1
JUVENILE DETENTION
The word “child” echoes a sound of innocence that strikes nostalgia into most of our
minds. “Juvenile delinquent” does not resonate with quite the same innocence. According to the
Oxford dictionary, a juvenile delinquent is defined as “a person below the legal age of [criminal]
responsibility and above a certain minimum age, who is held punishable for breaking the law”
(Simpson & Weiner, 1989). The circumstances that lead to labeling an individual as a juvenile
delinquent can be challenging to peg. Each state in the U.S. possesses statute books that identify
methods for intermediation in a criminal youth’s life. Under certain conditions a youngster under
the age of eighteen is initially sent through juvenile court with the possibility of transfer to an
adult criminal court. Standards of juvenile court law are rooted in the theory of parens patriae;
“…the vision of the state is one of protective parent with a goal of correcting wayward children”
(Binder, Geis, Dickson, 1997, p. 4). Several types of detention have been utilized throughout
American history as an attempt at curing young delinquents of their criminal ailments.
The concept of the juvenile delinquent was created relatively recently in the history of
humankind. “At the close of the eighteenth and the opening of the nineteenth century, ideas
about childrearing were in flux. For a variety of reasons, the authoritarian, patriarchal Puritan
ideal was undergoing increasing challenge, and new modes—stressing the bending rather than
the breaking of a child’s will and emphasizing the pliability of the child’s nature—were
beginning to emerge” (Binder et al., p. 33). Industrialization occurred as time progressed and
families continued to move away from rural lifestyles and into city life. Children were no longer
only utilized for farm work and the views that children are considered a luxury and parents are
privileged to nurture them began to grow. Urbanization in the U.S. saw the uprising of crowded
high rise buildings. Following the Revolutionary War there were huge spikes in the population,
especially in New York City which endured a jump of 33,000 in 1790 to 166,000 in 1825.
2
JUVENILE DETENTION
Unaware of the impact that this growth would have, New York could not provide sufficient
resources for all of the cramped citizens. A kind of street culture began to develop as
unsupervised and ragged youth collected in groups on street corners (Binder et al., p. 35). Houses
of refuge popped up in New York. As the cities of Boston and Philadelphia increased in
population they followed New York’s example. Providing housing for roaming youth might
reflect the dawn of detention facilities, however, these houses of refuge were designated for
youth who were considered at-risk youth with the possibility of toppling into a life of crime, not
convicted offenders (Shoemaker, 2009, p. 14). When city life became tense and youth crime
began to boil over, the start of juvenile institutions needed to arise.
“Reformatories” are considered the first form of juvenile detention centers or correctional
facilities. The Lyman School for Boys, considered the first reformatory, was formed in
Massachusetts in 1846. Shortly thereafter was the establishment of a female reformatory where
the concept of the “cottage system” was introduced. This system follows that correctional
institutions can fulfill the role of family. Delinquents were commonly sent from the city to rural
family setups. By providing a structure that is meant to represent a nuclear family, these
institutions champion the idea that parent-figures can provide leadership and instill values of
responsibility into juvenile delinquents. Although there is a deficit of supporting evidence for the
effectiveness of the cottage system, it is still used today (Shoemaker, p. 18). The cottage system
is only one shade in the spectrum of juvenile institutional methods.
According to Shoemaker (p. 19), some reformatories were built with firm contrast to the
cottage system. “Some of the earlier juvenile institutions were truly imposing places, with high,
granite wall sand fortresslike features”. Characteristic of most institutions was the need to follow
well-founded agendas. Physical coercion including beatings with blunt objects and restraint were
3
JUVENILE DETENTION
not uncommon in these reformatories. On a positive note, education programs were often
included as well.
One example of early combining of religion and reform was reflected in the Hull House
of Chicago, established in 1889. Poor immigrants could have a place to live while they worked
towards financial stability. The founders of the Hull House, Jane Addams and Louise Bowen,
worked to create programs that provided support through empowerment, fighting poverty and
illiteracy with education (Shoemaker, p. 21). Pioneers of juvenile delinquent reform witnessed a
continued boom of population leading to the overcrowding of institutions. Such overcrowding
combined with degrading conditions of these institutions, corrupt staff members, and the
clashing of destitute and deviant populations lead to complications that needed solving. Moving
towards greater organization when addressing issues amongst juvenile delinquents, “the first
recognized individual juvenile court was established in Cook County, Illinois, in 1899”
(Whitehead & Lab, 1996, p. 46). Separation of court dockets, forms of record keeping and
hearings occurred through the late nineteenth century in Massachusetts and New York City. This
shift represented the continued division of American society’s perceptions of criminals in their
youth versus those in adulthood. As time has progressed, humans have become increasingly
curious about the origins of criminal behavior. Many have tried to alleviate criminal behavior
with several types of detention, creating institutions that have continued to transform alongside
our understanding of crime.
Programs within detention for reforming juveniles have improved upon past mistakes,
continuously refining as further research is revealed. Present day systems for detention include
both secure and non-secure environments. A certain level of confinement defines secure facilities
where a child is surrounded by a facility that equates to jail for juveniles. Non-secure facilities
4
JUVENILE DETENTION
are reserved for youth who have committed crimes of lesser criminal significance (Whitehead &
Lab, p. 208). Though strong negative feelings often surround the concept of criminal behavior,
the possibility of reform seems all too plausible with youth. Humans are capable of learning all
through the life cycle but it is in our youth when we are the most proficient at gaining new
knowledge. Job Corps is one example of a constructive education program that empowers
juvenile delinquents by imparting useful job skills in a learning atmosphere that allows students
to apply these skills through practice and reliable teacher guidance. Jobs skills are constructive to
learn because the abilities obtained can assist a juvenile delinquent in the future when they are
searching for legitimate means to make money.
Working towards self-sufficiency paired with the improvement of abilities can help raise
self-esteem. It has been found that confidence building activities are beneficial for combating
delinquent and anti-social behaviors (Faulkner et al., 2007). Faulkner et al. studied the effects of
physical activity and improving self-esteem as related to self-worth. In this study they found
“further support that low self-esteem was related to a higher risk of delinquency” (2007, p. 156).
Having a healthy lifestyle seems to be one way of combating delinquent behavior; however,
physical activity needs to be balanced. In the study conducted by Faulkner et al., the males who
participated in too much vigorous exercise actually yielded increased aggression and
delinquency.
Mental and physical health is important for any human to maintain a productive lifestyle.
One example of these essential rights being broken was exemplified in an article by Katherine
Twomey investigating poor juvenile detention conditions. According to Twomey, too common
are abusive staff members and fellow delinquents and overcrowding. Some institutions lack
education programs of any sort whatsoever (2008, p. 767). Given that there is no all-
5
JUVENILE DETENTION
encompassing outline of programs that juvenile detention centers are required to implement,
there are wide sweeping inconsistencies across the country. Scarce learning resources such as
reliable, up-to-date textbooks mean fewer opportunities to learn. A vast majority of the juvenile
detention population consists of poor Black and Latino youth, many with learning disabilities
that have gone unrecognized. “Being arrested is associated with lower school achievement scores,
having a disability (especially for boys), and particularly, having such disabilities as a serious
emotional disturbance, SED (Serious Emotional Disturbance), or specific learning disabilities,
SLD” (Chapman, D’Amaddio, Grigorenko, 2010). Zabel & Nigro found that the breakdown of
juvenile delinquents with disabilities yielded 46% with Emotional/Behavioral disorder and 40%
with SLD (2001).
Physical restraint is defined by Smith & Bowman (2009) as “purposeful physical force to
restrict the movement of violent and aggressive young people” (p. 58). Such restraint was found
to have lasting negative effects on juveniles and even the staff of detentions centers. According
to a study investigating the attitudes of both admitted children and adult staff in juvenile
detention centers, it was found that children grew to fear any sort of physical restraint, boiling
with hate towards the idea of being restrained in response to their problem behavior. Smith &
Bowman reported that a pattern of escalation occurred. “Rather than de-escalating the children’s
anger and violent behavior, powerful leftover feelings and behaviors lingered to reignite for both
the children and adults...staff members also reported escalating and invasive emotions after
restraining a child” (Smith & Bowman, 2009, p.76). If physical restraint is not beneficial to the
child or the adult staff, it is not beneficial to the juvenile detention system.
How do other systems function? Taking a look at how other nations deal with the issue
helps widen our perspectives of how criminal children should be helped. According to Mark
6
JUVENILE DETENTION
Lusk (2005), the nation of Finland provides social services that prevent anti-social
marginalization as this characteristic has been shown to lead to violence and patterns of crime.
Finland provides free healthcare and free empowerment through education, meaning there is
little marginalization based on varying levels of education or access to benefits. Fifteen years is
the age of criminal responsibility and any child under this is provided with preventative
education in order to proactively mold their perceptions of criminal behavior (p. 38). Finland
supports an idea that education is far more advantageous for a young criminal as opposed to
locking them up into an environment of violence, mental and physical tension, and social
disconnect.
Knowledge is power, especially in today’s society. In the U.S. we have witnessed the
expanding advantages associated with having a Bachelor’s degree; it is gradually becoming
obligatory for any relatively well-paid job. Twomey also discusses the fact that many juvenile
detention centers that do have education programs tend to have inconsistencies with class
schedules, little to no classroom supplies, inadequate reading materials and incompetent teachers
(p. 771). Without the means necessary to learn at the same pace as their non-delinquent peers,
those who are trapped in the system are pulled behind. Lack of education can be linked to
unemployment, and being employed has been shown to reduce delinquency (Chapman, et al.).
Pro-social development such as improving family communication and supports has been
found as one method for preventing juvenile delinquency. Multi-systemic Therapy (MST)
focuses on working through problems as a family. This style of program is designed to help
parents efficiently cope with their youth’s behavioral struggles, including lack of school success
(Greenwood, 2008, p. 198). When family, parents, and guardians show that they care about a
child’s education, the child has greater incentive to do well. On the note of education, schools
7
JUVENILE DETENTION
need to take greater responsibility in proactively fighting juvenile delinquency by targeting the
issues of drug use, dropping out and anti-social behavior, all associated with increased criminal
behavior (Greenwood, p. 196).
The almost trite but all too true adage that it takes a village to raise a child holds relevant
when considering ways to prevent juvenile delinquency in the U.S. Empowering youth through
adequate education, strong social supports, and reliable services will help them to build upon
their abilities. Self-esteem can be shattered by ignorance and unsafe environments. In a society
that is segmented by the haves and have-nots, there are ways we can empower one another
through respectful communication. We need to consider lack of education and self-awareness
when determining the criminal motives of a child. Services such as Rebound of Whatcom
County, an organization that invests the work of staff and volunteers into helping to educate atrisk youth is also working to integrate parents by educating them with communication skills.
When the whole family is supportive and uses constructive communication, that respect has the
potential to blossom throughout the community.
8
JUVENILE DETENTION
Chapman, J., D’Amaddio, A., Grigorenko, E. (2010) The education of juveniles in detention:
Policy considerations and infrastructure development. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21 (1), 3-11.
Binder, A., Gilbert, G., Dickson, D. (1997). Juvenile delinquency: Historical, cultural, and legal
perspectives. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
Faulkner, G. Edward, M., Hyacinth, M., Irving, K., Dwyer, J., Goodman, J. (2007). The
relationship between vigorous physical activity and juvenile delinquency: A mediating
role for self-esteem? Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 30 (2)
Greenwood, P. (2008) Prevention and intervention programs for juvenile offenders. Future of
Children, 18 (2), 185-210
Lusk, M. (2005). Human services for juvenile offenders in Finland. Human Services:
International Perspectives.
Shoemaker, D. (2009). Juvenile delinquency. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Smith, M., Bowman, K. (2009). The restraint spiral: Emergent themes in the perceptions of the
physical restraint of juveniles. Child Welfare, 88 (3), 57-83.
Twomey, K. (2008). The right to education in juvenile detention under state constitutions.
Virginia Law Review, 94 (3), 765-811.
Whitehead, J., Lab, Steven. (1996). Juvenile justice: An introduction. Cincinnati: Anderson
Publishing.
9
JUVENILE DETENTION
Zabel, R., Nigro, F. (2001). The influence of special education experience and gender of juvenile
offenders on academic achievement scores in reading, language, and mathematics.
Behavioral Disorders, 26, 164–172.