J.D. Youth Law Center 114 Sansome Street, Suite 950 San Francisco, CA 94104-3820 Gary Bennett Chamberlain Academy P.O. Box 367 Chamberlain, SD 57325 Gretha Bennett Calhoun County Juvenile Home 14555 18 1/2 Mile Road Marshall, MI 49068 Jeffry D. Bishop, Ph.D. Elmira Psychiatric Center 100 Washington Street Elmira, NY 14902-1527 Kirk M. Blackwood Calhoun County Juvenile Home 14555 181/2 Mile Road Marshall, MI 49068 Judith L. Blair New York State Division for Youth 52 Washington Street Rensselaer, NY 12144 Dorman Borders Maurice Spear Campus 2910 Airport Road Adrian, MI 49221 Steve Bowker Madison County Probation & Court Services 100 West Fifth Avenue Edwardsville, IL 62025 Jerome Brimmage Smith County Juvenile Services 100 East Berta Tyler, TX 75703 Catherine Brooks-West Help Parenting Education 354 North 27th Street Battle Creek, MI 49015 Melvin Brown, Jr., Ph.D. Montgomery County Department of Community Supervision and Corrections 200 Academy Drive Conroe, TX 77301 Ralph S. Brownlee Cumberland County Juvenile Detention R.R. #2, Box 28, Cumberland Road Bridgeton, NJ 08302-9998 George Buhite McLaughlin Youth Services 2600 Providence Center Anchorage, AK 99508 William F. Burke, III Rappahannock Juvenile Center 400 Bragg Hill Drive Fredericksburg, VA 22401 Warren C. Cabaniss Mecklenburg County Juvenile Detention 11700 Verhoeff Drive Huntersville, NC 28078 Leticia Castillo Moore County Detention Center 810 South Dumas, Room 218 Dumas, TX 79029 Arthur Cavara Hennepin County Juvenile Detention 510 Park Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55415 Henry R. Cellini, Ph.D. Training and Research Institute 8200 Montgomery NE., Suite 227 Albuquerque, NM 87109 Joseph T. Christy, Ph.D. Washington County Juvenile Court 232 West Northeast Lincoln Hillsboro, OR 97124 Barbara A. Collins ETR Associates P.O. Box 1830 Santa Cruz, CA 91830 Stephen P. Coulman Woodside Juvenile Rehabilitation Center 26 Woodside Drive East Colchester, VT 05446 Jeff Cousineau Calhoun County Juvenile Home 14555 181/2 Mile Road Marshall, MI 49068 John E. Criswell Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Crouse Jefferson County Youth Center 720 West Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202 Michael J. Dale, J.D. Nova University 3100 SW. Ninth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315 William S. Davidson II, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 James H. Davis Madison County Juvenile Court 817 Cook Avenue Huntsville, AL 35801 Therese M. De Fazio Shuman Juvenile Detention Center 7150 Highland Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Joseph De James Department of Correction CN 863 Trenton, NJ 08625 Donald De Vore Montgomery County Youth Center 540 Port Indian Road Norristown, PA 19403-3502 Paul Donnelly Texas Juvenile Probation Commission P.O. Box 13547 Austin, TX 78711 Barbara C. Dooley, Ph.D. Madison County Juvenile Court Services 224 Lexington Avenue Jackson, TN 38301-5499 Jesse Doyle Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center 1100 South Hamilton Avenue Chicago, IL 60612 Steve Emerson Bureau of Juvenile Justice 450 West State Street Boise, ID 83720-5450 Malcolm Evans Provo Youth Center 1955 South Dakota Lane Provo, UT 84601 Randall Everett Regional Juvenile Center 208 North College Fayetteville, AR 72701 Jana Ewing, Ph.D. King County Department of Youth Services 1211 East Alder Street Seattle, WA 98122 Deanna L. Fields Pasco Regional Juvenile Detention 9910 State Road 52 San Antonio, FL 33576 Kurt C. Friedenauer Youth Services Center P.O. Box 40 St. Anthony, ID 83445-0040 Richard Friz Department of Social Services 235 South Grand Avenue Lansing, MI 48909 Richard J. Gable National Center for Juvenile Justice 701 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 John A. Gaines IV Goodhope Youth Home 4010 McIntyre Road Trumansburg, NY 14886 Roberto C. Garcia, Jr. Cameron County Juvenile Probation 854 East Harrison Street Brownsville, TX 78520 Janice Gardener Broward Regional Juvenile Detention 222 NW. 22d Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311 Roberto Garza Hidalgo County Juvenile Center P.O. Box 267 Edinburg, TX 78539 Daniel R. Gentner Monroe County Youth Center 3600 South Custer Monroe, MI 48161 Patrick Graves Tom Green County Juvenile Detention 1253 West 19th Street San Angelo, TX 76903 John J. Greene III American Correctional Association 8025 Laurel Lakes Court Laurel, MD 20707-5075 Ed Greivel Gilliam Youth Services Center 2844 Downing Street Denver, CO 80205 Nelson G. Griffis School of Social Work Ohio State University Columbus, OH 43210 Rayetta Grimm Dora Lee Tate Youth Center 601 Infirmary Road Dayton, OH 45427 John Harvey Madison County Community Mental Health 118 Hillsboro Avenue Edwardsville, IL 62021 Eugenia "Jeannie" Haynes Bell County Juvenile Probation 119 North Pearl Belton, TX 76513 Ginger Heglar Volunteer Development Service 101 Blair Drive Raleigh, NC 27603 James H. Heisner Bay Regional Juvenile Detention Center 450 East 11th Street Panama City, FL 32401 Jon R. Hill Attention Center for Youth 2220 South 10th Street Lincoln, NE 68502 Vince Hoffman, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 Thomas R. Hughes, Ph.D. Center for Legal Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Springfield, IL 62794 James M. Jordon 901 South Ashland Avenue Apt. 208A Chicago, IL 60607 Charles J. Kehoe Department of Children, Youth and Families P.O. Box 1110 Richmond, VA 23208-1110 Richard Kelley Wood Youth Center 2929 Wells Street Fort Wayne, IN 46808 Roger Kelly Samaritan Shelters, Inc. 539 River Road Glenmony, NY 12077 Susan Kerns Indiana Juvenile Justice Task Force 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Daniel B. Kieffer Muskingum County Juvenile Center 333 Putnam Avenue Zanesville, OH 43701-4999 Jane Anderson King Youth Center of the High Plains 4111 South Georgia Amarillo, TX 79109 David Konefal New Haven Juvenile Detention 239 Whalley Avenue New Haven, CT 06511 Frank J. Kopecky, J.D. Center for Legal Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Springfield, IL 62794 Steven P. Kossman McLean County Juvenile Detention Center 903 North Main Normal, IL 61761 Carolyn Lasley Jefferson County Youth Center 720 West Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202 Lenora Lee Calhoun County Juvenile Home 14555 181/2 Mile Road Marshall, MI 49068 Al Lick Division of Juvenile Services P.O. Box 1898 Bismarck, ND 58502-1898 Wayne Liddell Berrien County Juvenile Center 6414 Deans Hill Road Berrien Center, MI 49102 James Longhurst, Ed.D. Director of Clinical Services Starr Commonwealth Schools Albion, MI 49224 Edward J. Loughran Robert F. Kennedy Memorial 286 Congress Street, Sixth Floor Boston, MA 02210 Sheila Lumley Polk County Detention Center 1548 Hull Avenue Des Moines, IA 50316 Harry J. Marek Guadalupe County Juvenile Probation 310 Ih10 West Seguin, TX 78155 Damon K. Marquis National Commission on Correctional Health Care 2105 North Southport, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60614-4017 Terry J. Martinek Berrien County Juvenile Center 6414 Deans Hill Road Berrien Center, MI 49102 Orlando L. Martinez 7713 South Pontiac Court Englewood, CO 80112 Ken Mays, Jr. Bill Logue Juvenile Justice 1200 Clifton Waco, TX 76705 Warren McKinney Allegan County Juvenile Court 2243 33d Street Allegan, MI 49010 Mike McMillen, AIA 209 1/2 West Clark Street Champaign, IL 61820 Pamela K. McPherson, M.D. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 803 Bayou Pines, Suite B Lake Charles, LA 70601 Nehemiah "Don" Mead, Ed.D. San Francisco Youth Guidance Center 375 Woodside Avenue San Francisco, CA 94127 Tomas Medina Gardner-Betts Juvenile Justice Center 2515 South Congress Austin, TX 78704 Dana A. Menard Lafayette Parish Juvenile Detention P.O. Box 2399 Lafayette, LA 70502 Jeff Mitchell, M.D. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Lovelace Hospital 5400 Gibson Boulevard SE. Albuquerque, NM 87108 Jim Moeser Dane County Juvenile Court Probation City-County Building Room 302 Madison, WI 53709 Sherri F. Moore Willoughby Juvenile Center 1401 Warren Drive Marshall, TX 75670 Robert Morris, M.D. Los Angeles Juvenile Court Health Services 1925 Daly Street, First Floor Los Angeles, CA 90031 Anne M. Nelsen Salt Lake Juvenile Detention Center 3534 South 700 West Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Donald Nitz Kalamazoo County Juvenile Home 1424 Gull Road Kalamazoo, MI 49006 Anette Nix Eastern Oklahoma Youth Service 4500 Classen, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Stephen Norris Cuyahoga County Juvenile Detention Center 2209 Central Avenue Cleveland, OH 44115 Nervy Oliver Ingham County Youth Center 700 East Jolly Road Lansing, MI 48910 James W. M. Owens, M.D. Echo Glen Children's Center 33010 SE. 99th Street Snoqualmie, WA 98065 Sandra Palkovic Orlando Regional Juvenile Detention Center 2800 South Bumby Avenue Orlando, FL 32806 Dale Parent Abt Associates 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138 George M. Pippen, Jr. Stevenson House Detention Center P.O. Box 278 Milford, DE 19963 Mary Alice Schmidt Hillside Children's Center 160 Northaven Terrace Rochester, NY 14621 John J. Sheridan Bureau of Residential Services 45 South Fruit Street Concord, NH 03301-2410 Gary Shostak Department of Youth Services 27-43 Wormwood Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02210 Charles M. Skaggs Williamson County Juvenile Court 2423 Williams Drive, Suite E Georgetown, TX 78628-4105 Gale M. Smith MacCormick Training Center 300 South Road Brooktondale, NY 14817-9723 J. Steven Smith, Ph.D. Department of Criminal Justice Ball State University Muncie, IN 47306-0455 Donald Steitz Jefferson County Youth Center 720 West Jefferson Louisville, KY 40202 Mary B. Stelma Calhoun County Juvenile Home 14555 181/2 Mile Road Marshall, MI 49068 Ronald L. Stepanik Eckerd Family Youth Alternatives P.O. Box 7450 Clearwater, FL 34618-7450 John O. Stettler County Government Center 2176 Johnson Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 Thomas Stokes Gloucester County Juvenile Detention P.O. Box 39 Clarksboro, NJ 08020 Carl Supino Westfield Secure Detention 51 East Mountain Road Westfield, MA 01085 Ray Tallis Pima County Juvenile Court 2225 East Ajo Way Tucson, AZ 85713-6295 Jim Tallmon Ottawa County Juvenile Detention 12120 Fillmore Street West Olive, MI 49467 William D. Taylor Pasco Regional Juvenile Detention 9910 State Road 52 San Antonio, FL 33576 Cynthia F. Thacker Division of Youth Services 705 Palmer Drive Raleigh, NC 27626 Doug Thomas National Center for Juvenile Justice 701 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Ernest Thomas Jefferson Parish Juvenile Services 1550 Gretna Boulevard Harvey, LA 70058 Tom L. Thornhill Youth Center of the High Plains 9300 South Georgia Amarillo, TX 79118 Robert J. Tillie Renaissance Home P.O. Box 7997 Alexandria, LA 71306 Patricia Torbet National Center for Juvenile Justice 701 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 John Treahy Hillside Children's Center 160 Northaven Terrace Rochester, NY 14521 Barbara Van Ekeren Pennington County Juvenile Detention 702 North Street Rapid City, SD 57701 Larry Vardaman Kansas Department of Youth 25331 West 39th Street South Goddard, KS 67052 Rev. Garry Vogelpohl 4916 Darlington Drive Nashville, TN 37211 Rose W. Washington New York City Department of Juvenile Justice 365 Broadway New York, NY 10013 Jesse Williams Department of Human Services 1401 Arch Street, Room 312 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Alex Wilson Shuman Juvenile Detention Center 7150 Highland Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15206 Bruce I. Wolford, Ph.D. Training Resource Center Eastern Kentucky University Richmond, KY 40475 Jerry M. Wood Tarrant County Juvenile Probation 2701 Kimbo Road Fort Worth, TX 76111 James E. Woolsey Duval Regional Juvenile Detention 1241 East Eighth Street Jacksonville, FL 32206 Ronald C. T. Yap Judiciary Family Court First 902 Alder Street Honolulu, HI 96814 Susan A. Yeres, Ed.D. Essi Systems, Inc. 70 Otis Street San Francisco, CA 94103 John Zachariah American Correctional Association 8025 Laurel Lakes Court Laurel, MD 20707-5075 Darrell H. Zwick Michigan Judicial Institute 222 North Washington Square Suite 220 Lansing, MI 48909 ------------------------------ In Memoriam Time, like an ever rolling stream, bears all who breathe away; they fly forgotten, as a dream dies at the opening day. -Isaac Watts, 1719 DAVON CONNER Aftercare Worker Calhoun County Juvenile Home Marshall, MI JAMES GOULD Project Manager Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington, DC DONALD HAMMERGREN Superintendent Hennepin County Juvenile Detention Center Minneapolis, MN ROBERT RADER Superintendent Kanawha Home for Children Charleston, WV CHARLES REINA Detention Manager Superior Court, Family Division Hartford, CT WALTER ROUSH Chief Probation Officer Allen County Juvenile Court Lima, OH C. A. "NEIL" ZOTT Superintendent Macomb County Juvenile Home Mount Clemens, MI These friends of juvenile detention had outstanding careers cut short by untimely death. Their names are remembered here. They are gone but not forgotten. ------------------------------ Forward Although research has identified deficiencies within juvenile detention, custody remains a critical and integral function of America's juvenile justice system. The Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice constitutes the principal product of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project. It is intended to serve as a useful aid in enhancing the quality and effectiveness of juvenile detention. While the Desktop Guide draws on a national assessment of juvenile detention practices undertaken by the National Juvenile Detention Association, it is enriched by the constructive counsel of numerous practitioners and professional associations, including the American Correctional Association, the Juvenile Justice Trainers Association, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Juvenile Correctional Agencies, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and several State Juvenile Detention Associations. It is my hope that the Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice will fulfill its promise--not only to strengthen our Nation's detention services, but to stimulate the personal growth and professional development of the dedicated practitioners who provide those services. Shay Bilchik Administrator Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ------------------------------ Table of Contents Volunteer Network In Memoriam Foreword Introduction Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project The Desktop Guide Part I PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS 1 Historical Perspective Advent of the Juvenile Justice System The Juvenile Court The Origins of Contemporary Juvenile Detention Recent History Standards Movement in Juvenile Detention Balanced Approach A Comprehensive Strategy Summary 2 Juvenile Detention and the Law Law and Discretion Juvenile Court Act Juvenile Court History Present and Future Liability Issues Conclusion 3 Defining Juvenile Detention The National Juvenile Detention Association (NJDA) Confusion of Function What Are the Functions of Detention? "Place Versus Process" Argument Nonsecure Detention Alternatives to Secure Detention: The Case of Diversion 4 Adolescent Development and Delinquency Adolescent Development Psychosocial Developmental Stages Common Changes During Adolescence Theories of Delinquency Gangs 5 Rights and Responsibilities of Staff and Youth Parens Patriae Liability Conditions of Detention Training Due Process Overcrowding Conclusion 6 Professional Issues in Juvenile Detention Professionalism My All-America Team NJDA Code of Ethics Detention Job Functions Public Policy Statements ACA Public Correctional Policy on Juvenile Justice NCCHC Policy Statement Summary Part II DAILY PRACTICE 7 Management Issues: Mission, Security, and Policy and Procedure Mission Institutional Security Policies and Procedures Manual 8 Admission to Detention Admission to Juvenile Detention: The Event Admission to Juvenile Detention: The Process Special Concerns at Admission Summary 9 Health Care for Incarcerated Adolescents Adolescent Responses to Health Care Confidentiality and Separation of Responsibilities Initial Health Status Screening Nursing Rounds Clinic or Sick Call Medication Dispensing Infirmary Care Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Medical Services in Locked or Disciplinary Units Financial Issues in Detention Medical Care Quality Improvement Dental Care Minor Surgical Problems Health Risk Behaviors by Incarcerated Juveniles Special Needs of Incarcerated Females Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) Common and Noteworthy Diseases Drug Abuse and Addiction 10 The Need for Strong Programs in Detention Renewal of Programming in Juvenile Detention Rationale for Programs Goals of Programs Therapeutic Recreation Helping Parents When Their Child Is Detained Community Service Religious Services Use of Volunteers 11 Detention Education Why Provide an Educational Program? Factors To Consider Review of Detention Education Issues Components of the Detention Education Program Special Education Services Computer-Assisted Instruction Summary 12 Behavior Management in Juvenile Detention and Corrections Part I: Personal Strategy Part II: Programmatic Strategy Additional Helpful Structures in the Detention and Corrections Environment Sample Reinforcer Survey 13 Behavior Observation and Recording Objectives Observation Recording Summary 14 Mental Health Services The Need for Special Programs and Services Mental Disorders in Juvenile Detention The Role of Juvenile Careworkers Nonverbal Deescalation Strategies 15 Special Issues Violence Alcohol and Other Drugs Controlling Suicidal Behavior Minority Issues Gender Issues in Juvenile Detention Resources for Alcohol and Other Drug Assessment Bibliography ------------------------------ Introduction What can 15 cents buy these days? Except for purchasing penny candy or bubble gum, 15 cents is not a very useful amount of money. In fact, it won't even buy a stamp for a postcard. In 1947, the White House Conference on Juvenile Delinquency published an insightful and informative report on juvenile detention. The report included the findings of a national survey of juvenile detention practices conducted by Sherwood Norman. The information contained in the report would later become the foundation for the Standards and Guides for the Detention of Children and Youth, published by the National Council on Crime and Delinquency in 1958. This classic work shaped the definition of juvenile detention practice and served as the definitive resource until the development of the American Correctional Association (ACA) Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities in 1979. These significant works are products of the information contained in the White House report, and one could order a copy of this report from the U.S. Government Printing Office for 15 cents in 1947. Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project In 1992, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded the Juvenile Justice Personnel Improvement Project (JJPIP) to the National Juvenile Detention Association (NJDA). Interested in current information about this important component of the juvenile justice system, OJJDP asked NJDA to examine three important areas in the definition and understanding of good juvenile detention practice. First, JJPIP addressed the issue of staff training. Following an extensive review of the training literature, NJDA submitted to OJJDP a comprehensive report on the training needs of juvenile detention line staff. The report, Juvenile Detention Training Needs Assessment, identified training topics, categories, and curriculums for new and veteran juvenile careworkers. The report also defined various types of training needs and strategies to acquire this information. Second, detention is a profession that has existed in relative isolation. Because a substantial number of juvenile detention facilities are operated or administered by a local branch of government, little emphasis has been placed on sharing information and ideas. To reduce this isolation and fragmentation within juvenile detention, NJDA conducted a national survey of effective and innovative program ideas. The survey findings were reported in the Effective and Innovative Programs: Resource Manual. The manual was not a research or evaluation document. Instead, it provided information about innovative and effective program ideas. More than 300 topics appeared in its index. Descriptions were not comprehensive, but mailing addresses and phone numbers were included. The intended goal was to increase the interaction between detention staff through the direct sharing of information and ideas. Third, OJJDP asked the question: What is good juvenile detention practice? The positive response by the juvenile probation community to the Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice by the National Center on Juvenile Justice convinced OJJDP that this strategy (a comprehensive review and updating of professional knowledge) would be beneficial for juvenile detention. The Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice served as the model for studying juvenile detention, a topic that has not been systematically examined in more than 45 years. The Desktop Guide Written under the guidance of a network of volunteer authors, advisers, and resources, the Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice is a major step in the development of a contemporary definition of state-of-the-art juvenile detention practices. It complements other publications arising from OJJDP and NJDA's collaborative efforts, including A Resource Manual for Juvenile Detention and Corrections: Effective and Innovative Programs (Roush and Wyss, 1994), Juvenile Detention Training Needs Assessment (Roush, 1996), and Juvenile Detention Careworker Training Curriculum (Jones and Roush, 1995). With this background information, several additional words of explanation are needed about the Desktop Guide. First, the juvenile detention practitioner, professional, or reader should understand what the Desktop Guide is and what it is not. Second, the Desktop Guide is divided into two parts, each with a different emphasis or focus. Third, the Desktop Guide contains a bibliography of current and related works on juvenile detention. Hints for Using the Desktop Guide More than anything else, the Desktop Guide is a beginning. It is unlikely that another 45 years will pass before it is revised and updated. The Desktop Guide is meant to be a working document, intended to enlighten, inform, and challenge. The materials in the Desktop Guide should evoke a reaction. Although NJDA hopes that the reaction is positive, it also hopes that disagreements and negative reactions will result in renewed dialog on particular subjects. An openness exists within OJJDP and NJDA to discuss dissenting or contrary beliefs and to work through the differences so that the ultimate benefactor of this interaction is the practice of juvenile detention and the youth it serves. The Desktop Guide assumes that juvenile detention professionals cannot be totally competent and skillful without a solid understanding of the basic concepts and principles involved in juvenile detention. Therefore, the Desktop Guide is not a "how to" manual even though it contains definite "how to" sections. To get the full benefit of the information in the Desktop Guide, staff will have to engage it seriously--this means reading. It may mean rereading. It may also cause a critical reevaluation of your current practices. It may lead to a rethinking of your professional commitment and career development. To produce professional growth, the materials need to stimulate you, and we trust that they will. Again, the Desktop Guide is intended to enlighten, inform, and challenge. Part I: Principles and Concepts The first part of the Desktop Guide explores the background principles, concepts, and knowledge that are at the core of juvenile detention and juvenile justice. This information provides the foundation for skill acquisition and skill development. Following are brief descriptions of each chapter: Chapter 1 addresses the history of juvenile detention and includes background information about the development of the juvenile court and juvenile probation. The chapter draws heavily from the Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice and the Task Force Report from Pennsylvania. In addition to historical perspectives on the formation of the juvenile court, the chapter includes a description of the Pere Marquette Institute in 1968, which was a culminating event in the creation of NJDA and federally sponsored staff training programs. Chapter 2 is a thorough explanation of the relationship between juvenile detention and the law (the Juvenile Court Act). Professor Frank Kopecky from the Center for Legal Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield carefully outlines the legal obligations of juvenile detention careworkers as contained within the Juvenile Court Act. He provides a basic understanding of the operations of the juvenile court with sufficient detail so that juvenile detention careworkers can make informed responses to detainees' questions about "what's going to happen to me now?" Chapter 3 looks at the definition of detention, a critical concept given current challenges to the juvenile court and contemporary theories of juvenile justice. The definition materials are from the NJDA definition, which was forged from 3 years of debate and discussion. This definition, unanimously adopted by the NJDA Board of Directors in 1989, serves as the benchmark for definition statements. Chapter 4 addresses adolescent development. Under the direction of Professor J. Steven Smith, a team of psychologists, criminologists, and developmental specialists identifies many of the distinguishing characteristics of adolescence. In particular, the chapter highlights the developmental and psychological differences between children and adults. This chapter also includes information about gangs and their relationship to delinquency theory. Chapter 5 reviews the legal liability of juvenile detention careworkers. Developed by James R. Bell, the chapter outlines the critical areas of juvenile rights as they relate to conditions of confinement. Bell provides a clear overview of the legal expectations of juvenile detention line staff. Chapter 6 discusses professionalization and career development. Basic qualities of good juvenile detention careworkers are examined, using Ernest Shelley's description of "staff of the right kind" as a guideline. The chapter also includes the NJDA Code of Ethics and a review of staff development issues contained in recent NJDA and OJJDP projects. Part II: Daily Practice The second part of the Desktop Guide examines daily practice, addressing the principles and concepts for skill acquisition. Chapter 7 identifies and explains three critical areas of juvenile detention management. Developed by Joe Christy, the first section explains the importance of the mission statement and its relationship to internal and external management environments. The second section looks at institutional security. Developed by Tom Stokes, the three areas of good institutional security include personal security, resident security, and building security. The final section of the chapter is a comprehensive review and explanation of polices and procedures. Developed by Rosalie Rosetti, the policy and procedure section is a clear and detailed analysis of the "whos, whats, whens, and wheres" of policy and procedure development. Specific examples of priority areas for policy and procedure development are provided by Donald Steitz, based on the experience of the Jefferson County Youth Center. A final section also includes a report by Donald DeVore on the recent efforts of the Juvenile Detention Centers Association of Pennsylvania to develop performance- based standards in juvenile detention. Chapter 8 is an adaptation of "The Critical Hour: Admissions to Juvenile Detention," a training video developed by ACA. Using the ACA standards on admissions, this chapter examines the concepts of (a) how to quickly establish a working relationship with newly admitted juveniles and (b) how to acquire important information about the juvenile. The chapter presents several different types of youth as examples of how these principles are applied. Chapter 9 is an overview of juvenile health care issues. Building on the efforts of the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, this chapter by Drs. Robbie Morris, Martin Anderson, and Chuck Baker is a revised and updated version of their chapter on the same topic contained in the ACA Juvenile Careworker Resource Guide. Special emphasis is placed on the assessment of communicable diseases during the time of admission. Chapter 10 is an overview of juvenile detention programs. Developed by Steve Coulman, the chapter describes a broad range of helpful programs and services. Included in the chapter are discussions of activities programs, recreational programs, leisure-time programs, volunteer programs, and religious services programs. This chapter should be used in conjunction with Effective and Innovative Programs Resource Manual (Roush and Wyss, 1994). Chapter 11 describes the components of a good detention education program. Based on the nationally recognized detention education program developed by Jon R. Hill and his staff, this chapter reviews a range of components, including class size, teacher qualifications, general education curriculum, remedial education curriculum, special education services, and relationships with the home schools of the youth. Additional references include professional standards as well as other program resources and guidelines from various States. Chapter 12 explains behavior management. Developed by Nelson Griffis, the behavior management materials are comprehensive and detailed. Griffis makes two essential points in these materials. First, effective behavior management is a function of emotionally stable individuals who serve as good role models for youth and who are necessary for effective behavior management programs. Second, effective behavior management is a comprehensive and integrated approach to all aspects of the daily program in juvenile detention. Merely having a point system or a time-out room does not guarantee effective behavior management. Griffis discusses consistency and its relationship to setting limits, making rules, enforcing rules, and using specific behavior-management techniques. A special contribution in this chapter is a list of more than 100 reinforcers that can be used by line staff in a juvenile detention program. Chapter 13 identifies the critical skills of behavior observation and recording. Based on the training program developed for Detention Basic Training at the Center for Legal Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield, the chapter is an adaptation of David Roush's instructional article "Behavior Observation and Recording" (Roush, 1993). Supplemental materials are also available from the Center for Legal Studies. Chapter 14 provides instruction and advice about mental health problems in juvenile detention. Developed by Kirk Blackwood and Jana Ewing, the chapter uses information prepared by Kathleen Kroening. The chapter starts with the assumption that mental health problems should be dealt with by mental health professionals. Recognizing that this assumption is problematic for line staff who work with juveniles who need mental health services during the day when mental health services and staff are not available, the chapter outlines a clear and simple list of "do's" and "don'ts" for direct-care staff in juvenile detention centers. Chapter 15 addresses special topics, giving attention to (a) suicide assessment and intervention, (b) alcohol and other drug abuse assessment and intervention, (c) minority concerns, (d) gender issues, and (e) the management of violence. These topics do not represent all of the issues and concerns facing line staff in juvenile detention. As stated earlier in this introduction, the Desktop Guide is intended to start the discussion about the variety of topics relevant to juvenile detention. What's Missing? Several topics are conspicuous by their absence. First, the Desktop Guide does not address the isolation or confinement of juveniles. ACA standards and case law seem to be sufficient on this issue. References and resources for further study are listed in the bibliography. Second, the Desktop Guide does not discuss physical and mechanical restraints. Although these skills may be required of all juvenile detention careworkers at some time in their career, excellent programs are available to train and certify staff members at a basic level of competence in each of these areas. This type of certification should be an essential component of every staff training program in every juvenile detention facility. Third, the Desktop Guide does not cover staff training and development. However, these issues are addressed in NJDA's Juvenile Detention Training Needs Assessment, offering another example when the Desktop Guide should be used in conjunction with other products and materials developed by NJDA and OJJDP. You may also wish to consult Juvenile Detention Careworker Training Curriculum, which provides a comprehensive 40-hour training program for new line staff in juvenile detention facilities. Fourth, as you read the Desktop Guide, you will probably note several topics that are very important to you but missing from the materials. Constraints on time and resources often resulted in omissions. NJDA encourages you to tell us what was omitted and why it is important to you. Bibliography A rather lengthy bibliography appears at the end of the Desktop Guide. It includes numerous relevant works in juvenile detention along with many other related publications and manuscripts. Although not complete, the bibliography is an attempt to compile a list of references that provide an understanding of juvenile detention. Very little has been published about juvenile detention during the past several decades. Yet the bibliography section is quite lengthy, reflecting a greater number of works about juvenile detention than was originally anticipated. Publications such as NJDA News, Corrections Today, and Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services have added numerous articles to juvenile detention literature. Because articles about juvenile detention were becoming more plentiful, the bibliography section was the last part of the Desktop Guide submitted to OJJDP. The list of references is as current as possible. ------------------------------ Chapter 1 Historical Perspective Advent of the Juvenile Justice System The roots of the juvenile court movement in this country can be traced to 16th-century educational and religious reform movements in Europe. These reform movements changed the public view of children from one of "miniature adults" to one of persons whose moral and cognitive capacities were not yet fully developed. This new perspective resulted in the development of boarding schools with strict regimens designed to shape the mentality and morality of the child (Aries, 1962). The impact of industrialization and immigration on the United States accelerated what probably would have been a more gradual revamping of criminal law and its application to children. Rapid urbanization disrupted families, resulting in overcrowding and an increase in crime, including crimes committed by children. A strong public concern for the protection of these children, particularly from their surroundings, began to surface, setting the stage for a series of social reforms that created special courts to hear cases involving children. The numerous reforms preceded the juvenile court movement, and in retrospect, the eventual creation of the court was a predictable outcome of a process characterized by the protection of children. The development of child labor legislation, specialized care for the handicapped, and public education evidenced growing support for a philosophy of governmental responsibility for individuals who needed special protection and care (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1991). Houses of Refuge In the United States, reforms can be traced directly to a Quaker-led movement in New York City. One of the first visible achievements of this movement was the passage in 1796 of legislation that, for many crimes, replaced punishment by whipping and death with confinement in newly built prisons. In 1823, a component of this movement, the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism in the city of New York, focused on the plight of the horde of "dirty, foul-mouthed children who thronged the city streets and subsisted on picking pockets and other crimes." The Society advocated the construction of a "House of Refuge" for vagrant or deprived young people and declared that the contamination of locking up children with mature criminals was one of the worst consequences of prison reform (Fox, 1970). The New York legislature responded in 1824 by granting authority to build a House of Refuge for the reformation of juvenile delinquents, establishing the first detention of youth separate from adults. Pennsylvania was also at the forefront of the House of Refuge movement. Houses of Refuge were designed to remove children from the adult prisons and poorhouses. The Philadelphia House of Refuge, established in 1826, initially accepted children who had been convicted of crimes or who were vagrants. This was the second such institution to be created in America. In 1835, Pennsylvania enacted legislation to add incorrigibility as a reason for commitment. The new law was soon challenged as unconstitutional after an incorrigible child had been committed to the House of Refuge without a jury trial. However, in Ex Parte Crouse, 4 Wharton Reports 9 (PA 1839), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the commitment, finding that "The House of Refuge is not a prison, but a school, where reformation, not punishment, is the end." With regard to the State's authority to care for Mary Ann Crouse, the court found: toward this end may not the natural parent when unequal to the task of education or unworthy of it, be superseded by the parens patriae, or common guardian of the community. ... The infant has been snatched from a course which must have ended in confirmed depravity ... and not only is the restraint of her person lawful, but it would be an act of extreme cruelty to release her from it. The Crouse case is regarded as perhaps the first case involving a delinquency matter to employ the parens patriae doctrine, although the doctrine had been used previously in other areas of law (Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1991:19). The right of the State to intervene in the life of a child differently from the way it intervenes in the life of an adult is based on the British doctrine of parens patriae (parent the king). The doctrine was interpreted as the inherent power of the king (State) to provide protection for persons who were not of full legal capacity. This chancery jurisdiction was generally applied to cases of child neglect and abuse or on behalf of insane and incompetent persons. The essential element of this doctrine was its emphasis on the welfare of the child, permitting the proper balance of social and economic interests. The chancery court might well have limited its concern to dependent, neglected, and destitute children. However, in extending chancery principles to include delinquent children, the court was following these principles to their logical conclusion because delinquent children were often dependent, neglected, and destitute, and all of these children were in need of the court's benevolent intervention. The early Houses of Refuge in New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Ohio were founded on principles of education and religion, generally providing a program for children based on strict discipline and useful labor, while protecting them from adult criminals. These institutions began developing rather rapidly and were the forerunners of State-operated reform schools and industrial schools. Chronologically, the public training school emerged before our current concept of juvenile detention. In the mid-1800's, progressive States began to develop reform schools that provided the discipline needed by wayward youth but offered a homelike atmosphere where education was emphasized. The first, Lyman School for Boys, was opened in Westboro, Massachusetts, in 1847. A similar school for girls was opened in Lancaster, Massachusetts, in 1855. Ohio created the State Reform Farm in 1857 (Cole, 1989). Some members of the Progressive Reform movement became concerned about the mistreatment and neglect of children in orphanages and Houses of Refuge. Primarily active in urban areas, the movement became known as the "child savers," with prominent women citizens acting as the lead advocates for children. Other targets of child saver reforms included child labor practices, neglect and dependency, inadequate assimilation of immigrant children, runaways, orphans, and delinquents (Newman, 1986). John Augustus and Probation Equally important to the development of the juvenile court system in America was the development of probation as a sentencing alternative. Probation as we know it was derived from a logical extension of the English common law practice of the conditional suspension of punishment. Use of the judicial reprieve, release of offenders on recognizance, release on bail, and suspension of sentence were direct precursors of probation. The first step beyond these common law practices was taken in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1841 when John Augustus, a local cobbler, attended police court and requested that the court allow him to post bail for a man charged with being a common drunkard. The court agreed, and Augustus was ordered to return with the defendant in 3 weeks, at which time he was to show convincing signs of reform. At sentencing, instead of the usual imprisonment, the judge imposed a fine of 1 cent and ordered the "reformed" defendant to pay costs. Encouraged by his initial experience, Augustus provided bail for more offenders and began supervising and guiding their behavior pending sentencing. Although he worked initially with adult males, he gradually extended his activities to include work with women and children. Augustus subsequently "bailed on probation" thousands of persons. He was credited with developing many of the features that came to characterize the American probation system, including the use of case studies, regular supervision, employment, and education. Although Augustus has been acclaimed for his work with adults, he was also--without question--a juvenile probation officer. In 1847, I bailed nineteen boys, from seven to fifteen years of age, and in bailing them it was understood, and agreed by the court, that their cases should be continued from term to term for several months, as a season of probation; thus each month at the calling of the docket, I would appear in court, make my report, and thus the cases would pass on for five or six months. At the expiration of this term, twelve of the boys were brought into court at one time, and the scene formed a striking and highly pleasing contrast with their appearance when first arraigned. The judge expressed much pleasure as well as surprise, at their appearance, and remarked, that the object of law had been accomplished and expressed his cordial approval of my plan to save and reform (Moreland, 1941:5). In 1869, Massachusetts provided for the appointment of an agent of the Board of State Charities. The agent investigated cases of children tried before the court, attended trials, received certain children for placement, and found foster homes, when appropriate. These agents, with the help of volunteers, also supervised children placed under the common law practice of probation (Shultz, 1973). The practice of probation was regulated by statute for the first time in 1878, when Massachusetts enacted legislation that enabled the mayor of Boston to appoint a paid probation officer for the courts of criminal jurisdiction in Boston (Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1991:20). For more historical information on probation, John Augustus, and the Progressive Movement, see the recent article by Edward Sieh (1993). The Juvenile Court In a historical review of the origins of the juvenile court, the Center for Legal Studies at the University of Illinois at Springfield attributed the evolution of the juvenile court movement to Illinois Governor John Altgeld (Kopecky, 1989). Other key actors identified in the report were social workers Jane Addams, Julia Lathrop, Lucy Flowers, and Elvina Stevens, as well as members of the Chicago Bar Association--Judge Richard Tuthill, Judge Harvey B. Hurd ("Father of the Juvenile Court Law"), Ephriam Banning, John W. Ela, Edwin B. Smith, and Clarence Darrow. According to Kopecky, Governor Altgeld appointed Julia Lathrop to evaluate the conditions of confinement in all Illinois correctional institutions. She was so appalled by the treatment of juvenile offenders that she asked members of the Bar to implement legislation for juvenile reform. With the help of Lucy Flowers, the Bar Association drafted the bill that eventually became the Juvenile Court Act. Although it is common practice to attribute the invention of the juvenile court to inspiration in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois, parallel evolution was taking place in several States. The practice of trying children separately from adults began in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, in 1870. The practice became statewide in 1872. New York developed a similar statute in 1892, followed quickly by Indiana and Rhode Island (Sussman and Baum, 1968). Nevertheless, the Juvenile Court Act, passed by the Illinois legislature in 1899, was the first such enactment to be acknowledged as a model statute for other States and countries (Platt, 1969). Juvenile Court Act The Illinois Juvenile Court Act eliminated the need for warrants to arrest children, the use of indictments, and most other features of criminal proceedings. The Act established a separate courtroom and separate records, and it provided that "where a child would come within the jurisdiction of the courts--that the care, custody and discipline of a child should approximate as nearly as may be, that given by its parents." The new law created a juvenile court with jurisdiction over children under the age of 16 who were delinquent, dependent, or neglected (Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1991:20). The Illinois Juvenile Court Act delineated three distinctions of the juvenile court movement: (1) the creation of a separate court of justice for children because children are different, (2) the recognition that juvenile court is not a criminal court, but a civil court, emphasizing the rehabilitation and treatment of children, and (3) the creation of a system of probation (Lathrop, 1917). In 1893, prior to the passage of the Illinois statute, Pennsylvania enacted legislation that prohibited a child under age 16 from being confined with adults charged with or convicted of crimes. This law also required that children should be tried separately from adults and provided that cases involving children be listed on separate dockets. Although Pennsylvania's first Juvenile Court Act, passed in 1901, was very similar to the Illinois law, the Pennsylvania Superior Court declared the new statute unconstitutional (Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1991:20). Shortly thereafter, the General Assembly enacted the Juvenile Court Act of 1903, which was very similar to the 1901 statute. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, citing the parens patriae doctrine as a valid basis for approving different procedures, such as the denial of a jury trial, in cases involving children. Around this time, the juvenile court movement gained considerable momentum, and by the mid- 1920's, nearly every State had enacted juvenile court statutes in some form. Early Definition of Delinquency The definition of delinquency was broadened shortly after the passage of the Illinois Juvenile Court Act to "embrace both the list of peculiarly juvenile offenses, such as frequenting places where any gaming devise was operated" and the apparently all-encompassing "status offenses" of incorrigibility and a livelihood of idleness or crime. In 1907, the list was again broadened to include "running away from home, loitering and using profanity." These acts defined the characteristics of juvenile delinquency. Discrimination between behavior defined as criminal for everyone, adult or child, and behavior seen as inappropriate only for a child was not believed to be necessary. Juvenile crime was not viewed as an adult crime but as evidence of delinquency. Juvenile errors and omissions were not to be held against an offender in later life. The court's task was not to punish juvenile crime but to guide delinquents toward a responsible and productive adulthood. The focus of the juvenile court proceeding shifted from the particular offense that a child had committed. As Judge Julian Mack, the first juvenile court judge in Cook County, described the role of the judge in these new proceedings, "the problem for determination by the judge is not--has the boy or girl committed a specific wrong, but what is he, how has he become what he is, and what had best be done in his interest and in the interest of the State to save him from a downward career" (Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1991:21). Adjudication The adjudication proceeding itself was intended to be nonadversarial in nature, with the judge presiding as a father-figure who represented simultaneously the interests of the child and those of the State. The early courts operated without providing alleged delinquents with many of the rights afforded adults, including adequate notice of charges, the right to counsel, and trial by jury. The power of the juvenile courts to act in the absence of many of these procedural safeguards eventually became the basis of attacks on the philosophy of the system. Although the level and frequency of the criticism increased throughout the 20th century, the juvenile courts of the early 1900's functioned virtually unchanged until 1966, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on certain procedures of the court (Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1991:21). Women's Role Women played a significant role in the development of the juvenile justice system. According to Cole (1989): Such activists as Jane Addams and Julia Lathrop of the Settlement House Movement ... and the National Congress of Mothers were successful in promoting the juvenile court concept, so that by 1904 ten states had implemented procedures similar to those of Illinois, and by 1920 all but three states provided for a juvenile court. (p. 649) Other key women identified in the juvenile court movement are Lucy Flowers and Elvina Stevens (Kopecky, 1989). Women also developed powerful advocacy groups for juvenile justice (e.g., League of Women Voters and denominational women's groups), and they contributed countless volunteer hours to all aspects of the system. The women's movement of the 1970's combined with the economics of the 1980's to move a substantial number of women from advocacy or volunteer roles and into the workplace. However, the diminished involvement of these advocacy groups has adversely affected the juvenile justice system's ability to maintain its equilibrium in the face of the punitive policies of the 1980's. The Origins of Contemporary Juvenile Detention Very little is written about the history of juvenile detention in the United States. Information about the development of detention must be drawn from historical accounts that focus primarily on other juvenile justice matters. However, these sources provide some insight on how detention developed. There appear to be three major phases in the development of juvenile detention, and we are currently in one of them. The current increase in juvenile violent crime combines with the continued disintegration of the family and a punitive public philosophy to place an increasing demand on juvenile detention as a major resource for the juvenile justice system. As a result, the number of facilities is increasing, while existing facilities are expanding. Juvenile Detention Homes The two other periods described in the literature are the times preceding and following World War II. For the first 50 years of the juvenile court, most juvenile detention occurred in either homelike settings or jail. Many juvenile courts actually purchased large houses for the detention of status offenders, minor offenders, and dependent-neglected children. Staffed by house parents, these houses were generally not secure. The practice was very similar to current nonsecure detention programs such as the types operated in New York State. Because of the relatively low number of youth committing delinquent offenses, serious offenders were diverted to the local jail or committed to State training schools and reformatories. Secure detention facilities (institutions with secure hardware and design) were the luxury of larger juvenile court systems. Early accounts of juvenile detention describe similar systems. In rural and small-town communities, the detention home or small, homelike institution developed (Norman, 1957). Extended families throughout rural America helped suppress delinquency and enabled small jurisdictions to meet their detention needs through detention homes, foster homes, and group homes. Small institutions (under 20 beds) were also designed with a homelike atmosphere that included live-in house parents. The legacy of the homelike approach to juvenile detention survived through the 1960's, and a few detention centers are still called homes--e.g., the Calhoun County (Michigan) Juvenile Home. Jailing Juveniles Urban areas constructed more traditional detention facilities, using a hospital-like architectural design (Norman, 1957). In both cases, jails were used for serious offenders. Most jurisdictions without access to a detention center made arrangements to detain youth in county jails or municipal lockups. By 1945, nearly 27 percent of all youth detained overnight were incarcerated in a county jail or police lockup as opposed to a juvenile detention facility (Tappan, 1949). As the procedure of jailing juveniles continued, reports of deaths, injuries, and unsanitary living conditions raised questions about the practice of detaining youth in jails (Tappan, 1949; and Norman, 1957). Construction of appropriate juvenile detention facilities was hindered, however, by the economic problems associated with the Depression and World War II. By 1930, 141 juvenile detention facilities existed in the United States, but many of these were homelike residential group facilities (Norman, 1957). An accurate count of institutional detention facilities was not available prior to World War II. The Construction Boom The post-World War II prosperity enabled those within the juvenile justice system and the public to look more closely at the problems surrounding juvenile delinquency, especially the practice of jailing juveniles and the need for appropriate detention facilities for children and youth. As a result, a construction boom occurred in the 1950's and 1960's. By 1967, 242 secure institutions for juvenile detention existed in the United States (Cavan, 1969:393). The height of this construction occurred between 1945 and 1957, when more than 100 detention centers were built (Norman, 1957:396). Between 1950 and 1957, California built 22 new juvenile detention facilities. Since then, construction has continued. By 1971, 303 juvenile detention facilities were reported in the United States (Pappenfort and Young, 1980). By 1989, that number had risen to 492 facilities (Allen-Hagen, 1991). Trends from the early 1990's indicate that construction is continuing. However, the rising costs of the adult criminal justice system, particularly the operational costs of prisons and jails, are placing extreme financial burdens on local jurisdictions. In 1993, one New Jersey county closed its juvenile detention facility as part of a cost-saving effort. First Juvenile Detention Center The absence of historical records prevents a definitive identification of the first juvenile detention facility in the United States. Tappan (1949) recognized the Arthur J. Audey Home, operated by the Cook County Juvenile Court, as the first juvenile detention facility. Opened around 1906, the Audey Home was a multistory residential building near downtown Chicago (Jordan, 1968). In 1923, a new juvenile detention facility was built using state-of-the-art designs. By 1970, the demands for more space and a new physical plant led to the construction of the 500-bed Cook County Temporary Juvenile Detention Center, operated by the executive branch of Cook County government. To describe the large juvenile detention facility and its programs, Cavan (1969) used the Los Angeles County Juvenile Hall. She reported that the Juvenile Hall was established in 1906, the same year as the opening of the Audey Home in Chicago. Was the first juvenile detention center in Chicago or Los Angeles? It is hoped that this question will elicit historical evidence to support one theory or the other. Recent History Even though the concept of juvenile probation is older than juvenile detention, the histories of both ideas have been somewhat similar during the past several decades. Juvenile probation and detention represent the two primary interventions of the juvenile court. Many juvenile probation officers came from the ranks of juvenile detention, while detention administrators frequently evaluate detention workers with an eye to those who can be promoted to the probation department. The salary and status disparities between detention and probation imply that detention is secondary within juvenile court. The State of Illinois recently enacted legislation that created salary parity between juvenile detention officers and juvenile probation officers, enabling Illinois detention facilities to maintain greater staff stability. At the beginning of the 1950's, juvenile probation professionals were certain that management caseloads, new facilities, and full staffing of trained probation officers would completely control juvenile delinquency. However, by the end of that decade, these professionals were smarting from the criticism of a subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which had spent 5 years studying juvenile delinquency and laying the foundation for the Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Offenses Control Act of 1961 (Hurst, 1990). The authors of that legislation were sufficiently impressed with current social theories to make provisions to fund virtually every kind of community effort that prevented or controlled delinquency--except juvenile probation. The juvenile court also came under attack by outsiders because it failed to meet its promises. During the 1960's, civil libertarians found powerful allies on the Supreme Court, and the cannons of procedural due process were turned first on the criminal justice system and, once it had been şblasted into constitutional submission," on the juvenile courts (Hutzler, 1982:28). With the Kent decision in 1966, Gault in 1967, and Winship in 1969, the Supreme Court denounced the informality of juvenile proceedings and demanded that juvenile courts consider a defendant's rights, due process, and constitutional safeguards while finding facts. (For more detail on these and other decisions, see Chapter 2.) In response to President Lyndon Johnson's "war against crime" and the recommendations of the Katzenbach Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967, Congress passed the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968. That Act made specific provision for financial assistance to courts and correctional systems to treat and control juvenile delinquency. It also recommended that children who were charged with status offenses be screened from the court system. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) spent 4 years developing the national strategy for this legislation but never requested an appropriation that could be used to support services in the States (Hurst, 1990). The late 1960's brought rapid change to the juvenile justice system. The nature and intensity of change created high levels of uncertainty within the field as basic assumptions were challenged, clarified, and redefined, sometimes simultaneously. These changes foretold even more significant transformations. Pere Marquette Institute The first documented attempt to convene juvenile detention professionals and experts was the National Institute for Juvenile Detention Home Administrators in spring 1968 at the Pere Marquette State Park in Grafton, Illinois. The Institute was the cooperative effort of Dr. Charles Matthews, director of the Delinquency Study in Youth Development Center at Southern Illinois University- Edwardsville, and Gerald Wittman from HEW's Office of Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Development. Matthews and Wittman believed that juvenile detention in the United States needed more attention and that nationally respected expert practitioners should set an agenda for the future of the profession. Little progress had occurred for juvenile detention since the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) published the Standards and Guides in 1958 and revised it in 1961. Furthermore, the history of practitioner involvement in the development of the field of juvenile detention was sporadic, and those in the profession remained isolated. This concept of using training experiences as a way to share ideas on a national level led to the development of the National Juvenile Detention Association. National Juvenile Detention Association (NJDA) Two issues emerged from the Pere Marquette Institute. First, in addition to the American Correctional Association (ACA), a separate professional association was needed to represent juvenile detention nationally. The 1968 Institute marked the first time that detention administrators convened on a national level to address the future of juvenile detention. Second, the Institute was to provide a vehicle for detention practitioners to unite and provide national leadership so that juvenile detention practices could be standardized. Institute participants elected LaVon Kindall as the president of the fledgling association. The first group of officers also included James M. Jordan, who was responsible for incorporating NJDA as a nonprofit organization under Illinois law in 1971. Since 1968, NJDA has provided semiannual training programs for juvenile detention personnel. In 1989, NJDA initiated the National Juvenile Services Training Institute (NJSTI), an annual training event that provides detention and corrections practitioners with various workshops, seminars, and training certification programs. Furthermore, NJDA publishes an education, research, and training journal in conjunction with the Juvenile Justice Trainers Association (JJTA) and the National Association of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (NAJCA). Origins of Detention Staff Training Another reason for the Pere Marquette Institute was the need for staff training (Grass Roots and NJDA, 1990). Matthews saw national training efforts as a way to sustain ongoing interaction among detention staff. He assigned training responsibilities to Dr. Tom Hughes, a faculty member at the Delinquency Study and Youth Development Center. Hughes secured funding through the Office of Juvenile Delinquency to conduct regional training programs for detention staff. Much of the experience gained in training detention staff has been transferred to the Detention Basic Training programs operated by the University of Illinois at Springfield Center for Legal Studies. Coordinated by Hughes, the program is a 40-hour introductory training program, accredited by the American Probation and Parole Association. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) During the past several years, NCJFCJ has been greatly interested in NJDA. Gerald Wittman, a previous NCJFCJ training director, helped establish NJDA when he worked for HEW, the Federal predecessor to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This contribution was always a point of pride for Wittman, who displayed in his office a photograph of himself receiving an award from John Holmes, a former executive director of NJDA. During the past decade, NCJFCJ collaborated with NJDA to sponsor three national institutes on juvenile detention issues. The first institute convened in 1985 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The second convened in June 1988 in San Antonio, Texas, while the third assembled in June 1990 in Las Vegas. These institutes addressed major juvenile detention issues that interested judges, detention personnel, and other court staff. On a statewide level, NCJFCJ has actively collaborated with the New York Juvenile Detention Association for the past several years, aiding its annual April conference. Similarly, NCJFCJ has assisted the New Jersey Juvenile Detention Association with its annual conference. Each March, NCJFCJ, in conjunction with the National District Attorneys Association, sponsors the National Conference on Juvenile Justice. Detention professionals often participate in the meeting, which addresses specific detention issues and general interest topics that benefit detention staff. When finances permit, NCJFCJ also provides States with assistance for their juvenile justice conferences. Although detention may not be the only specialization presented at these conferences, numerous detention professionals attend. Detention is a critical part of the juvenile justice continuum, and detention services often fall within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch. Although NCJFCJ's general philosophy is to work collaboratively while providing the specialized continuing education of judges, it believes that nothing in juvenile justice is foreign to its training enterprise. American Correctional Association (ACA) The ACA standards are perhaps the most significant event in detention training history. Although the training standards present a comprehensive list of topic areas, the required training hours have redefined the importance of training. ACA requires 160 hours of actual training during the first year of employment (40 hours of preservice orientation and 120 hours of specialized training) and 40 hours annually thereafter (1991:23). By contrast, in detention facilities where staff often receive no more than 8 to 10 hours of training per year, the standards seem very strict. During the 1980's, ACA made substantial contributions to juvenile detention training. ACA provided regional training, correspondence courses, onsite training, and staff certification for trainers (Taylor, 1985). ACA worked with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) to develop a training program designed to create competent trainers within the ranks of correctional staff (American Correctional Association, 1981). Limited resources have increased the importance of inservice training programs, and the Training Staff Trainers (TST) certification appears to be a cost-efficient strategy that increases the amount and quality of inservice training hours provided. Juvenile detention was included in this concept. Reform in Massachusetts In 1969, the Massachusetts Director of Youth Services resigned after a series of crises in the State's training schools. His successor, Dr. Jerome Miller, took office with a mandate to develop new programs. During the next 2 years, Miller worked to establish therapeutic communities within the State's existing training schools. Adherents of the old custodial philosophy resisted his reforms. By 1971, Miller concluded that therapeutic communities could not be run successfully within the traditional training schools; so he closed them. They were replaced by a network of decentralized community-based services and a few small secure- care units for violent juvenile offenders. The Massachusetts revolution constituted the most sweeping reform in youth corrections in the United States since the establishment of juvenile training schools and juvenile courts in the 19th century. It demonstrated that juvenile corrections need not be centered around large training schools. Because the essential components of the community-based system are still in place, the Massachusetts experience serves as proof that deinstitutionalization and diversion can be implemented without destroying the rehabilitation goal of juvenile justice or compromising the community protection goal. For more information on the Massachusetts experience, see Loughran (n.d.) and Miller (1991). The effects of the Massachusetts experience on juvenile detention have been varied. The continued positive evaluations of Massachusetts have encouraged other States and local jurisdictions to explore and implement risk assessment devices to divert offenders from secure detention. There has been a greater confidence in community-based alternatives, which have eased or reduced the crowding in juvenile detention facilities. However, a secondary effect felt by detention staff is the further distillation of the detention population, leaving more serious and violent youth incarcerated. Although this outcome is predictable given the current philosophy about juvenile delinquency treatment and prevention (see page 17 for the Comprehensive Plan by Wilson and Howell), most detention facilities have had neither the time nor the resources to respond adequately to these changes. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 In response to the inadequacies of the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1968 and its administration in HEW, Congress passed the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974. JJDPA created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which was charged with administering the Act, and established the office within the U.S. Department of Justice. The major provisions of JJDPA focused on deinstitutionalizing status offenders and nonoffenders and separating incarcerated juveniles from adults. (The 1980 Amendments to JJDPA added the jail removal mandate.) To receive their share of Federal funds under JJDPA, States were required to comply with these requirements. Other major purposes of JJDPA included delinquency prevention, development of community-based alternatives to the juvenile justice system, and improvements in the juvenile justice system (Sweet, 1991). Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders The National Council on Crime and Delinquency Survey. At the request of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (NCCD) surveyed State and local correctional agencies and institutions across the United States in 1966. The survey documented extensive use of detention facilities to house juveniles accused of noncriminal conduct. Although such detention was permitted under broadly written State juvenile court statutes, it often occurred without the benefit of court petitions. Wide variations in detention rates and lengths of stay compounded the problem (Sweet, 1991). NCCD concluded that "confusion and misuse pervade detention. It has come to be used by police and probation officers as a disposition; judges use it for punishment, protection, [and] storage" (1967). As a result, NCCD recommended that: No child should be placed in any detention facility unless he is a delinquent or alleged delinquent and there is a substantial probability that he will commit an offense dangerous to himself or the community or will run away pending court disposition. He should not be detained for punishment or for someone's convenience. (p. 211) The National Advisory Commission. The National Advisory Commission (NAC) on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals identified its own concerns regarding detention problems, observing that status offenders made up at least 50 percent of most detention populations (1974). This percentage and the deplorable conditions found in detention centers and jails prompted NAC to propose the following: o The delinquency jurisdiction of the court should be limited to those juveniles who commit acts that if committed by an adult would be criminal, and juveniles accused of delinquent conduct should not, under any circumstances, be detained in facilities designed to house adults accused or convicted of crime. o Detention should be considered as a last resort when no other reasonable alternative is available. o Detention should be used only when the juvenile has no parent, guardian, custodian, or other person who can provide supervision and care for the youth and who can ensure the youth's presence at subsequent judicial hearings. o Juveniles should not be detained in jails, lockups, or other facilities used for adults. NAC recommended that juvenile courts should only be authorized to institutionalize delinquents whose offenses would be crimes if committed by adults. State Plan. JJDPA initially required that States wishing to receive Formula Grant Funds submit a plan that would "provide within two years after submission of the plan that juveniles who are charged with or who have committed offenses that would not be criminal if committed by an adult, shall not be placed in juvenile detention or correctional facilities, but must be placed in shelter facilities." This provision became known as the "deinstitutionalization of status offenders" (DSO) requirement. JJDPA further directed that participating States "provide for an adequate system of monitoring jails, detention facilities, and correctional facilities to insure that the [DSO] ... requirements are met, and for annual reporting of the result of such monitoring to the Administrator" (Sweet, 1991). Standards Movement in Juvenile Detention Another significant event in the history of juvenile detention is the professional standards movement. The focus on standards identified and legitimized juvenile detention as an integral part of the juvenile justice system. Previously, juvenile detention had been obscured by the secrecy of the juvenile court and had been referred to as a "hidden closet" (Schwartz, Fishman, Hatfield, Krisberg, and Eisikovitz, 1985). ACA's Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities, published in 1979, generated intense concern within the juvenile detention and juvenile justice communities about the role of detention, its mission and vision, and its purpose and goals. Although ACA deserves much credit, the idea that professional standards are the mechanisms that bring detention into full recognition has a long history. The National Conference Report In 1923, the Children's Bureau, in cooperation with the National Probation Association (NPA), published the first official juvenile court standards, including little more than one page on juvenile detention (Norman, 1957). These standards stressed three points: (a) keeping children out of jails and police lockups, (b) using detention only when it was absolutely necessary, and (c) keeping detention as short as possible. In 1930, NPA conducted the first systematic study of detention, surveying 141 detention homes. The survey report was the first comprehensive description of detention practices. In 1945, the NPA--now called the National Probation and Parole Association (NPPA)--conducted another study of juvenile detention to determine the best examples of all types of detention so that principles and standards could be established. For the study, 68 facilities in 22 States were visited. The results were reported at the 1946 National Conference on the Prevention and Control of Delinquency and published as the Report on Juvenile Detention (National Conference, 1947). The report, which contained 13 basic standards for juvenile detention, was the first effort at detention standards development and shaped contemporary juvenile detention standards. These 13 standards were the forerunner of NCCD's Standards and Guides, published in 1958. The standards of good juvenile detention care identified in the Report on Juvenile Detention are as follows: o No child is ever held in a jail or prison lockup. o Detention intake controls are established by the juvenile court with the cooperation of the police and other agencies. o The length of detention is as short as possible, less than 1 week as a rule. o The types of facilities chosen are based on the real detention needs of the community, as determined by survey and evaluation. o Building design and construction are adapted to the special demands of detention care, with emphasis being placed not only on cheerfulness, livability, and ease of maintenance, but on flexibility and ease of supervision. o The administrating agency is one that specializes in the field of child care and can guarantee programs that will make detention a constructive preparation for the child's future rehabilitation. o The program not only provides good physical and custodial care but meets the nonphysical needs of children through activities that challenge the interest of each age group, including a varied and stimulating educational program, social life and recreation, and spiritual guidance. o The staff is large enough to ensure the night and day supervision of small groups and is competent to handle the problems of maladjusted children compassionately and intelligently. o Medical examinations are given to every child admitted, and a trained nurse is employed in larger institutions. o Clinical child guidance services are available to provide first aid treatment for acute emotional disturbances and for more intensive study. o Comprehensive, confidential records are kept to provide information to the court and other agencies concerned and to allow periodic evaluation of detention practices. o The school program is under the supervision of the local board of education, and curriculum adjustment is made to stimulate the interest of pupils and to meet their individual needs. o Persistent effort is made to promote public education and cooperation because they are essential in maintaining a good detention program (National Conference, 1947:18-20). NPPA National Survey As NPPA detention consultant, Sherwood Norman, a former superintendent of the Chatham County Juvenile Detention Center in Savannah, Georgia, conducted the 1945 survey of juvenile detention (mentioned above). In addition to the development of basic standards for detention care, Norman identified numerous issues facing juvenile detention. Most of these issues reflect similar problems currently facing detention (Roush, 1992). For example, Norman (1949, 1951, 1957) discovered a variety of detention practices because of the absence of a clear definition of juvenile detention. Furthermore, the inability to control intake meant that detention facilities were crowded and that there was an unhealthy commingling of youth who were classified as dependent-neglected, status offenders, misdemeanants, and felons. Norman was also one of the first to comment on the new architecture for juvenile detention facilities. Post-World War II construction of juvenile detention facilities was influenced by his perspectives. Previously, juvenile detention facilities reflected a multitude of design strategies. Norman stressed that form follows function and that juvenile detention has specific and unique functions that dictate special architectural strategies. He was concerned that juvenile detention facilities would become jails for juveniles, reflecting the hard and austere architectural designs of adult jails. The NPPA survey, Report on Juvenile Detention, and the publication of NCCD's Standards and Guides in 1958 established Sherwood Norman as the most influential force in juvenile detention and standards development. His concepts--(a) programming, (b) small, secure detention facilities, (c) detention as a process instead of a place, (d) regional detention, (e) nonsecure detention, (f) a continuum of services, and (g) counseling as a component of daily programs--have had a significant impact on the current role of juvenile detention. His writings have influenced many, and the Standards and Guides remains a classic in detention literature. Because it is out of print, NJDA published excerpts in the spring 1990 (Vol. 5) edition of the Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention Services. (For additional information about Norman's philosophy of detention, see Roush, 1993b.) ACA Standards Under the leadership of Anthony Travisono and William Taylor, the ACA professional standards movement focused attention on the essential components of juvenile detention. Standards development addressed the nature and quality of adequate services offered to the offender. Because ACA included juvenile detention in the standards development process, detention received an instant boost in legitimacy. Although many practitioners wanted NJDA to develop the professional standards for juvenile detention, it did not have the resources to accomplish this task. Therefore, ACA invited key leaders from NJDA to help prepare an initial draft of juvenile detention standards. After several years of work, the NJDA detention standards team--composed of Donald Hammergren, James Jordan, and Richard Kelley (all students of Sherwood Norman)--presented a final draft of juvenile detention standards to the NJDA membership at its 1978 annual meeting in Fort Wayne, Indiana. After modifications by the ACA Standards Committee, ACA published the first edition of the Standards for Juvenile Detention Facilities in 1979. The second edition was published in 1983, and the third edition was released in 1992. Each revision streamlined the standards in an attempt to make them more relevant to the daily practices of juvenile detention. In 1981, NJDA formally endorsed the ACA standards as "the best guidelines for the operation of juvenile detention." Accreditation. Standards development represents half of ACA's contribution to this important process. Accreditation is the mechanism that substantiates an institution's compliance with professional standards. A team of three ACA-trained auditors conducts a 3-day, onsite review of a facility's standards, policies and procedures, programs, staff, and residents to determine the level of compliance with ACA's standards. If the institution is in compliance with 100 percent of the applicable mandatory standards and 90 percent or more of the applicable nonmandatory standards, the institution is accredited by ACA. Accreditation is seen as a hallmark event for detention facilities, resulting in more efficient operation, improved ability to secure an adequate budget, increased staff morale, improved professionalism, and increased resistance to liability (Roush, 1990a:71-76). Since the early 1980's, relatively few juvenile detention facilities have pursued accreditation. According to ACA, less than 10 percent of detention facilities are accredited. The following reasons explain why the field of juvenile detention has not responded favorably to involvement in the accreditation process: o Initially, practitioners complained that the cost of accreditation was excessive for small detention facilities with a capacity of 50 beds or fewer. (ACA responded by creating sliding-scale fees and by developing a set of standards for detention facilities with a capacity of 20 beds or fewer.) o Practitioners do not like standards that are policy based as opposed to being outcome based. In other words, an institution could be in compliance with a standard merely by having a policy that might not be put into practice. This complaint was one of the major findings of the OJJDP Study of Conditions of Confinement (Parent, Leiter, Kennedy, Livens, Wentworth, and Wilcox, 1994), resulting in a debate over the relationship between standards compliance and improved conditions of confinement. o Practitioners complained that each revision of the standards actually weakened the requirements for performance-based or practice-related outcomes. Law professor Lynn Branham (1993) examined the evolution of ACA's adult standards and concluded that many do not even require a daily practice that safeguards basic constitutional rights. o Since the early 1980's, many States have initiated or strengthened the standards development process within their departments of social services or child welfare licensing. A State-operated inspection process, conducted by an independent third party and paid for by the State, appeared to many juvenile detention professionals and juvenile court judges to be as attractive and equally effective as ACA accreditation. o Litigation by the Youth Law Center revealed that policy-based criticisms of standards are accurate, and successful litigation was conducted against accredited facilities, raising significant concerns among practitioners about the claims that accreditation is the best defense against liability. The future of accreditation in juvenile detention remains uncertain. Despite its great appeal to practitioners, the integrity of the process has been threatened. The call for performance-based standards issued by OJJDP may be the event that redefines accreditation for juvenile detention facilities. With the increasing concern over litigation and legal liability of staff, it will be interesting to follow the continuing evolution of the standards and accreditation processes. Balanced Approach LaMar Empey (1985) reviewed the history of childhood and the juvenile court system, examining the theories that shaped juvenile justice policy during the first 70 years. In the following quote, he encapsulates this examination: In the 19th century Americans were convinced that family depravity was at the root of delinquent behavior. That is why they constructed asylums and reformatories in an attempt to replicate the functions of the family and why they invented the juvenile court to act in lieu of parents. In the first third of this century biological and Freudian theories more than reinforced these beliefs. ... Then, from the 1930's through the 1960's, a variety of theorists insisted that delinquency could not be understood without attention to a host of extra-familial factors. Delinquency must be viewed as an understandable response to these conditions (poverty, discrimination, inequality and the demoralization that follows). Peer groups and youth subcultures encourage delinquency because it makes sense, either as a means of gaining status or as a means of pursuing success illegitimately. Finally, in the 1970's, the role of the family was reemphasized. But even then, it was not seen as an exclusive cause of lawbreaking. Rather ... the result of failures in the socialization process which, while beginning in the family, also took place in the school and other youth serving institutions. (pp. 26-27) As juvenile justice faces its second century, the lessons learned from the first 100 years reflect the need for a balanced approach to services for children and families. Maloney, Romig, and Armstrong (1988) observed that the swinging pendulum of social thought that shaped juvenile justice policy in the late 1960's and early 1970's was directed by liberals who reacted to the perceived shortcoming and failure of the court, which committed large numbers of juveniles to institutions for indefinite periods of time in the name of treatment. The response was a shift in corrections policy, choosing community-based programming and closing juvenile training schools in some States. This push led to a substantial deemphasis on procedures and activities related to concerns for offender accountability and community protection. Proponents of this philosophy wanted to decriminalize, deinstitutionalize, and divert youth from the juvenile justice system. In response to criticism that the movement was soft on crime and a perception that serious crime by juveniles was increasing, the pendulum was beginning to swing toward law enforcement and harsher sanctions by the 1980's. State legislatures responded by passing reforms that permitted mandatory sentencing and automatic waiver-transfer to criminal court jurisdiction. In describing these changes, Hutzler (1982) suggested that some of these legislative responses were designed to remove certain offenders from the protection of the juvenile system to deal with them as criminals in criminal court. However, other legislative approaches altered the basic principles of the juvenile justice system, requiring the juvenile court to adopt criminal justice policies and to treat certain offenders as criminals within the juvenile justice system. Some observers noted that treatment and rehabilitation, judicial discretion, and individualized justice were dismissed in favor of a just deserts philosophy that included a mechanical, mass handling of juvenile offenders who were defined primarily in terms of legal categories (Maloney, Romig, and Armstrong, 1988). Different Issues or Different Juveniles? Many experts in juvenile justice say that the critical issues facing juvenile detention have remained somewhat constant (i.e., overcrowding, lack of adequately trained staff, lack of programs, and inadequate financial resources). Others note that during the past few decades, the role of juvenile detention in the juvenile justice system has changed. In particular, the past several years have seen a renewed emphasis on juvenile detention by OJJDP and professional associations, such as NJDA and ACA. James Bell of the Youth Law Center warns, however, that the very nature of juvenile detention is fundamentally different because of changes in the population of detained youth. The changes in juvenile justice during the past three decades have altered the basic characteristics of today's detained youth. These youth are typically older, more aggressive, and more emotionally and developmentally troubled. They also are minorities charged with serious or violent offenses (Pecora, Dodson, Teather, and Whittaker, 1983:395). Juvenile corrections and probation are changing extensively as new punitive laws and guidelines are adopted across the country. The accompanying policies--which decriminalize status offenses, divert minor or first offenders, and provide community-based corrections for all but the most serious offenders--also increase the length of stay in correctional and detention facilities and ensure that those who are locked up are the most troubled and troublesome offenders (Pecora and Fraser, 1988). One review of the juvenile justice system identifies four challenges facing the future, and although each is significant, they combine to create an impending crisis for juvenile detention and corrections. These challenges include: o Frequency. The increased rate of referrals to the court for serious juvenile crime, including drug crimes and weapons offenses, has placed a strain on juvenile justice services (e.g., over-crowded institutions and excessive probation caseloads) to the extent that services and effectiveness are suffering. o Intensity. Because youth are more frequently using violence as a problem-solving strategy, the youth entering the juvenile justice system require additional, highly specialized programs and services. o Resources. The decreased financial resources available to juvenile justice agencies and institutions require them to offer more services with less funding. o Efficiency. Governmental systems are becoming less able to deliver effective services because of complexity and bureaucratic dysfunction (Roush, 1993b). Part II of this Desktop Guide describes the critical areas of practice for the juvenile detention professional, adopting a more balanced approach to detention services. Such an approach acknowledges the potential value of applying, to some degree, an entire set of principles--community protection, accountability, competency development and/or treatment, and individualized assessment and classification--in an attempt to define "best practices" (Huskey, 1994). In describing the balanced approach concept, Maloney, Romig, and Armstrong (1988) suggested that the particular circumstances of the delinquent act, the offender's culpability, and other social or psychological factors of the youth would play a determining role in how the system will respond. A policy decision to consider the possible relevance of each principle in each case is a significant step toward avoiding the extreme remedies characterizing both ends of the pendulum's swing. A New Paradigm? The balanced approach is a holistic perspective of juvenile justice interventions. Much of what is included in the balanced approach has a history of success, regardless of the dominant political philosophy. The balanced approach calls attention to the fallacy that the truth is the sole property of one philosophical or ideological perspective. Some would argue that the original goals and objectives of the juvenile court are as relevant today as they were in 1899 and that the past century has provided insight on how to implement these goals and objectives with maximum efficiency. Rethinking juvenile justice is a worthy endeavor, and it should be a priority for each new staff member to think critically about his or her job and how it affects youth. A Comprehensive Strategy Although the juvenile justice system is currently facing problems related to issues such as the impact of drugs, disproportionate numbers of minority youth in placement, overcrowding in public-sector treatment programs, and limited funding, the system is poised to respond and is committed to meeting the challenges that these problems represent. OJJDP has outlined a balanced strategy for delinquency prevention and intervention (Wilson and Howell, 1993). The strategy incorporates essential research findings and practitioner perspectives. It has encountered widespread support as a model for delinquency prevention and intervention. The strategy contains three components: general principles, prevention strategies, and intervention guidelines. General Principles The following general principles provide the framework for the delinquency prevention and intervention strategy: o Strengthen the ability of the family to fulfill its primary obligations to instill prosocial values in younger generations. o Provide family surrogates to nurture children when no functional family unit is available. o Support core social institutions (i.e., the school, religious institutions, and community organizations) in their role of developing capable, mature, and responsible youth. o Intervene immediately and effectively when delinquent behavior occurs in order to successfully prevent delinquent offenders from becoming chronic offenders. The movement within the adult criminal justice system toward greater severity of punishment and sanctions may have resulted from the failure to apply the classical criminological tenet that the effectiveness of punishment as a deterrent is more a function of its swiftness and certainty rather than its severity. o Identify and control the small group of serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders who have committed felony offenses or who have failed to respond to intervention and community-based treatment and rehabilitation services. Prevention Strategies Prevention strategies focus on the five categories that current research has identified as causes and correlates of delinquency: individual characteristics, family influences, school experiences, peer-group influences, and neighborhood and community. The following prevention strategies target each of these five categories: o Much of the difficulty with children can be traced to a decline in values and appropriate social skills. Prevention strategies must include the development of moral, spiritual, and civic values along with opportunities to acquire a variety of social and vocational skills. o Parents must be fully involved in the plan to help youth and must be accorded full partnership. Prevention programs must strengthen the family (National Coalition,1993). Interventions should be at the earliest point of impact in order to reduce negative family involvement factors, such as parental rejection, inadequate supervision, inconsistent discipline, family conflict, marital discord, physical violence, and child abuse (Christensen, Bowling, and Schauer, 1991). o Outside of the family, the school has the greatest influence on the lives of children and youth. Carbone (1989) maintains that education is rehabilitation for all at-risk youth. For this reason, prevention efforts should focus on increasing the attachments of youth to the school experience and to teachers through the following outcomes: reduction in the number of dropouts to the lowest level possible, reduction in the number of suspensions and expulsions, reassessment of truancy as a school-related problem, use of violence reduction programs, use of alcohol and other drug prevention programs, and development of alternative programs through school-linked services (Koppich and Kirst, 1993; and Jehl and Kirst, 1993). o Research indicates that delinquent behavior is strongly correlated with delinquent, drug-using peers and gang membership. In particular, gangs fulfill a very powerful need for belonging and affiliation. Prevention efforts must address peer-group influences, particularly gang membership (National Coalition, 1993). o Although children do not choose where they live, a safe environment is important. Neighborhood and community prevention programs should include safe havens for youth, neighborhood mobilization for community safety, drug-free school zones, church-sponsored afterschool programs and tutoring, recreation, mentoring, cultural activities, community and business partnerships, foster grandparents, job training, and apprenticeships for youth. It is important to underscore the job-related element of neighborhood and community intervention. In the absence of meaningful employment, drug-related activities take on an employment characteristic. The sale of illegal drugs is an employment opportunity for many young people whose skill deficits prevent them from accessing legitimate jobs (Taylor, 1990). Intervention Guidelines The strategy's intervention guidelines include a system of graduated sanctions. Although the full description of these guidelines is more than can be covered in this section, OJJDP developed a manual for the implementation of the strategy (Howell, ed., 1995), and it is available through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Summary The rethinking of juvenile justice in the light of three decades of conflicting policies has led to: o A balanced approach to juvenile justice that is inclusive rather than exclusive of effective concepts, programs, and ideas and that recognizes the holistic nature of delinquency prevention by placing a greater emphasis on the family, community, meaningful employment, and aftercare services. o Greatly improved research capabilities that have facilitated the gathering of more accurate statistics and the establishment of an empirical, research-driven set of criteria for evaluating effectiveness principles. o The development of a continuum of services that more accurately meets the needs of the offender, while safeguarding community protection and providing cost-effective services. o A shift to a social competence model that includes (a) a developmental, ecological, and skill-based approach to working with the juvenile offender and (b) an emphasis on the identification of skill deficits associated with delinquency and on the effective matching of programs to remedy these needs. o The development and dissemination of effective program models (Roush, 1993a). In 1968, Robert Perkins, executive director of the Youth Study Center in Philadelphia, addressed his colleagues at the Pere Marquette Institute. He described how the Hennepin County (Minnesota) Juvenile Detention Center graphically interpreted the paradox of a balanced approach to good juvenile detention by adopting a pictorial symbol for the center's logo. Represented as a crest or seal, the symbol proclaimed, "Youth Detention Has Two Hands," and it displayed two hands--a vertical hand inscribed with the word "Control" and a horizontal hand inscribed with the word "Guidance" (Perkins, 1968:69). Endnotes 1 Much of the historical material regarding the reform movements and the origins of the juvenile court and probation is from the Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Probation Practice (National Center for Juvenile Justice, 1991) and Toward the Year 2000: A Blueprint for Excellence (Pennsylvania Juvenile Justice Task Force, 1991). Both are excellent resources and warrant special consideration. ------------------------------ Chapter 2 Juvenile Detention and the Law Juvenile detention is a key component of the juvenile justice system. One of the primary aims of juvenile justice is to separate juveniles from adults. Juvenile detention serves this function, providing separate buildings in which to house juveniles and a separate staff operating under a different set of guidelines. Furthermore, under modern theories of juvenile justice, as many juveniles as possible should be diverted from the formal court system, using detention only for those youth who need supervision. Knowledgeable, considerate, and humane individuals are needed to work with these youth. Detention staff have a great challenge. They must work with the most difficult youth, under difficult circumstances, and in a facility where the juvenile is being unwillingly detained. The juvenile caregiver must be familiar with law. First, the detention center is a component of the legal system and is governed itself by law. Laws provide the basic rules that define and authorize staff behavior in relation to the juvenile. Second, all of the minors who find themselves in detention are in the system because of alleged violations of the law. The legal system is about to make a decision that will have some impact on the lives of these minors. Detention staff often are in a position to explain the system to the youth. Furthermore, detention staff have a voice and an obligation to participate in that decisionmaking process. Each juvenile caregiver must learn as much as possible about the law. Because some people comprehend legal issues better than others, those staff and supervisors who are interested in law should be identified and contacted whenever legal questions arise. Law and Discretion Law is often viewed as the opposite of discretion. Yet, the juvenile justice system vests vast amounts of discretion in the various participants of the system. Police, probation officers, and judges all have a great deal of discretion in deciding which cases will be brought into the system and which manner will be used to handle them. Detention also requires a great deal of discretion. Detention intake staff in many communities are authorized to determine who is held and who is released from detention. When youth are placed in detention, staff have a voice in establishing the nature of programming and security needed for each youth. The simple fact is that the legal system cannot function without discretion. It would simply be too rigid. Furthermore, the whole idea of individualized justice, which is a hallmark of the juvenile justice system, is based on discretion. Juvenile justice practitioners need the flexibility to examine the individual's situation and make a determination that balances the minor's best interest against the interests of society. The solution to the law versus discretion tension is not to think of the terms "law" and "discretion" as opposites, but rather to view law as a means of controlling discretion. If both law and discretion are necessary in a properly administered legal system, the question then becomes, What is the right mix of discretion and law? Discretion must be recognized, but it also must be confined, structured, and checked. Controlling Discretion The most effective way to ensure the appropriate exercise of discretion is: o Hiring the best possible people who have been trained and who accept the philosophy of the juvenile justice system. o Developing policies and guidelines that authorize discretion, identify who may exercise discretion and when it may be exercised, and establish criteria and standards for exercising discretion. o Having a personnel system that allows for consultation and for monitoring and review of decisions. Procedures such as writing up unusual incident reports and obtaining a supervisor's permission are informal means of structuring and checking discretion. In many ways, the various stages of the juvenile justice system provide checks upon the discretion of others in the system. The discretion of the police is checked by the intake screening aspect of juvenile detention, and the juvenile court checks the discretion of both at a detention hearing. The purpose of this chapter is to give you, the new juvenile detention caregiver, information about the law so that you can do your job better. This information will help you identify the discretion you have and the limits of that discretion. One way to understand the law is to view it as a set of rules that confines, structures, and checks the behavior of individuals. The law establishes rights, responsibilities, and the means to enforce them. Your job is valuable to the legal system, and at the very least, a limited knowledge of the law is essential. Law may be defined as the rules that govern a person's behavior and decisions. Figure 1 is a list of the major sources of the rules governing detention. The juvenile caregiver should have general familiarity with the sources of law. Each of the sources will be discussed briefly in the section that follows. A more detailed description of the Juvenile Court Act and the laws governing liability will be given later in this chapter. ---------- Figure 1: Sources of Law (1) Policies and Procedures Manual of the Detention Center (2) Local Practices of the Juvenile Court (3) State Juvenile Court Act (4) State and Federal Laws Relating to Delinquency (5) Related Laws, Statutes, and Case Law ---------- Although the list includes formal sources of law, such as statutes, it starts with the local policies and procedures manual. The local policies and procedures manual is the most important resource about the concerns of detention. If your bosses (administrative personnel) are doing their job, the manual should be consistent with the more formal sources of law on the list. A good detention center must have written policies, and the staff should take the time to know them. Supervisors should be available to help staff interpret and follow the policies. Furthermore, the policies should be reviewed periodically by administrators and staff and revised as needed. Local Detention Policies and Procedures Manual The manual gives detention staff the rules that govern their day-to-day activities with youth. It defines who has discretion, provides a structure to exercise that discretion, and establishes a way to check that discretion. Policy manuals are basically authorizations for staff to take actions regarding youth and guidelines for these actions. For example, policies establishing criteria for admitting youth to detention illustrate ways to confine discretion. Staff case planning meetings and reviews of unusual incident reports also are examples of methods for checking and structuring discretion. If the manual is properly written and kept up to date, it should incorporate all of the formal sources of law that relate directly to the internal operations of a detention center. Obviously, it does not deal with those aspects of the juvenile justice system that are outside the control of detention. Furthermore, no manual can be complete, no matter how thorough. If a staff member thinks that a legal problem exists, he or she should ask senior staff or a supervisor about the problem. The manual also establishes standards of reasonable staff behavior. In situations concerning the liability of detention staff, courts often are asked to determine whether staff behavior was reasonable under the circumstances and whether the employee was undertaking an activity included in his or her job duties. In legal terms, the question is whether the employee is operating within the "course and scope" of employment. The procedures manual is the most important source for answering these questions. To minimize the risk of liability, detention staff should always follow the book. If a lawsuit is filed and if staff are engaged in authorized activities, reasonableness and "good faith" defenses can be raised. Furthermore, many detention centers will provide legal counsel and pay any resulting judgments if the employee was acting in the course and scope of employment. A more detailed discussion of liability issues appears later in this chapter. Staff should read the institution's policies and procedures manual carefully and be trained in standard operating procedures. The manual should be reviewed and updated periodically to address new developments in terms of legal responsibilities and in terms of good detention practices. All staff should have a voice in the review process. A detention center without a manual should develop one as soon as possible. Not having a manual does not mean that the center lacks procedures. It only means that they are not written down (which makes establishing what they are more difficult), and staff members have no clear guidelines to follow or to use for training. A center without written policies could suffer if a legal dispute arises. Local Practices of the Juvenile Court Detention staff must be aware of the local legal traditions and culture regarding juvenile detention and the juvenile justice system. Juvenile justice varies from county to county almost as much as it does from State to State. It also varies depending on the philosophy and values of the presiding juvenile judge. For example, some judges are more willing to use detention, while others are more supportive of diversion. Local practices and traditions will have a great impact on the role that detention plays in the juvenile justice system. Immense differences exist in the way detention is administered from county to county. These differences are particularly obvious in detention systems that are not administered by a statewide agency. Juvenile practice vests considerable discretion in the various people who make decisions about youth in the system. Juvenile judges have considerable flexibility in the way they decide cases and in their use of juvenile court resources. For a variety of reasons, the number of appellate cases interpreting juvenile laws is limited, and the likelihood of an appeal from any particular case is small. The juvenile judge in many systems is also the chief administrative officer and, as such, has a voice in the policies developed by probation, detention, and other court resources. Detention administrators should communicate periodically with the juvenile judge and other practioners in the juvenile justice system to minimize disagreement and conflicts that may arise over the appropriate use of detention. The community should have a consensus about the appropriate role of detention. The procedures manual should be revised to reflect this consensus and any changes in practice. Staff should be advised about any changes and should be encouraged to discuss local juvenile justice practices. Juvenile Court Act of the State The most important source of law--other than the procedures manual and local practice--is the juvenile court act. The juvenile court act outlines the process of how a case moves through the system and gives general guidelines to the various decisionmakers in the juvenile justice system. A copy of the juvenile court act of the State should be available to staff in each detention center, and a general familiarity with its terms and provisions, or at least those sections dealing with detention, should be required of all staff. Much of the remainder of this chapter will describe the typical juvenile court requirements. Because this chapter is written for a national audience, it does not address specific requirements, such as time limits and other issues that exist in each particular State. However, most juvenile court acts follow a chronological pattern and raise similar issues. Having access to a juvenile court act and reading it in conjunction with these materials will increase your understanding. At the end of this chapter is a list of questions that should be answered using the juvenile court act of your State. Some detention administrators and staff should have more extensive training on juvenile court practices and procedures. A few staff members who find law interesting can serve as resources for the rest of the staff. Retaining an attorney or paralegal who can keep detention administrators and staff apprised of juvenile court act changes might be helpful. A judge, a prosecuting attorney, or a public defender may serve this function. The juvenile court act is continually being interpreted by appellate courts, and legislative changes are common. These changes are available in a law library, in an annotated version of the juvenile court act, or in looseleaf services and journals published for juvenile justice practitioners. Some method should be established to keep administrators advised of these developments and to revise the procedural manual. State and Federal Statutes Relating to Delinquency Your State may have a Code of Corrections or a special statute dealing with detention. The State often enacts, by administrative rulemaking, standards and guidelines for detention. These guidelines cover topics such as physical space requirements, staffing requirements, and discipline and programming issues. These standards must be reviewed periodically. Often, some mechanism exists to have detention centers inspected to ensure compliance with these standards. The Federal Government has become involved with delinquency primarily as a funding source. One Federal statute directly involved with detention is the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA). This law provides States with funding for certain delinquency prevention programs but also requires States to create jail removal programs. As a result, most States have (a) programs to keep nondelinquent youth out of jails, lockups, and adult detention centers and (b) laws regulating the time and conditions under which delinquent youth can be held in local jails. (Generally, delinquent youth should be transferred to detention centers within a short time period.) Related Statutes Numerous other statutes and laws may have an impact on detention. The most important of these is the Criminal Code of the State. Most often, youth who find themselves in detention are there because of a violation of the criminal laws. Some familiarity with the elements of the various crimes would be helpful. Furthermore, youth are in some type of family situation, and knowledge of family law and the laws governing education and social welfare programs may be necessary. Finally, the laws of negligence and liability should be considered. A brief overview of the liability laws will be given later in this chapter. It is obviously impossible to become an expert on all of these laws, but some method should be found to keep staff current on major developments in the law. Staff also should be aware of the type of legal questions that may arise in any particular situation and should discuss these issues with more experienced staff or with supervisors who may know the answer or will know how to find the answer to the problem. The most basic advice to new staff is to recognize that the law is a complex subject and to be willing to ask questions. Juvenile Court Act Each State has adopted a juvenile court act. The juvenile court act of the State should be available and examined. The juvenile court acts of most States follow a chronological pattern that outlines the process from the earliest police contact to posttrial review. Most State juvenile court acts allow for an alternative to the adversary process model of the criminal justice system. The materials that follow review the history and philosophy of juvenile justice and describe those procedures of juvenile law that govern detention. Juvenile Court Philosophy Two basic models of juvenile justice exist--the due process model and the parens patriae model. Figure 2 illustrates these two concepts. The major differences between the two are the roles of the court and the judge. Although these two models are frequently viewed as opposites, in reality most juvenile justice practitioners have developed a philosophy that incorporates elements of both models. ----------- Figure 2: Basic Models of Juvenile Justice Due Process Model Traditional Court Model: Court intervenes only for good reasons (e.g., the commission of a crime) Parens Patriae Model Monarchical Court Model: Court perceives good and bad and provides services accordingly (e.g., the provision of social services) ---------- Due Process Model. The due process model is the traditional model of the court in this country. It is based on the premise that individuals, including children, have a right to liberty. They have the right to act freely without state intervention. The state may intervene in a person's life only if it can show valid reason. The commission of a criminal offense, if proven, is one such reason. Consistent with theories of adversarial justice, the court stands as a neutral arbitrator between the state and the child or family, demanding that the state prove at a hearing that intervention is necessary. The term "due process" is derived from the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which prevent state interference with life, liberty, or property without the "due process of law." Persons who view the court in due process terms frequently subscribe to classical "free-will" philosophy and believe that individuals make choices in life. One choice they make is to engage in criminal conduct. The purpose of a criminal justice system is to punish wrongdoers so that they will be deterred from criminal activities. The creation of the juvenile justice system is based on the belief that young people do not have the maturity and judgment to make sound choices. Consequently, they should not be held fully accountable for their actions. Lawyers and law enforcement officers often approach juvenile justice from this perspective. Parens Patriae Model. The parens patriae model is based on a different philosophy. The court in the parens patriae model is viewed more as a benevolent gatekeeper determining what needs exist and providing social services to children and their families. The court makes an investigation to determine if intervention is necessary and often administers the services in the form of probation or detention. The fact that the minor does not perceive these services as helpful is deemed irrelevant because as guardian of children, the court is acting in the best interest of the child and society. The phrase parens patriae is Latin for "parent the king." It is based on the medieval doctrine that the king--in modern terms, the state or government- -has the duty to protect children and become the guardian of children and other less fully competent individuals. To this day, minors who are adjudicated as delinquents in juvenile court are referred to as wards of the court in many States. Persons who subscribe to the parens patriae model often approach juvenile justice from a philosophical position of determinism. They see the child as controlled by the environment and often stress the underlying causes of crime, such as poverty, lack of family support, or poor educational opportunities. They believe that children not only have rights, but needs, such as protection, which enable the child to develop into a sound and secure adult citizen. The goal of the juvenile justice system is to give minors the opportunity, guidance, and services necessary to allow the maturation and developmental processes to function. Social workers and others in the helping professions often approach juvenile justice from the parens patriae model. Balancing the Role of the Court The original juvenile court attempted to balance these two views of its role. However, the balance switched heavily toward the parens patriae model by the 1950's, and the focus of the court was on providing services and helping youth. The juvenile court literature even spoke in terms of trading rights for care. Unfortunately, the services have never been given sufficient funds. Rather than receiving the best of both worlds, youth were receiving the worst--neither the services nor the rights. This emphasis on services without requiring a neutral decisionmaker to review the case ultimately brought discredit upon an extreme parens patriae model. Today, as a result of several Supreme Court cases and renewed interest in children's rights, the due process model has been brought into balance. Modern juvenile court acts once again blend the due process model with the parens patriae model. The most important element of this blending is the separation of adjudication and the dispositional hearing. Prior to an adjudication and a determination of delinquency, the youth is entitled to the safeguards of the due process model. After a finding of delinquency, court procedures tend to be less formal, and parens patriae thinking is more prevalent. Because the greatest use of detention is prior to adjudication, the due process rights of the minor must be given priority. However, this division between adjudication and disposition is not absolute. Many young people are diverted from the juvenile justice system and receive informal dispositions, such as station-house adjustments. Because they are voluntary, these informal programs eliminate the need for a due process hearing. Likewise, dispositional hearings and hearings held after disposition are not without some aspects of due process. Placing a youth in detention prior to adjudication is designed to hold that youth for an adjudication, not for punishment. Because no due process hearing has been held, punishment is inappropriate. Due process also requires a hearing to determine if placing a youth in detention while awaiting adjudication is necessary. At a detention hearing, the state has the burden of introducing evidence to establish the need for detention. This detention hearing must comply with due process standards and must be held on relatively short