Juvenile Justice 1
Running Head: JUVENILE JUSTICE
The Hidden Closets of Juvenile Justice:
An Examination of Rehabilitation in the
District of Columbia’s Juvenile Detention Centers
Christina Campbell and Natalie Young
Georgetown University
Juvenile Justice 2
Abstract
This study examines the issues surrounding juvenile justice and the extent to
which juvenile detention centers rehabilitate youth. Researchers examined previous
literature on the subject and used that background as a basis to develop research concerns
about the treatment and services provided in juvenile detention centers. Researchers
focused specifically on Oak Hill Youth Center in Laurel, Maryland as a case study.
Researchers analyzed archival data and interview transcripts with key stakeholders to
generate a summary of problems surrounding effective rehabilitative services at Oak Hill.
In their analysis, repeated themes arose such as poor facilities, abuse by staff, lack of
security, unqualified staff, and inadequate health and educational services. From these
themes, theoretical constructs were formed regarding what is necessary for successful
rehabilitation of youth. Researchers recognized that punitive detention centers are
inadequate to rehabilitate youth and discovered the importance for more rehabilitative
approaches and services.
Juvenile Justice 3
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and support of our
advisor, Dr. Jennifer Woolard. We are honored to have been able to work with her over
the past two years, and hope to stay in contact with her as we leave Georgetown and
embark on the next stage of our lives.
We would like to thank our families who have shown us unrivaled support and
love throughout this thesis journey and throughout our college experience. We both feel
so indebted to you all. And to Caroline Cunningham, a loving fan and careful editor,
thank you for providing us with moral support and thoughtful suggestions throughout the
writing process.
To Professor Marullo, thank you for guiding us through this process over the past
two semesters and for believing in our project.
Finally, we would like to express our gratitude for the juvenile justice advocates
that graciously devoted their time to our thesis. Thank you.
Juvenile Justice 4
Table of Contents
I. The Problem and Setting…………………………………………………………… 5
II. Review of Related Literature……………………………………………………... 10
III. Data and Methodology…………………………………………………………… 29
IV. Analysis……………………………………………………………………………. 35
V. Results……………………………………………………………………………… 36
VI. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………. 48
VII. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….. 53
VIII. References………………………………………………………………………. 55
IX. Appendices………………………………………………………………………... 58
Juvenile Justice 5
I. The Problem and Setting
The Statement of the Problem and Subproblem
Juvenile delinquency is a persistent and pervasive social problem in America.
Juvenile crime represents over 40% of the total arrests for major crimes, including
murder, rape, and burglary (Hawkins and Weis 1985), and the increasing rate of juvenile
incarceration mirrors that of adult incarceration. This predominantly disadvantaged
population, which has been largely ignored by both the written law and society, creates
great social and economic costs for the United States. The root causes of juvenile
delinquency need to be addressed, the funds need to be made available to devise an
effective approach to rehabilitation, and provide these programs to a severely
underserved youth population.
The District of Columbia has high rates of juvenile delinquency and, not
surprisingly, there are far more crimes committed in minority and low-income
neighborhoods than in the wealthy ones. With that said, much of the District consists of
largely urban and disadvantaged areas. With high rates of unemployment and poverty,
and without family and neighborhood support, many juveniles turn to crime simply as a
way to survive. It is ironic to note that prison time provides street credibility to juvenile
defenders instead of alienating them from society (Miller and Rawley 1994).
The juvenile justice system in the District of Columbia has responded to
legislative decisions that have made a transition from an emphasis on rehabilitation to a
more punitive focus, marked by stricter laws and harsher punishments. In the late 1860s,
during the Progressive Era, a separate juvenile justice system was created in the United
States. This system encouraged rehabilitation based on the specific needs of individual
Juvenile Justice 6
youth. As juvenile crime and violent crime increased over time, with a dramatic rise in
the 1980s and 1990s, courts adopted a more punitive approach. Recently, this has shifted
back to a rehabilitative stance focused on community-based resources, counseling, and
other mental health services. This shift is primarily due to the increased application of
research on juvenile crime in the court system, in addition to a greater awareness of the
problems in the juvenile justice system among community members and advocates.
Various factors have influenced these transitions in the juvenile justice system.
For example, media coverage highlights specific issues and influences public opinion;
policy implementation determines the role of the court in juvenile justice; public opinion
influences legislative decisions; and the level of funding and resources dictates the
amount of rehabilitative treatment. In order to better understand the underlying reasons
for this transformation and evolution, the specific factors, outlined above, were
researched and analyzed. The problems faced by Oak Hill Detention Center in Laurel,
Maryland represent many of the larger issues that plague the juvenile justice system, not
just in Washington DC but across the country.
Thesis Statement
Using an exploratory and qualitative approach, and focusing on the history of the
Oak Hill Youth Detention Center, this research project generated a summary of the
transitions in the juvenile justice system. The researchers believed that factors such as
the media perception, policy implementation, and accessible funding and resources, play
an influential role in how the system is implemented. Through interviews and archival
research, theoretical constructs -- public policy, media, public opinion, funding and
Juvenile Justice 7
resources, administration and staff, and community alternatives -- surfaced and proved to
be significant in our study.
The Need of the Community Being Addressed in this Research
The majority of youth offenders in Washington live in minority, low-income
neighborhoods. They attend poor schools, and have few educational or recreational
resources. They come from disadvantaged communities that need to have their
experiences, voices, and opinions heard by the government and the public, but rarely do.
The communities that seem to foster juvenile crime and delinquency do not have the
resources to provide for their youth in constructive ways.
In 2000, the District of Columbia reported that 20% of the population was in
poverty (32% children in poverty), 22% did not have a high school diploma, and 52% of
families with children were headed by a single female. It is important to note that in
Ward 3, a traditionally affluent area of DC, only 7.5% of the population was in poverty
(2.9% children in poverty), only 4% did not have a high school diploma, and there was
only 12% female-headed families with children. In Ward 8, 36% of the population was
in poverty (47% children in poverty), 34% did not have a high school diploma, and 68%
of the families with children were run by a single female. These staggering statistics
speak directly to the overwhelming need of these communities for funding and proper
education, as well as opportunities to create stronger job markets and family structures
(NeighborhoodInfo DC).
Juvenile Justice 8
Delimitations and Definitions
This project is limited by the dearth of research and resources that have been
devoted to this topic in the past. The issue of juvenile justice has traditionally lacked the
funding to promote greater participation from people who are in a position to enact
positive changes in a deeply flawed system.
Several definitions are key to this research surrounding juvenile justice in the
District of Columbia.
Oak Hill Youth Detention Center, opened in 1967 in Laurel, MD. This facility
housed DC’s juvenile delinquents until the spring of 2009, when it was closed due
to evidence that the youth population there was being treated in an inhumane way.
New Beginnings Youth Center, a new $46 million dollar facility, opened in Laurel,
MD to replace Oak Hill in response to the Jerry M. litigation. The facility
encourages delinquent youth to engage in education and counseling resources,
and helps the juvenile justice system move away from punishment and towards
rehabilitation.
The Jerry M. lawsuit, filed in 1985 by the Public Defender Services and the
American Civil Liberties Union, criticized the poor treatment and resources given
to youth detained at the Oak Hill Youth Center. The complaint focuses on the
ineffective education and job training; incompetent medical and mental health
treatment; and the poor recreational and community resources afforded to the
delinquent youth population. In addition, the Jerry M. litigation notes the
increasing violence in the facility, and the presence of unqualified staff.
Juvenile Justice 9
Importance of Work
This research is important because it provides a forum for the juvenile justice
system, and the subproblems and influences associated with it, to be recognized and
understood. It allows various stakeholders in the system -- from lawyers, politicians,
non-profit leaders, and academics to single mothers and delinquent youth -- to voice their
opinions and share their perspectives in a constructive manner.
In addition, juvenile crime and detention center costs are very expensive.
Improving the system is not only a moral imperative, but it saves valuable resources for
cities that face severe budget cuts. In other words, more money for rehabilitation would
mean less money needed to incarcerate juvenile offenders.
This research will provide a theory of change. It outlines the most important
factors for change in the juvenile justice system, as well as target the areas that are in
most need of improvement. The results act as an example for other jurisdictions that
want to move towards juvenile rehabilitation.
Juvenile Justice 10
II. Review of Related Literature
Introduction
The juvenile justice system in America has been through several stages of
development. In recent years, it has undergone substantial transitions that have occurred
as a result of reforms made to revive the original purpose of juvenile justice -- the
purpose of bringing “individual justice” and rehabilitation to the core of the system
(Mennel 1983; Healy and Bronner 1930). While there is much historical literature
outlining this evolution, there is very little research on the reasons behind this
transformation. This review of relevant literature looks specifically at the available
research on juvenile detention centers in order to show the negative effects of taking a
punitive approach in juvenile justice. It begins with an historical review in order to put
the rise of detention centers in context. The paper then goes on to discuss specific issues
within juvenile detention centers and outlines their impact on rehabilitation. The aim is
to use the available data on detention centers to demonstrate the transformation of
juvenile justice, from a rehabilitative to a punitive approach, and call attention to specific
factors that have hindered the rehabilitation process.
Changes in the juvenile justice system reflect national trends in juvenile
delinquency and trace America’s response to these trends. In the past three decades, rates
of juvenile delinquency have increased and, as a result, policymakers have established
more severe punishments for juvenile offenders that reflect both a more conservative
political environment and a lack of financial resources to promote a rehabilitative
approach. With the rise in juvenile delinquency, confinement of juveniles in detention
centers increased; in the ten-year period between 1977 and 1987, the number of juveniles
Juvenile Justice 11
in detention centers increased five-fold (Steketee 1989). The role of juvenile detention,
which is defined as “the temporary and safe custody of juveniles who are accused of
conduct subject to jurisdiction of the court who require a restricted environment for their
own or the community's protection while pending legal action" (Roush 1996, p.33), is
one of the issues that causes the most conflict because it is not at all clear that juvenile
detention centers are contributing in any way to the rehabilitation of America’s youth.
Research on juvenile detention centers, while scarce, provides information on the
common problems of injustice within these centers. Multiple studies have identified the
issue of unsafe facilities and overcrowding (Barton and Schwartz 1994; Guarino-Ghezzi
and Loughran 2004; Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Research has also recognized minority
overrepresentation (Bolin and Jones 2005; Foster, Williamson, and Buchannon 2004;
Styve et al 2000), inadequate healthcare (Bolin and Jones 2005), and lack of education
services (Morrison and Epps 2002; Foster et al 2004) as central concerns of the juvenile
justice system. Finally, literature on the juvenile justice system often focuses on program
implementation and effectiveness at addressing rehabilitation, as well as diversion
techniques within the system (Greenwood 2008; Lipsey 2002; Simpson 1976; and Rojek
and Erickson 1982; Zimring 2000; and Styve et al. 2000). This review examines these
issues in greater detail and locates them within the larger struggle in the juvenile justice
system to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.
Historical Context
Juvenile justice has proved to be as reactive as it is proactive. Snyder and
Sickmund (1999) found that as early as 1825, there was a significant push to establish a
Juvenile Justice 12
separate juvenile justice system focused on rehabilitation and treatment. The process
continued to remain focused on individual rehabilitation, although funding and resources
continued to hinder its success. In the 1980s, in response to rising juvenile crime rates,
more punitive laws were passed. In the 1990s, the United States legal system took
further steps regarding transfer provisions that lowered the threshold at which juveniles
could be tried in criminal court and sentenced to adult prison. Furthermore, laws were
enacted that allowed prosecutors and judges more discretion in their sentencing options;
and confidentiality standards, which made juvenile court proceedings and records more
available to the public (Snyder and Sickmund 1999), were reduced. Simpson (1976)
found that other recent reforms, such as increased procedural protections and disposal of
cases without judicial review, transformed the juvenile system to afford the youth
offenders more legal rights along with rehabilitative treatment. The separate system was
created to help decrease recidivism rates among juveniles, and instill them with the
necessary values and education to advance in society. Without effective treatment
options, juvenile and adult punishments merge, and the need for separate, and different,
legal systems ceases to exist.
Kent v. United States (1966), In re Gault (1967), In re Winship (1970), and
McKeiver vs. Pennsylvania (1971) are landmark Supreme Court decisions that addressed
the role of due process and procedural rights in the juvenile system as they correspond to
those in adult criminal court. If the system is unable, or unwilling, to provide proper and
significant treatment to the juveniles, the entire premise of rehabilitation will cease to
exist. While the legal implications of these decisions create a foundation for juvenile
justice practices, it is important to understand the reality and consequent effects of their
Juvenile Justice 13
implementation. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) outlined these cases and their significance
-- respectively, they created stricter guidelines for adult transfers, enforced basic
constitutional rights, reaffirmed the right to innocence with proof of a reasonable doubt,
and made it so that trials by jury were not required in juvenile court. These cases, and
other U.S. Supreme Court cases around juvenile justice, made the juvenile court more
similar to the adult criminal court in some important ways while still keeping their
procedures and intent separate.
In their outline on the different perspectives and methods for dealing with juvenile
offenders throughout history, Guarino-Ghezzi and Loughran (2004) discuss four
viewpoints that help to explain the changes and progress made over time. When the
concept of juvenile justice was first introduced in America, the popular view was a liberal
one, in which people believed rehabilitation could be achieved by the state. This attitude
guided the approach of juvenile justice reformers and created the idea of the state as the
protector of juveniles. This was a time when “detention centers” were homes and the
juvenile court took on a mentoring approach to guiding at-risk youth (Mennel 1983). In
the 1960's, a push for deinstitutionalization was initiated, as evidenced by the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 that created community-based
alternatives to detention. Next came the combination of a Conservative and
Fundamentalist perspective on juvenile justice, which is one that still carries weight
today. This conservative view mirrored a belief that juveniles should be held accountable
to their criminal behavior. The Fundamentalist approach was popular during Reagan's
years in office and focused on promoting "family values". These four distinct viewpoints
are parallel with the changes seen in juvenile justice over time. Where juveniles were
Juvenile Justice 14
once sent to homes, they are now housed in large detention facilities, which is a result of
taking a more punitive approach toward youthful offenders.
The issues regarding juvenile detention centers today are an outgrowth of
increased incarceration in response to a Conservative approach. This conservative
approach came about as a response to the increase in juvenile delinquency in the 1970's
and 1980's, which increased with the rise of gang affiliation and the crack epidemic.
Conservatives in Congress claimed prevention programs were ineffective and called for
more strict punishment of juveniles. There was also a lack of financial resources
available for use by the juvenile justice system and those with a conservative mindset
were unwilling to dedicate funds to preventative programs. This approach became the
predominant view, and new policies were created to “punish” juveniles and make them
accountable of their criminal behavior.
Overcrowding
The increased incarceration rates within juvenile detention facilities led to
overcrowding -- Snyder and Sickmund (1999) found that 40% of public facilities were
overpopulated in 1995. In addition, Guarino-Ghezzi and Loughran found that in 1991
one-third of all public detention centers were housing populations that exceeded their
design capacity. The trend of overcrowding has been apparent for a while and has
appeared to grow even worse over the last two decades (Schwartz and Barton 1994).
Many researchers feel that overcrowding is the most dangerous component of the overall
ineffectiveness of America's juvenile detention facilities. Overcrowding contributes to
other problems, such as a greater lack of individualized services and the increased risk of
Juvenile Justice 15
violent behavior, and takes away from a rehabilitative environment – in sum, it causes
neglect of individual juveniles. When facilities become overcrowded, juveniles are
housed in increasingly smaller rooms, violent and non-violent offenders are housed
together, and injury rates increase (Parent 1994). There are several possible remedies to
address overcrowding, such as changing policies that regulate juvenile confinement, the
duration of confinement, and eliminating the use of large dormitories.
Minority Overrepresentation
Along with overcrowding, data collected from detention facilities showed issues
of overrepresentation, disparity, and discrimination. Snyder and Sickmund (1999) wrote
that overrepresentation is when a population that exists within the juvenile justice system
is not proportionate with that in the general population. For instance, 6 out of every 10
incarcerated juveniles are minorities. Disparity is the probability of one population
receiving an outcome that consistently differs from that of another population. For
example, females represent one out of every 17 juveniles in residential placement as
compared with males who represent 16 out of every 17 juveniles in residential placement
(Snyder and Sickmund 1999). Judges and prosecutors seem to divert girls from the
system and, although their crimes may be far less frequent and of a less violent nature, it
is possible that their gender is considered in the sentencing procedures. Lastly,
discrimination occurs when the juvenile justice system treats a population differently
based on their race, gender, ethnicity or socioeconomic status. It is important to note that
overrepresentation and disparity are not forms of discrimination. Research has shown
that there is a higher prevalence of youth crime in low-socioeconomic urban minority
Juvenile Justice 16
neighborhoods but there is no evidence that discrimination is a significant contributor to
this data.
Guarino-Ghezzi and Loughran (2004) found an overrepresentation of minorities
in the juvenile justice system, and felt that it was necessary to have comprehensive
treatment programs to "serve the minority youth in the community and thereby reduce the
over-reliance on state-run institutions" (84). Bolin and Jones (2005) found that minorities
were also overrepresented in areas of personal health problems -- they comprised 84% of
the youth sample with untreated tooth decay in their oral hygiene study. Much of the
literature surrounding juvenile justice acknowledges the high proportion of minority
youth in the system; detention facilities and rehabilitation programs need to create
programs that focus specifically on the needs of minority youth.
Minority youth constitute the largest population of detained youth. As the juvenile
justice system has evolved, and more juveniles have been detained in secure facilities, the
number of incarcerated minority youth has risen (Morrison and Epps 2002). In order for
the juvenile justice system to return to a rehabilitative stance, there needs to be an
increased awareness of the experiences and needs of these minority delinquents. The
juvenile justice system has not had the resources to focus on this group within the larger
population of detained youth. The juvenile justice system cannot move forward, and
cannot provide rehabilitative resources to its youth, until individual and group needs are
met within the system.
Healthcare
Healthcare services are woefully insufficient in juvenile detention centers. Bolin
Juvenile Justice 17
and Jones (2005) studied adolescents in a large urban detention facility in order to assess
oral health needs. They found that untreated decay plagued 87% of the juveniles being
detained, in comparison to a 20% national average. In addition, one study found that
only 43% of youth get health screening within their first hour of confinement (Parent
1994). Many of the youth who enter detention facilities come from impoverished or
disadvantaged backgrounds, and therefore have never received proper healthcare. Having
healthcare in detention centers creates an opportunity to improve the conditions of at-risk
youth and teach them how to maintain their health. Therefore, as a rehabilitative service,
healthcare is necessary in detention centers, although the studies show these services are
inadequate.
Other studies that have explored mental health and psychiatric care in detention
centers have found the same distressing results (Mohr, Gelles, and Schwartz 1999;
Costello 1949; Abram et al 2008). Psychological disabilities are highly prevalent in
detention centers and suicide rates for incarcerated youth are two to four times higher
than in the community at large (Abram 2008). Conditions associated with confinement,
such as solitary confinement, crowding, and separation from friends and family, can
increase the risk of suicidal behavior. In general, literature shows that detained youth
have a greater risk of suicidal behavior, and are plagued by mental and emotional
disorders. A study of conditions in juvenile detention facilities, conducted by Parent
(1994), found that only half of confined juveniles are in a facility that monitors suicidal
behavior at a rate compliant to national standards. While few large-scale studies have
examined mental healthcare in juvenile detention centers, the trends show an inadequate
amount of mental health services by trained individuals.
Juvenile Justice 18
Multiple recommendations on how to improve healthcare services for detained
youth have been proposed by researchers and policymakers. The first recommendation is
to increase the amount of research on healthcare in juvenile detention centers as a way to
assess the needs of detained youth and discover what is missing in the healthcare
programs. Abram et al (2008) also made the recommendation that psychiatric services in
detention centers need to be increased and staff needs to be trained in how to deal with
suicidal behavior. Parent (1994) found that over one-third of the health screenings being
conducted on intake at detention centers are by untrained staff, which again shows the
importance of properly training staff of juvenile facilities.
Healthcare is a major problem in juvenile detention centers and the lack of
adequate services prevents successful rehabilitation. As the evolution to a more punitive
approach has occurred, more youth have experienced the injustice of a failing healthcare
system within detention centers, mainly as a result from lack of funding for these
services. If youth are not given adequate healthcare services, then their most basic needs
are not being met. They will continue to have health and mental issues upon their
release, and it is unlikely that they will be successfully rehabilitated.
Education
In addition to the problems of overcrowding and insufficient healthcare, education
within juvenile detention centers is unsatisfactory. The intellectual functioning of youth
in detention facilities is in the range of low to low-average (National Institute on
Correctional Education study 2004). In regards to special education, the services
provided are not up to date and detained youth do not receive the services to which they
Juvenile Justice 19
are entitled (Morrison and Epps 2002). Morrison and Epps (2002) consider the idea of
learning disabled youth being warehoused in detention facilities as a result of insufficient
educational services. They examined three case studies of individuals who have
repeatedly been detained; each of these juvenile offenders had a documented history of
learning disabilities and no access to the appropriate educational services they needed to
succeed. Education is considered one of the main solutions to juvenile delinquency, but
it does not receive the attention it warrants in detention centers. Instead, because of the
multiple issues that face juvenile detention centers, academic growth is often ignored.
In order to successfully rehabilitate youth in America's juvenile justice system,
those who are detained need to receive educational services that improve their academics.
While it is difficult to focus delinquents on schoolwork (Costello 1949), as they have
often failed in school (Foster, Williamson, and Buchannon 2004), curriculum in juvenile
detention facilities must incorporate basic subjects of reading and writing, with electives
juveniles have strengths to address. Foster, Williamson, and Buchannon (2004) reported
on a successful reading program that was implemented at a juvenile detention. The
program resulted in quantitatively higher literacy rates and qualitatively greater affinity
for reading. This program recognized the learning disabilities of juveniles in the
detention center, and designed a program to address those disabilities, which is an
approach all juvenile detention centers should take.
Education continues to be a controversial issue within the juvenile justice system.
Juvenile delinquents should not be 'warehoused' as some have suggested, but instead
'rehabilitated'. The very center of rehabilitation rests in education because this youth
population must learn how to navigate and succeed in the world without resorting to
Juvenile Justice 20
crime. However, like healthcare, funding is needed to have successful programs in
education. If the juvenile justice system does not have the necessary funding or does not
feel that education programs are necessary, no changes can be made to the current
programs. As the juvenile justice system moves back towards rehabilitation, it will be
interesting to see the impact of this shift on educational opportunities and resources
afforded this detained population. Education is the foundation of rehabilitation.
Program Implementation and Effectiveness
There has been research aimed at understanding the success and failures of
rehabilitation in juvenile detention centers and, more specifically, the prevention and
intervention programs that are practiced and offered to at-risk youth and juvenile
offenders. Greenwood (2008) focused his research on delinquency-prevention programs
and explored the problems that these programs face, such as the inaccuracy of
measurement and inconsistency of analysis that affects the data. He also examined the
solutions to improve the effectiveness of these institutional programs, which are aimed at
reducing delinquency and recidivism and promoting positive and social development as a
contributing member of society. The reason that research on these issues is so scarce is
because there are differences in the methods used to evaluate them, which makes
comparing the effectiveness of these programs impossible. Studies involving random
assignment are difficult within the criminal justice system because research cannot
determine where an offender is placed. Instead of using statistical significance to report
effectiveness, researchers compare outcomes that can be highly subjective and
inaccurate.
Juvenile Justice 21
Greenwood also wrote about the Study and Prevention of Violence at the
University of Colorado. This study created the Blueprints for Violence Prevention that
certifies programs based on their effectiveness at addressing problem behaviors;
addressing the development of long-term skills to be used after an individual's time in the
program; and demonstrating its ability to be replicated across detention facilities and
staff. Other organizations and individuals have also attempted to perform statistical
meta-analysis evaluations in order to predict the level of effectiveness within a given
program. Mark Lipsey (1992) did not focus on specific programs but attempted to
identify strategies and methods for successfully implementing programs. Campbell
Corporation also tried to be the "clearinghouse" of program effectiveness but has been
unable to make any significant gains given the limited number of studies and programs.
(Greenwood 2008).
The reason that these programs, and their accurate measurements of effectiveness,
are so important is because they are the future of rehabilitation. In order for rehabilitation
to be achieved within the juvenile justice system, Greenwood (2008) suggests three
crucial improvements. First, there needs to be an increased focus on "dynamic or
changeable risk factors;" which includes improving a juvenile's skill set and deterring
them from substance abuse. Most importantly, incarcerated juveniles need to learn to
manage their behavior and form positive relationships with friends and family through
counseling and skills training. Next, Greenwood urges rehabilitation-focused detention
centers to focus on the individual needs of each youth offender. Lastly, high-risk youth
should be the focus of rehabilitative treatment. Rehabilitation has to be about protecting
all juveniles, not just the ones who can save themselves. Simpson (1976) proposes
Juvenile Justice 22
increased family bonds through counseling, introduction to the job market, and
participation in school-related activities. However, Greenwood does understand that
these goals face significant challenges -- there is a widespread lack of accountability
throughout the system, there is a lack of sufficient funds for these programs to survive,
there is a lack of any standardized system, as explained above, to compare and rate the
programs, and there is often a lack of support and motivation from detention staff.
These programs, and others like them, are crucial to the tenets of rehabilitative
treatment for juvenile offenders. As the juvenile justice system became more punitive,
these programs failed to achieve their original aims. In order to assure rehabilitation for
youth offenders, these programs need the attention and resources to allow this delinquent
population to succeed. These programs are controversial because they are under
researched and under funded, but they are important because they lay the foundation for
the transition back to rehabilitation within the juvenile justice system.
Diversion Techniques
Simpson (1976) concluded that rehabilitation would not succeed, given the
present system and resources, because juvenile detention centers carry stigmas that brand
this youth population as offenders. In addition, the informal and seemingly subjective
judicial process promotes self-labeling. In addition, there are inadequate resources such
as personnel, facilities, and psychiatrists to create a treatment oriented setting for
incarcerated juveniles. Simpson found that the current system labels the offender, and
not the "offending behavior". Rojek and Erickson (1982) preached the four D's in their
research -- "decriminalization, diversion, due process, and deinstitutionalization”. They
Juvenile Justice 23
found that diversion -- which include programs like shelter care, educational alternatives,
counseling, and medical treatment -- help protect the youth but are only helpful if they
decrease the rates of recidivism within the juvenile system, include a large communitywide referral and support network, and ensure lowered recidivism rates and improved
social behavior. Rojek and Erickson did not find that any of these diversion programs
proved to be any more or less effective than traditional detention facilities. Instead, they
saw them as a means of transferring juveniles to alternate programs which do not have
any significant effect given the lack of resources provided to them. The increase in
community-based programs may have brought more juveniles into the system, but it has
not proven to have any long-term effects on this juvenile delinquent population. While
community programs can be very helpful, the legislature has to ensure that these
programs have the resources to rehabilitate the juvenile instead of bringing them back
into the community that likely contributed to their initial crime.
Zimring (2000) introduced two important ideas into his research -- the
diversionary rationale and the interventionist rationale. Diversionary rationale explained
that the juvenile court would help children by doing 'less harm' than the adult criminal
court – even if diversionary techniques do not decrease recidivism rates, the programs
help by keeping youth out of the adult system, and providing them with a safe place to
spend their free time. The interventionist rationale believes that the diversion programs
could help protect the community and 'cure' the child. While these two rationales have
different beliefs about the effectiveness of rehabilitating the child, the blending seems to
be the basis of the juvenile justice system's rehabilitation efforts. Zimring (2000)
explained that the diversionary rationale more closely mirrors 'institutional reality' but
Juvenile Justice 24
interventionist techniques remain important as a preventative measure.
Boot camps have emerged as a popular replacement for juvenile detention
centers. Styve et al. (2000) found that boot camp facilities were perceived by the
detained youth to be much more therapeutic, structured, active, controlled, just, safe,
suited to preparing them for release, and likely to provide and demonstrate a better
quality of life. As a more transitional option, supporters feel that the boot camp
environment is more suited to rehabilitation. Critics, however, feel that the military style
that pervades a ‘boot camp’ facility could negatively impact the youth and return them
back to their communities with anger and resentment. However, the "perceptions do not
reflect the actual situation in regard to quality correctional programming" (Styve et al.
2000, 305) because the recidivism rates are not lower for youth detained in boot camps.
It is important to understand that those conditions, despite their results, felt more
constructive to the offending youth and therefore, some boot camp policies should be
incorporated into more traditional detentions. It is also important to note that boot camps
are a relatively new rehabilitation tactic, with newer staff and more accessible facilities.
Better-trained staff and more modern facilities might be the reason why these programs
are perceived as being more constructive, as opposed to the methodology they promote.
While boot camps may not be the ideal rehabilitative means for detained youth,
there are aspects of it that are crucial to the success of detention centers. Styve et al.
(2000) stated that the most important focus of any detention facility had to be
rehabilitation, but that youthful offenders also needed a safe environment for therapy,
access to family and friends to ease their reintegration into the community, and access to
individualized treatment. Rehabilitation is the most contested, and yet central, part of
Juvenile Justice 25
juvenile justice. While some diversion techniques are successful, there needs to be a
more uniform response to an increase in juvenile crime. This youth population needs to
engage with their communities and families. There has not been much research
conducted on intervention programs, and the methods of analysis are weak, but alternate
programs could be very useful for many delinquent youth as long as there is funding and
resources allocated to them. Researchers need to demonstrate that these programs are
effective, in order to justify additional funding, but they lack the research that could
document an appropriate level of effectiveness.
Diversion programs have become increasingly popular as the atrocities of
detention centers became more apparent to judges and probation officers. These programs
will become less vital if the detention centers are able to rehabilitate offending youth but
they are still important for community involvement. Simpson (1976) found that 'control
theory' helped explain why juveniles commit crimes -- since they often have little to no
attachment to their neighborhoods or commitment to their families, there is no deterrence.
The juveniles in the system need to feel connected and, in part, responsible for their
communities, and programs that promote this connection often empower them in ways
the detention center can’t, by giving them the opportunity to have positive experiences in
their communities instead of being detained at a secure facility. It will be interesting to
see if the number of diversion programs decrease as the rehabilitative focus of the
detention center increases and delinquent youth are provided with the educational and
emotional support that they need.
Juvenile Justice 26
Conclusion
After reviewing relevant literature, it is apparent that there are many inadequacies
in America's juvenile detention centers. There is a struggle for detention centers to find a
balance between protecting the safety of the public and addressing the individual rights of
youth by providing rehabilitative services. The recent trends seem to show an increase in
punishment and a diversion from rehabilitative services, a trend that is especially evident
in the significant increase of detained juveniles. In addition to not providing
rehabilitative services, detention as a “warehouse” can have further negative impacts on
juveniles. Leone, Zaremba, and Chapin (1995) mention the high correlation between
detention and subsequent findings of delinquency; Healy and Bronner (1930) discuss the
hardening of juveniles and mixing of violent and non-violent youth in detention facilities;
and O’Connor (1970) mentions the feeling of alienation for youth after exiting the
detention facilities. It is clear that there are many injustices that face juvenile detention
centers today.
Although these injustices are known, juvenile detention centers have received
little research attention as compared to other aspects of juvenile justice. There are several
omissions in the literature that prevent further investigation into the complex system that
detains and attempts to correct youth offenders. Some of these flaws in the literature
include a lack of studies on detention facilities, outdated studies, and small sample sizes
in studies. Detention centers have been called the "hidden closets of juvenile justice"
because there has not been substantial tracking of detention centers' success and the
research on the topic is limited. More research needs to be done on this topic in order to
better understand the current problems within detention centers so improvements can be
Juvenile Justice 27
made. Detention centers are an important part of the juvenile justice system, especially
as punitive sentencing guidelines increase juvenile incarceration rates, and the amount of
research on detention needs to respond proportionately. Injustices need to be recognized
and solutions need to be developed before more youth are neglected in juvenile detention.
America's juvenile justice system was created in order to create a path through
which youth could be given the services they need in order to be successful members of
society. Studies show that juvenile justice is not reaching its original goals with
detention centers -- the inadequacies in juvenile detention facilities provide little hope for
youth's successful transition back to society. Researchers, policy makers, and community
members must work to create funding and resources for this large population in need.
Minority and underprivileged neighborhoods must be targeted and approached, education
and healthcare must become fundamental requirements within the detention facilities, and
research must continue to be done to find the most effective way to punish, rehabilitate
and ultimately protect both today’s and tomorrow’s youth.
As it has now become apparent, detention centers provide an excellent example of
the changes that have occurred in the juvenile justice system; they mirror the
transformation of rehabilitation to punishment well. Juvenile detention centers are just
one way in which a punitive approach has negatively effected the successful
rehabilitation of juveniles within the system; they provide concrete examples of specific
factors that have historically hindered rehabilitation. While the juvenile justice system
has evolved, its’ deviation from the original focus of rehabilitation that created the many
injustices reviewed in this paper. As new reforms occur, the transformation back to a
rehabilitative approach begins, and these injustices within juvenile detention centers can
Juvenile Justice 28
be addressed.
The themes identified in this literature review were used to structure the research
of the current project. This literature review established the understanding that juvenile
detention centers mirror the transformation of the juvenile justice system and the current
research uses that model with a focus on one particular detention center, Oak Hill Youth
Center, in one location, Washington, DC. Researchers explored how the same key issues
discussed in the literature review hindered rehabilitation in DC’s Oak Hill Youth Center.
In addition, the research examines a very recent shift back to rehabilitation, evidenced in
the closure of Oak Hill and the opening of a welcoming facility, New Beginnings Youth
Development Center.
Juvenile Justice 29
III. Data and Methodology
Data
This study of the history of rehabilitation in D.C.’s juvenile detention centers was
conducted using archival research and personal interviews. Archival data was gathered
from newspaper and journal articles, as well as government documents which include
both policy deliberation and legislation. The researchers had access to the archival
articles that Dr. Woolard, a co-investigator and thesis advisor in this project, has
collected. This sample, dating from 1986 to 2010, represents a comprehensive archival
documentation of both opinions and events around this subject. The researchers utilized
available local resources, including those at the D.C. public library and the City Council,
to complete their compilation of articles; they also collected Op-Ed articles written by
journalist Colby King that were available through the Washington Post archives. In
addition, the researchers interviewed people who have a stake in the juvenile justice
system – from political leaders to community activists and prominent lawyers. These
subjects used personal experience to provide further insight into the complex history of
rehabilitation in juvenile justice.
Participants
The researchers hoped to interview key stakeholders in the juvenile justice system
in DC. The three people that chose to participate in this thesis research are all respected
in their fields and engaged in the field of juvenile justice. Based on Dr. Woolard’s
previous work on the Oak Hill Archive Project, the researchers compiled a list of
potential interview subjects. The complete list of potential interviewees can be found in
Juvenile Justice 30
Appendix D. The researchers aimed to target all areas of the juvenile justice system (law,
community advocacy, public policy, etc), but acknowledge that there may be limitations
to this approach given their access to the greater community. The researchers chose their
subjects based on their conversations with Dr. Woolard and their own experiences
working in the juvenile justice system. Dr. Woolard sent out an initial email to several
prospective interviewees, and the researchers followed up with them to confirm their
interest in the project and to schedule meetings.
The qualitative data gathered through interviews of stakeholders with extensive
experience with juvenile justice in DC produced various perspectives on the prospects
and methods for reform. The researchers first interviewed the head of a leading
community-based organization in DC focused on advocating for incarcerated youth and
their families. She has experience working with other community-based and
government-led organizations, as well as working within communities and with families
of affected youth. This interview focused on the history of the juvenile detention centers,
and the future of rehabilitation from the perspective of a community leader, one who
advocated for the rights of incarcerated youth, and emphasizes the responsibility of the
juvenile justice system to recognize both the harmful conditions of incarceration and the
limited resources for rehabilitation.
The second interviewee, from the Public Defender’s Office, was a lawyer on the
initial Jerry M. legislation. She has dedicated the last twenty years of her professional
life to addressing and trying to correct the inhumane treatment of juvenile offenders in
DC’s juvenile detention centers. Through her legal role, she has built relationships with
offending youth and their families; she has a clear understanding of their interactions and
Juvenile Justice 31
experiences with the law. This interview focused on the history of legislation and policy
implementation surrounding juvenile delinquents throughout the last quarter century,
with a special focus on the transition from D.C.’s original receiving home to Maple
Glenn and Cedar Knoll to Oak Hill to New Beginnings.
The final interview was with the head of a government-funded juvenile justice
agency. He has worked in conjunction with this agency, as well as public interest law
firms focused on the rights of juvenile offenders, for over ten years. This interview
focused on the interaction between government and community-based programs
surrounding juvenile justice, the transition from rehabilitative to punitive and back to
rehabilitative methods in the detention centers, and the subject’s experience working with
this population.
Materials
Researchers provided a consent form to the interview subjects and used a script to
prompt questions. This consent form (Appendix B) and the interview script (Appendix
C) have both been attached at the end of this analysis. All protocol was approved by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB). The names and identifying information of interview
subjects will be kept confidential throughout the report.
Procedure
Researchers read through the journal, newspaper, and political archives in order to
generate a summary of relevant information. Higher order themes and constructs
pertaining to the research issues were identified for further analysis.
Juvenile Justice 32
Interviews were conducted at the interviewee's place of work, or an agreed upon
location. Before participating, interviewees were given information on why the study
was being done and were subsequently debriefed on the possible implications of the
study. Upon completion of the interviews, researchers transcribed the audio taped
interviews and typed interview notes (these are referred to as interview texts).
Archives and interview texts were then imported into NVivo 8, a popular
qualitative data analysis software program. The researchers chose to use NVivo because
it is an established program that allows researchers to organize, classify, and analyze textbased media. Once texts were imported, researchers made several passes of coding each
text for relative information and general themes. Researchers analyzed the texts by
looking for common themes and content categories.
Design
This study used an exploratory and qualitative approach, and was designed to
generate a summary and develop theoretical constructs. The researchers first reviewed
literature and identified three research issues. Instead of reading the literature and
looking for a specific question to pose for the study, as one would do in quantitative
research, the researchers developed three specific areas to explore:
1. The issues surrounding juvenile justice in Washington, DC.
2. An examination of how detention centers exemplify the issues found.
3. A review of potential solutions to issues within the juvenile justice system.
Although the summary-generating and inductive approach prevents an
experimental hypothesis, the researchers identified several research concerns. These
Juvenile Justice 33
concerns were generated as a reflection of the research issues above. In addition, the
researchers identified potential themes, related to the aforementioned concerns, which
would arise in the analysis.
1. Policy
Policies and policy reform related to juvenile justice and delinquency were
believed to both affect the success of the rehabilitation of juveniles and further hinder the
potential to promote change. The researchers believed that new legislation could
potentially impact rehabilitation efforts by requiring higher standards of living and levels
of treatment at facilities. In addition, legislation can increase or decrease the punitive
actions enforced for juveniles.
2. Media
The researchers believed media's portrayal of juvenile justice topics (reform,
detention/correctional centers, delinquency, etc.) would have an effect on the public’s
opinion regarding juvenile justice, and ultimately influence the potential for reform or
change. Researchers believed that a negative portrayal of juvenile offenders creates fear
among the public and a push toward more punitive action. Conversely, the media’s
report on inhumane treatment at juvenile facilities was believed to create widespread
horror that such conditions exist, and lead to a push towards juvenile justice reform.
3. Public Opinion
Public opinion was believed to effect juvenile justice by influencing the amount of
attention that policy makers and their constituents give to juvenile justice issues. Public
opinion was also believed to play a role in the struggle to balance public safety and
juvenile rehabilitation, which then has larger effects on juvenile justice. Researchers
Juvenile Justice 34
believed public opinion would be a factor in policy reform.
4. Funding and Resources
The amount of funding and available resources was believed to affect the ability of
the juvenile justice system to successfully rehabilitate youth. Researchers believed
specific issues such as improved staff training, health services, educational services, and
facility cleanliness would be generated through analysis of data. These issues seem to be
related to the amount of funding and resources made available to juvenile detention
centers.
With these research issues and specific concerns established, researchers analyzed
the data in order to identify related themes. Through those, theoretical constructs were
generated.
The researchers in this study were experienced in the field of juvenile justice.
They have had significant experience interacting with juvenile offenders as a part of Oak
Hill Outreach and the After School Kids Program through the Center for Social Justice.
Through their work in Georgetown’s Center for Research on Women, Adolescence, and
the Law (CRAWL), both researchers have studied interrogation techniques of juveniles
as part of a study done in collaboration with the FBI’s behavioral science unit. With
extensive coursework focused on juvenile justice and community collaboration, the
researchers have managed to translate their classroom knowledge to their work with
juveniles. In addition, thesis advisor Dr. Woolard is prominent figure in D.C.’s juvenile
justice field as an academic researcher. She has worked with many other stakeholders in
an effort to understand and improve the field and practice.
Juvenile Justice 35
IV. Analysis
In order to analyze the data, researchers made several passes of coding using
NVivo software. In the first pass, researchers coded for relevant text. This process
required the researchers to identify larger sections of texts, either several sentences or
paragraphs in length, which pertained to the three research concerns identified above.
In the second pass, researchers organized the relevant text into parent (general)
nodes. The condition of the detention centers, the treatment by staff, the accessibility to
resources, the mandates of the court, and the role of government-funded agencies are but
a few examples of these nodes.
Once these concepts were organized into parent nodes, researchers made a third
pass to identify child (specific) nodes. For example, ‘the treatment by staff’ parent node
could be further divided into child nodes such as the physical abuse of detained youth, the
level of training, and the amount of corruption among staff and subsequent negative
influence on youth.
Based on the information gathered from that analysis, the researchers generated
six theoretical constructs that are discussed below.
Juvenile Justice 36
V. Results
Through the analysis of data, researchers found a series of recurring themes that
are associated with Oak Hill’s inability to effectively rehabilitate youth. These themes
are related to topics discussed in the literature review of this paper and are reviewed and
interpreted in detail here.
Facilities
The physical conditions of Oak Hill Youth Center are perhaps the most glaring
aspect of this system, and the easiest to target and improve. The juvenile justice system
was created in order to ensure proper rehabilitation be given to youth offenders during
their time of incarceration. There were hopes of housing one or two youth per room, and
providing clean living spaces, proper nutrition, and clean clothes; there was also talk of
rehabilitative counseling and improved schooling. However, research tracking juvenile
facilities in legal decrees and media documents reported quite a different reality. Many
articles and interviews made it clear that there were low expectations for youth
rehabilitation because the environment did not provide any structure or focus.
The head of a government-funded juvenile delinquency agency in DC said,
“[Oak Hill] was filthy, disgusting, dirty, unhealthy, dangerous, and chaotic.”1 A lawyer
on the Jerry M. litigation questioned the severity of offense that members of this youth
population possibly could have committed to be placed in such a decrepit and dangerous
facility. Reporters wrote about the “hellish heat and a menagerie of vermin” and
commented that the detention center were like “storerooms built to house objects, not
1
Government-funded juvenile delinquency agency administrator, April 2010
Juvenile Justice 37
children.” It was clear that there was no effort at rehabilitation being made in such a
horrific environment.
Research consistently described the detention facilities as being infested with
snakes, mosquitoes, gnats, mice, and cockroaches. Legal reports documented snakes in
the hallways and in the residents’ beds. In addition, the indoor temperatures were
reported above 100 degrees on several occasions. The windows did not open properly
and barely allowed any light to pass through them (text box 1.1). The facility did not
stock enough food for the juvenile population, the boilers did not generate enough heat,
and the laundry did not wash enough towels.
1.1
“Behind the coils of razor wire at the District’s Oak Hill Youth Center, the buildings where
the boys live are small, flat, blocky structures with windows that allow little light. To call
them habitable, before conditions lately went from bad to better, was to stretch a thin word
taut.” Washington Post, March 16, 1998.
Judges often had to intervene (text box 1.2); some made note of holes in the walls
and windows and hazardous conditions such as exposed chemicals and broken fixtures,
while others went further and ordered the facilities to exterminate the vermin, install air
conditioning, buy sufficient washers and dryers, etc.
1.2
“Judge Urbina wants the vermin at the juvenile detention centers exterminated within two
weeks and gave the city from one week to one month to install enough fans and air
conditioners to lower indoor temperatures below 80 degrees. “These children are being
irreparably injured,” Judge Urbina said.” Washington Post, August 11, 1988
In addition to the inadequate physical conditions of Oak Hill, the living conditions
were made worse by the excessive number of youth being detained at the facility (text
box 1.3). In 1988, figures showed a detained population of 410 (84 over single-room
capacity). In 1989, the population at Oak Hill had exceeded its limit of 445 by 157
Juvenile Justice 38
juveniles. Reports showed that there could be up to ten boys in a single room, conditions
that both hinder rehabilitation and can ignite violence among the juveniles and staff.
1.3
“In 1994, … I found 58 youths packed into a building with a rated capacity of 38; an 11year old joy rider housed with street-level drug dealers; five teens obliged to sleep on cots in
a 13-by-21 foot former utility room.” Colby King, Washington Post, October 25, 2008.
Another interview subject, a head of a leading community advocacy organization
focused on juvenile justice, said that overcrowding could be avoided if juveniles were
detained for shorter amounts of time, and placed, instead, in detention alternatives.
Public Defenders were consistent in their claims that the overcrowding in detention
facilities was a direct result of the city’s inability or unwillingness to reduce the facilities’
population (by referring less serious offenders to community alternatives).
The public scrutiny and resulting litigation that targeted these unjust living
conditions led to the closure of Oak Hill and the opening of New Beginnings. At this
new facility, soaps and blankets are more accessible than cigarettes and drugs. The staff
is more engaged with the development of the youth offender; the food is nutritious; the
facilities are clean and organized, and, as a result, the environment is more conducive for
youth rehabilitation2.
There have been obvious improvements in the facilities provided for juvenile
detention in DC (text box 1.4). However, community advocates, lawyers, judges, and
staff continue to press for improvement in the area of rehabilitation at these facilities –
the physical environment must be cohesive with education, therapy, and trust. It must be
clean, stable, and organized. These young offenders lived in conditions “unfit for
2
Head of a community-based juvenile justice advocacy organization, March 2010
Juvenile Justice 39
animals,” lacked the basic amenities, and missed the opportunity for rehabilitation.
1.4
“You won’t believe the new facility. You have to go out there and see it. It’s so different,
the rooms are light. The set up, as you go in the pods, is more circular. The kid’s rooms are
like this, [it is a place] where the staff and the kids can interact… Everybody can see
outside, it’s so much lighter”
- Juvenile Justice Community Advocate (March, 2010)
Security
Both Newspaper stories and personal interviews described the physical security
and security staff at Oak Hill to be inadequate. The supposed maximum-security youth
detention center was referred to as “insecure,” “unsafe,” and plagued by “systematic
lapses” (text box 2.1). Escapes became a “routine thing” because the facility’s perimeter
was not guarded. There were more than fifteen newspaper articles describing youth
escapes from the facility, and each mentioned a lapse in security as the reason why this
occurred. In some escapes, detainees simply walked off the facility grounds; in others,
staff members were assaulted and their car keys stolen; and in others, youth were aided
by outside friends (text box 2.2). Although a task force was assigned to assess the
security at the facility and found many areas for improvement (text box 2.3), these
necessary changes were never implemented. Not only did an insecure perimeter lead to
escapes, but it also lead to the introduction of drugs into the facility.
In addition to the physical security, security staffing was also inadequate.
Analysis of research showed security staff were poorly trained and did not receive proper
instruction. In addition, they did not have permission to carry protection, which was a
source of much concern and complaint. The poor training of security staff included
Juvenile Justice 40
issues of supervision – there were multiple instances of youth assaulting one another with
no interference by security staff.
These findings are important because if a detention center is not secure, than the
detention center cannot do its job. Additionally, when detention facilities are not secure,
youthful offenders can behave in unconstructive and negative ways (escapes, drug abuse,
etc.), which then eliminates and hope of rehabilitation. The goal of rehabilitation is also
lost when youth escape the facility and do not return to receive treatment. The security
lapses at Oak Hill created a dangerous environment where not only youth and staff were
threatened, but the intended purpose of rehabilitation was lost.
2.1
“It’s not a secure facility, period. It’s a joke” Washington Times, October 8, 1990
“In a brief requesting the hearing, the attorneys argued that systematic lapses lead to a
Memorial Day escape” Washington Post, August 27, 2001
2.2
“The Times found, in its investigation of escapes at Oak Hill, that administrators failed to
properly repair a hole in a fence at Oak Hill, which allowed two groups of youth to escape on
separate occasions, months apart.” Washington Times, January 22, 2002
“Eight youths escaped from the District’s troubled juvenile detention facilities in Laurel in
two separate incidents Saturday night, and at least one of the escapes was aided by people in a
car outside a security fence who fired several gunshots at guards, D.C. officials said
yesterday.” Washington Post, October 31, 1988
“In one of the more serious recent attacks at Cedar Knoll, five older teenagers escaped Sunday
in a counselor’s car after she was choked to the ground.” Washington Times, April 26, 1991
2.3
“The task force, in its report, called for new state-of-the-art fencing, observation towers,
additional razor wire… high intensity lighting, and the removal of all trees within 100 yards of
the facilities. Due to the lack of outer perimeter control at both facilities [Oak Hill detention
center and the annex], one could very easily introduce drugs onto the grounds… either by
tossing drugs over the fence at Oak Hill or entering the grounds of the annex.” Washington
Post, September 3, 1989
Juvenile Justice 41
Abuse
Research analysis showed many cases of physical abuse, emotional abuse, and
abuse of power. Both staff and youth were subject to assaults, in which weapons such as
stun guns, belt buckles, and handcuffs were used. Newspapers reported on youth
attacking guards and teachers. There was an atmosphere of fear among staff members
who felt they were in constant danger (text box 3.1). Youth were also abused and beaten
by staff for no reason. In one case, youth were handcuffed to a wall and left hanging
(text box 3.2). In addition, youth were also assaulting each other and nothing was done
to intervene at these times. Most of these incidents went unreported by staff or the
youthful offenders. As with the security task force, an investigation was ordered by the
court but proved largely ineffective because there was only one investigator.
3.1
“Guards at the juvenile detention center are afraid the young toughs there will kill them.”
Washington Times, April 26, 1991
“An Oak Hill employee described the detention center as a dangerous place to work.”
Washington Times, January 21, 2002
3.2
“Harrison said her young clients reported that teenage defendants sometimes had their
wrists handcuffed behind their backs with a waist chain attached to the handcuffs and then
hooked to an eyelet on the brick. ‘They would be hanging there, their feet dangling above
the floor.’ Harrison said. Harrison said her office informed prosecutors in 1990 that
children had reported being abused by deputies.” Washington Post, July 25, 1992
Research also showed a large amount of abuse of power by Oak Hill staff. Staff
members were caught taking bribes for drugs, and for allowing escapes. They were also
caught overprescribing drugs to the youth. Research sources described many cases of
staff corruption (text box 3.3).
Juvenile Justice 42
3.3
“Sometimes, according to records, the staff members resort to violence of their own: Two
staff members have been fired for assaults with a knife against detained juveniles, and
others have been disciplined for excessive force” Washington Post, September 3, 1989
“Drug profits have put substantial sums of money at the disposal of some teenage detainees,
and officials fear that the staff is vulnerable to bribes.” Washington Post, September 3, 1989
Overall, the physical and emotional abuse created a threatening environment for
all at Oak Hill. The environment created a philosophy that abuse and corruption was an
accepted as part of everyday life. When abuse occurred, staff were not being held
accountable and, as a result, the detention center and youth rehabilitative services were
not doing their job. Instead of receiving rehabilitative treatment, youth were subject to
violent assaults, verbal abuse, and corrupt staff. In addition, both youth and staff did not
feel comfortable in reporting these injustices, which simply lead to the continuation of
abuses. Oak Hill’s rehabilitative efforts were largely impeded by the abuse occurring at
the facility.
Education
Many articles noted the inadequate educational resources provided at DC’s
juvenile detention facilities. These ad hoc schools suffer from many of the same
problems as other urban public schools, such as finding and retaining proficient teaching
staff, but the nature of the juvenile detention center introduces additional problems. Most
of the detained youth have a negative view of school that becomes contagious, creating
an atmosphere of indifference or antipathy in the classrooms.
In addition, many incarcerated youth struggle with learning disabilities, and a
high percentage of students are truants or dropouts with limited academic skills.
Juvenile Justice 43
Research demonstrates that children who have special educational needs do not benefit
from learning in large facilities (text box 4.1). Despite the fact that one-third of detained
juveniles have some form of learning disabilities, it is hard to attract qualified teachers to
work with this population.
4.1
“Educating children with special needs in a large correctional setting, however, is inherently
counter-therapeutic and counterproductive. You can’t expect kids with emotional problems
to get better if you put them in a violent atmosphere. Necessarily, large incarceration
facilities promote violence.” Washington Times, October 12, 1990
Juvenile justice advocates believe that a successful juvenile detention facility
requires a strong school system. Education is a key ingredient in the rehabilitation of a
juvenile – not only do youth need to receive skills within the facilities, but they also need
to remain connected with an outside organization to ensure a smooth transition back into
the community.
Many articles traced the history of education at Oak Hill, and tracked the
transition to New Beginnings. The school that ran at Oak Hill was a DC Public School,
and the media often portrayed it as a school where teachers were sent that were unfit or
unable to meet the needs of another high school requirements. The DC School system
made an investment in the schools through government funds, but the money was often
used for other purposes. However, in response to Jerry M. litigation requiring better
conditions and education in the detention center, Oak Hill recruited qualified teachers,
separated detained youth awaiting trial or sentencing and committed children, and
improved the education experience. For the first time at Oak Hill, the instructors are
certified in the subjects they teach (text box 4.2). The courses are divided into self-
Juvenile Justice 44
contained nine-week sessions so that students can receive academic credits to use toward
their graduation degrees from their public high schools. The mandatory uniforms and the
strict schedules allocated for each class are further additions that improve the atmosphere
of learning at the detention center.
4.2
“For the first time, Oak Hill instructors are all certified in the subjects they teach and the
students are getting credit that can be used toward graduation from high school. Classes
begin and end on time. Mandatory uniforms – polo shirts and khaki pants, and T-shirts and
sweat shorts in the summer – lend a sense of order and seriousness. Teachers address
students formally. O’Connor, the former principal at an alternative school in Lansdowne,
Md., replaced one-third of the Oak Hill teachers and counselors. For the first time, detained
and committed children are taught separately, which monitors had urged for years.”
Washington Post, October 12, 1999
“A year ago, “everybody just sat in there jawing, there was no school and they had no
discipline,” said an 18-year-old, a “platoon leader” in a boot camp-type program at Oak Hill
intended to prepare youths for military careers” Washington Post, October 12, 1999
The move to New Beginnings included a transition from the DC public schools to
the new structure and leadership introduced through the public charter school system.
This new school is equipped with staff members that are trained to work with this youth
population, and there are increased resources to provide a strong educational experience
that can give juvenile defenders the discipline, focus, and skills they need to succeed in
the outside world.
Healthcare
Many of the articles noted inadequate healthcare as a central problem in the
juvenile detention centers. Reports found that there was no updated medical policy, and
the detained youth rarely underwent medical exams (text box 5.1). In fact, only one
Juvenile Justice 45
medical exam was conducted at the time a youth was admitted, without a follow-up or
more comprehensive exam. Reports that tracked healthcare procedures found that the
Medical Affairs for Social Services, a branch of the D.C. Health Department, provided
inconsistent treatment to the detained youth at Oak Hill. In the 1990’s, only in response
to cited instances of untreated cavities and subsequent teeth extraction at Oak Hill, there
was a dentist hired.
5.1
“Youths at Oak Hill are supposed to receive a detailed “service plan” that addresses their
individual problems. Instead, Dixon concluded, they “spend hours of unstructured time”
without being seen by professionals.” Washington Post, July 16, 2002
“Medical care for youths held at the Oak Hill Youth Center is irregular and in violation of a
consent decree the District has agreed to obey.” Washington Post, September 17, 1999
In addition to fragmented care, the medical staff did not have the training
necessary to care for the number, or meet the needs, of the incarcerated youth (text box
5.2). The staff was unprepared to fulfill their responsibilities. This created an
environment in which the youth were deprived of proper medical attention, and the
disorganized and unqualified staff prevented them from receiving the proper mental
health care and rehabilitative treatments. The diagnostic teams were unable to properly
connect the youth with adequate resources in mental health, recreation, and schooling.
5.2
“As of October, three of eight staff members hired to lead counseling and treatment teams
lacked the required credentials.” Washington Post, July 16, 2002
“The judge found that Youth Services failed to give special training to the Oak Hill
diagnostic team – a group of 11 employees who evaluate the juveniles when they enter the
facility’s intake unite and determine what services they need.”
Washington Post, June 20, 2003
Juvenile Justice 46
In order to be productive and espouse the tenets of rehabilitation, the juvenile
detention centers must use “comprehensive assessment reports” to screen and evaluate
the youths when they entered Oak Hill. Instead of labeling these youth as ‘hyperactive,’
‘learning disabled,’ or ‘violent,’ the counselors and medical examiners at the facility must
ensure that the youth are given the proper treatment to meet their individual needs. Once
the treatment plan is identified, the staff and guards must be made aware of each plan in
order to ensure that the detained youth are properly supervised.
Conclusion on Environment
6.1
“At the old Oak Hill, there would be upwards of 300 kids and the average length of stay was
60 days. So you cycled kids through there like a factory and so it didn’t matter what you
were there for, what your needs were, what type of treatment you needed, it’s like
everybody gets the same cookie-cutter justice, right?”
- Juvenile Justice Community Advocate (March, 2010)
As outlined above, the researchers found several impediments to rehabilitation in
DC’s juvenile detention centers. In addition to the aforementioned themes, the high
prevalence of gang membership and the weak ties between the juvenile offenders and
their parents or adult role models lead to high recidivism rates and poor rehabilitation
treatment. Many articles recognized that delinquent youth, who engage in risky and
destructive behavior, do not have strong relationships at home, do not feel safe in their
communities, and are not encouraged to achieve beyond gang memberships. The
detention centers, in turn, have traditionally been unable (or unwilling) to provide the
necessary treatment, support, and education to improve the lives, and futures, of youth
offenders. When the living conditions and school environment are poor and basic
healthcare and treatment needs are not met, rehabilitation is virtually impossible. In
Juvenile Justice 47
addition, excessive administrative turnover causes a lack of consistent policy and
disjointed focus within the detention centers (text box 6.2).
6.2
“During the nearly six years since the consent decree was signed, there have been four different
YSA [Youth Services Administration] administrators and much time lost in between one
leaving and another coming.” Washington Times, April 14, 1992.
Juvenile Justice 48
VI. Discussion
Theoretical Constructs
Several theoretical constructs were generated from the analysis of the themes
noted above. The researchers identified these theoretical constructs as being central to
the research concern regarding effective practices to ensure rehabilitation within the
juvenile detention centers.
- Public Policy
The researchers originally conjectured that public policy would play a
large role in determining the level of rehabilitation in the detention centers, but
research shows that the role of the court is more important in the implementation
of rehabilitation efforts in the juvenile justice system. Regardless of the written
law, the courts decide the sentencing and/or placement of the youth offender. It is
important that the courts enforce the policies that hold Department of Youth
Rehabilitative Services and the city government accountable for their decisions,
promises, and actions. Simply passing legislation does not ensure that its policies
are implemented within the juvenile justice system.
While research demonstrates the necessity of the court to enforce the
tenets of juvenile legislation, the government and community advocates must also
play an important role in advocating for juvenile rights and promoting change.
This is evidenced by the thirteen-year period of the Jerry M. litigation in which
Youth Services Administration failed to uphold their legal responsibilities and the
courts failed to enforce these required changes.
Juvenile Justice 49
The researchers recommend that public policy continue to focus on
rehabilitation and require that treatment options be available for all juvenile
offenders, regardless of the severity of offense or developmental disabilities. In
addition, juvenile justice must target broader constituencies, with varying
investments, to hold one another accountable for the implementation of
rehabilitation in D.C.’s juvenile justice system.
- Media
Research shows that the media does play a large role in influencing public
opinion, which in turn influences the opinion of the court. The transcripts of the
Colby King articles demonstrate the ability of the media to focus on specific
instances of increased violence or failed administrative responses that misinform
the public about the reality of the juvenile justice system. Despite their
widespread availability to the public, these reports fail to provide accurate, and
unbiased, views of the detention centers.
It is important that the media portrays these issues accurately so that the
community can have knowledge and advocate for change. This research should
encourage government agencies, like the Department of Youth Rehabilitation
Services, and community organizations, like the Campaign for Youth Justice, to
continue to spread information to the general public to ensure that a balanced
portrayal is being heard within the communities that are most affected by the
failures of the juvenile justice system. While the media plays a key factor in the
public’s opinion of juvenile offenders, research shows that these broad
Juvenile Justice 50
characterizations promote more fear than understanding among the public, who
then push for harsher punishments, as opposed to more effective rehabilitation.
The researchers recommend that government organizations and juvenile
justice agencies combat rash commentary from the media through press releases
and opinion editorials. These juvenile advocates must inform the public from an
unbiased view.
- Public Opinion
Through this data, the researchers found that public opinion can sway the
debate between rehabilitation and punishment. The public can influence court
decisions that, in turn, can determine the amount of public funds being allocated
to the juvenile justice system and the amount of attention that is given to the
facilities. As evidenced by the data, when there is a sense of fear towards juvenile
offenders in the public, it is more likely that punitive measures will be
implemented. In contrast, the public’s reaction to the poor conditions and
treatment of juvenile offenders will have the opposite effect.
The researchers recommend that advocacy organizations provide accurate
and informative research surrounding juvenile justice to the public. The public, in
turn, should be more invested in this population. In addition, public frenzy should
not influence the court’s ability to make fair and informed decisions.
- Funding and Resources
The amount of funding that is allocated to juvenile detention facilities has
Juvenile Justice 51
a direct correlation with the conditions, staff, and level of rehabilitative treatments
that are available for the detained population. Increased funds would address the
living conditions at the facilities by improving the building structures, the indoor
temperature, the nutrition for each detainee, and the cleanliness and order of the
facility. In addition, funding allocated to the juvenile detention centers would
allow for the hiring of better-trained staff and the increase in the number of both
counselors to handle mental health concerns, as well as doctors to ensure dental
hygiene and physical well-being among the inmates.
Finally, increased funds would ensure that the rehabilitative treatments
that have been legally mandated but not implemented would become central to the
efforts and structure of the juvenile detention centers. Along with therapy and
treatment, the detained youth would have better recreational and educational
facilities. Without proper funding, detention centers cannot provide adequate
facilities and treatment and therefore, cannot effectively rehabilitate youth.
The researchers recommend that the government engage with community
advocates and social scientists in order to make informed budgetary decisions.
The funding must be allocated appropriately and administrations must manage
these budgets efficiently and honestly.
- Administration and Staff
The research demonstrated high rates of administrative turnover that did
not allow for long-term procedure development and implementation. The
constant administrator turnover prevents continuity and makes it difficult for any
Juvenile Justice 52
change to be thoroughly carried out. The administration also affects the level of
staff quality in the detention centers. An increased focus on rehabilitation requires
that the staff provide a similar focus on treatment and counseling. It is important
for staff to view their jobs as therapeutic counselors, instead of correctional
officers, in order to promote rehabilitation. Interview subjects commented on the
improved attitude of staff members at New Beginnings.
The researchers recommend that juvenile detention centers require staff
credentials and provide staff training. The staff must also be committed to their
work and invested in the youth population. Finally, the administration needs to
continue the focus on rehabilitation.
- Community Alternatives
In addition to increasing rehabilitative aims in the detention centers, there
has to be an increased focus on promoting rehabilitation to continue in community
programs. Community alternatives allow juvenile offenders to remain connected
to their families, schools, and neighborhoods, thereby making them less likely to
offend. Community alternatives target the same areas of rehabilitation that are
addressed within the centers. The main goal of rehabilitation is to create a
positive transition from the detention center back into the community.
The researchers suggest that community programs exist as a positive
alternative to juvenile incarceration. There must be increased research to test
each program’s effectiveness and community involvement to ensure that the
juveniles remain connected and involved with their neighborhoods.
Juvenile Justice 53
VII. Conclusion
This research was limited by the nature of data collection. Because the
researchers performed interviews with various juvenile justice stakeholders, they acted as
the research instrument. In addition, there is a lack of previous research on juvenile
detention facilities and rehabilitation to verify or compare the results of this study.
While this research focused specifically on Oak Hill Youth Center, the
researchers feel that the data can be generalized and applied to other youth detention
centers that experience similar problems. As evidenced by this research, it is important to
investigate youth facilities around the country to ensure that they are adequate to meet the
needs of the youth and their communities. In order to do so, future research needs to look
into the theoretical constructs generated in this study to understand how they are
important to rehabilitation.
This research generated a summary of the issues surrounding juvenile justice in
the District of Columbia, particularly at Oak Hill Youth Center. The researchers gathered
information about the inadequacies and injustices that occurred at Oak Hill and then
analyzed how these conditions hindered rehabilitation for DC’s youth offenders. From
this research, it is clear that the punitive approach of detaining youth has been largely
unsuccessful in DC, as evidenced by Oak Hill Youth Center. Research outlines how the
transition from Oak Hill to New Beginnings Youth Development Center mirrors the
transition towards rehabilitation and the effectiveness of treatment. This is evidenced by
the improved facilities at New Beginnings, and the more qualified and engaged staff that
works there.
In addition, research has shown that there is a direct correlation between juvenile
Juvenile Justice 54
crime, single-parent homes, and low-income neighborhoods (NeighborhoodInfo DC).
Research must target this population because, no matter how much funding, qualified
staffing, or medical care is provided within the detention facilities, the only way to cause
a systematic change is to address the problem of poverty prevalent in many urban
communities. The improved facilities, staffing, and resources implemented at New
Beginnings over the past year have begun to address the rehabilitative efforts within
juvenile detention. However, research must continue to evaluate these methods and, at
the same time, continue to focus on ways to help the impoverished and crime-ridden
neighborhoods which themselves need rehabilitation. Juvenile delinquency is a pervasive
social problem in the United States and there must be a continued focus on rehabilitative
efforts within the juvenile detention centers. However, juvenile crime will continue to
persist in similar numbers until whole communities are addressed, and ultimately
rehabilitated.
Juvenile Justice 55
VIII. References
Abram, Karen M., Jeanne Y. Choe, Jason Washburn, Linda Teplin, Devon King, and
Mina Dulcan. 2008. “Suicidal Ideation and Behaviors Among Youths in
Juvenile Detention.” Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry 47:291-300.
Barton, William H. and Ira M. Schwartz. 1994. “Juvenile Detention: No More Hidden
Closets.” Pp. 1-11 in Reforming Juvenile Detention, edited by William H.
Barton and Ira M. Schwartz. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Bolin, Kenneth and Daniel Jones. 2005. “Oral Health Needs of Adolescents in a
Juvenile Detention Facility.” Journal of Adolescent Health 38:755-757.
Costello, John B. 1949. “Institutions for Juvenile Delinquents.” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 261:166-178.
Foster, Karen, Naomi Williamson, and Dawna Buchannon. 2004. “Racing With
Reading: Addressing Literacy at Juvenile Detention Center.” Journal of the
Institute Justice and International Studies 4:52-56.
Greenwood, Peter. 2008. “Prevention and Intervention Programs for Juvenile
Offenders.” The Future of Children 18(2):185-210.
Guarino-Ghezzi, Susan and Edward J. Loughran. 2004. Balancing Juvenile Justice.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Hawkins, J. David and Joseph G. Weis. 1985. "The Social Development Model: An
Integrated Approach to Delinquency Prevention." The Journal of Primary
Prevention 6(2):73-97.
Healy, William and August F. Bronner. 1930. “Juvenile Detention Homes.” Annals of
Juvenile Justice 56
the American Academy of Political and Social Science 151;180-183.
Leone, Peter E., Barbara Zaremba, and Michelle Chapin. 1995. “Understanding the
overrepresentation of Youths With Disabilities in Juvenile Detention.” District
of Columbia Law Review 3:389-401.
Mennel, Robert M. 1983. “Attitudes and Policies Toward Juvenile Delinquency in the
United States: A Historiographical Review.” Crime and Justice 4:191-224.
Mohr, Wanda, Richard J. Gelles, and Ira M. Schwartz. 1999. “Shackled in the Land of
Liberty: No Rights for Children.” Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science 564:37-55.
Morrison, Harriet R. and Beverly D. Epps. 2002. “Warehousing or Rehabilitation?
Public Schooling in the Juvenile Justice System”. The Journal of Negro
Education 71:218-232.
Neighborhood Profiles. In NeighborhoodInfo DC. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from
http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/.
National Institute for Correctional Education (NICE). (2004). "Correctional Education at
a Glance". Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Nunez-Neto, Blas. (2007, April 2). Juvenile justice: Legislative history and current
legislative issues. CRS Report for Congress, Domestic Social Policy Division.
Lipsey, Mark L. 1992. Pp. 83-127 in "Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A Meta-Analytic
Inquiry into the Variability of Effects," in Meta-Analysis for Explanation: A
Casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Miller, Beverly C. and J. Trent Rawley. 1994. “Interviews of Kids at D.C. Detention
Centers.” VHS. Washington DC: The D.C. Court of Appeals.
Juvenile Justice 57
O’Connor, Gerald G. 1970. “The Impact of Initial Detention upon Male
Delinquents.” Social Problems 18(2):194-199.
Parent, Dale G. 1994. "Conditions of confinement: Juvenile Detention and Correctional
Facilities". Washington, DC: United States Dept. of Justice Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Rojek, Dean G. and Maynard L. Erickson. 1981-1982. "Reforming the Juvenile Justice
System: The Diversion of Status Offenders." Law & Society Review 16(2):241264.
Roush, David W. 1996. Desktop Guide to Good Juvenile Detention Practice.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Simpson, Anna L. 1976. “Rehabilitation as the Justification of a Separate Juvenile Justice
System.” California Law Review 64(4):984-1017.
Snyder, Howard N. and Melissa Sickmund. 1999. “Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999
National Report.” Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
Steketee, Martha W., Deborah A. Willis, and Ira M. Schwartz. 1989. Juvenile Justice
Trends 1977-1987. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Styve, Gaylene J., Doris Layton MacKenzie, Angela R. Gover, and Oimarrh Mitchell.
2000. “Perceived Conditions of Confinement: A National Evaluation of Juvenile
Boot Camps and Traditional Facilities.” Law and Human Behavior 24(3):297308.
Zimring, Franklin E. 2000. “The Common Thread: Diversion in Juvenile Justice.”
California Law Review 88(6): 2477-2495.
Juvenile Justice 58
V. Appendices
Index
A. IRB Proposal
a. Expedited Review Form
b. Study Specific Disclosure Forms
c. Certificates of completion of Education in the Protection of
Human Research Subjects
d. Invitation for Research
e. Initial Email/ Letter to Participants
f. Informed Consent Document
g. Interview Script
h. Investigators’ Qualifications
B. Consent Form
C. Interview Scripts
D. List of Potential Interview Subjects
E. Coding Scheme
E. Course Documents