Reform Schools

In the 19th century, social reformers in America noted that there were negative connotations associated with the practice of treating juvenile offenders the same as adult criminals. Managing young offenders became a tremendous concern for the criminal justice system. These offenders were incarcerated with adult criminals and were often exploited by older inmates. Ironically, they also received instruction about advanced criminal activities from these cellmates. It was apparent that this was in direct opposition to the juvenile's best interest. In 1820, Boston, New York, and Philadelphia began to examine the penal system and created a “house of refuge” for juveniles. It was a part-school, part-prison institution and became a “holding pen” for offenders. In addition, it was used as a deterrent and precautionary measure for nonconvicted children. New York's program dealt mainly with children who were convicted criminals or who were considered vagrants. In 1886, Massachusetts created the Lyman School for Boys, a state reform school, specifically for males under the age of 16 who had been convicted of an offense. It was the school's responsibility to instruct the students in morality and provide training in a skill or occupation.

Reformatories for female offenders were also necessary. These institutions were usually smaller than the facilities for boys and involved the teaching of domestic skills. The goal of these institutions was to provide training to the residents in skills mastery, which appeared to be lacking in their education. Thus, by incorporating rehabilitation and education for its residents, the philosophy of the “reform school” was born.

The “curriculum” of these reform schools varied and was sometimes controversial. To ensure discipline, corporal punishment was used, and in some cases more extreme measures were practiced. These included vasectomy, castration, or sterilization in an effort to reduce and/or remediate sexual promiscuity. Minor offenses were not treated as harshly as major offenses, and the resident might be given a lesser punishment such as loss of recreation time or loss of a special activity; harsher punishment included the withholding of food or a period of solitary confinement. Some disciplinary [Page 766]actions progressed to beatings. Although the conditions were harsh and extreme, there were residents who “graduated” from the schools and lived productive lives. It was not without some psychological scarring, of course, and the term productive is used carefully in this context.

Guards were available if problems arose. Counselors would live within the facility and interact with the residents. A cottage master and a cottage matron would be expected to be on duty 24 hours a day. The counselor would be a role model or “big brother” for the residents and aid in their rehabilitation. Additionally, religious education, either Catholic or Protestant, was part of the day's requirements. No additional religious choices were available. Services provided to the boys were usually held in the spartan surroundings of an auditorium. The introduction of religion and hard work was conceived as a way to help the residents change their “bad behaviors.”

Children were also used to provide free labor to farmers and would work the farms as long as they stayed healthy. If they became sick or could not do the work, they would be returned to the facility. Additional forms of labor included lawn maintenance, laundry, or working in the cafeteria. Trades or skills taught included carpentry, painting, masonry, plumbing and steam-fitting, and printing.

...