CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

A correctional facility is any residential facility with construction fixtures and/or staffing models designed to restrict the movements and activities of juveniles or other individuals. It is used for placement, after adjudication and disposition, of any juvenile adjudicated of having committed an offense, or of any other individual convicted of a criminal offense.

In October , 2000, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention administered the first-ever comprehensive census of juveniles in correctional facilities. The Juvenile Residential Facility Census (JRFC) determined that, on any given day, there are some 3,600 correctional facilities housing more than 110,000 juvenile offenders throughout the United States (Sickmund, 2002).

The basic characteristics of these 3,600 facilities—including their size, structure, security arrangements, type of programming, and ownership—are highly variable. Within a single State or jurisdiction, secure correctional programs may range from military-style boot camps to large, State-run training schools, to intimate family-style group homes.

Research has shown that the most effective secure corrections programs include only a small number of participants and provide them with individualized services (Howell, 1998). Missouri, for example, has achieved “exceptional” reductions in juvenile recidivism by abolishing its State reform school and replacing it with a network of small group homes emphasizing personal attention and therapeutic treatment (Mendel, 2003).

Lipsey (1998) performed a meta-analysis of 83 studies of interventions with institutionalized juvenile offenders and found that “recidivism effect sizes for the different treatment types were most consistently positive for interpersonal skills interventions and teaching family homes.” Behavioral, community-based residential, and multiple service programs also appeared to reduce recidivism, but the small number of studies in each category makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions.

Large, congregate-care facilities, such as training schools and boot camps, have not proven especially effective at reducing recidivism (Howell, 1998). In the words of one juvenile justice expert, “virtually every study of recidivism among youth sentenced to juvenile training schools finds that at least 50 to 70 percent of offenders are arrested within 1 or 2 years after release” (Mendel, 2003).

Despite such statistics, most incarcerated youths are still sentenced to traditional training schools and other large correctional units housing 100 to 500 individuals. Many of these large, congregate-care facilities suffer from overcrowding and unsafe conditions. A national survey of juvenile detention and correction facilities conducted by Abt Associates in the early 1990s found that more than 75 percent of youth incarcerated nationwide are housed in facilities that violate Federal standards related to living space. Such crowded conditions are also associated with high rates of injury and suicidal acts (Parent, 1994).

Recent studies also show that many of the Nation's juvenile offenders are being kept in overcrowded, secure facilities, even though they could be safely maintained in less secure settings. In 1999, only one fifth of all juvenile offenders had committed a violent felony offense, but 70 percent of these youths were held in locked facilities (as opposed to the staff-secure facilities favored in national accreditation standards).

In recent years, there has been a spate of media reports about the deteriorating conditions in “juvenile jails,” and Amnesty International, the Coalition for Juvenile Justice, and the American Bar Association have all called for significant reform of the country's juvenile correctional facilities (Hubner and Wolfson, 1999). Within the juvenile justice system, there has been a concomitant emphasis on the need for graduated sanctions and “alternatives to detention” that will keep juveniles out of secure facilities for as long as is safely possible (Howell and Lipsey, 2004).

Group Home

A group home is a residential placement for juveniles that operates in a homelike setting in which a number of unrelated children live for varying time periods. Each home typically serves 5 to 15 clients, who are placed there as result of a court order or through interactions with public welfare agencies. The homes may have one set of “house parents” or a rotating staff. Some therapeutic or treatment group homes also employ specially trained staff to assist children with emotional and behavior difficulties.

Group homes of many different kinds have been a popular intervention for juvenile offenders ever since Father Flanagan established his famous Boys Town in 1917. However, there is little research to support their overall effectiveness (Daly, 1996). Indeed, many researchers believe that small group settings that encourage fraternization among delinquents may actually promote disruptive and deviant behavior (Dishion et al., 1996). In the 1980s and 1990s, some group homes were also accused of fostering physical and sexual abuse (Rosenthal, 1991).

The dominant treatment approach being used in therapeutic group homes today is the Teaching Family Model, which was developed at the University of Kansas in the 1960s and replicated at Boys Town in the early 1970s (Phillips et al., 1974). This model relies heavily on structural behavior interventions and highly trained staff who act as parents and live in the group homes 24 hours a day. Other group homes rely more on individual psychotherapy and group interaction (Surgeon General, 1999).

Studies suggest that adolescents placed in therapeutic group homes do experience positive effects on their behavior while they are in homes , but there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that treatment outcomes are sustained over time (Kirigin et al., 1982). In addition, two controlled studies (Rubenstein et al., 1978; Chamberlain and Reid, 1998) comparing the benefits of therapeutic group homes with therapeutic foster homes have clearly demonstrated that foster homes offer several important advantages (lower costs in the first study; fewer criminal referrals and more frequent reunifications with families in the second study).

One explanation for the disappointing long-term outcomes of therapeutic group homes may be the psychological profiles of their clients. Group homes are frequently seen as the “last stop” before secure detention, and the youth referred to them often suffer from serious mental or behavioral problems that have prevented successful placement in foster care (Surgeon General, 1999). To increase the likelihood of long-term positive effects, it is important for group homes to be seen as only one step in a continuum of care—a continuum that emphasizes sustained treatment after discharge from the home (Lipsey and Howell, 2004).

Shelter Care

Shelter care provides temporary residential care to youths who are in need of short-term placement outside the home (usually 1 to 45 days). Shelter care facilities are generally nonsecure or staff secure.

In 1991, the National Association of Social Workers surveyed 360 agencies that provide basic shelter, crisis intervention, and transitional living services to runaway and homeless youths and determined that about 60 percent of these youths nationwide were victims of physical and sexual abuse by parents. Almost 30 percent of the youth had problems with alcohol or substance abuse, and more than 40 percent of them came from families with long-term economic problems (NASW, 1991).

Teaching Family Home

A teaching family home (TFH) is a long-term, residential facility for troubled youth, featuring a family teaching team in a family-style living environment. The family teaching team generally consists of a married couple who provide intervention strategies and create daily opportunities for teaching, learning, and skills-building.

The TFH model was originally developed in 1968 at the University of Kansas and was first implemented at Achievement Place, a community-based group home for juvenile offenders (Phillips et al., 1974). Since that time, the program has been modified and adapted to fit a variety of populations and settings, but the basic structure of the program remains unchanged.

Youths who enter the program are always subjected to a series of rigorous skills tests to determine their social, behavioral, and academic skills and deficits. Using this assessment tool as a guide, the teaching-family parents work to correct the youth's behavioral deficits with a highly structured system of rewards and punishments. Youths who apply themselves to their lessons and behave appropriately are rewarded with social approbation and a series of tokens that can be redeemed for special privileges (such as a night of television). Youths who misbehave or fail to meet required standards are awarded demerits and lose privileges. As youths progress through the system, they are rewarded with greater autonomy and less-structured routines. In addition, everyone in the program participates in the home's “self-government”—assisting in the development of family rules and the arbitration of peer disputes (Ohio Teaching Family Association [OFTA], 2003).

Since its introduction in the 1960s, the teaching family home model has been reproduced at numerous group homes, including Boys Town, where it was successfully replicated in the 1970s (Fixsen and Blasé, 2002). According to one study, more than 5,000 children, families, and adults with special needs currently participate in TFH-style programs every day (OFTA, 2003).

Although the long-term impact of TFHs on juvenile recidivism has never been clearly demonstrated, their short-term positive impact on youths' social skills, peer relations, and academic performance is well documented in numerous studies (Lipsey, 2000; Kirigin, 1982; Levitt, 1981).

Much of the success of the program is attributed to its tremendous emphasis on highly skilled service providers. Teaching Family parents must undergo a formal, 12-month training process to qualify as TFH practitioners. They must also undergo a rigorous review process and be recertified by the Teaching Family Association every year.

Therapeutic Community

A therapeutic community (TC) is a drug-free residential program that provides a highly structured, prosocial environment for the treatment of drug abuse and addiction. It differs from other treatment approaches by using the community as the key agent of change. Treatment staff and recovering clientele interact in both structured and unstructured ways to influence attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors associated with drug use. In addition, TC uses a staged, hierarchical model in which treatment stages are related to increased levels of individual and social responsibility. The sense of a strong, structured hierarchical environment—in which all participants and staff have specific tasks, responsibilities, and rights—is crucial to the success of most TC programs (Mello et al., 1997).

Meta-analyses of TC programs in the general population have consistently supported the efficacy of TC treatment protocols for substance abusers, especially when treatment has been continued over long periods of time (Garrett, 1985; Andrews et al., 1990; Lipsey, 1991). However, TC programs for incarcerated youth face special challenges. Many TC programs in both adult and youth jails have not been properly implemented because of failure to garner adequate institutional support from correctional facility administrators (Castellano & and Beck, 1991). To avoid disputes over disciplinary authority and funding, TC programs in correctional facilities must make sure that their procedures and activities do not conflict with the general schedule and routine of the larger institution (Cowles and Dorman, 2001). Providing adequate aftercare and involving participants' families is also critical in treating juvenile offenders, since research indicates that juvenile substance abusers are most likely to experience relapse within the first 6 months after treatment and reentry (DeLeon, 2000; Sealock et al., 1997).

Recent studies have demonstrated that properly implemented TC programs for juvenile offenders can have a significant impact on both the substance abuse and recidivism rates of incarcerated youth. A recent analysis of Maryland's CREST program indicates that the program significantly increases participants' likelihood of remaining drug free (Mello, 1997). Two analyses of Arizona's Amity TC program (which features an intensive aftercare component) have also found a marked decrease in both substance abuse and rearrest rates for up to 24 months after leaving prison (Mullen et al., 1991; Wexler, 1999). Subjects in the Wexler study had a rearrest rate of 26.9 percent versus a rate of 40.9 percent for nontreatment offenders. Results such as these suggest that TC programs, while challenging to implement in many correctional settings, are nevertheless worth further investigation and refinement.

Wilderness Camp

Wilderness camps or challenge programs generally are residential placements that provide participants with a series of physically challenging outdoor activities, such as backpacking or rock climbing. These programs vary widely in terms of settings, types of activities, and therapeutic goals. But their treatment components are grounded in experiential learning that advocates “learning by doing” and facilitates opportunities for personal growth. Such programs have their origins in two distinct sources: forestry camps for youthful offenders and the Outward Bound model, originated in Wales during the Second World War (Roberts, 2004).

While military-style boot camps have consistently failed to demonstrate any positive impact on juvenile offenders' recidivism rates, the data on wilderness camps is much more encouraging. Lipsey's meta-analysis (2000) of 29 different studies of wilderness programs, involving more than 3,000 juvenile offenders, indicates that program participants experience recidivism rates that are about 8 percentage points lower than comparison subjects (29 percent versus 37 percent). However, these moderately positive results do not reflect the marked inconsistencies in individual program results.

Lipsey (2000) found that programs involving a combination of “relatively intense physical activity and therapeutic enhancement such as individual counseling, family therapy, and therapeutic group sessions” were especially effective, while those that involved less physically challenging activities and little or no therapeutic content had a less significant impact.

One of the best-known and most studied wilderness programs in the United States is VisionQuest. Founded in 1973, this national program provides alternatives to incarceration for serious juvenile offenders. VisionQuest youths typically spend 12 to 15 months in various challenging outdoor impact and therapeutic treatment programs. A normal treatment course often includes a 3-month stay at a wilderness orientation program (where the youth live in tepees or comparable primitive conditions); a 5-month adventure program (during which juvenile offenders can embark on wagon train odysseys, cross country biking trips, or ocean voyages); and a 5-month community residential/therapeutic program. The program also features an aftercare program called HomeQuest that offers support to youth and families upon reentry.

Controlled studies of VisionQuest have consistently demonstrated its efficacy in lowering participants' recidivism rates. One evaluation, performed by the RAND Corporation in the 1980s (Greenwood and Turner, 1987), found that VisionQuest graduates consistently outperformed a control group from a conventional correctional facility, despite the fact that the VisionQuest group contained more serious offenders. When differences in group characteristics were statistically controlled, VisionQuest youth were about half as likely as subjects in the control group to be rearrested after 1 year (Howell, 1998).

Despite such promising results, numerous questions about the efficacy of wilderness programs remain unanswered. Lipsey's meta-analysis (2000) found that the length of wilderness programs seemed to have an inverse effect on treatment results (i.e., the longer the program, the less chance of its achieving statistically significant results on treatment outcomes). Such a finding seems counterintuitive and puzzling in light of the success of some long-term programs, such as VisionQuest.

Lipsey (2000) and others have also noted that, thus far, the majority of participants in wilderness programs have been white male juvenile offenders. Little is known about the program's effectiveness with African-Americans, Hispanics, and females. Additional research is still required to conclusively demonstrate the efficacy of such programs across different treatment types and diverse target populations (Fuentes, 2002).

Residential Treatment Centers

Residential treatment centers (RTCs) are residential treatment facilities offering a combination of substance abuse and mental health treatment programs and 24-hour supervision in a highly structured (often staff-secure) environment. They usually house youth with significant psychiatric or substance abuse problems who have proved too ill or unruly to be housed in foster care, day treatment programs, and other nonsecure environments, but who do not yet merit commitment to a psychiatric hospital or secure corrections facility. Although such treatment centers must be licensed by the State, they are frequently run by private, for-profit and nonprofit institutions, and the treatment approaches and admissions criteria used by RTCs vary widely from State to State and institution to institution.

Types of treatment offered may include psychoanalytic therapy, psychoeducational counseling, behavioral management, group counseling, and medication management, while settings range from extremely structured, hospital-like environments to group homes and halfway houses. As with most treatment options where there is enormous diversity in the type and quality of services being offered, the literature regarding RTCs shows mixed results. A summary of research findings prepared by the Surgeon General in 1999 reports that “in the past, admission to an RTC has been justified on the basis of community protection, child protection, and the benefits of residential treatment.” However, numerous studies have demonstrated that equally efficacious results can be achieved in less restrictive, community-based settings (Joshi and Rosenberg, 1997). Mental health and substance abuse professionals have also repeatedly called for clearer admission criteria for RTCs, to avoid incarcerating youth in inappropriate settings or with inappropriate and potentially dangerous peer groups.

Despite such mixed results, at least some privately run RTCs (especially those with intensive aftercare programs) do appear to produce a positive impact on at-risk youth and juvenile offenders. A 1992 comparison of 254 graduates of Ohio's Paint Creek Youth facility and a comparable control group found that recidivism for the treatment group remained lower than that of the control group for up to 24 months (Gordon, 2000). A National Council on Crime and Delinquency study of the first 56 graduates from Maryland's Thomas O' Farrell Youth Center (TOYC) also showed a “dramatic decline” (77 percent) in the number of offenses by youth following their stay. Although the TOYC study was not controlled, OJJDP's Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Offenders concludes that “these findings are promising in that they compare favorably with that of the best community-based youth corrections nationwide.”

References