Juvenile and Youth Offenders

Contextual History

From their inception, juvenile courts in the United States have been guided by the philosophy of parens patriae, meaning the state has the responsibility and obligation to act as parent to dependent, neglected, incorrigible, or delinquent youths. Benevolent judges and court personnel implement treatment decisions that foster the development of troubled youths into healthy adults. A basic assumption of court personnel is that youths require structured environments; structured environments enhance social, academic, and vocational skills and provide appropriate supervision, guidance, and discipline. It is believed that such programs help develop hardworking individuals who ultimately become productive citizens. Consistent with the social beliefs of the early juvenile court environment, personnel referred youths to residential institutions to receive such supportive foundations.

However, a shift occurred with regard to what constitutes an appropriate setting for providing benevolent treatment. Early institutions housed youths of all types, including those who were dependent or neglected, status offenders, and delinquents (criminal law-violating youths). Dependent and neglected youths are children who lack parental care. Status offenders are runaways, curfew violators, truants, or incorrigibles and appear to lack adequate supervision. Exposure of these nondelinquent youths to criminally involved youths was potentially harmful. Many believed that these early institutions were criminogenic, essentially training grounds for criminal behavior.

During the 1970s, Jerome Miller, commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, raised concerns regarding the placement of status offenders in institutions with delinquent youths. He argued that status offenders be treated in community-based settings. The effort to remove status offenders from institutions is known as deinstitutionalizing status offenders (DSO) and was the basis of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (OJJDP Act). Miller believed that the success of this initiative would be directly proportionate to the development of sufficient community-based alternatives to serve these youths.

Simultaneously, concerns began to arise about the disproportionate minority confinement (DMC) that existed in the juvenile justice system. This was an outgrowth of the OJJDP Act and its reauthorizations through the 1980s and 1990s. In 1992, the confinement focus expanded to include any [Page 222]contact with law enforcement. Proponents of DMC initiatives showed that minority youths were over-represented in the system's institutions and had significantly greater levels of contact across all decision points. The federal government mandated that states determine if DMC was present in their systems and required the development of a plan to address the problem.

Early juvenile offender institutions housed neglected runaways, curfew violators, and truants and lacked the supervision needed to ensure a youth's well-being during his or her stay in custody.

(http://Photos.com)

...